SOE's Infantry server: Eol was like that, but it was awesome. Everyone knew everyone and its was a full out brawl between friends. It really does all depend on the game.
______________________________
What if Paul Revere was like the boy who cried wolf....?
Originally posted by Hazmal
What does he say when people ask what he did? "My mommy was irking me yo - I wanted to keep pwning nubs on my xbox, so I roughed her up with a hardshell. That is just how I roll."
The thread is about one single server having a cap of 100 players and here you come and talk about 1000+ players.
Don't drink and post, folks.
And yes, I like to talk to new people outside my guild, it's called socializing.
There is ofcourse a differeance between 100 players online at time. And there being a thousand or so accounts that exisit on the server and play with each other. IE: server caps aren't the total number of people on the server they're how many are online at the time.
While MMO generic you actually need people online to do stuff with them in a good mmoRPG you don't. If a player does something that affects the world everyone has to live with it even when they're not online that's still interaction.
So whats a good MMORPG to you?
EverQuest and EverQuest II?
So you don't need other people in those games to have the maximum amount of fun?
I would say that:
1. You are drunk.
2. You don't know what you are talking about.
3. See 1.
4. Why are you even interested in online game when it seems that you prefer to solo?
I really don't understand how this guy thinks and reasons.
And what he sais here: "server caps are not the total number of people on the server they're how many are online at the time."
Is he bonkers or it it me?
If you have a server cap of 100 and your game isn't complete garbage then this will be the maximum amount of players logged on at any given time.
Actually, I draw the line at 500, but 100 can work too.
The reason being that a cap of 100 can have a population between 500 and 2,000 players total. If your average player is on for two hours a day, then you have about 1,200 people in the community. You'd have to make the world mighty small or else no one would ever run into anyone else, but the actions of one or two people would make a much bigger difference than on a server with a 3,000 player cap.
This is actually a good idea for indie set ups since you could probably get $5 a month per player which would more than pay for the server and beer. Hell, for $500 a month you can lease a quad-core server and host a 1500 player cap. The economics of MMOs pay pretty big on low end surprisingly.
Most MUDs cap out at around 100 to 500 player per server and they have some of the best communities around. And because someone had to say it: It isn't the size, it's how you use it.
Actually, I draw the line at 500, but 100 can work too. The reason being that a cap of 100 can have a population between 500 and 2,000 players total. If your average player is on for two hours a day, then you have about 1,200 people in the community. You'd have to make the world mighty small or else no one would ever run into anyone else, but the actions of one or two people would make a much bigger difference than on a server with a 3,000 player cap. This is actually a good idea for indie set ups since you could probably get $5 a month per player which would more than pay for the server and beer. Hell, for $500 a month you can lease a quad-core server and host a 1500 player cap. The economics of MMOs pay pretty big on low end surprisingly. Most MUDs cap out at around 100 to 500 player per server and they have some of the best communities around. And because someone had to say it: It isn't the size, it's how you use it.
MUD:s have communities?
How does that work exactly when you only have text on the screen?
Ah I see, it's like a chatroom.
100 people in one chatroom... sorry I mean MUD, is probably enough.
With how people talk about wanting to be unique and be able to effect the game world having a lower pop cap would make it easier to do that. It would also make it easier to focus and organize the community on events and such.
You would have to make the world smaller, but that isn't a bad thing if there is good content and population density. Plus it would cut down on using travel time to pad the length of your game, which is a cheap tactic.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
Actually, I draw the line at 500, but 100 can work too. The reason being that a cap of 100 can have a population between 500 and 2,000 players total. If your average player is on for two hours a day, then you have about 1,200 people in the community. You'd have to make the world mighty small or else no one would ever run into anyone else, but the actions of one or two people would make a much bigger difference than on a server with a 3,000 player cap. This is actually a good idea for indie set ups since you could probably get $5 a month per player which would more than pay for the server and beer. Hell, for $500 a month you can lease a quad-core server and host a 1500 player cap. The economics of MMOs pay pretty big on low end surprisingly. Most MUDs cap out at around 100 to 500 player per server and they have some of the best communities around. And because someone had to say it: It isn't the size, it's how you use it.
MUD:s have communities?
How does that work exactly when you only have text on the screen?
Ah I see, it's like a chatroom.
100 people in one chatroom... sorry I mean MUD, is probably enough.
