Faction populations; We won't give you numbers, but we give you percentages!!!

[Bismallah]

Hilarious.

http://www.warhammerherald.com/warherald/NewsArticle.war?id=573

All that work when all they really had to do is list how many players are active per side per server so folks know where to fight. Jesus, talk about over complicating things.

[waylander]

Well on the 6 page "Nancy Drew outsells Warhammer" post at the Vault, Mark did say he'd talk to his team about putting paid transfers into the game.

I would have rather had paid transfers from the start and be able to pick servers with opponents I want to fight, then being forced into migrations onto servers where one faction or the other is demoralized and broken already.

[Nebu]

I would have rather had paid transfers from the start and be able to pick servers with opponents I want to fight, then being forced into migrations onto servers where one faction or the other is demoralized and broken already.

Call me unreasonable, but being asked to pay for a feature that compensates for their lack of forethought would really piss me off.  Server transfers should be free, optional, and dictated by the paying customer within a window of opportunity that Mythic defines.

[Tannhauser]

They should include a 'tipping point' window that shows when their population number becomes less than the number of gold sellers banned.

[UnSub]

I would have rather had paid transfers from the start and be able to pick servers with opponents I want to fight, then being forced into migrations onto servers where one faction or the other is demoralized and broken already.

Call me unreasonable, but being asked to pay for a feature that compensates for their lack of forethought would really piss me off.  Server transfers should be free, optional, and dictated by the paying customer within a window of opportunity that Mythic defines.

There should be a cost to server transfers to avoid letting players make them on impulse. But it shouldn't be that high - $10 a character would be fair-ish.

[Hindenburg]

There should be a cost to server transfers to avoid letting players make them on impulse. But it shouldn't be that high - $10 a character would be fair-ish.

...but we also have to factor the current state of the game. That state is of such sadness that, even though I can play the game for free, I wont.

After they merge servers, announce real numbers, report concrete faction numbers per server, get the client running without consuming more than a gig of ram, finish DE/HE zones to be on par with G/D and E/C, put slayer and choppa in the game, reduce xp requirements and a lot of other stuff, then they could start charging players for such a service.

Dreaming is fun.

[rk47]

I would have rather had paid transfers from the start and be able to pick servers with opponents I want to fight, then being forced into migrations onto servers where one faction or the other is demoralized and broken already.

Call me unreasonable, but being asked to pay for a feature that compensates for their lack of forethought would really piss me off.  Server transfers should be free, optional, and dictated by the paying customer within a window of opportunity that Mythic defines.

There should be a cost to server transfers to avoid letting players make them on impulse. But it shouldn't be that high - $10 a character would be fair-ish.

One free transfer every 2 month isn't going to hurt. Makes you choose carefully. Ofcourse, paying is always an option.

[ghost]

How many servers are there now?  Haven't they "closed" like 90% of them? 

Seriously, in 3 months it will be like DDO with 5 servers.  Then it won't matter if you can transfer for free or pay for it or pull your pud.

[Chockonuts]

How many servers are there now?  Haven't they "closed" like 90% of them? 

Seriously, in 3 months it will be like DDO with 5 servers.  Then it won't matter if you can transfer for free or pay for it or pull your pud.

Don't know how many they have total, but they only have about 16 running med/med now.

[Bismallah]

This is what I posted a couple weeks back when they sourced Hochland, which I think was the seventh or eighth server transfer iteration.

"If that's Hochland, then yes. The exact number eludes me (I thought it was in the mid 30s?). For open PvP ruleset that means that what started as 7 servers, is down to 2. For RP servers what started as 5 is down to 2 as well. Won't be long before each of those rulesets is down to 1 server a piece and they have to merge the open PvP/RP server into either of those two rulesets, probably open PvP. What was 36 Core servers is now down to 11 I believe, probably trim that a little more by the end of January.

All in all (rounding up a little for one ruleset and a little down for another) you had about a 1 in 3 shot of picking a server that is still around now, three months after the game got released, whew... That math any way you slice it is not good for a game. That doesnt include the fact that many folks picked a new destination server only to be told to move again. Some folks have moved three times already.

I don't know how they can spin that in a better light, but I am sure they will find a way."

If that helps. I know Arthur Parker was keeping a good tally that included EU and Aussie servers (i think?) but that is what I had come up with from my own digging.

[Arthur_Parker]

I kinda lost interest to be honest.

[Bismallah]

I kinda lost interest to be honest.

Same here.

[Threash]

Figures id be stuck in the server with the most inbalance.

[Delmania]

It's no surprise that the claims of population imbalances aren't quite right.  A 50/50 split in population does make sense.  However, the important thing is how many active characters there are in a tier's oRvR zone at a given time.  It's nice that Order and Destruction are eventually matched in terms of overall numbers, but when you've got 200 players zerging up Reikland and only 8 people will defend against them while the other 192 grind BS, there's a problem.

[Nebu]

If they had dynamic server data like you got from The Herald and some of the fansites that did daily server pop updates, it would be very easy to know. Were I Mythic, I don't think I'd want people seeing server populations and active subscriber numbers. 

