Jump to content

SLAddict Allen

Resident
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About SLAddict Allen

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. Sassy Romano wrote: VMware workstation works fine. 30 day trial. In SL you usually need to disable Mouse warp in debug settings. Thanks for this Sassy. I got into 10 via VMWare, but Firestorm is still giving me an error. Will not launch due to video card drivers not installed correctly.
  2. I figured as much. Thank you for trying to help me out Madelaine
  3. So, I am testing Windows 10. We downloaded Windows 10 Technical Preview build 10024. Not comfortable installing this on production computer, and with no backup machine, a virtual machine is our only option. The VM software we are currently using is VirtualBox. Now, with it not being our main OS, we are running SL on Windows 8.1 currently. However, we would like to really test out Windows by putting it through its paces. Having some trouble logging into Second Life, however. We tried it on Build 9926, and got a graphics card error. We tried installing the driver, but could only attempt to install on the main C drive. Is there any way to get this working? On a side note, if this is not possible, is it possible to roll the tech preview back to Win 8, if we decide to go nuts and install straight to hard drive instead? Note #2 Tried a dual boot setup. Major headaches. Didn't work.
  4. fantasywannabe27 wrote: Hello everyone. New to Second Life. Before I actually play the game, i just have several questions. 1) is the game as it says? you litterally play a second life? where it works just like IRL? 2) What is there to do? 3) The main reason why I wanted to get this game is because I heard you can change your character to look like anything. What I really want is to be a furry, with multiple tails, with angel wings, and neko eyes and ears. Then i looked at what there is to offer....You have to pay IRL money to get the costumes. I'm a huge money saver and I HATE spending IRL money. So i checked the store, and i realized that all the costumes, and all that goody stuff you have to spend IRL money to get. Can i also get those same costumes In-Game using the game currency, if different from the websites? 4) I have heard there is a furry-only "server" or "room" of some sort where nothing but furries go. Is this true? 5) i've also heard of a room dedicated to "18+ stuff" if you know what I mean. Is this true as well? 6) Is it possible to make your own costumes/animations? Because some of the animations and costumes i've seen through google are through "modding" or "texture editing" or something like that, but is very difficult to do. is that possible? legal? 7) Like a lot of MMORPG games i've played, i can get the website currency through "voting" on InsanityFlyff, or watching videos on Aeria games. Is there a way to get some L$ in this game without spendning real money? EX: In InsanityFlyff, Ipoints is like the L$ in this game. You have to pay to get it. But in InsanityFlyff, there are also things called Vpoints, where you "vote" to get 6 Vpoints per 12 hours In Aeria Games website, you can pay to get the AP, or you can watch videos to get 1-7 AP, or do those nasty surveys to get a high amount. ^ Does Second Life do that? or is it a pay IRL money or you don't get any L$ at all? - Second Life is not a game. Its no more a game than going and watching a movie on a friday night. An escape from reality, maybe. But you only have one life. It does mirror a complete life in a lot of ways, just be careful how wrapped up in it you get - and realize and respect that everyone seperates Second Life from the "real world" to varying degrees. Some use it as a game and will not disclose RL even to their closest in-world friends. Others loathe hiding behind their avatars and think of meeting somebody in-world in the same vein as meeting somebody at your local bar or on the street. - What is not there to do would be more likely to fit in this box. Ha. You can do anything. Think of all you can do offline. Chances are you can probably do it in Second Life. Watch movies, form relationships, create clothing. building, vehicles and a whole host of other things, buy and sell virtual goods, dance, play games within Second Life, trade stocks (yes there is a stock market), participate in a whole range of events, attend concerts (there are scores of live singers performing in world from their homes), ect. I could go on for hours! - You can purchase on the web-based Marketplace or in-world using in-world currency or Linden Dollars. The web-based Marketplace lets you purchase with IRL money. You can also purchase SL currency this way. If you do not wish to spend RL money, you may work in-world to earn Lindens. I recommend getting to know the world and visiting various places before attempting to land a job. Like "real life", various skills and varying experience may be required of you. - While I do not see furries all over the grid like I used to, there is no restriction on where they may go. I am sure there are locations tailored to them that they may flock to, however. - There are age restrictions on certain content. You will need to put payment info on file or verify your age in some other manner to access many locations. http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Adult_Content_FAQ - You can create your own content of all types. Perfectly legal if you respect copyright laws and come up with your own stuff. - There are very few, if any, ways to get free Lindens other than landing a job or trading stocks at a in-world stock exchange (getting a job is way faster and easier).
  5. Linden Lab wrote: Hi Surfaqua, As each game differs in its operational functions, we are unable to provide opinions of whether a specific game would be subject to our Skill Gaming Policy via this forum. Each creator and operator of games will need to evaluate whether their game(s) would be subject to, and in compliance with, this policy. I'm confused by this answer. You've created a set of rules, yet you are unable to determine what violates them? So if a creator "decides" that what he is doing is in compliance, you are saying Linden Lab will not come saying that he isn't? No wonder the grid is still littered with gaming.
  6. http://www.gridsurvey.com/charts/econ76.png source: http://www.gridsurvey.com/economy.php A slow, steady erosion of the the inworld population that continues. Granted yes, weekends were busier times and that was when you were likely to see those numbers. But times have changed in ways that skew that as well. Take wednesdays for example. SL was OFFLINE COMPLETELY during those days every week. Downtime was much more common during the week, which would help push busy hours towards the weekend. And I don't have to use any data. I use experience. If you choose to dismiss it as a lack of memory, that's fine. I'm not armed with charts and graphs to show off my statistical muscle. This is just stuff i have googled because I remember seeing it all back then. But I am done. You asked me to provide evidence. I did. You didn't buy it. So further evidence gathering will be pointless. If its not from you its wrong, apparently.
  7. Freya Mokusei wrote: Daniel Voyager is an entertaining blogger, but he's young and not trained in reading statistics. According to your figures, Second Life had a concurrency of >80,000 on 5 days (out of 365, ~1%) during 2009. This was early in the plateau phase of Second Life's product cycle, where random highs were typical. My own data had 8 days during 2010 which had a concurrency of >80,000, but it's a long, long, long way from being representative. You're still wrong to average out the peak concurrency at "80-90K" during any sampled year of Second Life's operation. I'd skip this line of reasoning and try another. the usefulness of this metric is limited anyway (as has been explained to you), and pride isn't so big of a deal. Those were peaks... They do not show that on days previous and after, peak hours had similar numbers. Oh wait, I forgot. If you can't see it in charts and graphs, its not possible. I was there. Another article I've found. http://alphavilleherald.com/2011/04/sl-population-crash-continues.html
  8. Theresa Tennyson wrote: SLAddict Allen wrote: You wanted evidence, I said I would find it. http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2008/09/second-life-con.html So the evidence you have to back up your statement that concurrency was in the 80,000's,, passing 90 thousand at times, is a statement that the actual cuncurrency peak was just over 70,000? Looks like you've found evidence all right - it just proves you were wrong. That article announced it had hit 70K. Nothing in that article stated it stopped there. It was the highest number I could back up at the time. But I have more now. Second Life User Concurrency Peaks 88, 220 – 29th March 2009 at 1:28pm SLT 86, 584 – 15th March 2009 at 3:57pm SLT 81, 913 – 28th February 2009 at 2:50pm SLT 80,000 – 12th January 2009 80, 528 – 11th January 2009 at 2:46pm SLT 80, 195 – 11th January 2009 74, 990 – 21 December 2008 at 2:04pm SLT 71, 232 – 28th September 2008 70, 821 – 21st September 2008 at 1:58pm SLT 69, 574 – 14th September 2008 66, 429 – 30th March 2008 60, 000 – 14th January 2008 at 1:45pm SLT 58, 738 – 6th January 2008 at 1:40pm SLT 56,967- 5th November 2007 at 1:50pm SLT 51, 914 – 2nd November 2007 at 2:25pm SLT 50, 872 – (min 27,105) – 31st October 2007 at 3:30pm SLT 50, 000 – 4th September 2007 42, 285 – 6th May 2007 39, 001 – (min 20,074) – 1st May 2007 at 1:31pm SLT 31, 000 – 2nd February 2007 20, 015 – Mid December 2006 18, 000 – Early December 2006 14, 000 then by end 16,000 – November 2006 11, 000 – 1st October 2006 10, 000 – 27th August 2006 9, 613 – 30th July 2006 7. 005 – 6th June 2006 6,000 – March 2006 2. 127 – June 2005 1, 466 – 13th May 2005 666 – 18th March 2005 Source: http://danielvoyager.wordpress.com/sl-metrics/ I was what?
  9. You wanted evidence, I said I would find it. http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2008/09/second-life-con.html
  10. Freya Mokusei wrote: You're backtracking, and this is boring. "its still a fact." Again, you've presented no facts, just anecdotal evidence. Hitchen's Law makes classification of your point easy. "I refer to peak time audience as the most avatars online, generally, in a given day. It used to be 80-90K" So our definitions match and your numbers come out different to mine. Your assumption that they 'used to be 80-90k' ignores the conditions of that environment and allows you to be swayed by false impressions. You're wrong to do this. As stated in my previous reply, only 8 datapoints (of >1000 datapoints since 1st January 2010) show values above 80,000 users - this is not an average by any definition. "(backed up by a previous post author)" You're basing your numbers on hearsay, which is obviously disproved by the data I've presented, collected by a reputable SL statistician. I therefore determine that your numbers are wrong. "You don't believe old data counts for much. Then this is simply a matter of disagreeing on this" Wrong again. Data that's been affected by business decisions and hype curves is not balanced, representative data of Second Life's audience. It has no value to use this data because Second Life can never rebuild the links it severed with the Educational community, and will never enter into a secondary hype cycle. This is not disagreement, you are trying to use bad data and are coming to bad conclusions. The age of the data is mostly irrelevant, the data that I've seen has no way to adjust for the inflation of Second Life's userbase by its hype cycle. I'm not here to teach you statistics, and your last point reads like a strawman (again) and has been discarded. My time set aside to deal with your misunderstanding has come to a close, but I sincerely hope that others reading my posts get a better grasp of my point. Good luck to you. To summarise:- There has not been a decline of more than 14% of the maximum daily concurrency since 2011. Based on my experience, this is the steady linear decline of a product that is post-saturation. There is no systemic cause behind the 14% decline in daily concurrency. The numbers are far too low for this. 80,000 users is not a typical measurement for maximum daily concurrency in any dataset that I can find, from 1st January 2010. Second Life has - until recently, 2013 - always had a wide variation in concurrency, the minimum (excepting Christmas Slumps) has stayed relatively steady at ~45,000 in the data that's been provided. This trend continues to today. There has almost certainly never been a point where maximum daily concurrency was consistantly 35% higher than the year(s) that proceeded it. Second Life has experienced great positive population growth during its hype phase. It has never experienced great negative growth - and there is nothing to cause this negative growth. All data in my posts has been collected from Tyche Shepard's GridSurvey. It is available for download and analysis. You were done commenting but then came back to summerize. I see. - I never said there has been a decline over 14 since 2011. I did, however state that that 14% decline was a portion of the 35% decline I was initially referring to. You may believe older data does not accurately reflect the state of the grid, but if you do not want me to distort your statistics, please do not try to distort facts that I am presenting. I saw the with my own two eyes and did not need pie charts, graphs and statistical spin to interpret anything. - Steady linear decline? Ask Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook if declining traffic after just a few years in the market is a typical occurance that is to be expected. - The numbers are too low to indicate a reason, so therefore there isn't one. Got ya. - Until recently. Exactly. - Max concurrency peaked at 80s, even touching 90K, in 2008. This is not hearsay, this is what I have seen on the login screen. I don't have graphs. You can choose not to believe me. Its fine. I don't need to show off graphs or statistical know-how to know what I saw. If that isn't 35% percent or more greater than 50K. Let me know. I need a new calculator. Thanks. - Again... So if this steady, very slow decline continues until nobody is online, all is ok with the state of Second Life? I never said the problem was quick decline. I said the problem is that since 2008, there has been nothing but decline and the number, as it relates to the maximum audience the grid is reaching, has now surpassed 35%. - Everything in my posts has been seen by my own two eyes and that is good enough for me. If not you... oh well. Its a comment forum. I'm making comments.
  11. Freya, Explain it away as typical if you want, its still a fact. Call it what you will, I refer to peak time audience as the most avatars online, generally, in a given day. It used to be 80-90K (backed up by a previous post author), now its roughly 50K, maybe a bit above. I think we can even call 35% conservative math. You took "a few" as three. So your assumption has distorted my facts. Yet you asked me to stop distorting yours. You don't believe old data counts for much. Then this is simply a matter of disagreeing on that. Here is what I was referring to in my last point. The lows of 7K would be the valleys reached in the first part of hypothetical three-year graph. So, just for example, lets say the audienced varied from highs of 15K to lows of 7K during the year 2015, and by 2018 gradually made it to nobody online. How would you interpret that slide?
  12. Drake1 Nightfire wrote: SLAddict Allen wrote: Freya Mokusei wrote: SLAddict Allen wrote: Its funny how people still dismiss the "I'm leaving" claims of users when peak time concurrency has dropped about 35% or so in the last few years. ... Fair point. But I would argue that even those working on SL projects have technically left, or reduced time online, even if by design of the misguided implementation of Mesh. People draw people. People come now and see 50K online at peak times. People used to come and see that at all times, with peaks of 80K. Which was more attractive and more likely to draw people in? This hasn't happened. Please see the chart I've added below, showing Maximum Concurrency Per Day since 2011. Each box represents one year, including one Christmas Slump - the second box doesn't end at year-end (since it's July) but includes the 2013 Christmas Slump. The values (pink) are accurate MIN/MAX values - the boxes are representations. Since 2011 the minimum has changed imperceptibly - a differential of ~2,800 (~4% of the peak value) users at its lowest point (Christmas to Christmas) and only ~11,000 at its highest (~15%). The overall average has shifted only ~8,700 users (~14%, not 35%) in three years. My reading of this graph is that traffic has stabilised and is not growing, but is not decreasing in an aggressively negative direction either. There is nothing to suggest SL users are leaving in any kind of 'exodus'. The range between extremes (max to min) has reduced by 28% (range of 29,067 decreasing to 20,793) - this is the largest possible number you can draw between sets, and still 7% lower than your guess. This range - of course - is not a very useful metric due to the high seasonality of Second Life in 2011 (due to a very low Christmas, and high initial peak). 2010 (not shown) was a different time, SL was on the narrow-end of the hype cycle and still had its core dev staff and the educational sector. But even then, 80,000 was an outlier, not an average concurrency. In 2011 concurrency was inflated artificially by Rod's joining LL - he improved sign-ups significantly during the first six months of his tenure. But even so, this 14% over three years is a reasonable quantity to lose to fatigue. Stability of course is a good thing, and the reduction in seasonality provides a much higher average concurrency (compared to the minimum) in 2014 than 2011. Thanks to Tyche for recording this data. If you have your own data, I'd like to see it. Get past all of the interpretations of christmas and averages and everything else. Look at the beginning of the graph and you'll see a high they never reach anymore and a low at the end of it that is considerably less than the 2011 drop, save for the odd drop in late 2011 that corrected itself. I remember it happening but don't quite remember why. Those highs are clearly never close to being repeated. Your graph clearly shows that the highs of the last few months are similar to the LOWS of 2011, which was a period well inside Second Life's decline. Thanks for proving my point. While I don't have data (I'll come back with it if I can secure it), I can tell you that in 2006-2008, the audience of Second Life was higher. No data but I watch the numbers on the log in screen. They used to hit 80,000+. They did NOT hit 80K+ in 2006. They didn't start getting those numbers till after the CSI NY episode that had SL in it. Which was in October of 2007. By mid 2008 there were numbers reaching 80-90K, but before that a busy saturday night was only 20K max. Did I say it was in 06? No. I said they used to, prior to the period covered by the graph. I memtioned a range of 06-08 actually. I mentioned 06 because that was early on in the explosion of the audience.
  13. Freya Mokusei wrote: SLAddict Allen wrote: Get past all of the interpretations of christmas and averages and everything else. Look at the beginning of the graph and you'll see a high they never reach anymore and a low at the end of it that is considerably less than the 2011 drop, save for the odd drop in late 2011 that corrected itself. I remember it happening but don't quite remember why. Those highs are clearly never close to being repeated. Your graph clearly shows that the highs of the last few months are similar to the LOWS of 2011, which was a period well inside Second Life's decline. Thanks for proving my point. I use averages because min/max alone doesn't actually tell you much. Removing grouping to look at singular data points tells you nothing of trends or deltas. You can't discard the spread of data throughout a range or the low/high density of collected data points - doing so would give you no useful information. If you want to discard seasonality then you're very quickly using bad data. As an example, the 'odd drop' you're probably seeing in 2011 is the Christmas Slump - it's outlying data because the SL population is artificially deflated (i.e., SL appears to be less popular than it is) - this contextualising is important when dealing with statistics. Please don't reframe your point, or distort the data I've provided to reframe mine. Your point was a decline of 35%, and this point has proven to be false. The truth is that new users are not replacing old users, but that it's happening at an incredibly slow, linear decline of 14% over 3 years - less than half the rate of your claim. My inference beyond this was that it's incredibly unlikely that this is due to any systemic problem - while you claim systemic problems are the cause - this point is yet to be proven either way. It cannot be proven by the data I've provided thus far, but you may choose to compare with other examples of exodus-like behaviour - my assumption is that you'll be disappointed. Considering your willingness to distort statistics, I'm doubtful of your ability to accurately assess the Second Life population while it was underneath the hype curve (pre-2011). This assumes you understand what the hype curve is/was, and why Second Life will (obviously) never reach those levels of activity again. Hype or no hype, the audience was there. It isn't now. That 14% represents a slowing of the bleed, but a contribution to the loss of audience, and a gradually continuing decline. When you can barely pull in an audience at peak times that that you used to never drop below, that says your audience is shrinking. That 35% is a drop in peak time audience. You can interpret that to mean whatever you will. I put more faith in it as an indicator than you do. Fair enough. But if you are asking me not to distort your facts, please show me the same respect. And just for the record, I never claimed it made that plunge in just 3 years. How can I be distorting data that only represents a portion of what I was referring to? If there comes a 3 year period in the future that begins with highs of 15K and lows of 7K, and then slides at the end to nobody online, how will you interpret that?
