|
|
Post by BitterFlashback on Jul 11, 2014 18:58:50 GMT -5
Clearly you have no skill in prob/stat. Your data doesn't prove anything. I don't have to prove you wrong, there's nothing on your side to prove. The data proves Arm is failing to convert more than 1% of the new accounts into retained players over time. That is a thing. therefor you are incorrect that the data doesn't prove anything. Turn down the hyperbole. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 19:05:47 GMT -5
It also proves that there are a lot of new accounts. The importance of this data is - non-existent. Compared to other muds (which is the only thing you -can- compare it to), we're doing very very well. So - if anything, the data proves that we're doing well.
It just really isn't impressive information. It doesn't prove that Nyr is an asshole, it doesn't prove that veterans hate Arm, it doesn't prove that players are leaving in droves, it doesn't prove that Armageddon is headed for the shitheap of dead muds. It doesn't prove any of the doom and gloom Anaiah (and you, and several others on this forum) harp about.
In reference to the posit that "Arm sucks" the data proves nothing.
Edited to note: Nyr might very well be an asshole. Arm surely could be headed for the shit-heap. There might in fact be tons of doom and gloom. But that data doesn't prove it.
|
|
|
|
Post by BitterFlashback on Jul 11, 2014 19:12:01 GMT -5
It also proves that there are a lot of new accounts. The importance of this data is - non-existent. Compared to other muds (which is the only thing you -can- compare it to), we're doing very very well. So - if anything, the data proves that we're doing well. You are not an authority on the importance of this data. Stop acting as if your approval is required. No one is buying it. To claim that only retaining less than 1% of new sign-ups is "doing well" just because there are a lot of them is playing dumb for the sake of having a response. It just really isn't impressive information. No one needs you to admit that 4.5 years of information on how many of just under 10,000 signups stuck around is impressive. It is impressive. your acknowledgement of this is unnecessary. It doesn't prove that Nyr is an asshole, it doesn't prove that veterans hate Arm, it doesn't prove that players are leaving in droves, it doesn't prove that Armageddon is headed for the shitheap of dead muds. It doesn't prove any of the doom and gloom Anaiah (and you, and several others on this forum) harp about. In reference to the posit that "Arm sucks" the data proves nothing. Failing to retain more than 1% of people who create an account is proof Arm has problems. The only thing true - in this sad attempt to speak from authority on a matter which no one recognizes you as an expert on - is that the data doesn't make it clear what the problem with Arm is. but please keep talking as if anyone needs you to admit you're wrong. Maybe wait for Lizzie to pop in and boost your position. You guys really seem to be attempting to "win" through attrition by mindlessly naysaying instead of offering any valid counterpoints. And it's really obvious. |
|
Lizzie
Clueless newb
Posts: 199 
|
Post by Lizzie on Jul 11, 2014 21:10:31 GMT -5
I've actually decided to bow out of this argument because I see no point in discussing things with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by BitterFlashback on Jul 11, 2014 21:50:22 GMT -5
I've actually decided to bow out of this argument because I see no point in discussing things with you. Is "discussing" what you refer to pretending you're a skeptic when you're being openly contrary? because this isn't reddit. Whipping out debate terms and debate rules and only applying them to your opposition instead of yourself is a well-known tactic of imbeciles who want to shout down an opinion they dislike in the guise of having a high standard. Pretend youre not you. Pretend you're someone with no opinion of this matter being discussed. what do yuo think you and your collaborator/sockpuppet ghaati's credibility with that reader is, given your blatant dishonesty, dismissiveness, and demanding everyone but your side prove their stance? You two look like pompous, stupid assholes who don't have a leg to stand on. I probably look like an asshole too. But an honest one. Who do you thin an unopinionated person is going to believe? The two(?) jackasses using a tired tactic of 1) demanding proof, 2) endlessly dismissing proof from an unjustified position of authority, and 3) claiming they have no need to prove their side? Or the two people presenting data and making an attempt to interpret it accurately? And revising those attempts when new information is presented? I dont care what you have to say about it. it's just something for yuo to think on while you put on yet another show of being the bigger man while you slink off with your tail between your legs. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 23:06:08 GMT -5
You two look like pompous, stupid assholes who don't have a leg to stand on. I probably look like an asshole too. FWIW, we're all assholes here on the internet.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 0:04:07 GMT -5
Just because free time and no desire to keep eyeballing the #s and extrapolating, here is the math (averages) for 2010 and 2014 respectively to compare and contrast, weeks 1-26, no data for week 1, so all averages are divided by 25 rather than 26.
