Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Player Population: What is the ideal community size?

The Limited Size of MMORPG's

It is rather irrelevant how large a MMORPG is once it has surpassed the maximum number of players the developer wants per server. WoW's community size and player numbers per server are nothing compared to its infinitely larger subscriber base. Arguably, you could state that once a game reaches a minimum number of players filling a single server to its maximum, it is equivalent to WoW's success in terms of player population and having a full world. To the PLAYER, what does it matter how successful the game is beyond a single, full server? You as a player will never enter more than a single server at any one moment with one character. That one character will never be in more than one zone at any one moment, and within that zone you will interact with others no further than your immediate area (and perhaps as far out as you can see).

Depending on the server infrastructure and the user's hardware configuration, a MMORPG may be able to handle very few players on screen at one time, upwards of a very large amount. Still, these numbers will be small compared to the playerbase in one zone of one server. Some MMORPG's are designed to include no more than a handful of players, which makes me ponder why the company even created it as a MMORPG and not a much better Multiplayer RPG such as what we see in successful games such as the Neverwinter series. Others incorporate hundreds of players, both on screen and interacting in many ways, such as the brilliant Dark Age of Camelot, creating epic battlefields which feel true to legend. Legitimate reasons for these hundreds of players to interact, combat each other, and even gameplay together in a way which is tighter and more organized than even the "small" 64 or 128 player FPS games, hosted on normal player servers. However, even among these larger battles of Two Faction's 15vs15 to Three Realm's 150vs150vs150, each community is actually 1/2 or 1/3rd the size of the interaction. (Well, larger because of the non-RvR players supporting these Player-Killing warriors).

 

How Much is Too Much?

So what is the ideal community size, for a single group of players?

At what point does a game's population exceed an online game, and becomes a MMORPG community?

At what point does a game's population exceed a reasonable amount, and begins to dillute the community, splitting it into multiple sub-groups sprinkled with loads of anti-social 12 year olds who you will never see again after the one encounter? How much is too much?

 

Does Size Matter?

Whatever you wish to call them: Realm, Faction, City, Alliance, Guild; it doesn't really matter, but the size of the group does. Why? Because when designing MMORPG's, one must really provide a real reason as to why it is a MMORPG and not a MORPG or simply Multiplayer RPG, tied in with a central database which holds character and item information. What justifies a game being titled a MMORPG, excluding the persistent items and character saves? Yet at the same time, one must provide a safety net to prevent overpopulation, or risk ruining their community.

I remember when first playing MMORPG's over a decade ago, you would encounter people on a frequent enough basis to know them. They were allowed to form reputations among their community. Often in MMORPG's a small community means what some consider a "dead/dying MMO." If you don't like this community or find yourself to become blacklisted among them, there is usually nowhere else to go because the population is low for the entire game, and the community is too small to support more than the one server. Now when I join the more populated MMORPG's, I encounter people, good or bad, who I never see again--- ever. Like finding a diamond in the rough, seeing a player twice in a row seems to be more a matter of fate than of coincidence. For most MMO's I find that they have both the negatives but neither of the positives. The servers are many, but the populations in all are low. Players are rarely seen more than once, due to instancing across multiple servers, yet the populations or social interaction among each single server is too low, the players are either too solo (unfriendly), too split up by level brackets, or what I find most likely-- focused entirely on guilds, perhaps VOIP, and caring very little for anyone outside of their small group.

You All Suck! RAWR!

Through my experiences with the "Mimes of Vanguard", the "Elitist Blacklist of DAoC", the "Insecure Veterans of Everquest 1", the "Housewives of Warcraft" and "The Children of the Dungeon Finder", or the "Soloists of Rift who are jerks and wont talk to me because they suck!! RAWR!!", I have a story for every community, in every game-- usually a positive one (when it was populated) and a negative one (when the game was old, dead, or just plain empty) although the more recent games seem to have nothing but children in them, along with empty worlds.

This has driven me to question why developers even attempt to create MMORPG's. Yes, the profits are most likely the only reason, but there is still profit to be found in higher quality games which do the same thing, but better. (How many completely instanced MMO's do you know suffer from low quality, but might have been good as "PvP Arena" games?) Heck, I even told my nephew that WARHAMMER was a disappointment for a MMO and should have been made as a PvP Arena game where players could host their own server similar to a FPS server. (In the FPS genre, players get to host their own servers, making for fast connections and low low pings!) Recently my nephew said to me "They're finally doing it, LOL!" and I read about how Warhammer is doing exactly what I believed they should have done from the beginning.


Warhammer Online: Wrath of Heroes

It looks as though companies are finally questioning their reasoning as to why they even made their game a MMO, and not a better, more polished, easier to develop game of greater value. IMO, instanced games have a hard time justifying the title or server infrastructure of "MMORPG".

 

The Benefits of Overpopulation

-Avoidance. No matter if you are trying to get away from the trolls and children or wanting to avoid snobby elitists from blacklisting you for not roleplaying correctly, avoidance is actually a good thing. If someone is disturbing you in any way, you can rest assured you most likely won't ever find them again after today. If a guild shuns you for not using (( brackets )) when talking ((OOC)), you can find a hundred other guilds who could care less. There's a high likelihood you can find someone you like. In fact in WoW, you can log onto a server every day and make a fool of yourself, and by the end of the week when you log on during the same hour, no one knows who you are.

 

Smaller is Better

Many have argued before that a reason WoW is so awful a community is due to its larger playerbase (as well as popularity among middle aged housewives and 4 year old gamers). I have heard some wise people state that a smaller playerbase brings a higher quality game, more mature audience, and thus a better gaming experience. However, most games have guilds which are large enough to be communities themselves (alliances) or small enough to be sub-groups of communities (most guilds). Games such as Darkfall or Shadowbane encourage a single guild to become its own community, supported by player-run cities and more important guild politics.

 

The Benefits of Small Community

-I believe there are far more benefits here than in the above. While no one wants to be excommunicated in a dead game such as DAoC and find themselves unable to play or group, the sole reason I play MMORPG's and not instant-join FPS, RTS, or RPG games, is because of the community. Persistent world? Well, most games already have this as much as most MMORPG's do.

Let's be honest here: MMO's don't have any more a changing world than any other game genre. Even that which does change, is rarely a hallmark event which changes gameplay, renews content, or cures boredom. By the time you are done with the game for its lack of depth, few asthetic changes or meaningless changes can help.

Comments

  • ZadawnZadawn Member UncommonPosts: 670

    low pop games force you into a guild,which sucks.

    the bigger the pop the better,more jerks or not i don't care.


  • FoomerangFoomerang Member UncommonPosts: 5,628

    Depends on the variety of choices in the game. For example in pre-cu SWG you had 30+ professions so a healthy server pop was around 2500 active players.

    Now you take a game like TOR with only 8 professions but two factions and a trinity based system and you probably need about 1000 active players to keep the server healthy.

    Then you take a game like GW2 with 8 professions, no factional divisions and no trinity and you can get away with less than 500 active players on a server and you will have all your bases covered.

  • IchmenIchmen Member UncommonPosts: 1,228

    the ideal size... is one that gets you a match or party in less then 10minutes. 

    a good example is playing WoT pop in and doing a quick battle you have 15/15 match in about ~10-20seconds. thats a good population (yes i know its a randomizer but less downtime = more playing)

    a bad population is one where you have to spend upwords of 30-60minutes just trying to get a party or battle going.

    unless the game is designed for that, it detracts the enjoyment and fun from the game. 

     

     

    now im sure you could argue playing say WoW with 1million person server is a good population.. but if that 1million makes you have to wait upto 2hrs to get a party or a battle going... then its not good (for that style of game) any time you have to wait for  the game to come to you is bad.  now im sure having loads of people is best but even with 100 person server if it means you have a party or battle when you want it. its still ideal.

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230

    Dunbar's number

    This should be an interesting read for you.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky


  • Originally posted by Zadawn

    low pop games force you into a guild,which sucks.

    the bigger the pop the better,more jerks or not i don't care.

    I agree, I always have preferred larger populations and always hated low population games. Not only do they force you into a guild, which sucks, but if you have a falling out with that guild, you're pretty much blacklisted and can't play the game anymore.

    There are going to be jerks either way, so I don't care about jerks in relation to population, but I do care about getting to know people, even if they're my enemies, and gathering a reputation for myself, even if it is a mixed one. It is impossible to be known across World of Warcraft for being "The Best Blacksmith in all the Lands."


    Originally posted by Foomerang

    Depends on the variety of choices in the game. For example in pre-cu SWG you had 30+ professions so a healthy server pop was around 2500 active players.

    Now you take a game like TOR with only 8 professions but two factions and a trinity based system and you probably need about 1000 active players to keep the server healthy.

    Then you take a game like GW2 with 8 professions, no factional divisions and no trinity and you can get away with less than 500 active players on a server and you will have all your bases covered.

    Agreed, it does depend on the game, but even between 500 to 2500, it is quite a large difference.

    Raph Koster can be quoted saying, "Ideal community size is no larger than 250. Past that, you really get subcommunities."

    (Source: http://www.raphkoster.com/gaming/laws.shtml )

     


    Originally posted by Robokapp

    the bigger the better. simple as that.

    You see no negatives in having a population so big, that everyone becomes nameless drones? No one can make a name for themselves. There is no glory, only existance. There is no fame, only leaderboards. There is no community, only sub-groups. Once upon a time, many of us would be found screaming "FOR THE REALM!!!" as we cooperated, assisted, and allied with one another to help the end result of our realm controlling the Frontiers, and remaining a powerful force in the battlegrounds.

    I would never fully equip a newbie to assist him in PvP in WoW, especially when he most likely has an enemy-faction character on the same server and kills my allies in war. Yet in DAoC, I'd be proud to adorn a new set of platemail onto a newer player so that he may represent my realm in the lower tiers. I'd be likely to say to him "Come with me, I will assist you in the battlefield and teach you how to slaughter our enemies!" If I heard someone whining in WoW, I'd tell them to slag off.

    Realm Pride was perhaps one of the coolest social feelings I've ever had in a MMORPG. Neigh impossible for me to feel this way amongst Themepark Guilds or Darkfall Clans.


  • Originally posted by Ichmen

    the ideal size... is one that gets you a match or party in less then 10minutes. 

    a good example is playing WoT pop in and doing a quick battle you have 15/15 match in about ~10-20seconds. thats a good population (yes i know its a randomizer but less downtime = more playing)

    a bad population is one where you have to spend upwords of 30-60minutes just trying to get a party or battle going.

    unless the game is designed for that, it detracts the enjoyment and fun from the game. 

     

     

    now im sure you could argue playing say WoW with 1million person server is a good population.. but if that 1million makes you have to wait upto 2hrs to get a party or a battle going... then its not good (for that style of game) any time you have to wait for  the game to come to you is bad.  now im sure having loads of people is best but even with 100 person server if it means you have a party or battle when you want it. its still ideal.

    I certainly agree that no one should have to waste their time. I am completely against time sinks.

    Perhaps the ideal size is a mixture between small enough to form a community, and large enough to link together (or gameplay good enough to be easily accessible) to provide for no wait times.

     

    I actually quite WARHAMMER because of the long queue times. Once I had to wait 10-20 minutes for a single match which lasted less than this, I quit, despite how I disagreed with most people and thought it was a wonderful game in some regards. Of course, perhaps I did get bored and just didn't realize it, saying "A 5 minute wait?! I'm gone." with the game being justifiably fun only if I could play instantly.


  • Originally posted by Quirhid

    Dunbar's number

    This should be an interesting read for you.

    Thank you, that is very interesting indeed, and something I completely forgot about!

    What a shame it is for me to ignore scientific research, when that is my very profession! Hehehe. I guess I got into a gaming mind, and left my thinking hat at home :P

  • ZergmanZergman Member UncommonPosts: 41

    Very much depends on gameplay outcomes and requirements.

    When I first saw this thread I was leaning towards smaller communities as they have always offered me the greatest experiences in game. Games of the Everquest formula very much require a large playerbase for grouping and whatnot and so it would be justified in that genre to assume the line 'the bigger the better'.

    But in true open worlds where zones are not tiered by difficulty or level (e.g UO) smaller communities really push the boat out in what people can accomplish in a social arena. RP communities, pvp communities and geographical communities (player towns) are great examples.

    Another weird dynamic I have experienced in Vanguard however, is how enjoyable a EQ sequel can be when played with very small communities of friends. That is something special, and something I could envision happening in WoW if it's population were to diminsh dramatically. In that tone, I'd argue that a small, well knit community in a game such as World of Warcraft, would in fact enhance the gameplay experience.

    Sure you couldn't use your LFG tool and get a group in 2-5 minutes, but I've never been more bored with a game than when everything I want to do is immediately accessible.


  • Originally posted by Zergman

    Very much depends on gameplay outcomes and requirements.

    When I first saw this thread I was leaning towards smaller communities as they have always offered me the greatest experiences in game. Games of the Everquest formula very much require a large playerbase for grouping and whatnot and so it would be justified in that genre to assume the line 'the bigger the better'.

    But in true open worlds where zones are not tiered by difficulty or level (e.g UO) smaller communities really push the boat out in what people can accomplish in a social arena. RP communities, pvp communities and geographical communities (player towns) are great examples.

    Another weird dynamic I have experienced in Vanguard however, is how enjoyable a EQ sequel can be when played with very small communities of friends. That is something special, and something I could envision happening in WoW if it's population were to diminsh dramatically. In that tone, I'd argue that a small, well knit community in a game such as World of Warcraft, would in fact enhance the gameplay experience.

    Sure you couldn't use your LFG tool and get a group in 2-5 minutes, but I've never been more bored with a game than when everything I want to do is immediately accessible.

    What an excellent point! I have actually found that if there is queue'd instances like in WARHAMMER or RIFT, I find myself getting bored with the game very, very fast. While if there is not, I find boredom comes much slower, or never at all (and I quit for other reasons). Is this a coincidence? I don't believe so, especially after reading your opinion.

    I guess the true question is "How do we eliminate time sinks without making everything immediately accessible?"

    Something truly innovative to bring in the best of both worlds, without the curses of either.

  • FoomerangFoomerang Member UncommonPosts: 5,628


    Originally posted by Zergman
    I've never been more bored with a game than when everything I want to do is immediately accessible.

    I 100% agree with this statement and it is probably one of my biggest concerns with some of these upcoming mmos.

Sign In or Register to comment.