5
Major
mnbv_fockewulfe, on 10 June 2018 - 12:53 AM, said:
Um, adding the 1.9 mode would bring people back, therefore you're ignoring my evidence that 2.0 is nonviable?
No, you haven't shown 1.9 will bring back anyone. Let alone the number required to make the investment viable.
How. Do. You. Get. The. Players. To. Return. That's the question.
Major
soshootmenow, on 10 June 2018 - 12:25 AM, said:
If you look at the number of views on this topic as well as the number for previous other related threads there does appear to be quite a bit of interest still. People are paying attention. People are still 'checking back in'.
There are less than 10 people participating in this thread. There is no huge clamor to bring back 1.x - let alone the number needed to support ten tiers worth of players.
Major
CorvusCorvax, on 09 June 2018 - 07:57 PM, said:
There are less than 10 people participating in this thread. There is no huge clamor to bring back 1.x - let alone the number needed to support ten tiers worth of players.
damn... relax please...
Major
Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo, on 10 June 2018 - 01:11 AM, said:
damn... relax please...
The only one not relaxed here is you, buddy. But hey, you seem like a last-word-in sort of fellow, so go ahead and knock yourself out.
Captain
CorvusCorvax, on 10 June 2018 - 12:55 AM, said:
No, you haven't shown 1.9 will bring back anyone. Let alone the number required to make the investment viable.
How. Do. You. Get. The. Players. To. Return. That's the question.
By. Returning. A. 1.x. Mode. Of. Play.
Are you so dead set on the continuation of 2.0 that you'll deny any other proposal for saving the game?
Because the relaunch has failed.
And admitting the mistake and rolling back is still an option.
As well as not rolling back and making 1.x additional.
Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.
Major
mnbv_fockewulfe, on 09 June 2018 - 09:34 PM, said:
By. Returning. A. 1.x. Mode. Of. Play.
Are you so dead set on the continuation of 2.0 that you'll deny any other proposal for saving the game?
Because the relaunch has failed.
And admitting the mistake and rolling back is still an option.
As well as not rolling back and making 1.x additional.
crazy talk you fockwulfer...
stop whilst yer behind...
accept defeat...
no last word if yet to prove defeat
as it was written
88% believe 100% of the time...
so, you provide no input
Captain
Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo, on 10 June 2018 - 02:53 AM, said:
crazy talk you fockwulfer...
stop whilst yer behind...
accept defeat...
no last word if yet to prove defeat
as it was written
88% believe 100% of the time...
so, you provide no input
damn it.
Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.
Major
at what point is it acceptable to start behaving uncivilized...
mnbv_fockewulfe, on 09 June 2018 - 09:54 PM, said:
damn it.
hehe
nice re-raspberry-tort
Captain
CorvusCorvax, on 10 June 2018 - 02:56 AM, said:
Ah, I see. A tautology.
Now it all makes sense.
Glad you finally agree with me that it makes sense!
edit: Also glad you don't have anything wrong with the other three quarters of my post since you bothered to remove it from the quote.
Edited by mnbv_fockewulfe, 10 June 2018 - 03:02 AM.
Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.
Major
CorvusCorvax, on 09 June 2018 - 09:56 PM, said:
Ah, I see. A tautology.
Now it all makes sense.
Major
mnbv_fockewulfe, on 10 June 2018 - 02:58 AM, said:
Glad you finally agree with me that it makes sense!
edit: Also glad you don't have anything wrong with the other three quarters of my post since you bothered to remove it from the quote.
It seems like you didn't understand what my comment meant. The rest of your comment was worthless, so I didn't comment on it. Sorry I didn't make that clear before.
Major
damn... damn... damn... only page six
this is moving too slowly
we need some old pros in here...
damn damn damn
Captain
Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo, on 10 June 2018 - 03:05 AM, said:
damn... damn... damn... only page six
this is moving too slowly
we need some old pros in here...
damn damn damn
It's too late for you to have had as many drinks as you've had.
CorvusCorvax, on 10 June 2018 - 03:05 AM, said:
It seems like you didn't understand what my comment meant. The rest of your comment was worthless, so I didn't comment on it. Sorry I didn't make that clear before.
Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo, on 10 June 2018 - 02:58 AM, said:
Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.
Senior Master Sergeant
Guys....this is the PROPOSED SOLUTIONS page and thread. Please contribute with that GOAL in mind.
Whereas Corvus is correct in the static model he is referencing.....that is not what I am talking about here. If there are too few in 2.0 AND too few in 1.x.....then COMBINED and in a format that is MOVING FORWARD there might be enough to establish a viable base amount that CAN BE BUILT UPON.
The idea here is not to be a submissive puppy that rolls over and wants it's tummy scratched.
I am trying to get everyone on the same page to put forth a proposal that simply has not been even tried before. There have been many complaints but very few others that have tried to come up with a solution that at least has the possibility of working for all involved. If anyone is shooting down my proposal please do not base your standings on 1.9 or 2.0 not being viable on their own. That seems plainly obvious. Please bear in mind what I am trying to go for here. An entry level 2.0 to attract NEW players and give them time to get well up to speed before advancing. 1.9 to bring back the OP's and give new players another level to ADVANCE to should they so choose. Either way......Having BOTH combined is far better than the individual numbers for either version on their own. Let's move forward with that.
Corvus, I understand the numbers. But we are not dealing with a closed system here. Neither version on its own appears to be able to stand alone. Combined they can be expanded and the 1.9 mode can be made a premium or additional pay level only as far as a revenue stream goes. If necessary.
If marketed and promoted properly it may not have to be even that extensive.
And, quite frankly, for all of the displayed math......10 or fewer contributors could not in any way EVEN REMOTELY ACCOUNT FOR OVER ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED PLUS VIEWS AND COUNTING.
I would submit that there is IN FACT far more of an interest in this subject than again basing numbers on a particular closed set of data that excludes additional supporting information.
Major
soshootmenow, on 10 June 2018 - 05:02 AM, said:
And, quite frankly, for all of the displayed math......10 or fewer contributors could not in any way EVEN REMOTELY ACCOUNT FOR OVER ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED PLUS VIEWS AND COUNTING.
I have viewed this thread 25 times myself. Every time you come and look at it, it's counted as a view.
Yes, people have viewed the thread, but possibly not in interest of the subject, but just enjoying watching the discussion itself. The problem with the "Bring back 1.x!" -> "Why?" -> "Because it's 1.x!" tautology is that it ignores the reality that if WG was concerned about server populations, they would have done something about it already. The few people who agitate for the return of 1.x, who vow not to play 2.x, are mostly likely looking at disappointment. I say that because WG, at every opportunity to add 1.x functionality, has chosen not to.
Now, some folks want to attribute this to stubbornness, or ego, or some other thing that just has no basis in factual reality, but the end result is pretty clear. Now, if WG wanted to prove to themselves that somehow a 1.x-style gameplay would be worthwhile, or not, they could hold an event to simulate 1.x gameplay. And just see exactly how many people it attracts. I like the Attrition event - it's been fun. If WG holds a DM game with no respawns, that will be fun, too. I don't argue against your desire to have a 1.x mode, I just argue that the evidence does not suggest at any point that WG is interested in offering as an alternative. No, there are not 6500 people interested in the 1.x game mode. From the folks who have posted on the subject, I would suggest that the number is closer to 250. Folks who actually took the time to post about about it, times five. You know, just for the benefit of the doubt.
Of course, you can always make a suggestion to the developers, since they don't regularly read the forums, just to see what they say.
Senior Master Sergeant
CorvusCorvax, on 10 June 2018 - 05:39 AM, said:
I have viewed this thread 25 times myself. Every time you come and look at it, it's counted as a view.
Yes, people have viewed the thread, but possibly not in interest of the subject, but just enjoying watching the discussion itself. The problem with the "Bring back 1.x!" -> "Why?" -> "Because it's 1.x!" tautology is that it ignores the reality that if WG was concerned about server populations, they would have done something about it already. The few people who agitate for the return of 1.x, who vow not to play 2.x, are mostly likely looking at disappointment. I say that because WG, at every opportunity to add 1.x functionality, has chosen not to.
Now, some folks want to attribute this to stubbornness, or ego, or some other thing that just has no basis in factual reality, but the end result is pretty clear. Now, if WG wanted to prove to themselves that somehow a 1.x-style gameplay would be worthwhile, or not, they could hold an event to simulate 1.x gameplay. And just see exactly how many people it attracts. I like the Attrition event - it's been fun. If WG holds a DM game with no respawns, that will be fun, too. I don't argue against your desire to have a 1.x mode, I just argue that the evidence does not suggest at any point that WG is interested in offering as an alternative. No, there are not 6500 people interested in the 1.x game mode. From the folks who have posted on the subject, I would suggest that the number is closer to 250. Folks who actually took the time to post about about it, times five. You know, just for the benefit of the doubt.
Of course, you can always make a suggestion to the developers, since they don't regularly read the forums, just to see what they say.
Correction....now 1,790 views. I don't check this all that often. And with the less than 10 contributors you cited that would mean that those individuals would have to have done over 198 views EACH if there were only 9 people paying attention to this.
Making an additional mode to bring back additional players and retain the new one's while building a player base that might actually be enough is worth a shot.
Why is most of what you are saying here sounds like something that should just simply be replied to with a Yodaism.......'Always with you it cannot be done....'
But you offer up no better alternative that could be relatively simply, cheaply, timely, and effectively deployed.
What is it you are trying to say??? ...... You have gone far beyond 'devils advocate' here.
'Nothing is good enough and the game will always suck and so do the developers and players so don't try anything else and just sit and wait for its' inevitable doom???'
w.t.f dude???
Like I said before, I have not seen anyone else offer up a workable solution on this or any other thread that takes into consideration ALL parties involved and approaches it both from an 'either camp' players standpoint and a business standpoint as well.
And not to put too fine a point on it.....but that includes.....YOU.