Little does Jefferson know that he's part of a community just by posting here What's this people forming a community without content, graphics, and quests... How is this possible obviously it shouldn't be but it is.
A community does not have to be a huge cluster-- of people who do stuff or nothing together. It just needs to be people that interact and eventually form rules unsaid or not.
_____________________________________
As for being bonkers you're just not understanding what a server cap and what interaction can easily be.
Server cap the number of people who can ACTIVELY play on the server NOT the number of people that do. Sure that server can support 100 some players and does but the number of people who actually play on it is actually quite a bit more(people need to sleep, have scheduling due to life, and not wanting to play so much). A factor of 10-20 makes sense in a lot of cases, You can count the number of people on all the WoW servers and compare it to the total subscribers, You can do the same for any other MMO that's public for that information as well.
Interaction can be "we group now" and the party goes of a nice bashing spree. But it can also fall into someone leaves a dozen half finished swords for their buddy to complete, someone does a quest that changes mob behaviors, or someone leaves a half finished summoning circle letting stuff out that shouldn't(causing problems and havoc for nieghbors). Interaction is litterally anything that affects other players NOT just "we group now".
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
Are there multiple servers that you can freely travel between? Makes me think of atitd, at least back when I played it. There was one "Server" but it was broken up into different player made cities that clustered around "chariot stops." You could use the chariot stops to teleport between the cities. You could, in theory, run between the cities manually, but it would literally take hours of real life time. So it felt a little like de facto multiple servers, with the ability to transfer between them. Since the cities were player-made, each was unique. I'm not sure, but there were rarely more than 100 people online in each of the cities.
Another possibility is advanced NPC AI. I imagine a world where the AI was good enough to be somewhat interesting, but still not interesting enough to completely rely on. So make a game world that has lots of AI NPCs suplamanted by "100" PCs. Maybe that would be good enough to be interesting, and have the advantage that the NPCs do the chump jobs while the PCs do the "interesting" things. This could make the world more plausible and maybe more living/breathing than a world of all adventurers.
Or maybe, have the NPCs scripted by players. Maybe, each player gets 10 characters. They can only play one at a time in avatar-mode, but they script the other 9 to act in the world automatically, 24-7. Since the NPCs are player made, they might very well be interesting, and it distributes the workload of scripting AIs from the developers to the players.
I wouldn't call a 100 server cap game an mmo. MASSIVE =/= 100 people playing, and, since it seems a number of people went a bit off topic I'll just follow suit, this would only work if you could move your character between servers freely, which, although this could give a better feeling of adventure, would mean that guilds and such would be very awkward. Not only this, but one of my favorite things in mmos is the ability to get a bunch of people (meaning 25+) together to go pvp or raid, which would be difficult with only 100 people online per server. Some people might like it, but IMO I don't think it would be very popular.
Short answer, no. Small = 10 - 50 Medium = 51 - 100 Large = 101 - 1000 Extra Large = 1001 - 5000 Massive = 5001 - 10000 Gigantic = 10001 - 50000 Whopper = 50001 - 100000 Global = 100001 - 1000000 So your game would be a MMORPG. But the M is for Medium. Ill also have a coke with fries.
LOL, you sir have won the thread
Playing: EVE Online Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2 KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
I would say No. 100 doesnt seem so massive to me. I remember way back in 1999 and 2000 where EQ had 2000+ active so i cant see 100 being massive nowdays.
I don't it's correct breaking up MMO(RP)G letter by letter. Just like "RPG", the two Ms belong together. So "Massively Multiplayer", not "Massive" and "Multiplayer" separately.
The definition of "Massively Multiplayer" is a matter of opinion, but with games generally going by 16, 32, 64, etc, on a field, I'd personally put the MMOG definition at 512+ players at the same time. Whether they should be able to all be in the same place and see each other is another matter of (unclear or lacking) definition.
100 people per server that are on-line and visible on my screen doing stuff would give me a feeling of an MMO
100 people (or even 10.000 people) spread over huge landmasses where i see only 1 or 2 people from time to time would certainly not give me an MMO feeling
for me its more a "player i notice while i play" number then some theoretical number of how many people can be logged in/ subscribed to a server
if your bored, visit my blog at: http://craylon.wordpress.com/ dealing with the look of mmos with the nvidia 3d vision glasses
For one, an MMO should have a persistent world. Guild Wars has a lot of people per server, but is considered a Competitive Online RPG, because it is all instanced outside the outposts. THis excludes the online shooters as well.
