Jump to content


Two Mode Game Suggestion....(Again)


  • Please log in to reply
287 replies to this topic

mnbv_fockewulfe #281 Posted 07 August 2018 - 05:48 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 247 battles
  • 2,864
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    12-06-2013

What I've got so far:

after chatting with a guy from reliablesite, I was told that for a decent rig, one server could host 500+ players on minecraft for $99/month (this seems about right with what I was reading elsewhere, but keep in mind that the actual cost for WOWP could vary by a lot).

Now we know for a fact that max concurrent players for NA was around 500 players during 1.9.

But however, bots were also in matches and put the same load as a player.

Assuming all tiers would be filled to full games plus bots, and assuming the following number of players per tier in degrading tier order (2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 12, 10) there would be 2.49 times as many bots as real players. For a total server load of 1244 players and bots at peak time.

The cost of hosting 1300 players a month would come to $260/month and $3,120/year.

Following similar but tailored methods for EU and RU we find that EU would cost as much as NA to run assuming 700 real players at prime time and RU would cost $1,100/month and $13,200/year for 3,000 concurrent real players.


 

Using a method I covered in another thread, I found the upper limit for NA's total population to be 13,800 players. Using the same method I found EU had 22,200 players and RU had 95,200 players. If 10% of each population spent $10 a month on the game the cost of the servers would be 1.9%, 1.2%, and 1.2% of the profits respectively. For the year, with a combined earnings of $1.6 million dollars the cost of the servers would be 1.2% of the gross profit.

If Persha had 50 employees total across all three regions with salaries of $50,000/year, it would cost $2.5 million profit to meet their salary. For a net zero, Persha could hire 32 people at the above salary. For a net profit of zero, 50 employees would have to have a salary of $32,000 a year.


 

For a new 1.9 NA server.

Assuming a max concurrent of 2,000 players (expecting some traffic from EU and RU and of course bots) the cost would be $400/month ($4,800/year).

Assuming max total players of 20,000, and if a subscription of 30 days of premium time were required to play at a rate of $12.59, the gross profit would be $251,800 a month ($3 million a year). Assuming we only get 40% of the original NA population (5,520 players) the gross profit would be $69,496 a month ($800,000/year). The cost of the server would be $104/month ($1,248/year).

Either way, a 1.9 subscription based sever is $$$ for WG.


 

I do not have any reliable numbers for EU and RU in regards to 2.0 players numbers, but for NA I've guessed an upper limit of 6,000 total players.

My unreliable estimates for EU and RU based off of how much higher the total NA population is compared the last rank level for attrition personal points (6,000 players divided by last place 2,000 equals a factor of 3) are:

EU-21,000

RU-30,000

For a year's gross total gross of $650,000 assuming 10% of 57,000 players pay $10 a month.
 

 


Edited by mnbv_fockewulfe, 07 August 2018 - 06:16 PM.

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

 

mnbv_fockewulfe.png


 


soshootmenow #282 Posted 10 August 2018 - 02:36 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 30 battles
  • 111
  • [335TH] 335TH
  • Member since:
    06-03-2012

focke.....wow!!....thankyou....as always your math models are simply STELLAR!!

Very impressive as a static base-model which is what is needed here for a guide when applying to the dynamic variables.

Simply superb work and far better than I could have done.

The player numbers for your base calc's essentially look quite correct. These can also apply as 'sales models' in general business plan terms.

RU and EU which were notably and consistently heavier in comparison to NA will show (relative) guide models to be used for existing or created expansion packages.

The offsets can be debated and quantified later as is usual with any business model of this nature. Any gaming provider worth their salt should be able to judge relative operating costs based on this as well as break even.

Tell me....were you looking at 2016 player numbers as a guide for your base calc's? From what I have seen this would appear to be generally correct.


 



soshootmenow #283 Posted 10 August 2018 - 11:53 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 30 battles
  • 111
  • [335TH] 335TH
  • Member since:
    06-03-2012

View PostblindfoId, on 25 July 2018 - 03:23 PM, said:

Do not think you are left here without any attention. (: Just need some more time to study the thread carefully, hope for your understanding.

 

Hi blindfold.

Have you had a chance to go through the items on this thread? Your thoughts?  Any information on your end regarding this proposal?



