(I didn't see anything similar to this while searching... so, please set me straight if it was missed)
Arguments can be made for all shapes and sizes of servers... Some like high pop some like low pop, etc. I think it would be cool to expose more advanced metrics to players on the server select screen. I'm not sure how "high pop" and "low pop", etc is evaluated which is precisely why it would be nice to have this.
We all have our preferences and expectations thats we want from our experience while online. This also in theory would help balance some of the difficulties with raiding without instancing, etc. If you want to poopsock mobs that no one else is poopsocking... pick a server that looks like it isn't being socked during the time you and your bearded caveman buddies play.
Take the following (simplified) server select screen :
Server X (PvE) : 400 total accounts, 1600 total characters, 25 average hours per account per week, characters in each level range 1-20 (800), 20-40 (400) 40-50 (400)
Server Y (PvE) : 1000 total accounts, 2400 total characters, 15 average hours per account per week, characters in each level range 1-20 (1500), 20-40 (500) 40-50 (400)
From there maybe then have the ability to hover over each one for a breakout and see that 300 of the 1000 accounts on Server Y basically don't play much... or 50% of the characters only see 2 hours of gameplay a week. Or be able to hover over the hours per week and see which levels, which times are hot, etc.
For example i'm in PST but I play primarily before work on weekdays. Virtually no one else in that time zones plays from 4-6am like me... but on the weekends I can make time to raid. So I would personally pick a server that has people with low-medium levels on in the morning but also has a decent end-game weekend server pop.
It sounds complicated but in reality I think some if not all of these metrics are already being gathered/reported on internally? If not I would argue there is value there as well for the devs as it would expose certain trends and help isolate what might be ideal population to content ratios on their servers. (also could be useful from a hardware/server health standpoint)
Just a thought. "High pop", "Low pop" means nothing to me.. also people don't really have borders and they play with friends. Don't really care about "us west" or "eu west" to make decisions off of. It would be nice to know from a statistic standpoint that I'm choosing to commit to something that might make sense for the long haul. Don't feel like spending time levling just to find out that I happen to be on the server where either no one plays or has incredibly competitive/overpopulated areas and targets during my prime time.
The only problem I see with this is that companies like to hide this sort of information from rivals because it gives them clear information on how the business is doing financially which might not be desirable. I agree it would be cool to see detailed statistics but I have a feeling that VR might want to keep that kind of detailed information secret. None of what you have suggested is difficult and as you have said they probably measure all of that internally anyway but I doubt they'd want to give that sort of information out to competing companies who are also making MMOs it might give them an advantage of some sort.
Cromulent said:The only problem I see with this is that companies like to hide this sort of information from rivals because it gives them clear information on how the business is doing financially which might not be desirable. I agree it would be cool to see detailed statistics but I have a feeling that VR might want to keep that kind of detailed information secret. None of what you have suggested is difficult and as you have said they probably measure all of that internally anyway but I doubt they'd want to give that sort of information out to competing companies who are also making MMOs it might give them an advantage of some sort.
Yeah I agree man. I understand a lot of that information is sensitive to some extent. Sure would be nice to get some insight into that stuff though. I feel like if a company really wanted that info they could gather it in a variety of ways. Especially server pop by time, etc. It doesn't feel like a trade secret to me.
i really like this idea.
many people just use the somewhat vague low/med/high when choosing, or what their friends are on.
but, using your example, the person who intends to play several hours a day would probably be better off on serverX as the average player plays more than the higher population serverY.
im all for as much information given before committing to a server, especially if leveling is slower, transfers are not a thing, etc etc.
Great post. Cool ideas. I want to see this data in a chart or graph. Here's the average server population by hour for the last 24 hours/1 week. Here's the mean/median level. A class count would be cool too.
I think one thing I'd ask is, why do players need access to such detailed information to begin with? The effort invested to collect these metrics might appeal to .01% of the playerbase who cares to look at them and/or allow them to inform their choices.
I can be down with simple information like predominant time zone on a given server and a very general population estimate, but getting into meticulous detail is kind of unnecessary and also unlikely to happen to do the aforementioned business practices.
Perhaps once trends have been established they could make a form available where you fill out your typical play times and they give you a recommended server? Letting you know if your class is over or under-represented might be helpful to those who aren't playing with friends
Liav said:I think one thing I'd ask is, why do players need access to such detailed information to begin with? The effort invested to collect these metrics might appeal to .01% of the playerbase who cares to look at them and/or allow them to inform their choices.
I think this is pretty far off base... the data wouldn't be super rich immediately but I think some of it could be incredibly useful.
You're saying that if people saw a set of servers and 4 out of 5 had little population for levels under 30 in a group-oriented game that they wouldn't choose the fifth server with a richer leveling experience? And better yet if those numbers were higher and say it was 15 out of 20 had low pop for low levels... then you could choose the best of the remaining 5 you'd like to level on (ones that also have higher population during your likely play-time)
I didn't invent using data to make good decisions. I'm just suggesting we do it everywhere else in our lives it might make sense to have a richer set of analytics for us to base this important decision off of.
That's kind of like saying only 0.1% of the population reads technical specs and online reviews also before committing to a purchase... :D
Of course, like I see on the TLP servers not named Phinegal, if people asking about server pop would just start a toon and play the game there wouldn't be any need to ask. (See about 4-8 requests a day and that's in limited time online) So just pick a server and play the game. Check the external forums for guilds who fit your style and times and reroll or transfer if need be. I'm all for more information being available to make your decision on. Although at some point to paraphrase something Kurt Russel's character in Executive Decision keeps hearing: "Just shut up and play the game".
Just trying to be progressive friendo. We're aiming for an old-style game with new features. Just seemed like some potential low hanging fruit which could be a cool 'thing that no one else is doing' to set this game aside even more. It's not valuable for a lot of people but it's still neat IMO.
