Since they like putting out numbers, here's some fictional numbers:
Let's say the game had exactly 100,000 people playing it total. F2P, Gold, and Lifers.
Of that, 16,000 would be Klingon players, the others Feds.
Of the 100k as well, .02%, right? Which if you calculated that out, .0002 if I am doing my maths right, would mean only a mere 20 people PvPed. Of those 20, 3.2 of those would be Klingon players.
Even if a million people play this game, that would still boil down to only 200 people PvPing, 32 of which would be Klingon players.
I can't help but feel it's just another number they pulled outta nowhere.
BUT if it is a true and realistic number, then instead of using that to tell us why they haven't done a lot of PvP related stuff, instead they need to say to themselves, 'Ok, only .02% of the players PvP, why is that?"
Same goes for the KDF, they need to say, '16% of all players play Klingons, how can we get more people to play them?'
In turn, if they do look at it like that, and make some progress on furthering things in those more neglected areas, it would improve the game as a whole, and more people would look at these parts and instead of saying, 'look at that part of the game, they don't have ANY updates or new things to do over there', then totally ignore it. Instead, it should be like, 'oh wow, there is this entirely new open PvP system, which lets you control territory and fight other players', and so on.
Use 'metrics' to tell us 'why we need to work on this' instead of 'why we don't want to work on this'. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, if all the links are equally strong, the entire game will be strong, and if they aren't strong...just look at the game we have now to tell you what it is like.
Edit: Btw, Roach, if you are reading this, is your signature still for 'rent'?