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.