Topic: Great server! Great Game! Where're all the players?

[Pojo92]

I gotta say that in my short tenure as a D2 player this server (AOTK2) has been the most fun.  Alot of fun PvP and some great strategic struggles on the various borders.  Got fully up on voice comms (VT) for the first time, met some new folks with whom I had not previously interacted and, all in all, had a great time.  Died probably more than my fair share but also had my fair share of victories as my skills continue to improve.   All my fellow coalition flyers were great, and practically all my opponents (both Alliance and Kitties) exhibited the highest levels of skill and sportsmanship.  I did want to give special thanks to Dib for being a great mentor and letting me wing with him on several occasions (his tactical advice and flying tips were invaluable) and to Dizzy for not gloating too much the several times he killed me--it got to the point I was considering my multiple escapes from him late in the server as "victories" of sorts.  Still living for the day when I can feed him his second rock!

This is a GREAT game.  One thing that continues to puzzle me about this game is:  Where are all the players?   ??? There seemed to be a pretty good turnout this time in comparison to other servers this year, but, by my estimation, there seem to be only maybe around 50-60 total players on the server.  I would think that with quality of the game, the number of trekkies and gamers out there,  and with the obvious effort that goes into running the Dynaverse and its servers, that there would be alot more interest in playing this game, and many more, like in the hundreds, players.  Is this game just considered dated?  Its not like there are any newer competing Star Trek platforms of this type (SFB-type games), and to me (although I admittedly am not a hard core gamer nymore) the game seems like a great one.  For the type of game this is (basically a combat flight simulator and a real-timne computerization of SFB depending on how you look at it) I can't see how the game could really be improved other than by possibly better graphics (and its not like the graphics are wanting in the game--they're pretty darn impressive IMO).  Is the periodic instability of the D2 an issue for some people?  Again, I have limited experience with what the state of the art is now in online gaming.  Are there alot of people playing on GameSpy or in other locales?  Again, I have not really done any GameSpy-ing, so I wouldn't know.

It just seems to me that unless there were some newer/more exciting iteration of SFB somewhere, that this game should be drawing more participation than it is.

Anyway, I will continue to play, as time allows, as long as the opportunity exists!

Can't wait for the next server.

[Grim]

A variety of reasons have reduced the playerbase in comparison to the past, such as the game getting older and people moving onto newer games such as EVE, imbalances and bugs in the past drove some players off, bickering and arguments also drove some people off.

There is no sole reason why the playerbase has declined.

From a personal standpoint I couldn't play AOTK2 due to a technical issue,that i did post asking for assistance but noone had the solution to fixing it.

[Bonk]

There is no reason we cannot rebuild a larger playerbase. People have come back and newcomers still trickle in. I think the dedication of the hardcore fans will eventually prove fruitful. We are so very close to getting what we wanted out of the D2 all along, that if we are succesful, numbers will increase. "Build it and they will come..." 

[Mog]

Is that right, Bonk? Is the server kit almost ready to handle "hordes of players online" at the same time? I seriously doubt it.

[Bonk]

Is that right, Bonk? Is the server kit almost ready to handle "hordes of players online" at the same time? I seriously doubt it.

No, we are not doing a total re-write, making a smart client (we dont have the client source) and dumb database server cluster arrangement like Eve, correct. The SFC server-client architecture is just not built for tens of thousands of players.

I'm referring to controllable shipyards and the like. However, with some of the recent fixes, stable servers with upwards of 64 players or more might become a reality. We just need the players to be available for testing and to be positive and persistent.

(Don't rain on my parade man...  )

Edit: currently the number of players on D2 servers is not limited by the kit, but by the number of players willing to playtest. Have you logged onto the SQL Build38 "The Forge"? (I still need to work on the map a bit before its ready to go straight through though - should be done today...) Who knows, it might be able to handle 128 players... we'll never know unless you logon...

[KBF-Angel Slayer]

I can't seem to get on and stay on in a PvP match.  Keep dropping.  Nothing wrong with the server, it is my cable connection.  Doesn't stay steady, so I am off until I can stay on consistently.  Nothing as annoying as having someone really kicking my teeth out and then having them and me split on the engagement.  I don't care for that.

