Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Server populations
ethion
Member UncommonPosts: 2,888
Seems to be a common question people have about VG.
I've done some comparisons between VG, EQ2, and WoW. I did these several months ago and wow was maybe 6 months ago.
Generally I found that VG had the best lower level selection of players for all these games and wow was the most top heavy.
For pops on the servers I tested wow had the highest pop although I'm kinda guessing at that. Since you can't check pops on both order and horde. I was order and the pop was lower then VG by like 20% but if you double it for horde it is larger. VG pops were higher then eq2 when I did my tests but not by a lot.
To check the pop in VG and post maybe what other servers look like you can log in and do
/who all 1 10 count
This gives a count of how many people are playing from lvl 1 - 10. If you get a number of 200 you are capped and need to do a smaller level range. At lvl 50 there are typically too many people. I do the UI her and use the menu to select a player class and then do a who. At the bottom of the UI it has the number of players. If you get 40 I believe you are capped. You can do a /who all 50 "class" count, I believe that will work but I'm not sure.
Anyway if you do this post the server and time (with timezone) and your numbers.
Here are the numbers I got from seradon 11/14 which was the last time I did a count.
Seradon @9PM PST 11/14 (Friday)
1-10 117
11-20 98
21-30 89
31-40 65
41-49 74
50
DK 13
Pal 14
War 17
BM 14
CL 26
Dis 15
Sha 21
Bard 20
Monk 9
Ran 20
Rog 12
Dru 13
Necro 16
Psi 15
Sorc 17
Total 685
---
Ethion
Comments
I'm too lazy to go through all the levels...
But right now, 10:30am on a Monday morning, there are 74 players 1 through 10.
43 players 31-40.
93 players at 50.
That's pretty good for a weekday morning.... especially when people like me should be at work.
Primetime would be significantly more.... last Friday there had to be around 400-500 just in Ancient Port Warehouse... it was packed.
685 for an entire server, and the most popular server, is pretty poor for an MMO built to hold 3,000-5,000 concurrently a server. 'specially on a friday night.
It's hard to believe it would have been that low on any Friday night... but I wasn't there to count it so I don't know.
Right now, it's 11am CST on a Monday morning and there are 411 online.
haha the servers aren't built to hold 3000-5000 I don't think any server other then AO and EVE are designed to hold anything like that...
Most game servers top out around 2500. Wow servers run between 1500-2500 for both horde and order sides.
I've seen VG with around 2000 max after release. I can't say I've ever seen it get very far into 2000. Even at 1500 it starts getting crowded in many areas.
---
Ethion
haha the servers aren't built to hold 3000-5000 I don't think any server other then AO and EVE are designed to hold anything like that...
Most game servers top out around 2500. Wow servers run between 1500-2500 for both horde and order sides.
I've seen VG with around 2000 max after release. I can't say I've ever seen it get very far into 2000. Even at 1500 it starts getting crowded in many areas.
May I ask where you got these numbers?
haha the servers aren't built to hold 3000-5000 I don't think any server other then AO and EVE are designed to hold anything like that...
Most game servers top out around 2500. Wow servers run between 1500-2500 for both horde and order sides.
I've seen VG with around 2000 max after release. I can't say I've ever seen it get very far into 2000. Even at 1500 it starts getting crowded in many areas.
May I ask where you got these numbers?
ethion doesn't need proof. he is all knowing and infallible.
haha the servers aren't built to hold 3000-5000 I don't think any server other then AO and EVE are designed to hold anything like that...
Most game servers top out around 2500. Wow servers run between 1500-2500 for both horde and order sides.
I've seen VG with around 2000 max after release. I can't say I've ever seen it get very far into 2000. Even at 1500 it starts getting crowded in many areas.
3,000-5,000 was the number cited for Vanguard, and might've been the target needed for the world not to seem so empty. 'course those were pre-launch numbers out of Sigil's mouth even when the game wasn't stable enough to hold a thousand.
2,000+ for WoW servers is on average. I remember DAoC used to operate above 3,000 on servers like Percival every night years ago.
Point is though, a couple thousand, a few thousand, those are healthy numbers for MMO servers. 600-700 for the most popular server of an MMO, with one of the most barren landscapes of spaced content ever, is pretty terrible.
All I know is I took them up on the f2p offer and the Island on Seradon was swamped with people last night...Almost too much competition for mobs.
p.s. was a good time except the dang bugs. My dudes swords kept disappearing and the bow shooting animation my ranger was using a crossbow (I didnt even own a crossbow) lol....Just graphical but annoying none the less.
haha the servers aren't built to hold 3000-5000 I don't think any server other then AO and EVE are designed to hold anything like that...
Most game servers top out around 2500. Wow servers run between 1500-2500 for both horde and order sides.
I've seen VG with around 2000 max after release. I can't say I've ever seen it get very far into 2000. Even at 1500 it starts getting crowded in many areas.
May I ask where you got these numbers?
ethion doesn't need proof. he is all knowing and infallible.
Thanks but not quite true. I can think of a couple times I've been wrong....
I got the numbers from doing server counts. For wow there is a web site that tracks numbers. It is a cenus site. For other games I do similar counts periodically. For VG that count command used to work for the entire server so it was rather easy to get a count of total players. /who all count did it... So during beta every time there was a ramp up I did it. At release for the first month or two till they put a cap on count I did it then I did it manually...
If VG had 3000+ players online the game would be really unpleasent because it would be overcamped. And yet the starting areas would still seem empty. The game world was just not designed to concentrate people in cities or starting areas. Where you see lots of people are in mid to upper level quest hubs and most specifically areas that support the most popular quests. With 3000+ players places like Hunters League, Trengal keep, CIS, Wardship, to name a few would be over populated. Even at 1500 some of these places can be a pain because of competition for spawns.
---
Ethion
That's not true. That's more of an opinion that anything else.
I was around during the first few days, first few weeks, first couple of months of launch, and never was Vanguard 'overfilled' in areas OTHER than starting areas. That barren landscape always got the best of the player populace even as populated as old Florendryl was then, in all areas except starting areas.
Really, saying Vanguard wouldn't benefit from having 1,500 - 3,000 players is just creating an excuse scenario to justify the paltry sum it has now.
Alas, that's been the story of Vanguard, rather than ever recognize a weakness, count it as a strength even though it becomes a chief reason people don't play. Underpopulation is just one more.
That's not true. That's more of an opinion that anything else.
I was around during the first few days, first few weeks, first couple of months of launch, and never was Vanguard 'overfilled' in areas OTHER than starting areas. That barren landscape always got the best of the player populace even as populated as old Florendryl was then, in all areas except starting areas.
Really, saying Vanguard wouldn't benefit from having 1,500 - 3,000 players is just creating an excuse scenario to justify the paltry sum it has now.
Alas, that's been the story of Vanguard, rather than ever recognize a weakness, count it as a strength even though it becomes a chief reason people don't play. Underpopulation is just one more.
You might try playing the game some. Even now with the servers pops as they are there are times areas are camped with too many players. Hunters League and Trengal Keep were both that way for me like 4-5 months ago. Even CIS was briefly a problem when we were trying to get the crystals.
And back when I played 3 months after launch the wardship area doing that castle dungeon I forget the name it was a runed castle like place. Anywhere there were quite a few times there were too many groups in there making you have too work around other groups. Even some of the less popular places have been an issue. One time not long ago in the ant dungeon there were 2-3 other groups in there leap frogging each other.
Now if you are talking about doing an area like the race track sure you might not see another person and there are no doubt other areas that are under utilized. Some quests or dungeons have better drops and that tends to attract people.
Personally I think that VG would need to have significant redoing of loot or quests to support a population of 3000+. Places like I mentioned would be zoos if there were that many people on.
---
Ethion
That's not true. That's more of an opinion that anything else.
