Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 11:21:27 GMT -5
So... they're not both online text-based games in a niche market that advertises them together? Because that seems similar enough to be able to use them as an example that no, arm does not magically have the best numbers in existance while losing an easily provable 10% of their pbase annually because... reasons and wishful thinking?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 11:23:08 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. I love that your data for this is 'I talk to someone who plays this game'. right. solid evidence. such proof. wow. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 11:24:36 GMT -5
Yeah see - they log into the game and type WHO. And they get actual counts. Just like you get, or just like your source (Nyr) gets. And that's where I found out how many people currently log in. The rest of the data I got from Elonka Dunin's history info (Elonka was a famous cryptographer who was also in charge of Gemstone for many years), the Simutronics data, the Krakiipedia, Wikipedia, a few logs of my own from when I used to play there, and various other sources that are directly related to that game. You got your data from - Nyr. You know, the guy who inspired this website, so that people could bitch about how wrong he is about everything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 11:31:51 GMT -5
If you think that's where those counts come from, you are definitely mistaken. The numbers I got come from Armageddon's site data. I haven't played arm in like 6 months. And the only data that I got from Nyr is his number for how many of the new players since 2010 have been retained. Which, frankly, if he wants to pad that number up, power to him, it only shows more existing players as leaving. And no, people here aren't bitching about how wrong he is, they're typically bitching about what a controlling assbag he is. Those are two entirely different things. And you know? When you want to take and make a four year week by week profile of the data you're citing and post numbers like I did, I might give it credence.
|
|
|
|
Post by lulz on Jul 12, 2014 11:46:27 GMT -5
Obligatory:  And my refreshments:  For my pleasure:  But truthfully, it's all for the:  |
|
|
|
Post by lulz on Jul 12, 2014 11:50:46 GMT -5
If you think that's where those counts come from, you are definitely mistaken. The numbers I got come from Armageddon's site data. Who can we assume put them there? Isn't the data one and the same? Aren't we delving into semantics now and splitting hairs?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 11:50:46 GMT -5
So then you are claiming that it's reasonable, and sane, and logical, and sensible, to compare Armageddon's "loss" of players, with Gemstone's loss of players. With Gemstone achieving a real actual number of loss, rather than just crunched numbers (10,000 during their heyday, vs. somewhat less than that presently, and 2,000 accounts logged in simutaneously during their heyday, vs. approximately 500 accounts logged in simutaneously)? A commercial giant in the industry, vs. a hobby game? Sort of like, comparing Bucky's Five and Dime to Walmart. Or Jose's Bodega to Kroger's.
That's your idea of reasonable, sane, logical, and sensible? Oooohkay then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 11:54:26 GMT -5
If you think that's where those counts come from, you are definitely mistaken. The numbers I got come from Armageddon's site data. Who can we assume put them there? Isn't the data one and the same? Aren't we delving into semantics now and splitting hairs? Well, if it works the same as the rest of the weekly updates, the data is pulled directly from the areas in question and doesn't go through ANY person's hands. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 12:02:25 GMT -5
So then you are claiming that it's reasonable, and sane, and logical, and sensible, to compare Armageddon's "loss" of players, with Gemstone's loss of players. With Gemstone achieving a real actual number of loss, rather than just crunched numbers (10,000 during their heyday, vs. somewhat less than that presently, and 2,000 accounts logged in simutaneously during their heyday, vs. approximately 500 accounts logged in simutaneously)? A commercial giant in the industry, vs. a hobby game? Sort of like, comparing Bucky's Five and Dime to Walmart. Or Jose's Bodega to Kroger's. That's your idea of reasonable, sane, logical, and sensible? Oooohkay then. Am I saying that 499 at peak times in 1997 and the same (around 500 according to your word) now counts as a loss according to 'who' numbers? No. No I am not. No. Am I saying that a heyday of 10000 at an annual rate of loss at 10% (on par with arm!) would result in 500 players tops 17 years later? Actually yes, that's pretty comparable, considering losing 10% of 10000 is losing 1000. Per year. But no, that's not what I was saying. This is what Bitter is talking about when he is talking about your lack of data - you show no direct sources that everyone can access, and frankly? I don't take your word for it, but even at that, the figures you are giving leave the same conclusion of comparable rates of loss. The difference is, when you have a playerbase of 200, it's a lot easier to get new players to inflate those numbers back to close to what they were previously than it is if you have a playerbase of 10000. By all means though, keep telling me what I'm saying. You'r not right, and you have no proof of what you're saying but keep spewing vitriolic bullshit like it's facts though you have no figures that are accessible to draw on and I do. It surely proves your point that you said things. On the internet. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 12:13:29 GMT -5
Except it wasn't an annual loss of 10%.
And the reason it was 499, prior to the 2,000, is because their server couldn't accommodate more than 499 or it would crash. Prior to that it wasn't on the internet, and their server could only accommodate 49, and the 50th would crash the game (until they added a stop-gap to warn people attempting to log in, that they had to wait until someone else logged out).
They didn't lose 10% per year over the course of several years. They lost around 50% of their playerbase when they left the online services and opened up exlusively on the Web. They gained some of the numbers back, but none of the players back, because some existing players created multiple accounts so they could bot.
Gemstone is a COMMERCIAL game. It is the giant among commercial text games in the world. They profit monthly, their parent company, Simutronics, is a multi-million-dollar commercial entity of which Gemstone is their flagship operation.
You can't compare that to anything with regards to Armageddon, without looking like a total looney-tune. The only things they have in common, is that they're text-based and you can read about them on TopMudsites and Mudconnector. To that end, you might as well say that Armageddon is comparable to Shakespeare's sonnets. There's a thread on Topmudsites somewhere that references the sonnets, plus that website talks about Arm, and they're both text-based.
|
|
|
|
Post by lulz on Jul 12, 2014 12:20:48 GMT -5
Oh my:  But alas:  |
|
|
|
Post by fakeymcfakerton on Jul 12, 2014 12:22:04 GMT -5
Anaiah, I believe on page 7 of this thread I finally comprehend what you are trying to claim; apparently that we can calculate the number of "returning" players by taking the difference of the overall number of unique logins and the number of "new accounts" created. This is predicated on the idea that a new account also always generates an associated "unique login". You then wanted to show that your "returning players" statistic was decreasing over time, implying fewer players stuck around week over week, and were being replaced by larger amounts of brand new players.
I do not recommend you try and make a career out of persuasive writing or data analysis.
While writing this, I have been refreshing weekly update periodically. Currently Armageddon was sitting at 211 Unique Logins and 40 New Accounts Created. As I refreshed just now, I saw New Accounts Created tick up to 41, yet Unique Logins remained at 211. This would seem to indicate a "login" is a character entering the game. A new account will not register as a "unique login" until it actually gets a character accepted and logs in.
If that's true, there is no meaningful relationship you can derive from these numbers. Any attempt at relating logins to accounts created will be flawed, because they aren't measuring the same thing. Armageddon did not have 201 "returning players" last week (week 27 2014), it had somewhere between 201 and 249, depending on how many new accounts logged in once.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 12:24:20 GMT -5
You love trying to conflate things and extrapolate one thing I said into another. It would be really wonderful if you'd stick to the same laws of arguing something that you expect from others.
I used that as one of multiple examples, not all of which are in the same boat, but let's try and harp on this one to the exclusion of any of the others. Is it because you have some sort of proof you're not actually volunteering that shows that I'm in some way wrong? Because you calling me looney tunes doesn't really do it. And not all of Arm's loss is a steady 10%/year. The player numbers rose from 2010-2012, then dropped sharply during a 3 month period there is little to no data for, and magically turned around when 3-4x the new accounts started logging in every week. Of course there's actually -less- returning players than there were in 2010, but it sure turned things around.
I'm not even going to address the gemstone thing anymore, because 1, you proved a point for me, about the loss of numbers, and 2, it was only one of the multiple games I can cite off the top of my head. Move on to the next one if you want to continue pretending like you're having a debate or argument of some kind, rather than coming in and trying to shit on data that proves you wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by lulz on Jul 12, 2014 12:32:12 GMT -5
much logic much reasons much internets bu-bu-bu-  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 12:32:14 GMT -5
Anaiah, I believe on page 7 of this thread I finally comprehend what you are trying to claim; apparently that we can calculate the number of "returning" players by taking the difference of the overall number of unique logins and the number of "new accounts" created. This is predicated on the idea that a new account also always generates an associated "unique login". You then wanted to show that your "returning players" statistic was decreasing over time, implying fewer players stuck around week over week, and were being replaced by larger amounts of brand new players. I do not recommend you try and make a career out of persuasive writing or data analysis.
While writing this, I have been refreshing weekly update periodically. Currently Armageddon was sitting at 211 Unique Logins and 40 New Accounts Created. As I refreshed just now, I saw New Accounts Created tick up to 41, yet Unique Logins remained at 211. This would seem to indicate a "login" is a character entering the game. A new account will not register as a "unique login" until it actually gets a character accepted and logs in.If that's true, there is no meaningful relationship you can derive from these numbers. Any attempt at relating logins to accounts created will be flawed, because they aren't measuring the same thing. Armageddon did not have 201 "returning players" last week (week 27 2014), it had somewhere between 201 and 248, depending on how many new accounts logged in once. For anyone who might want to look it up, Nyr posted numbers for the amount of people who made new accounts vs the ones who've actually logged in on the gdb as well. And yes, that would not count as a unique login until they logged in on creating an account from what I understand. The connection that is used to create an account or disconnect is not counted. It is only when you log into your account for the first time that it is tallied (as far as I am understanding) Yeah, there's a reason I haven't tried to make a career out of either of those things. I can, but ultimately it's not worth the time sink of wording it perfectly to please everyone. Also, I get angry and snappish way too quick. I would be wanting to hurl a brick through someone's window the same way I was when I was a tech support for clear and had to ask people if their router was actually configured/hooked up/plugged in/etc when it turned out not to be. |
|
