Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

got this gem off the $oe Forum ROFL a must see

2

Comments

  • TeknoBugTeknoBug Calgary, ABPosts: 2,156Member

    Grouping was the best part of the game pre-CU, on Lowca 20 man group taking down 60+ Krayts in 2 hours to help the guild's Jedi get better damage out of their lightsabers, or get badges and crafting loot from the Geo cave and DWB or just straight up pvp on enemy player cities and faction bases.


    I remember one night (about midnight PST) a town's base went vulnerable and we planned to raid it and take it down, supposedly most of the players of that town were on the east coast and it was 3am EST, we expected almost everyone to be in bed but the moment we attacked the base, 50+ members of that town showed up and put up a really long fight and In the end we couldn't take the base down.


    Those were the days.

    image
    image

  • TeknoBugTeknoBug Calgary, ABPosts: 2,156Member


    Originally posted by Beatnik59
    The funny thing about everyone who said they hated to have to go somewhere to heal wounds, heal BF, or get gear is that in Pre-CU, nobody had to do any of it.
    The skill system allowed people to get entertainer skills to heal their BF, get medical skills to heal their wounds, and get crafting skills to make stuff. In fact, I feel safe in saying that nobody in Pre-CU went without their BF healed, their wounds tended to, or their gear needs met.
    The original Pre-CU (without all the stacking controversy) produced generalist characters that could perform most tasks, and could perform maybe one or two tasks better than the norm. Not only that, but you had vendors and the bazaar to purcase things from, the effect of BF wasn't all that bad even in large amounts, and nearly everyone had medic skills and medicine that they could use in camp.
    BF was better than what res sickness is now, you could keep going with BF up until you reach 1000, the amount of BF you gained was slow and scaled on how much wound you had and how hard you were being hit (Enraged Rancor anyone?). But when you hit past 100 BF, the chances of missing your target increased and your chance of dodge/counterattack/block/parry and healing strength dropped a little. I've hunted on Dath without healing BF until I reached 1000 which was cap, it didn't affect the character as badly as res sickness does now.

    image
    image

  • kobie173kobie173 Rochester, NYPosts: 2,075Member
    Originally posted by salvaje


    The majority has spoken alright.  9 out of 10 (at least) quit over the NGE and weren't replaced.
    I'd say that the NGE fanbois are definitely a vocal minority compared to us.
     



    SWG lost 90 percent-plus of its subscriptions? Prove it, or stop pulling phony numbers directly out of your ass.

    So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.

  • saaysaay londonPosts: 455Member
    Originally posted by iwantmyswg


    that post just go's to show how clueless the nge fanbois and fanbots are. the only way for swg to get me and 250k of my friends back is with a rollback.



    Im sure most of that 250k wouldnt like to be lumped in with you, as your "friends". Most have them have got over it, a considerable amount have returned, others insult the game, but constructively and then theres the few that are like you who make up numbers and claim they've won every 6 months.

  • WarmakerWarmaker San Diego, CAPosts: 2,231Member

    Originally posted by Beatnik59


    The funny thing about everyone who said they hated to have to go somewhere to heal wounds, heal BF, or get gear is that in Pre-CU, nobody had to do any of it.
    The skill system allowed people to get entertainer skills to heal their BF, get medical skills to heal their wounds, and get crafting skills to make stuff.  In fact, I feel safe in saying that nobody in Pre-CU went without their BF healed, their wounds tended to, or their gear needs met.
    The original Pre-CU (without all the stacking controversy) produced generalist characters that could perform most tasks, and could perform maybe one or two tasks better than the norm.  Not only that, but you had vendors and the bazaar to purcase things from, the effect of BF wasn't all that bad even in large amounts, and nearly everyone had medic skills and medicine that they could use in camp.
    I highlighted the part I really agree on.

    The Skillpoint / Template system let you play the way you wanted to play provided you stay within the system's parameters.

    As you said, you could be a Jack of All Trades.  Combat, Healing, Scout.  Or you could be a Specialist.  All Combat, Mainly Healing, etc.

    Most of my old SWG 'toons were Combat oriented, sometimes with a bit of Medic or Scout.  In the CU, I had a bad*ss healer who was Master Doctor and Master Combat Medic with a tiny bit of the pistol line of skills.  When playing in groups, my teammates absolutely loved her healing ability, DOTs.  Her Medical Efficiency was so high that she healed alot in a single go (just had to be wary about healing aggro, which was bad in the CU).  Hybrid templates.  I've seen tons of them from other players.  Entertainer + TKM.  Master Weaponsmith + Rifleman.  It was all up to us, and the system allowed you to be a specialist or a generalist.

    But the NGE took diversity and shot it 3 times in the head.

    "I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)

  • LinnaLinna NijmegenPosts: 387Member

    Originally posted by kobie173

    Originally posted by salvaje


    The majority has spoken alright.  9 out of 10 (at least) quit over the NGE and weren't replaced.
    I'd say that the NGE fanbois are definitely a vocal minority compared to us.
     



    SWG lost 90 percent-plus of its subscriptions? Prove it, or stop pulling phony numbers directly out of your ass.

    We already did, multiple times. It's simple enough: search official press releases from LA and SOE from 2003-present. Some of them actually state numbers. Look up my post history for the links, I'm tired of repeating it in depth. Basically, the game peaked at around 350K shortly after launch, then stabilised at around 240-250K pre-cu. At and shortly after the CU, a large number of those people quit (60% of my guild), mostly never to come back. At the NGE, 90%+ of the remaining people left. a very few came back, most did not.

    The hardest numbers we have for post-NGE are from people logging in at peak on as many servers as possible (populated first), who do a player search on every planet/hotspot and add up the numbers. The number of subs (we'll include station access and trials here) is usually no more than 5x the number of consecutive logins at any one server. This gives a fairly low number of people still playing/paying, even with the most optimistic multiplier. You can do the math yourself. I think our latest figure had it at less than 40K. Which makes for a population drop of some 85%, which happened almost in its entirely in the CU/NGE implementation period.

    Linna

  • iwantmyswgiwantmyswg Chandler, NVPosts: 301Member

    i have said it many times swg has under 10k players right now. want proof? someone posted the numbers of all the servers. how many players it takes to get to full is 3000.

    17 of those servers are light or very light.

    i haven't seen 1 of the other servers get to heavy.

    when will you fanbois and fanbots get it. swg without the pre-cu system is a dead game. no one likes it and no one wants to play it. it sucks and $OE can do everything they want to the nge system to make it more like pre-cu we still won't come back.

    as for all you fanbots talking about chapter 6 on the forums the game is still too easy to play. no one likes space and we want our game back.

    when pre-cu comes back then you fanbois and fanbots will understand cuz 250k of my friends will be back in no time. and many others will come to see how great pre-cu swg is.

    and if $OE doesn't put pre-cu back in then the game shuts down. we still win as $OE will shut down after. none of their games are doing good thanks to how they lied to us with the nge.

    i hope they hand swg back to raph koster as he will make the game fun again.

  • SWG is a dead game at this point, with or without the Pre-CU system.  Their current path is definitely leading to imminent shutdown, the NGE simply isn't retaining what it has or drawing new victims, uh, players in.

    Pre-CU would definitely bump it back up some and forestall the shutdown, but it isn't viable because the Devs would take months to figure out how to code for it, or convert content for it, mainly due to inexperience and lack of, well, ability.  I don't see SOE forking over the cash to actually put competent, experienced Devs on it.  Hell, at this point, given their tarnished reputation, can SOE even HIRE experienced, competent Devs anymore, or is their ONLY option entry-level college grads?

    The time to do classic really came and went over a year ago.

    Honestly, there IS no way out for SOE on this one.  The best thing they could do is classic servers, not because they will save the game, but because they will help restore their reputation.  And they won't cost them much.  SOE's problem is that the NGE effect has cascaded out to affect all their other games, and the prospects for their future games.  Basically their rep is that of the industry's premiere unethical, uncaring assholes.  They need to fix that or else SOE's shutdown isn't long after SWG's...

     

  • AntariousAntarious Greenville, SCPosts: 2,802Member

    Originally posted by kobie173




    SWG lost 90 percent-plus of its subscriptions? Prove it, or stop pulling phony numbers directly out of your ass.
    I personally really don't care because it doesn't affect me .. other than I lost a game.

    However, I don't think anyone could say for certain...

    No one outside of SOE actually has the numbers.

    When someone at SOE makes a statement they don't have anything to back it up.  They just say something along the lines of "subscriptions are no where near that low".

    Yet they never offer a number... etc..  So how could anyone say one way or the other with 100% certainty?

    These best trail I've found is this:

    "Veteran designer, Raph Koster, helmed the development and initial launch of the game. Many industry professionals expected that the subscription numbers would exceed the one million mark, a feat accomplished only thus far in Asia by MMORPGs such as Lineage and more recently by World of Warcraft.[53] Based on NPD figures as of February 2004, SWG sold more than 300,000 boxed copies at retail for a total initial revenue of over $18 million. Sony Online Entertainment confirmed in March 2004 that there were well over 200,000 monthly subscribers making it the 2nd largest MMORPG in North America.[54] The company later reported in 2004 that they had 250,000 subscribers.[55] In August 2005, Sony Online Entertainment reported that they had now sold 1,000,000 boxed copies of the game.[56] Media sources reported that the subscriber numbers have fallen substantially since the release of the CU and the NGE.[57][58] In early 2006 after the NGE, allegedly "hacked" numbers purported to show that only 10,363 subscribers were playing on a particular Friday night. The President of Sony Online Entertainment, John Smedley, denied that subscriptions had fallen this low: "Have the numbers in Star Wars Galaxies gone down? I will tell you that the concurrent numbers have gone down. Are they as low as what was shown there? Absolutely not."[59]

    As of the second quarter of 2006, according to charts at MMOGchart.com, there were estimated to be between 110,000 and 175,000 subscribers. A more recent update from MMOGdata.com which uses the previous data from MMOGchart.com, estimates that the game has about 49,000 subscribers as of April 2007.[60] However, both MMOGchart.com and MMOGdata.com rated the subscriber number estimates at a "C" confidence level which mean they are "merely industry 'best guesses' or are otherwise questionable" due to SOE not releasing SWG subscriber numbers.[61][60] Posting on the official forums, Lorin Jameson (SOE Producer, Star Wars Galaxies, forum name "DeadMeat") has refuted the latest figure: "I think I am safe in saying the 50K number is vastly wrong."[62]

    In October 2007, Primotechnology.com reported that; "It’s estimated that the game now has fewer than 100,000 subscribers and less than 20,000 active players.[63]"

    ***

    That's pulled out of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Galaxies

    ***

    You also have to remember that anyone who is on the station access plan is counted as a subscriber to every game on that plan.

    So "active" players will be much lower than station access numbers would imply.

    The largest reported "subscriber number" according to that was reported by SOE in 2004 at 250,000.

    Have they ever actually given a stated figure since then? (just curious) especially within the last year..

    Anyway IF SWG did lose 90%... (just to follow the person I quoted and the person they were responding to).

    Is that 90% of 250,000 (aka 225,000) or is it the number that was described as "bleeding subs" and they needed to do something.  Of course I've never seen an official number of what that drop was from the peak reported in 2004... so that a year later they needed the CU/NGE (smedley claimed subs were dropping rapidly and they had to do something but they never quoted a number that I know of).

    Regardless if it was 90% of the peak then they would only have 25,000 active players left.

    So if you wanted to pretend that Primotechnology.com was actually accurate in October of 2007 with their 20,000 active players number.. they would have lost more than 90% from peak.

    I don't pretend to claim any of those numbers are accurate.. its just me killing time..

    Yet I've never personally seen an official(tm) numbers given since that peak number in 2004... EVER.

    I also find it odd they were so happy to report the 250,000 subscriber number but when they make statements such as:

    John Smedley, denied that subscriptions had fallen this low: "Have the numbers in Star Wars Galaxies gone down? I will tell you that the concurrent numbers have gone down. Are they as low as what was shown there? Absolutely not."

    Yet you never see any actual number quoted by him ...

    When Deadmeat denied the 50,000 number.. he never offered any data/numbers.

    So again.. Nobody can say but SOE and they won't give you a number either.  Personally it seems fairly logical that when they were so happy to quote 250,000 in 2004.. and won't give numbers since..

    Honestly I don't see the point of trying to dispel a myth without giving facts.  Even if they said... (random number) we have 75,000 subscribers.

    People who still play the game would still play and people who said the game is crap and dead/dying would keep posting the same.

    Perhaps that is actually why they don't give numbers.. nothing would change.

    Moderator's on this site allow certain posters to create endless troll threads. Yet "warn" people for giving recommendations... account *pending* deletion because.. why bother.

  • KazaraKazara merritt island, FLPosts: 1,075Member Uncommon

    Personally, I couldn't care less if a fanboi demands proof of low population numbers. The ghost servers and the endless threads on the O-board complaining about low population numbers (and ways to get vets back, server merges, etc.) are painfully obvious.  I do believe that the Station Pass subscribers are lumped in with SWG subscriber numbers (helps inflate the number), but I also believe the number of ACTIVE  SWG players is around 25k, and that is being generous.

    image

  • TeknoBugTeknoBug Calgary, ABPosts: 2,156Member

    Usually when I see a fanboi say the population is fine are usually from 1 of the 4 "healthy" populated server (Bria, Bloodfin, Chilastra and Starsider). They seem to miss the fact that 21 other servers are struggling, and they are in dire need of a merge very soon. With how unstable (and expensive) character transfer is right now and the dilema of handling resource and player cities, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

    image
    image

  • gamerman98gamerman98 SKPosts: 804Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Antarious
    Originally posted by kobie173
    SWG lost 90 percent-plus of its subscriptions? Prove it, or stop pulling phony numbers directly out of your ass.
    I personally really don't care because it doesn't affect me .. other than I lost a game.
    However, I don't think anyone could say for certain...
    No one outside of SOE actually has the numbers.
    When someone at SOE makes a statement they don't have anything to back it up. They just say something along the lines of "subscriptions are no where near that low".
    Yet they never offer a number... etc.. So how could anyone say one way or the other with 100% certainty?
    These best trail I've found is this:
    "Veteran designer, Raph Koster, helmed the development and initial launch of the game. Many industry professionals expected that the subscription numbers would exceed the one million mark, a feat accomplished only thus far in Asia by MMORPGs such as Lineage and more recently by World of Warcraft.[53] Based on NPD figures as of February 2004, SWG sold more than 300,000 boxed copies at retail for a total initial revenue of over $18 million. Sony Online Entertainment confirmed in March 2004 that there were well over 200,000 monthly subscribers making it the 2nd largest MMORPG in North America.[54] The company later reported in 2004 that they had 250,000 subscribers.[55] In August 2005, Sony Online Entertainment reported that they had now sold 1,000,000 boxed copies of the game.[56] Media sources reported that the subscriber numbers have fallen substantially since the release of the CU and the NGE.[57][58] In early 2006 after the NGE, allegedly "hacked" numbers purported to show that only 10,363 subscribers were playing on a particular Friday night. The President of Sony Online Entertainment, John Smedley, denied that subscriptions had fallen this low: "Have the numbers in Star Wars Galaxies gone down? I will tell you that the concurrent numbers have gone down. Are they as low as what was shown there? Absolutely not."[59]
    As of the second quarter of 2006, according to charts at MMOGchart.com, there were estimated to be between 110,000 and 175,000 subscribers. A more recent update from MMOGdata.com which uses the previous data from MMOGchart.com, estimates that the game has about 49,000 subscribers as of April 2007.[60] However, both MMOGchart.com and MMOGdata.com rated the subscriber number estimates at a "C" confidence level which mean they are "merely industry 'best guesses' or are otherwise questionable" due to SOE not releasing SWG subscriber numbers.[61][60] Posting on the official forums, Lorin Jameson (SOE Producer, Star Wars Galaxies, forum name "DeadMeat") has refuted the latest figure: "I think I am safe in saying the 50K number is vastly wrong."[62]
    In October 2007, Primotechnology.com reported that; "It’s estimated that the game now has fewer than 100,000 subscribers and less than 20,000 active players.[63]"
    ***
    That's pulled out of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Galaxies
    ***
    You also have to remember that anyone who is on the station access plan is counted as a subscriber to every game on that plan.
    So "active" players will be much lower than station access numbers would imply.
    The largest reported "subscriber number" according to that was reported by SOE in 2004 at 250,000.
    Have they ever actually given a stated figure since then? (just curious) especially within the last year..
    Anyway IF SWG did lose 90%... (just to follow the person I quoted and the person they were responding to).
    Is that 90% of 250,000 (aka 225,000) or is it the number that was described as "bleeding subs" and they needed to do something. Of course I've never seen an official number of what that drop was from the peak reported in 2004... so that a year later they needed the CU/NGE (smedley claimed subs were dropping rapidly and they had to do something but they never quoted a number that I know of).
    Regardless if it was 90% of the peak then they would only have 25,000 active players left.
    So if you wanted to pretend that Primotechnology.com was actually accurate in October of 2007 with their 20,000 active players number.. they would have lost more than 90% from peak.
    I don't pretend to claim any of those numbers are accurate.. its just me killing time..
    Yet I've never personally seen an official(tm) numbers given since that peak number in 2004... EVER.
    I also find it odd they were so happy to report the 250,000 subscriber number but when they make statements such as:
    John Smedley, denied that subscriptions had fallen this low: "Have the numbers in Star Wars Galaxies gone down? I will tell you that the concurrent numbers have gone down. Are they as low as what was shown there? Absolutely not."
    Yet you never see any actual number quoted by him ...
    When Deadmeat denied the 50,000 number.. he never offered any data/numbers.
    So again.. Nobody can say but SOE and they won't give you a number either. Personally it seems fairly logical that when they were so happy to quote 250,000 in 2004.. and won't give numbers since..
    Honestly I don't see the point of trying to dispel a myth without giving facts. Even if they said... (random number) we have 75,000 subscribers.
    People who still play the game would still play and people who said the game is crap and dead/dying would keep posting the same.
    Perhaps that is actually why they don't give numbers.. nothing would change.


    HAHAHA that long statement alone says NGE Fanboi = just got Owned lol :D

  • Bama1267Bama1267 Waterloo, NYPosts: 1,847Member
    Originally posted by saay

    Originally posted by iwantmyswg


    that post just go's to show how clueless the nge fanbois and fanbots are. the only way for swg to get me and 250k of my friends back is with a rollback.



    Im sure most of that 250k wouldnt like to be lumped in with you, as your "friends". Most have them have got over it, a considerable amount have returned, others insult the game, but constructively and then theres the few that are like you who make up numbers and claim they've won every 6 months.

     A considerable amount have returned? You are joking right? Considerable amount of what,  1% of what left?

  • If a "considerable" number have returned, why are the ofrums full of bitches about low server pops, for server merges, and for campaigns to fool veterans into returning by seeding game review sites with falsely positive reviews?

    /OMFGPWNT

     

     

  • saaysaay londonPosts: 455Member

     

    Originally posted by salvaje


    If a "considerable" number have returned, why are the ofrums full of bitches about low server pops, for server merges, and for campaigns to fool veterans into returning by seeding game review sites with falsely positive reviews?
    /OMFGPWNT
     
     



    lolz, i used the word considerable, because it implies a sense of relativeness to the problems that have surrounded the game. And please show me the link with these forums "full" of these threads.

     

    (see i can do leet speak too)

    kthxbye

  • saaysaay londonPosts: 455Member

    Originally posted by Antarious


     
    Originally posted by kobie173




    SWG lost 90 percent-plus of its subscriptions? Prove it, or stop pulling phony numbers directly out of your ass.
    I personally really don't care because it doesn't affect me .. other than I lost a game.

     

    However, I don't think anyone could say for certain...

    No one outside of SOE actually has the numbers.

    When someone at SOE makes a statement they don't have anything to back it up.  They just say something along the lines of "subscriptions are no where near that low".

    Yet they never offer a number... etc..  So how could anyone say one way or the other with 100% certainty?

    These best trail I've found is this:

    "Veteran designer, Raph Koster, helmed the development and initial launch of the game. Many industry professionals expected that the subscription numbers would exceed the one million mark, a feat accomplished only thus far in Asia by MMORPGs such as Lineage and more recently by World of Warcraft.[53] Based on NPD figures as of February 2004, SWG sold more than 300,000 boxed copies at retail for a total initial revenue of over $18 million. Sony Online Entertainment confirmed in March 2004 that there were well over 200,000 monthly subscribers making it the 2nd largest MMORPG in North America.[54] The company later reported in 2004 that they had 250,000 subscribers.[55] In August 2005, Sony Online Entertainment reported that they had now sold 1,000,000 boxed copies of the game.[56] Media sources reported that the subscriber numbers have fallen substantially since the release of the CU and the NGE.[57][58] In early 2006 after the NGE, allegedly "hacked" numbers purported to show that only 10,363 subscribers were playing on a particular Friday night. The President of Sony Online Entertainment, John Smedley, denied that subscriptions had fallen this low: "Have the numbers in Star Wars Galaxies gone down? I will tell you that the concurrent numbers have gone down. Are they as low as what was shown there? Absolutely not."[59]

    As of the second quarter of 2006, according to charts at MMOGchart.com, there were estimated to be between 110,000 and 175,000 subscribers. A more recent update from MMOGdata.com which uses the previous data from MMOGchart.com, estimates that the game has about 49,000 subscribers as of April 2007.[60] However, both MMOGchart.com and MMOGdata.com rated the subscriber number estimates at a "C" confidence level which mean they are "merely industry 'best guesses' or are otherwise questionable" due to SOE not releasing SWG subscriber numbers.[61][60] Posting on the official forums, Lorin Jameson (SOE Producer, Star Wars Galaxies, forum name "DeadMeat") has refuted the latest figure: "I think I am safe in saying the 50K number is vastly wrong."[62]

    In October 2007, Primotechnology.com reported that; "It’s estimated that the game now has fewer than 100,000 subscribers and less than 20,000 active players.[63]"

    ***

    That's pulled out of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Galaxies

    ***

    You also have to remember that anyone who is on the station access plan is counted as a subscriber to every game on that plan.

    So "active" players will be much lower than station access numbers would imply.

    The largest reported "subscriber number" according to that was reported by SOE in 2004 at 250,000.

    Have they ever actually given a stated figure since then? (just curious) especially within the last year..

    Anyway IF SWG did lose 90%... (just to follow the person I quoted and the person they were responding to).

    Is that 90% of 250,000 (aka 225,000) or is it the number that was described as "bleeding subs" and they needed to do something.  Of course I've never seen an official number of what that drop was from the peak reported in 2004... so that a year later they needed the CU/NGE (smedley claimed subs were dropping rapidly and they had to do something but they never quoted a number that I know of).

    Regardless if it was 90% of the peak then they would only have 25,000 active players left.

    So if you wanted to pretend that Primotechnology.com was actually accurate in October of 2007 with their 20,000 active players number.. they would have lost more than 90% from peak.

    I don't pretend to claim any of those numbers are accurate.. its just me killing time..

    Yet I've never personally seen an official(tm) numbers given since that peak number in 2004... EVER.

    I also find it odd they were so happy to report the 250,000 subscriber number but when they make statements such as:

    John Smedley, denied that subscriptions had fallen this low: "Have the numbers in Star Wars Galaxies gone down? I will tell you that the concurrent numbers have gone down. Are they as low as what was shown there? Absolutely not."

    Yet you never see any actual number quoted by him ...

    When Deadmeat denied the 50,000 number.. he never offered any data/numbers.

    So again.. Nobody can say but SOE and they won't give you a number either.  Personally it seems fairly logical that when they were so happy to quote 250,000 in 2004.. and won't give numbers since..

    Honestly I don't see the point of trying to dispel a myth without giving facts.  Even if they said... (random number) we have 75,000 subscribers.

    People who still play the game would still play and people who said the game is crap and dead/dying would keep posting the same.

    Perhaps that is actually why they don't give numbers.. nothing would change.

    Ok, who do you believe? (and i know who you will chose, but consider the facts) a Dev (DM) posting on the swg forums, as a passing comment, stating that 50k subs is too low, not a whole thread or a statement mind, with nothing prove, and as far as i know, DM hasnt lied outrightly to anyone yet OR recent players or others writing on wikipedia, still reasonably soon after the initial outrage of the NGE (sure its been edited etc since), angry about whats happened, determined to take down SWG? Bare in mind most of the people writing these things probably forgot about it and moved on a while ago.

    Many of these figures are merely guesses (and dare i say, wishful thinking). ALL of those figures you claim are hard data that show very little people playing SWG are estimations, wishes, hopes. Just because no developer etc has posted specific sub numbers recently it doesnt mean they're wrong and others are right. From this perspective its easy to see that all the numbers you've quoted are far more likely to be inaccurate and wrong than anything a Dev has said, (and i know "smed lied to us, they're all liers!", but as i said, i dont think Deadmeant was lieing).

    Regardless of all this, even if those numbers were true, i can say without any bias, as a player whos played all the way through the NGE (and i hated the NGE when it came out), that the amount of people playing has dramatically increased compared to what it was in the first weeks of the NGE. And as long as i see new players coming all the time and increasing numbers im happy, there arent anywhere near the numbers Pre-NGE, but theres definately enough to have fun, pvp, get groups, and be able to meet new people all the time.

  • DM has no credibility.  He's a SOE employee.  And denying the falling sub number is in his own best interest.

    SWG hasn't seen 50K paying members in many months.  It hasn't seen 100K paying subs in almost 2 years.

     

  • SuvrocSuvroc Toronto, ONPosts: 2,383Member

    Originally posted by saay


     
    Ok, who do you believe? (and i know who you will chose, but consider the facts) a Dev (DM) posting on the swg forums, as a passing comment, stating that 50k subs is too low, not a whole thread or a statement mind, with nothing prove, and as far as i know, DM hasnt lied outrightly to anyone yet OR recent players or others writing on wikipedia, still reasonably soon after the initial outrage of the NGE (sure its been edited etc since), angry about whats happened, determined to take down SWG? Bare in mind most of the people writing these things probably forgot about it and moved on a while ago.
     
    Many of these figures are merely guesses (and dare i say, wishful thinking). ALL of those figures you claim are hard data that show very little people playing SWG are estimations, wishes, hopes. Just because no developer etc has posted specific sub numbers recently it doesnt mean they're wrong and others are right. From this perspective its easy to see that all the numbers you've quoted are far more likely to be inaccurate and wrong than anything a Dev has said, (and i know "smed lied to us, they're all liers!", but as i said, i dont think Deadmeant was lieing).
    Regardless of all this, even if those numbers were true, i can say without any bias, as a player whos played all the way through the NGE (and i hated the NGE when it came out), that the amount of people playing has dramatically increased compared to what it was in the first weeks of the NGE. And as long as i see new players coming all the time and increasing numbers im happy, there arent anywhere near the numbers Pre-NGE, but theres definately enough to have fun, pvp, get groups, and be able to meet new people all the time.
    When you consider that 25 servers could likely be condensed into approx. 6, then I'm thinking that populations are probably pretty low.

    Of course no one can give any "proof" on server populations, but you can make some pretty reasonable estimates if you so choose.

  • saaysaay londonPosts: 455Member
    Originally posted by salvaje


    DM has no credibility.  He's a SOE employee.  And denying the falling sub number is in his own best interest.
    SWG hasn't seen 50K paying members in many months.  It hasn't seen 100K paying subs in almost 2 years.
     



    If  there was 50k months ago, theres probably about 60 by now at least - its obvious if you look at the amount of people you see in game then and now.

    And Survoc, it doesnt matter whether you consider populations to be low or not, i acknowledged that numbers arent comparable to Pre-NGE. what ive said in my posts above still stands.

  • DracisDracis Kingsford, MIPosts: 434Member

     

    Originally posted by saay


     
    Ok, who do you believe? (and i know who you will chose, but consider the facts) a Dev (DM) posting on the swg forums, as a passing comment, stating that 50k subs is too low, not a whole thread or a statement mind, with nothing prove, and as far as i know, DM hasnt lied outrightly to anyone yet OR recent players or others writing on wikipedia, still reasonably soon after the initial outrage of the NGE (sure its been edited etc since), angry about whats happened, determined to take down SWG? Bare in mind most of the people writing these things probably forgot about it and moved on a while ago.
     
    Many of these figures are merely guesses (and dare i say, wishful thinking). ALL of those figures you claim are hard data that show very little people playing SWG are estimations, wishes, hopes. Just because no developer etc has posted specific sub numbers recently it doesnt mean they're wrong and others are right. From this perspective its easy to see that all the numbers you've quoted are far more likely to be inaccurate and wrong than anything a Dev has said, (and i know "smed lied to us, they're all liers!", but as i said, i dont think Deadmeant was lieing).
    Regardless of all this, even if those numbers were true, i can say without any bias, as a player whos played all the way through the NGE (and i hated the NGE when it came out), that the amount of people playing has dramatically increased compared to what it was in the first weeks of the NGE. And as long as i see new players coming all the time and increasing numbers im happy, there arent anywhere near the numbers Pre-NGE, but theres definately enough to have fun, pvp, get groups, and be able to meet new people all the time.
    Who do I believe? I believe the current player base when it comes to the server populations. Forum thread here: http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/posts/list.m?topic_id=589448 .

     

    While it's fine to think your server is doing ok, it's more than obvious only a few servers are and most of the servers are suffering from a lack of population.

     

    Edited* to snip some of the quotes out of the post.

  • dokardokar orleans, ONPosts: 52Member
    Originally posted by saay

    Originally posted by salvaje


    DM has no credibility.  He's a SOE employee.  And denying the falling sub number is in his own best interest.
    SWG hasn't seen 50K paying members in many months.  It hasn't seen 100K paying subs in almost 2 years.
     



    If  there was 50k months ago, theres probably about 60 by now at least - its obvious if you look at the amount of people you see in game then and now.

    And Survoc, it doesnt matter whether you consider populations to be low or not, i acknowledged that numbers arent comparable to Pre-NGE. what ive said in my posts above still stands.

    log into a server other than Bria

  • saaysaay londonPosts: 455Member
    Originally posted by dokar

    Originally posted by saay

    Originally posted by salvaje


    DM has no credibility.  He's a SOE employee.  And denying the falling sub number is in his own best interest.
    SWG hasn't seen 50K paying members in many months.  It hasn't seen 100K paying subs in almost 2 years.
     



    If  there was 50k months ago, theres probably about 60 by now at least - its obvious if you look at the amount of people you see in game then and now.

    And Survoc, it doesnt matter whether you consider populations to be low or not, i acknowledged that numbers arent comparable to Pre-NGE. what ive said in my posts above still stands.

    log into a server other than Bria

    have been for the past 3 years or so. Infact, im not sure ive ever logged onto Bria. Im happy with Chilastra and also Chimaera and Infinity. And i hear bloodfin and sunrunner are doing good too.

  • DarthRaidenDarthRaiden gdfgfPosts: 4,333Member

    Originally posted by saay


    have been for the past 3 years or so. Infact, im not sure ive ever logged onto Bria. Im happy with Chilastra and also Chimaera and Infinity. And i hear bloodfin and sunrunner are doing good too.

    Does good means "good"  or an NGE'd  version of   good ?

    well 5 additional players means a double of population for a server that had 5 people playing for 2+ years.  (number 5 to just give a picture)

    Another thought can it be the additional players on your server are just transfers from others now dead servers ? because that  would just fit with the observations of others then you...

     

    -----MY-TERMS-OF-USE--------------------------------------------------
    $OE - eternal enemy of online gaming
    -We finally WON !!!! 2011 $OE accepted that they have been fired 2005 by the playerbase and closed down ridiculous NGE !!

    "There was suppression of speech and all kinds of things between disturbing and fascistic." Raph Koster (parted $OE)

  • saaysaay londonPosts: 455Member

    Originally posted by DarthRaiden


     
    Originally posted by saay


    have been for the past 3 years or so. Infact, im not sure ive ever logged onto Bria. Im happy with Chilastra and also Chimaera and Infinity. And i hear bloodfin and sunrunner are doing good too.

     

    Does good means "good"  or an NGE'd  version of   good ?

    well 5 additional players means a double of population for a server that had 5 people playing for 2+ years.  (number 5 to just give a picture)

    Another thought can it be the additional players on your server are just transfers from others now dead servers ? because that  would just fit with the observations of others then you...

     

    nice, i get it.

    im sure some of the people i see join my server are transfers, but i know that is not entirely the case when i see old friends/acquaintances returning :D

  • AntariousAntarious Greenville, SCPosts: 2,802Member

    Originally posted by saay


     
    Originally posted by Antarious


     
    The largest reported "subscriber number" according to that was reported by SOE in 2004 at 250,000.
    Have they ever actually given a stated figure since then? (just curious) especially within the last year..
    So if you wanted to pretend that Primotechnology.com was actually accurate in October of 2007 with their 20,000 active players number.. they would have lost more than 90% from peak.
    I don't pretend to claim any of those numbers are accurate.. its just me killing time..
    So again.. Nobody can say but SOE and they won't give you a number either.  Personally it seems fairly logical that when they were so happy to quote 250,000 in 2004.. and won't give numbers since..

     

    Many of these figures are merely guesses (and dare i say, wishful thinking). ALL of those figures you claim are hard data that show very little people playing SWG are estimations, wishes, hopes. Just because no developer etc has posted specific sub numbers recently it doesnt mean they're wrong and others are right. From this perspective its easy to see that all the numbers you've quoted are far more likely to be inaccurate and wrong than anything a Dev has said, (and i know "smed lied to us, they're all liers!", but as i said, i dont think Deadmeant was lieing).

    The sad thing is what you just proved is that Nancy Mc.. from LEC was 100% accurate about their target audience.. they didn't want to read anything and had no reading comprehension.

    So I cut out the bulk of the post you responded to... to compare it to your key statement.

    The problem IS.. what I DID say was... that SOE last released numbers in 2004.  I then quoted the numbers that any anti-nge/soe person would while ALSO saying:

    "I don't pretend to claim any of those numbers are accurate.. its just me killing time.."

    I ALSO stated that ONLY SOE knows the real numbers.

    So when I see somebody with a lame attempt to flame or discredit me .. make a major point of:

    "ALL of those figures you claim are hard data"

    I NEVER once claimed any of the numbers outside of the last offical number released in 2004 was hard data.

    I in fact.. didn't take any side in that population arguement.  I stated what people had said.. and made the logical conclusion that only SOE knows the numbers and that imho releasing the "real" numbers wouldn't change anything.

     

    So do you want to try again?

     

    Moderator's on this site allow certain posters to create endless troll threads. Yet "warn" people for giving recommendations... account *pending* deletion because.. why bother.

2
Sign In or Register to comment.