Double-Radiant Mode

Darkest Dungeon has three game modes: Radiant Mode, in which recovering from a loss takes up like 30-60 minutes as you rebuild your reaplacement heroes from (hopefully) level 4 to the level cap of level 6, Darkest Mode, in which recovering from a loss takes up several hours in the endgame as you have to rebuild your lost heroes from level 2, and Stygian Mode, in which enemies are stronger and if you take too long or lose too many heroes you will instantly lose.

The problem here is that Radiant Mode should definitely be the standard mode for new players because most of its features are time-saving features. Your heroes still start out at level 0 (because Darkest Dungeon has a level 0 for some reason), but once your base upgrades are maxed out, new heroes to replace the fallen can be as high as level 4 instead of Darkest Mode’s level 2. Your heroes recover stress faster while resting in town, so your stress recovery facilities aren’t as overtaxed and you won’t have to burn a dungeon raid on your B-team while waiting for your A-team to de-stress very often. There’s a deck-based hero generation mode so that you’re guaranteed to get heroes from every class once every so often instead of a totally random bag of recruits that could theoretically leave you without a healer indefinitely. The only change to actual difficulty is that you get a higher dodge bonus if your torch light is maxed out in the dungeon and there’s a couple of ways in which money is more abundant/base upgrades are cheaper, although even that is more of a time-saving feature because it means you’re less likely to have boss fights available but put off fighting them so you can loot a few more random dungeons to buy upgrades.

All this to say that you definitely want first time players to choose Radiant Mode, but that most people ignore the “first time players should start here” suggestion because in most games it means “people totally unfamiliar with this entire genre of video games should start here,” so anyone who’s played an RPG before is going to say “I know what I’m doing, I don’t need an easy mode,” and I don’t think any amount of “no, really, this isn’t an easy mode, it’s a non-grinding mode” is going to fix that. People gravitate to the middle option on difficulty selections.

That’s why I propose the all-new Double-Radiant Mode: You click on it, and the game instantly declares your victory, then gives you a pop-up window explaining that you can see the real ending by playing Radiant Mode, but we had to include this joke of a difficulty setting to convince people to actually use Radiant Mode instead of running headlong into Darkest Mode like a bunch of lemmings.

We Happy Few Is (Now) Good At Being What It Is

In 2018, We Happy Few officially left early access and became a fully developed game. Allegedly. Footage from reporters at the scene verify that it was a Bethesda-grade cavalcade of bugs that interfered with the gameplay to the point where the game could only be enjoyed as a glitch safari. The heaping of shame the developers received for the state of that release was well-deserved, although I note that Bethesda got away with it for like four games until people finally noticed in Fallout 76.

Still, the whole point of having early access is so you can sell a cheaper version of the game in a playable but incomplete state with the promise that people who buy into the half-finished version will be upgraded feature by feature to the full release version for no additional charge, receiving each build as it’s finalized. It helps the developers bring in funds while they’re making the game, gives them a profit-positive QA process, and the game’s most enthusiastic fans can get their hands on it early, at a lower price in recognition of the risk that the game will never be completed, and have some influence on the game’s direction during production, while people who are more casually interested can just buy the full version when/if it gets released. It’s a good idea in theory, and even sometimes in execution. We Happy Few scammed the people who bought it only after it left early access, though: Those people took the deal that they’d pay full price (and I do mean full price – the initial release price was $60!) for a copy of the game that was finished the moment they installed it, and what they got was a feature-complete but glitched to Hell mid-beta release. Boo.

That said, people who bought in early, or who did what I do and waited two or three years for the dust to settle, got a perfectly good deal, because the game did eventually become good, though even in its 2020 state (when the developers seem to be largely finished with it) it doesn’t quite live up to the promise of its premise.

Continue reading “We Happy Few Is (Now) Good At Being What It Is”

A More Better City of Heroes

I’ve got one day left on vacation, so I’m doing another one of these, mainly because I just realized a considerably easier way to make a hero’s efforts seem meaningful in a neighborhood: After setting it up so that people can decrease their level at-will, also set it up so that enemies spawn based on how many heroes of an appropriate level range are in the neighborhood. Ignore hideouts and all that which, for as neat as they are, are barely visible in actual play and not worth all the effort to set them up. Just have enemies spawn only when an appropriately leveled hero is in the neighborhood, which means when you’ve outleveled a neighborhood (i.e. all mobs in it have grey names for you) and there’s no one else around who needs those mobs, they just won’t spawn, thus giving the appearance of a neighborhood clean of crime.

Although all that hideout stuff from the last two posts has got me thinking a bit about how you could apply that to a mid-size multiplayer game, like a 30-40 player game, roughly equivalent to the heroic cast of an extended crossover story like Infinity War/Endgame. Those thoughts haven’t really gone anywhere, but I’ve had them.

Anyway, Conan the Hunter’s here, so we’re digging into that on Monday.

A Better City of Heroes: Running Out of Crime

Running Out Of Crime

Of course, there is a potential fail state of this whole premise: What if the players just win super hard? What happens when there are just no mobs left anywhere?

The answer is that this has to be hard enough to do that if players pull it off, we can just pat them on the back and tell them “good job.” Remember that when an enemy group is totally defeated within a neighborhood, they can spawn into a random empty hideout immediately. This means that the more players put the hurt on gangs, the easier they make it for any totally eliminated gang to bounce back. In order to take out all gangs, players will need to coordinate to push each of them into a single hideout, which will constantly disgorge mobs for them to beat up, until they’re ready for the decapitation strike when they take out all hideouts simultaneously (leaving behind some heroes to take out the mobs who spawn while the hideout-clearing team is inside – because hideouts don’t stop spawning just because someone’s inside them!).

Remember also that each neighborhood spawns based on a timer tied to the total number of players in the zone. One pack of about four mobs usually takes something like 30-60 seconds to defeat, let’s call it 45 seconds, counting the couple of seconds it takes to run from a beaten group to a fresh one. Any given zone has about five neighborhoods with about three enemy groups each in that neighborhood, which means about eighteen different hideouts spawn when no gangs have been wiped out (which is the norm whenever players are at all active in a neighborhood and only requires special intervention to prevent when it’s NPCs who’ve wiped them out, since NPCs will occupy the buildings left behind). Thus, each hideout needs to spawn one pack of three to four mooks every (45*18=) 810 seconds (thirteen and a half minutes), divided by however many players there are. At peak times and in popular zones, it’s not unreasonable for a single zone (particularly a newbie zone) to have a thousand or more players in it simultaneously, which would require new mobs to spawn in once per second (at this point, it’s probably wiser to switch over to spawning bigger groups, rather than spawning small ones more often, just in case the gang is pushed into a single hideout and needs to spawn all of these guys from the same door). Each of these guys can turn empty hideouts into new hideouts for their gang, which means players need to coordinate to form a frontline that prevents them from expanding, and the more players they bring in, the tighter that net needs to be in order to prevent enemies from slipping through and making new hideouts. If we just have a very large player population, what’s going to happen is that NPCs will be constantly spawning, wandering past emptied hideouts, and converting them into new hideouts.

I think all of this is sufficiently difficult that the only way to clear a zone completely is to coordinate a large group of players (probably a minimum of three dozen, in order to launch the simultaneous decapitation strikes on every enemy group in every neighborhood), and at that point, far from coding some method of preventing them from doing so, we should hand out badges to everyone who’s in a zone when it’s totally cleared of crime. They’d be some of the most coveted badges in the game, seeing as how that 36-hero team would only have a 22.5 second window in which to finish off all hideouts simultaneously before the spawning algorithm fires again and replaces any defeated enemy groups using any available empty hideouts.

Continue reading “A Better City of Heroes: Running Out of Crime”

A Better City of Heroes

I guess it’s CoX week at the blog, because I’ve got more MMO stuff I want to talk about and I’m gonna use the example of CoX to talk about it. This time I’m going to talk about how to balance the needs between having a massively multiplayer population while making the player feel like they aren’t totally insignificant.

I’m using CoX because the basic tropes of super heroes are really well known, so whether you know this specific MMO or not, it’s quick and easy for me to explain it to you. The Hellions are a street gang of demon worshipers, Aurora Borealis is a super hero of some description, King’s Row is the Gotham City themed neighborhood in Paragon City, the eponymous city of heroes, and not only are you all caught up on what you need to know for me to explain a mechanic revolving around Hellions, Aurora Borealis, and King’s Row, but I probably could’ve just dropped those proper nouns straight into an explanation without any further context and you would probably figure it out. If I were doing Guild Wars, my favorite MMORPG, I would at minimum need to drop in asides that devourers are giant scorpion wildlife, that grawl are low-level enemies with primitive tech and fulfill the role of goblins in some other fantasy settings (but not the ones where goblins are high-tech crazy inventors), and that the norn are eight-foot tall vikings who turn into bears. These explanatory asides are generally good practice but once I get into the flow I often forget them, and in City of Heroes, that barely matters, because you can probably figure it out from context.

As I explained in my introductory post about a better City of Villains, City of Heroes writing actually works pretty great as-is. You are a hero, you show up to a place, there are a bunch of people with exclamation points over their heads who need help, and you punch their problems until they go away. Whether or not any specific mission chain is fun, boring, or frustrating depends entirely on the writing of that specific mission chain. Many of them are good, a bunch of them (especially the minor ones that have been there since launch, which clearly received little attention) are kind of dull, but almost none of them make you feel like you’re getting the opposite of the role you expected to inhabit.

You’re a hero, and at worst, you end up doing routine and kind of boring hero work where you run around bouncing Hellions off the street until your contact calls you up to let you know that, although their spawn rate is totally unaffected, you’ve totally got the Hellions running scared. And most of the time you’ll be doing something like save a kidnapping victim or confiscating a bunch of death rays or something else which feels like you’ve saved the day even though you haven’t made a noticeable dent in regular street crime. Plus, the criminals in CoX often spawn actually doing crimes, not just standing around minding their own business. There’ll be a cowering civilian in front of them while they make threatening gestures, or they’ll be struggling to snatch a purse from someone, or whatever. The basic limitations of an MMORPG do still rear their ugly heads, but CoH is generally quite good at mitigating them.

But we can do better. So the evil witch, apparently satisfied with my work in the beta timeline where I revamped City of Villains, is warping me back even further to, I dunno, 2001-ish, when City of Heroes first entered development, striking Jack Emmert dead and giving me total command of all his resources right after his project got greenlit, and offers me some kind of reward for actually playing along, just to stop me from defecting since at this point it seems like she might spend the rest of my life time tunneling me to different video game projects, possibly all headed by Jack Emmert, in order to get me to redo them with the benefit of hindsight.

Continue reading “A Better City of Heroes”

A New City of Villains

The final post on my series of how I’d do City of Villains if I was time warped back to the beginning of its development and given total control of the studio.

A New City of Villains

-The theme of Mercy Island was being a minion. You took orders from a superior officer and executed those orders, then eventually executed the superior officer (probably). We’ve talked about it at length earlier, but I’m listing it here for completenesses sake.

– The theme of Port Oakes was street level crime. Plotlines that originally revolved around decryption programs from Arachnos bases were downgraded to the RIP, ones that revolved around the Legacy Chain and Wyvern heavily were switched to focus on a single vigilante and her ghost pirate minions. I intentionally made Port Oakes more street level in order to set up…

-Cap au Diable’s theme is all about major heists and espionage/sabotage jobs targeting groups like Wyvern and Longbow. You steal high tech gadgets from Aeon Corp and Crey in the Cape itself, you hop over to Paragon City to break people out of the Zig, you blow up Longbow fortresses on your own initiative as a sort of thematic follow-up to Mercy Island, when you did so under direct orders from Arachnos.

Cap au Diable is also where we encounter our first strike force, content designed for multi-villain team-ups. And I think these are basically fine as-is. Some of them could definitely use some better framing to be less “do what I, the quest giver, tell you to do” and more “I, the quest giver, have a lead for you to follow,” and that includes the one in Cap au Diable. But ultimately, all you need to do is write these as a villain who’s got a maniacal scheme of their own, but it’s a big job and they need lots of other villains to help out, and they’re willing to cut you in if you can gather up some friends (or make it happen alone – it’s totally doable). For example, the strike force here can be framed as Virgil Tarikoss, the existing game’s strike force contact, knows that the Circle of Thorns will soon be attempting to bind the demon Bat’Zul, and knows that the Legacy Chain are trying to keep the demon bound, and is seeking out villainous associates to take control of it. Keep all the same missions, but write out the part where he asks the villains to prove their worth to him by beating up the Legacy Chain and change it to him just needing the Legacy Chain beaten up so that they don’t shut down the Circle of Thorn’s binding ritual, because you won’t be able to hijack it if the Legacy Chain succeed in stopping it altogether.

