Andryah Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I call BS on the rule of thumb. 900 players AVERAGE on each server during peaktimes? Keep on dreaming. You tell that the people on light servers. I call BS on your BS call. I find your willful disregard of the word AVERAGE troubling. 900-1000 AVERAGE across 220 servers sounds about right at the moment. About 25% of servers are LIGHT at prime time, the rest are STANDARD or higher, with some much higher. And not all LIGHT servers are dead. I know because one of the three servers I play on is perpetually light, but it averages about 600-700 at prime time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthx Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) I call BS on the rule of thumb. 900 players AVERAGE on each server during peaktimes? Keep on dreaming. You tell that the people on light servers. Um, by definition someone on a light server is going to experience populations below the average. This should be pretty self-evident. My choice now is in your statement that the rule of thumb is BS or a cross-sectional statistical sampling with a clearly defined methodology, which also happens to return results consistent with the concurrency rule-of-thumb... I say it's both, far lower concurrent player numbers plus lower subscription numbers. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. If you have data to back this up, please do so. If not, it is just your opinion. It seems right now your "analysis" is being reduced to you claiming that any finding contrary to your view is "BS". Unfortunately the next numbers they release will be flawed too, due to the free 30 days many active accounts won't even use or wanted. Active account is active account, right? EA's Q4 2012 ended March 31, 2012. The free 30-days went into effect on April 25, and therefore have no impact on the Q4 2012 results. I wouldn't be surprised if they are down to one million or even lower People like you have been predicting the failure of SWTOR since pre-launch. I understand you are disappointed there is no space exploration and housing and therefore want the game to fail, but wishful thinking has precious little impact on the reality of the situation. Edited April 30, 2012 by Kthx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord_Ravenhurst Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) I call BS on your BS call. I find your willful disregard of the word AVERAGE troubling. 900-1000 AVERAGE across 220 servers sounds about right at the moment. About 25% of servers are LIGHT at prime time, the rest are STANDARD or higher, with some much higher. And not all LIGHT servers are dead. I know because one of the three servers I play on is perpetually light, but it averages about 600-700 at prime time. great, so take those average numbers (which seem nowhere near the gruesome reality imho) - 600-1000 concurrent players average at any given time of the day, on each server worldwide? Great, in that case server merges are totally unnecessary? Thanks for clearing that up... so everyone on light servers finding 10-30 people on fleets, 3-5 people on planets and too less people to queue up for warzones is in fact dreaming. Edited April 30, 2012 by Lord_Ravenhurst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthx Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) great, so take those average numbers (which seem nowhere near the gruesome reality imho) - 600-1000 concurrent players average at any given time of the day, on each server worldwide?. I don't think you understand what "average" means. You can have broad variability within the average. The dulfy.net numbers range from ~240 to ~2400. If you are on a Light server, you could easily see 30 players on Fleet (or less). This still doesn't mean there is a population problem on the majority of servers. Nobody is disputing that some servers have light populations. That is exactly why character transfers are being implemented. Btw, my numbers use the PVE sample. There is a separate sample for PVP servers that you are free to analyze. All available at dulfy.net. Edited April 30, 2012 by Kthx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) great, so take those average numbers (which seem nowhere near the gruesome reality imho) - 600-1000 concurrent players average at any given time of the day, on each server worldwide? Great, in that case server merges are totally unnecessary? Thanks for clearing that up... so everyone on light servers finding 10-30 people on fleets, 3-5 people on planets and too less people to queue up for warzones is in fact dreaming. I find your apparent lack of reading comprehension troubling. Or are you just choosing to disregard what other people are saying?? As I stated earlier, I support the plan for transfers, AND I support the retiring of about 30% of the servers.....forcing people like you to transfer to a STANDARD server (free of charge of course). Edited April 30, 2012 by Andryah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brentonj Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Makes absolutely no sense that there's 126 US servers in Swtor, but Guild Wars is launching with 25. No wonder every servery is a ghost town (mins The Fatman). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreySix Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Makes absolutely no sense that there's 126 US servers in Swtor, but Guild Wars is launching with 25. No wonder every servery is a ghost town (mins The Fatman). Yeah, that seems unreasonably high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) Makes absolutely no sense that there's 126 US servers in Swtor, but Guild Wars is launching with 25. No wonder every servery is a ghost town (mins The Fatman). A nonsequitur statement. GW server farms have absolutely nothing to do with a discussion about SWTOR server averages, etc. etc. And only about 15-20% of the servers are "ghost towns" on SWTOR, so you put a heap of hyperbole into your nonsequitur as well it seems. Edited April 30, 2012 by Andryah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord_Ravenhurst Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) And only about 15-20% of the servers are "ghost towns" on SWTOR,. suuuuure...... current status: http://www.swtor.com/server-status Worldwide Stats: Full: 0 Heavy: 2 Servers Standard: 42 Servers Light: 175 Servers Oh yeah, "Primetime" is the word I´m waiting for.. let´s do this again every 2 hours and recount. Edited April 30, 2012 by Zilrota Edited as posting the list directly is very spammy. PM sent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frostvein Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Yeah, that seems unreasonably high. This is the main problem. Not that there isn't anyone paying for and playing the game (there is) just that these people are spread too far apart across too many servers, and with no cross server anything you are restricted to your own server to get anything done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arestesian Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) I call BS on the rule of thumb. 900 players AVERAGE on each server during peaktimes? Keep on dreaming. You tell that the people on light servers. I say it's both, far lower concurrent player numbers plus lower subscription numbers. Unfortunately the next numbers they release will be flawed too, due to the free 30 days many active accounts won't even use or wanted. Active account is active account, right? The next "real" numbers, if they don't give away more free sub extensions, should be released in late summer, and I wouldn't be surprised if they are down to one million or even lower, if there are no significantly interesting updates in the meantime. It's not really a BS thing, it's another issue of the average vs the standard deviation. An average of 900 concurrent players across 3 servers (for simplicities sake) can be acheived in various ways. 3 servers at 900 players standard deviation 0 __ 1 server at 900, 1 at 450, and 1 at 1350 Which gives a standard deviation of 300, so the corrected average would only include values from a 600 player minium to a 1200 player maximum. So the 450 example and the 1350 example would be abnormally low, and abnormally high. So they would be excluded from your averaging and subsequent calculations. Since you haven't put forward your breakout numbers for the servers, your scenario fails at the basic checks for statistical rigor. In my opinion after going back over things, this appears to be a form of the 'the game is dieing' troll with some bad math thrown in to make it look good. So shenanigans, shenanigans I say. I cast dispersions on the method, form, and substance of your argument. Edited April 30, 2012 by arestesian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthx Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) Oh yeah, "Primetime" is the word I´m waiting for.. let´s do this again every 2 hours and recount. Right. And don't forget that each region has its own prime time, or you'll end up with yet another "garbage in, garbage out" calculation. Unless, of course, your goal is to demonstrate that off-peak, fewer players play than on-peak. Edited April 30, 2012 by Kthx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthx Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Which gives a standard deviation of 300, so the corrected average would only include values from a 600 player minium to a 1200 player maximum. So the 450 example and the 1350 example would be abnormally low, and abnormally high. So they would be excluded from your averaging and subsequent calculations. You don't throw out data just because it is outside one standard deviation of the average. If you have a normal distribution (i.e. your classical bell curve), then 32% of your observations will fall outside +/– one standard deviation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68-95-99.7_rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord_Ravenhurst Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) It's not really a BS thing, it's another issue of the average vs the standard deviation. An average of 900 concurrent players across 3 servers (for simplicities sake) can be acheived in various ways. 3 servers at 900 players standard deviation 0 __ 1 server at 900, 1 at 450, and 1 at 1350 Which gives a standard deviation of 300, so the corrected average would only include values from a 600 player minium to a 1200 player maximum. So the 450 example and the 1350 example would be abnormally low, and abnormally high. So they would be excluded from your averaging and subsequent calculations. Since you haven't put forward your breakout numbers for the servers, your scenario fails at the basic checks for statistical rigor. In my opinion after going back over things, this appears to be a form of the 'the game is dieing' troll with some bad math thrown in to make it look good. So shenanigans, shenanigans I say. I cast dispersions on the method, form, and substance of your argument. That´s the meaning of "average", for every population number which is below average, there is most likely one which is above average, that is the principle. Take the population numbers together and divide them through server numbers. Then compare to real life situations, check server status, log in at "primetime" and see how many are actually there on light/standard/heavy servers. So, why exactly are you replying then? What is your point instead of putting funny and popular forum compatible words like "shenanigans" and "troll" in your post? Fix the calculation if you think it´s wrong, or play somewhere else. Prove where the 1.7M subscribers are and how long they are playing on average, is it really that hard? Edited April 30, 2012 by Lord_Ravenhurst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arestesian Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 You don't throw out data just because it is outside one standard deviation of the average. If you have a normal distribution (i.e. your classical bell curve), then 32% of your observations will fall outside +/– one standard deviation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68-95-99.7_rule Rejecting the data outside the standard deviation band is a method to normalize the data, because the sample is non bell curve, and in the case of fatman or the other couple very high pop servers could show numbers an order of magnitude higher then other servers. It is an accepted method to exclude data like that but acknowledge it in the analysis. Sorry about that understated it, for a sampling like server pops the sample isn't going to be normal for various reasons including local peak times. Any sample is going to have bad data, and the standard deviation gives you the acceptable observation band. The calculations realistically need to be done one of two ways, on only the items in the standard deviation band, and acknowledging the rejected data and why it was rejected. Or 2 sets one with the out of scope data and one without. Rejecting the entries outside the standard deviation range for the server population calculation lets you clean up the data to show the trending better. This will allow you to compensate for the insane swing that the very large population servers like fatman would do to pull up the concurrent login numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puppup Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Math is hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AislingKerrigan Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I thought an analyst said subscribers were down to 1.2 million? I think it will just keep dropping once 3-month, 6-month subs are up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puppup Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I thought an analyst said subscribers were down to 1.2 million? I think it will just keep dropping once 3-month, 6-month subs are up. As a former stockbroker, analysts have no crystal ball either. But that fool used torstatus to pull his numbers out of his rear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urael Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 OP. your math presumes an even spread of players across servers. Which there isn't. QFE -AND- All purely speculative. No Hard Data other than number of servers and number of subscriptions. The rest speculative. In addition to peek times you need to take into account peek days of the week ( yes there are peek days). Also there could even be some varience to "type of player" (PvP, PvE, Casual, Hardcore, etc). There could even be differences based of of the regions the servers are devided into. And "other behavioral traits" that are not quantifiable. This is not a straight calculation and with a speculative sample its hard to see how the results could mirror the acctual. This would be better served if you proposed a hypothesis and a METHOD of examining your hypothesis with quantifiable data seeking volunteers from some population sample set that is representative of the player base. So basically the OPs calculations are bollox as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puppup Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfeisberg Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 unfortunitly there are a bunch of factors that now have to be looked at like character names and what not to beconsidered if you are going to consider server merges.. 2 characters can not have the same name, what do you do with someones characters on one server thats mergring into another... theres a bunch of problems that will need addresssing Who cares, it is just a name in a game. The more important part is actually getting to play the game and reasonably enjoy the content with other people. People losing their name should be the last thing they need to be worry about, its just a name in a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puppup Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Who cares, it is just a name in a game. The more important part is actually getting to play the game and reasonably enjoy the content with other people. People losing their name should be the last thing they need to be worry about, its just a name in a game. Ahh but many do purchase early to get their favorite name. A time honored tradition of MMO's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthx Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I thought an analyst said subscribers were down to 1.2 million? Ha! What fun to watch an urban legend being made! The analyst predicted that by the end of March 2013, the game will have around 1.25 million subscribers. In other words, a prediction of the subscription count one year from now. The "analysis" was, based on server statistics provided on TorStatus.net, which, as we know, provides 60-day on relative server loads, not on population. I wonder how his analaysis will change given the recent 37-country expansion into Europe and the Middle East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthx Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." The usual quote rendered by those who didn't get prob & stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puppup Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 The usual quote rendered by those who didn't get prob & stats. Gotten at UCLA over 30 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts