Do we really need "massive"?

Chimborazo

I'm taking inspiration for this discussion from several posts scattered around recent threads.

Although the idea of interacting with hundreds of players at the same time would be the core experience of an MMO, I feel it's usually implemented poorly. "lag" and "zerg" are the 2 words I see people associating with big numbers of players on the screen in both PvE and PvE. 
An higher amount of player is still required if you have to take into account different playstyles, vertical progression, different time frames for game sessions etc. They might also be necessary  for heavy sandbox games with player driven economy, constructions, politics etc. 

I would like to ask you this:
If you had a game that's not a "pure sandbox", reduced vertical progression, most of the content available for new and veteran players (both casual and hardcore) with limited dispersion, would you be satisfied with having just few hundreds players (no more than a couple dozens doing fighting in the screen at the same) that play during the same hours as you and won't get bothered of the game before you do?
Economical aspect aside, ofc. 

Chimborazo

I'm actually more strict on numbers of players on the screen: when I play open PvP in GW2, the most fun I had was with 12vs12 / 15vs15. More than 20 for each side is too crowded, for the type of combat at least.
Most of big events in GW2 are a bit zergish. 
I think the key is having great numbers of players INFLUENCING each other, but not being more than 30 "on the screen". You can give different subgoals and tasks inside a particular activity to better spread the players.
For the second part: I do enjoy the open, massive with megaserver approach (like Gw2) and I wouldn't alter it much, especially because a couple of considerations made in my hypothesis are irrealistic (everybody playing at the same time and never quitting or being always replaced when they do). 

But I suppose that, in a game with those conditions met and a different design, I could play with muchlless online players compared to what I'm used too and not feel the difference 

iixviiiix

Massively is needed .

the problem isn't the number of players but the limited of technology .

Scot

Do we really have anything that is a Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying game in the modern era? With a few notable expectations no, they come from a past era of MMOs, so do we need new ones, most certainly yes.

There are many technical issues with Massive, but in the end they are all driven by one thing, the need to keep up with the graphics of solo games. While MMOs are a slave to that, we will not see worlds inhabited by 100000 players.

But as a graphics fan myself would I put up with a huge disparity between what a MMO was doing and the state of current gaming? No, but it makes me give them leeway, I don't expect every new MMO that comes out to look like BDO.

The exact numbers needed do vary from one type of gameplay to another, but MMOs are a social experience and if you have ever walked into a real life bar and only you and your two mates are there, well that is rather lacking.

Those who play MMOs as if they were solo games are not going to be so bothered by numbers, if they are PvP's though I imagine it would be more important to them.

Let us not forget that Massive also refers to the size of the game you are playing in, which is so important for everything from exploring to PvP zones. Again there are players for whom that will be not so important, if you want to hear a Ping! every 10 seconds as you move around a tiny MMO will suit you better.

But there is a reason our planet's major cities and features like the Grand Canyon and the Pyramids are so popular. Massive is better.

Chimborazo

I think I play most of the time in a "multiplayer" setting in MMO: only thing I do alone are the main quest istances, really having an hard time finding a way to do that with other dudes.
"high end" content are done with a party of small dimensions (often guild mates). The vast majority of the PvE I do is open, usually interacting with the other players at least on the fighting level: for more complex events, I sometimes organize squads and give instructions to people, still a significant "multiplayer" experience.

I can't ignore the fact that I interact with only a fraction of the players online at any given moment tho.

About graphics: I'm gonna open a thread in the future, maybe in another section

Herase

Tbh survival seems to be heading that way and the offer the small player count. Ark, Conan, for example, seem to be small form mmos, they pretty much have the RPG elements, they even have dungeons and wouldn't be surprised if raids start becoming a thing too. 

Chimborazo

Herase said:

Tbh survival seems to be heading that way and the offer the small player count. Ark, Conan, for example, seem to be small form mmos, they pretty much have the RPG elements, they even have dungeons and wouldn't be surprised if raids start becoming a thing too. 

That's where I started my reasoning, I like you guys a lot!
I haven't been an extended player of those type of game, but I'm not entirely sure that a small server with less vertical progression and separation of content would feel less "massive" compared with a themepark.

AlBQuirky

KBMOs (Kinda Big Multiplayer Games)?

I don't "need" massive. I'm not a raider or "end game is the game" kind of player. I'm a "the journey is the game" kind of player and seeing other players around me, to interact with, to group or help with does not "need" 1000s of other players around me specifically, just a few, maybe in the tens (10, 20, 30, etc).

On the other hand, getting "tens of players" all in one place at the same time is not easy (just ask any raid leader!), so there needs to be a huge pool to draw from. Like @DMKano, pointed out, millions (I'd rather it be more like hundreds of thousands) of players in the "pool" so that "a few" can be in the same area is best for me.

All of this hinges, of course, on an actual living world, not a series of instances

Chimborazo

@AlBQuirky I feel the same, in the reality you need a bigger pool than the number of people you'd actually interact with

Aethaeryn

Fighting on the screen at the same time isn't my issue, it is knowing / feeling like I am in a living world.  Having said that I would also like to see the same people around. . I remember when we were setting up for UO beta and everyone was planning guilds etc.  Our guild was going to be based out of Trinsic.  We had established contact with other guilds already and formed alliances based on our location.

