Population update

Quick update - population (or number of characters RvRing) is still above last years population despite the bunny quest and RP bonuses going down, which may have spiked population. In the most recent week, the population was 11.7% up on last year (Albion 0.1% down, Hibernia 22.2% up, and Midgard 15.7% up).

Population change week on week is down 0.8% - negligible considering the bonuses have dropped.

It will be interesting to see how the population fares over the next month. Last year in the same period, a Come Back to Camelot Campaign was launched which saw a spike in population (characters in RvR).

ZePueJq.png

Quick note - I keep referring to characters in RvR because these figures are a count of characters that have earned at least one RP in any given week (Monday to Sunday). This is not a perfect reflection of actual population or number of accounts, but the trend up or down (or compared to previous years or weeks or months) is an indication of how healthy the population might or might not be.
«1

Comments

  • Thank you for the data Simon interesting but not totally unexpected to see Albion population down and the other realms population up.
    I think this is down to the recent patches a lot of alb players have left the game due to the one side patches.
    My main realm is alb but I occasionally play the other realms.
    And what I have found is how easy it is to run and play most types of groups on both Hibernia and Midgard.
    On Albion there is really not the utility or general ease of setting up groups that you have on the other realms.
    As you can you can see from the figures people vote with there feet and migrate to the other realms or leave the game.
    A few things could make this better reducing the minstrel aoe mez to 2.5 and making the single stun an aoe stun but not allowing those abilitys if the minstrel was specced in stealth.
    The other thing I would do is give the tic a spec group heal to allow alb more utility in group setting up.
    I would also like to see the sorc get the sojourner line as well as convoker line.
    The paladin should have static tempest rather than the friar.
    Finally the reaver should get a group only melee bonus plus a instant aoe group only shear to counter the enchanter and champion abilities which together make hib melee groups very strong.
    The state of Albion is the elephant in the room at the moment unfortunetly Albion players just don’t speak up enough and are certainly not represented enough on the old postcount forums or indeed the internal boards.
    But know we are finally seeing figures that are showing something is very wrong in Albion once again thank you Simon great job.
  • I think you're misinterpreting the data. The Albion population is down on last year, but still the same as the other realms.

    This time last year the Albion population was bigger than the other realms.

    I'll share % figures when I get home - but the link in my signature for last year's data has a good breakdown of realm by realm populations over the last year.

    I have a very different experience in game to you - my guild finds it much easier to run on Albion than the other two realms.
  • Population share over the past year was 32.9% Alb, 32.4% Hib, and 34.7% Mid.

    Alb did not quite as well on deathblows and kills.

    Need to get home to see more recent figures (last week and last month).
  • I think you run a specific type of group on Albion mainly casters.
    I believe my point is Albion lacks the utility of the other realms and the recent patches have made it worse.
  • Here are the figures for share of kills/deathblows/players over the last month.

    Albion has had the highest population (slightly), fared in the middle on deathblows (although behind Midgard - but Midgard has been consistently ahead on most measures since I started collecting data two years ago), but doing poorly on kills. A high kills to deathblows ratio implies you're a much zergier realm, though, as the bottom graph points out.

    Xbbmz5e.png


    EWcog3K.png
  • Brut wrote: »
    I think you run a specific type of group on Albion mainly casters.
    I believe my point is Albion lacks the utility of the other realms and the recent patches have made it worse.

    We usually run a nice tank heavy hybrid, pw necro, paladin, arms, minstrel. Sometimes swapping a merc in there. Then theurg/sorc.
  • Anecdotally, I've got the most time/investment on Alb but I've since swapped to Hib and I've had a much better time. Not sure if it's the people, the classes, or what - but I find that people seem to be quite a bit more open to forming random PuGs when I'm over on Hib.
  • Simon wrote: »
    Here are the figures for share of kills/deathblows/players over the last month.

    Albion has had the highest population (slightly), fared in the middle on deathblows (although behind Midgard - but Midgard has been consistently ahead on most measures since I started collecting data two years ago), but doing poorly on kills. A high kills to deathblows ratio implies you're a much zergier realm, though, as the bottom graph points out.

    Xbbmz5e.png


    EWcog3K.png

    I am sorry but these numbers do not mean what you think they mean -- a simple example; you zerg propensity is -- silly. The mere fact that you put kills/deathblows means little, and moreover is skewed by the fact of the near impossibility of a healer <only toon in game with zero offensive capabilities inherent> to get a deathblow --- not to mention multiple other factors. The zerginess numbers are irrelevant.

    Additionally there is no way to parse out the vagaries of people playing all realms and vagaries therein --- while the raw numbers are fine -- interpretations are meh.
  • Xyorman wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    Here are the figures for share of kills/deathblows/players over the last month.

    Albion has had the highest population (slightly), fared in the middle on deathblows (although behind Midgard - but Midgard has been consistently ahead on most measures since I started collecting data two years ago), but doing poorly on kills. A high kills to deathblows ratio implies you're a much zergier realm, though, as the bottom graph points out.

    Xbbmz5e.png


    EWcog3K.png

    I am sorry but these numbers do not mean what you think they mean -- a simple example; you zerg propensity is -- silly. The mere fact that you put kills/deathblows means little, and moreover is skewed by the fact of the near impossibility of a healer <only toon in game with zero offensive capabilities inherent> to get a deathblow --- not to mention multiple other factors. The zerginess numbers are irrelevant.

    Additionally there is no way to parse out the vagaries of people playing all realms and vagaries therein --- while the raw numbers are fine -- interpretations are meh.

    How would you calculate that better ?
  • You can't -- the data is flawed, not SImon's fault just the way it is; the access needed prolly isn't allowed nor worth the effort.
  • Xyorman wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    Here are the figures for share of kills/deathblows/players over the last month.

    Albion has had the highest population (slightly), fared in the middle on deathblows (although behind Midgard - but Midgard has been consistently ahead on most measures since I started collecting data two years ago), but doing poorly on kills. A high kills to deathblows ratio implies you're a much zergier realm, though, as the bottom graph points out.

    Xbbmz5e.png


    EWcog3K.png

    I am sorry but these numbers do not mean what you think they mean -- a simple example; you zerg propensity is -- silly. The mere fact that you put kills/deathblows means little, and moreover is skewed by the fact of the near impossibility of a healer <only toon in game with zero offensive capabilities inherent> to get a deathblow --- not to mention multiple other factors. The zerginess numbers are irrelevant.

    Additionally there is no way to parse out the vagaries of people playing all realms and vagaries therein --- while the raw numbers are fine -- interpretations are meh.

    lol - it is literally a division of the number of people involved in a kill against the deathblows involved in a realm. if that number was 1, then the realm's kills would be entirely solo oriented. if that number was 100, then for every deathblow, 100 people would be involved in the kill (i.e., extremely zergy).

    every realm has their healer classes, their passive classes, etc., that don't earn deathblows or earn less. it is still a relative measure of how many people are involved in every kill - the higher the value, the more people. your point on healers is pretty mute - i'm giving figures for an entire realm, not individual characters. if healers got more deathblows at the expense of other mid classes, the figure would still be the same.

    ergo it is a perfect measure of propensity to zerg (i.e., kill in large numbers).

    on your second point, i'm not trying to interpret the data as anymore than an indication of which realm is doing better by the figures. at no point do i extrapolate the data here to say hey, thanes suck, or necromancers are awesome. by itself, these numbers don't mean much - but we all play the game and we all have good (and sometimes bad) opinions on how the game is balanced, these numbers can be used to support theory, but like all good statistics, they have caveats.
  • The data doesn’t lie, mid is most Zerg during EU prime (Anna 100 person BG), US prime (Xyorman) zerg, and even late late night PST (Rizztal, Rhuleman, Tuxedomask, Clumsy 3 FGs untill 1 Am EST.
    Symonde (Cleric)
    Symfriar (Friar duh)
    Symsorc (Double duh)
    Sympets (Theurg)
    Symmond (Arms)
    Some random mids and hibs
  • Simon wrote: »
    Xyorman wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    Here are the figures for share of kills/deathblows/players over the last month.

    Albion has had the highest population (slightly), fared in the middle on deathblows (although behind Midgard - but Midgard has been consistently ahead on most measures since I started collecting data two years ago), but doing poorly on kills. A high kills to deathblows ratio implies you're a much zergier realm, though, as the bottom graph points out.

    Xbbmz5e.png


    EWcog3K.png

    I am sorry but these numbers do not mean what you think they mean -- a simple example; you zerg propensity is -- silly. The mere fact that you put kills/deathblows means little, and moreover is skewed by the fact of the near impossibility of a healer <only toon in game with zero offensive capabilities inherent> to get a deathblow --- not to mention multiple other factors. The zerginess numbers are irrelevant.

    Additionally there is no way to parse out the vagaries of people playing all realms and vagaries therein --- while the raw numbers are fine -- interpretations are meh.

    lol - it is literally a division of the number of people involved in a kill against the deathblows involved in a realm. if that number was 1, then the realm's kills would be entirely solo oriented. if that number was 100, then for every deathblow, 100 people would be involved in the kill (i.e., extremely zergy).

    every realm has their healer classes, their passive classes, etc., that don't earn deathblows or earn less. it is still a relative measure of how many people are involved in every kill - the higher the value, the more people. your point on healers is pretty mute - i'm giving figures for an entire realm, not individual characters. if healers got more deathblows at the expense of other mid classes, the figure would still be the same.

    ergo it is a perfect measure of propensity to zerg (i.e., kill in large numbers).

    on your second point, i'm not trying to interpret the data as anymore than an indication of which realm is doing better by the figures. at no point do i extrapolate the data here to say hey, thanes suck, or necromancers are awesome. by itself, these numbers don't mean much - but we all play the game and we all have good (and sometimes bad) opinions on how the game is balanced, these numbers can be used to support theory, but like all good statistics, they have caveats.

    I understand exactly what you did and it statistically means NOTHING -- that is my point, the relativity is misleading as presented and means little. ONLY mid has a character with NO offensive capability -- NO OTHER realm does --- and that character, by your own numbers has the higher percentage of realm points for that realm -- if you don't see how that skews what you attempt to show -- I can't, in this forum, help ya.

    You do try and interpret -- and you are right here ---as I said, the vagaries really don't support anything.

  • Xyorman wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    Xyorman wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    Here are the figures for share of kills/deathblows/players over the last month.

    Albion has had the highest population (slightly), fared in the middle on deathblows (although behind Midgard - but Midgard has been consistently ahead on most measures since I started collecting data two years ago), but doing poorly on kills. A high kills to deathblows ratio implies you're a much zergier realm, though, as the bottom graph points out.

    Xbbmz5e.png


    EWcog3K.png

    I am sorry but these numbers do not mean what you think they mean -- a simple example; you zerg propensity is -- silly. The mere fact that you put kills/deathblows means little, and moreover is skewed by the fact of the near impossibility of a healer <only toon in game with zero offensive capabilities inherent> to get a deathblow --- not to mention multiple other factors. The zerginess numbers are irrelevant.

    Additionally there is no way to parse out the vagaries of people playing all realms and vagaries therein --- while the raw numbers are fine -- interpretations are meh.

    lol - it is literally a division of the number of people involved in a kill against the deathblows involved in a realm. if that number was 1, then the realm's kills would be entirely solo oriented. if that number was 100, then for every deathblow, 100 people would be involved in the kill (i.e., extremely zergy).

    every realm has their healer classes, their passive classes, etc., that don't earn deathblows or earn less. it is still a relative measure of how many people are involved in every kill - the higher the value, the more people. your point on healers is pretty mute - i'm giving figures for an entire realm, not individual characters. if healers got more deathblows at the expense of other mid classes, the figure would still be the same.

    ergo it is a perfect measure of propensity to zerg (i.e., kill in large numbers).

    on your second point, i'm not trying to interpret the data as anymore than an indication of which realm is doing better by the figures. at no point do i extrapolate the data here to say hey, thanes suck, or necromancers are awesome. by itself, these numbers don't mean much - but we all play the game and we all have good (and sometimes bad) opinions on how the game is balanced, these numbers can be used to support theory, but like all good statistics, they have caveats.

    I understand exactly what you did and it statistically means NOTHING -- that is my point, the relativity is misleading as presented and means little. ONLY mid has a character with NO offensive capability -- NO OTHER realm does --- and that character, by your own numbers has the higher percentage of realm points for that realm -- if you don't see how that skews what you attempt to show -- I can't, in this forum, help ya.

    You do try and interpret -- and you are right here ---as I said, the vagaries really don't support anything.

    Stats are correct, even if you admit to it or not.
    100v1 zerg (zergiset)
    8v1 zerg (zergy)
    2v1 zerg (less zergy)
    1v1 (not zergy)

    Now if you wanna run around with a healer+dps duo and kill soloers it will give zerg points.
    If you choose to attack a 4 man with your duo it will not.
  • Auf_Nymf wrote: »
    Xyorman wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    Xyorman wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    Here are the figures for share of kills/deathblows/players over the last month.

    Albion has had the highest population (slightly), fared in the middle on deathblows (although behind Midgard - but Midgard has been consistently ahead on most measures since I started collecting data two years ago), but doing poorly on kills. A high kills to deathblows ratio implies you're a much zergier realm, though, as the bottom graph points out.

    Xbbmz5e.png


    EWcog3K.png

    I am sorry but these numbers do not mean what you think they mean -- a simple example; you zerg propensity is -- silly. The mere fact that you put kills/deathblows means little, and moreover is skewed by the fact of the near impossibility of a healer <only toon in game with zero offensive capabilities inherent> to get a deathblow --- not to mention multiple other factors. The zerginess numbers are irrelevant.

    Additionally there is no way to parse out the vagaries of people playing all realms and vagaries therein --- while the raw numbers are fine -- interpretations are meh.

    lol - it is literally a division of the number of people involved in a kill against the deathblows involved in a realm. if that number was 1, then the realm's kills would be entirely solo oriented. if that number was 100, then for every deathblow, 100 people would be involved in the kill (i.e., extremely zergy).

    every realm has their healer classes, their passive classes, etc., that don't earn deathblows or earn less. it is still a relative measure of how many people are involved in every kill - the higher the value, the more people. your point on healers is pretty mute - i'm giving figures for an entire realm, not individual characters. if healers got more deathblows at the expense of other mid classes, the figure would still be the same.

    ergo it is a perfect measure of propensity to zerg (i.e., kill in large numbers).

    on your second point, i'm not trying to interpret the data as anymore than an indication of which realm is doing better by the figures. at no point do i extrapolate the data here to say hey, thanes suck, or necromancers are awesome. by itself, these numbers don't mean much - but we all play the game and we all have good (and sometimes bad) opinions on how the game is balanced, these numbers can be used to support theory, but like all good statistics, they have caveats.

    I understand exactly what you did and it statistically means NOTHING -- that is my point, the relativity is misleading as presented and means little. ONLY mid has a character with NO offensive capability -- NO OTHER realm does --- and that character, by your own numbers has the higher percentage of realm points for that realm -- if you don't see how that skews what you attempt to show -- I can't, in this forum, help ya.

    You do try and interpret -- and you are right here ---as I said, the vagaries really don't support anything.

    Stats are correct, even if you admit to it or not.
    100v1 zerg (zergiset)
    8v1 zerg (zergy)
    2v1 zerg (less zergy)
    1v1 (not zergy)

    Now if you wanna run around with a healer+dps duo and kill soloers it will give zerg points.
    If you choose to attack a 4 man with your duo it will not.

    I do not think those words mean what you think they mean....lol...but believe whatever you want.

  • edited April 2018 PM
    I think it's lovely that youd take the time to put this together, I personally feel like action has been getting better week after week. I haven't seen a more active Wednesday as last night for awhile, soooo much dying but I still logged happy. I'd rather get rolled 10 times a night than make it through two to three supply runs with easy kills (and guilt)

    Nice ninja relic too Xy, so many people playing last night we didn't even know they were back for a few hours after :)
    Post edited by Nixy_N_Celi_xx on
    ~Shard Junkie~
    Mother of Trolls
  • Xyorman wrote: »
    Auf_Nymf wrote: »
    Xyorman wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    Xyorman wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    Here are the figures for share of kills/deathblows/players over the last month.

    Albion has had the highest population (slightly), fared in the middle on deathblows (although behind Midgard - but Midgard has been consistently ahead on most measures since I started collecting data two years ago), but doing poorly on kills. A high kills to deathblows ratio implies you're a much zergier realm, though, as the bottom graph points out.

    Xbbmz5e.png


    EWcog3K.png

    I am sorry but these numbers do not mean what you think they mean -- a simple example; you zerg propensity is -- silly. The mere fact that you put kills/deathblows means little, and moreover is skewed by the fact of the near impossibility of a healer <only toon in game with zero offensive capabilities inherent> to get a deathblow --- not to mention multiple other factors. The zerginess numbers are irrelevant.

    Additionally there is no way to parse out the vagaries of people playing all realms and vagaries therein --- while the raw numbers are fine -- interpretations are meh.

    lol - it is literally a division of the number of people involved in a kill against the deathblows involved in a realm. if that number was 1, then the realm's kills would be entirely solo oriented. if that number was 100, then for every deathblow, 100 people would be involved in the kill (i.e., extremely zergy).

    every realm has their healer classes, their passive classes, etc., that don't earn deathblows or earn less. it is still a relative measure of how many people are involved in every kill - the higher the value, the more people. your point on healers is pretty mute - i'm giving figures for an entire realm, not individual characters. if healers got more deathblows at the expense of other mid classes, the figure would still be the same.

    ergo it is a perfect measure of propensity to zerg (i.e., kill in large numbers).

    on your second point, i'm not trying to interpret the data as anymore than an indication of which realm is doing better by the figures. at no point do i extrapolate the data here to say hey, thanes suck, or necromancers are awesome. by itself, these numbers don't mean much - but we all play the game and we all have good (and sometimes bad) opinions on how the game is balanced, these numbers can be used to support theory, but like all good statistics, they have caveats.

    I understand exactly what you did and it statistically means NOTHING -- that is my point, the relativity is misleading as presented and means little. ONLY mid has a character with NO offensive capability -- NO OTHER realm does --- and that character, by your own numbers has the higher percentage of realm points for that realm -- if you don't see how that skews what you attempt to show -- I can't, in this forum, help ya.

    You do try and interpret -- and you are right here ---as I said, the vagaries really don't support anything.

    Stats are correct, even if you admit to it or not.
    100v1 zerg (zergiset)
    8v1 zerg (zergy)
    2v1 zerg (less zergy)
    1v1 (not zergy)

    Now if you wanna run around with a healer+dps duo and kill soloers it will give zerg points.
    If you choose to attack a 4 man with your duo it will not.

    I do not think those words mean what you think they mean....lol...but believe whatever you want.

    What words exactly, i can write them in my native langaue if it makes it better for you but math and stats are still the same.....
  • There are many more players that "mainly" play Albion and Midgard compared to Hibernia. One doesn't need to look at a chart to know this. I don't refer to the BG's, since for example Heror's is comprised of many players who "main" Albion or Midgard the rest of the time. There are less "main Hibernia only" players compared to the other realms. Escpecially during US prime time. The question is why?
    Some posters seem to think Alb has less utility than the other to realms? Not quite...More to the point is that there is a "set" group that is basically an insta win for any Alb 8 man due to how ridiculously- yes ridiculously overpowered/easy mode the Albs abilities are. That makes it seem that there are less options, when in reality, they exist, they simply require more effort and skill to pull off. The Mids are much the same as the Albs but with more group variety as they have the most utility between individual classes.
    Just take an objective look at the patches over the years. Almost always a nerf to hib and a boost to the other 2- and if Hib ever gets a boost, its generally quickly nerfed, and then that same ability or whatever is given to Mids or Albs in a later patch, and is even stronger.
    Just look at the last patch- look at what minstrels and skalds got, then look at bards. While Hib's do not "need" a bard to run, it is a huge handicap to not have one. Guess which is the least played toon on Hib- Bingo- Bards.
    It's time to address the big pink elephant that Hibernia needs just a little love in their delves.
  • Xyorman wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    Xyorman wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    Here are the figures for share of kills/deathblows/players over the last month.

    Albion has had the highest population (slightly), fared in the middle on deathblows (although behind Midgard - but Midgard has been consistently ahead on most measures since I started collecting data two years ago), but doing poorly on kills. A high kills to deathblows ratio implies you're a much zergier realm, though, as the bottom graph points out.

    Xbbmz5e.png


    EWcog3K.png

    I am sorry but these numbers do not mean what you think they mean -- a simple example; you zerg propensity is -- silly. The mere fact that you put kills/deathblows means little, and moreover is skewed by the fact of the near impossibility of a healer <only toon in game with zero offensive capabilities inherent> to get a deathblow --- not to mention multiple other factors. The zerginess numbers are irrelevant.

    Additionally there is no way to parse out the vagaries of people playing all realms and vagaries therein --- while the raw numbers are fine -- interpretations are meh.

    lol - it is literally a division of the number of people involved in a kill against the deathblows involved in a realm. if that number was 1, then the realm's kills would be entirely solo oriented. if that number was 100, then for every deathblow, 100 people would be involved in the kill (i.e., extremely zergy).

    every realm has their healer classes, their passive classes, etc., that don't earn deathblows or earn less. it is still a relative measure of how many people are involved in every kill - the higher the value, the more people. your point on healers is pretty mute - i'm giving figures for an entire realm, not individual characters. if healers got more deathblows at the expense of other mid classes, the figure would still be the same.

    ergo it is a perfect measure of propensity to zerg (i.e., kill in large numbers).

    on your second point, i'm not trying to interpret the data as anymore than an indication of which realm is doing better by the figures. at no point do i extrapolate the data here to say hey, thanes suck, or necromancers are awesome. by itself, these numbers don't mean much - but we all play the game and we all have good (and sometimes bad) opinions on how the game is balanced, these numbers can be used to support theory, but like all good statistics, they have caveats.

    I understand exactly what you did and it statistically means NOTHING -- that is my point, the relativity is misleading as presented and means little. ONLY mid has a character with NO offensive capability -- NO OTHER realm does --- and that character, by your own numbers has the higher percentage of realm points for that realm -- if you don't see how that skews what you attempt to show -- I can't, in this forum, help ya.

    You do try and interpret -- and you are right here ---as I said, the vagaries really don't support anything.

    You are literally just saying words and not making any coherent point.

    Statistically the graphs say everything - STATISTICALLY. they are entirely valid for what they say they say.

    The only relativity is realm versus realm. Any these are actual numbers. There is nothing made up. They LITERALLY represent the figures for Albion, versus Midgard, versus Hibernia.

    This has absolutely NOTHING to do with offensive capability of classes. These figures have NOTHING to do with classes. They are the net benefit of a realm. It is not a stretch to assume that for each class that earns less deathblows, they do more to support other realms that generate deathblows (and Midgard has these in abundance). Healers earned 60 deathblows last week. Wardens earned over 110. We're not talking vast degrees of difference. The highest deathblow counts are in the 1000's. But none of this is relevant because we are looking at the net deathblow count for a REALM, not a class. If you took away Healers, the rest of the mid classes would have drastically less deathblows and realm points - this is a NET VALUE. not a class value.

    I can't believe I'm having to debate this. I feel like I'm teaching a kid.
  • Well played hib tank groups are basically unbeatable in 8v8. So not sure what you mean. Alb caster teams are glass cannons. Alb has their primary group build in all low HP cloth wearers.
    Symonde (Cleric)
    Symfriar (Friar duh)
    Symsorc (Double duh)
    Sympets (Theurg)
    Symmond (Arms)
    Some random mids and hibs
  • Xyorman wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    Xyorman wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    Here are the figures for share of kills/deathblows/players over the last month.

    Albion has had the highest population (slightly), fared in the middle on deathblows (although behind Midgard - but Midgard has been consistently ahead on most measures since I started collecting data two years ago), but doing poorly on kills. A high kills to deathblows ratio implies you're a much zergier realm, though, as the bottom graph points out.

    Xbbmz5e.png


    EWcog3K.png

    I am sorry but these numbers do not mean what you think they mean -- a simple example; you zerg propensity is -- silly. The mere fact that you put kills/deathblows means little, and moreover is skewed by the fact of the near impossibility of a healer <only toon in game with zero offensive capabilities inherent> to get a deathblow --- not to mention multiple other factors. The zerginess numbers are irrelevant.

    Additionally there is no way to parse out the vagaries of people playing all realms and vagaries therein --- while the raw numbers are fine -- interpretations are meh.

    lol - it is literally a division of the number of people involved in a kill against the deathblows involved in a realm. if that number was 1, then the realm's kills would be entirely solo oriented. if that number was 100, then for every deathblow, 100 people would be involved in the kill (i.e., extremely zergy).

    every realm has their healer classes, their passive classes, etc., that don't earn deathblows or earn less. it is still a relative measure of how many people are involved in every kill - the higher the value, the more people. your point on healers is pretty mute - i'm giving figures for an entire realm, not individual characters. if healers got more deathblows at the expense of other mid classes, the figure would still be the same.

    ergo it is a perfect measure of propensity to zerg (i.e., kill in large numbers).

    on your second point, i'm not trying to interpret the data as anymore than an indication of which realm is doing better by the figures. at no point do i extrapolate the data here to say hey, thanes suck, or necromancers are awesome. by itself, these numbers don't mean much - but we all play the game and we all have good (and sometimes bad) opinions on how the game is balanced, these numbers can be used to support theory, but like all good statistics, they have caveats.

    I understand exactly what you did and it statistically means NOTHING -- that is my point, the relativity is misleading as presented and means little. ONLY mid has a character with NO offensive capability -- NO OTHER realm does --- and that character, by your own numbers has the higher percentage of realm points for that realm -- if you don't see how that skews what you attempt to show -- I can't, in this forum, help ya.

    You do try and interpret -- and you are right here ---as I said, the vagaries really don't support anything.

    Let's actually break this down because I feel bad for you and I want to help you understand.

    You have 32 mids, including 4 healers, and they kill 8 hibs. no healers got a deathblow. each one of the mids gets credit for each dead hib because someone in their group contributed toward their death. this means that there are just 8 deathblows, but 256 kills, which would be a rating of 32 on my earlier graph.

    now, let's say you have 32 mids, including 4 healers and these healers have a smite line, and they kill 8 hibs. all 4 healers got all 8 deathblows using their smite spells because in this reality they have offensive capability. you still end up with 8 deathblows and 256 kills, which is the same rating of 32.

    finally, lets say you have 32 mids, of which there are no healers, and they kill 8 hibs. you still end up with 8 deathblows and 256 kills. which is the same rating of 32.

    so to put it bluntly, i don't care if healers have no offensive capability or don't even exist, because it makes no difference to the figures above.

    thanks.
  • edited April 2018 PM
    Omg did u just do that?.....lol Simon. Friggin awsome! Word problems ftw!
    Post edited by GlissZewks on
  • edited April 2018 PM
    Simon wrote: »
    Xyorman wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    Xyorman wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    Here are the figures for share of kills/deathblows/players over the last month.

    Albion has had the highest population (slightly), fared in the middle on deathblows (although behind Midgard - but Midgard has been consistently ahead on most measures since I started collecting data two years ago), but doing poorly on kills. A high kills to deathblows ratio implies you're a much zergier realm, though, as the bottom graph points out.

    Xbbmz5e.png


    EWcog3K.png

    I am sorry but these numbers do not mean what you think they mean -- a simple example; you zerg propensity is -- silly. The mere fact that you put kills/deathblows means little, and moreover is skewed by the fact of the near impossibility of a healer <only toon in game with zero offensive capabilities inherent> to get a deathblow --- not to mention multiple other factors. The zerginess numbers are irrelevant.

