Number of Players Lost Since Glacier?

[Kai]

Do people really set a bunch of open estates and wait for them to 'fill'?

[De-Legro]

Many do yes. It ensures that new characters/players have estates to select from the character creation page.

[Chenier]

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.

Density allows for more realms, which in turn allows for lesser distance between said realms.

[Kai]

I don't see why density would give more realms instead of larger ones.

[Chenier]

I don't see why density would give more realms instead of larger ones.

Because more people fighting over the same titles tends to lead to splits? And because having too few nobles tends to discourage splits, as each fraction would be nonviable on its own?

Density always seemed to lead to more realms in my experience...

[De-Legro]

I don't see why density would give more realms instead of larger ones.

It varies, but in general the theory is more characters = more points of view = more ambitious nobles fighting for fewer positions of power = more arguments = more realms.

[Kai]

That might be true when you increase the number of players while holding number of regions constant, but what has been done in practice is decreasing number of regions while holding player numbers constant. I don't think the latter case can logically lead to more realms.

[De-Legro]

That might be true when you increase the number of players while holding number of regions constant, but what has been done in practice is decreasing number of regions while holding player numbers constant. I don't think the latter case can logically lead to more realms.

It COULD, since again forcing density has the propensity to force internal conflict which leads to splits. But as with all things it makes assumptions, like characters being different enough to create the conflict, characters with the opportunity and power to do something actually being involved etc. However Chénier was making general statements about density, not necessarily stating that actions like the glacier to force higher density would result in more realms.

[Chenier]

That might be true when you increase the number of players while holding number of regions constant, but what has been done in practice is decreasing number of regions while holding player numbers constant. I don't think the latter case can logically lead to more realms.

It COULD, since again forcing density has the propensity to force internal conflict which leads to splits. But as with all things it makes assumptions, like characters being different enough to create the conflict, characters with the opportunity and power to do something actually being involved etc. However Chénier was making general statements about density, not necessarily stating that actions like the glacier to force higher density would result in more realms.

Indeed, it was more of a general statement. However, the thing with historics is that it all depends where you put the start of the data. Did increasing the density increase the number of realms on Dwilight? No, it did not. We even lost many, but let's just picture an earlier post-invasion time when the realms of the west were struggling for a foothold, because we also lost a lot of density since that. If you look at farther back, however, you'll see that the realm:density ratio of the post-invasion was the same as one found before.

I don't think I'm being very clear right now, though...

Let's look at it another way: realm numbers react more quickly to increases of density than to decreases. While logically, one could assume that if increasing density results in splits, decreases should result in mergers. But for one, realm mergers are against the rules. Then, one must consider that people grow attached to realms, and will stick to them for far longer than they are viable.

[Kai]

I forgot what we were even arguing about.

I think inter-realm conflict is much more fun than intra-realm conflict

[vonGenf]

Date	Registered Players	Weekly Activity	Daily Activity
2014 Jan. 26th (peak count)	880	577	304
2014 March 1st (Beginning of freezing)	825	539	288
April 10th	797	541	293
2014 May 1st	799	533	305
2014 June 16th (WI created)	784	491	277
2014 July 3rd	757	460	248
2014 August 13th	736	445	250
2014 October 21st	683	402	224
2015 March 30th	566	370	184

[Kai]

RIP, better extract the players to a game that has a subscription while you still can.

[Antonine]

This kind of tallies with what I've found with the game. There seems to have been a massive decline lately and I have to confess that I myself wound up auto pausing because there was nothing interesting happening with any of my characters that made logging in worth while.

I've unpaused again but things seem really dead across the board.