3.2mill subs @Launch to Current 1.7mill

General Discussion
Prev 1 4 5 6 15 Next
10/19/2018 09:45 AMPosted by Snowfox
I'm pretty sure they were increased. You'd rarely want to go the other direction.


Thats what i read also. So if server capacity was increased that would mean that they allow more players on a server before calling it high pop or full yes? There sure are a lot of high pop servers.
10/19/2018 09:20 AMPosted by Sunandi
10/19/2018 08:49 AMPosted by Rastlin
...

1.7 million is absolutely a fact.
(Of course, it may have fallen further since release of this fact.)

How do I know this? What is the proof:

Proof: When the information was released, Blizzard shut down the forums for 4+ hours. And they 404'd everything mentioning this information.

If it was fake, they would not panic like this.

My logic is undeniable.
This is the current sub number.


Thought I was the only one who noticed that. They panicked hard and made stupid decisions and got rid of all of the posts that talked about the low subs entirely. They made it so stupidly obvious that those numbers are either correct or near correct. If they were false they had nothing to hide nor worry about.

Anyone who still thinks the numbers are "disproven" youre lips are clearly firmly planted on blizzards lower regions. Logic and reasoning does not support your theories, it supports the low numbers theory.

Otherwise, give some hard proof the numbers aren't real.


Yep. They definitely got rid of every single post that mentions sub counts.

.....wait a second.
10/19/2018 08:47 AMPosted by Zulani
10/19/2018 08:45 AMPosted by Rastlin
...

Those numbers are correct.
This is a fact.
It is not in dispute


Sadly the source of your "correct facts" doesn't agree with you. Disputed unfortunately.


Don’t waste your time trying to reason with these people. It’s like trying to convince a Trump supporter that Obama was born in America. Even his birth certificate wasn’t enough proof for those idiots.

People will do all sorts of mental gymnastics to believe what they want to believe. For whatever reason they have decided that WoW is dying, so they’ll try and spin every “leak” or rumor to support their narrative.
10/19/2018 09:47 AMPosted by Iskandi
10/19/2018 09:45 AMPosted by Snowfox
I'm pretty sure they were increased. You'd rarely want to go the other direction.


Thats what i read also. So if server capacity was increased that would mean that they allow more players on a server before calling it high pop or full yes? There sure are a lot of high pop servers.

Oh, you're referring to the people who try to use the realms saying 'high pop' or not as another sign 'wow is dying'? Yeah, they definitely try to claim that too. I mean, there's not much they don't use to try and claim that. They have a belief as a goal and will find what it takes to fit that, rather than looking at the facts and deciding from there.
10/19/2018 09:37 AMPosted by Sunandi
10/19/2018 09:26 AMPosted by Youmadbrew
...

You should read up on a concept known as the "burden of proof". In this case, WA twitter parroted some random person on Reddit and later said - "0 proof to this and no way to proof it since the source has vanished". It also appears to have been technically impossible for this to have occurred, given the number of requests that would have had to have been made in the short time this information was stated to have been available.

In this instance, the burden of proof requires that the one making the extraordinary claim (that WoW is down to 1.7 million subscribers) provide the evidence to back that claim. To give you an idea of why this is important, there is absolutely nothing you can do to prove that I did not wake up on the back of a dragon this morning. Does that, in fact, mean that I did? Of course not. The guy vanished, couldn't support his claim when confronted with evidence to the contrary, and there is simply no evidence to support that assertion. "Logic and reasoning" are words that are often misused to mean "my own personal feelings and convictions" these days.


Well aware of what burden of proof is and I read the original tweet before it got taken down (another suspicious thing in this timeline) however in that original tweet there was a link linking to where the information was found. They gave the proof. So, wheres the proof from the people saying its 100% not true? its no where. Not to be found. So please give some proof that those numbers are 100% incorrect because blizzards very quick kneejerk reactions are showing us that those numbers were atleast partially true. Sorry if that hurts your feelings about the game but that's just how life is mate.


