Skip to main content

Topic: shrink the game world (Read 2331 times) previous topic - next topic

Re: shrink the game world
Reply #30
Quote
If the population is super good, and a city is mega crowded (so its hard to farm, you get jumped constantly anywhere near the town, etc), people will just leave that town and go live in another.

Another sandbox solution.

If there already is 2650 people hitting that damned golem for its rare ore, go occupy yourself with something else and use generated resources to buy up whatever these people are swarming for over there. That implies in game economy being healthy  and providing the needed tools.
Supply and demand.

Re: shrink the game world
Reply #31
Quote
Now idk how to really change that but honestly making ganking farmers harder would prob help more then making the population spread more to avoid ganks.

Sandboxy solution.

Not to say that it doesent suck when you get ganked with all that loot, making you feel like you couldnt have done anything whatsoever to ward the attackers off. But there are measures you can take, stuff that already IS in game, its not even some new feature coming in, its called player skill and cunning. Pick a place you are less likely prey and have a low profile(df has never had sneak as game mechanic, but you can still position yourself so you arent screaming "gank me" to anyone who gets even remotely near you).

ps. these are just examples of what any player by himself can do, i didnt bring them up to antagonize anyone.

Re: shrink the game world
Reply #32
@bobthecat
There are people for whom trading is a playstyle of choice and an engaging activity.
They are under represented in the current community because Darkfall never catered to them, and it is all the more reason to create a game where they are in demand.
With a game that appeals to them, it will raise the overall level of convenience for everyone that does not find traveling engaging.

A war is not a matter of hours, it is a matter of days/weeks.
With the volatility of a global game, you get no predictability, and without predictability you do not get recurrent stable "I know action will happen here" content.

Shared action has been a source of frustration for most players.
They want their fight to remain theirs, and to have their actions and those of their opponents be the sole factor of their victory/defeat.
Roamers have had too much impact on politics. Losing is one thing, but losing because a random group came in is another.

The open questions was for a specific reason, and it wasn't about ganking, but about illustrating our point with numbers.
There are about 1800 spawns in the world. According to your standard, if 200 are "hotspots" with an average of 3 players on it, and the rest has someone half the time, that is about 1 400 concurrent players.
Your expressed sweet spot is at about 1/7th of the theoretical limit of the server and perfectly reachable.

That is why we worry the world might be too small and why we implemented spawn scaling prior to launch.
Too crowded is a burden/frustration while not enough people is merely a bore. We need the world to be able to scale with success.
The Darkfall: New Dawn Dev Team.

Re: shrink the game world
Reply #33
@bobthecat
There are people for whom trading is a playstyle of choice and an engaging activity.
They are under represented in the current community because Darkfall never catered to them, and it is all the more reason to create a game where they are in demand.
With a game that appeals to them, it will raise the overall level of convenience for everyone that does not find traveling engaging.

A war is not a matter of hours, it is a matter of days/weeks.
With the volatility of a global game, you get no predictability, and without predictability you do not get recurrent stable "I know action will happen here" content.

Shared action has been a source of frustration for most players.
They want their fight to remain theirs, and to have their actions and those of their opponents be the sole factor of their victory/defeat.
Roamers have had too much impact on politics. Losing is one thing, but losing because a random group came in is another.

The open questions was for a specific reason, and it wasn't about ganking, but about illustrating our point with numbers.
There are about 1800 spawns in the world. According to your standard, if 200 are "hotspots" with an average of 3 players on it, and the rest has someone half the time, that is about 1 400 concurrent players.
Your expressed sweet spot is at about 1/7th of the theoretical limit of the server and perfectly reachable.

That is why we worry the world might be too small and why we implemented spawn scaling prior to launch.
Too crowded is a burden/frustration while not enough people is merely a bore. We need the world to be able to scale with success.
There are people who want to be full time traders, but they are still a very small % of the population. I would think at least. At the end of the day most people playing df want to go e peen mode and kill kids and trash talk about it on the forums and stuff. "Most" might be a little exaggerated, but its a large amount of the population lol. If they didnt want action most of them wouldn't be playing a open pvp sandbox mmo. And open pvp mmo players are a small niche in the mmo community. And traders in open pvp games are a even smaller group.

And with those numbers yes the game wouldn't be dead. But I honestly expect much lower numbers after the first month. I expect less than 200 nodes to be hotspots, but maybe 200 is still possible. and the majority of the random ones throughout the world to be dead. The ones I expect to have people sometimes are just the ones near the populated towns. And once the population dies out people just sit in their holdings cuz "game is dead" making the problem worse. When if they would all go out in the world it wouldnt be dead.

I'm just basing these numbers off of RoA. On launch prob had 2k players on at a time maybe. With this amount near all the starter towns was definitely over populated. But over population isnt exactly bad. Its much better then under population. Under population people get bored and quit. Over population the people who want action (a large amount of the player base) can get that action pretty easily.

These days people want much less time sink anyway. And the problem with these open pvp mmo's is they take much more time per fun encounter then most click to play games. so smaller more action packed worlds help to shrink the gap of fun and time sink so more people will enjoy playing.

I hope DnD can pull off the same launch numbers as RoA but I'm worried that many of the people have lost interest from RoA sucking so bad lol...

  • Last Edit: October 10, 2017, 08:26:56 pm by bobthecat

  • nubnax
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: shrink the game world
Reply #34
cuz at the end of the day most people playing df want to go e peen mode and kill kids and trash talk about it on the forums and stuff

and that's not a good thing. DND wants to cater to the people who were interested in DF when it was launched, who wanted a more immersive playing experience, not what DF2012 became which was a pure gankfest / epeen mode game.

we definitely will see a drop off in population after launch, that's normal for any MMO. a lot of people buy MMOs play 1-2 months after launch and then move on to other games. that's to be expected.
That doesn't change the fact that you can't plan a game around a miniscule population. if ub3rgames thought the population will stabilise around a few 100 active players and plan for this state then they should not even have invested their time and money into DND in the first place.
Bala Eregi
SG of Bewahrer der Welten
SG of The Tausian Dominion

Re: shrink the game world
Reply #35
@bobthecat
There are people for whom trading is a playstyle of choice and an engaging activity.
They are under represented in the current community because Darkfall never catered to them, and it is all the more reason to create a game where they are in demand.
With a game that appeals to them, it will raise the overall level of convenience for everyone that does not find traveling engaging.

A war is not a matter of hours, it is a matter of days/weeks.
With the volatility of a global game, you get no predictability, and without predictability you do not get recurrent stable "I know action will happen here" content.

Shared action has been a source of frustration for most players.
They want their fight to remain theirs, and to have their actions and those of their opponents be the sole factor of their victory/defeat.
Roamers have had too much impact on politics. Losing is one thing, but losing because a random group came in is another.

The open questions was for a specific reason, and it wasn't about ganking, but about illustrating our point with numbers.
There are about 1800 spawns in the world. According to your standard, if 200 are "hotspots" with an average of 3 players on it, and the rest has someone half the time, that is about 1 400 concurrent players.
Your expressed sweet spot is at about 1/7th of the theoretical limit of the server and perfectly reachable.

That is why we worry the world might be too small and why we implemented spawn scaling prior to launch.
Too crowded is a burden/frustration while not enough people is merely a bore. We need the world to be able to scale with success.
There are people who want to be full time traders, but they are still a very small % of the population. I would think at least. I do believe in trying to make the game viable for as many different play styles as possible. But you dont want to hurt the game to do it (a possibly too big world).

cuz at the end of the day most people playing df want to go e peen mode and kill kids and trash talk about it on the forums and stuff. Most might be a little exaggerated, but its a large amount of the population lol. If they didnt want action most of them wouldnt be playing a open pvp sandbox mmo. And open pvp mmo players are a small niche in the mmo community. And traders in open pvp games are a even smaller group.

And with those numbers yes the game wouldn't be dead. But I honestly expect much lower numbers after the first month. I expect less than 200 nodes to be hotspots, but maybe 200 is still possible. and the majority of the random ones throughout the world to be dead. The ones I expect to have people sometimes are just the ones near the populated towns. And once the population dies out people just sit in their holdings cuz "game is dead" making the problem worse. When if they would all go out in the world it wouldnt be dead.

I'm just basing these numbers off of RoA. On launch prob had 2k players on at a time maybe, but they never actually showed any numbers. with this amount near all the starter towns was definitely over populated. But in the end the population tanked, which is always expected for open pvp games on release honestly. The goal is for the game to not feel dead after the population goes down and stabilizes.

I say all open pvp games have a large drop in population after release because it weeds out the new players who didnt belong. Obviously a better game and better mechanics help to keep more, but a lot do quit just from not begin able to handle dying and loosing there stuff.

I hope DnD can pull off the same launch numbers as RoA but I'm worried that many of the people have lost interest from RoA sucking so bad lol...

Thats old DF where there was nothing but epeen, this isnt that game.

  • Nuyur
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: shrink the game world
Reply #36
For the current playerbase you have a fair assesment.
The currentplayerbase is not their intended market.

  • Otis
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: shrink the game world
Reply #37
pvp games grow stale, im hoping dnd develops into something more than just a open pvp game

Re: shrink the game world
Reply #38
You know the difference between the pvpers and the non pvpers?

The non pvpers quit a long time ago. Ditch the pvpers and df honestly has nothing going for it.

I was telling my friend the other day I'm kidna waiting for DnD to come out and he pretty much had nothing good to say about darkfall. "Everything feels pointless". Game has a junk gathering system. Junk runescape tier crafting. Low end pve. Bad graphics. Very unimerssive compared to the other sandboxes I've played.

Not really trying to trash the game but honestly darkfall is far past its time. Its going to take a lot to get all the pve'ers and traders and stuff to come play it without killing all the pvp and the entire core of darkfall. And even if you kill that the non pvpers will want to play the pve'ers will just go play something else anyway.

Re: shrink the game world
Reply #39
The non pvpers quit a long time ago. Ditch the pvpers and df honestly has nothing going for it.
I'm not a PvPer, yet I stayed, even actively played New Dawn for a year

And the whole point of ND is to bring back players who were interested in the idea of Darkfall, not exactly in the implementation AV delivered...
Wyverex Erisian, SG of Scrubs


Still a member of SaltyBitches™ Club

Re: shrink the game world
Reply #40
The non pvpers quit a long time ago. Ditch the pvpers and df honestly has nothing going for it.
I'm not a PvPer, yet I stayed, even actively played New Dawn for a year

And the whole point of ND is to bring back players who were interested in the idea of Darkfall, not exactly in the implementation AV delivered...

But the main reason the pvpers quit is just from lack of action and reasons for action (like reasons to want to hold specific holdings and stuff). Not cuz pvp "gets boring". People can claim pointless pvp gets boring all they want but PUBG peaks at like 1M players and all you do is click play drop shoot kids die repeat. Oh and open dumb chests lol. If pvp was boring you wouldn't have games like that having so much success. If DF was booming and you could get legit fights all over the place would be wicked sick.

When me and my friend sit around and nostalgize and talk about the fun things we have done in games we never talk about PUBG and similar games. WE talk about the fun encounters in open pvp games.

And ditching your current main player base to bring back players who have most likely moved on to other games prob isnt the best business decision.

Re: shrink the game world
Reply #41
You know the difference between the pvpers and the non pvpers?

The non pvpers quit a long time ago. Ditch the pvpers and df honestly has nothing going for it.

I was telling my friend the other day I'm kidna waiting for DnD to come out and he pretty much had nothing good to say about darkfall. "Everything feels pointless". Game has a junk gathering system. Junk runescape tier crafting. Low end pve. Bad graphics. Very unimerssive compared to the other sandboxes I've played.

Not really trying to trash the game but honestly darkfall is far past its time. Its going to take a lot to get all the pve'ers and traders and stuff to come play it without killing all the pvp and the entire core of darkfall. And even if you kill that the non pvpers will want to play the pve'ers will just go play something else anyway.

This is where you are very wrong, though the game will have its pvpers, it needs the non to survive in the long run. You wouldnt believe how many people would like a game like this even though they arent killers by nature, they just want a harsh world they can make a living in and all previous DFs only offered the harsh world but no means for the non pvper to make a living. With local banking and titles a whole spectrum of non pvp niches become available.

You have it all backwards, DFs have always died because they only catered to the pvpers, who will play as long as there are people to kill, ins the non pvpers that need to be catered to for the health of the game.

  • nubnax
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: shrink the game world
Reply #42
What are you trying to achieve here? Ub3rgames made their goals and path to them clear from the start.  many people, probably most, following DND are interested and intrigued by them

Now you come along almost 2 years after they got the license and claim Ub3rgames and all those believing in their vision are wrong because you and your friends think so.
Bala Eregi
SG of Bewahrer der Welten
SG of The Tausian Dominion

  • gosti
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: shrink the game world
Reply #43
If you develop the game only for pvpers once again it's gonna fail, once again.

Re: shrink the game world
Reply #44
Facepalm. Keep repeating guys how dnd GOALS are different, how ub3rgames WANTS to cater to different audience. Fucking yes men. Give me anything they've done that actually achieves that. And don't link me their quotes. Show me in game mechanics.

There is ZERO endgame content for nonpvp players. ZERO.

But to stay on the topic - world actually is too small for nonpvp players to have any chance. Even if someone will be that bored to play a game that offers him nothing in terms of endgame and only gives him a chance to provide for people that will participate in it (that mostly will have everything already and won't need his service), he will encounter pvp oriented players everywhere and lose every encounter. He will be unable to compete with them on any field.
  • Last Edit: October 11, 2017, 10:02:49 am by wildNothing