Population Assessment

[stormlord]

Have the server admin or GM's thought about doing a population assessment and posting it so people can see it? I think we should all be armed with knowledge that we can us when making choices.

I've made a thread about class distribution before, but what I'm suggesting here is more expansive.

Here is my previous thread:
http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4930&highlight=class+distribution

Things to look for in the population spread:

1) Class
- what kinds of classes are new characters?
- what are the most and least popular?
- how many of each are preferred?
- what are the class choices for each population 'wave'?
2) Concentrations
- Are there certain level ranges with a high or low population concentration?
- How much of the population that actively plays is 50+ or 40+?
3) Twinks
- how many new characters are twink alts?
- how many new characters are new to the server but twinked by someone else?
- NOTE: these questions might or might not be answerable
4) Altaholics
- how many players prefer to play lots of alts and stay low to mid level?

What's most important to me is figuring out how many active players are 30+ or 40+ or 50+ or max level. I'd also like to know how many active players are altaholics and may not even have characters that're 30+. How many players twink? The reason I ask these questions is because I'm concerned about new players and the environment that they grow up in. I'm worried that they will not find the resources they need to enjoy the game. I'm not just talking about access to items, either. I'm talking about access to a population that can support several distinct groups. Access to bind affinity services. Access to sow. Etc.

Could it be that as more and more new players make solo-able classes (necromancer, magician, etc) that this will further worsen the conditions of the low level population? Could twinking cause the twinked to not group with those who have worse items than them? Etc. Some of the things we do to benefit ourselves or to benefit others might actually have the opposite effect for the server.

But I cannot blame somebody for making a magician or a necromancer because I myself enjoy the necromancer and I cannot really recommend anything else to a new player. And it makes sense to make a solo-able class before investing in a group-able class. I can't blame twinkers, i've twinked others a couple times.

Everquest at its inception was a very population dependent game. And like most MMOs it becomes top heavy with time. This is what makes me post about this. If you examine SOE's actions over the years after launch you can see how they addressed this problem over time: luclin spires, soulbinders, pok books, pots (potion of alacrity I/II/etc, potion of clarity I/II/etc, etc), increased experience curve for low levels, item inflation (new items better than old items, traded to new players via bazaar), ooc regen, mercenaries, keep loot on death, guild lobby summoners, rest experience, etc. Some things had indirect benefits for new players, like in-game maps or features that're similar to other games they might be familiar with and so on.

I know this thread post is loose and rambling. Sorry about that. Maybe I will come and edit it to make my points more specific or easier to understand. Thanks for listening.

[Kope]

http://i52.tinypic.com/2dlll6e.jpg

Postd by Nilbog. This is as of end of June I believe.

[Farkle]

i can tell you that i am a low level and have been active recently for about a month and a half.

When i became active again i did so with a group of 5 people, that 5 has increased to about 12 as of today.

i am playing a cleric, my friends has all classes in between, but mains are war, bard, monk, mage, druid, war, SK etc. when we play we typically have our own group, but i have had multiple random invites. I take it as being a cleric. When i do log on separately from the group i have not had an issue getting a group in any of the places i have been(not many as im lvl 14).
EC, Nro, CB, unrest, butcher, Gfay mainly. Personally i think the community is awesome and very well populated for a private server.

this could also however be due to the fact that i am still very low level and have no idea what the pop. is in the 20's, 30's, 40's.

One friend is an altaholic, but he is the altaholic that will have a full set of maxxed out alts in no time flat, in a month and a half he already has 3 characters in their 20's and the rest in their teens (he has at least 10).

the data would be great to see for sure. We were non twinked, but have since been graced by some kind individuals, mostly the altaholic has, and we benefit from his good fortune :) he has built up a considerable bank, and also plays the EC tunnel, and is crafting already, he is our guild gold farmer :P.

[Dr4z3r]

Postd by Nilbog. This is as of end of June I believe.

Posted by Uthgaard. Link: http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=325872&postcount=25

[Kope]

Posted by Uthgaard. Link: http://www.project1999.org/forums/showpost.php?p=325872&postcount=25

Doh my bad. Thanks for clearing that up!

[stormlord]

What about something like this:
level 01 - 10: #
level 11 - 20: #
level 21 - 30: #
level 31 - 40: #
level 41 - 50: #
level 51 - 60: #

Would only include active players. This could be alongside the class distribution for each range. Something like this, especially several instances over the life of the server, might help to see which level ranges are weak and which are strong. For example, if there're 120 people between 21 and 30 and only 80 between 31 and 40 then you would expect the population between 31 and 40 to struggle a bit more as it's more thinly spread. Generally, the more thinly spread a population is, the more difficult it will be for classes to get bind affinity or sow or buffs or even groups unless they're willing to travel halfway across norrath to find something good. Combining this knowledge with the class distribution would produce very useful information - for everyone i think.

That class distribution is very informative, btw.

[stormlord]

Here're some things I got from looking at the class distribution chart listed by other poster(s)...

The chart is located here:
http://i52.tinypic.com/2dlll6e.jpg

Classes that lose population share on the march to max level:
(ordered according to highest losses to lowest)
Paladin (-80%)
Shadowknight (-75%)
Bard (-50%)
Ranger (-50%)
Druid (-37%)
Warrior (-33%)
Necromancer (-10%)

Classes that gain population share on the march to max level:
(ordered according to highest gains to lowest)
Enchanter (+266%)
Cleric (+216%)
Magician (+160%)
Rogue (+140%)
Monk (+120%)

Classes that do not gain or lose population share:
Shaman
Wizard

Basically, this tells you which classes translate well to level 60 and those that do not.

All in all, paladins and shadowknights and rangers and bards have it hard or a lot of people like to think they could play em but end up changing their minds. I'm surprised SK's have so much trouble. I wouldn't think they would.

Since I played a ranger on live for so long, it makes me scratch my head. I've always liked the hybrids. I also had a paladin on live that I got to 65/etc. I loved the healing/rez/off-tanking abilities. Different from ranger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obfci1CIqq8

Do you want to brave a hybrid? Or will you get blown away like Neil Young?

I never complained about the hybrid exp penalty, but I can see where people are coming from. I've always heard that whatever it's that makes hybrids diverse and fun to play, also makes them powerful. But this whole idea can be turned on its head. Diversity doesn't HAVE to make a class too powerful. That would be design oversight. In games, jack-of-all-trades tend to have equally spread, toned down abilities. When you add up all of their abilities, it's equal to any class out there. On paper, they're no more powerful than anybody else. Why is there a need for any other kind of balancing mechanism; like an exp penalty? I think something was overlooked. If the experience penalty for hybrids is removed on this server and assuming that the hybrids are exactly as they were on live, then one must ask: why did they implement the exp penalty in the first place? What if removing the penalty makes them too powerful? My mind tells me that's horrible game design, but what if they did balance them via an exp penalty?