GalacticKegger Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 I think you mean you couldn't care less. LOL ... thx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muzzle_flash Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Yeh, OP's point is pretty much right, though I think we can all agree simply from the feel and action on our servers and others things have taken a steep drop in terms of server population.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kozzmozz Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 nice thread bro! 5 ***** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiskyJax Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 I don't need stat trackers to see that my server is dying. If you really think that this game is on anything other than a decline, you're deluded. Think about this for a moment With a base of 850 000 we could have 9 people per instance per server Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esaru Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Yeh, OP's point is pretty much right, though I think we can all agree simply from the feel and action on our servers and others things have taken a steep drop in terms of server population.. Exactly. I think it's pretty obvious without having someone telling me 'look gais, we just don't know, okay?!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frigidman Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Yeh, OP's point is pretty much right, though I think we can all agree simply from the feel and action on our servers and others things have taken a steep drop in terms of server population.. Depends on the server I guess. The server I am on, on day 1 it was "FULL" most of the time, but now its generally "MEDIUM". That doesn't seem to jive, because fleet station and starter planets still seem to have the same numbers as day 1. However now, all the other planets have many people on them doing missions as they progress themselves or alts. Just because fleet station #s are 'about the same' now as before, doesn't really convince me my server has not increased in population. There is a lot of content out there that people are exploring beyond sitting on fleet station and the starter planets. So it seems to me, there is more overall. Scattered across the galaxy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GalacticKegger Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 Depends on the server I guess. The server I am on, on day 1 it was "FULL" most of the time, but now its generally "MEDIUM". That doesn't seem to jive, because fleet station and starter planets still seem to have the same numbers as day 1. However now, all the other planets have many people on them doing missions as they progress themselves or alts. Just because fleet station #s are 'about the same' now as before, doesn't really convince me my server has not increased in population. There is a lot of content out there that people are exploring beyond sitting on fleet station and the starter planets. So it seems to me, there is more overall. Scattered across the galaxy.Definitely depends on server. Just hope characters transfers happen sooner rather than later, so more players can experience the game the way those of us on active servers do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goretzu Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Definitely depends on server. Just hope characters transfers happen sooner rather than later, so more players can experience the game the way those of us on active servers do. Bioware only merged servers when basically the server was dead in Warhammer Online, I doubt they'll be much different with SWTOR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden_Dissent Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Yeh, OP's point is pretty much right, though I think we can all agree simply from the feel and action on our servers and others things have taken a steep drop in terms of server population.. I won't agree with that. If anything, my server is staying exactly the same. 160 people in one place is more than I ever saw in WoW when I played too. So I don't really know what to tell people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holden_Dissent Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Bioware only merged servers when basically the server was dead in Warhammer Online, I doubt they'll be much different with SWTOR. That wasn't a Bioware game.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerion Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) The conclusions just aren't true though. You can't tell exact populations with that system, but you can still see over all population trends with it. And from the trends extrapolate that into over all subs, at least in correlation, if not absolute terms. Its almost impossible for subs to be going up long term IF server status is going down long term (unless an MMO company is constantly changing the server status levels), because that would be on par with inventing a perpetual motion machine (which I'm sure game companies would want to do in both cases if it were possible, of course ). So saying that because you can't tell exact numbers therefore you can't tell anything is just patently false. No you can't, and any one that gives you a '+1' is ignorant as well. Server load, which is the topic of the OP, is just that -- load ON THE SERVER. It cannot be used to interpolate nor extrapolate server populations, nor subscriptions. Period. A decline in the graph only tells you that people are playing less frequently. NOTHING MORE. Edited February 28, 2012 by Cerion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rigota Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 (edited) They'd have to be constantly changing for you NOT to be able to draw anything from it. Any single point change would still stand out and then everything from there would be comparable. And constantly changing server cap limits would be both very strange and frankly rather iffy. This is why there not completely useless to look at(but it is ofc to calculate pop numbers), like people will think. Its true though you can't have proof. But imo its very unlogical that bioware changes there server pop caps constantly. I think they did it when you see the biggest drop in the graph. But after that they could have stopped touching the cap. Right now both eu and us have a dropping trend but more at eu. Edited February 27, 2012 by Rigota Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goretzu Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 That wasn't a Bioware game.... Bioware have ran WAR for 20+ months before SWTOR went live, including several waves of server merges. The did it the same way Mythic did it largely (i.e. too late to make a difference). No you can't, and any one that gives you a '+1' is ignorant as well. Server load, which is the topic of the OP, is just that -- load ON THE SERVER. It cannot be used to interpolate nor extrapolate server populations, nor subscriptions. Period. I decline in the graph only tells you that people are playing less frequently. NOTHING MORE. Of course it can. It can't give an exact number of subscriber, but it can give an over all trend of player population (and as I have repeatedly said if one is going up or down long term it is highly unlikely the other is going in a different direction - and by highly unlikely I mean nearly impossible). This is why there not completely useless to look at(but it is ofc to calculate pop numbers), like people will think. Its true though you can't have proof. But imo its very unlogical that bioware changes there server pop caps constantly. I think they did it when you see the biggest drop in the graph. But after that they could have stopped touching the cap. Right now both eu and us have a dropping trend but more at eu. Exactly, so long as nothing really strange is going on these graphs do show trends (with reasonable clarity). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jxspyder Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 WoW never, ever had a single drop in subs until this last year. Sorry again/ Wow, you've got to love the blind fervor. Being a day one WoW subscriber, I'll have to jump in with the people who are disagreeing with you. Rose-tinted glasses are a great thing and all, but sometimes you can take it a bit too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikules Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 TL;DR ---- Why? Because it is not information published by BioWare or EA. Until they post it, I don't care what those sites and graphs report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBenSmokin Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) TL;DR ---- Why? Because it is not information published by BioWare or EA. Until they post it, I don't care what those sites and graphs report. I hear the catholic church is the best place to get all the facts on birth control, and the tobacco compainies are the best source of the dangers of smoking. Edited February 28, 2012 by OldBenSmokin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jxspyder Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Of course it can. It can't give an exact number of subscriber, but it can give an over all trend of player population (and as I have repeatedly said if one is going up or down long term it is highly unlikely the other is going in a different direction - and by highly unlikely I mean nearly impossible). No, it gives an overall trend of subscriber play-time and the number of people logged in during the collecting websites snapshot in time. While I agree it can give server population trends, given time, it provides nothing in terms of actual subscriptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewser Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Personally I'm wondering if server pops aren't picking up again recently (which can only be good for SWTOR). But then that's the point, data is data, and the trends will show what they will. A lot of people in this thread seem to be heavily invested in politicising SWTOR pops (for reasons of thier own, I guess), not actually looking at what may be shown to be happening (up or down). If it suddenly starts showing an upward trend, look to see all those arguing that this data is "meaningless" suddenly changing their tune. Some will, some won't. I'll stand by meaningless data, is meaningless data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewser Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Again though the data is not after an "average weekly number of players" over a "seaon" or whatever. The whole point of the data is the change day by day, week by week, month by month and eventually year by year. Now currently the data shows nothing about year by year, but it does day by day, week by week and month by month. The data gets no more or less reliable. IF you were trying to find an average stadium attendance over a season THEN oyu'd have a point, but that is NOT what is being looked at or shown here. What we're looking at (and for) is how many people attend the game on game 1, game 2, game 3, and seeing if that is going up or down over time. There is no average attendance over X period of time in this context as it would be utterly meaningless to what is being looked at. Do you understand now? You are still wrong. The server pop site is creating averages based on changing and inconsistent server statuses. In other words, meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goretzu Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 No, it gives an overall trend of subscriber play-time and the number of people logged in during the collecting websites snapshot in time. While I agree it can give server population trends, given time, it provides nothing in terms of actual subscriptions. Yes, both of which when sustained for a longer period almost certainly have some correlation with over all subs. If there's less over all people playing for less time, the chances of subs increasing is very slim and vice versa. Some will, some won't. I'll stand by meaningless data, is meaningless data. I guess we'll have to see. You are still wrong. The server pop site is creating averages based on changing and inconsistent server statuses. In other words, meaningless. Again only if you're looking for something which is NOT shown. In reality they show trends very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewser Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 I guess we'll have to see. Again only if you're looking for something which is NOT shown. In reality they show trends very well. You are hopeless. The trend is meaningless because the data creating the trend, as explained many times, is meaningless. Unless Bioware comes out and says, "all server statuses are the same number of people on different servers (which has been proven is not the case right now) and they tell us a date that they stopped changing the population number of the statuses, the "trend" is meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goretzu Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 (edited) You are hopeless. The trend is meaningless because the data creating the trend, as explained many times, is meaningless. Unless Bioware comes out and says, "all server statuses are the same number of people on different servers (which has been proven is not the case right now) and they tell us a date that they stopped changing the population number of the statuses, the "trend" is meaningless. If by "hopeless" you actually mean "understand what is being shown", then I guess I am! However again just saying something is "meaningless" doesn't make it so. There is no evidence at all at the moment that Bioware has Heavy at 100 players on one server, at 500 players on another and 1000 player on another. None at all. (and why would they as it would make all server statuses utterly meaningless - which would be worrying in itself). It doesn't matter if they change all servers occasionally, so long as they change them all with the same values (which the almost certainly do). Given that, if in fact if you understand the data you also understand that it does show trends quite well. Edited February 28, 2012 by Goretzu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewser Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 If by "hopeless" you actually mean "understand what is being shown", then I guess I am! However again just saying something is "meaningless" doesn't make it so. There is no evidence at all at the moment that Bioware has Heavy at 100 players on one server, at 500 players on another and 1000 player on another. None at all. (and why would they as it would make all server statuses utterly meaningless - which would be worrying in itself). It doesn't matter if they change all servers occasionally, so long as they change them all with the same values (which the almost certainly do). Given that, if in fact if you understand the data you also understand that it does show trends quite well. What you stated is exactly why you are wrong and the data is meaningless. We know they have varied statuses to manipulate where new people create new characters and we also know standard on one server is not equal to standard on another. Based on those simple facts - assigning a numeric value to statuses and then averaging them gives you nothing of value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loanstarr Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 outstanding post, they should sticky this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loanstarr Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 If by "hopeless" you actually mean "understand what is being shown", then I guess I am! However again just saying something is "meaningless" doesn't make it so. There is no evidence at all at the moment that Bioware has Heavy at 100 players on one server, at 500 players on another and 1000 player on another. None at all. (and why would they as it would make all server statuses utterly meaningless - which would be worrying in itself). It doesn't matter if they change all servers occasionally, so long as they change them all with the same values (which the almost certainly do). Given that, if in fact if you understand the data you also understand that it does show trends quite well. how can you show a trend when they moved the benchmarks a 1/3 of the way thru the data collection? It doesnt make sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts