Jump to content


Player Numbers


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

Catch21 #1 Posted 17 December 2017 - 02:08 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1992 battles
  • 306
  • [DOG5] DOG5
  • Member since:
    05-19-2013

I believe WG removed the API functionality that allowed folks to view WoWP player count, but it is still possible to back into these, albeit at a distance (players who played at least 20 battles in a week). These numbers are from the EU Forum (Czech sub-section) via Rita (I've added #s post 6 Dec to bring as up to date as possible):

 

Spoiler

 

Make of these what you will, I'd imagine the trends are applicable to RU and NA servers too. And it is of course quite possible to perform the same exercise on these servers, but I have enough trouble with agility in a plane, it unfortunately (luckily?) doesn't extend to statistics.



toshiaki_virgin #2 Posted 17 December 2017 - 02:23 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1277 battles
  • 86
  • Member since:
    11-08-2012

hall.jpg

 



Mercsn #3 Posted 18 December 2017 - 09:32 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1069 battles
  • 2,966
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013

Anecdotally, feels about right.  When I came back to game a month ago, there were more humans per game than now.


 

I'm .... kinda on the fence about if that's good or bad for my game experience.  The bots are predicable and I've learned how to work with them, as long as one teams bots aren't just straight superior than the others.  Adding humans that have raced up the tiers (WG's fault, not the player's fault) and don't know what they're doing (or what they should be doing, anyways) is more frustrating than playing with the bots.


All the Important Thread Links (go here for answers!) Might be outdated!

All-in-one thread with 2.0 related guide links.

 

The below was said to me (Mercsn), from a concerned player:

Edited, on 12 March - 2:01PM , said:

and PS...play more, forum less.  Your opinion might be more credible.

jack_wdw #4 Posted 18 December 2017 - 12:02 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 218 battles
  • 251
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012
I would be surprised if by June they would retain a larger active playerbase than they had the year before.

I can't imagine that 2.0 is sustainable in it's current form.
They said that  keeping 1.9 online was unsustainable, while the support was very minimal, no marketing at all and there was little or no development anymore.

Wargaming is the big culprit in this failure.
They chose to alienate their most loyal playerbase and put all their hope in attracting new players.
Attracting new players is not the same as retaining those players.
This new playmode is overcomplicated, and i think to succeed it needs a lot of players who know how it works and work together as a team.
Bots only seem to make this gamemode more frustrating.




 

Edited by jack_wdw, 18 December 2017 - 12:03 PM.


kodiakalpha #5 Posted 18 December 2017 - 04:55 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 1087 battles
  • 140
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
While I may differ from some in that I enjoy the new game mode more than the old one, I will agree that it feels like the numbers are falling.  No matter what Wargaming does with game modes, they need to show more consistent progress (hopefully the upcoming plane lines will help), and put some effort into marketing.  I've recently heard radio ads for World of Tanks, but absolutely nothing about World of Warplanes.  The lack of marketing has been a big problem going way back.

Bubba_Zanetti #6 Posted 18 December 2017 - 05:05 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1271 battles
  • 1,661
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012


Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #7 Posted 18 December 2017 - 05:36 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 348 battles
  • 2,613
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View PostBubba_Zanetti, on 18 December 2017 - 12:05 PM, said:

 

ow... that "song" gave me an instant headache...

paybacks sir... what goes around...


if the pilot's good, see, I mean, if he's really..sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low [he spreads his arms like wings and laughs],

you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane like a '52. VRROOM! There's jet exhaust, fryin' chickens in the barnyard.


Bubba_Zanetti #8 Posted 18 December 2017 - 05:44 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1271 battles
  • 1,661
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostAce_BOTlistic_Cosmo, on 18 December 2017 - 12:36 PM, said:

 

ow... that "song" gave me an instant headache...

paybacks sir... what goes around...

 

Hence why I posted it, I knew how much of a fan you were!

 

Plus ca change
Plus c'est la meme chose
The more that things change
The more they stay the same



Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #9 Posted 18 December 2017 - 05:45 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 348 battles
  • 2,613
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View PostBubba_Zanetti, on 18 December 2017 - 12:44 PM, said:

 

Hence why I posted it, I knew how much of a fan you were!

 

Plus ca change
Plus c'est la meme chose
The more that things change
The more they stay the same

like I said... paybacks

 


if the pilot's good, see, I mean, if he's really..sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low [he spreads his arms like wings and laughs],

you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane like a '52. VRROOM! There's jet exhaust, fryin' chickens in the barnyard.


Bubba_Zanetti #10 Posted 18 December 2017 - 06:20 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1271 battles
  • 1,661
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostAce_BOTlistic_Cosmo, on 18 December 2017 - 12:45 PM, said:

like I said... paybacks

 

 

How? Dead fly in my Rye n Pepsi?


Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #11 Posted 18 December 2017 - 06:33 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 348 battles
  • 2,613
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

View PostBubba_Zanetti, on 18 December 2017 - 01:20 PM, said:

 

How? Dead fly in my Rye n Pepsi?

 

if your rye is so undrinkable that it needs to be doused in pepsi, well... then a fly garnish seems appropriate...

if the pilot's good, see, I mean, if he's really..sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low [he spreads his arms like wings and laughs],

you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane like a '52. VRROOM! There's jet exhaust, fryin' chickens in the barnyard.


Bubba_Zanetti #12 Posted 18 December 2017 - 06:39 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1271 battles
  • 1,661
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostAce_BOTlistic_Cosmo, on 18 December 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:

 

if your rye is so undrinkable that it needs to be doused in pepsi, well... then a fly garnish seems appropriate...

 

Pfft...alcohol elitist...mind you, nothing wrong with a little protein in my drink.


trikke #13 Posted 19 December 2017 - 02:27 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1514 battles
  • 962
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

it's sad, i can 'feel' that there are somewhat less humans during my timezone window

 

i'm a firm supporter of 2.0 with time and money, and i'd love to see it succeed 

 

it fits what i wanted in a flying game, which appears to be not what others want

 

bots or humans, i'll die trying to kill both of them, for as long as i can pay for the server we use


Spittoon says #smarterpilotswinmore

Mercsn #14 Posted 19 December 2017 - 08:47 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1069 battles
  • 2,966
  • Member since:
    04-17-2013

I keep running into new and long-quit players who day the game is fun or more fun than when they previously played.  

 

The common thread is that they have no idea what's going on in the game mode.  I'm sure zone capture made sense on paper in some planning meeting.  But. In the game, it just needlessly complicated.  And, it doesn't make sense from a time period perspective.  Who are these neutral factions we'r invading?  Swiss outposts? 

 

The loading screen "tips " that tell fighters to sjoot AA guns is also terrible.  Shooting aa guns doesn't help the team (further adding to the "why did I win or lose confusion -game said shoot aa guns and I lost, for example, due to killing an aa gun offering no capture points and making that player an eas target) and doesn't help the player with xp, credits, or "job well done" satisfaction. 

 

 


All the Important Thread Links (go here for answers!) Might be outdated!

All-in-one thread with 2.0 related guide links.

 

The below was said to me (Mercsn), from a concerned player:

Edited, on 12 March - 2:01PM , said:

and PS...play more, forum less.  Your opinion might be more credible.

trikke #15 Posted 20 December 2017 - 03:18 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1514 battles
  • 962
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostMercsn, on 19 December 2017 - 03:47 PM, said:

The common thread is that they have no idea what's going on in the game mode.  I'm sure zone capture made sense on paper in some planning meeting.  But. In the game, it just needlessly complicated.  And, it doesn't make sense from a time period perspective.

 

 Who are these neutral factions we're invading?  Swiss outposts? 

 

 

i had never spent one second thinking about that...  who the hell are those neutral folks?

 

Poland, maybe?

 

oh well, they always turn bright red pretty quickly, so...


Spittoon says #smarterpilotswinmore

mnbv_fockewulfe #16 Posted 20 December 2017 - 03:32 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 231 battles
  • 2,300
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

There was a funny video clip on the Russian forum about that. Wish I bookmarked it.


Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


vcharng #17 Posted 20 December 2017 - 03:58 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1993 battles
  • 279
  • Member since:
    10-25-2017

View PostMercsn, on 19 December 2017 - 08:47 PM, said:

I keep running into new and long-quit players who day the game is fun or more fun than when they previously played.  

 

The common thread is that they have no idea what's going on in the game mode.  I'm sure zone capture made sense on paper in some planning meeting.  But. In the game, it just needlessly complicated.  And, it doesn't make sense from a time period perspective.  Who are these neutral factions we'r invading?  Swiss outposts? 

 

The loading screen "tips " that tell fighters to sjoot AA guns is also terrible.  Shooting aa guns doesn't help the team (further adding to the "why did I win or lose confusion -game said shoot aa guns and I lost, for example, due to killing an aa gun offering no capture points and making that player an eas target) and doesn't help the player with xp, credits, or "job well done" satisfaction. 

 

 

 

How is it complicated? If you are an air superiority category, shoot the planes, if you are a ground attacker, shoot the ground targets.

I believe WG never, ever thought or cared about questions like "who are the neutral faction", they just don't give a damn about that part of historical accuracy (and many other parts of it as well), think about the Overlord map in WOT, those allied should be landing from the sea, but they are not. Also the WOWS maps allowing carriers should be 10~20 times the size of what it is at the moment, if WG actually cares about historical accuracy at all. Their strategy is simple: screw the history, just make a game work.