Hey... coincidence? 

[Bismallah]

Sure, seeing the low numbers would be a  effect for some folks, others who play would probably want to know that their 5% difference in population means next to nothing if you only have 100 active. If you have 1000 active, whole new ballgame. Then again if they saw their server only had 100 active they'd want to transfer, heh.

[waffel]

Mark claims he wants to tell people the server populations, and give out more numbers, but that EA won't allow it. He pretty much uses the "EA won't allow me to answer that" for any question which he can't spin his way.

[Nebu]

Mark claims he wants to tell people the server populations, and give out more numbers, but that EA won't allow it. He pretty much uses the "EA won't allow me to answer that" for any question which he can't spin his way.

I can understand witholding sales figures until the quarterlies are out while working for a publicly traded company... that makes sense.  What I don't get is why he's fixated on box sales.  MMO's make their $$$ from subs and retention.  Box sales are a measure of short term gains.  I'm guessing his fixation is because people are abandoning ship like it's the Titanic. 

[Arthur_Parker]

Xfire is a shit way to tell anything and any kind of ingame census is wildly inaccurate , anyway some guy was bored enough to count forum threads from a week back in September and compare to now.

10 current pages of threads on Warhammeralliance, 29 for the same period back in September on Warhammer.

27 current pages of threads on VN, 122 for the same period back in September on VN boards.

People post about WAR a lot less than they used to, looking around here, that's not really a surprise.

[Nebu]

Interesting statistics.  Seems people are either less interested, less vocal, or both.  I'm going to go with both.

[ghost]

Interesting statistics.  Seems people are either less interested, less vocal, or both.  I'm going to go with both.

Less vocal isn't that likely.  The only people left are the crackpots.

[Bismallah]

I'd say both is a safe bet. You'll see an increase in threads with any new patch/info they put out, but that's about it.

[UnSub]

Interesting statistics.  Seems people are either less interested, less vocal, or both.  I'm going to go with both.

Less vocal isn't that likely.  The only people left are the crackpots.

That's a big issue with forums - they can look active, but you only really need a small number of hardcore users to post in the high numbers to achieve such an effect. WAR certainly has those. What it doesn't seem to have is the number of casual players required to keep the in-game population active.

[Redgiant]

It's no surprise that the claims of population imbalances aren't quite right.  A 50/50 split in population does make sense.

Unless they specifically tell me only those players in an ORvR T4 zone I know the numbers are purposefully skewed.

Face it, the fact that "gaining XP or RP" is the criteria is telling. Most of that is X vs. X in a Scenario, duh. Most people sit on their ass in a camp waiting for a Scenario to pop, so when they do "fit that criteria" they are equal numbers.

MJ is so full of shit, WAR just sucks period.

Build DAoC II next time, idiot. Assuming you ever get another chance. We all know you that *you* know that is what you should have done, but hindsight is ...

[Redgiant]

Hey MJ, remember that comment not long ago that you were seeing no lag  or perf issues with a ~800 person RvR?

What alternate universe was that server on again?

No way, no how has 800 players EVER been in the same zone on any WAR server and not had issues left and right. Prove it and do it on any public server for others to experience and see.

[Bismallah]

I tried, unsuccessfully, to determine where he claimed to have had these 800 player battles. I highly doubt it happened, but who knows.

[Delmania]

It's no surprise that the claims of population imbalances aren't quite right.  A 50/50 split in population does make sense.

Unless they specifically tell me only those players in an ORvR T4 zone I know the numbers are purposefully skewed.

Face it, the fact that "gaining XP or RP" is the criteria is telling. Most of that is X vs. X in a Scenario, duh. Most people sit on their ass in a camp waiting for a Scenario to pop, so when they do "fit that criteria" they are equal numbers.

MJ is so full of shit, WAR just sucks period.

Build DAoC II next time, idiot. Assuming you ever get another chance. We all know you that *you* know that is what you should have done, but hindsight is ...

I said what's important is the number of people in the various tiers' oRvR zones.  By their nature, scenarios will all fall into a 50/50 split so you can discount them.

[GoodIdea]

Fortresses right now are lag free if you have a somewhat decent computer. I don't think the player cap is 800 players, I think it's more like 400-500. Whatever it is, it's playable right now and decently fun.

[Chockonuts]

Fortresses right now are lag free if you have a somewhat decent computer. I don't think the player cap is 800 players, I think it's more like 400-500. Whatever it is, it's playable right now and decently fun.

nope, probably more like 300 TOTAL for both sides. Thats what some people were reporting. 175 ish attackers, 80ish defenders and crasheroonie.  But if its stable, who cares how many are in there.

[Setanta]

No way, no how has 800 players EVER been in the same zone on any WAR server and not had issues left and right. Prove it and do it on any public server for others to experience and see.

800 people still play this game? Idiots 

My sub finally finished - if it hadn't I would still be uninstalling the game ready for DoW2 - because at least relic know how to appeal to their target audience, unlike Mythic.

Hmmmm... RTS WAR could be pretty interesting - as long as MJ et.al. didn't get their hands on its development.