Pietrastor Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 (edited) Expansions create a temporary surge in player activity in MMOs, but nothing permanent. So Expansions do nothing real to solve peoples perceived issues about ongoing populations on the servers. What's better, few months of significantly increased activity within a year or no months of significantly increased activity within a year, a continuous decline instead? Obvious answer. Not a coincidence all 'competitors' release expansions, including the 'new' kings of MMOs the shared world shooters like Destiny, Division Edited October 4, 2018 by Pietrastor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUXs Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 What's better, few months of significantly increased activity within a year or no months of significantly increased activity within a year, a continuous decline instead? Exactly lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 (edited) What's better, few months of significantly increased activity within a year or no months of significantly increased activity within a year, a continuous decline instead? Obvious answer. Not a coincidence all 'competitors' release expansions, including the 'new' kings of MMOs the shared world shooters like Destiny, Division Neither to be honest. Why? because the diversity of players and their preferences interferes with any attempt to "model" the results (impact) of any expansion or major content addition, or lack therof. Your premise presented is based completely on your personal wants and needs. Nothing wrong with that per se... but other players will approach the same question with a different perspective and different answer. And that is the problem with most discussions in the forum... different players view things differently.. and the willingness to listen and share and discuss becomes diminished over petty conflicts of "digging in" on one's own view points. The core ongoing issue with SWTOR content updates is not the nature of timing or interval, but rather that the studio has always had an approach of feeding one demographic at the expense of others. This has a much more persistent impact on players feelings about new content then timing or interval. Which is why some players feel starved by any given content update and others do not. If you look at the long standing Bartle taxonomy model of gamers..... and compare it to how SWTOR releases expacs... it is clear that regardless of the expac... some notable percentage of players will generally always feel "left out". This has a much larger impact in player retention then period/interval of content update. The PvP community is a pretty good embodiment of this effect in real terms, though PvPers have a wide range of complaints about SWTOR (which is in no way unusual for any MMO player who has played MMOs for any notable length of time... as the PvPers are generally the most displeased with content changes and updates). And while Bartles taxonomy research of player types is quite dated now.. it has stood the test of time well and is still very applicable in a number of ways... particularly in terms of the general shift in players across the taxonomy over time. As time progresses... players tend to be more factionalized into one facet of the taxonomy rather then being a part of multiple different ones. For example... over time... the "social" facet has declined in favor of more isolated facets like "achiever" and "killer". This is well exemplified in the declining state of MMOs in terms of guild and other social structures which use to have more weight and value for players and henced bridged content gaps to a good degree. Now days... the achiever and explorer facets want a constant stream of content for their particular interests, and the killer facet just want what they personally feel is "fair" in pursuit of their slaying of other players characters. What is Bartles taxonomy of player types? google it and you will see (some linkage below.. for those that refuse to seek on their own). I also encourage you to google Nick Yees expanded work on Bartles... as well as Qian Wei's work along the same lines at Worchester Polytechnic Institute. Why? because what players feel and do regarding online gaming (and off-line gaming) is very much driven by individual player psychology.. and the aggregate of player psychology across a large player base within a game is diverse and is not unanimous in it's feelings regarding any particular game. Relevant reference links for the intellectually curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_taxonomy_of_player_types http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/130552/unmasking_the_avatar_the_.php https://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-050409-135413/unrestricted/MQP_Report_Final_Edited.pdf Edited October 4, 2018 by Andryah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlrikFassbauer Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 Same. And seeing how we're witnessing the biggest decline in game's population I recently had the baffling experience of seeing MORE people on the capital world than on the fleet ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pietrastor Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 (edited) Neither to be honest. Why? because the diversity of players and their preferences interferes with any attempt to "model" the results (impact) of any expansion or major content addition, or lack therof. Meanwhile the lack of players interferes with revenue required to (greenlight) production of higher volume of content. No point even attemting to model anything then. Your answer doesn't make sense. This game doesn't get developed in a vacuum but in an economic and corporate reality which relies on playerbase numbers. Nickel and diming aka microtransactions to increase revenue of the same pool of customers can only go so far adding to the budget, it's not infinite. There's not neither answer here. 1 is factualy beneficial to the longterm health and prosperity of the game, the other is not. Edited October 4, 2018 by Pietrastor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giorgo Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 Meanwhile the lack of players interferes with revenue required to (greenlight) production of higher volume of content. No point even attemting to model anything then. Your answer doesn't make sense. This game doesn't get developed in a vacuum but in an economic and corporate reality which relies on playerbase numbers. Nickel and diming aka microtransactions to increase revenue of the same pool of customers can only go so far adding to the budget, it's not infinite. There's not neither answer here. 1 is factualy beneficial to the longterm health and prosperity of the game, the other is not. Hey. I would like to wish you good luck in your attempt to convince him. Spoiler alert : you won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeCobalt Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 (edited) EA/BW isn't going to spend a lot on expansions if the Player Base isn't high enough to justify it (Repay in Subscriptions). The Zakuul story also showed an expansion can *Attract more players at first then Lose players (New and Existing) also if not liked well enough. Have to have a lot (Income) before you can get a lot (Money for Expansions). Since the TOR server graphs were deactivated its became all but impossible to know and therefore judge/estimate. I don't think 6.0 will be *Big but a series of Umbarra, Nathema, Copero, size additions with a similar frequency of installments. The other game will be out by then so hopefully it frees up BW to *Fully work here (SWTOR). Hopefully it will be good and worth the wait during this content drought. Edited October 4, 2018 by MikeCobalt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthCasus Posted October 4, 2018 Share Posted October 4, 2018 What's better, few months of significantly increased activity within a year or no months of significantly increased activity within a year, a continuous decline instead? Obvious answer. Not a coincidence all 'competitors' release expansions, including the 'new' kings of MMOs the shared world shooters like Destiny, Division You had a point until you mentioned Destiny and Division. They're lites of MMOs but not the same and I'll go toe to toe with anyone that considers Destiny as it is, a king. I love the franchise but I'm not up for being abused by the shell of a company I loved for a decade. But honestly, I'd love for a return to older content areas rather than them adding 1 and done areas we'll barely bring 3 toons through. A larger amount of content with detailed planning on how to roll it out would perfectly suit that and there's plenty more rewards possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRapheus Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 Yay for Ossus! (Took me a second to remember the "O" name: "Odessa- er, no, Ondero- no that's not right either...") Ossus? What planet is Ossus? I was hoping for Jedah, the planet in Rogue one that was in ruins, wouldn't it be nice to see it in int's prime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlameYOL Posted October 6, 2018 Share Posted October 6, 2018 Ossus? What planet is Ossus? I was hoping for Jedah, the planet in Rogue one that was in ruins, wouldn't it be nice to see it in int's prime? Ossus was one of the worlds of the Jedi Order, it held a library until it the planet was ravaged by a cataclysm during the Great Sith War. As for Jedah, it wouldn't make sense for it. It's a planet that only appears in canon sources, and SWTOR is part of legends AKA the old continuity/chronology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts