It's amazing how links to stats sites that confirm or deny population growth have gained even the slightest amount of credibility in these forums. This just in ... those stats sites are bunk.

 

They can't be trusted because BW hasn't opened their doors to them yet. The moment these sites can verify their accuracy and their sources is the moment they become a viable resource. They won't verify their accuracy or their sources (should read each site's disclaimer - if they even have one.) Had BioWare let them in there'd already be an "armory." BioWare's own server status' can't be trusted either because they keep changing the thresholds on us.

 

So in the absence of statistical fact, competing truths are spun from competing opinions - which is all any of this is. That leaves raw & undoctored screenshots as the only hard evidence available. (Fakes are easy to spot - just open them up in your favorite graphics program, then crank up the contrast. Any changes will stick out like a sore thumb.) Discounting the only available hard evidence for what a player experiences in-game is merely slamming the door on something one doesn't want to see.

 

Screens or it never happened!

 

[EDIT] Screens are simply proof of a player's in-game narrative. Stats sites with incomplete data sources (which is all of them right now) don't prove anything because their inaccuracies render them moot. That's the point of this thread. Questioning why someone would try and use numbers to trump another's visceral experience is the tone of this thread.

Edited February 21, 2012 by GalacticKegger

But data they DO use comes from accessible sources like the server status page. If that's inaccurate, it's not their fault.

 

And, whatever methods they are using to measure are the same now as they were two months ago. Within that set of conditions alone, there are fewer people playing.

 

I guess that doesn't necessarily have to be an accurate representation of what's really happening, but it's much more than saying "no they're not!!!!111!!!one!!!"

 

Edit: and no, the threshold for "high" isn't changing, and if it is, that's duplicitous.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Lethality

It's amazing how links to stats sites that confirm or deny population growth have gained even the slightest amount of credibility in these forums. This just in ... those stats sites are bunk.

 

They can't be trusted because BW hasn't opened their doors to them yet. The moment these sites can verify their accuracy and their sources is the moment they become a viable resource. They won't verify their accuracy or their sources (should read each site's disclaimer - if they even have one) or there'd already be an "armory." BioWare's own server status' can't be trusted either because they keep changing the thresholds on us.

 

So in the absence of statistical fact, competing truths are spun from competing opinions - which is all any of this is. That leaves raw & undoctored screenshots as the only hard evidence available. (Fakes are easy to spot - just open them up in your favorite graphics program, then crank up the contrast. Any changes will stick out like a sore thumb.) Discounting the only available hard evidence for what a player experiences in-game is merely slamming the door on something one doesn't want to see.

 

Screens or it never happened!

 

1/10.

 

"Statistical websites aren't fact." This just in ... those stats sites are bunk.

 

"So we have to rely on Bioware."

They can't be trusted because BW hasn't opened their doors to them yet.

 

"But Bioware is bunk too." BioWare's own server status' can't be trusted either because they keep changing the thresholds on us

"Leaving no alternative to make you more angry."

 

Productivity rate: 0%

1/10.

 

"Statistical websites aren't fact." This just in ... those stats sites are bunk.

 

"So we have to rely on Bioware."

They can't be trusted because BW hasn't opened their doors to them yet.

 

"But Bioware is bunk too." BioWare's own server status' can't be trusted either because they keep changing the thresholds on us

"Leaving no alternative to make you more angry."

 

Productivity rate: 0%

Hence the screenshot thread. If there's no one to play with, post the screen. If there are plenty to play with, post the screen. Either way, post the screen.

Even if you made an effort of going to each server and noting the population on the fleet (at the same time, on both sides...) and extrapolated from there, people would still go "lawl ur stasticist is fake" so why bother?

They changed server thresholds...once?...I think, so ignoring any data from the server status before that point, you can still get a general feel for how server population fluctuates. The data on torstatus is pretty much in line with what I have observed about my own server's status.

Hence the screenshot thread. If there's no one to play with, post the screen. If there are plenty to play with, post the screen. Either way, post the screen.