-In Sharkhead Isle, we start getting up to some serious villainy. Maniacal schemes here are things like creating a clone army, stealing a fragment of a sleeping Lovecraftian god and absorbing its power, stealing a device that allows you to mind control dozens of people at once (with a wind up, but still), and stealing giant robots with the help of the Sky Raiders, a rogue PMC who operate out of a helicarrier. The theme is that you have arrived as a supervillain. You commit supercrimes that let you do awesome things.

This is where we’ll introduce second tier maniacal resources, made from combining two different first tier maniacal resources:

–Weapons + Favor from on high: Elite enforcers
–Drugs + Secret documents: Superadine (a mutation-inducing super-drug already in CoH lore)
–Friends in low places + infiltration gear: Unseen allies
–Favor from on high + unobtainium restraints: VIP hostage
–Secret documents + weapons: Super weapons
–Infiltration gear + drugs: Auto-drug apparatus (it pumps drugs continuously and covertly into the wearer – I’ll admit I’m reaching with this one to make the theme work, but I think one combo that reaches a bit will be overlooked)
–Unobtainium restraints + friends in low places: People who won’t be missed

In the existing game, Sharkhead Isle is the point where you start needing five newspaper missions to progress the plot. In the revamped version, maniacal schemes still require (usually) three maniacal resources, but usually one of those will now be a second tier resource. For example: Want to steal super robots? You need weapons and infiltration gear, but regular mooks won’t do, you need elite enforcers.

Continue reading “A New City of Villains”

A New Port Oakes

We’re not going to give a full outline for all seven zones of City of Villains, but we will give a full outline for Port Oakes, which is the first one to use the maniacal scheme system fully. After this, we’ll have one final post where we (relatively) briefly look at each of the remaining five zones, making a couple of broad notes of what kind of maniacal schemes will be present without giving multiple paragraphs of detail for what exactly each one will be about.

A New Port Oakes

Our player villain has just arrived in Port Oakes, probably having just killed or intimidated their superior in Arachnos, possibly still doing as told. Either way, this is when they start maniacally scheming. Maybe they did one scheme in the Dr. Graves tutorials, whatever. Let’s take a thorough look at how their stay in Port Oakes will go, and then give a much more brief overview of how the remaining five zones in City of Villains could be similarly converted.

Port Oakes has a lot of mafia-style mission chains in it, and frequently involves the demon-worshiping street gang called the Hellions. It also has some missions about stealing drugs to sell them (which seems like it’s kinda trying to be a “sell drugs on the street” thing but doesn’t quite know how to make that work in CoV’s mechanics), about beating up the shady anti-villain organization Wyvern and the less-shady mystic guardians in the Legacy Chain, a few where you thwart fascist terrorists in the Council from infiltrating the evil rulers of the Rogue Isles, and one where you kidnap a villain’s abused girlfriend who’s seeking shelter in the Circle of Thorns, an evil cult whom she hopes will protect her from retaliation, but who instead attempt to use her as a human sacrifice. Did you know there was a mandate against villain players hurting innocent people for CoV? Apparently kidnapping someone to bring them back to their abusive boyfriend doesn’t count as hurting them.

We have four mission chains, so in order to try and keep a better budget for both time and money, I’m going with four maniacal schemes. I am going to toss some Skulls into Port Oakes, just so I can have more criminal factions to work with. We already have the assets for the Skulls, because we’re taking those from CoH and they already show up elsewhere in CoV, so while this would be a harder alteration to make if we were modding CoV now, it’s no harder in the evil time traveling witch scenario.

Continue reading “A New Port Oakes”

A New Mercy Island

We’re continuing a redesign of City of Villains that I would do if I were sent back in time by an evil witch who’s laid a very specific curse on Jack Emmert, the guy who made the alpha timeline’s City of Villains. This time, we look at how I’d rewrite the game’s intro.

A New Mercy Island

We’ll follow a fledgling villain through my new version of the game up until right before their first maniacal scheme in Port Oakes. You start out in the Ziggurat, the maximum security super prison for super criminals. Arachnos is breaking someone out. It isn’t you. This is a departure from the original City of Villains tutorial, in which Arachnos was breaking you out, specifically, because their future-destiny scriers have found out that you are one of the chosen ones. This tied into a couple of other plotlines, but in a mostly stupid way. We’re dropping that plotline. We don’t need to pretend you’re more specialer than other villains. You’re already a super villain, and that makes you pretty special on its own. So you’re in the Zig, maybe because of a crime you didn’t commit, whatever, and Arachnos shows up to break someone else out, and you happen to be in the same cell block. They release all the other villains on the way to the guy they’re after because it’s an easy way to make a bigger mess for Paragon City, and that makes it easier for them to get away. You hitch a ride on their chopper home because they have room and it can’t hurt to have another villain on the Rogue Isles.

So you get taken to Mercy Island, the newbie island of CoV. In the original City of Villains, this leads to the Arachnos officer in charge of the operation telling you to run and be a free spirit, warning you that other free spirits may beat you up and take their lunch money, but if you beat them up and take their lunch money, then you may come to the attention of powerful Arachnos agents and make something of yourself. Here’s the thing: This ain’t no survival game. We don’t need an excuse why the players are running off to do whatever. They aren’t going to do whatever. We’re going to give them a checklist of cool stuff to do, and the only thing they’re going to decide is priorities and the exact timetable, so this Arachnos officer is going to tell you that the ride came with a price, and he needs you to go fuck up the good guys and thwart their invasion of the island, which will lead to basically the same anti-Longbow missions (to keep a long story short for people who don’t play CoX, Longbow are the super police) as we get in the original. I’m going to assume that making the issue 21 version of Mercy Island would be no additional resources over the actual CoV launch version, using that as my model for the following outline, but it wouldn’t be that different if resources demanded we use the launch version instead.

Continue reading “A New Mercy Island”

A Better City of Villains

With the release of the Going Rogue expansion in 2010, City of Heroes and City of Villains became effectively the same game. One subscription fee had always covered both of them and there were always some zones where they could interact, but now they would be sold as a combined set for the price of one game, you’d be able to create heroes with classes that had originally been villain-exclusive and vice-versa, and it was even possible to switch your character’s alignment to run a fall to darkness or redemption arc. City of Villains has always had considerably better writing, balance, and pace, just because it was released after the team had a year of experience working with the limitations of the medium and engine and knowing what players wanted from and would do with their content. But City of Villains consistently had (and, on private servers, still has) like 1/5 of the population as City of Heroes at any given time. WoW doesn’t have a divide that harsh. Horde players are about as common as Alliance. Even if we assume that PvP players – who are more likely to pick a villainous faction, given the option – just never played CoX at all, they’re still outnumbered by 2:1 on non-RP, non-PvP servers (RP servers are 3:2 in favor of Alliance and non-RP PvP servers favor Horde), not nearly as bad as CoX’s 4:1.

Villains Need Proactive Content

What’s up with that? I mean, the section title kind of gives the game away a bit, but I need to introduce the premise. Here in this post, we’re going to pretend that it’s 2004, City of Heroes has been out for a couple weeks or months or however long it was before production on City of Villains has started, and the higher-ups have just given the project the green light. Sudden, Jack Emmert is struck down by an evil witch, brings me there through a time tunnel from 2020, and proclaims that a terrible curse shall be laid upon the studio and all its employees if they do not give me absolute control over the project. Also, she says she’ll blow up the world if I don’t play along, so I can’t just tell them good luck with that curse thing, walk out on them completely, and try to use the next ten years to try and avert the darkest timeline and/or become personally wealthy enough to not be affected by it.

Let’s start by figuring out what the problem here is. Maybe people just don’t like playing bad guys? The Horde aren’t meant to be the villains of WoW. Horde and Alliance are supposed to be a grey vs. grey thing. Sure, the writers are terrible at remembering this and regularly pretend that WarCraft 3 never happened and we’re still in good humans vs. evil orcs mode, but at least nominally, Horde isn’t the evil faction, they’re just the spikey faction. So, y’know, maybe I’m just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, here.

But I think a lot of it also comes down to City of Villains being bad at making you feel like a villain. The standard theme park MMO mechanics are good for heroes who uphold the status quo, not for villains who are destroying it.

Dr Horrible
Because the status is not quo!

In a standard theme park MMO, you go to a place, you find a number of people who need help, and you punch their problems until they go away, receiving treasure and XP until you are high enough level to go to a new place and punch new problems. This is perfect for heroes and very bad for villains. City of Villains’ writing is generally much better, its characters are interesting and the tasks they want you to do are much more directly informed by their motivations. In City of Heroes, a reporter, a beat cop, and a small business owner would all ask you to beat up the Skulls because the Skulls are bad guys doing bad things in the neighborhood, but in City of Villains, a sentient talking radio would send you a transmission telling you that you were on a short list of villains to be brought down by Federal Bureau of Superpowered Affairs and also where you could find that list so you can destroy it and force the government to reprioritize from scratch, which will buy you some time and hopefully even get them to pivot to other villains completely. Who knows how those guys decide who goes on these lists, right?