Location doesn't mean anything anymore.  With fast travel and leveled zones.  Even in UO with porting and recall the world got small quick.  I would like to see an in game community grow with less transience etc.  Mortal Online (draws cross on chest) tried to do this and had some more success.  Sandbox world can pull it of to some extent if they have multiple level mobs all over.

TLDR:  I could do with less people if it increased community or recognition of other players.  If it just means less players for no other reason then I would miss the "massiveness".

Chimborazo

Aethaeryn said:

Fighting on the screen at the same time isn't my issue, it is knowing / feeling like I am in a living world.  Having said that I would also like to see the same people around. . I remember when we were setting up for UO beta and everyone was planning guilds etc.  Our guild was going to be based out of Trinsic.  We had established contact with other guilds already and formed alliances based on our location.

Location doesn't mean anything anymore.  With fast travel and leveled zones.  Even in UO with porting and recall the world got small quick.  I would like to see an in game community grow with less transience etc.  Mortal Online (draws cross on chest) tried to do this and had some more success.  Sandbox world can pull it of to some extent if they have multiple level mobs all over.

TLDR:  I could do with less people if it increased community or recognition of other players.  If it just means less players for no other reason then I would miss the "massiveness".

One sad thing: when they add a new open PvE map in Gw2 I rarely find guild mates spontaneously around the map, haven't totally figured out why

Scorchien

its was never about " How many people can fit on a screen "

    That thought is completly lost in what an MMORPG is/was intended to be ..

     It was never about How many players you can fit on your screen or in a "ZONE"  or in a lobby,it was about the WORLD and other players can effect your playtime in a positive/negative/exciting/laughable/shocking/empathetic/creative/angry...etc.. way.. at any time from anywhere else in that play world ...

  for ex...  When Garriot was asked to describe UO and what he calls a MMORPG

     "thousands of people interacting and effecting each others experience in a persistent world .."

  Which UO was and is .. You can be in Brit and a friend could be getting attacked by reds on the other side of the world say Skara Brae , And you could be called to help ...( we used ICQ back then)A thief at your house in Moonglow.. get help yes from anywhere in the game world ..

Or someone could attempt a lvl5 treasure map near your house and fail at it leaving a bunch of very angry mobs in your area that will have to be dealt with..or someone holding a fishing contest, a horticultural contest , opening a RUne library or a public Museum with great Artifacts to go see,or a player puts a how down very near yours and he happens to be at war with some reds ..  etc ..Many many intangibles and player induced events all over the Game WORLD can effect your play and activity ..

 

  I found a corpse in E Brit woods one day witha nice set of Gold Chaimamil on it .. Looted the corpse , which i knew would make me Grey(criminal for 10) and stealthed nearby waiting to see if the the victim returned , He did , and when i returned all his stuff i made a great friend for years to come in UO for ex..

  The same applied to SWG/Anarchy Online /Asherons Call /DAOC/Eve, etc .. These are the games that DEFINED the MMO genre, and the defined it by delivering the same engaging persistent WORLDS , wether it SWG and your friends Town being attacked on another planet , or a Keep in DAOC , or a World Event in AC , Notum Wars in AO etc..

  Keep in mind the these are the games that DEFINED the genre ..

  Now wether or not "WE" need it or not , is open to interpatation as in IN , I do like that play field that UO , AC , DAOC , SWG bring much more than a lobby based game that pretends to be an mmo .. So some people are gonna be in " WE" and other not so much , as they are entertained by games that are not MMORPGs (and there is nothing wrong with that ) i play some of them myself , But when i want to play an MMORPG , I know what to look for..

 

  And as far as the survival games go and the private servers with 30- 100 , Now there is fun to be had with this , but something ends up missing and an empty feeling , left out of the immersion , particlarly when its all friends , and everyone is unicorns and rainbows runnin around ...IMO

  I enjoy the immersion of UO for ex.. knowing someone may Try to gank me at any time .. MMORPGs for me need this level of immersion and a persistent human factor with bad and good guys  , Not an episode of the Barney Show where everyone loves everyone ..

Phry

Yes, we do need games to have 'massive' numbers of players, you can't really have too many players in a game, but its certainly true that you can have too few.
How many though really varies when it comes to the games themselves, in Eve Online a few thousand people in the same area, whether its a trading hub like Jita or Amarr, or a multiple fleet encounter, those kinds of things fit within the theme of the game, not having those kinds of numbers would actually be hugely detrimental to the overall gaming experience.

Chimborazo

Phry said:

Yes, we do need games to have 'massive' numbers of players, you can't really have too many players in a game, but its certainly true that you can have too few.
How many though really varies when it comes to the games themselves, in Eve Online a few thousand people in the same area, whether its a trading hub like Jita or Amarr, or a multiple fleet encounter, those kinds of things fit within the theme of the game, not having those kinds of numbers would actually be hugely detrimental to the overall gaming experience.

I'm not sure that i agree with the first part of your comment: if you properly design a game that might be true, but otherwise it's not uncommon to find "zerg" situations

Octagon7711

Fifty to a hundred players is fine by me.  Don't really think thousands add to anything, except maybe space combat.  I do enjoy a zerg every once in awhile and find it a fun experience for what it is and that's from being on both ends of the fight.  I agree that design and how the game is managed is very important to the experience it provides.

Amathe

I enjoy being part of a server community, where even people I am not guilded with or friends with become familiar faces to me. That community doesn't have to be 50,000 people. 10,000 or so would be fine, like a small town.

Sector13

My favorite online RPGs have not been true MMORPGs. I prefer the hub/lobby system. So far, I say PSO2 does it the best atm where its a lobby based game cause you live on a spaceship thats in space (duh) and you teleport down to planets to do missions and why youre not with most people is cause youre not on the same area as everyone else. Now what makes it slightly better is most maps are considered MPAs (multi party areas) so you can join up with 11 other people out in the normal fields unlike a game like Vindictus where youre alone unless you party from the start. 

Scot

Amathe said:

I enjoy being part of a server community, where even people I am not guilded with or friends with become familiar faces to me. That community doesn't have to be 50,000 people. 10,000 or so would be fine, like a small town.

But what sort of small town, PvP Twin Peaks or PvE Walton's Mountain?

vanderghast

"massive" was a sales gimmick at the time it was implemented as it had never been done before.  Hey look we can get thousands of players in a world together!

At the time it made sense and it was fun because there was nothing else like it.  But I think most of the gaming populace quickly realized the actual gaming experience offered by 'massive' games just wasn't fun and playing with thousands of people.....Well.....meant you were playing with thousands of people and with this game alot of the negatives that come with 'other people'.

I'd like to see a game where you only see other people if you choose.  I want to do this dungeon with some other folks, so it scales etc.  That or in towns or battlegrounds.  I want the wilderness to be a wilderness and feel like it and I don't want to see 200 other people running around.  Unless I choose to.

Mendel

Massive only is a selling point if it accomplishes something.  Early in a game, massive means there will be lots of players to group with.  As a game ages and players advance at different rates, massive numbers mean less, because the progression will segregate players.  So we see things (and complaints) like 'My level 20 can't group with his level 70' and 'that tank cannot deal with this content, we need someone with better gear'.

It's like a movie boasting about having X many CGI objects in a scene at once.  At some point, it becomes technology for technology's sake.

Gutlard

Every definition I've read just said that a MMORPG was a game where you play a roll and interact with a 'very large' amount of other players within a virtual game world. In no definition did it quantify what very large was.

I guess from a business standpoint, we'd need Massive to mean a shit ton of players spending money on a game to make a great profit. 

I guess from a tech standpoint, we're left to tech determining the meaning/qty of massive at the time the game is made.

From a player standpoint, I'm more worried about a MMORPG providing entertainment to a massive amount of play styles, so my friends and I keep coming back to a shared space where we all get our itches scratched together, whether it's the same type of itch or not.

I'm more worried about dev's providing a massive amount of game play/mechanics to make it worth my time/money investment per entertainment value's sake.

Make systems massively deep, and reward those willing to put time in them, and NEVER ruin the experience by watering down the process for those that flit from one thing to the next.

If it takes me months and months to earn or unlock something playing an hour a night, a few nights a week, but it takes someone less time because they are able to play 10-12 hours a day, then so be it. Don't ruin their experience or make them feel they wasted their time to make it easier for me, when I didn't even ask for that in the first place....

I see a lot of massive flash with minimal substance more times than not today.

Gut Out!

Amathe

Scot said:

But what sort of small town, PvP Twin Peaks or PvE Walton's Mountain?

More like Peyton Place. 

Vermillion_Raventhal

Single player with 4 player coop, 8 player dungeons, 16 player raids and 32 pvp matches.  

Kyleran

Scot said:

Amathe said:

I enjoy being part of a server community, where even people I am not guilded with or friends with become familiar faces to me. That community doesn't have to be 50,000 people. 10,000 or so would be fine, like a small town.

But what sort of small town, PvP Twin Peaks or PvE Walton's Mountain?

Or really weird like in Stranger Things or Eerie Indiana?

Octagon7711

"Come play and explore our Massively Multiplayer, Open World, Hardcore Sandboxed game, with very deep character customization, and an advanced loot and equipment system.  Complete with high quality graphics, fast paced combat, In depth farming, gathering, crafting, and trade features.  With PvP and PvE servers. Also has difficulty slider for perma-death and legendary rewards, if you can survive long enough, which features increased risk vs rewards, Cursed Nightmare Zones."  :-)

DeadSpock

No need for massive I'm playing Destiny 2 at the moment 90% of the time I'm in groups of 3-6 and having lots of fun 10% I'm solo. People laugh at Destiny 2 being called a MMORPG but I group up with people online in it much more than they do in their MMORPGs.


P.S. when doing Escalation Protocol we're group of 9 people if it matters.