 

Completely irrelevant. Screenshot is going to be just as bias according to your rant, depending on what your location is in the Galaxy, the time of day the picture was taken, the geographical server location, etc.

 

Saying that's "hard evidence" over statistical fact is like saying magic unicorns are accepted by more people than science.

Edited February 21, 2012 by LucisAbyssus

Even if you made an effort of going to each server and noting the population on the fleet (at the same time, on both sides...) and extrapolated from there, people would still go "lawl ur stasticist is fake" so why bother?

All the debate about server pops rising or dwindling are based on either opinion or perception. Opinion can't be proven, but perception can. A player who posts that they are on a server with a stout population and adds a screen to show it tends to get discounted with a link to a server population statistsics site showing a decline in player population. Why does zone population displayed on a posted screen have to undergo extrapolation? Why can't it just be a player's documented example of their having plenty of other people to do things with? Edited February 21, 2012 by GalacticKegger

Completely irrelevant. Screenshot is going to be just as bias according to your rant, depending on what your location is in the Galaxy, the time of day the picture was taken, the geographical server location, etc.

 

Saying that's "hard evidence" over statistical fact is like saying magic unicorns are accepted by more people than science.

True enough if the sites provided statistical fact. But they don't because BW won't give it to them. Your analog is perfect. Both unicorns and the data these sites base their numbers on are fantasy. Edited February 21, 2012 by GalacticKegger

True enough if the sites provided statistical fact. But they don't because BW won't give it to them. Your analog is perfect. Both unicorns and the data these sites base their numbers on are fantasy.

 

As if inaccurate screen shots would portray the image any different. The numbers I gave have came straight from Bioware's mouth, on this website, and in EA Conference Calls, straight from the horses mouth.

 

There's a difference between a Unicorn and numbers.

 

2,000,000+ copies sold – 40% sold through Origin

1,700,000+ active subscribers – 1 million concurrent

Average session time was four hours during the first month and a half

99.5% Server Uptime

 

http://www.darthhater.com/?page=4#posts

 

What you ask for is Unicorns.

 

What is given to people like me who aren't arrogant enough to propose the idea that EA would lie about their own numbers in an earnings call are numbers.

As if inaccurate screen shots would portray the image any different. The numbers I gave have came straight from Bioware's mouth, on this website, and in EA Conference Calls, straight from the horses mouth.

 

There's a difference between a Unicorn and numbers.

 

2,000,000+ copies sold – 40% sold through Origin

1,700,000+ active subscribers – 1 million concurrent

Average session time was four hours during the first month and a half

99.5% Server Uptime

 

http://www.darthhater.com/?page=4#posts

 

What you ask for is Unicorns.

 

What is given to people like me who aren't arrogant enough to propose the idea that EA would lie about their own numbers in an earnings call are numbers.

Thank you but I have the same transcript. Good or bad why is TOR's numbers even a concern? Is it about devalueing EA's stock so it can be bought up later at a reduced price? Does 1M subs or 5M subs really matter that much when a player is in-game. Doesn't for me because the server I'm on (Mask of Nihilus) rocks.

 

No server population site is accurate because they don't have actuals to base their population numbers on. The reason they don't have those actuals is because EA themselves came out and said that information was proprietary. It's in that same Q3 transcript.

 

Interpolation ... extrapolation ... prognostication ... None of that has any effect on this → http://www.galactickegger.com/SWTOR/Screenshot_2012-02-13_20_31_45_024701.jpg ← because this is all that matters. People to play with. Chat buzzing with LFG. GTN is a money machine. Video game life is good.

Edited February 22, 2012 by GalacticKegger

But data they DO use comes from accessible sources like the server status page. If that's inaccurate, it's not their fault.

 

And, whatever methods they are using to measure are the same now as they were two months ago. Within that set of conditions alone, there are fewer people playing.

 

I guess that doesn't necessarily have to be an accurate representation of what's really happening, but it's much more than saying "no they're not!!!!111!!!one!!!"

 

Edit: and no, the threshold for "high" isn't changing, and if it is, that's duplicitous.

 

"Light" "Satandard" and "Heavy" are meaningless without anyinformation regarding the underlying metric...which has chenged several times. There's nothing supporting any reason to believe that those sites are anything but assumptions, conjecture and complete BS.

Your method will prove nothing since the number displayed on the upper left corner of your screen does not display the entire server population.

 

If that were the case, I could go on the 10 different planets or so populating the game, including the fleet, take a screenshot of all the players during peak hours, add them up and probably come up with a number under 1,000. Hell, I don't even think they would add up to 600 during non-peak hours.

 

The game has apparently almost 2M subscribers. It's impossible using the data that we, as players, have to correctly measure whether population has dropped or risen since the game came out.

 

From personal and anecdotal experience, I believe that the population has dropped but not in significant numbers (which is normal for any MMO).

Your method will prove nothing since the number displayed on the upper left corner of your screen does not display the entire server population.

 

If that were the case, I could go on the 10 different planets or so populating the game, including the fleet, take a screenshot of all the players during peak hours, add them up and probably come up with a number under 1,000. Hell, I don't even think they would add up to 600 during non-peak hours.

 

The game has apparently almost 2M subscribers. It's impossible using the data that we, as players, have to correctly measure whether population has dropped or risen since the game came out.

 

From personal and anecdotal experience, I believe that the population has dropped but not in significant numbers (which is normal for any MMO).

Your right, going planet to planet would be problematic if obtaining population numbers was a need. And even then players log on & off all the time so it would be too fluid to accurately count.

 

I'm trying to understand why knowing the specifics of server populations is so important to some in these forums? Curiosity? Ammunition? A white paper? Even if those server pop sites were accurate, that information STILL wouldn't matter to anyone who wasn't looking for a dog to kick.

Edited February 22, 2012 by GalacticKegger

Your right, going planet to planet would be problematic if obtaining population numbers was a need. And even then players log on & off all the time so it would be too fluid to accurately count.

 

I'm trying to understand why knowing the specifics of server populations is so important to some in these forums? Curiosity? Ammunition? A white paper? Even if those server pop sites were accurate, that information STILL wouldn't matter to anyone who wasn't looking for a dog to kick.

 

Anyone who is looking for an accurate demographics about the current population of the SW:TOR playerbase is simply looking to win an 'interwebs' argument along the lines of: "I DON'T LIKE THIS GAME AND IT'S LOSING SUBSCRIBERS EVERY MONTH! LOOK! MY OPINION HAS TO BE RIGHT!"

 

I'm definitely not saying the game is without fault (if anything there's too much that needs to be changed) but don't listen to the droves of idiots who'd have you believe this game is hemorrhaging players every second.

 

The game is healthy (despite all its faults); again, from my personal opinion, I believe with the release of GW2 and Diablo 3 will result in significant and noticeable population drop.

Edited February 22, 2012 by lollermittens

If you have played the game in the last month you noticed that the population is most certainly dropping. Less WZs poping @ 50 & below, less people per planet, less people in the fleet, and less people using /who.

Just logged in and friends are texting that it's go time. Oh, here's the first thing I saw ≈ eight minutes ago. Numbers can be fudged but a picture is worth a thousand words. This is all the proof I need - Mask of Nihilus @ 7:43 PM U.S. CST:

 

http://www.galactickegger.com/SWTOR/Screenshot_2012-02-21_19_43_37_875000.jpg

 

Cheers!

Edited February 22, 2012 by GalacticKegger

Thank you but I have the same transcript. Good or bad why is TOR's numbers even a concern? Is it about devalueing EA's stock so it can be bought up later at a reduced price? Does 1M subs or 5M subs really matter that much when a player is in-game. Doesn't for me because the server I'm on (Mask of Nihilus) rocks.

 

No server population site is accurate because they don't have actuals to base their population numbers on. The reason they don't have those actuals is because EA themselves came out and said that information was proprietary. It's in that same Q3 transcript.

 

Interpolation ... extrapolation ... prognostication ... None of that has any effect on this → http://www.galactickegger.com/SWTOR/Screenshot_2012-02-13_20_31_45_024701.jpg ← because this is all that matters. People to play with. Chat buzzing with LFG. GTN is a money machine. Video game life is good.

 

And yet you don't see the bias in it.

 

Interesting.

 

Anyone who is looking for an accurate demographics about the current population of the SW:TOR playerbase is simply looking to win an 'interwebs' argument along the lines of: "I DON'T LIKE THIS GAME AND IT'S LOSING SUBSCRIBERS EVERY MONTH! LOOK! MY OPINION HAS TO BE RIGHT!"

 

I'm definitely not saying the game is without fault (if anything there's too much that needs to be changed) but don't listen to the droves of idiots who'd have you believe this game is hemorrhaging players every second.

 

The game is healthy (despite all its faults); again, from my personal opinion, I believe with the release of GW2 and Diablo 3 will result in significant and noticeable population drop.

 

I agree that it's in a healthy state.

 

I just disagree with how the OP is dismissing one apparent "bias" source for another.

 

If you notice, he addresses the problem of multiple threads claiming the metaphorical world is ending with server populations dropping, or the opposite of server populations rising with the fact that they are getting these ideas from faulty and misinformed websites. How does he counter the argument? By taking a screenshot of one of the more populated servers, most importantly at peak time, in one of the most populated areas of the game which is the fleet.

 

As I said before, one misinterpretation for another does not do his argument any justice what so ever.

Edited February 22, 2012 by LucisAbyssus

"Light" "Satandard" and "Heavy" are meaningless without anyinformation regarding the underlying metric...which has chenged several times. There's nothing supporting any reason to believe that those sites are anything but assumptions, conjecture and complete BS.

 

I'm curious to know just exactly how many times this "underlying metric" has changed, and whether it's fluctuated upward, or downward.

It's amazing how links to stats sites that confirm or deny population growth have gained even the slightest amount of credibility in these forums. This just in ... those stats sites are bunk.

 

They can't be trusted because BW hasn't opened their doors to them yet. The moment these sites can verify their accuracy and their sources is the moment they become a viable resource. They won't verify their accuracy or their sources (should read each site's disclaimer - if they even have one.) Had BioWare let them in there'd already be an "armory." BioWare's own server status' can't be trusted either because they keep changing the thresholds on us.

 

So in the absence of statistical fact, competing truths are spun from competing opinions - which is all any of this is. That leaves raw & undoctored screenshots as the only hard evidence available. (Fakes are easy to spot - just open them up in your favorite graphics program, then crank up the contrast. Any changes will stick out like a sore thumb.) Discounting the only available hard evidence for what a player experiences in-game is merely slamming the door on something one doesn't want to see.

 

Screens or it never happened!

 

[EDIT] Screens are simply proof of a player's in-game narrative. Stats sites with incomplete data sources (which is all of them right now) don't prove anything because their inaccuracies render them moot. That's the point of this thread. Questioning why someone would try and use numbers to trump another's visceral experience is the tone of this thread.

 

Yeh, raises some good points about the claims that are thrown around the boards...

 

Since we have no real info to work off, I just think of how the game feels in terms of people playing, my experience as its changing etc, and while this is a somewhat narrow viewpoint to look at something like an mmo with so many different servers etc, the oulook is not good.

 

How many people actually feel that the game is growing or even holding level?? While you're going to have servers with nice sharp upticks as guilds and individuals reroll on them for either their population or whatever reason, but across the board, does anyone honestly believe the game hasn't had a sharp drop in subs/players?

Its all heresay, one fact i can give you though, is that as of tomorrow they are at least 1 sub down

It's amazing how links to stats sites that confirm or deny population growth have gained even the slightest amount of credibility in these forums. This just in ... those stats sites are bunk.

