Regardless of the exact math this calculates to, it is far less than most of the rabid defenders were claiming it to be. Essentially, Full is not quite that full.
Even if it means what the OP thinks it does, I don't see the difference. There isn't a set number for FULL. If 50 connected players or 50 + alts equals fulls its the same thing.
Sort of.
Let's say Full = 50 characters. That could mean a Full server could have 10 players with 5 toons each (only 10 actually logged in at the time) or even 5 players whom happen to have 10 toons each. It simply does not mean that Full = 50 people playing concurrently.
Originally posted by grimal Regardless of the exact math this calculates to, it is far less than most of the rabid defenders were claiming it to be. Essentially, Full is not quite that full.
And this genius insight is based on?????
I don't really see how anyone on either side of this argument can say definitively anything about what it means that a server is full. Until we get more info from Anet on what it means, it's a pretty silly argument IMO.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Originally posted by grimal Regardless of the exact math this calculates to, it is far less than most of the rabid defenders were claiming it to be. Essentially, Full is not quite that full.
And this genius insight is based on?????
I don't really see how anyone on either side of this argument can say definitively anything about what it means that a server is full. Until we get more info from Anet on what it means, it's a pretty silly argument IMO.
No we can't say, but see my earlier post (right above yours).
Edit: Just because you are playing on a "Full" server at the moment does not necessarily mean a lot of people are on. There actually could be less people on than that of say a "Medium" server. Full could mean 50 characters (10 people, 5 toons each) , whereas the medium could be 25 characters (25 people, 1 toon each).
I got two things from the op: 1. Population is counted by concurrent players on that server. 2. Population is counted by registered players including alts on the server.
No we can't say, but see my earlier post (right above yours).
Edit: Just because you are playing on a "Full" server at the moment does not necessarily mean a lot of people are on. There actually could be less people on than that of say a "Medium" server. Full could mean 50 characters (10 people, 5 toons each) , whereas the medium could be 25 characters (25 people, 1 toon each).
Grimal, you are mistaken. If CC Eva's post is understood as grammar tells us it should, at no point does she say the alts are counted as individual "players". The subject of her sentence, the player, never changes; it remains singular the entire time.
If you look at the actual forum post, not just the OP, you can see that the reason Eva mentions all of the characters in an account is because it was asked whether a player is counted in the server they are playing on or on the one where the account/characters were made.
I think the OP has misinterpated this . I can't see anywhere where it states as all alts will be counted as to the server population. Hes just reading something into it that just isn't there .
Originally posted by IPolygon I got two things from the op: 1. Population is counted by concurrent players on that server. 2. Population is counted by registered players including alts on the server. I think the right one is number 2.
The answer is 1 and it is easy to see why if one adheres to grammar and reading comprehension.
Eva didn't say: "For example, if a player creates an account in Vizunah Square and then moves to Baruch Bay, then all the characters of this player will go to Baruch Bay and will be counted among the total amount of players of Baruch."
What Eva did say: ""For example, if a player creates an account in Vizunah Square and then moves to Baruch Bay, then all the characters of this player will go to Baruch Bay and he will be counted among the total amount of players of Baruch."
That tiny little word makes a huge difference as to what the subject of the sentence is. In this it is the player and NOT the individual characters. This is consistent with her previous statement that only concurrent playing individuals are included in the server pop status.
No we can't say, but see my earlier post (right above yours).
Edit: Just because you are playing on a "Full" server at the moment does not necessarily mean a lot of people are on. There actually could be less people on than that of say a "Medium" server. Full could mean 50 characters (10 people, 5 toons each) , whereas the medium could be 25 characters (25 people, 1 toon each).
Grimal, you are mistaken. If CC Eva's post is understood as grammar tells us it should, at no point does she say the alts are counted as individual "players". The subject of her sentence, the player, never changes; it remains singular the entire time.
If you look at the actual forum post, not just the OP, you can see that the reason Eva mentions all of the characters in an account is because it was asked whether a player is counted in the server they are playing on or on the one where the account/characters were made.
If Eva just meant the player, you are correct. I was reading it as "he" being all the characters created. Let's see if Eva clarifies this...it is a bit confusing.
If Eva just meant the player, you are correct. I was reading it as "he" being all the characters created. Let's see if Eva clarifies this...it is a bit confusing.
I don't see how it's confusing, tbh. The message is pretty clear if you look at it objectively.
Originally posted by Pivotelite
And all three times there were people saying "No, it's healthy, population is rising, look more servers full now den a munth ago hurr durr!!!!".
It's called changing population distributions...
The lower level zones may not have as many players as launch (no duh!) but that means squat for the overall population if people are simply gathered in higher level zones.
If GW2's concurrency numbers were falling as quickly as some claim we wouldn't be seeing new servers being opened.
Even if it means what the OP thinks it does, I don't see the difference. There isn't a set number for FULL. If 50 connected players or 50 + alts equals fulls its the same thing.
Sort of.
Let's say Full = 50 characters. That could mean a Full server could have 10 players with 5 toons each (only 10 actually logged in at the time) or even 5 players whom happen to have 10 toons each. It simply does not mean that Full = 50 people playing concurrently.
Let's say? That's pointless. Let's say Full = 250. Let's say its 5000 or 5 million.
We don't know what number FULL represents. However if Anet is including alts and was doing so when they figured what the threshold for FULL would be. Then FULL is still full.
Here is the thing. Lets go over this again. Its not a sub game. Anet doesn't need to show its investors full servers. While I'm sure it helps box sales to have lots of people playing. I just don't see the same profit motive that a sub game would have to lie about server numbers.
Can you even read the post? What is wrong with you people that hate the game. It's pretty clear what the post is saying. If you moved worlds, you are counted on the server that you moved to.
Again, so you can read it again:
Hello everyone.
Connor, when you see a server FULL means that it is full from people actually playing there at the moment, independently of where did they create their accounts. For example, if a player creates an account in Vizunah Square and then moves to Baruch Bay, then all the characters of this player will go to Baruch Bay and he will be counted among the total amount of players of Baruch.
Answering to your second question: no, there is no chart that shows that kind of information at the moment, I am afraid.
Why is it so hard to get active player numbers from devs in general?
Because every MMO released in the last few years has flopped and they are always trying to cover it up.
Witnessed with SWTOR, TERA and now GW2.
And all three times there were people saying "No, it's healthy, population is rising, look more servers full now den a munth ago hurr durr!!!!".
And yet GW2 is a success. Your opinion or maybe I should say hope? is that it is a failure. Anet says its doing well. They are lying. Server numbers say FULL. The devs are playing with the numbers. It other words no amount of evidence with change your opionion. What's the color of the sky in your world?
And all three times there were people saying "No, it's healthy, population is rising, look more servers full now den a munth ago hurr durr!!!!".
It's called changing population distributions...
The lower level zones may not have as many players as launch (no duh!) but that means squat for the overall population if people are simply gathered in higher level zones.
If GW2's concurrency numbers were falling as quickly as some claim we wouldn't be seeing new servers being opened.
Would I be seeing less people outside instance locations, in Lions arch, in Spvp, lowlevel zones and WvW as well?
They must all be clumped on one another in a secret spot for GW2 elite players.
Okay, so this is settled. When server is full it means many people are online at that moment on that server. This image was taken one minuta ago:
At this very moment 21 servers are full, around 30 high and 5 servers on medium. There is no low populated server.
or could simply mean that Arenanet doesnt want any more people xfering to those servers.
No. Once again it means actual players playing on those servers. As was mentioned above what low, medium, high, and full actually mean are subjective to the game and application settings.
Originally posted by Torvaldr
Originally posted by livespartan
CC Eva
Community Coordinator
Hello everyone. Connor, when you see a server FULL means that it is full from people actually playing there at the moment, independently of where did they create their accounts. For example, if a player creates an account in Vizunah Square and then moves to Baruch Bay, then all the characters of this player will go to Baruch Bay and he will be counted among the total amount of players of Baruch.
No. Once again, read it carefully. The player is counted (singular) where they are actually playinig at the moment (whatever server they are on) regardless of where they created their characters. All the characters on the account are counted towards the server they are on now, NOT where they were created.
It is saying the exact opposite of what you're saying and is to explain that all the characters on the account DON'T count towards concurrent population.
However, as has been pointed out, "Full" is subjective. The number of concurrent players on a server that will flag the status as "High" are all different between GW2, RIFT, WoW, EQ2, LotRO, AoC, etc., for every single game out there.
right. so like i said. it could simply mean Anet doesnt want people to xfer to those servers. (because it's possible that FULL doesnt really mean full)
Originally posted by Psychow How can most fo the servers be "FULL" when a large portion of players no longer play?
I have no clue to be honest.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
Originally posted by sammyeli You are playing a very dangerous game my friend and its called common sense. you might want to run NOW!~!!! O_O
Not everyone knew that all your alts are counted in player population. I have 5 alts, i can only imagine how many others have that many and more. That is why a lot of people wonder where all the players are even though server is FULL.
Not that common sense bro.
I actually still think you have it wrong.
Originally posted by livespartan
CC Eva
Community Coordinator
Hello everyone. Connor, when you see a server FULL means that it is full from people actually playing there at the moment, independently of where did they create their accounts. For example, if a player creates an account in Vizunah Square and then moves to Baruch Bay, then all the characters of this player will go to Baruch Bay and he will be counted among the total amount of players of Baruch.
It sounds like he was just making a point of the fact that when you transfer, unlike some MMOs, your whole account moves to the new server. This was an independent point from server population. The actual part of the sentence that refers to server population uses the singular pronoun "he," referring to the number of players on the server, not characters.
As such, I'd be inclined to agree with you; it's not exactly common sense when you have to analyze the statement using a somewhat decent knowledge of the language.
Let's assume that the number of concurrent players to determine whether a server is "full" or not is actually the number of characters that the aforementioned players have created (despite that making no sense at all, since it is impossible to play more than 1 character at a time).
What difference does it even make?
In that case the number of actual concurrent players would be 1/X (X being the average number of characters per player) of the number used to determine when the server list says "full" next to the name of a particular server. Great!
We have no idea what that number even is. We don't know if it maybe changed since the game launched or if the servers themselves are in the same state as they were then (additional resources, optimizations, etc. to allow for larger population per server, or decreased capacity due to "lots of people not even playing anymore" if you so desire)
All we have is the observation that at launch the server list said "mostly full, some with high population", it still does and now we get a somewhat badly worded explanation of how switching servers affects said numbers, which can apparently be misread if you try hard enough to get a discussion going about how Anet is faking population numbers to hide the fact the Guild Wars 2 is actually dying or something.
Originally posted by Ryowulf Originally posted by PivoteliteOriginally posted by FoomerangWhy is it so hard to get active player numbers from devs in general?
Because every MMO released in the last few years has flopped and they are always trying to cover it up.Witnessed with SWTOR, TERA and now GW2.And all three times there were people saying "No, it's healthy, population is rising, look more servers full now den a munth ago hurr durr!!!!".And yet GW2 is a success. Your opinion or maybe I should say hope? is that it is a failure. Anet says its doing well. They are lying. Server numbers say FULL. The devs are playing with the numbers. It other words no amount of evidence with change your opionion. What's the color of the sky in your world? And no amount of evidence will change your opinion. Whats the color of the sky in your world?
Also, how is a GW2 a "success"? Because it sold 2 million copies? So did SW:TOR.
Your opinion, or maybe I should say hope, is that it is a success.
Comments
Sort of.
Let's say Full = 50 characters. That could mean a Full server could have 10 players with 5 toons each (only 10 actually logged in at the time) or even 5 players whom happen to have 10 toons each. It simply does not mean that Full = 50 people playing concurrently.
And this genius insight is based on?????
I don't really see how anyone on either side of this argument can say definitively anything about what it means that a server is full. Until we get more info from Anet on what it means, it's a pretty silly argument IMO.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
No we can't say, but see my earlier post (right above yours).
Edit: Just because you are playing on a "Full" server at the moment does not necessarily mean a lot of people are on. There actually could be less people on than that of say a "Medium" server. Full could mean 50 characters (10 people, 5 toons each) , whereas the medium could be 25 characters (25 people, 1 toon each).
let's just wait and see if ANet responds soonish
https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/game/gw2/Server-Population-pt-2/first#post705281
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
-------------------------------
1. Population is counted by concurrent players on that server.
2. Population is counted by registered players including alts on the server.
I think the right one is number 2.
Grimal, you are mistaken. If CC Eva's post is understood as grammar tells us it should, at no point does she say the alts are counted as individual "players". The subject of her sentence, the player, never changes; it remains singular the entire time.
If you look at the actual forum post, not just the OP, you can see that the reason Eva mentions all of the characters in an account is because it was asked whether a player is counted in the server they are playing on or on the one where the account/characters were made.
I think the OP has misinterpated this . I can't see anywhere where it states as all alts will be counted as to the server population. Hes just reading something into it that just isn't there .
Maybe a future in politics or journelism ?
The answer is 1 and it is easy to see why if one adheres to grammar and reading comprehension.
Eva didn't say: "For example, if a player creates an account in Vizunah Square and then moves to Baruch Bay, then all the characters of this player will go to Baruch Bay and will be counted among the total amount of players of Baruch."
What Eva did say: ""For example, if a player creates an account in Vizunah Square and then moves to Baruch Bay, then all the characters of this player will go to Baruch Bay and he will be counted among the total amount of players of Baruch."
That tiny little word makes a huge difference as to what the subject of the sentence is. In this it is the player and NOT the individual characters. This is consistent with her previous statement that only concurrent playing individuals are included in the server pop status.
If Eva just meant the player, you are correct. I was reading it as "he" being all the characters created. Let's see if Eva clarifies this...it is a bit confusing.
Why is it so hard to get active player numbers from devs in general?
Because every MMO released in the last few years has flopped and they are always trying to cover it up.
Witnessed with SWTOR, TERA and now GW2.
And all three times there were people saying "No, it's healthy, population is rising, look more servers full now den a munth ago hurr durr!!!!".
I don't see how it's confusing, tbh. The message is pretty clear if you look at it objectively.
It's called changing population distributions...
The lower level zones may not have as many players as launch (no duh!) but that means squat for the overall population if people are simply gathered in higher level zones.
If GW2's concurrency numbers were falling as quickly as some claim we wouldn't be seeing new servers being opened.
We don't know what number FULL represents. However if Anet is including alts and was doing so when they figured what the threshold for FULL would be. Then FULL is still full.
Here is the thing. Lets go over this again. Its not a sub game. Anet doesn't need to show its investors full servers. While I'm sure it helps box sales to have lots of people playing. I just don't see the same profit motive that a sub game would have to lie about server numbers.
Can you even read the post? What is wrong with you people that hate the game. It's pretty clear what the post is saying. If you moved worlds, you are counted on the server that you moved to.
Again, so you can read it again:
Hello everyone.
Connor, when you see a server FULL means that it is full from people actually playing there at the moment, independently of where did they create their accounts. For example, if a player creates an account in Vizunah Square and then moves to Baruch Bay, then all the characters of this player will go to Baruch Bay and he will be counted among the total amount of players of Baruch.
Answering to your second question: no, there is no chart that shows that kind of information at the moment, I am afraid.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
And yet GW2 is a success. Your opinion or maybe I should say hope? is that it is a failure. Anet says its doing well. They are lying. Server numbers say FULL. The devs are playing with the numbers. It other words no amount of evidence with change your opionion. What's the color of the sky in your world?
Would I be seeing less people outside instance locations, in Lions arch, in Spvp, lowlevel zones and WvW as well?
They must all be clumped on one another in a secret spot for GW2 elite players.
right. so like i said. it could simply mean Anet doesnt want people to xfer to those servers. (because it's possible that FULL doesnt really mean full)
I have no clue to be honest.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
Me neither.
People here are funny... Debating something that IMO, is pretty clear.
And how you know that? Got any number to back up what you said? Exactly...
I actually still think you have it wrong.
It sounds like he was just making a point of the fact that when you transfer, unlike some MMOs, your whole account moves to the new server. This was an independent point from server population. The actual part of the sentence that refers to server population uses the singular pronoun "he," referring to the number of players on the server, not characters.
As such, I'd be inclined to agree with you; it's not exactly common sense when you have to analyze the statement using a somewhat decent knowledge of the language.
Let's assume that the number of concurrent players to determine whether a server is "full" or not is actually the number of characters that the aforementioned players have created (despite that making no sense at all, since it is impossible to play more than 1 character at a time).
What difference does it even make?
In that case the number of actual concurrent players would be 1/X (X being the average number of characters per player) of the number used to determine when the server list says "full" next to the name of a particular server. Great!
We have no idea what that number even is. We don't know if it maybe changed since the game launched or if the servers themselves are in the same state as they were then (additional resources, optimizations, etc. to allow for larger population per server, or decreased capacity due to "lots of people not even playing anymore" if you so desire)
All we have is the observation that at launch the server list said "mostly full, some with high population", it still does and now we get a somewhat badly worded explanation of how switching servers affects said numbers, which can apparently be misread if you try hard enough to get a discussion going about how Anet is faking population numbers to hide the fact the Guild Wars 2 is actually dying or something.
Then again, this is the internet.
And yet GW2 is a success. Your opinion or maybe I should say hope? is that it is a failure. Anet says its doing well. They are lying. Server numbers say FULL. The devs are playing with the numbers. It other words no amount of evidence with change your opionion. What's the color of the sky in your world?
And no amount of evidence will change your opinion. Whats the color of the sky in your world?
Also, how is a GW2 a "success"? Because it sold 2 million copies? So did SW:TOR.
Your opinion, or maybe I should say hope, is that it is a success.