  14. Freya Mokusei wrote: SLAddict Allen wrote: Its funny how people still dismiss the "I'm leaving" claims of users when peak time concurrency has dropped about 35% or so in the last few years. ... Fair point. But I would argue that even those working on SL projects have technically left, or reduced time online, even if by design of the misguided implementation of Mesh. People draw people. People come now and see 50K online at peak times. People used to come and see that at all times, with peaks of 80K. Which was more attractive and more likely to draw people in? This hasn't happened. Please see the chart I've added below, showing Maximum Concurrency Per Day since 2011. Each box represents one year, including one Christmas Slump - the second box doesn't end at year-end (since it's July) but includes the 2013 Christmas Slump. The values (pink) are accurate MIN/MAX values - the boxes are representations. Since 2011 the minimum has changed imperceptibly - a differential of ~2,800 (~4% of the peak value) users at its lowest point (Christmas to Christmas) and only ~11,000 at its highest (~15%). The overall average has shifted only ~8,700 users (~14%, not 35%) in three years. My reading of this graph is that traffic has stabilised and is not growing, but is not decreasing in an aggressively negative direction either. There is nothing to suggest SL users are leaving in any kind of 'exodus'. The range between extremes (max to min) has reduced by 28% (range of 29,067 decreasing to 20,793) - this is the largest possible number you can draw between sets, and still 7% lower than your guess. This range - of course - is not a very useful metric due to the high seasonality of Second Life in 2011 (due to a very low Christmas, and high initial peak). 2010 (not shown) was a different time, SL was on the narrow-end of the hype cycle and still had its core dev staff and the educational sector. But even then, 80,000 was an outlier, not an average concurrency. In 2011 concurrency was inflated artificially by Rod's joining LL - he improved sign-ups significantly during the first six months of his tenure. But even so, this 14% over three years is a reasonable quantity to lose to fatigue. Stability of course is a good thing, and the reduction in seasonality provides a much higher average concurrency (compared to the minimum) in 2014 than 2011. Thanks to Tyche for recording this data. If you have your own data, I'd like to see it. Get past all of the interpretations of christmas and averages and everything else. Look at the beginning of the graph and you'll see a high they never reach anymore and a low at the end of it that is considerably less than the 2011 drop, save for the odd drop in late 2011 that corrected itself. I remember it happening but don't quite remember why. Those highs are clearly never close to being repeated. Your graph clearly shows that the highs of the last few months are similar to the LOWS of 2011, which was a period well inside Second Life's decline. Thanks for proving my point. While I don't have data (I'll come back with it if I can secure it), I can tell you that in 2006-2008, the audience of Second Life was higher. No data but I watch the numbers on the log in screen. They used to hit 80,000+.
  15. Parrish Ashbourne wrote: SLAddict Allen wrote: Its funny how people still dismiss the "I'm leaving" claims of users when peak time concurrency has dropped about 35% or so in the last few years. When LL stopped bot farms that dropped the counts for some of the loss, and mesh plays a roll in it to, many content creators now spend most of their time building out side of SL, even just trying to learn mesh will take some one out of world for a long time. So 35% isen't the real % of people leaving SL. Fair point. But I would argue that even those working on SL projects have technically left, or reduced time online, even if by design of the misguided implementation of Mesh. People draw people. People come now and see 50K online at peak times. People used to come and see that at all times, with peaks of 80K. Which was more attractive and more likely to draw people in?
×
×
  • Create New...