That wasn't proof. They had some data that wasn't the total, they extrapolated a value they attributed to being the total. Without seeing the data they had and the method by which they calculated the value we can't say that number is valid.
10/19/2018 08:47 AMPosted by Zulani
10/19/2018 08:45 AMPosted by Rastlin
...

Those numbers are correct.
This is a fact.
It is not in dispute


Sadly the source of your "correct facts" doesn't agree with you. Disputed unfortunately.


Don’t waste your time trying to reason with these people. It’s like trying to convince a Trump supporter that Obama was born in America. Even his birth certificate wasn’t enough proof for those idiots.

People will do all sorts of mental gymnastics to believe what they want to believe. For whatever reason they have decided that WoW is dying, so they’ll try and spin every “leak” or rumor to support their narrative.
10/19/2018 09:37 AMPosted by Sunandi
10/19/2018 09:26 AMPosted by Youmadbrew
...

You should read up on a concept known as the "burden of proof". In this case, WA twitter parroted some random person on Reddit and later said - "0 proof to this and no way to proof it since the source has vanished". It also appears to have been technically impossible for this to have occurred, given the number of requests that would have had to have been made in the short time this information was stated to have been available.

In this instance, the burden of proof requires that the one making the extraordinary claim (that WoW is down to 1.7 million subscribers) provide the evidence to back that claim. To give you an idea of why this is important, there is absolutely nothing you can do to prove that I did not wake up on the back of a dragon this morning. Does that, in fact, mean that I did? Of course not. The guy vanished, couldn't support his claim when confronted with evidence to the contrary, and there is simply no evidence to support that assertion. "Logic and reasoning" are words that are often misused to mean "my own personal feelings and convictions" these days.


Well aware of what burden of proof is and I read the original tweet before it got taken down (another suspicious thing in this timeline) however in that original tweet there was a link linking to where the information was found. They gave the proof. So, wheres the proof from the people saying its 100% not true? its no where. Not to be found. So please give some proof that those numbers are 100% incorrect because blizzards very quick kneejerk reactions are showing us that those numbers were atleast partially true. Sorry if that hurts your feelings about the game but that's just how life is mate.


Well, if you are aware of the burden of proof, why not use it? In the original tweet, there was a link to "develop.battle.net", that's about it, as far as I know. That is a complete lack of evidence on your part.

While I can't disprove the assertion you're making, it appears baseless, and I can provide evidence to make it seem less and less likely (logically speaking). Technically speaking: API clients are limited to 36,000 requests per hour at a rate of 100 requests per second. Exceeding the daily quota results in a 429 response error until the quota refreshes after an hour. Exceeding the per-second limit results in slower service until traffic drops down for one minute until the quota refreshes. I calculate 88.88 (repeating of course) hours that would have been required in order to iterate over all of these accounts, taken as the number of accounts divided by the maximum number of requests per hour. This claim was made within a day of such information having supposedly been available.

Source for API information: https://develop.battle.net/documentation/guides/getting-started

Now, what is it YOU have?
10/19/2018 09:48 AMPosted by Akston
10/19/2018 09:20 AMPosted by Sunandi
...

Thought I was the only one who noticed that. They panicked hard and made stupid decisions and got rid of all of the posts that talked about the low subs entirely. They made it so stupidly obvious that those numbers are either correct or near correct. If they were false they had nothing to hide nor worry about.

Anyone who still thinks the numbers are "disproven" youre lips are clearly firmly planted on blizzards lower regions. Logic and reasoning does not support your theories, it supports the low numbers theory.

Otherwise, give some hard proof the numbers aren't real.


Yep. They definitely got rid of every single post that mentions sub counts.

.....wait a second.


I couldn't find the original ones when this all went down unless they brought them back? the ones after the fact haven't been touched but the other ones were 404 even after the forums came back up.
10/19/2018 08:31 AMPosted by Jelli
if you got those numbers from the WA twitter, they're wrong.
Fake news!
10/19/2018 09:42 AMPosted by Snowfox
...That is kind of a lazy though, because you are using the "boy who cried wolf" point, but in the end there is a wolf and the boy was right and died. So, yeah, the game might be deteriorating.

