Yeah, because Blizzard is a company that publishes everything they do… Oh wait! 
As Ridtur mentions in the link, you’re presuming an unprecedented average amount of participation never seen before despite several times higher subscription numbers in the past.
Well, so you are just saying things are like that without bringing even in a slight evidence that is supporting your statement? Not even a few pieces of the puzzle we could combine with common sense to get to your assumption?
Isn’t that the definition of a chatterbox and busybody?
The link is self-explanatory. If you can’t use those “puzzle pieces” to connect the dots, then that’s on you.
I explained why the assumption doesnt work in this case. To ignore that doesnt make you smart.
He is using the sub amount and combine it with the r1 spots and calculating from this down. For legion I would agree, there was something conspicuous was going on when suddenly the R1 amount increased even when everyone had the feeling, that the player decreased a lot.
But in BfA season1, it was a fact that a loooot of PvErs were playing PvP, even those who havent ever played PvP before, because PvP was a very good source to equip!
Also
Because you arent smart enough to understand!
For legion I would agree, there was something conspicuous was going on when suddenly the R1 amount increased even when everyone had the feeling, that the player decreased a lot.
But in BfA season1, it was a fact that a loooot of PvErs were playing PvP, even those who havent ever played PvP before, because PvP was a very good source to equip!
After 100 arena games I was better equiped than any guy who farmed high m+ keys.
Well, to be fair, the post he linked is at least understandable, but it ignores other factors.
Firstly, nobody knows exactly how many subs we had at the beginning of BfA but that he is using to calculate the estimated amount of PvP players. For another, it doesn’t take into account that PvP was the best source for equipping for a few weeks which increases the player pool above 1k rating also a lot.
Except it’s plain foolishness.
The gear was superfluous. People got equipment for less effort in content they were used to via PvE, the PvP gear they were capable of getting when they still needed gear didn’t provide enough to make it worth it.
The azerite power was also nerfed really fast in BFA s1, from arenas.
So your proff is that you do not know…?
No, the link speaks for itself.
You seem to be implying only what Blizzard themselves release is worth believing in though. The only problem with that is that it gives them a free pass to get away with things, since as long as they don’t admit it, then it’s like it never happened.
Because you arent smart enough to understand!
For legion I would agree, there was something conspicuous going on when suddenly the R1 amount increased even when everyone had the feeling, that the player base decreased a lot. Also he hasnt checked how the amount of players developed throughout the seasons. He wrote “no data” but he was just too lazy to count them from the ladder.
But in BfA season1, it was a fact that a loooot of PvErs were playing PvP, even those who havent ever played PvP before, because PvP was a very good source to equip!
After 100 arena games I was better equiped than any guy who farmed high m+ keys.
Well, to be fair, the post he linked is at least understandable, but it ignores other factors.
Firstly, nobody knows exactly how many subs we had at the beginning of BfA but that he is using to calculate the estimated amount of PvP players. For another, it doesn’t take into account that PvP was the best source for equipping for a few weeks which increases the player pool above 1k rating also a lot.
You say “not smart enough”, then you suddenly agree with the same thing happening in Legion so you admit it’s not like it’s impossible.
And then you say this. The problem with your argument is that it estimates the participation it “lured in” from the PvE side of the game equals a higher amount than the “typical” percentage of players that participated in the past when the subscription numbers were higher. Much higher.
And you know how to evaluate sub numbers? You go by their annual (and quarterly) earnings reports. It doesn’t separate the source of money, whether it came from the microtransaction for pets etc. or from buying game time or exactly how many different accounts were purchasing game time, but it was bleeding money before Classic. (It does say which game the earned revenue comes from though.)
Which had been a steady downward trend since the start of WoD.
The start of Classic doubled the earnings from WoW btw. Then it quickly declined because many people disliked what was happening in Classic, but it doesn’t paint a pretty picture of retail either way.
And again, not smart enough. All I said was, that I had an impression back then, but I havent played much, only a few games each season for the elite set. And I dont have any data to support this impression - I could check the ladder from back then, combine it with the R1 slots and see if the amount suddenly increased a lot. But Im too lazy as well so its still just an impression, nothing else!
Also: Even if they have done it. Only because they might have done it here and there doesnt mean its a general rule now!
I also claimed that he hasnt checked the development of the playerbase through legion. He just said: WoD S3 300k player, Legion S1 211k player, then nothing for like 1.5 years, but BfA S1 416k player → that is looking conspicuous.
That’s extremely sketchy!!!
No, because the post you brought does not indicate a sustainable development of the PvP player base, nor does it have values for the subnumbers from which anything can be inferred.
Do you know how many people have played Legion S1 and BfA S1? I dont, at least not in detail! We can estimate a long-term development quite accurately, but not short-term events. Many people returned to Legion and BfA at least once in the beginning, don’t you think?
If you also know that Legion S1 practically started 4 weeks after release, but BfA S1 already one week (?!) after release, thats another big difference if you keep in mind that this is the period when players usually return to test!
Nobody does in detail.
If you’re curious, you can probably still find them online somewhere.
The problem is that they put in more and more microtransactions since WoD in a more aggressive marketing scheme, so you have to assume a higher percentage of the earnings to come from the microtransactions since then.
As for the sub numbers before WoD, they included official subscription figures up until the first quarterly at the start of WoD.
Weird discussion.
Arena usually has its highest participation early in an expansion when the general player activity is also high.