 

I never played pre-1.9, but I can't even imagine how am I gonna play that, as the GAs I love the most in 2.0 probably won't survive the first target pre-1.9, and there's no respawn, making it entirely unplayable.



jack_wdw #18 Posted 20 December 2017 - 08:21 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 218 battles
  • 251
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012

View Postvcharng, on 20 December 2017 - 03:58 AM, said:

 

How is it complicated? If you are an air superiority category, shoot the planes, if you are a ground attacker, shoot the ground targets.

I believe WG never, ever thought or cared about questions like "who are the neutral faction", they just don't give a damn about that part of historical accuracy (and many other parts of it as well), think about the Overlord map in WOT, those allied should be landing from the sea, but they are not. Also the WOWS maps allowing carriers should be 10~20 times the size of what it is at the moment, if WG actually cares about historical accuracy at all. Their strategy is simple: screw the history, just make a game work.

 

I never played pre-1.9, but I can't even imagine how am I gonna play that, as the GAs I love the most in 2.0 probably won't survive the first target pre-1.9, and there's no respawn, making it entirely unplayable.


Funny, pre 2.0, GA's mostly made it to the end of the battle , unless you were killed early on by a GA from the opponent team.



Catch21 #19 Posted 20 December 2017 - 01:40 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 1992 battles
  • 306
  • [DOG5] DOG5
  • Member since:
    05-19-2013

View PostCatch21, on 17 December 2017 - 02:08 PM, said:

I believe WG removed the API functionality that allowed folks to view WoWP player count, but it is still possible to back into these, albeit at a distance (players who played at least 20 battles in a week). These numbers are from the EU Forum (Czech sub-section) via Rita.

 

Make of these what you will, I'd imagine the trends are applicable to RU and NA servers too. And it is of course quite possible to perform the same exercise on these servers, but I have enough trouble with agility in a plane, it unfortunately (luckily?) doesn't extend to statistics.

My big (obvious?) Q on how to get these #s was: "but where do you get the numbers? I see only up to 1000 in the Hall of Fame.", so it seemed to me we'd just be sorting the top 1000 Hall of Fame table any which way you can.

 

To which Perpentach's response (paraphrased by me) from the EU Forum (Czech sub-section) was: "...but there are different categories. When someone is 1000th place in one category he's lower in another category. so you must choose player to skip lower, then keep repeating to go lower. Example how I do it on NA server: first skip to 1000th place, there is player name A with 0 GR destroyed, i choose him and set to sort on DGR category. then choose B player and W/B category, then use C, D and E players to get lower and set to sort on E/B category on the last one. then F player and DMG category, G player and W/R, H player and I player is the last. 4163 players last week on NA server.".

 

I changed the player names he gave to A-I (they'd all changed by the time I looked anyway so the example is now generic). Plus I found it too much hard work to find the 1st player who had 19 games/the last player who had 20 games for an exact count so I thought it easiest to just get ANY player who had 20 games and their rank by GPL (games played) to get an approximate 'winner' as # of players in a week- say- who'd played 20 games (or 100 in a month- just select your parameters).

 

If anyone can fine tune or come up with a quicker/better/easier/more efficient/exact way I'm all ears.



trikke #20 Posted 20 December 2017 - 02:13 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1514 battles
  • 962
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostCatch21, on 20 December 2017 - 08:40 AM, said:

My big (obvious?) Q on how to get these #s was: "but where do you get the numbers? I see only up to 1000 in the Hall of Fame.", so it seemed to me we'd just be sorting the top 1000 Hall of Fame table any which way you can.

 

To which Perpentach's response (paraphrased by me) from the EU Forum (Czech sub-section) was: "...but there are different categories. When someone is 1000th place in one category he's lower in another category. so you must choose player to skip lower, then keep repeating to go lower. Example how I do it on NA server: first skip to 1000th place, there is player name A with 0 GR destroyed, i choose him and set to sort on DGR category. then choose B player and W/B category, then use C, D and E players to get lower and set to sort on E/B category on the last one. then F player and DMG category, G player and W/R, H player and I player is the last. 4163 players last week on NA server.".

 

I changed the player names he gave to A-I (they'd all changed by the time I looked anyway so the example is now generic). Plus I found it too much hard work to find the 1st player who had 19 games/the last player who had 20 games for an exact count so I thought it easiest to just get ANY player who had 20 games and their rank by GPL (games played) to get an approximate 'winner' as # of players in a week- say- who'd played 20 games (or 100 in a month- just select your parameters).

 

If anyone can fine tune or come up with a quicker/better/easier/more efficient/exact way I'm all ears.

 

omg... what a great idea!     

 

here is my entire existential problem in a nutshell... i'm given a box but i cannot possibly think outside of it

 

i had just assumed that there were 1000 or less players

 

gj, brother!

 

 

on another note, is 4k players enough to pay for NA coding/servers/etc?


Edited by trikke, 20 December 2017 - 02:15 PM.

Spittoon says #smarterpilotswinmore




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users