Forums » General
When I can login to a free trial and buzz around looking for people; and then find them whenever I log in then I will resubscribe.
Do you ever actually try this? I have to start a lot of characters, to test the new user experience with new releases, and there are very often other newbies in the training sectors at the time.
Otherwise, I'm not sure that your expectations will ever be met, the universe is huge. Training sectors instance themselves, newbies are spread over multiple capitols, missions send newer people to empty sectors, etc. We'd need massive concurrency before you'd really start tripping over people everywhere you go. Plus, mobile players don't even chat much (by percentage), so the level of chat noise doesn't even go up that much.
I do emphatically want to improve gameplay options for bringing people together, and adding new mechanisms for people to choose to do that, but that's not the same as forcing everyone into the same sector.. that would just create architectural and gameplay scalability problems. I have to be able to sustain temporary player influxes from things like Apple promos (possibly 100,000 new users per day), without breaking the game.
The first thing people mostly want to know is how many people are playing and online at any given time.
This of course must be hidden in top secret encrypted graphs that mean nothing anyone who looks at them.
Look, it was the userbase who suggested we change the players-online graph to not show numbers. At the time, new people would check the site, see there were like 50 people online, and then say "too small" and never give the game a chance (sometimes they would also post to the forums and tell us how we weren't worth their time). Veterans suggested it would be better to remove the count data for the moment, so people would at least give the game a fair shake.
Now, ironically, we have several times as many concurrent players, but I get grumpy veterans telling me that we're dying because "no one is playing", even though it's the polar opposite.
I mean, by your rationale, I could basically "tell you" that there are 500 people online, and you'd suddenly want to play. Even though, with the current mechanics, I doubt you'd really be able to tell the difference.
---------
"Everyone would play if only there were more people online because everyone was playing."
Do you ever actually try this? I have to start a lot of characters, to test the new user experience with new releases, and there are very often other newbies in the training sectors at the time.
Otherwise, I'm not sure that your expectations will ever be met, the universe is huge. Training sectors instance themselves, newbies are spread over multiple capitols, missions send newer people to empty sectors, etc. We'd need massive concurrency before you'd really start tripping over people everywhere you go. Plus, mobile players don't even chat much (by percentage), so the level of chat noise doesn't even go up that much.
I do emphatically want to improve gameplay options for bringing people together, and adding new mechanisms for people to choose to do that, but that's not the same as forcing everyone into the same sector.. that would just create architectural and gameplay scalability problems. I have to be able to sustain temporary player influxes from things like Apple promos (possibly 100,000 new users per day), without breaking the game.
The first thing people mostly want to know is how many people are playing and online at any given time.
This of course must be hidden in top secret encrypted graphs that mean nothing anyone who looks at them.
Look, it was the userbase who suggested we change the players-online graph to not show numbers. At the time, new people would check the site, see there were like 50 people online, and then say "too small" and never give the game a chance (sometimes they would also post to the forums and tell us how we weren't worth their time). Veterans suggested it would be better to remove the count data for the moment, so people would at least give the game a fair shake.
Now, ironically, we have several times as many concurrent players, but I get grumpy veterans telling me that we're dying because "no one is playing", even though it's the polar opposite.
I mean, by your rationale, I could basically "tell you" that there are 500 people online, and you'd suddenly want to play. Even though, with the current mechanics, I doubt you'd really be able to tell the difference.
---------
"Everyone would play if only there were more people online because everyone was playing."
Um, if there were 500 people online there would be a constant furball in b8 and a trail of this on 100
Gf
Gf
Gf
Gf
Gf
We'd notice that.
Gf
Gf
Gf
Gf
Gf
We'd notice that.
Not necessarily, because vets and newer players often don't participate the same way.
That's one of the expectation problems, that somehow "more players" means the same thing as "more current-PC-style vets".
That's one of the expectation problems, that somehow "more players" means the same thing as "more current-PC-style vets".
I never knew that the graphs used to have the count!!!
I think you guys should show the player count for at least subscribers. I would use these numbers to decide on good times to host events. It would be really useful for me at least. Not that my wants are a good enough reason to put it back, but I think others feels the same.
I think you guys should show the player count for at least subscribers. I would use these numbers to decide on good times to host events. It would be really useful for me at least. Not that my wants are a good enough reason to put it back, but I think others feels the same.
