Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Santovenia

How often will Campaigns start?

Recommended Posts

Well let's look hypethetically at some numbers. Purely estimate shot in the dark. 100,000 active players, 75% in campaigns, 1200 per campaign, 5 rings. That's 12.5 campaigns per ring. Looking at that, it could be very feasible to maintain several different campaign starts.

 

Heck even, 50,000 players, 50% in, 2000 per, 5 rings. is still 2.5 per ring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that the game would be structured where you'd have a few long term campaigns and a few short term campaigns to choose from at a given time. That would make the most sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well let's look hypethetically at some numbers. Purely estimate shot in the dark. 100,000 active players, 75% in campaigns, 1200 per campaign, 5 rings. That's 12.5 campaigns per ring. Looking at that, it could be very feasible to maintain several different campaign starts.

 

Heck even, 50,000 players, 50% in, 2000 per, 5 rings. is still 2.5 per ring.

 

At launch I would expect at least 200k players, considering that almost 20k backed the game. Anyway, while agreeing on the 3/1 ratio for campaign/EK players, I don't understand why the number of players per campaign should be 1200. Modern MMO servers can sustain almost 5k players concurrently.

 

Since they won't play at the same time, it will be likely that a single campaign can hold 25k to 50k players (best case, if their netcode is solid).

Also, almost half of the population will play on EU.

 

Hence, I wouldn't expect more than 2 campaigns per region and per easy rulesets, and only 1 per region for The Shadow and The Dregs.

And it makes sense, there's no point in winning a campaign if there are hundreds.

Edited by Fenris DDevil

y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Modern MMO servers can sustain almost 5k players concurrently.

 

"Can" and "should" are not always synonymous though. Bigger is not always better- it may turn out that the strategy, politics and drama of a 500-player campaign are a lot more interesting and fun than a 5000-player campaign. Or it may turn out to be that different people have different preferences, and ACE ends up offering a mixture of small and large campaigns.


Official "Bad Person" of Crowfall

"I think 1/3rd of my postcount is telling people that we aren't turning into a PvE / casual / broad audience game." -

Tully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well let's look hypethetically at some numbers. Purely estimate shot in the dark. 100,000 active players, 75% in campaigns, 1200 per campaign, 5 rings. That's 12.5 campaigns per ring. Looking at that, it could be very feasible to maintain several different campaign starts.

 

Heck even, 50,000 players, 50% in, 2000 per, 5 rings. is still 2.5 per ring.

 

With 1200 players per world, the campaigns would be ghost towns. People don't play 24 hours per day, most of them play only a couple. You can easily multiply that by three at least due to different time zones that exist in the US or Europe alone.

 

Cyrodiil for example can in theory hold 1800 (around 600 per faction afaik) and I suppose it to be relatively small compared to a Crowfall world. Of course, all just educated guessing here but I would assume for a campaign world to feel alive you would need more like 3k to 5k players online. In order to achieve that you need four to five times more players locked to that campaign. With your estimated numbers of 100k active players (I would have optimistically picked 200k which would be very alright for such a niche game after the initial peak) that gives us around five campaigns.

 

Again, just guessing as well. But assuming 1200 players locked to one campaign would be enough is a huge error.


"Kansas City Shuffle - When everybody looks right, you go left."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... it may turn out that the strategy, politics and drama of a 500-player campaign are a lot more interesting and fun than a 5000-player campaign.

 

I don't think so.

 

If ACE wants to bring SB/DF politics back, the more players their servers can sustain the better.


y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so.

 

If ACE wants to bring SB/DF politics back, the more players their servers can sustain the better.

Yeah, me neither. I think GW2's WvW was around that scale and large guilds had a hard time to get their all their players in. Some (I am not even saying Zerg) guilds have almost that manpower alone. Even the Cyrodiil size (I guess the 600 per faction was before they lowered the population cap) supports not more than a handful of guilds and mixed in with a couple of random players. No decent politics going on at that scope imho.

