If the game pushes everyone away into the NEXT zone it doesn't matter if there is 500 million players,the noob zones instantly become ghost towns.That has been the design in almost every game,quest to end game then form pugs for instances.
So the MAIN GAME,requires nobody else but yourself,so players get used to that.End game requires players but with random pugs and mechanics to form random groups it again doesn't really matter as long as you have a few hundred,groups will happen.
Devs stab themselves in the foot by pushing a fast pace to end game because nobody will care about the game after a month or two,only those that stick around for end game.Your game design SHOULD entice NEW players no not by offering instant max level characters ,,,grrr Blizzard dumb asses.
I find it hard to believe that devs are really that dumb,cannot see their weak design will not attract new players.So my belief is they don't care to create a game of longevity,they are only in it for the very fast instant buck.If somehow they get lucky to keep players around,,they just give them a map or two a few new levels and maybe one other tidbit to keep them coming back.
The other baffling part that ruins every game design is the SPEED leveling.If NONE of the levels hold any value,why bother to play aside from gaining a level number?This enforces the "finish it"type game design that is why every game fails after the majority "finish it".another point is that players DO LOVE LOOT,however when levels go by so fat,NONE of that loot matters,only end game matters.
All in all VERY bad game designers out there,like real bad.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
yeah actually a play a underpopulated game but i play it because is fun not because there are million playing , hell in some games with just a few players u have enough to do everything the games has to offer.
If the game pushes everyone away into the NEXT zone it doesn't matter if there is 500 million players,the noob zones instantly become ghost towns.That has been the design in almost every game,quest to end game then form pugs for instances.
So the MAIN GAME,requires nobody else but yourself,so players get used to that.End game requires players but with random pugs and mechanics to form random groups it again doesn't really matter as long as you have a few hundred,groups will happen.
Devs stab themselves in the foot by pushing a fast pace to end game because nobody will care about the game after a month or two,only those that stick around for end game.Your game design SHOULD entice NEW players no not by offering instant max level characters ,,,grrr Blizzard dumb asses.
I find it hard to believe that devs are really that dumb,cannot see their weak design will not attract new players.So my belief is they don't care to create a game of longevity,they are only in it for the very fast instant buck.If somehow they get lucky to keep players around,,they just give them a map or two a few new levels and maybe one other tidbit to keep them coming back.
The other baffling part that ruins every game design is the SPEED leveling.If NONE of the levels hold any value,why bother to play aside from gaining a level number?This enforces the "finish it"type game design that is why every game fails after the majority "finish it".another point is that players DO LOVE LOOT,however when levels go by so fat,NONE of that loot matters,only end game matters.
All in all VERY bad game designers out there,like real bad.
The problem is the game design blah blah blah...yada, yada yada
I rest my case.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
For me, it depends entirely on the game and its design. It has to be actually possible to level solo. If its not, I leave. Primarily, it has to be fun. If the quests are fun, (please spare me from 'go kill 6 boars '); good lore, or crafting; if the artistic style is personally pleasing; and (big factor for me) it does not play shopping mall music at me; than I definitely can, and have played low pop servers. Sometimes its preferable. If you're competing for a limited resource or a rare mob it's just plain nice. I can remember lining up in the first week of Archeage to kill quest mobs... Standing in line - in a game - to kill the mob, to finish a quest; was definitely NOT fun for me.
I really don't need to watch the trolls being fed, hear chuck Norris jokes (remember those), who did what to your mom, or listen to poverty stricken players complain that the P2W cash shop is 'EEEEVIL!!!' to have fun. (honesty requires me to confess, I do occasionally enjoy watching the trolls feed) The crowds can be fun, but I generally prefer to play during the off hours where having a few adults conversing about something besides sex, drugs, or liquor; or finding a few mature players who are willing to help each other is far more enjoyable than dealing with the whining mob.
There are a lot of MMOs out there now, but not all of them have the kind of player base that Azeroth, Tyria, or Norrath have. Some games, try as they might, just don't attract a lot of people. The quest for today: would you or do you play one of those games?
Today's question is brought to you by new MMORPG video maker Jewel Daab's my own misadventures into Carbine's WildStar. It's no secret that WildStar's having a rough go of things right now with dwindling sales and low populations (stay tuned later today for our own look at the earnings report). But what surprised both Jewel and I was just how few people seem to be playing the game these days.
Dungeons, PVP, and other group content just doesn't pop unless you're at the level cap which makes for a lonely and sometimes boring leveling process. The lack of players makes it absolutely clear that an empty server or an overall empty MMO just isn't a very fun experience.
So I ask you... do you play a game with a low population? Would you or wouldn't you? How much does a lively world matter to you?
I have in the past more than a few times. If I like a game, I will play it, plain and simple. Two games I really liked years ago, Troy and Mytheon, both had low populations but I really liked both of them. Sadly they both shutdown when I was playing them. I think its sad when games have potential but they are never realized due to low populations.
There are a lot of MMOs out there now, but not all of them have the kind of player base that Azeroth, Tyria, or Norrath have. Some games, try as they might, just don't attract a lot of people. The quest for today: would you or do you play one of those games?
Today's question is brought to you by new MMORPG video maker Jewel Daab's my own misadventures into Carbine's WildStar. It's no secret that WildStar's having a rough go of things right now with dwindling sales and low populations (stay tuned later today for our own look at the earnings report). But what surprised both Jewel and I was just how few people seem to be playing the game these days.
Dungeons, PVP, and other group content just doesn't pop unless you're at the level cap which makes for a lonely and sometimes boring leveling process. The lack of players makes it absolutely clear that an empty server or an overall empty MMO just isn't a very fun experience.
So I ask you... do you play a game with a low population? Would you or wouldn't you? How much does a lively world matter to you?
I have in the past more than a few times. If I like a game, I will play it, plain and simple. Two games I really liked years ago, Troy and Mytheon, both had low populations but I really liked both of them. Sadly they both shutdown when I was playing them. I think its sad when games have potential but they are never realized due to low populations.
I agree.
And using the excuse that the pop is low as a reason not to play just makes it doubly sad! What a shallow excuse!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
As others have said, depends on what you call low population and on the type of game.
In a open world PVP environment, I prefer smaller populations as they make it easier to level up if there isn't a ganker behind every corner.
Back a year or so ago, I was playing on a DAOC freeshard that averaged about 500 players when I was online, way under the much larger numbers of 1800 or so when I played on MLF or the 1000 or so that were on Mordred back in the early days.
I found the population to more than sufficient, true, never really had battles much larger than 100 on 100 on a good day, and most were far smaller, but I really enjoyed playing there and hope to return to it one day.
That said, in a more PVE oriented game, being the only person in a zone questing or grinding solo can be a soul wilting experience, so no, I can't say I care for that sort of gameplay, I like to at least see some folks around, and even group with them if game mechanics make it practical.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Considering Camelot Unchained is going to be a low pop game - Yes. I'm not expecting massive numbers for such a niche game, but that's completely fine for me, if the players are worth staying around for. I have a hunch that it'll be worth it, but we'll see in 2016.
Comments
The problem is the game design.
If the game pushes everyone away into the NEXT zone it doesn't matter if there is 500 million players,the noob zones instantly become ghost towns.That has been the design in almost every game,quest to end game then form pugs for instances.
So the MAIN GAME,requires nobody else but yourself,so players get used to that.End game requires players but with random pugs and mechanics to form random groups it again doesn't really matter as long as you have a few hundred,groups will happen.
Devs stab themselves in the foot by pushing a fast pace to end game because nobody will care about the game after a month or two,only those that stick around for end game.Your game design SHOULD entice NEW players no not by offering instant max level characters ,,,grrr Blizzard dumb asses.
I find it hard to believe that devs are really that dumb,cannot see their weak design will not attract new players.So my belief is they don't care to create a game of longevity,they are only in it for the very fast instant buck.If somehow they get lucky to keep players around,,they just give them a map or two a few new levels and maybe one other tidbit to keep them coming back.
The other baffling part that ruins every game design is the SPEED leveling.If NONE of the levels hold any value,why bother to play aside from gaining a level number?This enforces the "finish it"type game design that is why every game fails after the majority "finish it".another point is that players DO LOVE LOOT,however when levels go by so fat,NONE of that loot matters,only end game matters.
All in all VERY bad game designers out there,like real bad.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
My favorite dumbass question!
Are you playing for the game or the population??
The population is always the same, high or low. Its the game that is different.
Oh!! the population is low, I guess I won't play. Gee I wonder why the pop is low??
Almost as stupid as the every F2P game sucks or has no retention argument. Just more proof that the problem with the MMO genre is not the games.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
The problem is the game design blah blah blah...yada, yada yada
I rest my case.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
A long time ago i played a MMO with a VERY low population, so much it was a challenge to find another player. ("issues" can become "challenges")
In this situation, every encounter can be precious, and when you're forced to really know the people you play with, it's a good start for a community.
So, yes, i'd play a low population game, but i wouldn't pay a subscription for a solo (or MSO) game.
For me, it depends entirely on the game and its design. It has to be actually possible to level solo. If its not, I leave. Primarily, it has to be fun. If the quests are fun, (please spare me from 'go kill 6 boars '); good lore, or crafting; if the artistic style is personally pleasing; and (big factor for me) it does not play shopping mall music at me; than I definitely can, and have played low pop servers. Sometimes its preferable. If you're competing for a limited resource or a rare mob it's just plain nice. I can remember lining up in the first week of Archeage to kill quest mobs... Standing in line - in a game - to kill the mob, to finish a quest; was definitely NOT fun for me.
I really don't need to watch the trolls being fed, hear chuck Norris jokes (remember those), who did what to your mom, or listen to poverty stricken players complain that the P2W cash shop is 'EEEEVIL!!!' to have fun. (honesty requires me to confess, I do occasionally enjoy watching the trolls feed) The crowds can be fun, but I generally prefer to play during the off hours where having a few adults conversing about something besides sex, drugs, or liquor; or finding a few mature players who are willing to help each other is far more enjoyable than dealing with the whining mob.
I have a life, its just different from yours.....
I still sub to Anarchy Online once in awhile. Does that count?
I have in the past more than a few times. If I like a game, I will play it, plain and simple. Two games I really liked years ago, Troy and Mytheon, both had low populations but I really liked both of them. Sadly they both shutdown when I was playing them. I think its sad when games have potential but they are never realized due to low populations.
I agree.
And using the excuse that the pop is low as a reason not to play just makes it doubly sad! What a shallow excuse!
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
As others have said, depends on what you call low population and on the type of game.
In a open world PVP environment, I prefer smaller populations as they make it easier to level up if there isn't a ganker behind every corner.
Back a year or so ago, I was playing on a DAOC freeshard that averaged about 500 players when I was online, way under the much larger numbers of 1800 or so when I played on MLF or the 1000 or so that were on Mordred back in the early days.
I found the population to more than sufficient, true, never really had battles much larger than 100 on 100 on a good day, and most were far smaller, but I really enjoyed playing there and hope to return to it one day.
That said, in a more PVE oriented game, being the only person in a zone questing or grinding solo can be a soul wilting experience, so no, I can't say I care for that sort of gameplay, I like to at least see some folks around, and even group with them if game mechanics make it practical.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon