anything is viable and depends on what you like. If everyone else understood this graph was purely player hours, how was anyone still accusing BG of being overstacked and using this graph as proof? It shows the exact opposite.For open world, events, farms, exploration, world bosses etc. The data implies that server linking is equalizing the population, but BG was winning due to other factors. The 5th most populated server with just about any link would match up or exceed BG hours. The 15th most populated server combined with the two least populated servers would match up in player hours to BG. Knowing the graph is purely player hours, we can also draw conclusions that BG isn't as overstacked in terms of player hours as people have been saying forever. But people would make it a big deal that BG is 7.5% bigger than the second biggest server and 16% bigger than the fourth biggest server. But otherwise, no one would care that SOS is 10% bigger than FA or something similar. I suppose if there's an EU server that's been similarly dominant, it could protect that server. If the only thing Anet obscured was the server name, I don't know why they did that since everyone knows the first bar is BG and that's the server everyone wants to use this data to hate on anyway.
#Gw2 star chart basics full
I believe SOS was full and without a link when this was taken, but they're open with a link now so they would have fallen far off how close they were to BG. It's possible one of the next few largest worlds have overtaken BG, but we don't know for sure. It might be true, but BG is the only server that hasn't opened since then so attrition will have occurred in only one direction the whole time. If they released the same graph today without server names, everyone would still assume BG was the first bar, regardless of whether that's true. Secondly, the use of partial transparency is still worse than either full transparency or no transparency. I still believe that if they were going to do it once, they should have made it a regular thing. For one, it was taken 4 months ago so continuing to use it as proof of anything in today's state isn't accurate. So re-evaluating this graph as simple player hours, and knowing that BG had the most players at the time as well, certain aspects of my argument are still valid. That's true, but it's important to note that they're saying they're developing this new player evaluation that is composed of several factors, which includes player hours. Based on the other comments, I now believe he meant this to say "The system WILL USE stats like." The ambiguity exists because the two sentences use present voice followed by future voice, implying one is happening now and one will happen in the future.Īs a separate topic, your last comment said player hours are going to be used for composing new worlds. The quote used present voice, not future voice so I believed that they had already implemented this composite metric consisting of multiple metrics and used it in determining server linkings. Some of the new worlds might have more hardcore players and some might have less but overall the new worlds should have similar play hours." "The system uses stats like play hours in WvW, commander time and squad size, time of day, and participation levels to create worlds that are balanced. The reason I believed differently is primarily due to this answer in your first link (the World Restructuring FAQ): I now agree that the graph was for existing player hours, so thank you for that. Thanks for doing the research and pointing me to the sources. Player hours are also going to be used for composing the new worlds. I don't know how much more direct the dev should have been for you. The bar chart that was posted is basically player hours on a rolling average that is smoothed out over some unknown period of time (players have estimated about three weeks). "We have simulated other algorithms to measure world size and ultimately found that player hours gave us more accurate results because we are mostly comparing active WvW play." "We already use play hours to determine population status of a world" with more detail on how they calculate their "activity" metric.īut we do know more detail on how they calculate population. It's a graph of their internal metric for calculating "activity". Said:Anet tried to explain that it's not showing player count or play time.
0 kommentar(er)