MAJ_Radmo #284 Posted 13 August 2018 - 01:04 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1131 battles
  • 90
  • [335TH] 335TH
  • Member since:
    01-25-2014
Been doing some research .... It's all over the Internet on Facebook on YouTube on snap chat everywhere 2.0 sucks ! ! !! ! Developers are you awake are you going to take some responsibility for the awful mistake you made here !!  This is not going away is actually getting bigger and bigger on all of social media what you did to your players you stuck it up their asses big time ... You better correct the situation and you better corrected fast because you people are getting a bad reputation are you hearing me !! You've proved to the Internet community that you cannot be trusted and that you cannot listen to your players especially the beta testers when we said no no no reject reject reject we don't want this ! Now we find a 1.9 mode working in China which means you have no excuse as to not have a second mode in the game ... Three quarters of my squadron or my clan they are not playing the game they refused to play the game until you put the 1.9 mode back ! They refused to spend any money not one sent on this game unless you correct it I have not spent any money on this game for almost 2 years not one cent ! You need to correct this and you need to correct it now if you don't it's going to continue to haunt you and haunt you and haunt you until you correct the problem ! The problem that you made by not listening to your players sincerely yours !

MAJ_Radmo #285 Posted 13 August 2018 - 04:06 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1131 battles
  • 90
  • [335TH] 335TH
  • Member since:
    01-25-2014

This is from the CEO of wargaming.net !! This will prove with any shadow of a doubt that wargaming keeps on F******ING up the games..... After screwing up tanks  ! ! Then they screw up world of warplanes and put the awful 2.0 on this will wake everybody up !! And they still didn't learn anything from their first mistake !!  https://www.polygon....-world-of-tanks

Wargaming’s chief executive office, Victor Kislyi, .... I suggest everybody start bombing him with emails telling him everything about what happened to world of warplanes and how 2.0 sucks thank you all !


Edited by MAJ_Radmo, 13 August 2018 - 04:08 AM.


MAJ_Radmo #286 Posted 13 August 2018 - 04:27 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 1131 battles
  • 90
  • [335TH] 335TH
  • Member since:
    01-25-2014

The CEO for warming gaming.net... I suggest you start writing letters to Viktor Kislyi Start telling him about this crappy 2.0 and how the developers are not listening to us And how this is spreading like wildfire on YouTube and Facebook ... The negativity and the way that warplanes has turned our backs on us... Please him everything that has gone on since the 2.0 change Contact information as follows ..

https://www.facebook.com/viktor.kislyi.7

He's already screwed up world of tanks and admitted it ... Now wargaming.net needs to acknowledge that they screwed up world of warplanes 9.1 ... And the players are suffering the consequences fort this is going viral all over YouTube and Facebook and other online sources ... You don't stab me in the back or the players in the back and get away with it ! Please start bombarding him with emails thank you !

 



soshootmenow #287 Posted Today, 12:25 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 30 battles
  • 111
  • [335TH] 335TH
  • Member since:
    06-03-2012

    Radmo has made some good points. Perhaps a little too emphatic, but valid nevertheless. I will disagree with him on a couple of points.

  First, it is not 3/4th's of our Clan not playing the current version. It is more like 9/10th's (and no, Radmo,.....Neanderthal does not count as playing just because he always shows as online. He is never there as far as I know).

   Second, although previous versions were screwing up World of Tanks, the latest revision is like an major overhaul and quite frankly (even though there are several bugs to be worked out) I think they hit this one out of the ballpark. Allowing for the complexity and quantity of what was being done I give that an absolutely solid thumbs up. That is both for the overall game direction and the implementation of the technical achievements. The gaming engine upgrade worked quite well and will be even better when fully debugged and fine-tuned. It uses far less resources on my PC and produces overall better results. It could easily be a model to implement on WoWP and might assist with the efficiency (meaning playability as well as costs) on the server side if the resource requirements follow a similar pattern there. Especially if WG will be adding the full 1.9 mode, UI, and mechanics back as a second game mode. (Major Hint there WG).

**(Thankyou for your attention to this announcement. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming)**

     Given the number of views on this thread (plus so many others on different threads with variations on this subject as well as Radmo's points) there is obviously still quite a substantial interest in the 1.9 version of the game being brought back as a second mode. And this is just from the NA server population. Heaven alone only must know the full extent of the..... dissatisfaction......with the current 2.0 only game mode. The RU forums were reportedly expressing a vehement dislike of the current state of affairs.

All of this is still going on and we are at nearly a year of 2.0.

   This thread has a great deal of good ideas, development, analysis, trends, numbers, and well thought out proposed SOLUTIONS available for the asking. It would be nice to know that WG is seriously considering implementing our idea. It would be by far the easiest path to having a playable two mode game and be the easiest solution for all concerned or involved parties.

 



trikke #288 Posted Today, 02:36 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2021 battles
  • 1,425
  • [R-A-W] R-A-W
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostMAJ_Radmo, on 13 August 2018 - 12:27 AM, said:

Contact information as follows ..  https://www.facebook.../viktor.kislyi.

 

this seems excessive to me, and you might risk some kind of ban hammer action, brother

 

ah, who knows anymore what is acceptable indignation, both here and even in our RL world 


Spittoon says #smarterpilotswinmore




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users