Two, an MMO should have more than a few hundred per server. Part of a good MMO is having a decent economy. THis relies, for the MOST part, on its players. If something affects the balance, or Holmes from China is raking in the gold, the devs step in. Otherwise, they leave it alone.
The whole point of an MMO is for people to escape to another social world, Usually fantasy, where they can meet old and new friends, and if they PvP, match their skills, anytime, against different people of unknown skill. You can't create that with NPC's. Those who don't like to play with others...well, that's what single player games are for. Get an f'ing 360 and play Gears, or go grab Oblivion.
Finally, go look up "massive" in the dictionary you obviously haven't opened in your lifetime, and try to justify 100, or even 500, people is considered a massive number. R...I...F
Comments
SOE's Infantry server: Eol was like that, but it was awesome. Everyone knew everyone and its was a full out brawl between friends. It really does all depend on the game.
______________________________
What if Paul Revere was like the boy who cried wolf....?
Originally posted by Hazmal
What does he say when people ask what he did? "My mommy was irking me yo - I wanted to keep pwning nubs on my xbox, so I roughed her up with a hardshell. That is just how I roll."
There is ofcourse a differeance between 100 players online at time. And there being a thousand or so accounts that exisit on the server and play with each other. IE: server caps aren't the total number of people on the server they're how many are online at the time.
While MMO generic you actually need people online to do stuff with them in a good mmoRPG you don't. If a player does something that affects the world everyone has to live with it even when they're not online that's still interaction.
So whats a good MMORPG to you?
EverQuest and EverQuest II?
So you don't need other people in those games to have the maximum amount of fun?
I would say that:
1. You are drunk.
2. You don't know what you are talking about.
3. See 1.
4. Why are you even interested in online game when it seems that you prefer to solo?
I really don't understand how this guy thinks and reasons.
And what he sais here: "server caps are not the total number of people on the server they're how many are online at the time."
Is he bonkers or it it me?
If you have a server cap of 100 and your game isn't complete garbage then this will be the maximum amount of players logged on at any given time.
Actually, I draw the line at 500, but 100 can work too.
The reason being that a cap of 100 can have a population between 500 and 2,000 players total. If your average player is on for two hours a day, then you have about 1,200 people in the community. You'd have to make the world mighty small or else no one would ever run into anyone else, but the actions of one or two people would make a much bigger difference than on a server with a 3,000 player cap.
This is actually a good idea for indie set ups since you could probably get $5 a month per player which would more than pay for the server and beer. Hell, for $500 a month you can lease a quad-core server and host a 1500 player cap. The economics of MMOs pay pretty big on low end surprisingly.
Most MUDs cap out at around 100 to 500 player per server and they have some of the best communities around. And because someone had to say it: It isn't the size, it's how you use it.
MUD:s have communities?
How does that work exactly when you only have text on the screen?
Ah I see, it's like a chatroom.
100 people in one chatroom... sorry I mean MUD, is probably enough.
Yes I would,
With how people talk about wanting to be unique and be able to effect the game world having a lower pop cap would make it easier to do that. It would also make it easier to focus and organize the community on events and such.
You would have to make the world smaller, but that isn't a bad thing if there is good content and population density. Plus it would cut down on using travel time to pad the length of your game, which is a cheap tactic.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
MUD:s have communities?
How does that work exactly when you only have text on the screen?
Ah I see, it's like a chatroom.
100 people in one chatroom... sorry I mean MUD, is probably enough.
Little does Jefferson know that he's part of a community just by posting here
What's this people forming a community without content, graphics, and quests... How is this possible obviously it shouldn't be but it is.
A community does not have to be a huge cluster-- of people who do stuff or nothing together. It just needs to be people that interact and eventually form rules unsaid or not.
_____________________________________
As for being bonkers you're just not understanding what a server cap and what interaction can easily be.
Server cap the number of people who can ACTIVELY play on the server NOT the number of people that do. Sure that server can support 100 some players and does but the number of people who actually play on it is actually quite a bit more(people need to sleep, have scheduling due to life, and not wanting to play so much). A factor of 10-20 makes sense in a lot of cases, You can count the number of people on all the WoW servers and compare it to the total subscribers, You can do the same for any other MMO that's public for that information as well.