[Mog]

I remember either Erik or Jinxx saying, when asked how mnay players could play on d2, that we'd never notice a player limit. You mean, they lied? I'm flabbergasted.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic (not to you, but because of the fact that I simply got fed up of waiting on the "Holy Grail" of SQL and all that it could fix and do).

No, I haven't tried the test server. I think I've beta-tested this game enough already.

[likkerpig]

I remember either Erik or Jinxx saying, when asked how mnay players could play on d2, that we'd never notice a player limit. You mean, they lied? I'm flabbergasted.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic (not to you, but because of the fact that I simply got fed up of waiting on the "Holy Grail" of SQL and all that it could fix and do).

No, I haven't tried the test server. I think I've beta-tested this game enough already.

CRANKY ENGLISHMAN ALERT!

Nurse, bottle of stout and a football game on the telly STAT!


(sorry, couldn't resist...)

[Bonk]

No, I haven't tried the test server. I think I've beta-tested this game enough already.

Fair enough, but please try not to be a "negative nellie". We are making progress, if you are not interested in seeing it, then just leave us be.

That kind of posting will certainly not help us get the necessary test numbers. A self fulfilling prophecy of sorts...

[OlBuzzard]

Some of us have moved on to other aspects of the game.  I do more modeling than anything else.  And I have another major project that encompasses all of Trek ... not just games ...  that's in the works.   For me time is often an issue as well.

Will I ever return to SFC-2 ..  that depends on how desperate the D-2 is for comic relief.

 

[el-Karnak]

Gaming is now in the new age of pay-for-play servers. The idea is that you pay a monthly subscription to finance developers to improve the game product on a perpetual basis.  SWG and EVE are a couple of examples of this practice.

SFC family games are the stand-alone pay once, patch a couple times and then that's it for developer support of the game.  Anything else is subject to the vagaries of volunteer help. Plus, whatever open source code you can get a hold of. A pretty chaotic process at best.

Basically, it comes done to the fundamental rules of business:  you get what you pay for.

You want active F/T developers, backed by years of commercial game development experience, to work on your game to make it be all it can be?  Then you need to looking for perpetual games and start paying a monthly fee.  If you don't want to pay then you can't complain.

SWG just sold 1 million copies and has a few hundred thousand monthly subscribers.  If SFC ever did that then Taldren would still be developing this game and GAW would have been done years ago and the SQL server kit would have been on it's tenth robust version release by now. But, to substantially rebuild the SFC playerbase to where it was in 2003 under the current volunteer help conditions is not very realistic.  Without the current volunteer help, the game's playerbase would probably cease to exist, so it's more in survivalist mode. Nowadays, most online gaming players will and do prefer to go for pay-for-play games cuz the product is more robust and has more content and is basically a better game. It better be if you are paying a monthly fee.

We'll see if Star Trek Online can do the same as SWG. Although, it won't have SFC stuff cuz it's set  20 years in the future relative to the movie Nemesis.

[FPF-DieHard]

I'd be happy with 30-40 on during weeknights.

[Hexx]

I'd be happy with 30-40 on during weeknights.

Do we even get that on weekends? (was away for a large chunk of AOTK2)

Anyone else remember the days when you had to keep hitting refresh and hoping someone dropped to get onto a server?

[Pojo92]

SWG just sold 1 million copies and has a few hundred thousand monthly subscribers.  If SFC ever did that then Taldren would still be developing this game and GAW would have been done years ago and the SQL server kit would have been on it's tenth robust version release by now. But, to substantially rebuild the SFC playerbase to where it was in 2003 under the current volunteer help conditions is not very realistic. Most player will and do prefer to go for pay-for-play games cuz the product is more robust and has more content and is basically a better game. It better be if you are paying a monthly fee.

We'll see if Star Trek Online can do the same as SWG. Although, it won't have SFC stuff cuz it's set  20 years in the future relative to the movie Nemesis.

Hmmm.  That's understandable.  So is there no possibility that sort of model could ever be used for a SFB/SFC game or is the market for such perceived to be too small (Trekkies and SFB-ers) to make it worthwhile?  I understand that the current SFC/OP platform would not support such a model, but I guess what I am asking is whether or not there is any chance that another developer might take up the SFB banner in the future to craft such an online game as you describe?

[FPF-DieHard]

I'd be happy with 30-40 on during weeknights.

Do we even get that on weekends? (was away for a large chunk of AOTK2)

Anyone else remember the days when you had to keep hitting refresh and hoping someone dropped to get onto a server?

First night of AOTK2 we had 25 on at 2 AM EDT

[FPF-DieHard]

Hmmm.  That's understandable.  So is there no possibility that sort of model could ever be used for a SFB/SFC game or is the market for such perceived to be too small (Trekkies and SFB-ers) to make it worthwhile?  I understand that the current SFC/OP platform would not support such a model, but I guess what I am asking is whether or not there is any chance that another developer might take up the SFB banner in the future to craft such an online game as you describe?

I wish, the Eve setup with SFB combat and ships would be perfect.

Yes, a lot more can be done with SFC.   I'll let Bonk, TG and the other scripters/DBAs explain in detail.

[Hexx]

One could all but guarantee you'll never see a SFB/SFC game in any kinda of p2p setting.
There are too many licenses involved with far too small a perceived player base.

[Bonk]

Gaming is now in the new age of pay-for-play servers. The idea is that you pay a monthly subscription to finance developers to improve the game product on a perpetual basis.  SWG and EVE are a couple of examples of this practice.

SFC family games are the stand-alone pay once, patch a couple times and then that's it for developer support of the game.  Anything else is subject to the vagaries of volunteer help. Plus, whatever open source code you can get a hold of. A pretty chaotic process at best.

Basically, it comes done to the fundamental rules of business:  you get what you pay for.

You want active F/T developers, backed by years of commercial game development experience, to work on your game to make it be all it can be?  Then you need to looking for perpetual games and start paying a monthly fee.  If you don't want to pay then you can't complain.

SWG just sold 1 million copies and has a few hundred thousand monthly subscribers.  If SFC ever did that then Taldren would still be developing this game and GAW would have been done years ago and the SQL server kit would have been on it's tenth robust version release by now. But, to substantially rebuild the SFC playerbase to where it was in 2003 under the current volunteer help conditions is not very realistic.  Without the current volunteer help, the game's playerbase would probably cease to exist, so it's more in survivalist mode. Nowadays, most online gaming players will and do prefer to go for pay-for-play games cuz the product is more robust and has more content and is basically a better game. It better be if you are paying a monthly fee.

We'll see if Star Trek Online can do the same as SWG. Although, it won't have SFC stuff cuz it's set  20 years in the future relative to the movie Nemesis.

I don't buy that at all. It's a cash grab, plain and simple.  Add it up. Its obscene. Waaay more than you need to finish developing a complicated game. Eve is written in python and and uses a clustered database backend, couldn't be simpler.  Want to truly support Eve development? Donate to Python and MySQL. 

[Bonk]

One could all but guarantee you'll never see a SFB/SFC game in any kinda of p2p setting.
There are too many licenses involved with far too small a perceived player base.

Start charging a monthly fee however, and people will assume its superior. The its more expensive, therefore its better phenomenon.

I'm off to edit The Forge map, before I get into trouble here...

[el-Karnak]

Hmmm.  That's understandable.  So is there no possibility that sort of model could ever be used for a SFB/SFC game or is the market for such perceived to be too small (Trekkies and SFB-ers) to make it worthwhile?  I understand that the current SFC/OP platform would not support such a model, but I guess what I am asking is whether or not there is any chance that another developer might take up the SFB banner in the future to craft such an online game as you describe?

I wish, the Eve setup with SFB combat and ships would be perfect.

Yes, a lot more can be done with SFC.   I'll let Bonk, TG and the other scripters/DBAs explain in detail.

But, this is the problem. You have players like J'inn, Kroma, Dogmatix, Max Power, Hooch, etc. forking over $11 to $15 per month (depends on subscription length) to EVE to guarantee game improvements.  D.net can only make vague promises and these promises are totally at the whims of volunteer help (ie. help not as qualified as prime-time commercial gaming developers, project hours committed is random and subject to higher priority RL issues, etc.).  There's no realistic promise that can be made under such conditions.

You would be much better to say absolutely nothing until you have something to show. Less pressure for D.net and more credibility is engendered in the playerbase.

[Hexx]

One could all but guarantee you'll never see a SFB/SFC game in any kinda of p2p setting.
There are too many licenses involved with far too small a perceived player base.

Start charging a monthly fee however, and people will assume its superior. The its more expensive, therefore its better phenomenon.

......

Hmm
 I need a volunteer.
Someone who knows about something called "python" and the letters S,Q ,and L
Must be willing to work for free the love of the game and be
able to pay hefty (ie my) legal bills.

I am gonna get soo rich.

[el-Karnak]

Gaming is now in the new age of pay-for-play servers. The idea is that you pay a monthly subscription to finance developers to improve the game product on a perpetual basis.  SWG and EVE are a couple of examples of this practice.

SFC family games are the stand-alone pay once, patch a couple times and then that's it for developer support of the game.  Anything else is subject to the vagaries of volunteer help. Plus, whatever open source code you can get a hold of. A pretty chaotic process at best.

Basically, it comes done to the fundamental rules of business:  you get what you pay for.

You want active F/T developers, backed by years of commercial game development experience, to work on your game to make it be all it can be?  Then you need to looking for perpetual games and start paying a monthly fee.  If you don't want to pay then you can't complain.

SWG just sold 1 million copies and has a few hundred thousand monthly subscribers.  If SFC ever did that then Taldren would still be developing this game and GAW would have been done years ago and the SQL server kit would have been on it's tenth robust version release by now. But, to substantially rebuild the SFC playerbase to where it was in 2003 under the current volunteer help conditions is not very realistic.  Without the current volunteer help, the game's playerbase would probably cease to exist, so it's more in survivalist mode. Nowadays, most online gaming players will and do prefer to go for pay-for-play games cuz the product is more robust and has more content and is basically a better game. It better be if you are paying a monthly fee.

We'll see if Star Trek Online can do the same as SWG. Although, it won't have SFC stuff cuz it's set  20 years in the future relative to the movie Nemesis.

I don't buy that at all. It's a cash grab, plain and simple.  Add it up. Its obscene. Waaay more than you need to finish developing a complicated game. Eve is written in python and and uses a clustered database backend, couldn't be simpler.  Want to truly support Eve development? Donate to Python and MySQL. 

Depending of which state they work in the US, you are looking at probably low-ball min. 90K annual salary and benefits for a prime-time commercial game developer that would even start to look at the bugs in the SFC game assuming it was setup like EVE as pay-for-play.  In CA, it's a lot more. In TX, it's better. NY is obscene, SouthEastern states are not too bad.

That's just one developer. Never mind the support staff, business rental fees, legal dept., PR dept. and all the sys. admins. you need to support perpetual servers.  Sure all of the work can then be off-shored but at the end of the day you are looking at substantial outlays.

What would would be the projected unit sales for an EVE-like SFC game?  1 million like SWG that has the power of  6 blockbuster Star Wars movies (ie. min. $300 million Y2005 US in domestic gross receipts) to back it up?  Best Star Trek movie can hardly get by $100 million Y2005 US in domestic gross receipts. 

SFC would definitely have to sell Paramount on being able to get min. 750K unit sales numbers to make an SFC EVE-like game possible. But, SFC cannot do this cuz its learning curve is way too high, so what you get is a dumbed downed Star Trek Online.

In conclusion, SFC will always remain a small hard-core fanbase game with minimal commerical developer support. So, it's gonna always be a buggy game.  A game that was first designed by a Professional Engineer for very dedicated gamers to play on.  That's not a big population pool to draw on.

[Mog]

No, I haven't tried the test server. I think I've beta-tested this game enough already.

Fair enough, but please try not to be a "negative nellie". We are making progress, if you are not interested in seeing it, then just leave us be.

That kind of posting will certainly not help us get the necessary test numbers. A self fulfilling prophecy of sorts...

Bonk, you won't "get the necessary test numbers" unless you take the plunge and put it up as a "serious" server. I think past history has amply shown that. The downside to that is you risk errors showing up and irritating the players. What numbers are you looking for? Are there enough active players (who would be on at the same time) left to reach that threshold?

I suppose another way of getting the players would be to stipulate that to have access to Hot and Spicy et al, one would have to actively participate in the tests.

"Negative Nellie" signing off.

[Bonk]

Thanks for the constructive criticism Mog. That's helpful.  (I hope yer not mad about the "Negative Nellie" thing...)

I've got the map fixed up quite a bit from where it was, and have the new terrian types and Tracey's latest missions in. Just need a little feedback on the map and we're pretty much ready to call it "serious". (I can put off the enhanced webmap development for a while... http://www.dynaverse.net/webmap_op_sql/ )

The minimum crowd needed for load testing is about 25 players. If that is successful, to then test higher laods of 64 or more, we need to recruit more D2 players, or get some to came back.

I suppose another way of getting the players would be to stipulate that to have access to Hot and Spicy et al, one would have to actively participate in the tests.

I like the Machiavellian quality of that suggestion...      Though I don't think I could get away with it...

[GDA-Agave]

"Negative Nellie" signing off.

Send that man some Oreo cookies to go with his tea.   Some sugar might just turn that frown upside down.   (now be honest, how many of ya'll did that phrase just creep out?)

    

[Age]

Gaming is now in the new age of pay-for-play servers. The idea is that you pay a monthly subscription to finance developers to improve the game product on a perpetual basis.  SWG and EVE are a couple of examples of this practice.

SFC family games are the stand-alone pay once, patch a couple times and then that's it for developer support of the game.  Anything else is subject to the vagaries of volunteer help. Plus, whatever open source code you can get a hold of. A pretty chaotic process at best.

Basically, it comes done to the fundamental rules of business:  you get what you pay for.

You want active F/T developers, backed by years of commercial game development experience, to work on your game to make it be all it can be?  Then you need to looking for perpetual games and start paying a monthly fee.  If you don't want to pay then you can't complain.

SWG just sold 1 million copies and has a few hundred thousand monthly subscribers.  If SFC ever did that then Taldren would still be developing this game and GAW would have been done years ago and the SQL server kit would have been on it's tenth robust version release by now. But, to substantially rebuild the SFC playerbase to where it was in 2003 under the current volunteer help conditions is not very realistic.  Without the current volunteer help, the game's playerbase would probably cease to exist, so it's more in survivalist mode. Nowadays, most online gaming players will and do prefer to go for pay-for-play games cuz the product is more robust and has more content and is basically a better game. It better be if you are paying a monthly fee.

We'll see if Star Trek Online can do the same as SWG. Although, it won't have SFC stuff cuz it's set  20 years in the future relative to the movie Nemesis.

I don't buy that at all. It's a cash grab, plain and simple.  Add it up. Its obscene. Waaay more than you need to finish developing a complicated game. Eve is written in python and and uses a clustered database backend, couldn't be simpler.  Want to truly support Eve development? Donate to Python and MySQL. 

Depending of which state they work in the US, you are looking at probably low-ball min. 90K annual salary and benefits for a prime-time commercial game developer that would even start to look at the bugs in the SFC game assuming it was setup like EVE as pay-for-play.  In CA, it's a lot more. In TX, it's better. NY is obscene, SouthEastern states are not too bad.

That's just one developer. Never mind the support staff, business rental fees, legal dept., PR dept. and all the sys. admins. you need to support perpetual servers.  Sure all of the work can then be off-shored but at the end of the day you are looking at substantial outlays.

What would would be the projected unit sales for an EVE-like SFC game?  1 million like SWG that has the power of  6 blockbuster Star Wars movies (ie. min. $300 million Y2005 US in domestic gross receipts) to back it up?  Best Star Trek movie can hardly get by $100 million Y2005 US in domestic gross receipts. 

SFC would definitely have to sell Paramount on being able to get min. 750K unit sales numbers to make an SFC EVE-like game possible. But, SFC cannot do this cuz its learning curve is way too high, so what you get is a dumbed downed Star Trek Online.

In conclusion, SFC will always remain a small hard-core fanbase game with minimal commerical developer support. So, it's gonna always be a buggy game.  A game that was first designed by a Professional Engineer for very dedicated gamers to play on.  That's not a big population pool to draw on.

I know that all these MMOs hype right now but if everyone stopped paying to play them then the puplisheres and developer lose out in their investments.That is if you agree with pay 2 play which some don't and they can't be modded only server side.I imagine in Eve and SWG there is grind like all MMOs and leveling to reach a certian level.There is in GuildWars only the highest level is 20 but there is grind way more than any Dyna server although there wasn't suppose to be as much as they are throwing at GW players but is a free online game.Well  here is to the future of the Dynas may they live long prosper as I enjoy them better than any SFC played on GSA.

[Hexx]

"Negative Nellie" signing off.

Send that man some Oreo cookies to go with his tea.   Some sugar might just turn that frown upside down.   (now be honest, how many of ya'll did that phrase just creep out?)

    

Actually it didn't creep me out nearly as much as the use of "ya'll"

<has visions of Agave and kroma with Banjos...>

[Laflin]

I remember either Erik or Jinxx saying, when asked how mnay players could play on d2, that we'd never notice a player limit. You mean, they lied? I'm flabbergasted.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic (not to you, but because of the fact that I simply got fed up of waiting on the "Holy Grail" of SQL and all that it could fix and do).

No, I haven't tried the test server. I think I've beta-tested this game enough already.

Man, what a grouch - you sure this isn't Gow using another name?   BTW, who are Erik and Jinxx?  Who is this Taldren guy I keep hearing about?   Where the heck are the IPlay East and West servers? WooHoo!

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

...history lesson...

[el-Karnak]

I know that all these MMOs hype right now but if everyone stopped paying to play them then the puplisheres and developer lose out in their investments.That is if you agree with pay 2 play which some don't and they can't be modded only server side.I imagine in Eve and SWG there is grind like all MMOs and leveling to reach a certian level.There is in GuildWars only the highest level is 20 but there is grind way more than any Dyna server although there wasn't suppose to be as much as they are throwing at GW players but is a free online game.Well  here is to the future of the Dynas may they live long prosper as I enjoy them better than any SFC played on GSA.

Hey, I'm just being a results-oriented frog.  SWG has 1 million units sold and 250K subscribers according to the  lastest published accounts. This is not a new game. It's more than 2 years old.  If Star Trek Online can even come close to such stats, Paramount will be seriously  "excited". But, STO won't do this with a game with SFC's high learning curve.  Just like Microsoft had to keep their learning curve low for its 1 million plus units sold winner in the popular Age of Conquest series.

Anyone saying that pay for play are a sham need to wake up.  Enjoy SFC and it's low-key hard-core fanbase for what it is. But, you'll never turn it into a big-time game like some MMORG.

I personally like both and accept the differences in terms of developer support according to their respective abilities to produce.

[Age]

I know that all these MMOs hype right now but if everyone stopped paying to play them then the puplisheres and developer lose out in their investments.That is if you agree with pay 2 play which some don't and they can't be modded only server side.I imagine in Eve and SWG there is grind like all MMOs and leveling to reach a certian level.There is in GuildWars only the highest level is 20 but there is grind way more than any Dyna server although there wasn't suppose to be as much as they are throwing at GW players but is a free online game.Well  here is to the future of the Dynas may they live long prosper as I enjoy them better than any SFC played on GSA.

Hey, I'm just being a results-oriented frog.  SWG has 1 million units sold and 250K subscribers according to the  lastest published accounts. This is not a new game. It's more than 2 years old.  If Star Trek Online can even come close to such stats, Paramount will be seriously  "excited". But, STO won't do this with a game with SFC's high learning curve.  Just like Microsoft had to keep their learning curve low for its 1 million plus units sold winner in the popular Age of Conquest series.

Anyone saying that pay for play are a sham need to wake up.  Enjoy SFC and it's low-key hard-core fanbase for what it is. But, you'll never turn it into a big-time game like some MMORG.

I personally like both and accept the differences in terms of developer support according to their respective abilities to produce.

Those are  greats  points Karnak about STO with the learning curve and yes even those who played casual 2 years are still learning this game considering when you can fly more than one race.It to bad they nerfed that engine in SWG.

[Riskyllama]

Have any of you guys also considered what type of player base will be drawn to an easier game? One look at most of these online multiplayer games coming out not and you'll see they atract a far wilder userbase that you have now in SFC. I've only Dynaed AOTK2 but it looks to me like most of the playerbase is dedicated and more mature.  When STO comes out, how many of you believe that it will be full of young 12 year olds ( I know wild generalizations) whose only goal will to be to figure out ways to phaser the next guy out of existance. (Originally it said ways to go ramming speed into a Starbase but then I decided you might not be able to do that.)

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

I've been reading their development posts and space basttles will likely be rare. 

[CaptJosh]

Probably going to be geared toward landing parties and suchlike.