    Additionally there is no way to parse out the vagaries of people playing all realms and vagaries therein --- while the raw numbers are fine -- interpretations are meh.

    lol - it is literally a division of the number of people involved in a kill against the deathblows involved in a realm. if that number was 1, then the realm's kills would be entirely solo oriented. if that number was 100, then for every deathblow, 100 people would be involved in the kill (i.e., extremely zergy).

    every realm has their healer classes, their passive classes, etc., that don't earn deathblows or earn less. it is still a relative measure of how many people are involved in every kill - the higher the value, the more people. your point on healers is pretty mute - i'm giving figures for an entire realm, not individual characters. if healers got more deathblows at the expense of other mid classes, the figure would still be the same.

    ergo it is a perfect measure of propensity to zerg (i.e., kill in large numbers).

    on your second point, i'm not trying to interpret the data as anymore than an indication of which realm is doing better by the figures. at no point do i extrapolate the data here to say hey, thanes suck, or necromancers are awesome. by itself, these numbers don't mean much - but we all play the game and we all have good (and sometimes bad) opinions on how the game is balanced, these numbers can be used to support theory, but like all good statistics, they have caveats.

    I understand exactly what you did and it statistically means NOTHING -- that is my point, the relativity is misleading as presented and means little. ONLY mid has a character with NO offensive capability -- NO OTHER realm does --- and that character, by your own numbers has the higher percentage of realm points for that realm -- if you don't see how that skews what you attempt to show -- I can't, in this forum, help ya.

    You do try and interpret -- and you are right here ---as I said, the vagaries really don't support anything.

    Let's actually break this down because I feel bad for you and I want to help you understand.

    You have 32 mids, including 4 healers, and they kill 8 hibs. no healers got a deathblow. each one of the mids gets credit for each dead hib because someone in their group contributed toward their death. this means that there are just 8 deathblows, but 256 kills, which would be a rating of 32 on my earlier graph.

    now, let's say you have 32 mids, including 4 healers and these healers have a smite line, and they kill 8 hibs. all 4 healers got all 8 deathblows using their smite spells because in this reality they have offensive capability. you still end up with 8 deathblows and 256 kills, which is the same rating of 32.

    finally, lets say you have 32 mids, of which there are no healers, and they kill 8 hibs. you still end up with 8 deathblows and 256 kills. which is the same rating of 32.

    so to put it bluntly, i don't care if healers have no offensive capability or don't even exist, because it makes no difference to the figures above.

    thanks.

    Let me use a simpler example --- without stability within a realm, labeling any realm anything is problematic --- virtually no one plays one realm -- the relative luck on any given day one one realm vs another skews your results; more appropriately Population fluidity at specific high volume times really skews the numbers...the numbers would be more valid pre-combining of servers on a per server basis.

    Post edited by Xyorman on
  • I love stastistics, thank you Simon. And thx 4 the explaination for some guys. And for the unbelievers, his math (stat) is right.
  • Assume an 8v8 has 4 fights. one group wins all 4 flawlessly; they end up with a zerg factor of 8 <256 kills/32 DB's >while the losers zerg factor is 0 --- perfectly even fight yet the winners are Zergers?
  • Simon wrote: »
    so to put it bluntly, i don't care if healers have no offensive capability or don't even exist, because it makes no difference to the figures above.

    thanks.

    I think he's just annoyed that the figures don't paint Midgard in the dire predicament that is often portrayed on that realm.
    RR12 Stormlord Wizard
    RR12 Warlord Cleric
    RR12 Warlord Minstrel
    RR12 Warlord Necromancer
    RR12 Perfector Heretic
  • Sovereign wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    so to put it bluntly, i don't care if healers have no offensive capability or don't even exist, because it makes no difference to the figures above.

    thanks.

    I think he's just annoyed that the figures don't paint Midgard in the dire predicament that is often portrayed on that realm.

    The numbers as a whole do look spot on considering the Anna and Hero zergs during Euro prime but to be fair to Xyorman they in no way reflect US prime.
  • Areir wrote: »
    Sovereign wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    so to put it bluntly, i don't care if healers have no offensive capability or don't even exist, because it makes no difference to the figures above.

    thanks.

    I think he's just annoyed that the figures don't paint Midgard in the dire predicament that is often portrayed on that realm.

    The numbers as a whole do look spot on considering the Anna and Hero zergs during Euro prime but to be fair to Xyorman they in no way reflect US prime.

    My point is they truly reflect nothing, in my mind they are meaningless -- it's just not a good measure. As to Sovereign, you see things that are not there as much as anyone.

  • Xyorman wrote: »
    Assume an 8v8 has 4 fights. one group wins all 4 flawlessly; they end up with a zerg factor of 8 <256 kills/32 DB's >while the losers zerg factor is 0 --- perfectly even fight yet the winners are Zergers?

    yep, it doesn't work on a 1v1 or 8v8 basis. that's a poor small sample. you need to aggregate it up, so when you are getting 20k deathblows a week per realm and hundreds of thousands of kills a week per realm, you have a bigger sample where outliers contribute to the overall figure, but don't stand out by themselves.

    and the clever folk among you would point out that a factor of 8 could literally be a group of 8 killing a group of 8. or a group of 8 killing 1 person.

    the point is that the scores for each realm are relative to each other, so while you can't indicate by itself if a score of 11 or a score of 4 is zergy, you can infer that a realm with a higher number has a higher propensity to zerg than a realm with a lower number, simply because these are aggregate figures for a four weeks, and not single fight samples.
  • Xyorman wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    Xyorman wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    Xyorman wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    Here are the figures for share of kills/deathblows/players over the last month.

    Albion has had the highest population (slightly), fared in the middle on deathblows (although behind Midgard - but Midgard has been consistently ahead on most measures since I started collecting data two years ago), but doing poorly on kills. A high kills to deathblows ratio implies you're a much zergier realm, though, as the bottom graph points out.

    Xbbmz5e.png


    EWcog3K.png

    I am sorry but these numbers do not mean what you think they mean -- a simple example; you zerg propensity is -- silly. The mere fact that you put kills/deathblows means little, and moreover is skewed by the fact of the near impossibility of a healer <only toon in game with zero offensive capabilities inherent> to get a deathblow --- not to mention multiple other factors. The zerginess numbers are irrelevant.

    Additionally there is no way to parse out the vagaries of people playing all realms and vagaries therein --- while the raw numbers are fine -- interpretations are meh.

    lol - it is literally a division of the number of people involved in a kill against the deathblows involved in a realm. if that number was 1, then the realm's kills would be entirely solo oriented. if that number was 100, then for every deathblow, 100 people would be involved in the kill (i.e., extremely zergy).

    every realm has their healer classes, their passive classes, etc., that don't earn deathblows or earn less. it is still a relative measure of how many people are involved in every kill - the higher the value, the more people. your point on healers is pretty mute - i'm giving figures for an entire realm, not individual characters. if healers got more deathblows at the expense of other mid classes, the figure would still be the same.

    ergo it is a perfect measure of propensity to zerg (i.e., kill in large numbers).

    on your second point, i'm not trying to interpret the data as anymore than an indication of which realm is doing better by the figures. at no point do i extrapolate the data here to say hey, thanes suck, or necromancers are awesome. by itself, these numbers don't mean much - but we all play the game and we all have good (and sometimes bad) opinions on how the game is balanced, these numbers can be used to support theory, but like all good statistics, they have caveats.