How about working WITH people who are trying something. Maybe YOU have a way to get the developers and WG management to notice and consider this idea. Or maybe YOU can come up with a way. Or maybe someone else might.
Just a thought and attitude change you might want to consider.
Edited by soshootmenow, 10 June 2018 - 06:15 AM.
Captain
CorvusCorvax, on 10 June 2018 - 05:39 AM, said:
I have viewed this thread 25 times myself. Every time you come and look at it, it's counted as a view.
I shouldn't have refreshed my browser as many times as I did.
Yes, people have viewed the thread, but possibly not in interest of the subject, but just enjoying watching the discussion itself.
At least in 1.9 we had the same 50 people posting in each thread instead of just reading.
The problem with the "Bring back 1.x!" -> "Why?" -> "Because it's 1.x!" tautology is that it ignores the reality that if WG was concerned about server populations, they would have done something about it already.
Nice straw man. Bring back a deathmatch mode, 1.9 flight model and shooting, because it appealed to a larger and more committed playerbase than 2.0. WG is concerned with the player numbers. And they have done something about it. They hide the online counter. Also read my Postmortem for an insight into the possible motivations for the continued perseverance of 2.0.
The few people who agitate for the return of 1.x, who vow not to play 2.x, are mostly likely looking at disappointment. I say that because WG, at every opportunity to add 1.x functionality, has chosen not to.
We are admittedly the minority. Most of the old playerbase doesn't play because the game isn't fun for them anymore plus too much change to get used to. Most weren't interested in learning to play a new game.
Now, some folks want to attribute this to stubbornness, or ego, or some other thing that just has no basis in factual reality, but the end result is pretty clear.
You must not have been playing the game for the last four years. Every change made to the game that led it to the point we're at now was driven by stubbornness and ego. Hand waving reality doesn't work here.
Now, if WG wanted to prove to themselves that somehow a 1.x-style gameplay would be worthwhile, or not, they could hold an event to simulate 1.x gameplay.
They could've. I suggested this very thing during the open test. Keep the game mode rules but use the then current 1.9 flight model, controls, and gun mechanics. Why didn't this happen? Because persha was already "stubbornly" set on releasing 2.0 as it was and were just looking for bugs. I hold to the fact that virtually no suggestions from any server were implemented in the week after the open test when 2.0 was released.
And just see exactly how many people it attracts. I like the Attrition event - it's been fun.
Strangely enough, from my friends which I chat with that do play the game, the Attrition event and the last few events have actually caused people to stop playing.
If WG holds a DM game with no respawns, that will be fun, too. I don't argue against your desire to have a 1.x mode, I just argue that the evidence does not suggest at any point that WG is interested in offering as an alternative.
Here we agree.
No, there are not 6500 people interested in the 1.x game mode.
No there aren't. 6500 is the number of people who played in a day. Double that number to account for the people that don't play every day, but play ever other day or at least once a week (I fall under the latter category).
From the folks who have posted on the subject, I would suggest that the number is closer to 250.
Nice made up number.
Folks who actually took the time to post about about it, times five.
You know, just for the benefit of the doubt.
If you're going to make up a multiplication factor at least give a real reason why
Of course, you can always make a suggestion to the developers, since they don't regularly read the forums, just to see what they say.
Edited by mnbv_fockewulfe, 10 June 2018 - 06:41 PM.
Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.
Captain
On a side note.
Consider your scenario of diluting both modes.
You have to consider the returning 1.9 players in percentages of the current 2.0 population.
So 70% of 1.9 players come back translates to 190% of 2.0's population playing 1.9.
So if we dilute both game modes like you said, where you end up with 85% playing 1.9 and 85% playing 2.0:
the actual result is 95%:95%.
You were off by 10%.
p.s. If you get 100% of players to return for 1.9, you actually end up with surplus people playing both modes.
edit: damn it, I mathed wrong. If you split a total population of 290% playing both modes you get 145% playing each mode.
The prior math assumed only splitting the returning 1.9 population of 190%.
I'm leaving my mistake intact for character reasons.
Edited by mnbv_fockewulfe, 10 June 2018 - 06:36 PM.
Be sure to check your logic privileges before posting on the forum.
Senior Master Sergeant
I have been doing some general research to try to get some player numbers. There is some information available in the thread below from a few months ago. Check out the embedded links for the EU and further information on the RU server player populations. It is drawn from anecdotal information but certain trends might be drawn from what is available. The chart on the RU is based on flights by type of aircraft. I am working on getting the page to load to see if I can translate it.
I have been unable to find all that much information so far for the NA server that I would consider passingly reliable and/or relevant short of what focke has found.
I also did some light checking on operating cost estimates for running a MMO but the variation in the numbers is simply vast and does not include certain relevant factors like costs as per different regions, or types of configurations just to name a couple so not much help there.
Still, it appears that there is no substitute for having a larger player base. Simply put, bigger is generally better.
I still see this as nothing but a help should WG bring on 1.9 as an additional mode with the general structure and policies I and others have outlined here.
Please take a look at the link (and the embedded links in the thread) and see what can be gleaned and what additional things might help to bring this idea to working fruition.
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users
