Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?

[Chenier]

July 2007: over 1700 players.

The player base was still growing back then.

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/User:Ch%C3%A9nier/French_Wiki

[Buffalkill]

[Buffalkill]

[Buffalkill]

[Buffalkill]

[Buffalkill]

[Chenier]

This seems more like a sinuous function than an exponential one to me. Having more data would likely show a seasonal trend. Interestingly, it starts and finishes with the same value.

[Buffalkill]

This seems more like a sinuous function than an exponential one to me. Having more data would likely show a seasonal trend. Interestingly, it starts and finishes with the same value.

Yes this one is the most interesting to me. It's per capita, so it's not effected by changes in the number of registered players. I think you're right that it shows seasonal trends, such as increased activity in cold months (if you live in the northern hemisphere) and vice versa. It also shows that the diehards haven't been discouraged by the year long exodus.

[Zakilevo]

Looks like we are reaching a point where we are left with the most active or those who have been playing this game for years.

[Kai]

There is obviously going to be periodic behaviour on all our regular timescales: time of day, week, year (not so much month). However the long term trend is decline which doesn't seem to be slowing or reversing.

[Chenier]

What I think would be pretty interesting would be comparing the results of the continents that got glaciers and monsters to the continents that did not, to see what impact it had on retention.

[GundamMerc]

What I think would be pretty interesting would be comparing the results of the continents that got glaciers and monsters to the continents that did not, to see what impact it had on retention.

I would agree with this, but unfortunately that would be skewed by the fact that the continents that did not have special rules to them that would possibly affect the results. Beluaterra is an immigration only continent. You have to move a character from somewhere else to there. The other continent that wasn't affected, the Colonies, has only one turn per day, so the activity would significantly be affected by that.

[Chenier]

I would agree with this, but unfortunately that would be skewed by the fact that the continents that did not have special rules to them that would possibly affect the results. Beluaterra is an immigration only continent. You have to move a character from somewhere else to there. The other continent that wasn't affected, the Colonies, has only one turn per day, so the activity would significantly be affected by that.

Noble count and density are the only metrics I'd really like measured in this regard.

"Did reducing the size of some of the continents allow them to retain greater density than the continents that were not reduced" is the hypothesis to test. It doesn't matter if it's apples and oranges between the continents, what's important is not the raw value, but that variation ratio.

[Kai]

Density doesn't matter with the current estate system. Lords who have an empty estate just lose money so that number of free estate slots in a realm is always tiny and many players per region just lead to people getting shafted in tiny estates.

[De-Legro]

Density doesn't matter with the current estate system. Lords who have an empty estate just lose money so that number of free estate slots in a realm is always tiny and many players per region just lead to people getting shafted in tiny estates.

What? Many realms struggle to fill the estates in their cities, let alone worry about estates in other regions.