    I understand exactly what you did and it statistically means NOTHING -- that is my point, the relativity is misleading as presented and means little. ONLY mid has a character with NO offensive capability -- NO OTHER realm does --- and that character, by your own numbers has the higher percentage of realm points for that realm -- if you don't see how that skews what you attempt to show -- I can't, in this forum, help ya.

    You do try and interpret -- and you are right here ---as I said, the vagaries really don't support anything.

    Let's actually break this down because I feel bad for you and I want to help you understand.

    You have 32 mids, including 4 healers, and they kill 8 hibs. no healers got a deathblow. each one of the mids gets credit for each dead hib because someone in their group contributed toward their death. this means that there are just 8 deathblows, but 256 kills, which would be a rating of 32 on my earlier graph.

    now, let's say you have 32 mids, including 4 healers and these healers have a smite line, and they kill 8 hibs. all 4 healers got all 8 deathblows using their smite spells because in this reality they have offensive capability. you still end up with 8 deathblows and 256 kills, which is the same rating of 32.

    finally, lets say you have 32 mids, of which there are no healers, and they kill 8 hibs. you still end up with 8 deathblows and 256 kills. which is the same rating of 32.

    so to put it bluntly, i don't care if healers have no offensive capability or don't even exist, because it makes no difference to the figures above.

    thanks.

    Let me use a simpler example --- without stability within a realm, labeling any realm anything is problematic --- virtually no one plays one realm -- the relative luck on any given day one one realm vs another skews your results; more appropriately Population fluidity at specific high volume times really skews the numbers...the numbers would be more valid pre-combining of servers on a per server basis.

    and yet there are some realms that consistently outperform other realms on certain statistics. this isn't about luck - it's a large sample and these are consistent returns.

    and yes, there are caveats, the figures don't let you see the state of the game at particular times of day, nor do they let you control for the skill level of players in a particular realm, the leaders, etc.

    but like i said - the numbers do not lie - they are literal interpretations of what they claim to be.
  • And if the fight was 32 Mids vs 32 Hibs where the Mids win flawlessly:
    32 Mid Deathblows and 1024 kills (32 x 32) gives the same zerg factor of 1024/32 = 32
  • edited April 2018 PM
    Carl wrote: »
    And if the fight was 32 Mids vs 32 Hibs where the Mids win flawlessly:
    32 Mid Deathblows and 1024 kills (32 x 32) gives the same zerg factor of 1024/32 = 32

    Exactly my point...what is zergy about that..if the 32 mids were killed by 24 <hibbs>, the 24 would be rated more zergy...does that make sense?


    Post edited by Xyorman on
  • Thank you for pulling all the data together Simon :)

    population (or number of characters RvRing) - with the invent of dailies, 8-mans are rolling through them and swapping realms to complete their dailies.
    Is this variable factored in or are these the straight numbers?

    I will say, we are definitely seeing more hibs - which is nice! But, we also see that many are from Albion (and Midgard). It shows in BG make up and when certain people log or log in. The bonus shift is rather significant to watch.

    Again, cheers for the hard work! (STAT is soooo not my thing! I'll stick with ID linear algebra)
    <3
  • Xyorman - it won't let me quote you but let me just explain this again and I'll try to do it simply.

    One fight by itself is not representative. We have to assume that over the course of four weeks of fights, where there are approx 240k deathblows across all realms, and over 2 million kills across all realms, that the law of averages begins to kick in (all else equal), and that for every outlier like the cases you present, there is another one on another realm, and in total they are negligible because against all other fights, they are rare and do not affect aggregate figures very much.

    You can't use single hypothetical single-case samples and extrapolate from them to say that a four week sample might have bias. Now... if a 24 man of hibs CONTINUALLY kills a 32 man of mids, and that is the only thing that happens in a four week period, we might be able to say hey, there's a reason these figures say this and it's not what we think. But we know that this isn't the case because we're not utter idiots.

    If a vamp kills a reaver 1v1 this doesn't say anything about the classes involved or the realms involved. There could be any number of reasons for this victory, (templates, realm rank, character skill, or the class being more powerful or having an advantage 1v1). However, if 100 characters playing 100 vamps kill 100 other characters playing 100 reavers every.single.time, then you can extrapolate and estimate that it is highly likely that the variables (template, rank, character skill) are not the reason for the victory, and actually the fixed values (class being more powerful or having an inherent advantage 1v1) are what is causing this victory to happen.

    This is what happens with averages and this is what happens with huge samples. And this is my point with the zerg - to some degree. when figures present themselves consistently in the same way (in this case, midgard having consistently more players and kills and a higher zerginess factor), this is not down to randomness (and absolutely nothing to do with healers having no offensive capability)...
  • @Ssavii - again it's not letting me quote you. but thanks for the love.

    this doesn't take into account people who swap realm. if you play one character on mid, complete dailies, and then switch to hibernia to complete dailies on your bard, this will count as two characters in the week (you can log in the bard 15 times in one week, but it will still count as one character). The figures for both characters will be included.
  • Xyorman wrote: »
    Areir wrote: »
    Sovereign wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    so to put it bluntly, i don't care if healers have no offensive capability or don't even exist, because it makes no difference to the figures above.

    thanks.

    I think he's just annoyed that the figures don't paint Midgard in the dire predicament that is often portrayed on that realm.

    The numbers as a whole do look spot on considering the Anna and Hero zergs during Euro prime but to be fair to Xyorman they in no way reflect US prime.

    My point is they truly reflect nothing, in my mind they are meaningless -- it's just not a good measure. As to Sovereign, you see things that are not there as much as anyone.

    sigh. the numbers as a whole reflect exactly what is happening in the game for the things they are reporting on.

    i don't know how you can say they are not a good measure when they LITERALLY reflect EXACTLY what is happening in the game in absolute terms of players, kills, and deathblows.
  • edited April 2018 PM
    Simon wrote: »
    Xyorman wrote: »
    Areir wrote: »
    Sovereign wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    so to put it bluntly, i don't care if healers have no offensive capability or don't even exist, because it makes no difference to the figures above.

    thanks.

    I think he's just annoyed that the figures don't paint Midgard in the dire predicament that is often portrayed on that realm.

    The numbers as a whole do look spot on considering the Anna and Hero zergs during Euro prime but to be fair to Xyorman they in no way reflect US prime.

    My point is they truly reflect nothing, in my mind they are meaningless -- it's just not a good measure. As to Sovereign, you see things that are not there as much as anyone.

    sigh. the numbers as a whole reflect exactly what is happening in the game for the things they are reporting on.

    i don't know how you can say they are not a good measure when they LITERALLY reflect EXACTLY what is happening in the game in absolute terms of players, kills, and deathblows.

