1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice
  3. Greetings Guest! Tonights Maintenance is complete and the Stratics Community Wiki is now live. Please see this thread for more details.
    Dismiss Notice

Discussion Thread - Galactic Civil War and Player City Statistics

Discussion in 'GCW & PVP' started by BadgerSmaker, Dec 3, 2009.

  1. BadgerSmaker

    BadgerSmaker Guest

    Please use this thread to discuss the Galactic Civil War and Player City Statistics posted on Stratics News.
  2. Zapphod

    Zapphod Visitor
    Stratics Veteran

    Dec 20, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Is there any way we can get the numbers used for those graphs because it is rather cluttered down towards the bottom and the yellow colour used for Sunrunner is difficult to make out.
  3. BadgerSmaker

    BadgerSmaker Guest

    Are you after numbers for Sunrunner specifically? GCW, city or PvP kills?

    Would you like me to make a chart that focuses on the lower population servers?
  4. Monty Burns

    Monty Burns Guest

    The main problem is that Starsider is so far up the charts that it compresses the bottom 4-5 servers into jumble at the bottom that you can't really make out.

    It just seems to me that the 4 or 5 servers that make up the bottom of the graphs are kind of a waste of space since they cant be read clearly so maybe a second graph for lower pop servers would help or even a second Y-Axis for Starsider and Flurry.
  5. BadgerSmaker

    BadgerSmaker Guest

    Here you go. Sunrunner is third for PvP kills, I added a screenshot of activeframe so that you can see who is getting these. It seems nobody has uploaded a guild roster so I can't see guildnames.

    Sunrunner comes bottom in my player city calculations, but only just. This isn't absolute as you may have less cities but more active rank 5 cities than Radiant for example.

    Sunrunner is also last for number of ranked GCW players, around 70 less than Radiant.




  6. Monty Burns

    Monty Burns Guest

    From those charts it looks very much like Sunrunner has flat lined.

    There really is nothing there that looks even remotely promising and I suspect that if you were to do a couple more months of those graphs you will see further tailing.

    Probably the only ones that should be more depressed than Sunrunner is Bloodfin as that seems to have crashed majorly.

    Anyway thanks for that it helps a lot.
  7. BadgerSmaker

    BadgerSmaker Guest

    Do you think that a FCTS with set closure date would be the best thing for Sunrunner?
  8. Monty Burns

    Monty Burns Guest

    I certainly think it is a possibility and probably the most realistic option we have currently, the problem is that I do not believe that a FCTS will stop the game bleeding accounts so in reality a FCTS is just delaying the inevitable.

    The problem as I see it is that the current coding and architecture does not allow for large populations (as seen on Starsider) therefore my personal favourite option is to close no more servers and invest in server clustering, link both Kashyyyk and Mustafar (as there is no housing nor harvesters there) and concentrate development of heroics/PvP and large scale group activities on those two planets while using the remaining worlds to develop small group and solo content.

    They could do this in the guise of an expansion by adding the two planets that exist in the game files already which should have the same rules as Kashyyyk and Mustafar to create more cross server content.

    This allows people to stay on existing servers and Starsidian's to move to other worlds while allowing all servers the chance at high level content but it means that SOE have to invest time and money into developing these systems and rewriting a sizable portion of the code to support it.

    So I think the first thing SOE need to do is decide whether they want to save the game or not if not then give us a FCTS and get on with it, if it is worth saving I would go with server clustering, an expansion based on existing planets (similar to EQ1's Lost Dungeons of Norrath) to introduce new upgraded code and replace the existing problem code and look seriously at F2P to bring in new blood.
  9. BadgerSmaker

    BadgerSmaker Guest

    I get the impression that the Dev team are quite limited in what they can realistically do with SWGs 7 year old server infrastructure. Although they can throw better hardware at problem areas there isn't much that they can do with the 7 year old code that was not originally designed to run in the way that it is currently used.

    They have said that cross-server play is too challenging and that they aren't able to dynamically allocate hardware resources when demand in a specific area grows high.

    Previous attempts to shoehorn in a working 3rd axis were shelved due to 1000's of bugs and would have represented an NGE level redesign of the game anyway.

    I think we have to be realistic as to what can be done with the old technology that SWG was created with, that means keeping things simple.

    I will see what I can find out about the possibility of FCTS with closure date for Sunrunner and Radiant, if that is what the players on those servers really want.
  10. Monty Burns

    Monty Burns Guest

    Oh I realise they are limited but it is my opinion that if they are looking at keeping SWG going for another 7 years (not just limping along for a few more) they need to make a commitment to the game in the form of straightening it out and that will involve a cash injection and some serious work.

    The problem with FCTS is that they are admissions of defeat not solutions to the problem because no matter how few servers there are without knowing why there is a constant leaking of accounts it will just carry on and you will need another FCTS 1-2 years down the track.

    As I have said before they first need to make up their minds on whether the game has a future, if no then just FCTS until we are 1 server, if yes then resolve the reasons people are leaving and I think you will find it is content or the lack of driving people from the game (collections and invasions are nice but they are only going to keep people interested for a week or two).

    Don't get me wrong I would accept a FCTS in a heart beat but only because Sunrunner is a ghost town my personal preference would be for them to reverse the flow and return the servers to active.
  11. BadgerSmaker

    BadgerSmaker Guest

    I don't think there is that much of a problem with subscription retention, SWG has a lot going for it on populated servers. SoE did merge/close on EQ and PotBS recently so it's not something that they fear doing, makes sense from a lot of perspectives to condense the population into more concentrated servers.
  12. Monty Burns

    Monty Burns Guest

    I am not opposed to condensing servers I believe it is essential but until they improve the coding/architecture to support larger populations and until they address the reason the game is bleeding accounts it is a waste of time.

    I am convinced that the only possible way to change the decline is to open the game up to F2P with the free accounts being unavailable on the top 2-3 servers until such times as they can handle increased numbers or there populations fall to a level that can handle an influx.