But better writing or not, it’s not villainous. Someone gives you a tip, and you do the thing. And it’s the same when other supervillains hire you as a mercenary, or recruit you to a bank robbery because they need your talents, or even when some of your villainous allies help you in a scheme to go to an alternate timeline where supervillain supreme Lord Recluse has taken over the world, assassinate him, and come back with the severed head as a “don’t fuck with me” statement, which is about as close to actually killing and replacing the supervillain supreme as an MMO could get.

Fair enough, but regardless of the fact that the penultimate villain plotline was hemmed in the game being an MMO at all, the major problem here is that these are all reactive. Your quest leads put emphasis on the XP and treasure you’ll be getting at the end, but you still fundamentally go to a place, find people with problems, and punch their problems until they go away. But given that an MMO is a place that you go and not a map that you alter, how can you even have villain content, besides painting hero content red and hoping no one notices?

I’ll tell you how: Maniacal schemes is how. A maniacal scheme is something like “kidnap and ransom the mayor” or “build a death ray.” I don’t know how much slack the team had for developing new interfaces, but worst case scenario, these options can be presented by a level 7-50 contact (the maniacal schemes system doesn’t come online ’till level 7, I’ll get to why in a bit) who is always considered active. In fact, having them be presented by a contact is the best way to go even if we could have a new interface for maniacal schemes, because it allows you to have a sycophant. The sycophant is the guy who asks your villain “so, Brain, what’re we gonna do tonight?” Then you select which maniacal scheme you want, and this initiates a dialogue (written, like many dialogues in CoX, with a structure that implies many of your responses without the game having to assign you any exact words) in which the sycophant lays out what materials will be required, by saying things like “but how’re we gonna transport all that gold? Oh, I suppose that is what the truck’s for.” Like the newspapers and the radio, they’re always at the top of your contacts list.

Continue reading “A Better City of Villains”

Multiplayer Team Sizes

What’s the ideal number of players to have online in the same instantiation of the game world at the same time in a multiplayer game? Obviously, this depends on what kind of multiplayer it is, but the spectrum of answers doesn’t really go from 2 to 10,000 the way you’d expect. Fundamentally, there are four different sizes a multiplayer game can be, and while I think the smallest size could possibly benefit from being split up into two or three different chunks, I also think the larger size might actually be a bad idea that was only adopted because it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Militaries across the world and history have had widely varying unit sizes, but once formation fighting began to decline and the number of guys you needed to stand in a row in order to block a mountain pass was no longer a deciding factor, everyone pretty quickly settled on a very similar optimum setup. Not only that, but you can see this optimum setup come up in ancient and medieval militaries whenever the concerns of formation fighting didn’t present a larger concern. This is because humans are hard-wired to work in groups of a certain size, which means the squad, the platoon, and the company show up over and over again throughout history (larger units have less to do with the fundamental psychology common to nearly all humanity and more to do with how the bureaucracy of your specific organization happens to be structured – in the case of translating this to MMOs, the bureaucracy is non-existent, so we don’t care). The squad of eight-ish, the platoon of forty-ish, and the company of 200-ish show up again and again, because eight-ish is the number of people who can stand around and have a conversation with each other, forty-ish is the number of people who can all work on the same thing without needing any layers of bureaucracy to stay coordinated, and 200-ish is the number of people who can maintain social bonds with one another.

Military organization gives us the most striking and easily observed example of this, because military organization explicitly splits people up into different groups of a specific size, which makes it easy to track how many people were in what units even thousands of years later, whereas it’s much harder to know after the fact what the size of cliques and parties was in the 18th century court of the Qing Dynasty or whatever. I use the military units as a shorthand, but this isn’t unique to military-themed games or even to games that involve combat. The basic pattern is a result of how humans socialized with one another and repeats everywhere.

You can have squad, platoon, or company-level games, and then you can also have games that are bigger than that, at which point automatic human socialization can no longer scale up to your total player population and you either have to impose a bureaucracy or just accept that the game is going to be a chaos of people not in any real communication with each other taking action with basically no concern for how anyone else will be impacted. Also, the company level can’t really be 200 people because your players have families and workplaces and stuff taking up some of the number of people they’re keeping track of. You can’t actually do a thing like real militaries do where you pluck someone out of society, put them in a barracks, and now the only people they interact with on a day to day or even month to month basis are other people in that barracks.

In a squad-level game, with 2-8 people in communication (whether that’s two squads of eight on opposing teams or an eight-way free-for-all with a voice chat or an eight-person co-op or what), everyone can always talk to everyone else, and once everyone knows each other’s voices, you can keep track of what everyone is saying to everyone else without any real organization. Every now and again there will be a multilogue where people are talking over each other, but people will automatically realize this is happening, stop, and you’ll even commonly hear statements like “Alice was saying something but I couldn’t hear it, what were you saying?” Even when people can’t hear over the multilogue, they can still hear and keep track of who’s talking, and you can untangle the knot in the aftermath. And we’re all so used to doing this kind of thing that we do it automatically.

I mentioned earlier that squad-level multiplayer games might be able to be broken down further, because I think there’s some visible gameplay differences between having two, four, or eight people on the same team. Not only does a one-on-one versus match feel very different to a four-way brawl, even a two-player and four-player co-op begin to take on very different feelings. As you get up to eight, it becomes much easier for a generally competent team to carry one or even two new players who don’t really know what they’re doing. Any number between two and eight-ish is enough to comfortably hold a conversation, but differentiating class roles and designing interesting levels seems to be much easier for four people than for eight, and it’s also a lot harder to wallflower when you’re one of only four people in a conversation as opposed to eight. You can have a conversation with eight people, but at that point the group has gotten big enough that usually you start having to fight for space a bit, speaking as soon as there’s a pause to get an idea out, and the conversation knots where multiple people are talking over each other and we have to untangle things afterwards start to become more common. We do sort of get a similar dynamic with higher levels of organization as well: 40-ish and 200-ish aren’t averages, but rather upper limits for the gameplay mood they deliver, and there will be a noticeable strain on the game as we reach them. Notably, D&D parties typically include 3-6 people plus a GM, which means they start at having four people in the conversation and stop one shy of having eight.

At the platoon level, the distinction between ten, twenty, or thirty people becomes less important, as what matters is that there are now too many people involved for everyone to be in the same conversation at the same time, but still few enough that everyone can keep track vaguely of what everyone else is doing right now and how they all feel about each other. You can’t have a forty-man raid team in the same voice chat without imposing some rules on who talks and when, but you can totally have a server with forty people on it wherein each person has a basic understanding of who does and doesn’t get along with who else in the server, and where you can usually find Alice or Bob when they’re in the game, and what those people are working on. Forty is really pushing it, and 20-30 is more ideal, but essentially this is the number of people who would get together and hunt a mammoth in the ancestral environment. It’s the size that classrooms gravitate towards.

You can use platoon-level as just upscaled squad-level, with lots of squads pursuing lots of objectives as in the MMO raid example, but I don’t think this is a good idea. Sure, it feels very epic the first time you do it, but it wears off quickly and pretty soon it’s just a bunch of admin for squad-level gameplay. Where platoon-level shines is in a group’s ability to engage in organic, long-term planning by splitting off into different squad-level groups trying to achieve different things. This is the MineCraft or the multiplayer survival game model (although MineCraft can scale both up and down from this level), where there’s about twenty to forty people on the server, and they tend to split up into groups of two to four or so, each focusing on their own goal but either helping other groups or antagonizing other groups or both, depending on what the game mechanics make possible or encourage. In most MineCraft servers, everyone splits off to build different mega-projects, but will come by to visit and swap and/or gift building materials to one another. In Ark: Survival Evolved, people will split up into little groups and murder people from other groups to try and seize materials or establish dominance. Either way, there’s a platoon-level community that organically breaks into smaller groups, which then interact with one another in a way that’s very comprehensible to everyone involved in each group. If you’re in group A and you don’t know how groups B and C feel about each other, it’s not because it’s too much to keep track of, it’s because you don’t care.

Company-level is dictated by the total number of other human beings that the average person can keep track of at once. In a company level game, there are way too many people for you to keep track of their individual relationships with every other individual on the server, but still few enough that after you’ve spent a few months getting to know everyone, you can recognize every other individual on the server. In small high schools, people commonly know most or all of the people in higher or lower grades. In larger high schools, they only know people from other grade levels who are specifically their friends or who share some kind of extracurricular activity with them, and otherwise only know people in their own grade. This is why.

In theory, company-level can be up to 200 people. In practice, all of your players have other social groups already taking up space in their head, which means you can’t have more than maybe 100 people in a company-level game. We don’t see a whole lot of games using the 100-ish person level, except for battle royale games, which are really a series of squad-level encounters being organically strung together. I think the ideal scenario for a company-level server size is actually an MMORPG, though. Your standard theme park deal where you run around completing quests and gathering loot and such. We’re past the point where people can easily keep track of one another’s goals and relationships with everyone else, but still at the point where everyone can recognize everyone else. This is ideal for a video game that is more like a place you can visit than a match you can win or a world you can alter. With this many people running around, it’s difficult to keep track of who might aid or interfere with your long-term goals, but in an MMORPG you don’t really have to care so much. You have a checklist of (hopefully) cool stuff to do, you do as much stuff on that checklist as you like, and along the way you meet other people who are also doing cool stuff and become part of a community. It’s hard to keep track of how everyone feels about everyone else, but you aren’t trying to do anything complex or map-altering, so it’s not as important to keep track of whose toes you might be stepping on with your project.

That brings us to massively multiplayer level, where you have over a hundred people online on any given server at any given time, often thousands, forming a server community of tens of thousands of active players. And I’m not convinced this should even be a thing. The most common result seems to be that most people just check out and play like it was single-player. When communities do form, they tend to be of a couple dozen people anyway. Whenever a group organizing 100+ people does cohere, it’s usually by creating some kind of bureaucracy to help manage it, and, really, is that a good thing?

Now, there are occasionally things done in MMOs that require very large numbers of people, and which can’t be replicated by just having a very large number of people in a Discord or lobby who then split off into smaller servers to play together. Like, City of Heroes has costume contests that couldn’t plausibly attract the number of contestants they do if there were only 100-200 people per server. Guild Wars 2 has spontaneous world events triggered by lots of people just happening to be in the same place at the same time, which can only happen on servers large enough that you occasionally just get like forty people in the same area of the game without anyone planning it in advance. I really don’t think it’s worth it, though, especially since things like the CoH costume contest example can easily be replicated by just having a special server for costume contests. People sign up, import their costume, attend the contest, then go back to their regular server when it’s done. Most people do this already, just importing their character to whatever server the contest is being held on, the only difference would be having a dedicated contest server instead of picking one of the regular ones.

The last time I speculated on the optimal way to run an MMO, I pointed out that it was kind of moot, because MMOs have very large up front development costs and are no longer very popular. Existing MMOs can keep the lights on with a very small player count sustaining them, but making new ones is basically out of the question. So, talking about how MMOs would be better off with a hundred times as many servers a hundredth of the usual size rather than the current setup of a dozen-ish servers each capable of hosting like ten thousand players, that’s all of mainly academic interest anyway.

But for the record, I’d really like a 100-person MMO server, and if we could get that four-hour day/night cycle I was talking about earlier while we’re at it, that’d be great. And could it also have a good terrain traversal mechanic, where you have to climb and swim and glide and stuff? Y’know, since MMOs are really good at being a place that you go to, having the terrain itself be more interactable would be really nice. Oh, and do the Guild Wars 2 thing where quests give rise to other quests in a way that non-permanently affects the map in a cycle, so winning quest A leads to quest B, losing it leads to quest C, and it all eventually loops back in on itself. And have the more action-oriented combat, too, like, with dodge rolls and stuff, and where the angle you hit an enemy from makes a difference. And a system whereby mob factions will fight with each other and with town NPCs, spreading out across the map and capturing towns until players drive them out, which could integrate into those quest cycle things I mentioned earlier, so, like, if the NPC orcs go unchecked for too long they’ll eventually invade the local quest hub and take over, and then the only quests available in the region have to do with driving them back out until the quest hub is liberated and things go back to normal. And there should be a vampire-themed class, too, just ’cause vampires are the best, with minion mastery gameplay, like, maybe a vampire with undead minions, or who can summon demons or something. And actually, can we have, like, a really broad set of potential powers like City of Heroes has, where each class has a primary and a secondary power selection and there are like fifteen options for each, allowing you to create nearly any power combination you can think of? And pair that with a really good character creator, too, one with lots of different options. Oh, and let the player decrease their own level if they want, so that they can face challenges they passed by on their way to the cap at the level they were intended for. And also could a percentage of the game’s gross income just get mailed to me as a check, without me having to worry about profits or put up any money for development or anything? Awesome, thanks.