 

And again, my understanding is that the campaign worlds are more like a server or a shard in a regular MMO. It's not that you queue for them and pick some flowers in the meantime. When you're in, you're in. There have even been plans that you can't go back to your EK once you're locked to a campaign. So they gotta be somewhat huge.


"Kansas City Shuffle - When everybody looks right, you go left."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just throwing some numbers out to give an idea of how it could look. I haven't did much research on how many people can be on a server, i used ESO as a basis. Cyrodiil faction locks at 225 so 675 max per campaign. Now that is concurrent, you could essentially have unlimited people selecting a campaign, but that would create Q's and that's not good either. I just guessed.

 

I went with 100,000 to purposely keep it low. Just to show that even with a lower number of players there will be a possibility to have multiple campaigns going. Even with the super low number of 50,000 there was still enough to have more than one campaign. Now to have the right balance in number of campaigns and have them feel populated and run smooth that is where ACE will earn their money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And again, my understanding is that the campaign worlds are more like a server or a shard in a regular MMO. It's not that you queue for them and pick some flowers in the meantime. When you're in, you're in. There have even been plans that you can't go back to your EK once you're locked to a campaign. So they gotta be somewhat huge.

 

From the FAQ "These Campaigns aren’t just “instances”, though -- they are fully populated, continent-sized, seamless zone MMO servers with as many people as the server architecture will support."

 

That is up to interpretation, and we shall see what they come up with in terms of pop balance and world size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can think of numerous reasons. The big one is that the campaign should feel organic. It should be a competition between the players and groups that fought through Spring and Summer and made it to Winter. What should not happen is this.

 

Hated Guild "Bin Laden's Angels" takes an edge late in Fall/early winter and have an advantage. A bunch of people go to the message boards and say "Hey, Bin Laden's Angels are probably going to win this campaign. Everybody bring an alt in and lets knock them down."

 

With only days or a week or so to go, the campaign is flooded with an extra few hundred bodies to zerg and knock the leading guild down, just because they are unliked on the interwebs.

 

 

You could take it a step further. What if a particular campaign came down to the final day of Winter with 2 guilds/alliances neck and neck? Basically the next point (however they end up being determined) will win and there's going to be a final battle of sorts between them. 

 

Just like above, you can imagine how these types of situations will probably be determined and there's a good chance it won't be by which side is "better". It will be who can convince more people that haven't ever been on that campaign to bring an alt, or create a character and jump on, bolstering their numbers for this final battle. 

 

Once you decide that shouldn't be allowed for the final battle, you've decided that there should be a cutoff point. You just need to determine when that should be. I would personally probably just leave it open for spring and make sure, with staggered campaigns that there are always plenty of Spring options.

 

I see your point, and that probably will happen - but, as Freeze said, that's what politics is all about.

 

We don't really want to get move towards a place where the rules of the game get in the way of political manoeuvring.

 

Player freedom is absolutely key in these games, anything that isn't hacking or RL threats would be allowed. Look at Eve Online's epic stories. That can only happen because the devs have actually created a sandbox, given you the toys - then stepped back, and said 'Go play'.

 

Yes, it's a cheap thing to do and it will probably happen - but a guild that does something like that will make create a reputation, and people will start to gang up on them.

 

What goes around.

Edited by xaine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe there will be a campaign like the old wow vanilla alterac valley

 

The original Alterac Valley was amazing.  It's a shame it really didn't fit the 15-30 minute duration window Blizzard was looking for because it was gold.  I especially like timing it right so when the zerg reached our bridge we'd release the cavalry, get them back to mid and then release the big ass giant to push them back even further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, ESO had different population caps when I played it but they were lowered at least once. Anyway, this is all just guesswork. I am pretty sure that the guys at ACE don't even know the exact numbers yet. I am just saying that the mechanics they advertise almost demand that the map can hold closer to thousands than hundreds of players at once (they actually had "thousands" in an FAQ that I can't find at the moment because they restructured their site since the successful Kickstarter campaign). I mean in Shadowbane, it was more like what you usually get as your whole MMO world, not just a glorified battleground like Cyrodiil.

 

While the exact number is still TBD it's still nothing like ESO. You can't switch campaigns unless you completely lose your progress. You probably can't even go back to your EK. And you totally can't do a dungeon or some quests while you queue for your campaign because there are none. So no matter how much this "seamless MMO zone server" might be able to hold at once, there will be a multiple of players locked to it. If you compare any numbers to ESO you need to compare how many players have picked one campaign as their home.

 

So if you calculate 1200 (again, or whatever the real number may be) you need to consider that people don't play 24/7. Most of them don't even play every day. So the real number you want to consider is much higher and therefore your calculation is plain wrong. I fear that for a niche game like Crowfall a handful of campaigns will be enough to be well populated. Which then can turn out somewhat problematic because of the over supply of different rule sets and campaign modes.


"Kansas City Shuffle - When everybody looks right, you go left."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you calculate 1200 (again, or whatever the real number may be) you need to consider that people don't play 24/7. Most of them don't even play every day. So the real number you want to consider is much higher and therefore your calculation is plain wrong. I fear that for a niche game like Crowfall a handful of campaigns will be enough to be well populated. Which then can turn out somewhat problematic because of the over supply of different rule sets and campaign modes.

 

You are correct I didn't consider 24/7 i was basing it off of concurrent. Even if you bumped it up by a factor of 10, you would still have enough for at least 5 campaigns. and that is using the low ball 100,000 players. Then it all depends on the win conditions as to how long these campaigns will go, to see how fast new ones pop.

 

I do agree that they will have their work cut out for them to balance everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean it won't be a problem for me personally anyway. I'll go Dregs or Shadows depending on where my guild will be and I'll be there from the start. So campaign ends, I'll hop into the next. It's just... I think when you read their design goals it can sound like you have a multitude of campaigns to chose from at anytime and there will always new ones pop up. I highly doubt that will be the case. It wouldn't even surprise me if there aren't even enough players to support all the rings at all times a few months after launch. So if you're interested in only a particular rule set you could be disappointed.

 

But of course nothing is set in stone and I trust ACE that they will make good design decisions to tackle these problems if they occur.


"Kansas City Shuffle - When everybody looks right, you go left."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm

 

As far as I remember, each campaign is planned to be about a continent size of an MMO.

 

Not a full MMO world.

 

I think 50k sounds a bit much for that.


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm

 

As far as I remember, each campaign is planned to be about a continent size of an MMO.

 

Not a full MMO world.

 

I think 50k sounds a bit much for that.

 

I was using 50k as a hyperbolic example of total game size, i fully expect there to be a significantly greater number than that. Trying to show that even with that small a number of players there would still be choices in campaigns.

Edited by Rancalen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was using 50k as a hyperbolic example of total game size, i fully expect there to be a significantly greater number than that. Trying to show that even with that small a number of players there would still be choices in campaigns.

Don't think you were he one that said they expected 50k per campaign.


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fenris mentioned 25k-50k but not playing at the same time, being locked to that very campaign. Depending on what the map can hold simultaneously I can imagine this could be a realistic estimation of the total locked population.


"Kansas City Shuffle - When everybody looks right, you go left."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fenris mentioned 25k-50k but not playing at the same time, being locked to that very campaign. Depending on what the map can hold simultaneously I can imagine this could be a realistic estimation of the total locked population.

For a continent size chunk of a normal MMO?

 

Really?

 

We are not talking a full size MMO here.


 

This game looks like a larger scale version of marvel heroes so far with forts.  - nephiral marts 7 2015

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, really. As I wrote several times, people are not playing 24/7. Most of the players don't even play every day after the first weeks. People have different online times or are living in different time zones. Maybe this is a question an MMO developer or even better a producer can answer more accurately, but if you assume that a campaign world can hold 2.5k to 5k players to be considered healthy populated to full than a multiplier of ten seems reasonable to me.


"Kansas City Shuffle - When everybody looks right, you go left."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...