I was around during the first few days, first few weeks, first couple of months of launch, and never was Vanguard 'overfilled' in areas OTHER than starting areas. That barren landscape always got the best of the player populace even as populated as old Florendryl was then, in all areas except starting areas.
Really, saying Vanguard wouldn't benefit from having 1,500 - 3,000 players is just creating an excuse scenario to justify the paltry sum it has now.
Alas, that's been the story of Vanguard, rather than ever recognize a weakness, count it as a strength even though it becomes a chief reason people don't play. Underpopulation is just one more.
You might try playing the game some. Even now with the servers pops as they are there are times areas are camped with too many players. Hunters League and Trengal Keep were both that way for me like 4-5 months ago. Even CIS was briefly a problem when we were trying to get the crystals.
And back when I played 3 months after launch the wardship area doing that castle dungeon I forget the name it was a runed castle like place. Anywhere there were quite a few times there were too many groups in there making you have too work around other groups. Even some of the less popular places have been an issue. One time not long ago in the ant dungeon there were 2-3 other groups in there leap frogging each other.
Now if you are talking about doing an area like the race track sure you might not see another person and there are no doubt other areas that are under utilized. Some quests or dungeons have better drops and that tends to attract people.
Personally I think that VG would need to have significant redoing of loot or quests to support a population of 3000+. Places like I mentioned would be zoos if there were that many people on.
It wouldent need Redoing. Just need to teach players to go to new areas. In FFXI I would go to the over camped areas get a group in 20 Min (I was a Whm) go to the next zone over and we would rape the whole area.
At launch i was dooing the same thing. Id gather people and then Shuffle us off in a diffrent dir.(Tho this did piss off some people :P) There is never a reason to be bunched up to tight in a game like VG. sure you might not get that Top 10% Item but a LOT of areas have a top 20% ;p
Course now you can sneaze and out lvl the items
I Miss EE.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
That's not true. That's more of an opinion that anything else.
I was around during the first few days, first few weeks, first couple of months of launch, and never was Vanguard 'overfilled' in areas OTHER than starting areas. That barren landscape always got the best of the player populace even as populated as old Florendryl was then, in all areas except starting areas.
Really, saying Vanguard wouldn't benefit from having 1,500 - 3,000 players is just creating an excuse scenario to justify the paltry sum it has now.
Alas, that's been the story of Vanguard, rather than ever recognize a weakness, count it as a strength even though it becomes a chief reason people don't play. Underpopulation is just one more.
I played on Gelenia at a similar timeframe and I had a fierce competition farming the nameds in seawatch coast. In the arena there ran like 2 groups around. Tehatmani was filled with 3-6 parties all going for the same mobs. And this arent starter zones. Florendyl was itemized with GU1 if i remember correctly. They put the swamp armor quests into the zone, but everything was, as all other high level stuff, totally unfinished and broken. No wonder there was nobody at that time. The whole swamp armor stuff got fixed a lot later and that was at a time neither you or I was playing VG anymore.
The landscape of VG is not barren, you should get a char with invis/stealth and start exploring. You might be surprised what you find. VG has one of the best designed landscapes I saw in a mmorpg so far. If barren = unfinished, yeah, there are several places which are still empty or filled with mobs without goal. But the zones which are itemized and filled with quests are beautiful.
I would like to know (in one of your former replies) where you got the information that a VG server was designed for 3-5k people. Out of interrest I went to wowcensus and checked their population numbers. Its on average 2k. Now you probably ask what WoW has to do with VG, my answer is this: If a server of a game with not even half the hardware hunger as VG is basically aimed for 2-3k people, I dont see a chance that VG was ever designed to run with 3-5k as you said. But maybe Im wrong, so would be nice if you can provide the source of your info.
You really dont want to have 30++ players on your screen in VG. A midsized computer today can run VG with decent fps solo or in group. In raids your frames will go down a lot, but I dont have problems with small adjustments. But 2 raids on screen in apw (2x18 people) and your frames go down to 1x numbers and if those start fighting (contested anyone? heh) you look at one digit fps numbers. The decision to use the unreal 2 engine as base for an mmorpg was IMO a bad one. Yeah VG today runs tons better than VG at start but the devs arent magicains which can pull new graphic engines out of their hat.
That said, VGs population numbers are low. On the other hand, I dont see a problem to check the trial island to get an overall feel for the game, then pay 15$ for 1 month subscription to check out the game. For the price you get a lot (only want to mention installed VG is 20GB) and I think its worth trying it out.
In general for those of you saying...
"There's nothing wrong with VG's landscape."
"There is enough content."
"Low population numbers aren't a problem."
"Infact, if it had anymore of a population, the game will suck."
...or anything of the like. Ok cool, but you're the same people who've been saying that since launch, while low populations and too barren of landscapes have consistently been popular reasons for people quitting since launch.
So really, 600-700 people on a friday night on the highest populated server, of only 4 servers, is pathetic. Hopefully Sony decides to remedy this one day. Obviously the subscription-based business model for Vanguard has failed, so they should look into RMT for it too; given the blessings of their current paying subscribers of course if the move would mean the best for the game.
You are correct. I am tired of people misleading others in some strange hope they will subscribe... It doesn't make any sense to screw over other forum readers. Why can't they just come out and say that the populations are quite low and the game outlook isn't good?
That is the truth. Why is it so hard for people to admit the truth?
Tecmo Bowl.
You are correct. I am tired of people misleading others in some strange hope they will subscribe... It doesn't make any sense to screw over other forum readers. Why can't they just come out and say that the populations are quite low and the game outlook isn't good?
That is the truth. Why is it so hard for people to admit the truth?
Why cant some people Understand that the game has Inproved and is one of the best PvE games on the market?
Who do some people say that the world is Empty? Ive traveled all over it. Never had a problem finding Mobs and a fairly High cance of seeing someone.
Is It at good Pop lvls? NO!!! Thats why were trying to get people to try the game. Duh
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
And people like have said the exact opposite
When Vanguard was released and up to beginning/mid April you had Gelenia with 2500-2700 at peak times on Sunday. You had Infineum with 1700-2200 at peak hours.
Still people like you said the servers was empty.
If people play the game. People like you say how can you like a game that I don't.
Why?
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
Im tired of people telling "the truth".
You download the trial - like it? sub for 1 month else bye, next game - like it? sub for more else bye, next game.
Cant be so hard.
And people like have said the exact opposite
When Vanguard was released and up to beginning/mid April you had Gelenia with 2500-2700 at peak times on Sunday. You had Infineum with 1700-2200 at peak hours.
Still people like you said the servers was empty.
If people play the game. People like you say how can you like a game that I don't.
Why?
I didn't say the server was empty during launch, especially not Florendyl and uh..I forget the URL now, but vanguardroleplayers was it? There was a good 3-4 large guilds that stuck it out on that Florendyl community for at least a couple of months.
What I did say in this thread disputing ethion was that the newbie areas weren't empty at launch. Back then you could leave newbie areas once you were pass level 15, and THEN the game would get empty. He insinuated the opposite, that even back then the newbie areas WEREN'T populated but higher levels were overcamped.
The problem back then was that people were quitting due to performance or technical problems, or downright got before before they made it out of the teens, if they reached 'em. That was something that became increasingly evident back then when the average player levels on VGPlayers hung at what...like 8?
Thus for awhile you did have players in those newbie zones, just none higher for one reason or another.
Once any launch momentum was over with though, the newbie areas naturally thinned as those first 200k box buyers stopped playing, and their trial keys dried up as well. Then came the whole problem of too many starting areas that Trial Island was supposed to fix; as long as it took to come out.
Lastly, I don't question why you like the game. You're questioning those who quit and have left the game in the state that it's in why THEY can't like the game the same as you.