2010
Total accounts logged in (weeks 1-26, no data for week 1, so /25 instead) 6288/25 - 251.52
New accts logged in (weeks 1-26, no data for week 1) 907/25 - 36.28
Total returning acct average (weeks 1-26) - 215.24
2014
Total weekly logins (averaged, weeks 1-26, no data for week 1) 6326/25 - 253.04
Total 'new' weekly logins (averaged, weeks 1-26, no data for week 1) 1262/25 - 50.48
Total returning acct average (still weeks 1-26, still no data week 1) - 202.56
12.68 players more on average in 2010 during the first six months than during the same time in 2014.
Factoring in the 77 new players retained during this period (thanks for the #'s for this, nyr), we have 89.68,
of a loss of roughly 41% of the players who played at or before 2010, if we can all consider such people 'veterans'.
And there ya go.
|
|
|
|
Post by BitterFlashback on Jul 12, 2014 2:06:51 GMT -5
I'm not clear on how you're getting that 41%. Could you ellaborate? in any case, I think i may plot some of this out tomorrow. I had an idea for a graph.
|
|
Patuk
Shartist
Posts: 552
|
Post by Patuk on Jul 12, 2014 2:44:03 GMT -5
Could anyone point me to a game that does retain all of its veterans, ever?
|
|
|
|
Post by RogueCumSlinger on Jul 12, 2014 3:22:33 GMT -5
this board is still active?
lol go lift some weights, nerds
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 3:33:41 GMT -5
I'm not clear on how you're getting that 41%. Could you ellaborate? in any case, I think i may plot some of this out tomorrow. I had an idea for a graph. 89 of 215 (the average weekly returning players in 2010). It's 41%. Patuk: There's a difference in turnover and losing 10% of your repeat playerbase annually. Surely you're aware of this? |
|
Patuk
Shartist
Posts: 552
|
Post by Patuk on Jul 12, 2014 9:48:04 GMT -5
That's besides the point. As far as I know, those are far better numbers than most any game in existence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 9:56:02 GMT -5
Like Gemstone 4, Achaea and Aardwolf? Seriously, just looking at TMS will show you that that's wrong, and that's without any extra number crunching.
|
|
|
|
Post by lulz on Jul 12, 2014 11:04:03 GMT -5
Hasn't Aardwolf ALWAYS had more players than arm though. Apples and oranges, methinks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 11:20:20 GMT -5
You're comparing Armageddon - a semi-low playerbase free, fee-prohibited-by-code hobby game, to a commercial giant in the industry (Gemstone)? Well how about we look at that comparison then.
In 1997, AOL switched from hourly online fees for playing games, to flat-rate. At that point, Gemstone's player base climbed to around 10,000. Ten thousand accounts, with a max of 2000 logged in simutaneously. Two thousand players all logged in at the same time, as their max. Prior to that, their capacity was only 499, and prior to that, the game would often crash if there were more than 50 logged in or even attempting to log in.
Fast forward to today, and on TopMudsites, they've managed to get 216 votes from July 1 to today, July 12.
Talking with someone who is still playing there, I'm told there's rarely more than 500 accounts logged in at any given moment, even during festival time, and at least 25% of those 500 are multi-accounts. On average, GS has around 300 accounts logged in at any given moment, with at least 25% of those being multi-accounts.
So from 10,000 accounts and 2,000 logged in all at once, to an unknown total number of accounts and a max of 500 logged in at once.
They're losing at a MUCH faster rate than Armageddon has ever lost, if you want to go there. Plus - they can advertise, because they charge for the privilege of playing. Their players also buy and sell characters and "character items" on various game sites and even on E-Bay, thus giving them incentive to continue playing, and continue profiting from their play. Many of those multi-accounts are bots, run with intricate scripts by players for the purpose of farming, enchanting, and "storage" of stuff they want to buy and sell.
So that's what you're comparing Armageddon to. Didn't think you were capable of stooping quite that low. I guess being bitter can do weird things to the brain.
|
|