I would use these numbers to decide on good times to host events. It would be really useful for me at least.
Why is that useful, over what we already have? The relative density already shows you when peak users are online. That's when you should be hosting an event..
Why is that useful, over what we already have? The relative density already shows you when peak users are online. That's when you should be hosting an event..
I think the graph should go away all together, but alas.
I think what a lot of you newer players do not realise is there did not used to be a graph, it just used to show a list of people online, which was bad. Simply because if you wanted to avoid a certain player, you could just wait for them not to be on the list.
The new graph was not suggested in any way, we simply asked that the online list was removed. I guess the graph replacing the list is what we asked for, but it really does not give any meaningful representation of player activity. You could have 20 players online last week, and 300 online the next, and the graph would not show this.
All it shows is the nation balance, I guess that is OK though. Anyway, as someone who creates a lot of new alts, I tend to find the training sectors quite busy at times. I do find more activity in the none training sectors too. TRS thinking everyone is going to flock to B8 is crap though, MOST of the newer players are wanting to avoid player v player stuff.
I think what a lot of you newer players do not realise is there did not used to be a graph, it just used to show a list of people online, which was bad. Simply because if you wanted to avoid a certain player, you could just wait for them not to be on the list.
The new graph was not suggested in any way, we simply asked that the online list was removed. I guess the graph replacing the list is what we asked for, but it really does not give any meaningful representation of player activity. You could have 20 players online last week, and 300 online the next, and the graph would not show this.
All it shows is the nation balance, I guess that is OK though. Anyway, as someone who creates a lot of new alts, I tend to find the training sectors quite busy at times. I do find more activity in the none training sectors too. TRS thinking everyone is going to flock to B8 is crap though, MOST of the newer players are wanting to avoid player v player stuff.
Well, it would help me to quantify this data.
For instance, the peak times may seem like it may be the best time, but it isn't always the most convenient. If I had more quantified data, I could make better decisions on if it is worth hosting the event.
[EDITED] I see no reason why people shouldn't be able to see who's online and choose to avoid them. But I would be happy with a count. Not that I am unhappy now.
For instance, the peak times may seem like it may be the best time, but it isn't always the most convenient. If I had more quantified data, I could make better decisions on if it is worth hosting the event.
[EDITED] I see no reason why people shouldn't be able to see who's online and choose to avoid them. But I would be happy with a count. Not that I am unhappy now.
For instance, the peak times may seem like it may be the best time, but it isn't always the most convenient. If I had more quantified data, I could make better decisions on if it is worth hosting the event.
I don't really get that. Peak times are peak times. That's the best time to host an event. Whether we have 80 people online or 300 people online is irrelevant. Absolute numbers are basically meaningless to event scheduling.
The new graph was not suggested in any way, we simply asked that the online list was removed.
Actually, Yoda, you're conflating two different events. I had originally mentioned this in my first response above, but then removed it to simplify the post..:
First, we had a list, then people asked for the list to be removed, as it was being used to mine for alts, among other things (not just to determine when to login). We changed the list to a graph with a count.
Then, some time later, people suggested that the count be removed from the graph, specifically, to avoid the issue I described above.
So, none of this has anything to do with the old alt-mining/list topic at all.
You could have 20 players online last week, and 300 online the next, and the graph would not show this.
Is that some kind of big concern? That our week-to-week numbers aren't consistent? I only put up the weekly relative graph, because I didn't see much value to posting longer term data. But, we've never had "20 online last week, and 300 online the next". If we really do have some kind of giant promo response, it'll be pretty self-evident in the weekly graph.
I don't really get that. Peak times are peak times. That's the best time to host an event. Whether we have 80 people online or 300 people online is irrelevant. Absolute numbers are basically meaningless to event scheduling.
The new graph was not suggested in any way, we simply asked that the online list was removed.
Actually, Yoda, you're conflating two different events. I had originally mentioned this in my first response above, but then removed it to simplify the post..:
First, we had a list, then people asked for the list to be removed, as it was being used to mine for alts, among other things (not just to determine when to login). We changed the list to a graph with a count.
Then, some time later, people suggested that the count be removed from the graph, specifically, to avoid the issue I described above.
So, none of this has anything to do with the old alt-mining/list topic at all.
You could have 20 players online last week, and 300 online the next, and the graph would not show this.
Is that some kind of big concern? That our week-to-week numbers aren't consistent? I only put up the weekly relative graph, because I didn't see much value to posting longer term data. But, we've never had "20 online last week, and 300 online the next". If we really do have some kind of giant promo response, it'll be pretty self-evident in the weekly graph.
And what events do you host that would need a certain list of players? You can still do this if needed with the buddy lists.
People hiding from people is bad because it just is. Especially back when it was just the same 30 of us playing daily. Sure, it would be nice for you to "quantify" data, but is it needed by the playerbase as a whole?
People hiding from people is bad because it just is. Especially back when it was just the same 30 of us playing daily. Sure, it would be nice for you to "quantify" data, but is it needed by the playerbase as a whole?
That was just one reason that I'd to see numbers.
I guess I'm just a person that likes to see numbers and actual analytical data.
For instance, when I go to promote the game to a friend (which I do daily), the first question is always "how many people play". I get that it might discourage people to play if they know that number isn't what they want it to be, but I'd like to be able to give an actual answer to people.
If someone doesn't wanna play because they think it isn't an active game, they will quickly get that perception once they log on anyways, just because of the combination of how big the universe is and the fact they will be looking for player scarcity.
I guess I'm just a person that likes to see numbers and actual analytical data.
For instance, when I go to promote the game to a friend (which I do daily), the first question is always "how many people play". I get that it might discourage people to play if they know that number isn't what they want it to be, but I'd like to be able to give an actual answer to people.
If someone doesn't wanna play because they think it isn't an active game, they will quickly get that perception once they log on anyways, just because of the combination of how big the universe is and the fact they will be looking for player scarcity.
To be fair; I would rather see numbers than what we see now. Either that or nothing at all.
For instance, when I go to promote the game to a friend (which I do daily), the first question is always "how many people play". I get that it might discourage people to play if they know that number isn't what they want it to be, but I'd like to be able to give an actual answer to people.
Well, I've posted actual data here recently. But day-to-day we usually peak between 80 and 120 users online (and higher peaks, off-and-on, in the last couple of months). We have about 10,000 new users per month from Android alone.
But, here's the thing, to most of the people who are asking that question, those numbers don't help. People used to WoW or EVE just think any game with less than 2000 concurrent people is a waste of time. So, I'm not really excited about going back to hearing that from people all the time.
I do not intend to put numbers back onto the graph, until peak concurrency is solidly over 200 every day. We'll probably hit that next year, after iPhone and Steam.
For the moment, though, I am staying with the relative-count graphs.
To be fair; I would rather see numbers than what we see now. Either that or nothing at all.
What? We just went through how relative density can still improve event planning and other things. It also shows relative nation balance, which you recall used to be a huge complaint. So, no, the "nothing at all" argument is dumb.
Well, I've posted actual data here recently. But day-to-day we usually peak between 80 and 120 users online (and higher peaks, off-and-on, in the last couple of months). We have about 10,000 new users per month from Android alone.
But, here's the thing, to most of the people who are asking that question, those numbers don't help. People used to WoW or EVE just think any game with less than 2000 concurrent people is a waste of time. So, I'm not really excited about going back to hearing that from people all the time.
I do not intend to put numbers back onto the graph, until peak concurrency is solidly over 200 every day. We'll probably hit that next year, after iPhone and Steam.
For the moment, though, I am staying with the relative-count graphs.
To be fair; I would rather see numbers than what we see now. Either that or nothing at all.
What? We just went through how relative density can still improve event planning and other things. It also shows relative nation balance, which you recall used to be a huge complaint. So, no, the "nothing at all" argument is dumb.
[self edited]
Sorry, misunderstood your meaning. Yes, people were using the list to check out times that certain players would log in and use that to compare alts (guilty of this myself). Yes, you removed that list and made a graph with just nation count. But I am also sure people used to use both lists to find a safe time to log in. Nevermind.
my bad.
What I meant to say was I would rather have nothing at all, number-wise (ie, what we have now). I fail at expressing myself online.
Sorry, misunderstood your meaning. Yes, people were using the list to check out times that certain players would log in and use that to compare alts (guilty of this myself). Yes, you removed that list and made a graph with just nation count. But I am also sure people used to use both lists to find a safe time to log in. Nevermind.
my bad.
What I meant to say was I would rather have nothing at all, number-wise (ie, what we have now). I fail at expressing myself online.