You pay for what you're willing to put up with. We don't pay what we aren't willing to put up with. But there's also the constant question of, what will it take to get new players? And there's the constant catch-22 answers of everything from players expecting expansions, to bigger more frequent content updates, to less bland a landscape, etc.; and then there's Sony who won't deliver on that 'til Vanguard generates enough money to warrant it.
Anyway, what everyone believe are problems, and what everyone believe are solutions, have differed over the years when it comes to Vanguard. What hasn't changed is that those playing are often numb to the problems that those who aren't playing are facing.
So low populations subsists for those who believe Vanguard is the best game out there and that the problem is with the other 20+ million players in the MMO market.
We are just not going to agree...
At launch the newbie areas in VG were very overpopulated.
If you leveled really fast the higher lvl areas were empty, but that was because you were ahead of the power curve and because there was a lot of attrition.
However 2-3 months after release a lot of the attrition had happened and there were quite a few midlevel players who were putting up with the issues. It was during this time when you had overcamping in the mid level areas like Trengal Keep and Wardship areas. I was in that group and played upto lvl 46 in the first few months of release. I played on floridyll or whatever that server was called. This was one of the most populated servers. We watched pops on it with every update and I don't recall it ever being about 2500 online.
My only point was that if the server had a normal population that 3000-5000 players on the server would really be too many for the mid level and higher level areas.
For the newbie areas as long as they didn't all start the same day it probably wouldn't be a problem as there are a lot of newbie areas and they don't hold players for very long. Where you would run into more problems would be starting at lvl 15 in popular dungeons like KE...
VG is poorly designed to support a really large population without a lot of work on the server design and better balancing or rewards from dungeons and quests.
I'm not sure it would ever fell like ironforge in Wow without a huge redesign of the city hubs and removing various services that are distributed all over the world. Move brokers, banks, crafting, and diploymacy stuff exclusively into only the 2 major cities and you would probably be able to create a greater sense of population... But then you would probably have more performance issues.
---
Ethion
Here are some updated server count numbers for both VG Seradon and EQ2 Antonica Balye.
I'm not formating this pretty... The first column is the level range. Second were the numbers from 11/14, third are the numbers from 12/27.
Seradon Fri, 11/14 9pm Sat, 12/27 4pm
1-10 117 139
11-20 98 134
21-30 89 114
31-40 65 58
41-49 74 78
50
DK 13 13
Pal 14 21
War 17 12
BM 14 11
CL 26 21
Dis 15 13
Sha 21 22
Bard 20 23
Monk 9 15
Ran 20 19
Rog 12 6
Dru 13 9
Necro 16 9
Psi 15 12
Sorc 17 19
Total 685 748
Antonica Balye Fri, 11/14 9pm Sat, 12/27 4pm
1-10 48 58
11-20 53 68
21-30 53 75
31-40 35 50
41-50 52 44
51-60 31 49
61-70 51 59
71-79 79 100
80
Scout 44 60
Mage 47 45
Fighter 45 53
Priest 38 51
Total 576 712
---
Ethion
On this note I have to agree there is a difference. Asheron's Call 2's world was barren. All the work and design seemed to go into the various dungeons that help progress the game's story. Vanguard's problem I felt was that it was simply to big at times. To much area to separate players and with a lower then desired population it makes it seem bigger and emptier at times. Though when you focus players in specific areas it might not be a problem. I haven't played in a while but interested in trying again now that there is a new starting area.
It's the problem Everquest and Everquest 2 had and has. However with them they kept adding area after area and older areas were pretty much just deserted giving the world a empty feeling.
Seems pretty similar. Though these numbers are a snap shot at that moment. I think sometimes people forget you have people logging in and out of the game all the time. So the group of 20 you count one minute might have some of the same members an hour later but some of them could be brand new. Though alts throw a new problem into the mix.
I wonder if the free reactivation of accounts has had any impact on the increase of Vanguard's numbers.
Probably some of the increase is the free accounts.
Also the times for the two samples are different as well so that might account for some differences. The interesting thing to me is that VG numbers are doing better then EQ2.
---
Ethion