Look, this isn't confirmed but IMO the most logical and likely population for the server will be 100,000 players and 300,000 NPC's equaling a total of 400,000
Look, this isn't confirmed but IMO the most logical and likely population for the server will be 100,000 players and 300,000 NPC's equaling a total of 400,000
Posted By SoulSpark at 09:37 AM - Fri Apr 21 2017
Look, this isn't confirmed but IMO the most logical and likely population for the server will be 100,000 players and 300,000 NPC's equaling a total of 400,000
in the interest of clarity, when you say 'this isn't confirmed' are these numbers you heard a dev mention somewhere and you can't find the post etc to confirm them, or your own take on what server numbers should be?
when i read your post i am not sure which of the two it is
Posted By Dleatherus at 6:03 PM - Fri Apr 21 2017
Posted By SoulSpark at 09:37 AM - Fri Apr 21 2017
Look, this isn't confirmed but IMO the most logical and likely population for the server will be 100,000 players and 300,000 NPC's equaling a total of 400,000
in the interest of clarity, when you say 'this isn't confirmed' are these numbers you heard a dev mention somewhere and you can't find the post etc to confirm them, or your own take on what server numbers should be?
when i read your post i am not sure which of the two it is
"IMO" means "In My Opinion". So it's my opinion. My saying it's not confirmed means I have not taken this from anywhere.
ty for clarifying - you could have meant 'in my opinion these numbers i heard from the devs, but can't confirm them, make most sense'
Posted By Dleatherus at 12:41 PM - Fri Apr 21 2017
ty for clarifying - you could have meant 'in my opinion these numbers i heard from the devs, but can't confirm them, make most sense'
The key word is "opinion" here D, get it together
You may have erased my signature, but you can't corner the dorner
If there's a hardcap then the original continent will get even more sparse when new landmasses are discovered and people move in search of new lands and opportunity. So I think that's unlikely.
Posted By OrangeBoy at 1:03 PM - Fri Apr 21 2017
The key word is "opinion" here D, get it together
his 'opinion' could have been about the devs unconfirmed numbers
nice troll attempt
fail as usual :)
That's an interesting map back on page 1, given the most lit up area of Australia would be among its least populated. Not saying it's not accurate in most cases but, for Oz, the east coast should be lit up like a Xmas tree. That area to the north west with heaps of lights... there's nothing there. Maybe some mining operations. Certainly no cities at all.
FWIW, I was KS Backer #21 and wanted nothing but the best for this game.
Posted By Flashman at 05:54 AM - Sat Apr 22 2017
That's an interesting map back on page 1, given the most lit up area of Australia would be among its least populated. Not saying it's not accurate in most cases but, for Oz, the east coast should be lit up like a Xmas tree. That area to the north west with heaps of lights... there's nothing there. Maybe some mining operations. Certainly no cities at all.
The 20% of the US population that lives on the West Coast also seemed a little bit under represented. Could just be me though.
So I have a thing now! 📣Also this is my signature until Sieraen gives me one. 🤷1 Like 👍 = 1 Prayer 🙏
agreed - i noticed that when i first grabbed it off google - that lit up area in OZ should be dark, and the lit up area should be in the South East area around New South Wales
looking at India, the area they show most lit up is in the Himalayas rather than Mombasa etc
leads me to believe that it's hand 'colored' rather than a composite of NASA pics - i felt it still served its purpose of showing that population densities vary greatly
Posted By Dleatherus at 8:55 PM - Sat Apr 22 2017
leads me to believe that it's hand 'colored' rather than a composite of NASA pics - i felt it still served its purpose of showing that population densities vary greatly
Oh absolutely. As an illustration, it's fine. It's just my local knowledge making my brain go... WHA-??!!?? when I see the Australian parts of it :)
FWIW, I was KS Backer #21 and wanted nothing but the best for this game.
http://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#3/41.60/-97.53
Population density map of the world. You'll note that even in the US we have mostly empty space. Now imagine that map with 1/100th the people and you'll be closer to what it would have been at the point in history this game will be set in.
I think that only having 100,000 combined NPCs and players per server could be a critical misstep on SBS's behalf, if my calculations are correct.
First, some very optimistic assumptions.
1) Only 10% of characters will reside outside of towns/cities/capitals.
2) Each kingdom will have one capital, and an average of six player dukes, not counting the monarch.
3) Duchies that do not have a player duke will have no cities and an average of one town per county.
4) Each player-run duchy will have only one city (or capital, in the case of the monarch), and an average of one and a half towns per county.
5) Each settlement will have the bare minimum number of occupants to qualify for its category.
That's:
10% vagrant/hamlet dwelling = 10,000 population
6 capitals = 1,500 population
36 cities = 5,400 population
720 towns in unoccupied duchies = 54,000 population
1,296 towns in occupied duchies = 97,200
That's a very sparse character distribution, which already requires almost 70,000 more characters than the current population limit.
If we wanted to fit a more usable model, we could say that 30% of players won't live in a large settlement, and occupied duchies will have three cities (not including capitals) and three towns per county on average.
That would be:
30,000 hermits/wanderers/hamlet dwellers
1,500 capital dwellers over 6 capitals
16,200 people over 108 cities
248,400 people over 3,312 towns
Overall, it's just shy of 300,000 characters per server, leaving room for settlements to be slightly over the bare minimum to qualify as a town/city/capital. This feels much more realistic for an MMO, considering less than a third of that would actually be players.
If the plan is still for Elyria to be 256x128 kilometers, then 100,000 people isn't nearly enough to support a reasonable population distribution. The population density for 100,000 people would be about 3/km2, which is less than a quarter of the population density of the Roman Empire in the start of the common era, and less than a fifth of the population density of England in 1500 A.D. Three people per square kilometer is the population density of Iceland, Australia, and Canada.
Since the content comes from the NPCs and players, this makes me more than a little worried that the game is going to be a boring, empty wasteland. Currently, nothing makes me more wary about the game than this 100,000 character figure.
It's 100,000 combined population of N/PC per server :)
Do keep in mind that population density matters! Many areas will be rural, some will be mildly populated, and others as densely populated as a tin of sardines.
Remember also that Chronicles of Elyria will have a 10-year storyline -- while every server's narrative will be written by its occupants, we do want to make sure that the world can support its population for 10 real-life years.
And now, I feel in the mood to share pretty pictures of population density!
Note the areas of intense light, and then compare it to the areas that are considerably darker. People will migrate to wherever they fancy going, and that will leave swathes of untamed land for people to sate their wanderlust and potentially give rise to player-driven conflict if, perhaps, an explorer happened upon an area rich enough to sustain a sizeable population around the same time another kingdom's explorers discovers it...
Posted By Caeoltoiri at 10:15 PM - Tue Apr 25 2017
This makes me sad, poor Canada wasn't invited to the party going on down south... :(
