Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

EQ2 still popular?

Tags:
  • Games
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 8:58:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?

More about : eq2 popular

Anonymous
August 25, 2005 8:58:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

>Thats an interesting chart, but where is the source data coming from?

Explore the site some more and he gives a full description of each
figure and how creditable he thinks it is
August 25, 2005 10:05:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
> Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
>
>

http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 10:27:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
>rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
>> Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
>>
>>
>
>http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html


Dear lord i cant believe how popular FF11 is!
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 10:28:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
>rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
>> Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
>>
>>
>
>http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
The chart is missing stats though for World of Warcraft.
August 25, 2005 11:50:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <28pqg1deqvmm4i1a002isb4sh00t683sgk@4ax.com>,
rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
> >rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
> >> Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
> The chart is missing stats though for World of Warcraft.
>
>

ROFLMAO. There's a reason for that.

Check out:

http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 11:50:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 wrote:

> In article <28pqg1deqvmm4i1a002isb4sh00t683sgk@4ax.com>,
> rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
>
>>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
>>>rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
>>>
>>>>Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
>>
>>The chart is missing stats though for World of Warcraft.
>>
>>
>
>
> ROFLMAO. There's a reason for that.
>
> Check out:
>
> http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html
>
Thats an interesting chart, but where is the source data coming from?
And why doesn't it show the latest data point for some of the games,
including the most interesting one, EQI? On the chart it looks as
though its currently just as popular as WOW... until you realize that
the last data point for it is from Jan 05 (or no, they aren't really on
the points marked, it looks more like Octoberish), instead of the Jul 05
point (well maybe its May 05) that WOW ends with.

Lance
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 1:23:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

>> What it is missing more is any kind of crediblilty.

>/shrug

>Its the most credible source out there. Feel free to find a better one.

Whether or not you believe the exact numbers the general trend seems
credible, ie WoW doing very well and EQ2 struggling to find and keep
subscribers. Many people tried it and left for WoW or went back to EQL.

If you look at the Lineage comments only a small fraction of players
are form the US or EU. I reckon its the same for FFXI. (Only with
Japanese subscribers being the majority).
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 2:15:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d76f3d5a7fb301a989cab@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net...
> In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
> rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
>> Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
>>
>>
>
> http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html

I dont believe those figures for EQ1. If they were true there would have
been no server merges.
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 4:23:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:28:50 GMT, mike allegretto
<rallegre@stny.rr.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
>>rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
>>> Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
>The chart is missing stats though for World of Warcraft.

What it is missing more is any kind of crediblilty.

Meldur
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 4:47:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 05:47:50 -0400, Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com>
wrote:

>
>
>42 wrote:
>
>> In article <28pqg1deqvmm4i1a002isb4sh00t683sgk@4ax.com>,
>> rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
>>
>>>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
>>>>rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
>>>>
>>>>>Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
>>>
>>>The chart is missing stats though for World of Warcraft.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ROFLMAO. There's a reason for that.
>>
>> Check out:
>>
>> http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html
>>
>Thats an interesting chart, but where is the source data coming from?

Some excerpts from the FAQ on his site:

Anonymous Sources
Educated Guesses

Rofl,lol,'nuf said.

Meldur
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 6:38:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in news:kOydnXVCDvNQDpDeRVn-
tg@dejazzd.com:

>
>
> 42 wrote:
>
>> In article <28pqg1deqvmm4i1a002isb4sh00t683sgk@4ax.com>,
>> rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
>>
>>>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
>>>>rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
>>>>
>>>>>Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
>>>
>>>The chart is missing stats though for World of Warcraft.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ROFLMAO. There's a reason for that.
>>
>> Check out:
>>
>> http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html
>>
> Thats an interesting chart, but where is the source data coming from?
> And why doesn't it show the latest data point for some of the games,
> including the most interesting one, EQI? On the chart it looks as
> though its currently just as popular as WOW... until you realize that
> the last data point for it is from Jan 05 (or no, they aren't really on
> the points marked, it looks more like Octoberish), instead of the Jul
05
> point (well maybe its May 05) that WOW ends with.
>

Um, WoW is showing 2,000,000 subscribers in the last datapoint looks like
Aprilish. EQ1 is showing 450,000ish subscribers with a Juneish
datapoint, both in 2005. Lineage I & II are the two that are in the same
ballpark as WoW.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 6:45:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
news:l98rg15u2j8ks0gpec7u6v3h66g20gkd53@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 05:47:50 -0400, Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>42 wrote:
>>
>>> In article <28pqg1deqvmm4i1a002isb4sh00t683sgk@4ax.com>,
>>> rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
>>>>>rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
>>>>
>>>>The chart is missing stats though for World of Warcraft.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ROFLMAO. There's a reason for that.
>>>
>>> Check out:
>>>
>>> http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html
>>>
>>Thats an interesting chart, but where is the source data coming from?
>
> Some excerpts from the FAQ on his site:
>
> Anonymous Sources
> Educated Guesses
>
> Rofl,lol,'nuf said.
>

You did sort of leave out his other sources...

Corporate press releases
Corporate documents (from publicly held companies)
News Articles

Mine you, he does not claim that all his numbers are entirely accurate,
he does however claim to do the best job he can with the data he can get
hold of.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
August 25, 2005 8:13:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <e07rg1he6i6sm566vgi7q6dd8hodfgduvt@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
online.de says...
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:28:50 GMT, mike allegretto
> <rallegre@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> >>In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
> >>rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
> >>> Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
> >The chart is missing stats though for World of Warcraft.
>
> What it is missing more is any kind of crediblilty.

