50-55 supposed to take 1 month to level??

[Polarthief]

The dev's from blizzard should get a tutoring session from the guys at tor with this move, still amazed they can't understand, that easier content / more nerfs = consumed fast = bored players or more frequent patches.

At the same time, GW2 tried the whole "you get most content from leveling", and many people such as myself got turned off by the fact that capping your character's level doesn't really reap many rewards (such as raiding in WoW), and there wasn't a goal for me to really look forward to.

There needs to be a good balance.

[Heiros]

i heard they do - wow is freaking tough as hell...i hear it takes like 3 bill xp to get to lvl 84-85.....

i never got past 20 because it takes so long and the quests are hard as hell, in swtor stuffs more linear and enjoyable....and u can glean through mobs faster....

This post made me laugh for 2 mins... hard quest in wow lol

[katta]

But 2-3 months after original launch the servers weren't FULL constantly either anymore. And 2-3 months after original launch was when the game still didn't really lose any significant number of players. It's rather obvious that the first week of original launch and first week of F2P would be the most crowded.

Is COD "failing" because not as many people play in 2nd month as in 1st week? No, just not everybody rushes to do so as much and early as possible.

It is of course still absolutely possible F2P will do nothing long-term and that eventually the game will continue to decline, but at the moment it's still in "re-launch" (thanks to F2P) period IMO. Tons of new F2P still join and at the moment, I would predict the population stopped decreasing for now. We'll see what's gonna happen in another 2-3 months, same time it took for mass exodus of original playerbase after the "first" launch.

After about 2-3 months the game lost about a 1/3 of their players. Since when is a 1/3 of something not significant. Thats about 700k people.

Yes the first week should have the most people and with this game its about the 2 month mark that people lose interest in it. After launch the servers saw a large drop after 2 months, after th eaussie launch thoses servers also saw a large drop after about 2 months and then with F2P the servers have again seen a large drop after about 2 months.

We are not talking about COD. Also nice try to avoid answering by using something else. If COD lost 1/3 of its players after 2 months(3X) and was an MMO yes it would be failing.

Tons of F2P players are joining? Where are they because the servers are mostly heavy with a few exceptions as compared to the F2P launch where they were almost all very heavy/full for about a month.

[Deleted]

then with F2P the servers have again seen a large drop after about 2 months.

Can you tell us where you got the above info? I ask because you have been known to make 'facts' up to support your arguments. I've not noticed any such 'large' drop in numbers since November (F2P launch). You may be right or wrong but as you're not above blatantly lying in order to prove a theory I'm going to wait for your sources before writing this post of yours off as another tale of make believe.

Before you reply to something I didn't write, let me repeat my question. What are your sources for stating that 'with F2P the servers have again seen a large drop after about 2 months'

[Kelimbror]

Before you reply to something I didn't write, let me repeat my question. What are your sources for stating that 'with F2P the servers have again seen a large drop after about 2 months'

Also, please don't use xfire, because that is certainly not accurate.

For my anecdote, I was just online for about an hour this past week on an offpeak time and day. The server was just as full as it always is and my queues were very quick. Nothing I saw in the actual game would lead me to beileve it has had a significant drop in players.

I feel it is likely less people play it for extended periods of time, but that's not really news in F2P games. Also TERA just went F2P without restrictions for the most part and a lot of people will be checking that out.

[Vankrys]

going back on topic.

I doubt it would take 1 month for the average gamer to level from 50-55. I have no information, but that seems very unlikely, especially since there are no new class story, only a planet. Even if the planet is double the size of correlia, i can se it done in a week tops.

That being said, this is a paying content, even double price for F2P player, thus content should have meat to it. So yes, if i drop $20 on makreb, i do expect to have enough new content to keep me occupied for at least 1-2 month. Sadly, i fear this will not be the case. But let's jsut wait and see.

[Deleted]

After about 2-3 months the game lost about a 1/3 of their players. Since when is a 1/3 of something not significant. Thats about 700k people.

Early March, 2.5 months after release - 1.7 million subs
Early May, 4.5 months after release - 1.3 million subs

Any questions?

[Kelimbror]

Early March, 2.5 months after release - 1.7 million subs
Early May, 4.5 months after release - 1.3 million subs

Any questions?

Nope, just statements. Please give a link to the first reports after initial 6 month subscriptions ran out. You know how many they had then? Not enough to give a definitive number, but best guesses place it between 500k and 750k. Then the game went F2P.

If you are going to try and use facts to support something, at least give the whole picture. As it is, your statement is a half truth. I'm all for supporting things when they deserve it, but to act like this game didn't have a mass exodus of player and then went F2P is just a lie.

[Deleted]

Nope, just statements. Please give a link to the first reports after initial 6 month subscriptions ran out. You know how many they had then? Not enough to give a definitive number, but best guesses place it between 500k and 750k. Then the game went F2P.

If you are going to try and use facts to support something, at least give the whole picture. As it is, your statement is a half truth. I'm all for supporting things when they deserve it, but to act like this game didn't have a mass exodus of player and then went F2P is just a lie.

Very true. Their exact wording was 'easily over 500k but under a million'. In my mind that meant 550k but regardless it was a dark time for this game. Servers were empty(ing) and such a long time between new content patches. Little to no info from Bioware except a general 'we're working on it' reply.

There are still a lot of subscribers from what I can tell (of my friends list of over 40 people nearly all still log in) but so far adding the F2P option has only been positive for my gaming experience (more peeps, 24/7 groups etc). I know many hate the model and I can see why but from a subscriber's perspective...Yoda bless the F2P'ers!

Now if only I could trust Bioware to really invest the F2P lucre into ingame content (I need the 'ambitious' quote to not be a lie) I'd be a happy camper.

[Kelimbror]

Very true. Their exact wording was 'easily over 500k but under a million'. In my mind that meant 550k but regardless it was a dark time for this game. Servers were empty(ing) and such a long time between new content patches. Little to no info from Bioware except a general 'we're working on it' reply.

There are still a lot of subscribers from what I can tell (of my friends list of over 40 people nearly all still log in) but so far adding the F2P option has only been positive for my gaming experience (more peeps, 24/7 groups etc). I know many hate the model and I can see why but from a subscriber's perspective...Yoda bless the F2P'ers!

Now if only I could trust Bioware to really invest the F2P lucre into ingame content (I need the 'ambitious' quote to not be a lie) I'd be a happy camper.

I agree. I also agree that the amount of players that left doesn't affect the actual gameplay in any way whatsoever. You are completely right that the game has only improved from an effective population standpoint since F2P. Financially it has come with a greater cost to those paying, but that's not what we were talking about.

For people to claim the game is dead because there are no people left or to claim that this game still has millions of people playing are both completely wrong. There's a good chance the game rebounded a little from it's lowest point, but just based on amount of servers and the people you can see on them it is clearly a smaller game than it was 3-6 months after launch.

It is a very healthy game and play is not hindered at all by the current population.

[Deleted]

Nope, just statements. Please give a link to the first reports after initial 6 month subscriptions ran out. You know how many they had then? Not enough to give a definitive number, but best guesses place it between 500k and 750k. Then the game went F2P.

If you are going to try and use facts to support something, at least give the whole picture. As it is, your statement is a half truth. I'm all for supporting things when they deserve it, but to act like this game didn't have a mass exodus of player and then went F2P is just a lie.

Except that I never said there wasn't mass exodus. Re-read my posts, you missed the point, well, completely and what we were discussing.

[Kelimbror]

Except that I never said there wasn't mass exodus. Re-read my posts, you missed the point, well, completely and what we were discussing.

Forgot the point is more likely with the amount of threads I read. I apologize. It does seem you were just disputing the timing that was claimed and you are right about your point.. I am humble enough to admit when I have completely overstepped.

[katta]

Can you tell us where you got the above info? I ask because you have been known to make 'facts' up to support your arguments. I've not noticed any such 'large' drop in numbers since November (F2P launch). You may be right or wrong but as you're not above blatantly lying in order to prove a theory I'm going to wait for your sources before writing this post of yours off as another tale of make believe.

Before you reply to something I didn't write, let me repeat my question. What are your sources for stating that 'with F2P the servers have again seen a large drop after about 2 months'

Just look at the servers.

When F2P arrives were the servers not full every day? Just look on the forums and you will see that they were. Now look at them now? Most only hit heavy with a few hitting very heavy and many 2-3 hitting full on suns for the most part.

Just because you dont want to believe what I say doesnt mean I am making things up.

The servers were full almost every day for the first month or so of F2P. Now they rarely hit very heavy. I guess they raised the caps for the 7 billionth time instead of them actually losing people.

[Deleted]

Just look at the servers.

When F2P arrives were the servers not full every day? Just look on the forums and you will see that they were. Now look at them now? Most only hit heavy with a few hitting very heavy and many 2-3 hitting full on suns for the most part.

Just because you dont want to believe what I say doesnt mean I am making things up.

The servers were full almost every day for the first month or so of F2P. Now they rarely hit very heavy. I guess they raised the caps for the 7 billionth time instead of them actually losing people.

Cool so it's your opinion, not fact. Gotcha.

My opinion is that there has been no such 'large drop' on my server since November. I generally play for some hours everyday and have noticed no real difference in GTN sales (I sell the same 1-1.5mil a day), group times for FP (3-5mins wait), WZ group times (3-7mins) and numbers of peeps on the fleet. I run ops with my guild so server population doesn't really affect those for me. For the rest though I've noticed no 'real' change.

It's anecdotal just like your own viewpoint. Cool.

[Psychlon]

Just look at the servers.

When F2P arrives were the servers not full every day? Just look on the forums and you will see that they were. Now look at them now? Most only hit heavy with a few hitting very heavy and many 2-3 hitting full on suns for the most part.

Just because you dont want to believe what I say doesnt mean I am making things up.

The servers were full almost every day for the first month or so of F2P. Now they rarely hit very heavy. I guess they raised the caps for the 7 billionth time instead of them actually losing people.

So first you are saying there was a hugh drop off while now guessing that they raised the caps and actually didn't lose (any) players?...

When F2P hit you didn't have full server 24/7. You had/have many more players than before F2P but that doesn't mean that you still have low/ peak times. My server has seen "very heavy" to "full" regardless since F2P was introduced so "your" hugh dropoff must have happened somewhere else.

[katta]

So first you are saying there was a hugh drop off while now guessing that they raised the caps and actually didn't lose (any) players?...

When F2P hit you didn't have full server 24/7. You had/have many more players than before F2P but that doesn't mean that you still have low/ peak times. My server has seen "very heavy" to "full" regardless since F2P was introduced so "your" hugh dropoff must have happened somewhere else.

The raising the cap was in reference to everyone that said Bioware did it so many times before when servers were dropping.

I didnt say they were full 24/7. But they did hit full at peak times every day. Now at peak times they usually only hit heavy.

Like I said 1 or 2 servers still hit very heavy /full and that must be the one your on.

---------- Post added 2013-02-07 at 07:14 AM ----------

Cool so it's your opinion, not fact. Gotcha.

My opinion is that there has been no such 'large drop' on my server since November. I generally play for some hours everyday and have noticed no real difference in GTN sales (I sell the same 1-1.5mil a day), group times for FP (3-5mins wait), WZ group times (3-7mins) and numbers of peeps on the fleet. I run ops with my guild so server population doesn't really affect those for me. For the rest though I've noticed no 'real' change.

It's anecdotal just like your own viewpoint. Cool.

I guess it is my opinion because no matter what only Bioware knows the truth. But if you use common sense you would see it but you would rather ignore it.

So again what server are you on? Also when F2P came into the game how often did you have Sues or full servers and for how long were they full for in the day. Now how many times do you have a Que or full server and for how long?

I guess no matter what you and Psychlon will always deny the population is dropping because you dont want to look at everything thats out there.

Its just all denial.

Nope I dont see it so its not happening.
Nope TORSTATUS isnt 100% accurate so dont look at its data.
Nope whatever anyone says is just a made up opinion because they dont know the actual number, only Bioware does and they are saying the game is doing great. Yeah they would never lie would they.

Just look at TORSTATUS for this month (Feb). Only one server hit full and that was one day(a sun). Like I said its slowly decreasing since F2P so you dont notice it in game because you adjust to it each day. One day its 3 mins for a FP then the next week its 3.2 mins then the next 3.3 etc then the next week its down to 4 then the next 2 weeks its down to 4.5 then down to 5 etc etc.

[Kelimbror]

I guess no matter what you and Psychlon will always deny the population is dropping because you dont want to look at everything thats out there.

Or it's because they are actually playing the game and don't notice any decrease in player activity. F2P will naturally have fewer concurrent players, fewer regular players, but the entire population when accounting for the constantly shifting non sub players keeps the game pretty level at this point.

You can look at inaccurate websites all you want, guesstimating on what server status means, but unless you are regularly playing the game you won't have a real concept of the population.

[katta]

Or it's because they are actually playing the game and don't notice any decrease in player activity. F2P will naturally have fewer concurrent players, fewer regular players, but the entire population when accounting for the constantly shifting non sub players keeps the game pretty level at this point.

You can look at inaccurate websites all you want, guesstimating on what server status means, but unless you are regularly playing the game you won't have a real concept of the population.

Also I explained how them playing the game can make it so they dont see it. Another example would be Fatman. If you played on a server like fatman you would have thought that this game never lost players and just was growing at a fast pace. It was full almost all the time and we all know how well the other servers were doing.

The next part you said makes no sense. F2P has no effect on concurrent players, what just because its F2P they cannot long on for as long as they like and are linimted in the time they can play?(as compared to a sub game). Constant shifting of non sub players is keeping it level? If it was level we wouldnt see a decrease now would we.

Now exactly is it inaccurate? Yes it does not tell you how many people actually play but it does tell you that less people are playing. The site isnt guestimating that there are less people. Its showing us there is but we dont know the exact number. Again just because you see alot of people in game on your server doesnt mean everything is the same on all the other servers. People tend to flock to the popular server. There again could be more people rerolling onto the top server of each area, which would make that server show less of an effect.

Dont care how it looks in game. Heavy is less than Full.

[Kelimbror]

Also I explained how them playing the game can make it so they dont see it. Another example would be Fatman. If you played on a server like fatman you would have thought that this game never lost players and just was growing at a fast pace. It was full almost all the time and we all know how well the other servers were doing.

There aren't exactly that many servers anymore. Just from the people posting in this one thread, on this small subforum, I think we already have 4-6 servers represented. None of these people, including me, have seen any kind of change since F2P launched.

The next part you said makes no sense. F2P has no effect on concurrent players, what just because its F2P they cannot long on for as long as they like and are linimted in the time they can play?(as compared to a sub game). Constant shifting of non sub players is keeping it level? If it was level we wouldnt see a decrease now would we.

You are the one who is claiming some large or constant decrease. If you don't understand how a game being F2P means that there are more players, but fewer on at the same time I don't think you understand how F2P works. It's not like they flip a switch and if a game is good suddenly there are tons free players on 24/7.

Most free players tend to play several games since they aren't hindered by subscription fees. Logically and from personal experience I can tell you that means a lot of bouncing around between multiple games. The percentage of people who think, oh man SWTOR ius F2P now I can live on that game and not pay are slim to none.

Again just because you see alot of people in game on your server doesnt mean everything is the same on all the other servers. People tend to flock to the popular server. There again could be more people rerolling onto the top server of each area, which would make that server show less of an effect.

But wouldn't that explain your change in server status between full, heavy, etc? If people are leaving one server for another, the overall population hasn't changed, but two server statuses might. So even the example you presented would explain the data. You are just inferring a conclusion that may or may not be accurate becuase this data doesn't give you any real information.

[katta]

There aren't exactly that many servers anymore. Just from the people posting in this one thread, on this small subforum, I think we already have 4-6 servers represented. None of these people, including me, have seen any kind of change since F2P launched.

None of those people including you want to see it. Your looking at what you want to and from that you are saying that everything is fine. Even the servers you are on are on a decrease but you are just looking at what you want to say it isnt. As Jamos used as an example. He can still have short Que times so that means that people havent quit after F2P. Look at Torstatus and you will see it. You dont like torstatus then look on SWTOR's own site and see that the servers dont hit full anymore and some rarely hit very heavy. Then go back in those forums and see how people were saying the servers were full etc etc. If the servers were full after F2P and they are now heavy after 3 months then that means about every server has lost the numbers of very heavy.

You are the one who is claiming some large or constant decrease. If you don't understand how a game being F2P means that there are more players, but fewer on at the same time I don't think you understand how F2P works. It's not like they flip a switch and if a game is good suddenly there are tons free players on 24/7.

Yes and my claims have been show by the servers capacities. They did flip the switch so there should be more players. Remember 40% of the people who quit did it because of a sub cost. So no sub cost means that those 40% should have came back. That is unless Bioware lied about that also. Then again you avoid answering the question. The servers were full for the first say month of F2P now they are heavy. Those are not people who you say they are. The ones that go from game to game and play them all. Those are people who like so many others lost interest in the game after a few months.

[QUOTE=Kittyvicious;20139052]Most free players tend to play several games since they aren't hindered by subscription fees. Logically and from personal experience I can tell you that means a lot of bouncing around between multiple games. The percentage of people who think, oh man SWTOR ius F2P now I can live on that game and not pay are slim to none./[QUOTE]

Kind of replied to this above but. If they bounced around from game to game wouldnt they still be bouncing around.

But wouldn't that explain your change in server status between full, heavy, etc? If people are leaving one server for another, the overall population hasn't changed, but two server statuses might. So even the example you presented would explain the data. You are just inferring a conclusion that may or may not be accurate becuase this data doesn't give you any real information.

Let me show you with examples that are not actual to SWTOR

Full=20000
Very heavy=15000
heavy=10000
standard=5000

So to start all server reach full. thats 400,000. Now we have 15 servers at heavy, 5 at very heavy. Thats a total of 315,000. Now even if people moved around it still doesnt make a difference in the status. Now if a server was hitting full with a Que time still then you could say that people were just lining up at that server and a decrease may not have happened.

Again nice way to try and change my example. My example was to show that just because 1 server is full (when the game has 200 servers) doesnt mean that people are not leaving just because you dont notice it on that server.

Again the top servers are also not even keeping at full so even they are losing people on them too.