The 250+ player MMO List

Nilden

Are you sick of typing that's not a MMO? Yeah me too. So I'm making a list that I hope can one day be a feature of this site that compiles all the MMO's with persistent worlds that have servers supporting 250+ players.

I'm thinking of just using this sites game list and going through it. 

Basic format: Example -

Game Name: Everquest
MMORPG.com game link
Server Sizes: 1000k+ Players
Additional info: Has instances called picks that will be created if too many people get in the same zone and raid caps ranging from 24 to 54.

Corrections, comments, etc welcome. Hopefully this will be a resource people can contribute to and use to find MMORPGs with that 250+ number.

Thanks in advance.

Nilden

The list-

Work in progress.

If you can confirm that it doesn't support the 250+ just leave a comment and I'll remove it. It's pretty hard to find info on server caps or populations. I also didn't consider payment models and some of these are really bad F2P junk. Some also have private servers. A lot of this is just the name and a video I found. would be great to get feedback to help make this better. Anyway off we go...

4Story
https://www.mmorpg.com/4story
Video I found on server populations

Info: This game also had a bunch of private emulated servers when I looked in to it.

8bitmmo
https://www.mmorpg.com/8bitmmo
Supports up to 250

9Dragons
https://www.mmorpg.com/9dragons
Video on it.


A Tale in the Desert
https://www.mmorpg.com/a-tale-in-the-desert
Video on it.


Age of Conan Unchained
https://www.mmorpg.com/age-of-conan-unchained
Video:


Age of Wushu
https://www.mmorpg.com/age-of-wushu
Video:


Aika
https://www.mmorpg.com/aika
Video:


Aion
https://www.mmorpg.com/aion
Video:

Also Aion classic.

Albion Online
https://www.mmorpg.com/albion-online
Video:


Allods Online
https://www.mmorpg.com/allods-online
Video:


Anarchy Online
https://www.mmorpg.com/anarchy-online
Video:


Archeage Unchained
https://www.mmorpg.com/archeage
Video:

There's also Archeage, and Archeage 2 in development.

Black Desert Online
https://www.mmorpg.com/black-desert-online
Video:


Blade and Soul
https://www.mmorpg.com/blade-and-soul
Video:


Champions Online
https://www.mmorpg.com/champions-online
Video:


Dark Age of Camelot
https://www.mmorpg.com/dark-age-of-camelot
Video:


Darkfall Rise of Agon
https://www.mmorpg.com/darkfall-rise-of-agon
Video:


DC Universe Online
https://www.mmorpg.com/dc-universe-online
Video:


Dungeons and Dragons Online
https://www.mmorpg.com/dungeons-and-dragons-online
Video:


Elder Scrolls Online
https://www.mmorpg.com/elder-scrolls-online
Video:


Embers Adrift
https://www.mmorpg.com/embers-adrift
Video:


EVE Online
https://www.mmorpg.com/eve-online
Video:

20,000 players on the same persistent sever.

EverQuest
https://www.mmorpg.com/everquest
Video:


EverQuest 2
https://www.mmorpg.com/everquest-ii
Video:


Final Fantasy 11
https://www.mmorpg.com/final-fantasy-xi
Video:


Final Fantasy 14
https://www.mmorpg.com/final-fantasy-xiv
Video:


Gloria Victus
https://www.mmorpg.com/gloria-victis
Video:


Guild Wars 2
https://www.mmorpg.com/guild-wars-2
Video:


Istaria Chronicles of the Gifted
https://www.mmorpg.com/istaria-chronicles-of-the-gifted
Video:


Lineage 2
https://www.mmorpg.com/lineage-2
Video:


Lord of the Rings Online
https://www.mmorpg.com/lord-of-the-rings-online
Video:


Mabiginobi
https://www.mmorpg.com/mabinogi
Video:


Neverwinter
https://www.mmorpg.com/neverwinter
Video:


New World
https://www.mmorpg.com/new-world
Video:


Planetside 2
https://www.mmorpg.com/planetside-2
Video:


Priston Tale
https://www.mmorpg.com/priston-tale
Video:


Rift
https://www.mmorpg.com/rift
Video:


Runescape
https://www.mmorpg.com/runescape
Video:


Ryzom
https://www.mmorpg.com/ryzom
Video:


Secret World Legends
https://www.mmorpg.com/secret-world-legends
Video:


Star Wars the old Republic
https://www.mmorpg.com/star-wars-the-old-republic
Video:


Ultima Online
https://www.mmorpg.com/ultima-online
Video:

Also has tons of free shards availible.

World of Warcraft
https://www.mmorpg.com/world-of-warcraft
I mean everyone knows this one.

Not a complete list but it did take a while to do a rundown of the games list here. Hope this helps when trying to find an actual MMORPG that is actually MASSIVE!!

Feel free to post corrections, additions etc. Thanks in advance!

Happy gaming!

Darkhawke

250 imo , is not enough to call something an mmo.And there is very few actual persistent worlds to pull from , Eve,UO,Anarchy,DAOC , think that's it.

Tiller

Having over one thousand active players on one server is what I consider an MMORPG.

mklinic

Nilden said:

Are you sick of typing that's not a MMO?  Yeah me too.

Darkhawke said:

250 imo , is not enough to call something an mmo.;

Tiller said:

Having over one thousand active players on one server is what I consider an MMORPG.

Well...that didn't last very long...

Nilden

Darkhawke said:

250 imo , is not enough to call something an mmo.And there is very few actual persistent worlds to pull from , Eve,UO,Anarchy,DAOC , think that's it.

Well you will be happy then because those are all on the list.

would be a pretty small club for the 1k+ list but if you want to make one have at it.

Nilden

mklinic said:

Nilden said:

Are you sick of typing that's not a MMO?  Yeah me too.

Darkhawke said:

250 imo , is not enough to call something an mmo.;

Tiller said:

Having over one thousand active players on one server is what I consider an MMORPG.

Well...that didn't last very long...

Was still typing the list up and already got 250+ is not a MMO... fantastic! L O L

cameltosis

Good luck @Nilden

Like others in the thread, I don't agree with your definition of MMO.

Why should I care if the server can support 10,000 players if its only ever possible to play with 4 or them at once?

How are you even defining "server"? Does an ESO megaserver count as one server, despite the fact that there's probably a huge server farm running many physical servers, not to mention there's probably a ton of virtual servers running to support different layers?

What about something like Mario Kart. That has online multiplayer, supported by a bunch of servers. I've no idea how many players each server can support, but assuming they can support 500 players on each physical server, would that make Mario Kart massively multiplayer? Or does the fact that the actual multiplayer feature is capped at 12 people make a difference?

Don't get me wrong, server capacity is an important metric. It just has little bearing on the scale of the multiplayer.

Nilden

cameltosis said:

Good luck @Nilden

Like others in the thread, I don't agree with your definition of MMO.

Why should I care if the server can support 10,000 players if its only ever possible to play with 4 or them at once?

How are you even defining "server"? Does an ESO megaserver count as one server, despite the fact that there's probably a huge server farm running many physical servers, not to mention there's probably a ton of virtual servers running to support different layers?

What about something like Mario Kart. That has online multiplayer, supported by a bunch of servers. I've no idea how many players each server can support, but assuming they can support 500 players on each physical server, would that make Mario Kart massively multiplayer? Or does the fact that the actual multiplayer feature is capped at 12 people make a difference?

Don't get me wrong, server capacity is an important metric. It just has little bearing on the scale of the multiplayer.

No Mario Kart would not count. It has to be a persistent world. Is there a grey area where one could nitpick the definition? Sure. Are we seeing 4 player co-op games listed as MMOs? Yes. 

cameltosis

Nilden said:

cameltosis said:

Good luck @Nilden

Like others in the thread, I don't agree with your definition of MMO.

Why should I care if the server can support 10,000 players if its only ever possible to play with 4 or them at once?

How are you even defining "server"? Does an ESO megaserver count as one server, despite the fact that there's probably a huge server farm running many physical servers, not to mention there's probably a ton of virtual servers running to support different layers?

What about something like Mario Kart. That has online multiplayer, supported by a bunch of servers. I've no idea how many players each server can support, but assuming they can support 500 players on each physical server, would that make Mario Kart massively multiplayer? Or does the fact that the actual multiplayer feature is capped at 12 people make a difference?

Don't get me wrong, server capacity is an important metric. It just has little bearing on the scale of the multiplayer.

No Mario Kart would not count. It has to be a persistent world. Is there a grey area where one could nitpick the definition? Sure. Are we seeing 4 player co-op games listed as MMOs? Yes. 

How persistent does it need to be?

Any game built using layering tech - like ESO - has zero persistence. Layers are constantly being spun up and shut down.

What about the MMORPGs that do have persistent worlds, but you can't change anything about the world so the persistence is pointless?

Persistence has nothing to do with the scale of multiplayer. It may well be a required feature for you (and for me too btw) but it makes no difference to whether it's an MMO or not.

Nilden

cameltosis said:

Nilden said:

cameltosis said:

Good luck @Nilden

Like others in the thread, I don't agree with your definition of MMO.

Why should I care if the server can support 10,000 players if its only ever possible to play with 4 or them at once?

How are you even defining "server"? Does an ESO megaserver count as one server, despite the fact that there's probably a huge server farm running many physical servers, not to mention there's probably a ton of virtual servers running to support different layers?

What about something like Mario Kart. That has online multiplayer, supported by a bunch of servers. I've no idea how many players each server can support, but assuming they can support 500 players on each physical server, would that make Mario Kart massively multiplayer? Or does the fact that the actual multiplayer feature is capped at 12 people make a difference?

Don't get me wrong, server capacity is an important metric. It just has little bearing on the scale of the multiplayer.

No Mario Kart would not count. It has to be a persistent world. Is there a grey area where one could nitpick the definition? Sure. Are we seeing 4 player co-op games listed as MMOs? Yes. 

How persistent does it need to be?

Any game built using layering tech - like ESO - has zero persistence. Layers are constantly being spun up and shut down.

What about the MMORPGs that do have persistent worlds, but you can't change anything about the world so the persistence is pointless?

Persistence has nothing to do with the scale of multiplayer. It may well be a required feature for you (and for me too btw) but it makes no difference to whether it's an MMO or not.

Well even just judging on the scale of the multiplayer a lot of games listed on this site fail horribly. I think making it 250+ at the very least is a good cut off range for a MMO.

It's also extremely hard to find readily available info on server cap sizes, population info, instancing sizes, and other metrics that I would very much like to list with these games other than just names and videos.

Champie

Tiller said:

Having over one thousand active players on one server is what I consider an MMORPG.

I don't have a huge amount of experience but I can say that the 2 games that I have played consistently over the last 10 years are single, persistent worlds.

World War II Online (Battleground Europe)
Salem - "The Crafting MMO"

250-500 daily active players (100-200 concurrent) can sustain them, but they shine their brightest with 750-1500 (400-500 concurrent). 

Nilden

Champie said:

Tiller said:

Having over one thousand active players on one server is what I consider an MMORPG.

I don't have a huge amount of experience but I can say that the 2 games that I have played consistently over the last 10 years are single, persistent worlds.

World War II Online (Battleground Europe)
Salem - "The Crafting MMO"

250-500 daily active players (100-200 concurrent) can sustain them, but they shine their brightest with 750-1500 (400-500 concurrent). 

This kind of brings up another concern. The active population, because I checked WW2 Online on steam.

https://steamcharts.com/app/251950

Needless to say it's really low. Peek players in the 40's and avg in the teens.

Sure it could probably support 250+ but if there are never that many playing it's just listing a dead game. So I would say active population is an important factor even if it might qualify as a MMO if nobody is playing it the only point in listing it is historical reference.

This is something I pondered when I listed Istaria as well.

Nilden

Tiller said:

Having over one thousand active players on one server is what I consider an MMORPG.

So is it the possibility of having over 1000 players that defines this? What if the games population is 40 people concurrent players on average but it is possible to support over 2000?

I would love to see a searchable list with populations and server caps as data that is readily available for the games you are looking at and as a metric you could search by.

Even being able to search by 250+ 500+ 1000+ for server caps, monthly active users, concurrent population, etc, would be something I would find very interesting.

The only really reliable thing I have is steam charts and a lot of games get played without people going through steam. Plus that's just players not how many it has the possibility to support.

Darkhawke

Nilden said:

Tiller said:

Having over one thousand active players on one server is what I consider an MMORPG.

So is it the possibility of having over 1000 players that defines this? What if the games population is 40 people concurrent players on average but it is possible to support over 2000?

I would love to see a searchable list with populations and server caps as data that is readily available for the games you are looking at and as a metric you could search by.

Even being able to search by 250+ 500+ 1000+ for server caps, monthly active users, concurrent population, etc, would be something I would find very interesting.

The only really reliable thing I have is steam charts and a lot of games get played without people going through steam. Plus that's just players not how many it has the possibility to support.

The game must have the infrastructure to support thousands . Now we all understand that many older MMOs do not have the playerbase. But they are still capable of supporting 1000-5000 players on a Virtual World .. (not hub based)

Which brings us to the Persistent portion ,to be Persistent MMO a players actions MUST continue and effect other players and the Actual world even after they have logged off .. for Ex .

1.Eves incredible industry base and defense systems
2. UO housing crafting, taming treasure hunts ..
3. DAOC frontiers and Keep captures 
4.Anarchy online Notum wars.
5.Planetside 2 territory control


These are a few examples, and there are very few genuine Persistent worlds .So if you want to have Persistent as a driving parameter, most of the games do not deliver in that regard.

Now EQ certainly is an MMO but it does not have persistent quality at all.But yes it is an MMO (before someone claims I'm saying it is not), however it is not a Persistent world.

I am not railing on you. And this is still very cool of you to take the time to do .

But maybe section it to have the actual Persistent Virtual Worlds seperate.

kitarad

Everquest is a persistent world. The world indeed does go on because other players continue to play and die in the world and monsters are camped and die. When you come back the world does not start up for you. That is why it has always been described as persistent.

A persistent world can be achieved by developing and maintaining a single or dynamic instance state of the game world that is shared and viewed by all players around the clock.[citation needed] The persistence of a world can be subdivided into "game persistence", "world persistence" and "data persistence". Data persistence ensures that any world data is not lost in the event of computer system failure. World persistence means the world continues to exist and is available to players when they want to access it. Game persistence refers to the persistence of game events within the world (a Groundhog Day MUD is a virtual world where the entire (game) world is reset periodically).[3] When referring to a "persistent world", world and game persistence are sometimes used interchangeably. The persistence criterion is the trait that separates virtual worlds from other types of video games.

Data persistence Everquest had of course since my character is still saved on my original server in spite of me not logging in for a long time.

World persistence since when I logged off the world was still there available for other players who could continue to kill and camp mobs and those mobs will stay camped when I return. So the world obviously went on. Dragons spawned and were killed in my absence.

Game persistence is when mobs continued to spawn in my absence meaning my presence was not needed for the world to continue.

https://ims.improbable.io/insights/thinking-spatially-persistent-worlds

World of Warcraft (2004) is the most famous example of data and world persistence being combined to make a phenomenally successful game, building on the examples of Ultima Online and Everquest in particular.

When you dropped items on the ground in Everquest it stayed on the ground after you logged off . If you logged off and someone in your absence trained the whole dungeon to the zone or a zone line when you logged in and zoned in those mobs will kill you. So the world obviously does get affected and goes on without you.

You do not need other players to 'permanently' change a world for it to be persistent. A dragon once killed does not stay dead forever because the dragon will spawn again. However that world is still considered persistent and Everquest was always considered as a persistent world. We have enough issues with MMORPG definition let's not add to this confusion.

Scot

It is a herculean task which Nilden has set himself, I applaud the attempt.

But the site long ago gave up on a strict definition because general gaming media often uses MMO to mean anything you can play with other players online, it was like telling the tide not to come in. Still, a valiant effort!

Darkhawke

kitarad said:

Everquest is a persistent world. The world indeed does go on because other players continue to play and die in the world and monsters are camped and die. When you come back the world does not start up for you. That is why it has always been described as persistent.

A persistent world can be achieved by developing and maintaining a single or dynamic instance state of the game world that is shared and viewed by all players around the clock.[citation needed] The persistence of a world can be subdivided into "game persistence", "world persistence" and "data persistence". Data persistence ensures that any world data is not lost in the event of computer system failure. World persistence means the world continues to exist and is available to players when they want to access it. Game persistence refers to the persistence of game events within the world (a Groundhog Day MUD is a virtual world where the entire (game) world is reset periodically).[3] When referring to a "persistent world", world and game persistence are sometimes used interchangeably. The persistence criterion is the trait that separates virtual worlds from other types of video games.

Data persistence Everquest had of course since my character is still saved on my original server in spite of me not logging in for a long time.

World persistence since when I logged off the world was still there available for other players who could continue to kill and camp mobs and those mobs will stay camped when I return. So the world obviously went on. Dragons spawned and were killed in my absence.

Game persistence is when mobs continued to spawn in my absence meaning my presence was not needed for the world to continue.

https://ims.improbable.io/insights/thinking-spatially-persistent-worlds

World of Warcraft (2004) is the most famous example of data and world persistence being combined to make a phenomenally successful game, building on the examples of Ultima Online and Everquest in particular.

When you dropped items on the ground in Everquest it stayed on the ground after you logged off . If you logged off and someone in your absence trained the whole dungeon to the zone or a zone line when you logged in and zoned in those mobs will kill you. So the world obviously does get affected and goes on without you.

You do not need other players to 'permanently' change a world for it to be persistent. A dragon once killed does not stay dead forever because the dragon will spawn again. However that world is still considered persistent and Everquest was always considered as a persistent world. We have enough issues with MMORPG definition let's not add to this confusion.

Silly semantics at best , the actions and activities of a player that persist after they log out that effects gameplay of other players is needed, Mob repawn is not one , you being able to log back in is not persistent either..


Building a giant industrisal complex that persists in the game world effecting other players is .. 

Capturing  Keep that other players will fight to hold after you log is .

Building a house in an open world is persistent ..

Opening a T5 Tmap and failing it leaving Lich lords and Dread dpiders on front of someone's house is .

Mob respwan is not something you did it happens regardless of you .. 

The players actions MUST persist after they log effecting other players .

Mob respawn is not a player action..The world being there is not a player action..Trains return immediately to there static position .the train is not running around 10, 30 40 , 50 hours after you log ..

The industrial complex however can
The Keep can
The House can 
The territory control can
  

The standard of persistence you are promoting makes online Scrabble an MMO .

After all the board is still there and there are thousands of players playing matches thru the Hub(world)

Scot

Darkhawke said:

kitarad said:

Everquest is a persistent world. The world indeed does go on because other players continue to play and die in the world and monsters are camped and die. When you come back the world does not start up for you. That is why it has always been described as persistent.

A persistent world can be achieved by developing and maintaining a single or dynamic instance state of the game world that is shared and viewed by all players around the clock.[citation needed] The persistence of a world can be subdivided into "game persistence", "world persistence" and "data persistence". Data persistence ensures that any world data is not lost in the event of computer system failure. World persistence means the world continues to exist and is available to players when they want to access it. Game persistence refers to the persistence of game events within the world (a Groundhog Day MUD is a virtual world where the entire (game) world is reset periodically).[3] When referring to a "persistent world", world and game persistence are sometimes used interchangeably. The persistence criterion is the trait that separates virtual worlds from other types of video games.

Data persistence Everquest had of course since my character is still saved on my original server in spite of me not logging in for a long time.

World persistence since when I logged off the world was still there available for other players who could continue to kill and camp mobs and those mobs will stay camped when I return. So the world obviously went on. Dragons spawned and were killed in my absence.

Game persistence is when mobs continued to spawn in my absence meaning my presence was not needed for the world to continue.

https://ims.improbable.io/insights/thinking-spatially-persistent-worlds

World of Warcraft (2004) is the most famous example of data and world persistence being combined to make a phenomenally successful game, building on the examples of Ultima Online and Everquest in particular.

When you dropped items on the ground in Everquest it stayed on the ground after you logged off . If you logged off and someone in your absence trained the whole dungeon to the zone or a zone line when you logged in and zoned in those mobs will kill you. So the world obviously does get affected and goes on without you.

You do not need other players to 'permanently' change a world for it to be persistent. A dragon once killed does not stay dead forever because the dragon will spawn again. However that world is still considered persistent and Everquest was always considered as a persistent world. We have enough issues with MMORPG definition let's not add to this confusion.

Silly semantics at best 

Don't go all verbose on me now Darkhawke.

kitarad

Darkhawke said:

kitarad said:

Everquest is a persistent world. The world indeed does go on because other players continue to play and die in the world and monsters are camped and die. When you come back the world does not start up for you. That is why it has always been described as persistent.

A persistent world can be achieved by developing and maintaining a single or dynamic instance state of the game world that is shared and viewed by all players around the clock.[citation needed] The persistence of a world can be subdivided into "game persistence", "world persistence" and "data persistence". Data persistence ensures that any world data is not lost in the event of computer system failure. World persistence means the world continues to exist and is available to players when they want to access it. Game persistence refers to the persistence of game events within the world (a Groundhog Day MUD is a virtual world where the entire (game) world is reset periodically).[3] When referring to a "persistent world", world and game persistence are sometimes used interchangeably. The persistence criterion is the trait that separates virtual worlds from other types of video games.

Data persistence Everquest had of course since my character is still saved on my original server in spite of me not logging in for a long time.

World persistence since when I logged off the world was still there available for other players who could continue to kill and camp mobs and those mobs will stay camped when I return. So the world obviously went on. Dragons spawned and were killed in my absence.

Game persistence is when mobs continued to spawn in my absence meaning my presence was not needed for the world to continue.

https://ims.improbable.io/insights/thinking-spatially-persistent-worlds

World of Warcraft (2004) is the most famous example of data and world persistence being combined to make a phenomenally successful game, building on the examples of Ultima Online and Everquest in particular.

When you dropped items on the ground in Everquest it stayed on the ground after you logged off . If you logged off and someone in your absence trained the whole dungeon to the zone or a zone line when you logged in and zoned in those mobs will kill you. So the world obviously does get affected and goes on without you.

You do not need other players to 'permanently' change a world for it to be persistent. A dragon once killed does not stay dead forever because the dragon will spawn again. However that world is still considered persistent and Everquest was always considered as a persistent world. We have enough issues with MMORPG definition let's not add to this confusion.

Silly semantics at best , the actions and activities of a player does that persist after they log out that effects gameplay of other players is needed, Mob repawn is not one , you being able to log back in is not persistent either..


Building a giant industrisal complex that persists in the game world effecting other players is .. 

Capturing  Keep that other players will fight to hold after you log is 

I think the fact that every description of Everquest has called it persistent does not give you room to narrow it only to what you describe. Also I disagree that your actions have no bearing on the world. When you and your guild kill Nagafen he is dead as far as the world is concerned until the reset where he spawns again.

Don't games that reset forts and they are no longer owned by one faction do the same thing and yet you say they're persistent.

Darkhawke

kitarad said:

Darkhawke said:

kitarad said:

Everquest is a persistent world. The world indeed does go on because other players continue to play and die in the world and monsters are camped and die. When you come back the world does not start up for you. That is why it has always been described as persistent.

A persistent world can be achieved by developing and maintaining a single or dynamic instance state of the game world that is shared and viewed by all players around the clock.[citation needed] The persistence of a world can be subdivided into "game persistence", "world persistence" and "data persistence". Data persistence ensures that any world data is not lost in the event of computer system failure. World persistence means the world continues to exist and is available to players when they want to access it. Game persistence refers to the persistence of game events within the world (a Groundhog Day MUD is a virtual world where the entire (game) world is reset periodically).[3] When referring to a "persistent world", world and game persistence are sometimes used interchangeably. The persistence criterion is the trait that separates virtual worlds from other types of video games.

Data persistence Everquest had of course since my character is still saved on my original server in spite of me not logging in for a long time.

World persistence since when I logged off the world was still there available for other players who could continue to kill and camp mobs and those mobs will stay camped when I return. So the world obviously went on. Dragons spawned and were killed in my absence.

Game persistence is when mobs continued to spawn in my absence meaning my presence was not needed for the world to continue.

https://ims.improbable.io/insights/thinking-spatially-persistent-worlds

World of Warcraft (2004) is the most famous example of data and world persistence being combined to make a phenomenally successful game, building on the examples of Ultima Online and Everquest in particular.

When you dropped items on the ground in Everquest it stayed on the ground after you logged off . If you logged off and someone in your absence trained the whole dungeon to the zone or a zone line when you logged in and zoned in those mobs will kill you. So the world obviously does get affected and goes on without you.

You do not need other players to 'permanently' change a world for it to be persistent. A dragon once killed does not stay dead forever because the dragon will spawn again. However that world is still considered persistent and Everquest was always considered as a persistent world. We have enough issues with MMORPG definition let's not add to this confusion.

Silly semantics at best , the actions and activities of a player does that persist after they log out that effects gameplay of other players is needed, Mob repawn is not one , you being able to log back in is not persistent either..


Building a giant industrisal complex that persists in the game world effecting other players is .. 

Capturing  Keep that other players will fight to hold after you log is 

I think the fact that every description of Everquest has called it persistent does not give you room to narrow it only to what you describe. Also I disagree that your actions have no bearing on the world. When you and your guild kill Nagafen he is dead as far as the world is concerned until the reset where he spawns again.

Don't games that reset forts and they are no longer owned by one faction do the same thing and yet you say they're persistent.

Keeps in DAOC  do not reset , they must be captured..( not when I played ) I never recall that happening on a schedule.

Territory on PS2 does not reset it must be captured..

The differences in an Actual Persistent world are very stark and very noticeable difference in play from a non persistent world .

I will concede that killing Nag is a persistent , but it's just so little and effects so few it does not constitute a Persistent World ..

There is just a very real feel, ambience and mood and a players approach  to a persistent World MMO like Eve and UO that stands out quite dramatically than a game like EQ ..

kitarad

What you're describing is dynamic not persistent.   

Where MMORPG developers to create dynamic "living and breathing" worlds. I feel like the ultimate idealistic goal in making dynamic worlds is to create a virtual world where both players and NPCs have agency and the ability to actively influence change in the world. That change could come in the form of building and destroying structures, claiming land, planting crops, killing NPCs, waging wars, or whatever else the game allows.

Darkhawke

kitarad said:

What you're describing is dynamic not persistent.

No, it is not ..

Rifts rifts are a dynamic example .
GW2 is a dynamic world .

Persistence in an MMO virtual world is a Player activities that persist and exist long after they log out effecting the world and others players gameplay ..

By the standards we are setting here Online Scrabble literally becomes a Persistent MMO ..

After all there are 1 million players sitting in a Hub waiting for the 4 player match,  then they log there avatar out . And others are still playing Scrabble thru the same hub on the same board.

kitarad

That is the commonly help interpretation but you go ahead with your own ideas. 

That was what GW2 described their dynamic events as.

Brainy

That is a pretty short list, not saying I disagree or see anything missing.  Just that its short.

No wonder this genre is having so much problems.

Scot

Well I won't argue the semantics, for me taking a keep means you take it until someone else takes it off you. A guild keep if they could be taken (like the second guild keep in AoC) should revert back, it depends on the pvp set up. In territorial control MMOs a "guild keep" would be better in the PvE area, while anything in the pvp area is taken until taken back.