Check out all of the details of this month's Patch Notes, featuring the Crom Bás Part 2 update!

https://mabinogi.nexon.net/news/71292/crom-b-s-unveiled-abyss-part-2-patch-notes-january-13th-2022

https://mabinogi.nexon.net/news/71292/crom-b-s-unveiled-abyss-part-2-patch-notes-january-13th-2022

[NEW MILLETIANS] Please note that all new forum users have to be approved before posting. This process can take up to 24 hours, and we appreciate your patience.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Nexon Forums Code of Conduct. You have to register before you can post, so you can log in or create a forum name above to proceed. Thank you for your visit!

## Comments

This is something you should have been able to check on the main webpage...

This.

Me neither. In my case, I know that I do NOT have newsletter enabled.

Up until Jan. 19th 2011, Wiki history shows that people generally had to wait until age 20 to rebirth for free, so a player starting at even Age 17 had to wait three whole weeks between rebirths (17 maximum rebirths per year, so the average actually isn't that pessimistic). Jan 19th, 2011 was when people under 100 cumulative regular and explorations levels could rebirth every day, until sometime in July of 2014 when anyone under 1000 cumulative regular levels could rebirth every day; I'd say 2014 is when rebirthing started to pick up until the Master Plan of 2017, when they started giving out rebirth potions and the rebirthing accommodations have only increased since.

If you could, you'd come out better just grabbing data (via surveys or something) on how many players currently sit at 10-40k levels and then multiplying that result by any number from 100 - 150. It'd be way off the actual ratio, but it'd give a much better estimate than "over 8.9m rebirths done since the game opened;" 7.5m of that total probably comes from 2014 and beyond and the average rebirths per character would rocket.

Maybe you did what I did: started early, left after a day, then came back after a while. I only left for half a year, but I digress.

Also, no email for me, either. Then again, I am on their ____ list.[/quote]

Email.

All I'm hearing is that we're now down to an average of 3 rebirths per account over the last 13 years. How is this game still up lmao

I literally just explained why. This is confusing to nobody, but those that choose not to see why.

Good question. Let's take Nexon at their word and see what those numbers might imply. So we have 3M accounts, 9M rebirths, over 13 years. "Active" players is a pretty wide definition. Sure there will be some with hundreds of rebirths, but there can be active players who don't necessarily rebirth as soon as they can; I'm one. Since 2019-ish, I've rebirthed maybe a half dozen times. Each of them I just changed talent and didn't reset levels, so I can maintain my current level 200. This is why, even though I've been playing since G6, I have to ask in these forums about upgrades, reforges, and enchantments; I'm still chasing skill ranks and have equipment enhancement on the back burner. This is a pretty wide range. So guessing an overall average number of rebirths, without knowing the relative number of samples is darts with the lights off. The amounts 1% and 20% have been mentioned; let's use both and see what kind of average we come up with. Let's say 1% are the number are hundreds of rebirths people. For that group does 200-ish rebirths, as an average sound good? And let's say that 20% represents all the "active people" and that they contribute to 80% of the rebirths.

I'm not Presh Talwalker but I'm keen to give this a go. So 600k active accounts, account for 7.2M rebirths. The 2.4M non-active accounts, account for 1.8M rebirths. For the non-actives, that's less than 1 per account; that seems reasonable. So, 1% of accounts being 30k accounts, let's say, have rebirthed 200 times each, on average; that's 6M rebirths. That seems reasonable too. This leaves 1.2M rebirths for the remaining 19% of accounts. That's 570k accounts rebirthing just slightly over 2 times on average. Well, that seems low, but let's keep going. The average number of rebirths by the 20% would be around 12, which seems low-ish too.

The thing is, so far we've assumed one account per person. If we use that 80/20 rule thingie, let's assume 80% of the accounts are owned by 20% of the people. So, 600k accounts owned by 80% of the people means that 600k people are 80% of the population of 750k people that in total play or have played the game. That kinda feels right to me. So, the 19% represent 142,500 people. Their 1.2M rebirths point to an average of just around 8.5 rebirths in total. Better but still seems low-ish.

Until now we've considered the data as representing: 3M(accounts) x 13 years or 39M (account·years). We haven't considered how the total gaming population has grown over time; this should reduce that number. If we divide the total population by 13 years we get 231k per year. Last year was 46k, so a linear representation won't do. We'll use exponential growth, or in this case decline in year-by-year growth. Since the integral of exponential decline is negative, we have to model time backwards, by having the number of new accounts "increase" through time and flip the direct relationship between a years number of new accounts and total accounts. We can do this because we are only going to consider the two extreme years of the function. Note: in computer-speak ^ is to the power of and * is multiply by. So the year-by-year number of new accounts (backwards in time) is:

Nn=Ao*e^(r*n) where:

Nn is the number of new accounts in year n,

Ao is the number of new accounts in year 0,

e is Euler's Constant,

r is the growth factor,

n is the year number, with 2020 being 0 and 2008 being 12.

We don't have Nn for another year, but we DO have total population now, and how many years it took. So we need to integrate the above formula and get:

Pn=(Ao/r)*e^(r*n) where:

Pn is the population in year n.

We plug in numbers and:

3M=(46k/r)*e^(r*12) which gives:

r= 0.22315200609082

So the year-by-year new accounts rounded to the nearest 1000.

2020:46k

2019:58k

2018:72k

2017:90k

2016:112k

2015:140k

2014:175k

2013:219k

2012:274k

2011:343k

2010:428k

2009:536k

2008:669k

So how many account·years is this? We can make a one dimensional matrix (vector) of the years active [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13] and a corresponding one of the new populations [46,58,72,90,112,140,175,219,274,343,428,536,669]*k. Their dot product will give the actual-ish account·years, which is: 30848k ~= 30.848M account·years. This gives us a factor of:

39M/30.848M=1.2642634854771784232365145228216. This factor tells us how much we've overestimated the non-contributing 80% and underestimated the contributing 1%+19=20%.

So we're gonna rob from the poor and give to the rich. So the 1.8M attributed to the 80% we'll call: 1.42M giving 376k more to the 20%. So, how do we divide these between the 1% and the 19%. We'll just use the previous ratio. Before we had the 1% accounting for 6M rebirths and the 19% for 1.2M. So that's 1/6th to the 19%, or 63k more rebirths. So now they get 1.263M rebirths; woop dee doo. But we're not done. We have to account for the correction in THEIR account years. So, we calculate as before with the new total but apply the same factor and we get that the 19% have rebirthed on average 11.2 times, averaging over 13 years.

I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'll let you guys decide what this means.

The fact that you typed that long post, did more tedious math than I did, and still got roughly the same mathematical conclusion as I did tickles me pinker than blushing baby.

I'd say I love you, but that's not appropriate.

But, please. I'm not trying to pick a fight. It's just weird to me to see someone just ignore information that doesn't support an outlook.

There's another subtle difference other than just the two numbers being similar though. In your case it was the average over the full 20% (which includes those folks with hundreds of rebirths) whereas in my case it's just the contributing non-hundreds of times folks, which I assumed to be 95% of the contributing 20%. If the 11.2 times still seems incorrect then I'd suggest twiddling the 1% or even Signore Pareto, to make things better. As for me, I'm gonna Janice-in-Accounting this.

I don't know why you guys were making sales reports and yer not even getting paid to do so. You even had Helsa coming up with formulas for bleep sakes. smdhlol.

Oh, Crimsy you know my ancestry. My actions should not be, even remotely, a surprise to you!

Beach please; Nerdettes!

Ok.