It depends what kind of situation you use them in. If it is a FPS, then there is no need for 50,000 people, but if you are simulating an online war, then having 50,000 ppl participating will be immense. In this situation it will come into its own, and will be a very real simulation of war. In real life there are a lot more than 50,000 ppl fighting in a war, and you never get to see them all do you? But is this a waste? Should wars be faught between 10 people, so you get to know who you are killing and fighting against? no, so why limit the number of online participants to just 10 when you can make it more realistic and have 50,000?

G Coates
-------------------------------------------


Software is like sex: better when its free!

K, I should probably keep quiet, but I can''t, it''s too good a topic. I''ve read through and tried to seperate the wheat from the chaff. I agree with a point that Wavinator made: he said that professional sports people get paid loads, I think too much. But also he said - "I''m very hard pressed to find many activities that __ANYONE__ engages in very meaningful (especially in the very long term, heh)." On a long enough time-line the survival rate for everyone is zero, and millions (nay, billions) of people live their live without doing a single thing considered ''worthwhile'' or ''meaningful'' to the restof the world. Basically, what I''m saying is that not everyone can be a mathematical genius, a great inventor or the scientist that finds the cure for the next epidemic. So, should the rest of us be told what to do by people who "know what''s best for us"? Not likely, the only person who knows what is best for you is yourself. Sometimes, you can lose sight of that, but I don''t think MMOGs are going to have *too* big an impact on the lives of John Doe. Analygous with this debate, simply swap the MMOGs with the Internet even 5 years ago. This *has* had a huge impact on people, just 6 months ago (in my country at least) the first web addresses were appended to tv ads for supermarkets, etc. Now, there are tv ads solely for websites. This seems mad but it is just part of evolution, without it we would start to reverse. We cannot dictate to people what is right and wrong for them, no one can. If we aren''t break-through scientists or mathematicians, we needn''t settle for being consumers, we could still do something worthy, just on a smaller scale. If this means being the guy in your (hyposthetical) MMOQuake Clan who got the deciding frag of the match then so be it. I say enjoy that fame while you can, don''t listen to the fascistic murmurings of those who mean to control you...

I rest...

quote: It depends what kind of situation you use them in. If it is a FPS, then there is no need for 50,000 people, but if you are simulating an online war, then having 50,000 ppl participating will be immense. In this situation it will come into its own, and will be a very real simulation of war. In real life there are a lot more than 50,000 ppl fighting in a war, and you never get to see them all do you? But is this a waste? Should wars be faught between 10 people, so you get to know who you are killing and fighting against? no, so why limit the number of online participants to just 10 when you can make it more realistic and have 50,000? - G Coates

- You still fail to give any reason, except that (you''re assuming) "more people = better".
- Another example: if you created a 50,000 player FPS (players against players), and dropped all the (armed) players into one large room where everybody is within range of everybody else''s weapons, what you will have is [one 50,000 player game] (50,000 players, all capable of immediately, directly influencing anyone else). What will happen is people will start shooting every direction, and most players will quickly be eliminated without any meaningful "play" involved. Who survives will be mostly chance. - Now let''s play the game again, except instead of dropping everybody into one big room, we''ll scatter them across a "country". Because they are scattered, there''s no practical way that you can "run into everybody at once" like in the room example. So you''ll be fighting other players just a few at a time. Technically this is NOT a 50,000 player "game". It''s a [series of games], each involving [only a few players]; it''s just that there''s 50,000 potential opponents at the start of the game.
- The only reason you''d need 50,000 players is if there was some situation where all the players could actively participate at once, and that''s what I am having trouble imagining.
- Lubb

I find it almost inspiring that Lubb sticks to his topic even when no one else does... ;-)

Online games provide several options:
1. They provide human opponents to play with or against.
2. They provide a community of players.

Whether any of these is important to you, is your decision. But there is no doubt that these options change the nature of the game.

I tend to enjoy playing against other people in games, even simple card or parlor games, than a computer opponent. I still play some single-player-only games, but not many, and never for long.

I also enjoy the community aspects of online games. Getting to know new people, not only for the social aspects, but because they teach/demonstrate new playing styles. Variety is cool.

In a massively multi-player RPG, such as EverQuest, more players makes the game world more varied, and often more dangerous. But even though there are around 2000 players logged into a single server at one time, most players only interact with about 5-20 other players. That''s their "playing group", and they don''t mingle much after a point. But even if they never meet them or interact with them, those hundreds and thousands of other people are still there, impacting the game and the culture of the surrounding community.