A high player activity leads to more Rank1 spots, because that’s a percentage of the player activity.
A higher player activity also leads to a higher influx of rating points into the system.
A higher influx of rating points into the system leads to a higher rating ceiling in the ladder.
A higher rating ceiling leads to more Challenger, Duelist, and Gladiator titles being rewarded.
That’s basically how it goes.
There’s a strong correlation between the player participation, how high the top ratings go, and how many titles get rewarded during the Season.
More leads to more, basically.
I know that. But here comes the first issue in mind which you dont seem to accept or not smart enough to think about. Take this graph: https://www.reddit.com/r/wow/comments/acqhph/i_estimated_subscriber_numbers_using_google_trend/
Its a solid base for long terms estimation. Now check the beginning of end of MoP with the beginning of WoD and compare them with the R1 slots. After that check the beginning of WoD with the beginning of Legion and check it again with the R1 slots.
So WoD beginning and Legion beginning had the same amount of players, but Legion had only 2/3 of the PvP player base left?
Or how about WoD last season sub amount compared with Legion beginning sub amount? Legion beginning had ~66% more Subs than WoD end (like 4 million more!!!) but we had still 30% less r1 slots?
Or how could WoD S2 have half of the r1 slots than WoD s3 even when more people played the game in S2?!
How does that fit if not other factors having a huge impact?!
Check the season durations. That’ll explain it for you.
One factor, exactly. But does he respect that in his post? Nope, he doesnt! But it has such a huge impact!
WoD first season hold for 29 weeks, Legion S1 only for 12 weeks. If it scales the same way like the difference from WoD season 1 to season2, we would have had 510 R1 slots in Legion s1, based on your logic, right?
Same sub amount, 29 vs 12 weeks → 29/12*211 = 510. I doubt it works this way!
P. S.: You would also say, that the season length has a bigger impact than the sub amount. I mean, compare WoD S3 with WoD S2. S3 was 75% longer, but the sub amount was only 70% of S2.
Your reddit link only got official data up to that quarterly in WoD.
The problem with that is that players who quit playing doesn’t just simply forget about WoW every single time, there are many checking back in now and then. Like myself for example. Google trend just shows what people are searching for, you know?
So he’s only got proper data of when the players were still playing the game. It was in WoD that it drastically started falling though.
The Legion peak in his graph was also heavily affected by the World of Warcraft movie being released worldwide on cinema.
“If it scales the same way”…? What the hell are you on about now? Are you trying to imply ladder activity is directly comparable? I never claimed that. You need margins for error, you know? Basically to include relevant conditions. You’re implying I’ve been saying to completely ignore that.
As for the BFA data, it includes the announcement of Classic WoW drawing closer.
So go look at the earnings reports instead, mkay?
Even intelligence agencies and multi-billion dollar companies use Google trends for predictions. Why? Because it’s one of the largest data sources in the world and the law of large numbers is no secret and has been proven infinitely often!
But you’re wrong again, he didn’t just use only Google Trends, he used machine learning as well, a “simple form” of AI. To do this, he compared figures from the quarterly reports.
But the most important thing is that the prediction was made 1.5 years ago and it proved itself by correctly predicting the past. So what do you dislike about it? That it does not support your opinion? Well, maybe it’s time to rethink your opinion! 
Wouldnt dare to say its 100% accurate, but at least 90%.
So how can it be that last season of WoD still had double as much players as before? The season wasnt double as long and we had less players!!!
Wrong again: He only used the key words of World of Warcraft combined with the expansion. The film was also released during WoD not Legion. Legion got 3 months later released, when the film wasnt even running anymore in most cinemas.
You were the one who said the double amount of players between WoD S2 and WoD S3 can be explained with the season length difference.
So I just took your advice and compared Legion S1 duration with WoD season 1 duration. By this logic, we would have had 510k players in Legion S1 in the end, if the season would have been 29 weeks like WoD S1. Again 29/12*211=510 R1 slots.
In other words: I’m using your biased and stupid opinion as an argument in the hope that you’ll understand it better. Apparently not, because it’s illogical. So why are you holding on to it?
You know that quarterly reports take into account income and expenses? And that through the whole WoW history it always tore holes in the books when investments were made, even when player numbers went up?
With basically every release, the costs had to be accounted somehow. Look at the quarterly reports between Wrath and Cata when we had the highest player numbers. There was a quarter with a hefty minus! How is that possible when the next quarter again was a huge plus but the player base was nearly the same?!
So no, that alone is not an indicator either! Get finally off your high horse. Feel free to refute me, but don’t expect me to take everything you say at face value just because it comes out of your mouth. So far you’ve only bribed with bias and wall of texts, not so much with logic or facts.
So much stupidity… You seem weirdly hung up on the word players. You know it’s not the amount of players determining the ladders, right? It’s the amount of characters. Longer season = more alts participating in that season.
Especially when they kept making leveling easier and easier.
Is it? Im using exactly what you said.
WoD S2 was 150k player, WoD S3 was 300k player, even when we had less players than before. You said the reason therefor is the difference between the season length.
I took that saying to predict the numbers of Legion S1 if it would have had as long as WoD S1. You think thats stupid? Okay, but how would you call your reason for the difference between WoD S2 and S3 then?!
Seriously dude, dont try to fight if you are unarmed. Nothing is more embarrassing than pretend to be smart when you’re nothing but a stupid chatterbox! 