NA PvP Population Estimates - 8/5/2018

Givens:

• gw2efficiency and statistics are a good aggregate of that of GW2's total population
• According to gw2efficiency as of 8/5/2018, 1% of the PvP population this season are rated above 1,701 MMR.
• According to the in-game leaderboard as of 8/5/2018, 20 players are rated above 1,701 MMR in NA.

Hypothesis:20 players = 1% of population20 players x100 = 1% x 100 of population = 100% of population2,000 players = 100% of population.There are only 2,000 active PvP players on NA.

Discuss. What do you think?

Seems pretty accurate for the number of people I see showing up over and over in my games. No real point to play when there aren't even enough people to spread out the ranks and put together good matches.

I wouldn't even say that there are 2,000 active players. A very large number of those people have probably settled at somewhat one-and-done kind of ranks, as in they got their 10-game rank and then probably didn't care to do much beyond it. GW2 PvP decay is also nuts, so in order to stay up at high MMR, one really has to consistently play on a near-daily basis. The truly "active" PvP scene in GW2 is probably sub-1,000.

Interesting stuff. I think @Swagg.9236 brings up a good point about how many truly active players there are in our estimate. I also think that @"Kokoro.8437" brought some neat data, and has done some sound calculations, so please don't let what I say next be construed as "he/she did something wrong or missed something". I just thought this might be important to at least consider:

One thing we might not know in our estimate is how much does gw2efficiency round, which could make a pretty big difference. Let's imagine it rounds to the nearest whole number, so 20 isn't actually 1% exactly but instead is a percentage that would be rounded up to 1%. For example: 0.51%

now our calculations would be...Population 0.51% = 20Population .0051 = 20Population = 20/.0051Population = 3921.57

That's almost double our initial estimate. And it could be even higher if gw2efficiency just rounds anything above 0 to 1%. Again, not saying anyone is wrong or missed anything, just saying it could potentially be much higher and would be potentially dangerous to assume this estimate as fact. I don't think the OP wants anyone to do that, so I hope me pointing this out just sparks further discussion and points for us to consider.

I don't think gw2efficiency need to round anything.

Its just looking at the population spread, and showing what MMR the top 1.0% of playerbase starts at.

One thing that probably affects the numbers significantly is that gw2 efficiency numbers ARE affected by EU which has a higher population, although I don't think it would change the MMR where the top 1% are in that much.

EDIT: If someone can share the EU numbers on players rated above 1,701, it would be great too.

Keep in mind 15 games per week meant at least 2-3 matches/day, so good 1 hour/day is enough to keep players in ladder and people don't really have to invest more to stay where they are. It really doesn't comes as surprise how MMR mess up sometimes.

Then again when we look at these stats and how much gem can ANet get from 2000-4000 players...I know quite a bit of people among that number who doesn't buy on regular or even monthly basis.

It's more like there are only 2000 people willing to actually play the required games per season. I've been high enough for top 250 a few times but I just can't be arsed to play 120 because ranked is aids. I'm near 100% certain that I am not the only one who feels this way.

In EU there is ~20 people 1800+ so if this counts EU your estimation is wrong

Implying the number of GW2efficiency accounts even begins to come close to the number of GW2 accounts.

@Airdive.2613 said:Implying the number of GW2efficiency accounts even begins to come close to the number of GW2 accounts.

It doesn't. But it does provide a good sample size as to where the top 1% of players are at, which can also be translated to where the top 1% of the total gw2 population is at.

@BeLZedaR.4790 said:In EU there is ~20 people 1800+ so if this counts EU your estimation is wrong

Reading comprehension. NA PvP Population estimate.

That said, again, how many players on EU are above 1701MMR?

@Kokoro.8437 said:

@Airdive.2613 said:Implying the number of GW2efficiency accounts even begins to come close to the number of GW2 accounts.

@BeLZedaR.4790 said:In EU there is ~20 people 1800+ so if this counts EU your estimation is wrong

^ 127 people are rated 1700 and above currently in EU

@Kokoro.8437 said:Givens:

• gw2efficiency and statistics are a good aggregate of that of GW2's total population
• According to gw2efficiency as of 8/5/2018, 1% of the PvP population this season are rated above 1,701 MMR.
• According to the in-game leaderboard as of 8/5/2018, 20 players are rated above 1,701 MMR in NA.