 

They can't be trusted because BW hasn't opened their doors to them yet. The moment these sites can verify their accuracy and their sources is the moment they become a viable resource. They won't verify their accuracy or their sources (should read each site's disclaimer - if they even have one.) Had BioWare let them in there'd already be an "armory." BioWare's own server status' can't be trusted either because they keep changing the thresholds on us.

 

So in the absence of statistical fact, competing truths are spun from competing opinions - which is all any of this is. That leaves raw & undoctored screenshots as the only hard evidence available. (Fakes are easy to spot - just open them up in your favorite graphics program, then crank up the contrast. Any changes will stick out like a sore thumb.) Discounting the only available hard evidence for what a player experiences in-game is merely slamming the door on something one doesn't want to see.

 

Screens or it never happened!

 

[EDIT] Screens are simply proof of a player's in-game narrative. Stats sites with incomplete data sources (which is all of them right now) don't prove anything because their inaccuracies render them moot. That's the point of this thread. Questioning why someone would try and use numbers to trump another's visceral experience is the tone of this thread.

 

All you are saying is No one but Bioware can say they are losing or gaining subs.

 

What you also dont realize is you say that even this sites server status cant be trusted because they keep changing the threshold. But for some reason now you think that if someone takes a screenshot of something that you yourself said cant be trusted that that is the only acceptable evidence to prove anything.

 

Now can you please back up where anyone has posted fake or doctored screenshots?

 

The sites show what they are able to get from this site. If the site says fulll than they use that data, if it says standard they use that and light they use that. All the sites do is show what they are given and from what they get they make a graph for people to read.

 

From that graph you can take from it whatever you like but it shows that the servers all less full as compared to previous weeks and each week they get lower and lower. From looking at all those graphs I cannot see where they double the capacity of the servers since there would be a large change in population at one given time.

 

All you are doing is making up excuses for why that site shows the population dropping. Tkae that site and all the players posting that their servers are dead and that they need to do a server merge soon and all the I quit posts and add them all up and you can see that the population is dropping.

All you are saying is No one but Bioware can say they are losing or gaining subs.

 

What you also dont realize is you say that even this sites server status cant be trusted because they keep changing the threshold. But for some reason now you think that if someone takes a screenshot of something that you yourself said cant be trusted that that is the only acceptable evidence to prove anything.

 

Now can you please back up where anyone has posted fake or doctored screenshots?

 

The sites show what they are able to get from this site. If the site says fulll than they use that data, if it says standard they use that and light they use that. All the sites do is show what they are given and from what they get they make a graph for people to read.

 

From that graph you can take from it whatever you like but it shows that the servers all less full as compared to previous weeks and each week they get lower and lower. From looking at all those graphs I cannot see where they double the capacity of the servers since there would be a large change in population at one given time.

 

All you are doing is making up excuses for why that site shows the population dropping. Tkae that site and all the players posting that their servers are dead and that they need to do a server merge soon and all the I quit posts and add them all up and you can see that the population is dropping.

Anyone can say the game is losing or gaining subs ... even posters in these forums. But no one can verify it. If it can't be verified then it's nothing more than supermarket tabloid material. Should one choose to take the unconfirmed word as gospel, that's their option. Floating it in other people's punch bowls is not. With regard to fake or doctored screens ... no examples were cited let alone mentioned. Nice try though. However, I could easily see the acrimonious crowd doctoring screens to show only 5 or 6 on fleet. Which is why I mentioned the contrast test. Edited February 22, 2012 by GalacticKegger

What we can say for sure, is that as of 3 weeks ago, the game had 2 million subs, which number was growing.

 

Way to troll people. You can somehow take the only OBJECTIVE piece of evidence regarding subscriptions and come up with the completely opposite conclusion. You could have just as easily said the numbers are growing, but you went the other way. This is the most successful launch ever, and the fastest growing MMO ever, and yet somehow, you choose to take these objective facts, and conclude that the game is actually shrinking. Check you intentions.

Edited February 22, 2012 by iheartnyc