Interaction can be "we group now" and the party goes of a nice bashing spree. But it can also fall into someone leaves a dozen half finished swords for their buddy to complete, someone does a quest that changes mob behaviors, or someone leaves a half finished summoning circle letting stuff out that shouldn't(causing problems and havoc for nieghbors). Interaction is litterally anything that affects other players NOT just "we group now".
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
well I guess that makes SWG not an MMO. Threre isn't a cap, but some servers have less than 100 people on. Hence the giant server mergers coming soon.
Are there multiple servers that you can freely travel between? Makes me think of atitd, at least back when I played it. There was one "Server" but it was broken up into different player made cities that clustered around "chariot stops." You could use the chariot stops to teleport between the cities. You could, in theory, run between the cities manually, but it would literally take hours of real life time. So it felt a little like de facto multiple servers, with the ability to transfer between them. Since the cities were player-made, each was unique. I'm not sure, but there were rarely more than 100 people online in each of the cities.
Another possibility is advanced NPC AI. I imagine a world where the AI was good enough to be somewhat interesting, but still not interesting enough to completely rely on. So make a game world that has lots of AI NPCs suplamanted by "100" PCs. Maybe that would be good enough to be interesting, and have the advantage that the NPCs do the chump jobs while the PCs do the "interesting" things. This could make the world more plausible and maybe more living/breathing than a world of all adventurers.
Or maybe, have the NPCs scripted by players. Maybe, each player gets 10 characters. They can only play one at a time in avatar-mode, but they script the other 9 to act in the world automatically, 24-7. Since the NPCs are player made, they might very well be interesting, and it distributes the workload of scripting AIs from the developers to the players.
I wouldn't call a 100 server cap game an mmo. MASSIVE =/= 100 people playing, and, since it seems a number of people went a bit off topic I'll just follow suit, this would only work if you could move your character between servers freely, which, although this could give a better feeling of adventure, would mean that guilds and such would be very awkward. Not only this, but one of my favorite things in mmos is the ability to get a bunch of people (meaning 25+) together to go pvp or raid, which would be difficult with only 100 people online per server. Some people might like it, but IMO I don't think it would be very popular.
Short answer, no.
Small = 10 - 50
Medium = 51 - 100
Large = 101 - 1000
Extra Large = 1001 - 5000
Massive = 5001 - 10000
Gigantic = 10001 - 50000
Whopper = 50001 - 100000
Global = 100001 - 1000000
So your game would be a MMORPG. But the M is for Medium.
Ill also have a coke with fries.
LOL, you sir have won the thread
Playing: EVE Online
Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online
Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2
KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
I would say No. 100 doesnt seem so massive to me. I remember way back in 1999 and 2000 where EQ had 2000+ active so i cant see 100 being massive nowdays.
I don't it's correct breaking up MMO(RP)G letter by letter. Just like "RPG", the two Ms belong together. So "Massively Multiplayer", not "Massive" and "Multiplayer" separately.
The definition of "Massively Multiplayer" is a matter of opinion, but with games generally going by 16, 32, 64, etc, on a field, I'd personally put the MMOG definition at 512+ players at the same time. Whether they should be able to all be in the same place and see each other is another matter of (unclear or lacking) definition.
for me it would depend on the game
100 people per server that are on-line and visible on my screen doing stuff would give me a feeling of an MMO
100 people (or even 10.000 people) spread over huge landmasses where i see only 1 or 2 people from time to time would certainly not give me an MMO feeling
for me its more a "player i notice while i play" number then some theoretical number of how many people can be logged in/ subscribed to a server
if your bored, visit my blog at:
http://craylon.wordpress.com/ dealing with the look of mmos with the nvidia 3d vision glasses
For one, an MMO should have a persistent world. Guild Wars has a lot of people per server, but is considered a Competitive Online RPG, because it is all instanced outside the outposts. THis excludes the online shooters as well.
Two, an MMO should have more than a few hundred per server. Part of a good MMO is having a decent economy. THis relies, for the MOST part, on its players. If something affects the balance, or Holmes from China is raking in the gold, the devs step in. Otherwise, they leave it alone.
The whole point of an MMO is for people to escape to another social world, Usually fantasy, where they can meet old and new friends, and if they PvP, match their skills, anytime, against different people of unknown skill. You can't create that with NPC's. Those who don't like to play with others...well, that's what single player games are for. Get an f'ing 360 and play Gears, or go grab Oblivion.
Finally, go look up "massive" in the dictionary you obviously haven't opened in your lifetime, and try to justify 100, or even 500, people is considered a massive number. R...I...F