Hypothesis:20 players = 1% of population20 players x100 = 1% x 100 of population = 100% of population2,000 players = 100% of population.There are only 2,000 active PvP players on NA.

Discuss. What do you think?

The problem with this estimation is that there are a lot of people who don't use gw2efficiency and a lot who don't play ranked. This number can vary wildly based on the relative percentages for people not using gw2efficiency and probably doubles (or more) based on the number of people who aren't playing ranked.

Also, there's a healthy wvw population that kind of dips into pvp as well. I'd say for RANKED ONLY the number is (somewhat) potentially fairly accurate but even then you need to be careful.

Still, it's good to have some kind of number to go off of. BTW, 2000 people is more than enough for healthy matchmaking, if people aren't intentionally gaming the system or regularly using aliases/wintrading/tanking matches for various reasons.

Without knowing how gw2efficiency is calculating these numbers it just paints a very broad picture on the population. If anything, looking at gw2efficiency's data for ranked pvp, 2000 is the floor rather than the ceiling.

@Legatus.3608 said:

The problem with this estimation is that there are a lot of people who don't use gw2efficiency and a lot who don't play ranked. This number can vary wildly based on the relative percentages for people not using gw2efficiency and probably doubles (or more) based on the number of people who aren't playing ranked.

Also, there's a healthy wvw population that kind of dips into pvp as well. I'd say for RANKED ONLY the number is (somewhat) potentially fairly accurate but even then you need to be careful.

Still, it's good to have some kind of number to go off of. BTW, 2000 people is more than enough for healthy matchmaking, if people aren't intentionally gaming the system or regularly using aliases/wintrading/tanking matches for various reasons.

So you don't think gw2efficiency is a good sample size at all?

@phokus.8934 said:Without knowing how gw2efficiency is calculating these numbers it just paints a very broad picture on the population. If anything, looking at gw2efficiency's data for ranked pvp, 2000 is the floor rather than the ceiling.

They look at the account data of all accounts registered with gw2efficiency, and gathers the statistics from there.

Hence; the top 1% of all accounts on GW2 efficiency are rated at 1701 or above.

Why would this be a floor? If anything, its a 50/50 that the number of 2,000 goes up or down, as there isn't any evidence that swings this number one way or another.

Givens:

• According to gw2efficiency as of 8/6/2018, 1% of the PvP population this season are rated above 1,701 MMR.
• According to the in-game leaderboard as of 8/6/2018, 127 players are rated above 1,701 MMR in EU.Hypothesis:127 players = 1% of population12700 players = 100% of population.There are only 12700 active PvP players on UE.

One we know for sure. EU pvp players have more accounts on gw2efficiency ;)

Again without looking at how they're doing these calculations and getting in between the numbers, it's a really rough estimate of the population. And seeing as how gw2efficiency seems to only pull from people who have accounts on that site, 2,000 is a good indication of the player floor. Any thirdparty site that shows population based on users who use it will always under report the data.

Their 1% of 1702 rating seems to change as it was 1% of 1701 earlier. So I don't put much faith into a site that doesn't explain its rankings and the data it's showing. If they're really showing the total 1% of players on the site who do ranked based on 0+ hours played and that average goes up from 1701 to 1702 then why does the average based on the 5 additional played columns come under 1702 - that those 5 columns are indicative of the total player base broken down by hours played then the deviation should be almost 0, not ~60.

Stats are great and all and I love nothing more than data analysis but this data seems awfully incomplete, their charts aren't practical, and really I'd need to see some explanation on their math/reports.

@"phokus.8934" said:Again without looking at how they're doing these calculations and getting in between the numbers, it's a really rough estimate of the population. And seeing as how gw2efficiency seems to only pull from people who have accounts on that site, 2,000 is a good indication of the player floor. Any thirdparty site that shows population based on users who use it will always under report the data.

I don't understand this statement at all. What is it even "under reporting?"

