Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
How to prevent the early demise of any good MMORPG from inevitable early population decline?
Hardhit
Member
If you followed or participated in the launch of many reasonably well-anticipated MMOs in the past 8 years, you witnessed a rapid decline in population after the first few months.
While solo-play games are not normally impacted by such large population shifts, the impact on MMO servers of declining population can have catastrophic impacts on gameplay that can lead to a self-fulfilling cycle of desertion.
Although the ideal would be to have such a great game that nobody leaves, I feel that data supports the argument that the demographic mix of game-players is such today that inevitably masses of players will begin at launch and subsequently leave in the first few months regardless of the quality of the game.
Presuming that to be accurate, how then can an MMO like AOC be structured at the outset in a way to effectively mitigate the consequences on a game that is so dependent on having a large, active server population?
We've seen that server mergers and resets do not frequently provide favorable solutions as it is highly disruptive to economies, players, guilds and world balances.
Is there perhaps a way to develop a game like AOC such that "planned server mergers" creates a "phase-2" future opportunity? Something to be looked-forward-to rather than to be feared?
For example, if a game like AOC was to launch without Ocean travel and the world was divided into and East and West hemisphere, why not launch each on separate servers (with 8-10K server caps) and then merge the world when active respective populations hit certain metrics? Not only would this allow for a non-disruptive server population re-balancing (ie. no need to give up existing Nodes/freeholds/guilds/localized economies), but it would provide significant content to look forward to in 3-6 months.. new allies, new enemies, new territory to explore, dungeons to conquest, sea travel/warfare.
(oh, the controversy of suggesting no Ocean travel at launch...)
Thoughts? How would you solve this issue?
While solo-play games are not normally impacted by such large population shifts, the impact on MMO servers of declining population can have catastrophic impacts on gameplay that can lead to a self-fulfilling cycle of desertion.
Although the ideal would be to have such a great game that nobody leaves, I feel that data supports the argument that the demographic mix of game-players is such today that inevitably masses of players will begin at launch and subsequently leave in the first few months regardless of the quality of the game.
Presuming that to be accurate, how then can an MMO like AOC be structured at the outset in a way to effectively mitigate the consequences on a game that is so dependent on having a large, active server population?
We've seen that server mergers and resets do not frequently provide favorable solutions as it is highly disruptive to economies, players, guilds and world balances.
Is there perhaps a way to develop a game like AOC such that "planned server mergers" creates a "phase-2" future opportunity? Something to be looked-forward-to rather than to be feared?
For example, if a game like AOC was to launch without Ocean travel and the world was divided into and East and West hemisphere, why not launch each on separate servers (with 8-10K server caps) and then merge the world when active respective populations hit certain metrics? Not only would this allow for a non-disruptive server population re-balancing (ie. no need to give up existing Nodes/freeholds/guilds/localized economies), but it would provide significant content to look forward to in 3-6 months.. new allies, new enemies, new territory to explore, dungeons to conquest, sea travel/warfare.
(oh, the controversy of suggesting no Ocean travel at launch...)
Thoughts? How would you solve this issue?
0
Comments
also, a server merge wont stop people leaving. server merges are done when people leave. but anyways, lets say we do that, 2 continents. say you have 10 servers, 5 and 5 (east and west continents). what if 2 servers with east continents need to be merged? then now you have to wait for 2 with west. you will not always have a 1:1 ratio where a server with a west continent population declines at the same time as a server with the east continent.
also, what happens after the initial merge if you need a new merge? now you have 2 continents in the same server, then you gonna merge with another server who has both continents? or even one. that would still disrupt the things you want to avoid disrupting.
I think I'd 'empty' one server by 'migrating' entire Villages randomly into the 'empty spots' on other servers. Oversimplified, ofc.
I also like what Throne and Liberty has 'sorta-done', even if NCSoft 'did it' by accident.
By rolling out the features most appealing to any given demographic in specific subsequent updates, and then carefully timing the 'resurgence' style updates, they can maintain a certain amount of interest, but that's a sub-cost-optional game at the moment.
I don't think Ashes can do the same thing because its appealing functions are too integrated.
Maybe they should focus on the shipbuilding and release it as a Fishing and Open Seas pirate game FIRST and see where that goes, then add the main Castle mechanics, Freeholds, Story, and finalized Metropoli.
A ship is a kind of Freehold, right?
Actual implementation can certainly be Intrepid-defined and data-driven etc, but I think what needs to happen is setting out a real plan that puts players first. To accomplish that requires open dialogue and transparency - the same approach that Intrepid has tried to take throughout development.
Significant population decline post-launch can no longer be framed as a tail-risk contingency-type event but rather the base case scenario for planning. What should the mitigation plan look like for AOC?
My thought would be that the higher-than-usual server caps of 8-10K is sufficient to start to bring into play the Law of Large Numbers such that what happens on one server is likely representative to a similar degree of all servers. Given the size of the world map and the time that it takes to grow, I'm doubtful that server-specific nuances would be overly influential in player abandonment at that point. This assumption, if accurate, gives greater confidence in having a 1:1 ratio.