/shrug

Its the most credible source out there. Feel free to find a better one.
August 25, 2005 8:27:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <l98rg15u2j8ks0gpec7u6v3h66g20gkd53@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
online.de says...
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 05:47:50 -0400, Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >42 wrote:
> >
> >> In article <28pqg1deqvmm4i1a002isb4sh00t683sgk@4ax.com>,
> >> rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
> >>
> >>>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
> >>>>rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
> >>>>
> >>>>>Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
> >>>
> >>>The chart is missing stats though for World of Warcraft.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ROFLMAO. There's a reason for that.
> >>
> >> Check out:
> >>
> >> http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html
> >>
> >Thats an interesting chart, but where is the source data coming from?
>
> Some excerpts from the FAQ on his site:
>
> Anonymous Sources

Can be a lot of things:
e.g. Company Insiders who don't wish to be fired.

Its possible to be credible and remain anonymous, especially if he
doesn't just automatically post any number that some crack head submits
via yahoo.

> Educated Guesses

Operative word being educated. Not stuff out of a magic 8-ball.

Given that few, if any mmogs present their numbers on demand. This is
life. Educated guesses means indirect info... like working backwards
from financials (revenue, etc). You can easily put a game in the right
ballpark from good financials.

If you actually read the analysis he specifies which titles are guesses.
EQ, EQ2.

> Rofl,lol,'nuf said.

If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
August 25, 2005 8:36:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <%SgPe.10014$FA3.4845@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
vladeschxxxx@bigxxxxxpond.net.auxxx says...
> "42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d76f3d5a7fb301a989cab@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net...
> > In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
> > rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
> >> Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
>
> I dont believe those figures for EQ1. If they were true there would have
> been no server merges.

Well for starters he showing that 20% of the game did just outright
quit.

Your entitled to beleive whatever you want but don't forget that paid
subscriptions doesn't equal people online.

There are a *lot* of eq1 accounts still being paid but played a lot less
or not at all vs what they used to be.

Additionally DoN, in particular fragmented, the population... instead of
all the afkers/idler's being in pok they are split between guild halls,
guild lobbies, and pok, and so on - this all accentuated the feeling of
'mass exodus'. The ever increasing use of instances also further empties
the world of 'visible people'.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 7:10:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:27:27 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>In article <l98rg15u2j8ks0gpec7u6v3h66g20gkd53@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
>online.de says...
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 05:47:50 -0400, Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >42 wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <28pqg1deqvmm4i1a002isb4sh00t683sgk@4ax.com>,
>> >> rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
>> >>
>> >>>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
>> >>>>rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
>> >>>
>> >>>The chart is missing stats though for World of Warcraft.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ROFLMAO. There's a reason for that.
>> >>
>> >> Check out:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html
>> >>
>> >Thats an interesting chart, but where is the source data coming from?
>>
>> Some excerpts from the FAQ on his site:
>>
>> Anonymous Sources
>
>Can be a lot of things:
>e.g. Company Insiders who don't wish to be fired.
>
>Its possible to be credible and remain anonymous, especially if he
>doesn't just automatically post any number that some crack head submits
>via yahoo.
>
>> Educated Guesses
>
>Operative word being educated. Not stuff out of a magic 8-ball.
>
>Given that few, if any mmogs present their numbers on demand. This is
>life. Educated guesses means indirect info... like working backwards
>from financials (revenue, etc). You can easily put a game in the right
>ballpark from good financials.
>
>If you actually read the analysis he specifies which titles are guesses.
>EQ, EQ2.
>
>> Rofl,lol,'nuf said.
>
>If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.

There was an article some months ago which described the tecnical
aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find it
anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k players.
There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes 210k active
EQ subscriptions.
Thats what I would call hard data.

In general the guy from mmogchart cannot provide a *single*
hard fact or reviewable source for his numbers for EQ.

Up to you ,what you make out of it,for me his credibility is zero.

Meldur
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 6:28:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
news:hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 16:27:27 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <l98rg15u2j8ks0gpec7u6v3h66g20gkd53@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
>>online.de says...
>>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 05:47:50 -0400, Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >42 wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> In article <28pqg1deqvmm4i1a002isb4sh00t683sgk@4ax.com>,
>>> >> rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
>>> >>
>>> >>>On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:05:12 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>In article <aujqg1h92accqn6vpansd9t45vifbgg6qo@4ax.com>,
>>> >>>>rallegre@stny.rr.com says...
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>Is this game still popular? how are the numbers?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
>>> >>>
>>> >>>The chart is missing stats though for World of Warcraft.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ROFLMAO. There's a reason for that.
>>> >>
>>> >> Check out:
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html
>>> >>
>>> >Thats an interesting chart, but where is the source data coming
from?
>>>
>>> Some excerpts from the FAQ on his site:
>>>
>>> Anonymous Sources
>>
>>Can be a lot of things:
>>e.g. Company Insiders who don't wish to be fired.
>>
>>Its possible to be credible and remain anonymous, especially if he
>>doesn't just automatically post any number that some crack head submits
>>via yahoo.
>>
>>> Educated Guesses
>>
>>Operative word being educated. Not stuff out of a magic 8-ball.
>>
>>Given that few, if any mmogs present their numbers on demand. This is
>>life. Educated guesses means indirect info... like working backwards
>>from financials (revenue, etc). You can easily put a game in the right
>>ballpark from good financials.
>>
>>If you actually read the analysis he specifies which titles are
guesses.
>>EQ, EQ2.
>>
>>> Rofl,lol,'nuf said.
>>
>>If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
>
> There was an article some months ago which described the tecnical
> aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find it
> anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k players.
> There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes 210k active
> EQ subscriptions.
> Thats what I would call hard data.
>
> In general the guy from mmogchart cannot provide a *single*
> hard fact or reviewable source for his numbers for EQ.
>
> Up to you ,what you make out of it,for me his credibility is zero.
>

Was that 10k prior to the mergers? If so, that would put the numbers at
roughly double your number, or, right about where the chart has them.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 36 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
August 26, 2005 9:35:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
online.de says...

> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
>
> There was an article some months ago which described the tecnical
> aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find it
> anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k players.
> There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes 210k active
> EQ subscriptions.
> Thats what I would call hard data.

Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce, written by
someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention. And that's
supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other guy cites? Yet
I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this 'HARD DATA'?

I don't think so.

> In general the guy from mmogchart cannot provide a *single*
> hard fact or reviewable source for his numbers for EQ.

Neither did you! He says he looks at press releases, talks to insiders,
looks at financials, none of which he reproduced. He obviously does this
as a hobby, and has produced a website on the subject for many months.
For what its worth, his numbers are generally accepted to be in the
right ballparks by most obververs. And what little HARD information is
out there has been incorporated.

Meanhwhile, you claim you looked at one article on the web, on a
tangential subject which you also can't produce. ... yet you think your
credibility should be higher.

> Up to you ,what you make out of it,for me his credibility is zero.

What do I make out of it? What CAN I make out of it. You've given me
nothing solid to work with.

Can you even demonstrate with any certainty WHEN this article got
written? (not when you SAW it) Before, during, or after the server
merges? Because if it was before, then the number of players for each
server is effectively doubled. In my world when they merge two 10k
servers they end up with one 20k server.

Second, your so-called hard data contains exactly 2 numbers. 10k per
server, and 21 servers. One of them is trvially verifiable: 21
servers... and dude, you didn't even get THAT right.

There are 25 servers. (24 live + 1 test) Count them yourself if you
don't beleive me.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 10:01:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:

> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
> online.de says...
>
>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
>>
>> There was an article some months ago which described the tecnical
>> aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find it
>> anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k players.
>> There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes 210k active
>> EQ subscriptions.
>> Thats what I would call hard data.
>
> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce, written by
> someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention. And that's
> supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other guy cites?
> Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this 'HARD DATA'?
>
> I don't think so.

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul0...

which was posted here July 8th.
Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>


--
Marcel
http://mudbunny.blogspot.com/
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 12:31:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On 26 Aug 2005 18:01:26 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
<mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote:

>42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
>news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
>
>> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
>> online.de says...
>>
>>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
>>>
>>> There was an article some months ago which described the tecnical
>>> aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find it
>>> anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k players.
>>> There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes 210k active
>>> EQ subscriptions.
>>> Thats what I would call hard data.
>>
>> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce, written by
>> someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention. And that's
>> supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other guy cites?
>> Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this 'HARD DATA'?
>>
>> I don't think so.
>
>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul0...
>
>which was posted here July 8th.
>Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

Thanks mate.

/wave 42

Meldur
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 12:31:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
news:hunug19qt753p2ccl8eehic44ig1aeh4fh@4ax.com:

> On 26 Aug 2005 18:01:26 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
> <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote:
>
>>42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
>>news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
>>
>>> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
>>> online.de says...
>>>
>>>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
>>>>
>>>> There was an article some months ago which described the tecnical
>>>> aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find it
>>>> anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k players.
>>>> There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes 210k active
>>>> EQ subscriptions.
>>>> Thats what I would call hard data.
>>>
>>> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce, written by
>>> someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention. And that's
>>> supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other guy cites?
>>> Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this 'HARD DATA'?
>>>
>>> I don't think so.
>>
>>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul0...
>>
>>which was posted here July 8th.
>>Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
>
> Thanks mate.
>
NP. I just pointed it out 'cause I remembered it being posted in this
newsgroup.

--
Marcel
http://mudbunny.blogspot.com/
August 27, 2005 12:42:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <hunug19qt753p2ccl8eehic44ig1aeh4fh@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
online.de says...
> On 26 Aug 2005 18:01:26 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
> <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote:
>
> >42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
> >news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
> >
> >> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
> >> online.de says...
> >>
> >>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
> >>>
> >>> There was an article some months ago which described the tecnical
> >>> aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find it
> >>> anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k players.
> >>> There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes 210k active
> >>> EQ subscriptions.
> >>> Thats what I would call hard data.
> >>
> >> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce, written by
> >> someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention. And that's
> >> supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other guy cites?
> >> Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this 'HARD DATA'?
> >>
> >> I don't think so.
> >
> >http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul0...
> >
> >which was posted here July 8th.
> >Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
>
> Thanks mate.
>
> /wave 42
>
> Meldur

*THAT* puff piece is your source of credible "HARD DATA", that trashes
mmorpgcharts?

/rolls eyes

For starters:
the artcle claims that EQ opened to 12 servers and 100,000 people...
mmorpgcharts data matches that exactly.

The article claims that EQ peaked at 'just over half a million'.
mmorpgcharts data matches that exactly.

Yet apparently the guy is just pulling numbers out his ass, and has no
credibility?? Odd that his numbers line up like that.

The only number that doesn't line up is his current estimation, and your
'educated guess' which was based on multiplying the (incorrect) number
of servers by 10,000.

Quite frankly I have no reason to beleive there is much current
credibility with the 10,000 number, particularly in the post-server
merge environment.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:00:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Marcel Beaudoin <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote in
news:Xns96BE8DCCAF53Bmbeausympaticoca@130.133.1.4:

> 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
>
>> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
>> online.de says...
>>
>>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
>>>
>>> There was an article some months ago which described the tecnical
>>> aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find it
>>> anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k players.
>>> There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes 210k active
>>> EQ subscriptions.
>>> Thats what I would call hard data.
>>
>> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce, written by
>> someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention. And that's
>> supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other guy cites?
>> Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this 'HARD DATA'?
>>
>> I don't think so.
>
> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul0...
>
> which was posted here July 8th.
> Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
>

Not that that is necesarilly any more credible than any other source,
but, the figure mentioned in there was prior to the merger of the
servers, basically pointing out what EQ had at it's peak, and making a
remark saying what the servers could support. Did SoE tell them that the
figure is correct? I honestly see no reason to believe their figures any
more than those of anyone else.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 37 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:03:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
news:hunug19qt753p2ccl8eehic44ig1aeh4fh@4ax.com:

> On 26 Aug 2005 18:01:26 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
> <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote:
>
>>42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
>>news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
>>
>>> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
>>> online.de says...
>>>
>>>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
>>>>
>>>> There was an article some months ago which described the tecnical
>>>> aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find it
>>>> anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k players.
>>>> There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes 210k active
>>>> EQ subscriptions.
>>>> Thats what I would call hard data.
>>>
>>> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce, written by
>>> someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention. And that's
>>> supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other guy cites?
>>> Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this 'HARD DATA'?
>>>
>>> I don't think so.
>>
>>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul0...
>>
>>which was posted here July 8th.
>>Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
>
> Thanks mate.
>
> /wave 42
>

Don't be too smug, the only real figures cited there were for prior to
the server merges, and the fact that the article says that each server
can support 10k active accounts doesn't make it so. It may well be true,
it may not, I have no way of knowing which figure is correct.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 37 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:03:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Graeme Faelban wrote:

> Don't be too smug, the only real figures cited there were for prior to
> the server merges, and the fact that the article says that each server
> can support 10k active accounts doesn't make it so. It may well be true,
> it may not, I have no way of knowing which figure is correct.
>
If a server can support 10K people, that doesnt' mean it has 10K people
on it. There were around 50 servers, but it was easy to see that some
were more crowded than others. 10K isn't a number to conjur with, its a
"at most" number. 50 servers with 10K people each, though, would still
be a mere 500K people, yet EQ supposedly peaked out at 2M people.

The merger arguement which suggests that if you take two servers which
support 10K people each and combine them, then current servers support
20K people (I know, its not your arguement, I'm being too lazy to go
back and put this where it belongs) is also incorrect; the servers still
likely support a maximum of 10K people, but were so depopulated that
they seemed empty; combining the populations into half as many servers
mean each has a better population... probably still substantially under
the 10K limit, as after a 9 month absence I returned to a newly (to me)
combined server environment which still seems emptier than the previous
non-combined servers I left.

If the 10K figure is accurate, it must mean active population, not
causual barely ever playing population. Even so, the server merge
suggests that the former figure of less than 500k active subscribers is
now at best 250K active subscribers... probably substantially fewer.

Of course its also possible that the 10K cap is now substantially
larger, what with the addition of so many new zones, and of
instancing... the relative emptiness I'm feeling could in part be due to
that. But whether this is the case or not has nothing to do with the
mergers themselves.

Lance
August 27, 2005 1:37:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <Xns96BE993FA54Drichardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4>,
RichardRapier@netscape.net says...
> Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
> news:hunug19qt753p2ccl8eehic44ig1aeh4fh@4ax.com:
>
> > On 26 Aug 2005 18:01:26 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
> > <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote:
> >
> >>42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
> >>news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
> >>
> >>> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
> >>> online.de says...
> >>>
> >>>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
> >>>>
> >>>> There was an article some months ago which described the tecnical
> >>>> aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find it
> >>>> anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k players.
> >>>> There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes 210k active
> >>>> EQ subscriptions.
> >>>> Thats what I would call hard data.
> >>>
> >>> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce, written by
> >>> someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention. And that's
> >>> supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other guy cites?
> >>> Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this 'HARD DATA'?
> >>>
> >>> I don't think so.
> >>
> >>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul0...
> >>
> >>which was posted here July 8th.
> >>Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
> >
> > Thanks mate.
> >
> > /wave 42
> >
>
> Don't be too smug, the only real figures cited there were for prior to
> the server merges, and the fact that the article says that each server
> can support 10k active accounts doesn't make it so.