FFS.

The lesson of the 'boy who cried wolf' isn't to keep believing the boy.

It's for him to stop calling emergency because that has long term consequences.
It is also the fact that wolves exist, and did eventually eat the boy.

Your sole defense is "Well WoW can't be doing bad because people said it was doing bad before and its still alive". I'm not mentioning the boat mount or this 3 day trial in isolation. I am considering the community mood, streamers and the commentators, and then factoring those two facets.
10/19/2018 09:49 AMPosted by Snowfox
Oh, you're referring to the people who try to use the realms saying 'high pop' or not as another sign 'wow is dying'? Yeah, they definitely try to claim that too. I mean, there's not much they don't use to try and claim that. They have a belief as a goal and will find what it takes to fit that, rather than looking at the facts and deciding from there.


My own anecdotal evidence , and yes this is just my observation. But i came to this server at the start of mop it had a good balance of horde and ally players, and the number 12th guild in NA at the time. In the time i have played here it was always med pop with some low pop times like end of expansion lulls. Since the end of legion it started climbing med/high pop, since BfA its been high pop. So that would mean more people are playing on my server since legion. Esp if they upped the amount of players before calling a server high pop.

For the record my server is stand alone, not on a connected realm.
10/19/2018 08:31 AMPosted by Lexindra
Does classic have glowy space goats?

No.

Therefore classic will be inferior.


No, but when they re-release BC they’ll be there, and retail will be a ghost town.
I've been reading the forums for way longer than I'd care to admit, it's always good that we have feedback to give and I hope that peoples voices get heard on issues that are causing them to enjoy the game less.

That being said, yes, the phrase, "wow is dying" or the million other variants that get trendy for weeks at a time, are a tiresome title. We'd have never made it out of vanilla if these had merit to them everytime. And then people are like BUT THIS TIME IT'S REAL.

I pretty much put the real world doomsday people in the same category, when I'm on fire from the world ending I'll believe them and give those folks credit. And when I log into wow and it says free to play and go buy your legendary weapons and armor here for 10 dollars, I'll believe it for wow.

Until then, I'm enjoying the game for the time I spend in it, which isn't as much just cause I did so much in the start. I interchange a lot of games unless I have a really specific goal in mind.
10/19/2018 09:50 AMPosted by Youmadbrew
10/19/2018 09:37 AMPosted by Sunandi
...

Well aware of what burden of proof is and I read the original tweet before it got taken down (another suspicious thing in this timeline) however in that original tweet there was a link linking to where the information was found. They gave the proof. So, wheres the proof from the people saying its 100% not true? its no where. Not to be found. So please give some proof that those numbers are 100% incorrect because blizzards very quick kneejerk reactions are showing us that those numbers were atleast partially true. Sorry if that hurts your feelings about the game but that's just how life is mate.


Well, if you are aware of the burden of proof, why not use it? In the original tweet, there was a link to "develop.battle.net", that's about it, as far as I know. That is a complete lack of evidence on your part.

While I can't disprove the assertion you're making, it appears baseless, and I can provide evidence to make it seem less and less likely (logically speaking). Technically speaking: API clients are limited to 36,000 requests per hour at a rate of 100 requests per second. Exceeding the daily quota results in a 429 response error until the quota refreshes after an hour. Exceeding the per-second limit results in slower service until traffic drops down for one minute until the quota refreshes. I calculate 88.88 (repeating of course) hours that would have been required in order to iterate over all of these accounts, taken as the number of accounts divided by the maximum number of requests per hour. This claim was made within a day of such information having supposedly been available.

Source for API information: https://develop.battle.net/documentation/guides/getting-started

Now, what is it YOU have?