In a sense, asking if "more players == better game" is like asking if a larger population makes a better town or city. Some people will say "Definitely" and others will argue "No no no". And, of course, there will be hermits who point out that *any* additional population besides themselves is unwelcome and should just leave... ;-)

There is no Right Answer for Everyone, and there never will be. Create the games you want to create. If you don''t think you need massively multi-player to make your game good, don''t use it.

New technology and techniques provide more options for the game developer. But if you don''t think a particular option works for your game concept, you''d be a fool to use it, regardless of how "popular" it seems at the moment.

On the flipside, though, just because you don''t find a particular option useful doesn''t mean that it isn''t useful to anyone else. Whether you would play a game with that feature or not doesn''t really reflect on the universe at large. I don''t play FPS games, but that doesn''t mean I think no one should make FPS games. Taking that stance would make me look rather foolish in the light of Id''s and other developer''s successes.

So don''t be asking if *anyone* should create massively multi-player. That question is moot...people already have created and already are creating such games. And with respectable results. Instead, ask if *you* should create massively multi-player games. If you don''t think you should, don''t.


DavidRM
Samu Games

Lubb Quote: ". So you''ll be fighting other players just a few at a time. Technically this is NOT a 50,000 player "game". It''s a [series of games], each involving [only a few players]; it''s just that there''s 50,000 potential opponents at the start of the game."

Now if we add more interactive options to the [series of games] ie. the groups can add defensive buildings, blow up buildings use sheep as food resources? (The right balance between creation and destruction IS IMPORTANT). Then whenever as you put it, you come across a game, the interactions of the players in this war Game/Sim will have created a new, varied and interactive landscape which you may be able to add to or blow up...

This may only work if there are multiple solutions, ie. either creating or blowing up will work.

-So increase the game + landscape changing interactions that the small groups of players can make, allow them to create new items which bring new rules into play! To make a dynamic game ?

Whew. Just wanted to say thanks. Great thread. You all gave me lots to think about.

OK, say u got 50,000 players scattered across a country, split into 2 teams. You don''t need to see all the players to have them effect you. Say your in a skirmish somewhere, and a few of your team nearby fuck up and get slaughtered, then you have to deal with the guys who killed ''em moving on to try to take you out, as well as anyone else you wrere already fighting. So say you have 5,000 skirmishes of 10 people each. You win your particular encounter, but your team loses 4,500 of the other ones, as u can see, your fucked. Uncertanties like this are sorta exiting to some people, also its cool when u can check on the progress of the whole big war thing and see tour little part.

oops, double posted, how do u edit these things?

Why is it that people always feel the need to post an apologetic message after double posting, adding even more dead weight to the thread?
To delete a message: select "edit message", click the checkbox for "delete message", and press the "edit" button. That does the trick. And do not post "oops, sorry, double post" messages.


Now, I''ve stayed out of this for a while to see where it would go.
1. Lubb: Way to go, the only one still on the original topic, eheh.
2. Almost everyone else: You argue about freedom of choice as a player, blah blah blah. Yes, all nice and dandy. But this forum is not from a player''s standpoint. It''s from a developer''s standpoint. See the discussion with Dak - people have the right to ruin their own lives, however, are you willing to take responsibility if it turns out that the game YOU developed was intentionally geared to achieving effects like that?
My Philip Morris cigarettes example was not out-of-thin-air. This is a genuine concern for me. If I develop an online game that specifically encourages players to spend massive amounts of their time online to do well ( i.e., I try to create an addiction ), I may be held accountable afterwards. As a company manager, I would NOT want this to happen. I''m sure you can relate to that, considering the many millions in lawsuits facing Philip Morris. You can cry foul all you like, but it''s still happening, and will still be happening in the future. All the free-choice arguments you make will not impress the justice department. So cover your ass! That''s the point I''m trying to make;


Now, why have bizillions of players?
I can think of one reason: semi-randomness in reactions. You cannot predict a human being too well, and this adds great variety to a human opponent. You don''t even have to KNOW you''re facing a human opponent, as long as the human factor is there. Consider a community of thousands of players playing what is essentially a single-player online game. (Eg. Dragon Court, www.ffiends.com I believe ); You never interact directly with any other player through the game itself, except through message boards. Being offline does not reduce your chances of success, since you advance by yourself. However, you can send/receive items to and from other players, which adds some interesting "team play" - sharing unnecessary items with lower-level players etc. Sharing does not affect your own chances of success, unless you agree to trade items back and forth. A very simple system, with a BIG human factor, but no drive to be online all the time. I really like this system, because it combines the convenience of a single-player game with the richness of a multiplayer game.



People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~