| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Myrthos
Spoiler of All Fun
Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 1926
Location: Holland |
| Ekim's Gamer View: Strength in Numbers |
|
In his weekly editorial Ekim shares a Wish with us..... Well not realy. He shows us his views on how Wish claims to support tens of thousands of players.<blockquote><em>Which brings me to the second point. With what happened to a high profile MMORPGs like AC2 or Earth & Beyond, I think it should be more than obvious to anyone that it would be a mistake to even hope such high numbers for a game coming from a little known developer. In the present time, MMORPGs are facing a problem far more threatening than the number of players that can play on a single server. In fact, the problem IS the number of potential players. The genre needs new ideas, not new numbers. Putting more people on one server is nothing new.</em></blockquote>To read the full story go <a href='http://www.rpgdot.com/index.php?hsaction=10053&ID=545'>here</a>. |
Fri Mar 21, 2003 10:51 pm |
|
|
Essential
Guest
|
I pretty much agree with everything you said. I just fail to see how having thousands more playing on one server can make a game more fun. It just seems to me that will be thousands of more people that I will be ignoring, for the most part.
Also, the landmass would have to be HUGE to allow that many people, but what if only 1500 play? Now you've got a deserted landmass and it would feel pretty lonely there.
All these new MMORPG's coming out seem to be offering more of the same. SWG is the only one that I'm really looking forward to. I want to see a lot more content added, rather then more people.
I guess it all really comes down to scale. If the landmass to people ratio is in proportion, then the amount of people doesn't really matter. |
|
Fri Mar 21, 2003 10:58 pm |
|
|
vaticide
Put food in here
Joined: 21 Feb 2002
Posts: 1122
Location: One step behind a toddler bent on destruction. |
I guess when I saw the (U) stood for Ultra, I just rolled my eyes. One would think that Massive would be enough to include games being scaled up that high. I personally hope the new acronym doesn't stick because I anticipate most MMO games will scale in that direction as world-size and player subscription increases (assuming it will, but that is another issue).
I see pros and cons to MMO games switching to fewer and eventually one server:
Pros:
Players won't be separated from other players by server. You find out your next door neighbor plays, you will be able to meet up with him/her in game without worrying that he/she is on a different server.
More people available for special things like township, large clans, clan wars, etc.
Cons:
Managing even worse over-crowding. If some special event occurs that everyone on the server wants to go to it will cause some serious problems.
Vaster empty spaces/More crowded popular places. There will always be places that are better than others for some reason or another. People will go there instead of places that offer them nothing. If there are more people and a bigger world, the good places will be more crowded, and there will be more empty space.
Less redundancy- if a server crashes more people will not be able to play the game.
Highly magnified game imbalances. If there is a slight game imbalance, say with the economy, the more players the larger the effect of the imbalance.
Is it a good idea right now? Someone has to do it first, good luck to them, hopefully they expose some of the problems for followers to fix.
Will it be a selling poing of the game? Maybe to someone who played on a different server than all his real life friends.
-vaticide
EDIT: Besides, it is all about the Mondo-Mega-Ultra-MMO games. 10^8 players per server here we come! |
|
Fri Mar 21, 2003 11:36 pm |
|
|
Essential
Guest
|
"I guess when I saw the (U) stood for Ultra, I just rolled my eyes. One would think that Massive would be enough to include games being scaled up that high."
Well said. |
|
Sat Mar 22, 2003 2:28 am |
|
|
Remus
Overgrown Cat
Joined: 03 Jul 2002
Posts: 1657
Location: Fish bowl |
Strange, maybe it's just me; i tend to see the "ultra" as next level of MMO to "extract" extreme amount of money from someone.
Oops, i sound like anti-capitalist. |
|
Sat Mar 22, 2003 3:31 am |
|
|
dteowner
Shoegazer
Joined: 21 Mar 2002
Posts: 7570
Location: Third Hero of Erathia |
Did the end of the article get clipped? It ends (for me) with "Putti".
_________________
=Proud Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Benevolent Dictator, X2/X3 and Morrowind/Oblivion Forums=
Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
RIP Red Wings How 'Bout Dem Cowboys! |
|
Sat Mar 22, 2003 4:51 am |
|
|
Ekim
Eagle's Shadow
Joined: 27 May 2002
Posts: 2365
Location: Montreal, Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by dteowner
Did the end of the article get clipped? It ends (for me) with "Putti".
I just looked and the whole thing is there. But I have no idea what or where this "Putti" comes from...  hehe
EDIT: No, on second thought the whole thing is NOT there... "Putti" is actually the clipped word of the last sentence. the article should end like this:
Putting more players together isn’t necessarily a positive thing.
Only this sentence seems missing 
_________________
=Proud Father of a new gamer GIRL!=
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Worshiper of the Written Word= |
|
Sat Mar 22, 2003 4:55 am |
|
|
Hein
Village Dweller
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 24
Location: Netherlands |
A few more players than on the European AC2 server would be nice, I hung around there for a few weeks but found that progress in the game was impossible because most of the time there simply weren't enough players in the game to form a "fellowship" or group to do a quest. 9 or 10 players on a server makes MP a bit of a joke, I have to admit that lag was usually non-excistent. |
|
Sat Mar 22, 2003 8:05 am |
|
|
Sevia
Guest
|
More server capacity has absolutely nothing to do with how many people will play on the server or a particular game structured as such if the game play is lacking. |
|
Sat Mar 22, 2003 8:26 am |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
And people actually PAY to play these things!!!! Wonders will never cease. I'll stick with SP games and NWN.
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Sat Mar 22, 2003 11:58 am |
|
|
KAS
Village Dweller
Joined: 05 Mar 2003
Posts: 22
|
Like with all problems developers face when working on mmogs, the problem of figuring out how large to build your worlds and how to section the player base is a problem that can be easily solved under the right circumstances.
Without revealing the overall make up of solution placed in the design I'm connected with, I'll go over a few points that really make the difference in how this problem should be approached and dealt with.
First off, there is a small problem these developers currently working to build "the largest online world ever seen" don't seem to be seeing. As mmogs become more commercially lucrative, more and more companies are throwing their hats into the pack. While this <should> be good for the mmog genre as a whole, while more and more mmogs come out, the overall mmog player base will become more and more divided. To aspire to reach the subscription base Everquest still enjoys these days (nevermind the Korean explosion with Lineage), is a pretty lofty goal for this stage of the mmog evolution. While a company may build an amazing game that answers a ton of problems, they <will> have adequate competition, and a lot more of it than any current mmog faced.
So, while the player base becomes split among several different games, the worlds aspire to be bigger, making for the "barren wastes" problem the poster above mentioned with having too few players in an online world. This is a very important element to consider when developing a mmog, and if you simply make a huge world and expect to net a set number of players, the chances of the crash and burn effect are extremely high. Unlike the past, players who aren't impressed with an underpopulated world will have many other ways to get into online world action.
The second element a developer needs to consider is that trying to predict your playerbase is like trying to walk a tightrope blind, unless you're a tyrant in the industry like Blizzard. You can't walk in expecting X number of people to make things work, so how should a developer work with this problem? Most people would think that you <have> to estimate your target player base and go with that, but there is a much mroe secure option. While I can't explain it in detail since it would give away a fairly large part of the design I mentioned earlier, I will say this. Scalability has never really been introduced in mmogs, so by developing a method which allows developers the ability to 'instantly' accommodate more players in any given world could really help with world management. It would also ensure the developer wouldn't be stuck holding their jewels while they discover they've made their world too large or worse, too small.
The third and final note I'll make is that when most people think of mmogs, they think of the level treadmill games that dominate today's mmog scene. Although second generation mmogs will be a small step forward, not a lot will change, but the true future is slowly starting to show itself. While the current formula based, dump your time and money for ingame power, regardless of any true skill or accomplishment becomes stagnant, the next step will become imminent. Where that next step as a whole for the genre leads not many people will venture to guess just yet. One thing that is certain though is that the developers have not even touched upon the true potential of the online worlds concept, and the next step will almost certainly be revolutionary. I myself could name a few concepts which could very well revolutionize mmogs as their known today, but for the purpose of staying on track, I'll simply say that accommodating an unknown amount of players and being able to offer the best possible experience is currently 'impossible' in today's mmog scene. Static games that see only random updates where very little changes to anything that is put into the game make for a volatile and tough to alter world. Overcome the faults of the formula based mmog system and you will have your methods for expansion, development and change within a persistent online world.
KAS |
|
Sat Mar 22, 2003 7:01 pm |
|
|
Ekim
Eagle's Shadow
Joined: 27 May 2002
Posts: 2365
Location: Montreal, Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by KAS
Like with all problems developers face when working on mmogs, the problem of figuring out how large to build your worlds and how to section the player base is a problem that can be easily solved under the right circumstances.
Without revealing the overall make up of solution placed in the design I'm connected with, I'll go over a few points that really make the difference in how this problem should be approached and dealt with.
Thanks for sharing your experience with us KAS, it's much appreciated, and very informative  . But in regards to what I originally spoke about, and from what you say, I still fail to see how basing one's marketing on the size of the world you will have, and how many players will be able to simultaneously "live" in it should interest anyone.
Again, I hate to point fingers, but Wish is heading staright at a wall if they keep things as they are. When I go to their web site, all I see are pretty pictures and a FAQ that only seems intent on convincing me that having so many players together is what the MMORPG genre needs... I have seen too many other MMOGs fail to deliver on content to even begin to believe in this notion. Actually, I can't even believe someone would even try to convince potential players about this!
As I see it, and as it stands, when I read Wish's FAQ, I can't help but think that the developer simply have nothing interesting to offer, and that's why they rely on the game of numbers. Maybe I'm wrong, actually I hope I'm wrong! But if I am there's nothing in what they show to prove it to me... Right now all I can say that Wish is is a crippled MMOG with a lot of real estate space for a lot of players but with minimal, run-of-the-mill content... That's not interesting at all
_________________
=Proud Father of a new gamer GIRL!=
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Worshiper of the Written Word= |
|
Mon Mar 24, 2003 5:07 pm |
|
|
KAS
Village Dweller
Joined: 05 Mar 2003
Posts: 22
|
My post above spoke about the root of the problem you wrote your article on. I strongly agree with you about the lack of anything fresh or innovative currently tied to the Wish push. I also had a look over their content when I heard of their announcement and I'm like one of the biggest critics against half done, or worse, cloned ideas so Wish really didn't collect many points with me.
I wrote about the factors that play into determining or handling the size of a world, and how many players would work in any given world. Currently, mmogs are stuck in a phase where every mmog in development uses the same type of formula. The formula involves simply creating a world from top to bottom and releasing it to the public, hoping you haven't made it so large it feels desolate or that the world isn't so small that people get sardine fever after five minutes of play time. The real problem at the heart of most mmog issues (ie the much debated perma death situation, the size of the worlds, the ability to make your mark on the world, etc) lies not within these questions but in the formulas that produce these problems. World size and player population is one of these 'problems' that can be argued forever in the current format and no side will ever really be 'right', but the problem will continue to exist until changes to the formulas are made.
I couldn't agree more that trying to market a game based mainly on the ability to pack X number of players on a server is likely one of the weakest methods any company could try. Unless Wish comes out with a more innovative list of features and allows the 'size' of their world to fall into the list of secondary features which should never get as much exposure as those that make the game fun, chances are their game will have crashed long before it releases. If you want to pull people in, tell them about the features in your game that will make their experience more exciting. Telling people that they'll be in a single world with X number of people is as exciting a 'feature' as 'mounts' have been in most games. People want features that they've never seen before, but could work and allow them more control and more ways to spend their time in their chosen virtual worlds.
In closing, I feel that the question of world sizes and the amount of players you can pack into any given world is one of the 'problems' that can't be solved when thinking in terms of mmogs as they're known today. & I especially agree that trying to sell your world based on your ability to let X number of players play together in one 'ultra massive' world is completely weak, maybe the weakest main selling point in development right now.
KAS |
|
Mon Mar 24, 2003 8:38 pm |
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:47 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