    I am not sure how an 8 who wipes another 8 3 x is more zergy than the 8 they wiped.....understand now what my issue is? I just don't agree there is value to this metric, it doesn't answer anything of importance. That they reflect anything is your opinion -- period -- which is fine, I disagree.
    Post edited by Xyorman on
  • Xyorman wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    Xyorman wrote: »
    Areir wrote: »
    Sovereign wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    so to put it bluntly, i don't care if healers have no offensive capability or don't even exist, because it makes no difference to the figures above.

    thanks.

    I think he's just annoyed that the figures don't paint Midgard in the dire predicament that is often portrayed on that realm.

    The numbers as a whole do look spot on considering the Anna and Hero zergs during Euro prime but to be fair to Xyorman they in no way reflect US prime.

    My point is they truly reflect nothing, in my mind they are meaningless -- it's just not a good measure. As to Sovereign, you see things that are not there as much as anyone.

    sigh. the numbers as a whole reflect exactly what is happening in the game for the things they are reporting on.

    i don't know how you can say they are not a good measure when they LITERALLY reflect EXACTLY what is happening in the game in absolute terms of players, kills, and deathblows.

    I am not sure how an 8 who wipes another 8 3 x is more zergy than the 8 they wiped.....understand now what my issue is? I just don't agree there is value to this metric, it doesn't answer anything of importance. That they reflect anything is your opinion -- period -- which is fine, I disagree.

    Okay - a few points.

    1. you can't reduce this down to one fight. as i said this is an average measure across thousands of fights because it is a REALM score, not the result of an individual fight.
    2. a group that makes no kills and has no deathblows does not contribute toward the score. because they made zero kills, they have absolutely no contribution toward the overall 'zerginess' score - 0/0.
    3. this is important because if the losing side had killed just 1 individual across the three fights, they would contribute. they would score 8/1, which is 8, which is exactly the same as the side who won all three fights almost flawlessly.
    4. ergo both sides have exactly the same rating. the only way your hypothetical would influence these scores is if a realm made zero kills across a week.
  • edited April 2018 PM
    Simon wrote: »
    Xyorman wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    Xyorman wrote: »
    Areir wrote: »
    Sovereign wrote: »
    Simon wrote: »
    so to put it bluntly, i don't care if healers have no offensive capability or don't even exist, because it makes no difference to the figures above.

    thanks.

    I think he's just annoyed that the figures don't paint Midgard in the dire predicament that is often portrayed on that realm.

    The numbers as a whole do look spot on considering the Anna and Hero zergs during Euro prime but to be fair to Xyorman they in no way reflect US prime.

    My point is they truly reflect nothing, in my mind they are meaningless -- it's just not a good measure. As to Sovereign, you see things that are not there as much as anyone.

    sigh. the numbers as a whole reflect exactly what is happening in the game for the things they are reporting on.

    i don't know how you can say they are not a good measure when they LITERALLY reflect EXACTLY what is happening in the game in absolute terms of players, kills, and deathblows.

    I am not sure how an 8 who wipes another 8 3 x is more zergy than the 8 they wiped.....understand now what my issue is? I just don't agree there is value to this metric, it doesn't answer anything of importance. That they reflect anything is your opinion -- period -- which is fine, I disagree.

    Okay - a few points.

    1. you can't reduce this down to one fight. as i said this is an average measure across thousands of fights because it is a REALM score, not the result of an individual fight.
    2. a group that makes no kills and has no deathblows does not contribute toward the score. because they made zero kills, they have absolutely no contribution toward the overall 'zerginess' score - 0/0.
    3. this is important because if the losing side had killed just 1 individual across the three fights, they would contribute. they would score 8/1, which is 8, which is exactly the same as the side who won all three fights almost flawlessly.
    4. ergo both sides have exactly the same rating. the only way your hypothetical would influence these scores is if a realm made zero kills across a week.

    1.You reduced it to one fight in you example -- I demonstrated how that can be misconstrued and ,defacto misleading.
    2. Yeah --so, a portion of the population may not be counted -- do they still not zerg <whatever definition of zergines you are using>
    3. Again, making them equally zergy; so the 8 in 24 v 8 is just as zergy?
    4. Ultimately the sampling error is high in this 'stat' because of population fluidity <in my view> and ultimately, I am not sure how you define zerginess. If 4 run over 1 is that zergy?<certainly seems so to the one yet and 8 just sees a small man>; does this stat get you that information??? Even if you think it does, again, does population fluidity affect the conclusions and is there a way to account for it... I say no -- it simply doesn't pass the basic test for a valid and/or useful statistic. To me the best you can say is it appears the Mid and Hibb tend to kill more in groups of indeterminate number -- of course albs could just be crappy at winning fights. Personally, again, I don't think it says much -- though I am sure someone will read malice into whatever I write.
    Post edited by Xyorman on
  • edited April 2018 PM
    /snip

    @Simon saying @Xyorman : You are literally just saying words and not making any coherent point.

    ...

    /snip

    Quoted for truth.
    Post edited by Flowerpought on
  • Looking at the data again overall it seems that from this time last year the Albion population has dropped considerably and the other two realms have benefitted by quite a large margin.
    Also looking at the dearhblow figures and kills per realm it seems that most of the casual or Zerg players from Albion have migrated to the other realms or left the game.
    I agree with Simon that the 8 v8 and small man group on Albion seems to not have migrated and are playing more specific and specialist groups on Albion that require a higher level of game skill and understanding.
    In conclusion these figures do back up that the casual player is not choosing Albion to play and is instead playing on Midgard or Hibernia due to the ease and utility of setting up of groups and casual Zerg warfare on these realms.
    It seems to coincide with the recent introduction of patches that have largely been beneficial to the other realms but not as much of a benefit to Albion.
    It’s knda of worrying that so many people are not playing Albion anymore and it’s nice to see a confitmation with stats that so many people on Albion have been thinking for along time and not just a perception.
  • I think (some) of you are mistaking players for characters. A player can have multiple characters on the same or other realms.

    These statistics are based on characters,

  • Can only attest that alb is horrible for casual play. A population of 150ish at 22:30 GMT backs this up.
  • To Brut: The only consistent <and I stress consistent> BG leadership for Alb is US prime; hence, that is when the casual player is most active on ALB -- and is EXACTLY why this so-called stat is misleading.

    To Tald -- No mistake but a critical point; the 'stat' does, imperfectly, reflects character choices, but, again, imo it's not accurate or valid enough to be used for anything.

  • edited April 2018 PM
    Xyorman wrote: »
    To Brut: The only consistent <and I stress consistent> BG leadership for Alb is US prime; hence, that is when the casual player is most active on ALB -- and is EXACTLY why this so-called stat is misleading.

    To Tald -- No mistake but a critical point; the 'stat' does, imperfectly, reflects character choices, but, again, imo it's not accurate or valid enough to be used for anything.

    you are really terrible at statistics.

    the statistics are not misleading. they literally represent what is going on in the game.

    your interpretation, along with Bruts, might explain the figures, but that doesn't make the statistics themselves misleading.

    i'm not sure how the stats can be 'not accurate or valid'. they are LITERALLY what is happening in game. the caveat that they reflect characters (a proxy for population) is already mentioned.

    on the zerginess rating - you think there's a sampling error?! the sample is literally the entire population so there's no error in the sample. (edit - there may be an issue with the methodology, but given the data available this is the simplest and easiest way to draw this figure up - and the methodological issues are definitely not significant enough to say hey, this figure is wrong. the consistency of the results and the face validity of them hold up).

    sampling error occurs when you take a subgroup of the population that doesn't represent the entire population. this is literally what you are doing in your qualitative analysis of the stats (when you say they are not valid - your own sample is your personal experience of the game - which you don't feel squares with the figures that represent the entirety of rvr).

    i reduced it to a one fight example to explain why your own one-fight example can't be extrapolated by itself. for the upteenth time - it's an aggregate measure across thousands and thousands of individual fights. i accept that all other things are not equal - which is why we end up looking for explanations behind the figures (but this doesn't make the figures wrong or not valid or not useful).

    you also don't need to be a rocket scientist to look at the figures and say, hey, this reflects what we see in game. here's an explanation for this. or this is why this figure says this. that's just interpretation and that's up to anyone.
    Post edited by Simon on
  • Brut wrote: »
    Looking at the data again overall it seems that from this time last year the Albion population has dropped considerably and the other two realms have benefitted by quite a large margin.
    Also looking at the dearhblow figures and kills per realm it seems that most of the casual or Zerg players from Albion have migrated to the other realms or left the game.
    I agree with Simon that the 8 v8 and small man group on Albion seems to not have migrated and are playing more specific and specialist groups on Albion that require a higher level of game skill and understanding.
    In conclusion these figures do back up that the casual player is not choosing Albion to play and is instead playing on Midgard or Hibernia due to the ease and utility of setting up of groups and casual Zerg warfare on these realms.
    It seems to coincide with the recent introduction of patches that have largely been beneficial to the other realms but not as much of a benefit to Albion.
    It’s knda of worrying that so many people are not playing Albion anymore and it’s nice to see a confitmation with stats that so many people on Albion have been thinking for along time and not just a perception.

    i agree a fair bit with this.

    i think a simpler explanation is that during EU prime - the most populated time where there is the most action - albion lacks any BG leader or sizeable zerg that can compete with the near-100 that can run with herorius and annamariede. casual players looking for easy rvr (i would argue) are likely to want to run with the zerg, ergo have settled on mid and hib.

    now... there might be no BG because albion is harder to build a group on as you say. but i wouldn't speculate that myself.

  • edited April 2018 PM
    Simon wrote: »
    Xyorman wrote: »
    To Brut: The only consistent <and I stress consistent> BG leadership for Alb is US prime; hence, that is when the casual player is most active on ALB -- and is EXACTLY why this so-called stat is misleading.

    To Tald -- No mistake but a critical point; the 'stat' does, imperfectly, reflects character choices, but, again, imo it's not accurate or valid enough to be used for anything.

    you are really terrible at statistics.

    the statistics are not misleading. they literally represent what is going on in the game.

    your interpretation, along with Bruts, might explain the figures, but that doesn't make the statistics themselves misleading.

    i'm not sure how the stats can be 'not accurate or valid'. they are LITERALLY what is happening in game. the caveat that they reflect characters (a proxy for population) is already mentioned.

    on the zerginess rating - you think there's a sampling error?! the sample is literally the entire population so there's no error in the sample. (edit - there may be an issue with the methodology, but given the data available this is the simplest and easiest way to draw this figure up - and the methodological issues are definitely not significant enough to say hey, this figure is wrong. the consistency of the results and the face validity of them hold up).

    sampling error occurs when you take a subgroup of the population that doesn't represent the entire population. this is literally what you are doing in your qualitative analysis of the stats (when you say they are not valid - your own sample is your personal experience of the game - which you don't feel squares with the figures that represent the entirety of rvr).

    i reduced it to a one fight example to explain why your own one-fight example can't be extrapolated by itself. for the upteenth time - it's an aggregate measure across thousands and thousands of individual fights. i accept that all other things are not equal - which is why we end up looking for explanations behind the figures (but this doesn't make the figures wrong or not valid or not useful).

    you also don't need to be a rocket scientist to look at the figures and say, hey, this reflects what we see in game. here's an explanation for this. or this is why this figure says this. that's just interpretation and that's up to anyone.

    I try really hard to keep this civil, your opinions mean little to me in re:stats, etc and frankly you know nothing about me, so worry about your own statistical prowess and learn to have a civil disagreement, you might be amazed at what you can learn. Read up on statistical error and validity and decide for yourself --- frankly, IDC.
    Post edited by Xyorman on
  • Xyorman wrote: »
    I try really hard to keep this civil, your opinions mean little to me in re:stats, etc. Read up on statistical error and validity and decide for yourself --- IDC. Those that want to make decisions based on your stuff deserve what they get.

    I struggle to see any evidence that anyone with the ability to impact the game makes decisions primarily off of the statistics that Simon presents. That being said, I have yet to see anything from you in the way of suggestions for improvement of the game's situation other than repeatedly stating that RVR needs to be fixed first. I'd love some specifics on what you think that should be.
    RR12 Stormlord Wizard
    RR12 Warlord Cleric
    RR12 Warlord Minstrel
    RR12 Warlord Necromancer
    RR12 Perfector Heretic
  • Xyorman - statistics are my day job. I never claimed to know anything about you - I'm basing my comments on your knowledge of stats on the comments you're making in this thread - which show little understanding of how statistics work.

    You've tried to suggest it's a sampling error and if you know stats you'll know there is zero sampling error because the sample here is the population.

    Statistical error has to based on a legitimate reason and you haven't given one. Validity isn't an issue because these are hard figures and I'm not trying to draw conclusions.

    There is no comparison group and this is not an experimental analysis so it's hard to prove any sort of causation or reason for the figures. The best we can do is realm versus realm comparisons and then our own analysis based on our insight.

    But that doesn't make the figures any less legitimate. They are descriptive statistics which means they represent exactly what they claim to represent.
  • Simon wrote: »
    Xyorman - statistics are my day job. I never claimed to know anything about you - I'm basing my comments on your knowledge of stats on the comments you're making in this thread - which show little understanding of how statistics work.

    You've tried to suggest it's a sampling error and if you know stats you'll know there is zero sampling error because the sample here is the population.

    Statistical error has to based on a legitimate reason and you haven't given one. Validity isn't an issue because these are hard figures and I'm not trying to draw conclusions.

    There is no comparison group and this is not an experimental analysis so it's hard to prove any sort of causation or reason for the figures. The best we can do is realm versus realm comparisons and then our own analysis based on our insight.

    But that doesn't make the figures any less legitimate. They are descriptive statistics which means they represent exactly what they claim to represent.

    There's really no point in conversing with the man; he has an agenda and isn't interested in any explanation that doesn't backup up that agenda. The interpretation of the data is a perfectly valid topic to discuss however he's attacking the data itself, something that makes no sense given that you clearly state it's the data as a whole. I see what he's trying to do he's just going about it the completely wrong way where it reveals the how blatant it is.
    RR12 Stormlord Wizard
    RR12 Warlord Cleric
    RR12 Warlord Minstrel
    RR12 Warlord Necromancer
    RR12 Perfector Heretic
Sign In or Register to comment.