Their 1% of 1702 rating seems to change as it was 1% of 1701 earlier. So I don't put much faith into a site that doesn't explain its rankings and the data it's showing. If they're really showing the total 1% of players on the site who do ranked based on 0+ hours played and that average goes up from 1701 to 1702 then why does the average based on the 5 additional played columns come under 1702 - that those 5 columns are indicative of the total player base broken down by hours played then the deviation should be almost 0, not ~60.

Of course the 1% rating changes. It changes because the players change rating all the time. Someone (or a few someones) gained enough rating so that people rated at 1701 were pushed down to 1.1% instead of top 1%, and the cutoff of the top 1% is now 1702.

gw2efficiency, and all accounts registered onto it are a sample size.

The MMR rating of the top 1% of the sample size was 1701 (now 1702)

Hence; if we assume that the sample size provides a decent correlation to the gw2 population as a whole, the MMR of the top 1% of the total population would also be at 1701 and above.

Now an argument could possibly be made that the sample size is skewed to higher MMR accounts as higher MMR players would register on gw2efficiency, and thus the MMR cutoff for the top 1% is actually lower than 1701.

Alternatively, another argument would be that gw2 efficiency's statistics do not correlate to the gw2 population as a whole for some reason or another.

Finally, a third argument would be that the cutoff of the top 1% at 1701 is skewed because of the higher and lower total MMR ranges of the EU population. In which case, the top 1% of EU would be higher than 1701, and the top 1% of NA would be lower than 1701.

But you have not made any of the above arguments at all...

I think the biggest factor to consider here is the correlation of those that register their account on gw2efficiency and their "higher" investment into the game leading to a higher position on the ladder on average for those on gw2efficiency, skewing this rather linear estimation. I like the attempt tho :D

@Kokoro.8437 said:

@"phokus.8934" said:Again without looking at how they're doing these calculations and getting in between the numbers, it's a really rough estimate of the population. And seeing as how gw2efficiency seems to only pull from people who have accounts on that site, 2,000 is a good indication of the player floor. Any thirdparty site that shows population based on users who use it will always under report the data.

Under reporting is exactly what it means - any data from a third party site that shows population distribution, totals, deviations, etc. based on registered user accounts will always under report the actual numbers. For example, you're assuming, based on gw2efficiency's website that there are 2,000 players based off of a very limited scope. That's under reporting and why I call 2,000 the floor for pvp population.

Their 1% of 1702 rating seems to change as it was 1% of 1701 earlier. So I don't put much faith into a site that doesn't explain its rankings and the data it's showing. If they're really showing the total 1% of players on the site who do ranked based on 0+ hours played and that average goes up from 1701 to 1702 then why does the average based on the 5 additional played columns come under 1702 - that those 5 columns are indicative of the total player base broken down by hours played then the deviation should be almost 0, not ~60.

I'm just merely stating that to take the numbers on gw2efficiency's website and any analysis based off it as a grain of salt when it comes to population.

I think we can all agree that if the total number of NA pvpers is ~2,000 based off of a third-party site that we can use that as the floor. Unless GW2s API somehow exposes additional data or another site is able to get inside information on population, gw2efficiency is all we have to go off of. But to state that the population of NA pvp players is at most 2,000 is silly to say the least.

@phokus.8934 said:Under reporting is exactly what it means - any data from a third party site that shows population distribution, totals, deviations, etc. based on registered user accounts will always under report the actual numbers. For example, you're assuming, based on gw2efficiency's website that there are 2,000 players based off of a very limited scope. That's under reporting and why I call 2,000 the floor for pvp population.

No. I am assuming, based on gw2efficiency's website, that the top 1% of the total population is rated at 1701 and above.

That's a big difference.

I mentioned that the average will fluctuate but you completely disregarded that their additional 5 columns don't even come close to the average of the 1%. That's a big red flag right there for any data analytics. This is why I would like to see how they're calculating this and under what circumstances as there are probably additional outliers.

Because its not an average. of the other 5 columns, just like how the play hours of gw2's population are not spread out evenly.

I'm just merely stating that to take the numbers on gw2efficiency's website and any analysis based off it as a grain of salt when it comes to population.

I think we can all agree that if the total number of NA pvpers is ~2,000 based off of a third-party site that we can use that as the floor. Unless GW2s API somehow exposes additional data or another site is able to get inside information on population, gw2efficiency is all we have to go off of. But to state that the population of NA pvp players is at most 2,000 is silly to say the least.

Now I will concede that that gw2efficiency's top 1% may not match the gw2 poplulation's 100. No sample size matches the population 100%, but you have yet to present evidence or even an argument as to why it should swing one way or another.

Is this for people that play every day or just anyone who has played any matches during the season?

I think there's vastly more than 4,000 active NA PvP players. I think the difference comes into how you qualify an "active" player.

I don't play three ranked matches each day. A good day I'll do an unranked or two, duel a bit, explore the map a bit and if I feel up to it, I'll do a ranked match. I consider myself an active PvP player. I don't think based on what I'm seeing that I'd be counted among those numbers.

@Kokoro.8437 said:

@"phokus.8934" said:Under reporting is exactly what it means - any data from a third party site that shows population distribution, totals, deviations, etc. based on registered user accounts will always under report the actual numbers. For example, you're assuming, based on gw2efficiency's website that there are 2,000 players based off of a very limited scope. That's under reporting and why I call 2,000 the floor for pvp population.

"There are only 2,000 active PvP players on NA.

Discuss. What do you think?"That's exactly what you wrote. Big difference in just stating that the top 1% is rated at 1701 and above.

I mentioned that the average will fluctuate but you completely disregarded that their additional 5 columns don't even come close to the average of the 1%. That's a big red flag right there for any data analytics. This is why I would like to see how they're calculating this and under what circumstances as there are probably additional outliers.

I'm just merely stating that to take the numbers on gw2efficiency's website and any analysis based off it as a grain of salt when it comes to population.

I think we can all agree that if the total number of NA pvpers is ~2,000 based off of a third-party site that we can use that as the floor. Unless GW2s API somehow exposes additional data or another site is able to get inside information on population, gw2efficiency is all we have to go off of. But to state that the population of NA pvp players is at most 2,000 is silly to say the least.

As I mentioned earlier, the only thing gw2efficiency does is it provides a minimum baseline for population. Considering it is updated at least once a day, it does provide a good forecast into the secret world of game population.

@"phokus.8934" said:Under reporting is exactly what it means - any data from a third party site that shows population distribution, totals, deviations, etc. based on registered user accounts will always under report the actual numbers. For example, you're assuming, based on gw2efficiency's website that there are 2,000 players based off of a very limited scope. That's under reporting and why I call 2,000 the floor for pvp population.

Honestly, I was about to agree with you, but...

I mentioned that the average will fluctuate but you completely disregarded that their additional 5 columns don't even come close to the average of the 1%. That's a big red flag right there for any data analytics. This is why I would like to see how they're calculating this and under what circumstances as there are probably additional outliers.

You are wrong here. The 1% in question is exactly that - a top percentile. It doesn't necessarily behave the way the mean does. That's a simple Simpson's paradox for you.

I'm just merely stating that to take the numbers on gw2efficiency's website and any analysis based off it as a grain of salt when it comes to population.

Indeed. Personally, I don't care about the sample size here as I don't know what to infer from it, but you definitely can't be sure that it is representative of the whole PvP population.Furthermore, let's assume the majority of top PvP players aren't registered on GW2efficiency website while the low-bracket ones are. It would mean that the top 1% as indicated by the website is lower than the actual top 1% rating, which in turn would mean that the number you multiply by 100 is increased (more people are above 1600 than above 1700) and your estimation turns out to be higher than actual "true" numbers.

Ultimately, it can go either way and you can hardly infer anything without knowing how GW2efficiency demographics compare to GW2 demographics.

No statistical based study on a sample size will ever produce 100% confidence in the results. 2,000 may be close to the real number, but there is a +/- that we can't quantify. Although the picture may not be 100% clear, I think it is telling enough; the Pvp population is small and we all feel the effects of that every time we log in.