I'm also inclined to beleive that the author (who of course is not a
Sony employee, merely a web-columnist, and the figure in question was
only tangentially related to the subject matter so good 'fact checking'
can hardly be assumed) took half a million divided it by 52, got 9615
and then guessed that the servers were supporting up to 10,000 players.

Suggesting that each server only supports 10,000 accounts has some major
inconsistencies. EQ lets each player have 8 characters PER SERVER. Now
very very few people have done THAT. But practically EVERYONE I know has
created a characte or two on at least one other server. (be it a couple
weeks on a Zek, or FV, or a testbuff on test, or a server someone they
met in RL plays on...) sure in many (most) cases those characters are
essentially abandoned, but they are still there, with the accounts paid
in full each month.

10,000 accounts per server with 52 servers leaves almost NO wiggle room
for the number of accounts with characters on multiple servers. I mean,
I have abandoned characters on 5 servers (even post merge). I'd be
counted 5 times under meldurs assumptions, and I'd wager that a very
very large number of accounts would be counted at least twice.

I'd fully expect the number of "sever-accounts" to be at least 50% again
or even double (or beyond) the total number of subscriptions.

So at its PEAK, with 500,000 subscribers I'd have expected 500,000 -
1,000,000+ server accounts. Which is a *heck* a lot more than 10,000 per
server with 52 servers.

-cheers
August 27, 2005 1:40:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <MPG.1d792b71ce3367ed989cc2@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net>,
nospam@nospam.com says...

> So at its PEAK, with 500,000 subscribers I'd have expected 500,000 -
er 750,000 - 1,000,000 server-accounts.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 2:09:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in
news:Xns96BE98B024E46richardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4:

> Marcel Beaudoin <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote in
> news:Xns96BE8DCCAF53Bmbeausympaticoca@130.133.1.4:
>> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul0...
>>
>> which was posted here July 8th.
>> Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
>>
>
> Not that that is necesarilly any more credible than any other source,
> but, the figure mentioned in there was prior to the merger of the
> servers, basically pointing out what EQ had at it's peak, and making a
> remark saying what the servers could support. Did SoE tell them that
> the figure is correct? I honestly see no reason to believe their
> figures any more than those of anyone else.

Seeing as how they interviewed people from SOE for the article, it is
probably a safe assumption, IMO, that the figure came from SOE in the first
place.

Marcel
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 2:26:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Marcel Beaudoin <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote in
news:Xns96BEB8C41695Fmbeausympaticoca@130.133.1.4:

> Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in
> news:Xns96BE98B024E46richardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4:
>
>> Marcel Beaudoin <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns96BE8DCCAF53Bmbeausympaticoca@130.133.1.4:
>>> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul0...
>>>
>>> which was posted here July 8th.
>>> Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>
>> Not that that is necesarilly any more credible than any other source,
>> but, the figure mentioned in there was prior to the merger of the
>> servers, basically pointing out what EQ had at it's peak, and making
>> a remark saying what the servers could support. Did SoE tell them
>> that the figure is correct? I honestly see no reason to believe
>> their figures any more than those of anyone else.
>
> Seeing as how they interviewed people from SOE for the article, it is
> probably a safe assumption, IMO, that the figure came from SOE in the
> first place.
>

That could well be. For all we know, the figures on the chart also come
form an SoE insider. In both cases, we don't actually know. One thing
we do know is that the chart very closely tracks what was in that article
you pointed to as far as active accounts up to the last available
datapoint in the article, which was over 500k accounts about a year ago.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 37 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
August 27, 2005 3:25:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <Xns96BEB8C41695Fmbeausympaticoca@130.133.1.4>,
mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com says...
> Graeme Faelban <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote in
> news:Xns96BE98B024E46richardrapiernetscap@130.133.1.4:
>
> > Marcel Beaudoin <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote in
> > news:Xns96BE8DCCAF53Bmbeausympaticoca@130.133.1.4:
> >> http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul0...
> >>
> >> which was posted here July 8th.
> >> Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
> >>
> >
> > Not that that is necesarilly any more credible than any other source,
> > but, the figure mentioned in there was prior to the merger of the
> > servers, basically pointing out what EQ had at it's peak, and making a
> > remark saying what the servers could support. Did SoE tell them that
> > the figure is correct? I honestly see no reason to believe their
> > figures any more than those of anyone else.
>
> Seeing as how they interviewed people from SOE for the article, it is
> probably a safe assumption, IMO, that the figure came from SOE in the first
> place.

/quote from another post:

.... took half a million divided it by 52, got 9615
and then guessed that the servers were supporting up to 10,000 players.

/end quote

Whether your columnist did that math or SOE did it really doesn't
matter. It was certainly true at some point in time, that just over half
a million players were served by 52 servers, and thus approximately 10k
/ world server.

The EQ worlds of 2005, run on newer hardware, with dynamic load
balancing accross world server clusters, severing an ever expanding game
with more and more realestate for people to spread into, both interms of
zones, and zone-instances. Its likely that world servers can support
much larger player counts than they could "once upon a time".

Especially if non-trivial quantities of players are splitting their time
with other titles now.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 3:53:21 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:42:07 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>In article <hunug19qt753p2ccl8eehic44ig1aeh4fh@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
>online.de says...
>> On 26 Aug 2005 18:01:26 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
>> <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote:
>>
>> >42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
>> >news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
>> >
>> >> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
>> >> online.de says...
>> >>
>> >>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
>> >>>
>> >>> There was an article some months ago which described the tecnical
>> >>> aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find it
>> >>> anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k players.
>> >>> There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes 210k active
>> >>> EQ subscriptions.
>> >>> Thats what I would call hard data.
>> >>
>> >> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce, written by
>> >> someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention. And that's
>> >> supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other guy cites?
>> >> Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this 'HARD DATA'?
>> >>
>> >> I don't think so.
>> >
>> >http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul0...
>> >
>> >which was posted here July 8th.
>> >Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
>>
>> Thanks mate.
>>
>> /wave 42
>>
>> Meldur
>
>*THAT* puff piece is your source of credible "HARD DATA", that trashes
>mmorpgcharts?

Its not my fault that there is just one article available in the
public which talks about numbuer of subscribers of EQ.
And it was meant as an example.

Meldur
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 2:52:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>,
Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> In general the guy from mmogchart cannot provide a *single*
> hard fact or reviewable source for his numbers for EQ.

For EQ, his data comes from Sony press releases where Sony says what the
number of subscribers are. That will be very accurate.


--
--Tim Smith
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 6:27:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Lance Berg <emporer@dejazzd.com> wrote in
news:b46dneeHs5pMKJLeRVn-gw@dejazzd.com:

>
>
> Graeme Faelban wrote:
>
>> Don't be too smug, the only real figures cited there were for prior
>> to the server merges, and the fact that the article says that each
>> server can support 10k active accounts doesn't make it so. It may
>> well be true, it may not, I have no way of knowing which figure is
>> correct.
>>
> If a server can support 10K people, that doesnt' mean it has 10K
> people on it. There were around 50 servers, but it was easy to see
> that some were more crowded than others. 10K isn't a number to conjur
> with, its a "at most" number. 50 servers with 10K people each,
> though, would still be a mere 500K people, yet EQ supposedly peaked
> out at 2M people.

First I ever heard of a 2M number for EQ, the peak I head of was over
500k.

>
> The merger arguement which suggests that if you take two servers which
> support 10K people each and combine them, then current servers support
> 20K people (I know, its not your arguement, I'm being too lazy to go
> back and put this where it belongs) is also incorrect; the servers
> still likely support a maximum of 10K people, but were so depopulated
> that they seemed empty; combining the populations into half as many
> servers mean each has a better population... probably still
> substantially under the 10K limit, as after a 9 month absence I
> returned to a newly (to me) combined server environment which still
> seems emptier than the previous non-combined servers I left.
>
> If the 10K figure is accurate, it must mean active population, not
> causual barely ever playing population. Even so, the server merge
> suggests that the former figure of less than 500k active subscribers
> is now at best 250K active subscribers... probably substantially
> fewer.
>
> Of course its also possible that the 10K cap is now substantially
> larger, what with the addition of so many new zones, and of
> instancing... the relative emptiness I'm feeling could in part be due
> to that. But whether this is the case or not has nothing to do with
> the mergers themselves.
>

I would be shocked if there was a 10k hard cap anyway, given that EQ
accounts are not server based. Most people actively play on only one
server at any time, but many do have characters created on more than one
server. Heck, I have characters on 5 or 6 servers.

Regardless, the mmorpgchart site seemed to track very well with the
figures in the article on the IEEE site (numbers from SoE as I understand
it) up to the peak point of 550kish active accounts. Having no
information to the contrary at this point, I'd guess that they continue
to track the actual figures reasonably well now.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 37 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 6:29:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
news:jnd0h1l8psofbdns84l8nuhsqiqbr9hjrl@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:42:07 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <hunug19qt753p2ccl8eehic44ig1aeh4fh@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
>>online.de says...
>>> On 26 Aug 2005 18:01:26 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
>>> <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
>>> >news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
>>> >
>>> >> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>,
>>> >> Meldur@t- online.de says...
>>> >>
>>> >>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> There was an article some months ago which described the
>>> >>> tecnical aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find
>>> >>> it anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k
>>> >>> players. There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes
>>> >>> 210k active EQ subscriptions.
>>> >>> Thats what I would call hard data.
>>> >>
>>> >> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce, written
>>> >> by someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention. And
>>> >> that's supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other
>>> >> guy cites? Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this
>>> >> 'HARD DATA'?
>>> >>
>>> >> I don't think so.
>>> >
>>> >http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul0...
>>> >
>>> >which was posted here July 8th.
>>> >Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>> Thanks mate.
>>>
>>> /wave 42
>>>
>>> Meldur
>>
>>*THAT* puff piece is your source of credible "HARD DATA", that trashes
>>mmorpgcharts?
>
> Its not my fault that there is just one article available in the
> public which talks about numbuer of subscribers of EQ.
> And it was meant as an example.
>

If you read the article carefully, you will notice that the figures
stated in that article over the life of EQ track very well with the
figures presented at the mmorpgcharts site. Why would you assume that
they are not innaccurate?

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 37 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 4:27:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On 29 Aug 2005 14:29:50 GMT, Graeme Faelban
<RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:

>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
>news:jnd0h1l8psofbdns84l8nuhsqiqbr9hjrl@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:42:07 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <hunug19qt753p2ccl8eehic44ig1aeh4fh@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
>>>online.de says...
>>>> On 26 Aug 2005 18:01:26 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
>>>> <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
>>>> >news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
>>>> >
>>>> >> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>,
>>>> >> Meldur@t- online.de says...
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> There was an article some months ago which described the
>>>> >>> tecnical aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant find
>>>> >>> it anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k
>>>> >>> players. There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes
>>>> >>> 210k active EQ subscriptions.
>>>> >>> Thats what I would call hard data.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce, written
>>>> >> by someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention. And
>>>> >> that's supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other
>>>> >> guy cites? Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this
>>>> >> 'HARD DATA'?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I don't think so.
>>>> >
>>>> >http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul0...
>>>> >
>>>> >which was posted here July 8th.
>>>> >Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks mate.
>>>>
>>>> /wave 42
>>>>
>>>> Meldur
>>>
>>>*THAT* puff piece is your source of credible "HARD DATA", that trashes
>>>mmorpgcharts?
>>
>> Its not my fault that there is just one article available in the
>> public which talks about numbuer of subscribers of EQ.
>> And it was meant as an example.
>>
>
>If you read the article carefully, you will notice that the figures
>stated in that article over the life of EQ track very well with the
>figures presented at the mmorpgcharts site. Why would you assume that
>they are not innaccurate?

Cause it was linked from SoE's site some months ago.
I didnt say his numbers are flat out wrong,but everyone playing Eq
over several years can make the same estimates,without claiming
numbers come from trustworthy sources like he does without the
slightest proof or hint what his sources are.For me this stinks.

Meldur
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 6:04:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
news:ij27h1prkde185082h98e0e1gdlvt1972m@4ax.com:

> On 29 Aug 2005 14:29:50 GMT, Graeme Faelban
> <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
>>news:jnd0h1l8psofbdns84l8nuhsqiqbr9hjrl@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:42:07 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <hunug19qt753p2ccl8eehic44ig1aeh4fh@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
>>>>online.de says...
>>>>> On 26 Aug 2005 18:01:26 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
>>>>> <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
>>>>> >news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>,
>>>>> >> Meldur@t- online.de says...
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> There was an article some months ago which described the
>>>>> >>> tecnical aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant
find
>>>>> >>> it anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k
>>>>> >>> players. There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes
>>>>> >>> 210k active EQ subscriptions.
>>>>> >>> Thats what I would call hard data.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce,
written
>>>>> >> by someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention.
And
>>>>> >> that's supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other
>>>>> >> guy cites? Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this
>>>>> >> 'HARD DATA'?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I don't think so.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul0...
>>>>> >
>>>>> >which was posted here July 8th.
>>>>> >Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks mate.
>>>>>
>>>>> /wave 42
>>>>>
>>>>> Meldur
>>>>
>>>>*THAT* puff piece is your source of credible "HARD DATA", that
trashes
>>>>mmorpgcharts?
>>>
>>> Its not my fault that there is just one article available in the
>>> public which talks about numbuer of subscribers of EQ.
>>> And it was meant as an example.
>>>
>>
>>If you read the article carefully, you will notice that the figures
>>stated in that article over the life of EQ track very well with the
>>figures presented at the mmorpgcharts site. Why would you assume that
>>they are not innaccurate?
>
> Cause it was linked from SoE's site some months ago.
> I didnt say his numbers are flat out wrong,but everyone playing Eq
> over several years can make the same estimates,without claiming
> numbers come from trustworthy sources like he does without the
> slightest proof or hint what his sources are.For me this stinks.
>

He has a record of reporting reasonably accurate numbers, I see no reason
to believe that has changed. They may be way off, I certainly don't know
for a fact, but, until given good reason to believe otherwise, I see no
reason to stop trusting them.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 37 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 11:01:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On 30 Aug 2005 14:04:07 GMT, Graeme Faelban
<RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:

>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
>news:ij27h1prkde185082h98e0e1gdlvt1972m@4ax.com:
>
>> On 29 Aug 2005 14:29:50 GMT, Graeme Faelban
>> <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
>>>news:jnd0h1l8psofbdns84l8nuhsqiqbr9hjrl@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 20:42:07 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <hunug19qt753p2ccl8eehic44ig1aeh4fh@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
>>>>>online.de says...
>>>>>> On 26 Aug 2005 18:01:26 GMT, Marcel Beaudoin
>>>>>> <mbeaudoin@scintrextrace.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
>>>>>> >news:MPG.1d78f2b2e13e3856989cbb@shawnews.vf.shawcable.net:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> In article <hhqsg19irqm73gah0nprearq8tirein2rj@4ax.com>,
>>>>>> >> Meldur@t- online.de says...
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> >If you can provide even slightly better info go for it.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> There was an article some months ago which described the
>>>>>> >>> tecnical aspects of EQ,it was linked on Sony's siite,I cant
>find
>>>>>> >>> it anymore,there they said that 1 server has around 10k
>>>>>> >>> players. There are 21 servers now,multiplied by 10k,it makes
>>>>>> >>> 210k active EQ subscriptions.
>>>>>> >>> Thats what I would call hard data.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Ok. You claim you saw an article which you can't produce,
>written
>>>>>> >> by someone you didn't name, on a date you neglect to mention.
>And
>>>>>> >> that's supposed to be better than the anoymous sources the other
>>>>>> >> guy cites? Yet I'm supposed to call that 'uncredible' and this
>>>>>> >> 'HARD DATA'?
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> I don't think so.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/jul0...
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >which was posted here July 8th.
>>>>>> >Message-ID: <1120863875.750290.255530
>@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks mate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /wave 42
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meldur
>>>>>
>>>>>*THAT* puff piece is your source of credible "HARD DATA", that
>trashes
>>>>>mmorpgcharts?
>>>>
>>>> Its not my fault that there is just one article available in the
>>>> public which talks about numbuer of subscribers of EQ.
>>>> And it was meant as an example.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If you read the article carefully, you will notice that the figures
>>>stated in that article over the life of EQ track very well with the
>>>figures presented at the mmorpgcharts site. Why would you assume that
>>>they are not innaccurate?
>>
>> Cause it was linked from SoE's site some months ago.
>> I didnt say his numbers are flat out wrong,but everyone playing Eq
>> over several years can make the same estimates,without claiming
>> numbers come from trustworthy sources like he does without the
>> slightest proof or hint what his sources are.For me this stinks.
>>
>
>He has a record of reporting reasonably accurate numbers, I see no reason
>to believe that has changed. They may be way off, I certainly don't know
>for a fact, but, until given good reason to believe otherwise, I see no
>reason to stop trusting them.

He does not give a *single* source which can be verified.

When you read articles in your newspaper about economy,
you always know where the numbers come from,for example inflation
rate,unemployment rate or the number of sold cars or condomes is found
out by reading governmental publications or publications made by
companies or their organisations etc.Nothing like this on his site.

I repeat ,he does not give a *single* source where he has his numbers
from.

Meldur
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 11:01:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote in
news:gg39h1hjls9549hvdbgng9014ea1ee7f8g@4ax.com:

> On 30 Aug 2005 14:04:07 GMT, Graeme Faelban
> <RichardRapier@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>He has a record of reporting reasonably accurate numbers, I see no
>>reason to believe that has changed. They may be way off, I certainly
>>don't know for a fact, but, until given good reason to believe
>>otherwise, I see no reason to stop trusting them.
>
> He does not give a *single* source which can be verified.
>
> When you read articles in your newspaper about economy,
> you always know where the numbers come from,for example inflation
> rate,unemployment rate or the number of sold cars or condomes is found
> out by reading governmental publications or publications made by
> companies or their organisations etc.Nothing like this on his site.
>
> I repeat ,he does not give a *single* source where he has his numbers
> from.
>

He does say what his source is for the EQ information, we cannot verify
it, I'll agree with that. I would imagine that if he disclosed who his
inside source is they would likely not have a job at SoE anymore. If SoE
wanted to have the information out there, they would release it
themselves.

And I say again, his numbers appear to track fairly accurately
information that SoE has released in the past, or released after he put
that information on his charts, including the information provided in the
article that you are talking about. Unless a verifiable source can
refute his numbers, I see no reason to stop believing that they are
reasonably close now. The only discrepancy between what is said in that
article, and his numbers would be if we accept 10k accounts per server.
Given the way EQ is structured, I have no reason to believe there is any
specific limit such as that on a per server basis.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Soothsayer of 70 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 37 Dwarven Mystic, 24 Sage, Treasure Hunter <Tempest>
Aviv, 15 Gnome Brawler, 30 Provisioner
August 30, 2005 11:01:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <gg39h1hjls9549hvdbgng9014ea1ee7f8g@4ax.com>, Meldur@t-
online.de says...

> >He has a record of reporting reasonably accurate numbers, I see no reason
> >to believe that has changed. They may be way off, I certainly don't know
> >for a fact, but, until given good reason to believe otherwise, I see no
> >reason to stop trusting them.
>
> He does not give a *single* source which can be verified.

And yet his numbers line up with every single verifiable source of
actual numbers.

> When you read articles in your newspaper about economy,
> you always know where the numbers come from,for example inflation
> rate,unemployment rate or the number of sold cars or condomes is found
> out by reading governmental publications or publications made by
> companies or their organisations etc.

LMAO. I'm sorry but that was irony at its peak. Whats the point of
citing sources if the sources are deliberately fudging the numbers?

Inflation? Lol...

http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Late+Breaking+Commentary/I...
2004.htm

Did your computer cost 25% less this year? Did you cosume energy
(electriciy, gasoline, etc...) or food last year? According to the
inflation calculations: you didn't.

Unemployment rate? That's understated too.

You want numbers that lack credibility read your governmental economic
publications.


> Nothing like this on his site.

You'll tend to scare away anonymous insiders by putting their faces on
your website.

> I repeat ,he does not give a *single* source where he has his numbers
> from.

The numbers track with the verifiable sources *you* found. Your
explanation? Coincidence?
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 11:01:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

<Meldur@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> When you read articles in your newspaper about economy,
> you always know where the numbers come from

That's a mighty pretty world you're living in. Kinda rose-colored...
September 22, 2006 3:19:22 AM

Cool charts. I've seen parts of the data in forums and such. But that is stil not as trustworthy a source as the devs. The chart creator should have a listing of links to articals of sources. That way we wouldn't be wondering about this =)

Anywho, I'm off the play EVE Online. Great game and great PVP !!
!