Easy. Logic and reasoning. Both of which offer doubt that those numbers aren't false. Im not baseless, but you just seem to want to defend the game instead of trying to fix whats broken with it. This conversation will get literally no where. There was way more proof then that in the first few original tweets but that information isn't available anymore so I cant give it to you. Part of my issue with this is you go on and defend yourself after admitting that you cant disprove my claim which means you've admitted you cant win the argument because you have no way to. You admitted this yourself, so don't know why you kept going.
Forums: *Talks about anything*
Blizzard: *Sleeps*
Forums: "BfA had 3mil subs at launch and is now down to 1.7mil"
Blizzard .01 seconds later: "Hol up, thats not true!!!!!!"

It just seems a little fishy to me that they replied to the sub count faster than they have ever replied to anything ever.
10/19/2018 09:58 AMPosted by Sunandi
10/19/2018 09:50 AMPosted by Youmadbrew
...

Well, if you are aware of the burden of proof, why not use it? In the original tweet, there was a link to "develop.battle.net", that's about it, as far as I know. That is a complete lack of evidence on your part.

While I can't disprove the assertion you're making, it appears baseless, and I can provide evidence to make it seem less and less likely (logically speaking). Technically speaking: API clients are limited to 36,000 requests per hour at a rate of 100 requests per second. Exceeding the daily quota results in a 429 response error until the quota refreshes after an hour. Exceeding the per-second limit results in slower service until traffic drops down for one minute until the quota refreshes. I calculate 88.88 (repeating of course) hours that would have been required in order to iterate over all of these accounts, taken as the number of accounts divided by the maximum number of requests per hour. This claim was made within a day of such information having supposedly been available.

Source for API information: https://develop.battle.net/documentation/guides/getting-started

Now, what is it YOU have?


Easy. Logic and reasoning. Both of which offer doubt that those numbers aren't false. Im not baseless, but you just seem to want to defend the game instead of trying to fix whats broken with it. This conversation will get literally no where. There was way more proof then that in the first few original tweets but that information isn't available anymore so I cant give it to you. Part of my issue with this is you go on and defend yourself after admitting that you cant disprove my claim which means you've admitted you cant win the argument because you have no way to. You admitted this yourself, so don't know why you kept going.


I don't have to disprove your claim, you have to provide evidence for yours, which you aren't able to do. And no, no such evidence existed, as WA confirmed. If such evidence did exist, you would be able to provide it. Don't conflate "logic and reasoning" with your own personal feelings about game direction. It doesn't work.

"Part of my issue with this is you go on and defend yourself after admitting that you cant disprove my claim which means you've admitted you cant win the argument because you have no way to. You admitted this yourself, so don't know why you kept going." - And you claim to understand the burden of proof? Okay, prove that I did not wake up on the back of a dragon this morning and I will cede the argument to you.

On a realistic note, there is no evidence and all evidence DOES point to it being technically impossible for this random individual to have acquired that information in the first place.
10/19/2018 08:32 AMPosted by Snowfox
Yeah we all knew that "1.7 rumor" was going to end up being pushed by people with an agenda who didn't give a damn about actual facts.


Neither side has actual facts.
10/19/2018 10:05 AMPosted by Spinster
10/19/2018 08:32 AMPosted by Snowfox
Yeah we all knew that "1.7 rumor" was going to end up being pushed by people with an agenda who didn't give a damn about actual facts.


Neither side has actual facts.


Actually, we do. And the burden of proof requires one making the claim to provide evidence supporting that claim.

Evidence we have in direct contrivance to that idea -

Technically speaking: API clients are limited to 36,000 requests per hour at a rate of 100 requests per second. Exceeding the daily quota results in a 429 response error until the quota refreshes after an hour. Exceeding the per-second limit results in slower service until traffic drops down for one minute until the quota refreshes. I calculate 88.88 (repeating of course) hours that would have been required in order to iterate over all of these accounts, taken as the number of accounts divided by the maximum number of requests per hour. This claim was made within a day of such information having supposedly been available.

Source for API information: https://develop.battle.net/documentation/guides/getting-started
10/19/2018 08:31 AMPosted by Derka
You shouldn't believe anything you read on the internet.

Not believing or believing this statement creates a paradox

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum