Guild Wars 2

This game is beyond homogenized. No matter what you spec there are minimal differences between zero points and max points in any trait line. I have to keep pointing out the fact that I can see why 3 million bought the game, but less than 500k even play it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars_2

Concurrency: operating or occurring at the same time

Even if your concurrency figures are accurate (and I question those), you have no idea how many people play the game. Concurrency just means who’s online at the moment, not everyone who’s playing.

A game that has a conccurency of 300,000 probably has over a million players, because the odds of even half of them all logging in at the same time is pretty small. People live in different countries, different time zones, have different play schedules. Some of the guys in my guild who play only play a couple of times a week. Some are only on at odd hours.

Saying that less that 500k people play this game is unprovable.

In fact, you have no idea how many people are playing.

Anet has stated that their active player numbers are rising not falling, that is all i need to hear : P

Numbers aside, I tend to mostly agree with you op. The only thing I can hope for is when/if they actually decide to go about adding more weapons into the game for the classes they somehow expand upon the trait system. Although I doubt even that will promote any long term depth that is sadly lacking from this game in my opinion.

Are you suggesting that there are no difference between 0 in a trait line and grandmaster trait?
have you played a mesmer I wonder?
Concurrency means that is how many people are logging in at the same time- the game spans NA and EU those people do not play at the same time- it does not mean that less than 500k people play the game, sorry to burst your bubble there.

In fact those figures are pretty good, regardless of how accurate they are

First of all, the numbers don’t belong to me. These numbers are directly out of Anet’s mouth. Second of all, maybe you fail to understand concurrency in this situation. Less than 500k of the 3 million who bought the game are logged in at any given time. Since 3 million bought the game that number should be a lot higher. Translation: A lot of people who bought the game were greatly disappointed.

So, if I log in at 10 UTC and log out at 11 UTC, but my cousin logs in at 18 UTC and logs out at 22 UTC, we only count as 1 person who plays the game, as we are not logged in concurrently? Gee, I wonder how often that happens?

and this is only because you think that between 0 and 300 there is no difference?
i guess there are lot more reason, and time zone make a hell of a difference. people have jobs you know and some even go to school… so time zone is greatly part of how many players play at the same time

Geemo.6018:

First of all, the numbers don’t belong to me. These numbers are directly out of Anet’s mouth. Second of all, maybe you fail to understand concurrency in this situation. Less than 500k of the 3 million who bought the game are logged in at any given time. Since 3 million bought the game that number should be a lot higher. Translation: A lot of people who bought the game were greatly disappointed.

you don’t understand what concurrency means.
yes it means that so many people are logged on at the same time.

say you are in NA- 400k players log on, some log off, some Pacific players log on, some log off, some Eu players log on etc- round and round the world it goes according to time zones.
That does not mean that there are only 400k players playing the game- sheesh.
Add them up.
it means 400k (or whatever) are playing the game at one time regardless of time zones

Translation- you are greatly disappointed and are looking for a justification by skewing info to suit you.

Btw you didn’t answer my question about trait lines

I dislike when people try to manipulate numbers to go “look! Nobody is playing the game!”. Like others have said – 500K logging in at any given time is really good, because those 500K that logged in on one hour are not completely the same as those 500K that will be logged in on another hour – essentially we all have lives and do not count into that number 24/7.
Other than that – what class did you play? What traits did you go for? For example if you’re a ranger you won’t be doing even close to half your possible future damage because of trait points not being in. As an example the trait of “your signets affect you and not only your pet” is a really important one. Also if the trait points mean exactly nothing, could you show us your setup, reset the trait points to 0, do a DPS test on a level 80 mob, put the traits back in and DPS again?

Wikipedia

In addition to the small-scale, tactical combat described above, the game features “World versus World”, large scale combat taking place in a persistent world independent of the main world. Players are able to drop in and out “on the fly” and possess the ability to construct siege weapons, with rewards commensurate with their success.

I did find that last sentence kind of funny though, on an unrelated note.

Vayne.8563:

Even if your concurrency figures are accurate (and I question those), you have no idea how many people play the game.

A game that has a conccurency of 300,000 probably has over a million players,

So you say he can’t possibly know and you follow that with your own guesstimate which you can’t know by the same reasoning. Well done.

Vayne.8563:

Saying that less that 500k people play this game is unprovable.

You are right. He cannot prove it, but you can’t prove he’s wrong either.

Vayne.8563:

In fact, you have no idea how many people are playing.

Neither do you (nor me for that matter). Let alone what the definition of playing is.

Gehenna.3625:

Vayne.8563:

Saying that less that 500k people play this game is unprovable.

You are right. He cannot prove it, but you can’t prove he’s wrong either.

We sort of can.
If the number given is – about 500K are logged in at any given time and we do know that it’s unreasonable to expect that it’s going to be the same 500K logged in trough out the day and night, we automatically know that the total people playing count is larger, we just don’t know by how much.

Gathslan.1870:

Anet has stated that their active player numbers are rising not falling, that is all i need to hear : P

I’ve never seen that. In the last financial report they said that GW2 is stabilising. That doesn’t sound like rising. Now that could be about sales but if sales have been going down (which the report shows they have) and they have more players playing again, that would mean less income and more costs. Good for the playerbase, not so good for Anet’s pockets.

Could you tell me where you got this info, because I would actually like to read it?

fyi, the 400k peak concurrency information is from the launch of the game. It’s not even known how many total copies of the game they’ve currently sold, since the 3 million number is from January. Since they didn’t give an updated number with the last release (China), I assume they probably sold less than 100k.

On the Chinese site, they had some details that claimed there was 2.5 million logins (not unique) per week and ~500k hours played per day. That information was taken down however.

Healix.5819:

fyi, the 400k peak concurrency information is from the launch of the game. It’s not even known how many total copies of the game they’ve currently sold, since the 3 million number is from January. Since they didn’t give an updated number with the last release (China), I assume they probably sold less than 100k.

I would not assume that. What I am assuming though is that we won’t hear anything about the sales until we hit something significant – like 5 million.

Healix.5819:

fyi, the 400k peak concurrency information is from the launch of the game. It’s not even known how many total copies of the game they’ve currently sold, since the 3 million number is from January. Since they didn’t give an updated number with the last release (China), I assume they probably sold less than 100k.

On the Chinese site, they had some details that claimed there was 2.5 million logins (not unique) per week and ~500k hours played per day. That information was taken down however.

The information was about GW2 in EU/US. GW2 has not yet released in China. Geez.

Gehenna.3625:

Vayne.8563:

Even if your concurrency figures are accurate (and I question those), you have no idea how many people play the game.

A game that has a conccurency of 300,000 probably has over a million players,

So you say he can’t possibly know and you follow that with your own guesstimate which you can’t know by the same reasoning. Well done.

Vayne.8563:

Saying that less that 500k people play this game is unprovable.

You are right. He cannot prove it, but you can’t prove he’s wrong either.

Vayne.8563:

In fact, you have no idea how many people are playing.

Neither do you (nor me for that matter). Let alone what the definition of playing is.

The thing is, it’s a reasonable assumption.

In Vayne’s example, he takes the figure 300,000 concurrent players to over 1,000,000 actual players. Basically, that just amounts to assuming that all of the 1,000,000 players play roughly 8 hours a day.

500,000 players and 500,000 concurrent players would literally mean that everyone who plays the game players it 24 hours a day. Which obviously would never happen.

Gehenna.3625:

Vayne.8563:

Even if your concurrency figures are accurate (and I question those), you have no idea how many people play the game.

A game that has a conccurency of 300,000 probably has over a million players,

So you say he can’t possibly know and you follow that with your own guesstimate which you can’t know by the same reasoning. Well done.

Vayne.8563:

Saying that less that 500k people play this game is unprovable.

You are right. He cannot prove it, but you can’t prove he’s wrong either.

Vayne.8563:

In fact, you have no idea how many people are playing.

Neither do you (nor me for that matter). Let alone what the definition of playing is.

I’m saying it’s a guestimate. I’m not saying good and I’m not saying bad.

But I know one thing for a fact. If 300,000 people are concurrently logged on, there are a lot more than 300,000 people playing.

What would you say the odds are of all the players playing all logging in at the same time.

No one on vacation, no one taking a break, no one working, no one in different time zones.

In fact, if 300,000 people were playing in the US at prime time, that means few people in Europe or Asia is playing at quite the same time. When do they log on.

Concurrency was probably measured at peak US time. I’m pretty sure there are more than 200,000 players in the rest of the world.

You can keep picking on everything I say. It just makes you look desperate.

Olba.5376:

The thing is, it’s a reasonable assumption.

In Vayne’s example, he takes the figure 300,000 concurrent players to over 1,000,000 actual players. Basically, that just amounts to assuming that all of the 1,000,000 players play roughly 8 hours a day.

500,000 players and 500,000 concurrent players would literally mean that everyone who plays the game players it 24 hours a day. Which obviously would never happen.

It sounds more reasonable to me as well because there is at least some data behind it, but it is still an assumption of course.

Vayne obviously just conjured his numbers out of thin air, which devaluates the point he was trying to make completely.

I don’t exactly know how to interpret concurrency numbers nor how recent they are, so for me it doesn’t prove anything to me, but it does sound reasonable, if indeed the numbers are normally interpreted like that and current.

Vayne.8563:

I’m saying it’s a guestimate. I’m not saying good and I’m not saying bad.

But I know one thing for a fact. If 300,000 people are concurrently logged on, there are a lot more than 300,000 people playing.

What would you say the odds are of all the players playing all logging in at the same time.

No one on vacation, no one taking a break, no one working, no one in different time zones.

In fact, if 300,000 people were playing in the US at prime time, that means few people in Europe or Asia is playing at quite the same time. When do they log on.

Concurrency was probably measured at peak US time. I’m pretty sure there are more than 200,000 players in the rest of the world.

You can keep picking on everything I say. It just makes you look desperate.

Again more guesstimates from your side. I don’t care what the numbers are but you certainly responded to him without neutrality. If you had been neutral, you wouldn’t have needed to bring in your own counter guesstimates like you do again now.

I clearly stated nobody can know. You wouldn’t have had a reply from me if you hadn’t started making your own, even wilder, guesstimates.

It seems it’s you who is desperate to disprove his numbers, even though you can’t prove anything either.

Gehenna.3625:

Vayne.8563:

I’m saying it’s a guestimate. I’m not saying good and I’m not saying bad.

But I know one thing for a fact. If 300,000 people are concurrently logged on, there are a lot more than 300,000 people playing.

What would you say the odds are of all the players playing all logging in at the same time.

No one on vacation, no one taking a break, no one working, no one in different time zones.

In fact, if 300,000 people were playing in the US at prime time, that means few people in Europe or Asia is playing at quite the same time. When do they log on.

Concurrency was probably measured at peak US time. I’m pretty sure there are more than 200,000 players in the rest of the world.

You can keep picking on everything I say. It just makes you look desperate.

Again more guesstimates from your side. I don’t care what the numbers are but you certainly responded to him without neutrality. If you had been neutral, you wouldn’t have needed to bring in your own counter guesstimates like you do again now.

I clearly stated nobody can know. You wouldn’t have had a reply from me if you hadn’t started making your own, even wilder, guesstimates.

It seems it’s you who is desperate to disprove his numbers, even though you can’t prove anything either.

The thing that Vayne is trying to get across is simple. Concurrent players will never amount to the whole playerbase. Which was what the OP was clearly implying in his post.

However, it is literally impossible to deduce the actual amount of players just from a concurrency number. You don’t know how it was measured. You don’t know the geological distribution of the playerbase. And getting any kind of valid estimates of those isn’t going to happen, since not all players in the servers of a given region (EU, NA) are going to be from that region.

Olba.5376:

Gehenna.3625:

Vayne.8563:

I’m saying it’s a guestimate. I’m not saying good and I’m not saying bad.

But I know one thing for a fact. If 300,000 people are concurrently logged on, there are a lot more than 300,000 people playing.

What would you say the odds are of all the players playing all logging in at the same time.

No one on vacation, no one taking a break, no one working, no one in different time zones.

In fact, if 300,000 people were playing in the US at prime time, that means few people in Europe or Asia is playing at quite the same time. When do they log on.

Concurrency was probably measured at peak US time. I’m pretty sure there are more than 200,000 players in the rest of the world.

You can keep picking on everything I say. It just makes you look desperate.

Again more guesstimates from your side. I don’t care what the numbers are but you certainly responded to him without neutrality. If you had been neutral, you wouldn’t have needed to bring in your own counter guesstimates like you do again now.

I clearly stated nobody can know. You wouldn’t have had a reply from me if you hadn’t started making your own, even wilder, guesstimates.

It seems it’s you who is desperate to disprove his numbers, even though you can’t prove anything either.

The thing that Vayne is trying to get across is simple. Concurrent players will never amount to the whole playerbase. Which was what the OP was clearly implying in his post.

Which would’ve been a totally fair comment if he hadn’t started coming up with his own wild numbers which he can’t prove either.

If he’s so concerned about people makig up their own numbers, my thinking is he shouldn’t do it himself. Practice what you preach as they say.

Gehenna.3625:

Olba.5376:

Gehenna.3625:

Vayne.8563:

I’m saying it’s a guestimate. I’m not saying good and I’m not saying bad.

But I know one thing for a fact. If 300,000 people are concurrently logged on, there are a lot more than 300,000 people playing.

What would you say the odds are of all the players playing all logging in at the same time.

No one on vacation, no one taking a break, no one working, no one in different time zones.

In fact, if 300,000 people were playing in the US at prime time, that means few people in Europe or Asia is playing at quite the same time. When do they log on.

Concurrency was probably measured at peak US time. I’m pretty sure there are more than 200,000 players in the rest of the world.

You can keep picking on everything I say. It just makes you look desperate.

Again more guesstimates from your side. I don’t care what the numbers are but you certainly responded to him without neutrality. If you had been neutral, you wouldn’t have needed to bring in your own counter guesstimates like you do again now.

I clearly stated nobody can know. You wouldn’t have had a reply from me if you hadn’t started making your own, even wilder, guesstimates.

It seems it’s you who is desperate to disprove his numbers, even though you can’t prove anything either.

The thing that Vayne is trying to get across is simple. Concurrent players will never amount to the whole playerbase. Which was what the OP was clearly implying in his post.

Which would’ve been a totally fair comment if he hadn’t started coming up with his own wild numbers which he can’t prove either.

If he’s so concerned about people makig up their own numbers, my thinking is he shouldn’t do it himself. Practice what you preach as they say.

I believe that the reason Vayne “came up with random numbers” is to illustrate his point. You know, it’s kinda like one of those math examples in your textbook, except that he didn’t put in a “Example #132810923890188888” label on it.

Olba.5376:

I believe that the reason Vayne “came up with random numbers” is to illustrate his point. You know, it’s kinda like one of those math examples in your textbook, except that he didn’t put in a “Example #132810923890188888” label on it.

It’s all pointless anyways since the premise for both sides is wrong. This is all based on a 2012 article that mentioned the peak was over 400k concurrent users.

I don’t think I am going out on a limb by saying those peak days are over and will be a fair amount less by now. That’s why it’s pointless for either side to come up with examples and accuse the other of inventing numbers when they do it themselves.

The reality is simply that we don’t have CURRENT numbers on concurrency here, so the OP might be right about his guesstimate albeit it accidentally…but he could be wrong just as Mr Vayne.

So instead of throwing numbers back and forth based on something that’s not real, my point was to stop doing that entirely.

We don’t know the numbers and I think it makes more sense to discuss the title of the topic. Mr Vayne could’ve stopped at saying that the numbers are old and the Op’s conclusion incorrect if based on those numbers. That’s all I am saying here.

so anything from OP on exactly what he meant by trait lines having no effect?

Morrigan.2809:

so anything from OP on exactly what he meant by trait lines having no effect?

That’s definitely the more interesting part of his post.

I have argued in the past that you could divide your points equally in all trait lines and that you can still beat 99% of this game without any problems. I hear high level fractals are the exception, but for the rest I’ve always felt it didn’t really matter where I stuck my trait points because it makes too small of a practical difference.

Geemo.6018:

Second of all, maybe you fail to understand concurrency in this situation. Less than 500k of the 3 million who bought the game are logged in at any given time. Since 3 million bought the game that number should be a lot higher. Translation: A lot of people who bought the game were greatly disappointed.

you dont even know what your talking about. seriously.
LoL has 12 million active players and their concurrency figures peaked around 1.3m.

you fail to understand what concurrent players mean

Gehenna.3625:

Morrigan.2809:

so anything from OP on exactly what he meant by trait lines having no effect?

That’s definitely the more interesting part of his post.

I have argued in the past that you could divide your points equally in all trait lines and that you can still beat 99% of this game without any problems. I hear high level fractals are the exception, but for the rest I’ve always felt it didn’t really matter where I stuck my trait points because it makes too small of a practical difference.

This game is designed around the idea that technical skill should be a bigger part than build. However if you are going up against he hardest encounters in the game such as high fractals or against other players such as s/tpvp and WvW having a well though ought build that is based around the play style your best at will far exceed a random allotment of points and traits.

Also this game is not that homogenized, classes still have abilities and mechanics that very much are only available to that class which is why you still see so many thief stealth is op, warriors are too easy in pve/dungeons, and guardians are unkillable threads. Heck mesmers still have 2 of the most useful abilities in the game all to themselves.

Tell me how that is homogenized. Also the op should be informed that all highly anticipated games especially ones that strive to try something new for the genre lose 50% of the original buyers after 2 months because they either decide the game is not for them (i don’t mean people who keep playing and complain) or get to a place that they see as having “beat the game” or move on to the next thing that was just released because they always do that.

Gehenna.3625:

Vayne.8563:

Even if your concurrency figures are accurate (and I question those), you have no idea how many people play the game.

A game that has a conccurency of 300,000 probably has over a million players,

So you say he can’t possibly know and you follow that with your own guesstimate which you can’t know by the same reasoning. Well done.

Vayne.8563:

Saying that less that 500k people play this game is unprovable.

You are right. He cannot prove it, but you can’t prove he’s wrong either.

Vayne.8563:

In fact, you have no idea how many people are playing.

Neither do you (nor me for that matter). Let alone what the definition of playing is.

EvE has >500k players and 30-40k conccurency

WoW had like 300-400k concurrency.

So what you are saying is that GW2 is completely different than any other MMO and that in GW2 ALL players that play the game are in only 2 states:

1. Either ALL are logged in

2. Either ALL are logged out

at any given time you look.

So YES he can prove his point and you just play….because you defend OP which clearly didnt comprehend what he read just wanted to write….something for whatever reason.

Gehenna.3625:

Vayne.8563:

I’m saying it’s a guestimate. I’m not saying good and I’m not saying bad.

But I know one thing for a fact. If 300,000 people are concurrently logged on, there are a lot more than 300,000 people playing.

What would you say the odds are of all the players playing all logging in at the same time.

No one on vacation, no one taking a break, no one working, no one in different time zones.

In fact, if 300,000 people were playing in the US at prime time, that means few people in Europe or Asia is playing at quite the same time. When do they log on.

Concurrency was probably measured at peak US time. I’m pretty sure there are more than 200,000 players in the rest of the world.

You can keep picking on everything I say. It just makes you look desperate.

Again more guesstimates from your side. I don’t care what the numbers are but you certainly responded to him without neutrality. If you had been neutral, you wouldn’t have needed to bring in your own counter guesstimates like you do again now.

I clearly stated nobody can know. You wouldn’t have had a reply from me if you hadn’t started making your own, even wilder, guesstimates.

It seems it’s you who is desperate to disprove his numbers, even though you can’t prove anything either.

The OP tried to say only half a million people were still playing. If you weren’t completely biased against me, you’d have said something about what he said. The fact that you didn’t makes everything else you say suspect.

Gehenna.3625:

Olba.5376:

I believe that the reason Vayne “came up with random numbers” is to illustrate his point. You know, it’s kinda like one of those math examples in your textbook, except that he didn’t put in a “Example #132810923890188888” label on it.

It’s all pointless anyways since the premise for both sides is wrong. This is all based on a 2012 article that mentioned the peak was over 400k concurrent users.

I don’t think I am going out on a limb by saying those peak days are over and will be a fair amount less by now. That’s why it’s pointless for either side to come up with examples and accuse the other of inventing numbers when they do it themselves.

The reality is simply that we don’t have CURRENT numbers on concurrency here, so the OP might be right about his guesstimate albeit it accidentally…but he could be wrong just as Mr Vayne.

So instead of throwing numbers back and forth based on something that’s not real, my point was to stop doing that entirely.

We don’t know the numbers and I think it makes more sense to discuss the title of the topic. Mr Vayne could’ve stopped at saying that the numbers are old and the Op’s conclusion incorrect if based on those numbers. That’s all I am saying here.

So you have no problem with someone’s OP deliberately misleading people, but you have a problem with my reply. lol

We don’t actually know what peak concurrency is, but I’d wager it is lower than when that stat was published.

However, Anet has said that concurrency is going up since Christmas. My own observations seem to show that a lot of people do log in on patch day. How many? I don’t know.

But here’s a guy who’s trying to say he doesn’t like something about the game and he’s using numbers that mean nothing to make his point, claiming something that’s not true.

But you didn’t actually call him out, you called me out. Good job on that.

First of all, there are different ways to look at games. If your focus is on mechanics, then by all means, there is some degree of similarities between the professions. But then there’s the other way to look at the game. Flavor.

Playing a necro has a completely different feel to me than playing a mesmer or an ele. They’re very different. It’s not that they can or can’t accomplish the same stuff, so much as HOW they accomplish that stuff.

There are people who ignore how things look and feel and just focus on numbers. Those people, in my opinion, are missing the entire point of an RPG.

And lest people tell me that RPGs are all about stat and character progression, just look at the words. Role-playing game. I know what role-playing is and it has precious little to do with numbers.

The industry kittenized the words RP and people have forgotten what that originally meant. I think it’s sad.

They’ve said recently that their number of active players is going UP. No need to freak out about the game dying anytime soon because they’re obviously doing something right .

What an odd topic. Started off with a rant on min/max trait lines (wat) and ended with a rant on concurrent players (wat)

MikaHR.1978:

EvE has >500k players and 30-40k conccurency

WoW had like 300-400k concurrency.

So what you are saying is that GW2 is completely different than any other MMO and that in GW2 ALL players that play the game are in only 2 states:

1. Either ALL are logged in

2. Either ALL are logged out

at any given time you look.

So YES he can prove his point and you just play….because you defend OP which clearly didnt comprehend what he read just wanted to write….something for whatever reason.

No, you are wrong. Firs of all I do not defend the OP. He destroyed his actual point by bringing these numbers in to begin with.

What I do have a problem with is people who say that you can’t prove any numbers and then make some up themselves.

I said that the OP could be right about 500k players by ACCIDENT. I also said these figures he quotes are from LAST YEAR and not CURRENT. So these 400k are not actually true for today. They were the peak times last year after launch. Why do you people want to ignore the fact and use these numbers when in fact they are a year old?

So please tell me why you think I am trying to defend him? Because you believe Mr Vayne here or because you didn’t read what I actually said?

I only agree with the homogenisation part. I stated myself that I actually looked at his source and found this data outdated, regardless of his silly calculation.

But no, it’s ok to make up other numbers then is it? Based on what. We have NO actual data. The OP doesn’t, Mr Vayne doesn’t, you don’t and I don’t either.

That’s my point. Just because I disagree with Vayne’s approach, as he in one post says you can’t prove anything and then directly makes up numbers he can’t prove, doesn’t mean I agree with the OP.

Although my guess would be closer to his number than Vayne’s, that’s just a matter of feeling not actual data.

So when I disagree with Vayne, it doesn’t mean automatically that I agree with the OP. I hope that difference is clear.

Funny thing is. If Vayne hadn’t started throwing around his own made-up numbers, I would’ve agreed with him.

Vayne.8563:

So you have no problem with someone’s OP deliberately misleading people, but you have a problem with my reply. lol

It’s a pet peeve. If a person in a post says “you can’t prove numbers” and then make up your own, it completely detracts from what your point would’ve been if you hadn’t fouled it up yourself.

Vayne.8563:

We don’t actually know what peak concurrency is, but I’d wager it is lower than when that stat was published.

There we agree.

Vayne.8563:

However, Anet has said that concurrency is going up since Christmas. My own observations seem to show that a lot of people do log in on patch day. How many? I don’t know.

A link would be nice. When did they say that and in what context makes a difference. You will agree that statistics can be used to mean different things and just a number without source doesn’t help.

But yes, my whole point is we don’t know, which is why I just don’t get why you can’t resist doing it yourself. Making up numbers that is. It just confuses things.

Vayne.8563:

But here’s a guy who’s trying to say he doesn’t like something about the game and he’s using numbers that mean nothing to make his point, claiming something that’s not true.

I agree and so you turn around and throw back numbers that mean nothing to make your point. Do you see that? That’s what I wish you hadn’t done because it invalidates the rest of your message.

Vayne.8563:

But you didn’t actually call him out, you called me out. Good job on that.

Yep you do bring out the worst in me with your contradictory behaviour. As I explained above, you say one thing and do another.

So let me be clear about the OP.

I agree with his point about homogenisation.
I disagree with his numbers because they are a year old and mean nothing AND his final calculation is based on nothing.

I also wish he hadn’t brought in the numbers at all, because it’s not a direct link to the topic. Leave it to you, to then blow it up again with your usual style: Start with a good point and then destroy it with contradictory elements.

Not to be rude here but I just want to clarify it as clearly as I can. I more than often actually agree with your points in say, the first one or two sentences, but you also more than often manage to then give it a twist that actually contradicts your own point.

What that does to me, is give me the feeling that your main concern is that you want to win a conversation at any cost, more than actually making a good point.

What good are his numbers? None
What good are your numbers? Also none

How am I to believe you are genuinely wanting to make a point when you don’t hesitate to do the same thing he did?

And yes, next time I will make sure I will take on both parties at the same time. Like I said, you’re one of those people that can bring out the worst in me. Not many of them luckily but there it is.

It’s confusing to know what this thread is really about though because the OP spent more on his numbers than his actual title topic.

Gehenna.3625:

Gathslan.1870:

Anet has stated that their active player numbers are rising not falling, that is all i need to hear : P

I’ve never seen that. In the last financial report they said that GW2 is stabilising. That doesn’t sound like rising. Now that could be about sales but if sales have been going down (which the report shows they have) and they have more players playing again, that would mean less income and more costs. Good for the playerbase, not so good for Anet’s pockets.

Could you tell me where you got this info, because I would actually like to read it?

The highlights:
http://guildwars.incgamers.com/blog/comments/guild-wars-2-player-base-continues-to-increase

http://www.vg247.com/2013/08/23/guild-wars-2-sees-player-numbers-increase-following-post-launch-slump/

http://www.gamebreaker.tv/news/consistant-content-updates-have-increased-guild-wars-2s-player-base/
The future:

http://techland.time.com/2013/08/16/guild-wars-2-nabs-fastest-selling-western-mmo-crown-looks-east-for-more-records/

… seriously dude. Google, it aint a secret.

Rhaps.8540:

Gehenna.3625:

Gathslan.1870:

Anet has stated that their active player numbers are rising not falling, that is all i need to hear : P

I’ve never seen that. In the last financial report they said that GW2 is stabilising. That doesn’t sound like rising. Now that could be about sales but if sales have been going down (which the report shows they have) and they have more players playing again, that would mean less income and more costs. Good for the playerbase, not so good for Anet’s pockets.

Could you tell me where you got this info, because I would actually like to read it?

The highlights:
http://guildwars.incgamers.com/blog/comments/guild-wars-2-player-base-continues-to-increase

http://www.vg247.com/2013/08/23/guild-wars-2-sees-player-numbers-increase-following-post-launch-slump/

http://www.gamebreaker.tv/news/consistant-content-updates-have-increased-guild-wars-2s-player-base/
The future:

http://techland.time.com/2013/08/16/guild-wars-2-nabs-fastest-selling-western-mmo-crown-looks-east-for-more-records/

… seriously dude. Google, it aint a secret.

true but google can come with different results and I wanted to see specifically the ones you read. So thanks for that. I shall appreciate your troubles and actually read them.

Edit: Ah you weren’t the one I was talking to….but as I suspected there is no mention of an actual time frame for the decline and rise of numbers. There is no mention of christmas at all, which was in the post I was replying to.

This is how misinformation gets started. My guess was that considering the sales figures dropping in the first and second quarter, the rise of numbers should be much more recent than “since christmas”.

The financial report also said that the game was stabilising, now the links indicate they are indeed growing slowly. That seems a more accurate version considering what’s in those links.

Gehenna.3625:

Rhaps.8540:

Gehenna.3625:

Gathslan.1870:

Anet has stated that their active player numbers are rising not falling, that is all i need to hear : P

I’ve never seen that. In the last financial report they said that GW2 is stabilising. That doesn’t sound like rising. Now that could be about sales but if sales have been going down (which the report shows they have) and they have more players playing again, that would mean less income and more costs. Good for the playerbase, not so good for Anet’s pockets.

Could you tell me where you got this info, because I would actually like to read it?

The highlights:
http://guildwars.incgamers.com/blog/comments/guild-wars-2-player-base-continues-to-increase

http://www.vg247.com/2013/08/23/guild-wars-2-sees-player-numbers-increase-following-post-launch-slump/

http://www.gamebreaker.tv/news/consistant-content-updates-have-increased-guild-wars-2s-player-base/
The future:

http://techland.time.com/2013/08/16/guild-wars-2-nabs-fastest-selling-western-mmo-crown-looks-east-for-more-records/

… seriously dude. Google, it aint a secret.

true but google can come with different results and I wanted to see specifically the ones you read. So thanks for that. I shall appreciate your troubles and actually read them.

You’re welcome It paints a pretty rosy picture for the population numbers and financial future of the game. I just googled “gw2 player numbers increasing”, checked the main results and then the news results for the Time article. Easy!
Edit:
And no im not the guy you were talking to before. But getting information relevant to whats happening with the game now is easy and pertinent to any discussion about player numbers. Going by the fact there is a great hoo-hah in this thread about the numbers or info being out of date/made up I felt that the discussion would benefit from a reality check on whats happening now.

If you want to do some point scoring over some population data from 6 months ago I’m afraid you’ll have to do your own research. ^ ^

Rhaps.8540:

You’re welcome It paints a pretty rosy picture for the population numbers and financial future of the game. I just googled “gw2 player numbers increasing”, checked the main results and then the news results for the Time article. Easy!

yeh my main question mark was the comment that it was rising since christmas according to that poster. Your efforts paint a much cleare picture. And as much as I am disappointed by this game I am happy that game is stabilising for the people who do love it.

Gehenna.3625:

MikaHR.1978:

EvE has >500k players and 30-40k conccurency

WoW had like 300-400k concurrency.

So what you are saying is that GW2 is completely different than any other MMO and that in GW2 ALL players that play the game are in only 2 states:

1. Either ALL are logged in

2. Either ALL are logged out

at any given time you look.

So YES he can prove his point and you just play….because you defend OP which clearly didnt comprehend what he read just wanted to write….something for whatever reason.

No, you are wrong. Firs of all I do not defend the OP. He destroyed his actual point by bringing these numbers in to begin with.

What I do have a problem with is people who say that you can’t prove any numbers and then make some up themselves.

I said that the OP could be right about 500k players by ACCIDENT. I also said these figures he quotes are from LAST YEAR and not CURRENT. So these 400k are not actually true for today. They were the peak times last year after launch. Why do you people want to ignore the fact and use these numbers when in fact they are a year old?

So please tell me why you think I am trying to defend him? Because you believe Mr Vayne here or because you didn’t read what I actually said?

I only agree with the homogenisation part. I stated myself that I actually looked at his source and found this data outdated, regardless of his silly calculation.

But no, it’s ok to make up other numbers then is it? Based on what. We have NO actual data. The OP doesn’t, Mr Vayne doesn’t, you don’t and I don’t either.

That’s my point. Just because I disagree with Vayne’s approach, as he in one post says you can’t prove anything and then directly makes up numbers he can’t prove, doesn’t mean I agree with the OP.

Although my guess would be closer to his number than Vayne’s, that’s just a matter of feeling not actual data.

So when I disagree with Vayne, it doesn’t mean automatically that I agree with the OP. I hope that difference is clear.

Funny thing is. If Vayne hadn’t started throwing around his own made-up numbers, I would’ve agreed with him.

I’m not making up numbers, you misunderstand me. I’m using numbers to illustrate why what the OP says isn’t true. I didn’t say these are the numbers. You simply want to find fault in what I say…and that’s fine.

It’s not like people can’t see what you’re doing.

It’s quite obvious you really have nothing to add to the discussion, Gehenna, and instead troll people with a load of semantics.

Vayne never pulled any numbers out of a hat, since what he did is called a hypothetical case. Just to explain that, it’s to illustrate and simplify, not to state facts. He literally never said that the numbers were to be associated with Guild Wars 2.

It’s quite horrendous to see a whole discussion to sprout out of it too, derailing the thread and the initial point made.

FrizzFreston.5290:

It’s quite obvious you really have nothing to add to the discussion, Gehenna, and instead troll people with a load of semantics.

Vayne never pulled any numbers out of a hat, since what he did is called a hypothetical case. Just to explain that, it’s to illustrate and simplify, not to state facts. He literally never said that the numbers were to be associated with Guild Wars 2.

It’s quite horrendous to see a whole discussion to sprout out of it too, derailing the thread and the initial point made.

Whatever, I have talked about the actual subject of homogenisation more than he has.

And although I accept that I have a part in a discussion that went the wrong way, I am also the one to recognise it and stop it when I recognise it.

Reread it again without bias because I don’t like GW2 and you will see that I may have come on too strongly, but you will also see that he will leave no opportunity unused to make it worsen. And at least I can admit I make mistakes.

Oh and just a question: Do you think that by posting this you are contributing to the conversation or again derailing it back to what I was hoping to get away from. So let me stop that short here too and I will also stop responding to you, because obviously the topic of homogenisation was not what you wanted to talk about.

Gehenna.3625:

FrizzFreston.5290:

It’s quite obvious you really have nothing to add to the discussion, Gehenna, and instead troll people with a load of semantics.

Vayne never pulled any numbers out of a hat, since what he did is called a hypothetical case. Just to explain that, it’s to illustrate and simplify, not to state facts. He literally never said that the numbers were to be associated with Guild Wars 2.

It’s quite horrendous to see a whole discussion to sprout out of it too, derailing the thread and the initial point made.

Whatever, I have talked about the actual subject of homogenisation more than he has.

And although I accept that I have a part in a discussion that went the wrong way, I am also the one to recognise it and stop it when I recognise it.

Reread it again without bias because I don’t like GW2 and you will see that I may have come on too strongly, but you will also see that he will leave no opportunity unused to make it worsen. And at least I can admit I make mistakes.

Oh and just a question: Do you think that by posting this you are contributing to the conversation or again derailing it back to what I was hoping to get away from. So let me stop that short here too and I will also stop responding to you, because obviously the topic of homogenisation was not what you wanted to talk about.

What I didn’t contribute…this post didn’t count?

First of all, there are different ways to look at games. If your focus is on mechanics, then by all means, there is some degree of similarities between the professions. But then there’s the other way to look at the game. Flavor.
Playing a necro has a completely different feel to me than playing a mesmer or an ele. They’re very different. It’s not that they can or can’t accomplish the same stuff, so much as HOW they accomplish that stuff.
There are people who ignore how things look and feel and just focus on numbers. Those people, in my opinion, are missing the entire point of an RPG.
And lest people tell me that RPGs are all about stat and character progression, just look at the words. Role-playing game. I know what role-playing is and it has precious little to do with numbers.
The industry kittenized the words RP and people have forgotten what that originally meant. I think it’s sad.

I get that you don’t like what I have to say, but if you continue attacking everything I say, I’ll continue to defend myself. Not for your benefit, but for the benefit of those reading who may not realize that you’ve taken a dislike to me and contradict me every chance you get (often completely misunderstanding me in the process).

And yes, standing up for something that’s said in the OP that’s dead wrong is participating in the conversation.

I loved the original concept which made me buy the game: the class reveal videos. It showed how different spell with different effects were cast in certain situations. No cooldowns, but in a thief initiative system. So if you wanted to keep a few mobs at bay, you could spam a knockback etc.
Now it’s just damage damage damage, our “unholy” trinity is broken and useless. All characters are the same. Homogene.
But it is not something that can be repaired by a few patches, the concepts and fundations of the game must be revitalized, which is a lot harder than adding more RNG boxes and leaving the big problems alone.

Vayne.8563:

snip

I am not going to do this anymore. We both are at fault here and the forum has suffered enough from our antics. I sent you a pm, do with it what you will but for the sake of everyone else I will commit myself to not responding to anymore of your messages ever again. We were apparently not meant to get along.

Geemo.6018:

This game is beyond homogenized. No matter what you spec there are minimal differences between zero points and max points in any trait line. I have to keep pointing out the fact that I can see why 3 million bought the game, but less than 500k even play it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars_2

Concurrency: operating or occurring at the same time

Congrats on linking a wikia page with information stats from November 2012,…over 9 months ago. Care for anything more recent? Because it was just a month ago when A.Net gave their mid-year update that they mentioned they have 2.5million users log in weekly. So….ya, …..you’re wrong.

They released a statement a few days ago that GW2 now has more concurrent players than it did at launch. If that’s not growth, please explain to me what is. I’d love to tear that opinion to shreds.

Vayne.8563:

Even if your concurrency figures are accurate (and I question those), you have no idea how many people play the game. Concurrency just means who’s online at the moment, not everyone who’s playing.

A game that has a conccurency of 300,000 probably has over a million players, because the odds of even half of them all logging in at the same time is pretty small. People live in different countries, different time zones, have different play schedules. Some of the guys in my guild who play only play a couple of times a week. Some are only on at odd hours.

Saying that less that 500k people play this game is unprovable.

In fact, you have no idea how many people are playing.

I think it’s a good indication that there are problems with concurrency and active accounts in that ArenaNet isn’t parading the numbers around like they do with other statistics. They are as arrogant as a pageant bird when it comes to strutting their number of copies sold, etc., but they are quite hushed up on how many people actively play the game. I would challenge Arenanet to release the concurrency numbers in an official release, but I think we all know why that won’t happen.