My premise was that the initial cliff in population is an unavoidable outcome and should therefore be planned for well in advance. If populations continue to decline post initial-merger, as you suggest, that is likely indicative of other issues that need to be addressed and you are right to say that this would be very disruptive. Hopefully, A2 will be an opportunity to eliminate/minimize as many game-related contributing causes to player dissatisfaction as possible.
well, population could grow a lot on an expansion, then decline after a while. maybe just a few servers gonna get merged a few times. sometimes population doesn't decline, it just shifts. people decide to play in a different server.
why plan only for the initial merge? presenting your problem is valid, I just don't think your proposed solution solves it.
A couple weeks ago @Jwscoot had a really cool idea on how Intrepid might tackle this while making it less of a punch in the face for the players and also maintaining the storyline. You might find it interesting:
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/59330/server-merge-solution/p1
I like the creativity behind the proposal but when I read it, I felt that it was more applicable to later stage server mergers because creating "winners" and "losers" early in a game where "victory" is mostly based on population/participation is not likely to go over very well...even with a clever backstory. Regardless, I think it deserves a lot of consideration so thank you for sharing.
That said, I feel that the inevitable initial population cliff requires separate consideration with the goal of negating disruption to existing nodes for anyone.
That's an award-worthy suggestion with how elegantly it provides such a thorough, lore-friendly solution for a clear threat to the game's success, and the fact that it got unitary positive feedback but died so quickly makes me think it deserves a bump for more feedback and recognition.
I'm not sure if that would be appreciated though, and I don't want to kill discussion here, so for now I'll just comment what I would add to that thread here:
I don't think the dev time you mentioned in your comment in the thread is a big issue at all. Or rather: The more dev time would be a concern, the more you scale down the scope of the implementation.
The system for caravans for that final migration will already exist. Housing layout blueprints to preserve customised freeholds will already exist. The lore quest you spin around it doesn't have to be fancy, if the resources aren't available for dying servers (though the players would obviously appreciate an epic quest.)
The biggest obstacle would be the data management of cleanly migrating the accounts and deciding which data should or should not get ported, but the devs will owe their customers at least that much diligence anyway.
Interesting current development on this issue:
Apparently, Community Manager Roshen has said on Discord that the team's preferred expectation is that they won't have to merge servers at all.
(Link to the Discord message context here. It's a fairly unexciting conversation about usernames.)
I don't really know I'm sure what that means. Like, how they plan to achieve that. Open up servers very slowly at launch, and manage later newer players by strongly enticing them to join less populated servers?
Yes, that's exactly what they want to do.
Even so, just how overcrowded do they want their servers to be at launch in order to deal with the inevitable loss of max population after the first year?
And I realise that not all servers need to remain at full capacity in order to have thriving communities, but the problem is just...what do you do with the inactive accounts on servers with low activity that don't allow for more players to join because their account capacity is full, so they don't break down when players come back when new stuff gets released, but also don't block new players from joining servers that will otherwise have dead activity? Do you just bet on a certain percentage of those accounts being effectively inactive and not account for them?
No, they'll address it by just increasing total server account capacity gradually. Might work. Might also lead to too many servers populated at launch. What happens to people's old server accounts once the limitations are lifted and everyone migrates to the servers they actually want to play on? Seems like the more diligent solution is still having a strong contingency plan for what to do with dead servers.
Considering how naively optimistic (read:short-sighted) that seems given everyone's experience in past MMOs (though I realise Intrepid aren't saying they have no other plans, just that it's their preferred scenario), and how simple and satisfying the solution offered in that thread would be, I would love to at least get the devs to consider it.
That being said, and making it correlate more directly to the question raised… if Intrepid plans ahead of time, as some have stated, for multiple levels of exodus (percentage levels) as well as boosts in players (expansions, natural ebb and flow) in the story FIRST, I believe we will have a higher chance of surviving an exodus. If we actually tie in large player number fluctuations into the lore in some way, then you have a launching pad for the tactical actions involved. i.e. The lore behind the nodes in the story led to developers taking certain actions (and literal mouse clicks in certain patterns) to make it "come alive". Without the story of the nodes, those actions would not have happened. If we can ensure the story is resilient to player numbers, then the granular activities of server mergers or nerfs become clearer.
The purpose is then there beyond accommodation of players leaving. It allows the developer to take back the "power" of the ex-player. (E.G. we lost 20% of players due to the natural falling away post launch, [—roleplay it—] a massive natural disaster caused multiple quakes in Verra and literally swallowed thousands of souls). That changes terrain, quests, and even player to player interaction quantity in the RPG.
We already know that things that we work for in Verra can literally be destroyed by another player or team (sieges). So in a way we have already accepted the loss potential. So a natural disaster (dice roll) taking something away shouldn’t cause any grief.
If Intrepid can plan ahead of launch (with road maps already planned out to execute actions) what to do if certain levels are reached, and even a secondary branch, I think we’ll be fine. (Secondary branch example: 25% of player loss due to age of game -> lore action occurs -> 20% of players increase as a result of lore change -> another lore action occurs that ties it in and makes sense).
This might sound like a very long explanation of how expansions to games work to try and retain players, but it’s more directly related to player numbers that are already visible than a projection of growth based on advertising.
Do I think it’s possible that Intrepid can have 10 scenarios ready to deploy to adjust for player levels? As well as each one of those 10 having 2 sub-scenarios based on player base level reaction? Yes. And if done correctly and maintained, you basically have a continuing development cycle for new content that runs parallel to the already established content delivery plan. Of course they might have to focus on making these two content development cycles work together. But in my experience a game that can offer new (and fast lore) than can RP player number levels would be as new as the siege mechanic.
-Aqua