I guess in the old days you would just hop on a server and take a look around. Use your five snsnces so to speak and see if you would like the community there. It's kind of like going to see a bad movie if you don't like get up and leave.
With alll the new data models and putting it out there does create some issues for VR. I know the companie I work for keep most of that close to the chest and release very little. There are way to many copy cat groups out there that will try to leapfrog. I also wonder if that sort of thing is too much information. I am there to play the game not analyze it. I do understand some folks are short on time and would like to see some info before blindly jumping on servers. I guess I am in the keep it light camp.
Ox
I think this is where that (optional?) questionairre could be put to better use. Where they want people to answer questions to "aide in creating lasting relationships" etc.
While I don't know if I'd have the patience to fill out this form when presented as a speedbump at release (It'd be awesome to be given these forms the week before release just to streamline loading in, eh em ;) ..or while the game is being installed? ) I would think some very useful previously mentioned questions could be used.
primary play time to align with other players, again, dunno how i'd feel with being "suggested" a person to contact etc, I'd be more for allowing it to occur naturally.
preferred class(es) so a server lacking that class might be suggested.
whether you like the idea of having mentors for the level range of #-##
To this day I don't understand why EQ pulled showing actual server population. I would absolutely be thrilled if Brad could explain, in business terms, why seeing the population is bad.
Let's say business is going bad and the numbers are dwindling, not showing the number isn't going to prevent that from continuing if it's already happening. Even the almighty WoW has dwindling numbers that cannot be stopped and they don't show their numbers.
There's also the excuse that your competitor see's you have 20 severs with 1,000 people per server. How does that impact a business? It's not like they can put you out of business any faster because they know your population.
The only thing I can think of for hiding is that if players see numbers going down, that may make the decline faster than it normally would if everything thinks the game is going downhill. But even then, if populations are normally always medium or high and now they are low or medium ... you still know population is declining. By not showing the specific number, and only a high medium low, that gives the developers room to adjust the watermarks for the numbers. At launch High may be 2,000 but after the game dwindles, High may be adjusted to 1,500 giving the appearance of fully populated servers.
I think showing server population runs the risk of creating imbalance between the servers. In a group-based game, having enough population to play with is critical for your enjoyment of the title. Low pop servers often make it difficult to get groups or specific classes you need (ahem, healer) to progress. There is less commerce and a smaller economy as well. If you come with a premade group or are moving a guild, a low pop server might be a benefit, but for most it's a drawback.
My gut tells me that pulling back the curtain too much can lead to the playerbase flooding a few servers and rejecting the rest. No one wants to LFG for hours on end, so this makes sense to me. However, there is the inverse of this, where too many people could mean there are no available exp spots. To me personally, I'd rather have too many people than not enough for a group based game, and rely on making a good reputation for myself as a solid player in order to stand above the crowd.
To prevent server imbalance, I don't think they should show server levels at all, but rather use two metrics: "OPEN" and "FULL"
The problem is the ripple/domino effect. If people see the population numbers going down, they worry about investing time in the game-world and are more likely to leave sooner themselves.
If they feel its going to become a ghost town, they don't want to be the last one out, all alone. If people see people leaving a social game, they will leave. So, any downturn in populaiton CAUSES more people to leave. It's like The China Syndrome (the movie for those of you to young to remember it).
I think you may be looking at Pantheon in the wrong way... this game is going to be so enthralling and story telling, that anything "server'ish" thinking will be far from your vocabulary.
This is MMORPG 2.0..!
You will be CREATING a Character and having a role in a high fantasy story world. It will cost to be an actor in this world & while attempting to stake out your fantasy. That cost means stability for all and an endless universe of content & story.
What if each server can hold 20k, with about 15k simultaneously...? With enough content to dwarf the antfarm. Imagine meeting guilds deep within a dungeon, that you have never seen, or heard before... and they all have cloaks and capes with some really kewl isignias, that glitting in the dark... and you have new friends and stories..!
Brad is has learned and is choosing to build outwards the world of Terminus, before he builds it upwards & vertical.
I think with an extra year of development would enrichen Pantheon to the point of epic desire. The amount of quality content that can be layed down before release (fall 2018) would leave pnthcrack heads in the unemployment lines and divorce court all over again. The sheer size that ONE ZONE can be in Terminus is ridiculous. Imagine an entire forest the size of OOT, that instead of swimming or levitating across to travel and where you can see things for miles... but a mssive and acient forest with tree that stretch up to the clouds... endless.
The simple idea that you will have crowding on a "server" is pointless.
When a new online game is released, the first few month will always have volitile server populations, as people and guilds switch servers, or to meet up with friends & family, etc. Pantheon, being newly released, will have people who are playing longer hours and starting all at the same points. The "starting areas" can be designed differently than in EQ, and more organically like in Vanguard.
You can have many areas to fuel the antfarm, that has zero to with total population, but more about loading a zone, etc.
I think larger servers are better for the players and the developers. if: 100k patrons upon release.
10k per server means 10 servers upon release. And if you have fluxuations on population, and 3k leave game or can log in.. that 3k has a big influx and a larger % on smaller server vs a larger one. Also, smaller server tend to die faster and have to merge.
20k per server means 5 servers upon release, ie. Less is more. More guilds, more people more time zones, more everything.
It is essentially just comed down to how Visionary Realms decide (logistically & financially) how they want to set up their server farm. Afterwards, the game servers should have a traditional RPG release, & scheduled server roll outs. With perhaps the Devs opening new accounts, only when new server are announced.
And for those who don't get in upon release, might have to wait their turn to buy in... and make no mistake there will be people clawing at VRi's doors to give them their $100..