Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As my busy season winds down and I have free time again, I find myself uninterested in playing Pathfinder Online, so I'm going to take a leave of absence. I'll keep my subscription running, and Deianira accruing xp, through the end of the year. That will give me access to the GoblinWorks forum, so between there and here I'll be able to monitor the game's, and community's, development.
If I'm not back by the end of the year, I'll let my subscription lapse.
The last survey crystallized some of the issues I and my group have had with the game so far. We responded to that survey in our various ways - I think a couple of the guys included comments in SHOUTY CAPS - and as I know how these things are received on forums, I won't enumerate those issues here. Suffice it to say, with the sole (infrequent) exception of yours truly, my group refuses to play, in game or on the forums, at all.
And while the Emerald Lodge community specifically, and the PFO community in general, are great people, I really got into the kickstarter, the forums, and finally the game itself in search of a game my group could enjoy both as a small, friends-and-family team and as part of a larger game community. That's how we started out, two decades ago, and we'd like to get back to it.
But sadly, Pathfinder Online has not proved to be the vehicle for doing both of those things.
I'll keep an eye on the forums, both here and at GoblinWorks, and hope to be back. Eventually.
Deianira Sunstorm
once (and future?) bard of the Emerald Lodge
That's awful
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Goodbye - is such a lonely word in the night
We'll end it now, before a forum post starts a fight,
We have shared a poem and a song -
We have shared these forums for so long,
But now, we've reached that fateful point where you must part,
- but I'm not through:
For first, I have to sing goodbye to yooooouuu.
/sigh, the songbook will miss your contributions. Farewell, sweet nightinggale, till we meet again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good luck to you in finding a game that meets what your group is looking for.
I will say this for PFO, it is the only fantasy based MMO with supposed sandbox features (hopefully future features) that will be more PVP adverse friendly.
I say this because the sandbox MMOs with OPen World PVP on the horizon are going in the other direction, including on their forums. Crowfall and Albion Online are territorial conquest games, with safe areas but those are insignificant to the game play.
In both cases, their forums are very blunt when it comes to shutting down ideas of players being "adverse to pvp". An Albion Admin. essentially told one poster who was concerned about RPKing, "there are other MMOs out there for you." Crowfall is marketing itself toward the Shadowbane, Darkfall, EvE crowd and it has attracted many of the major guilds from each.
Bottom line, PFO may be your only choice in 12 months, unless LotRo goes through a significant uptick in population. THat is by far the best RP oriented MMO on the market.
Again, good luck in your search. It was a pleasure to have chatted with you that one time on the Pax TS, or maybe it was the PFO TS?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
NO MMO will ever match LotRO when it comes to Bards.oh noes!
come back!
maybe when Bard class comes into play, you will find enjoyment
<sigh> I had hopes for PFO, though.
Thanks for the kind words, all. For what it's worth, PvP was NOT a factor in the group's decision. Neither was the appearance of the grass.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope this hasn't anything to do with Ryans reaction about the group thing and the free month. That's just Ryan being Ryan.
Deianira, I can assure you, that if this game makes it out of the gates (whenever that is, I am thinking 5 years from now) it will be a rich, engaging Fantasyworld with Pathfinder all over it. You may want to have your XP then.
I can't assure you it will ever come out of the gates though. :(
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope this hasn't anything to do with Ryans reaction about the group thing and the free month. That's just Ryan being Ryan.
Deianira, I can assure you, that if this game makes it out of the gates (whenever that is, I am thinking 5 years from now) it will be a rich, engaging Fantasyworld with Pathfinder all over it. You may want to have your XP then.
I can't assure you it will ever come out of the gates though. :(
I honestly wish they would just label this as Alpha and start the XP over on release - and yes I'm a vet with XP from day one. I just don't see players wanting to come to the game with me having 2 years of experience over them.
Maybe I'm just crazy though...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I honestly wish they would just label this as Alpha and start the XP over on release - and yes I'm a vet with XP from day one. I just don't see players wanting to come to the game with me having 2 years of experience over them.
Since the only thing they've guaranteed us about EE from before the kickstarter finished is that any XP we pay for during EE will be preserved, that would be a pretty large shift in intent, and would probably cause some bad feelings that would leave most of the other missteps that they've made in the dust, I think they'd be very cautious about exercising it.
Rolling back all equipment and possessions would not be breaking any promises, but resetting everything would be tantamount to theft, since XP is the only thing they claim to be selling us right now. Now if they decided to declare this an alpha and give us back all the free and subscription time we've used up, that might conceivably be salable to some of us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yar, which is why a company probably shouldn't make that kind of promise before they start a game. There is nothing worse then watching a game fail because a company wants to keep its word.
EDIT: Btw my words are not meant to say PFO will fail because of this issue. It was a broad statement about MMOs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yar, which is why a company probably shouldn't make that kind of promise before they start a game. There is nothing worse then watching a game fail because a company wants to keep its word.
EDIT: Btw my words are not meant to say PFO will fail because of this issue. It was a broad statement about MMOs.
I'd rather have a game company that keeps its promises then one that does not.
As we have enough promise breaking, lying, false advertising, over hyping, under delivering, media controlling, and or reviewer blacklisting game companies.I'd really like to see another company be made like GoblinWorks then another Uni-Cronic Arts, or "INSERT ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE COMPANY HERE."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not agree with the whole XP-gap thing, and the perceived unfairness about a batch of players that already are closing in on tier 3.
First, I sense a contradiction with those people: they do not think the game is worth a 15 dollar subscription in its current state so they keep harping on that fact. At the same time, when the game reaches a playable state in their minds, all of a sudden, they think it is unfair that certain players already have XP.
XP for which they will be paying the exact same amount of dollars for, exept later, for a game in a much more finished state. Where's the unfairness in that? Unfair to us, who paid for their XP while the game was unfinished still? ;)
Also, I am convinced that if the game is fun, players will come and not bother with the fact that they start "behind the curve". This game will need to cater to other players then just those hardcore competitive PvP folk anyway if it ever wants to be successful. This is not an Arena-match where you start late, with all sorts of handicaps: it's a rich engaging Fantasyworld with lots of PvE and Building and social stuff.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not agree with the whole XP-gap thing, and the perceived unfairness about a batch of players that already are closing in on tier 3.
First, I sense a contradiction with those people: they do not think the game is worth a 15 dollar subscription in its current state so they keep harping on that fact. At the same time, when the game reaches a playable state in their minds, all of a sudden, they think it is unfair that certain players already have XP.
XP for which they will be paying the exact same amount of dollars for, exept later, for a game in a much more finished state. Where's the unfairness in that? Unfair to us, who paid for their XP while the game was unfinished still? ;)
Also, I am convinced that if the game is fun, players will come and not bother with the fact that they start "behind the curve". This game will need to cater to other players then just those hardcore competitive PvP folk anyway if it ever wants to be successful. This is not an Arena-match where you start late, with all sorts of handicaps: it's a rich engaging Fantasyworld with lots of PvE and Building and social stuff.
You, sir, are my hero for the day.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You, sir, are my hero for the day.I do not agree with the whole XP-gap thing, and the perceived unfairness about a batch of players that already are closing in on tier 3.
First, I sense a contradiction with those people: they do not think the game is worth a 15 dollar subscription in its current state so they keep harping on that fact. At the same time, when the game reaches a playable state in their minds, all of a sudden, they think it is unfair that certain players already have XP.
XP for which they will be paying the exact same amount of dollars for, exept later, for a game in a much more finished state. Where's the unfairness in that? Unfair to us, who paid for their XP while the game was unfinished still? ;)
Also, I am convinced that if the game is fun, players will come and not bother with the fact that they start "behind the curve". This game will need to cater to other players then just those hardcore competitive PvP folk anyway if it ever wants to be successful. This is not an Arena-match where you start late, with all sorts of handicaps: it's a rich engaging Fantasyworld with lots of PvE and Building and social stuff.
Unless the game never reaches "that state". Then those who have bailed early on, will have been proven the wiser.
The reason I won't let my subscription, with some 21 months to go, lapse is that it is already money spent. If the game never reaches the supposed OE (although it can be argued we are already there), at least I left nothing on the table if the doors shut.
Even if I find myself more invested in another game, I'll continue to bank that time and look to sell off my characters with close to a million unspent XP. I play enough of the game to grind the gates away, almost all tier 9 gates reached for my primary and secondary weapons.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope this hasn't anything to do with Ryans reaction about the group thing and the free month. That's just Ryan being Ryan.
If the CEO is potentially driving away subscribers, I don't see how that can be so easily written off.
With the second installment of the MMORPG review, bringing into question player agency as it's headline. This ties into arguments that some of us have been making:
AvenaOats = Scale
Myself = Social Structure of Guild vs. Settlement being a Location
As well as other related issues like the lack of appeal for what could have been major player bases (PnP TT and PvP MMO).
I seriously doubt anyone anticipated or hoped for the outcome at this stage of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You, sir, are my hero for the day.I do not agree with the whole XP-gap thing, and the perceived unfairness about a batch of players that already are closing in on tier 3.
First, I sense a contradiction with those people: they do not think the game is worth a 15 dollar subscription in its current state so they keep harping on that fact. At the same time, when the game reaches a playable state in their minds, all of a sudden, they think it is unfair that certain players already have XP.
XP for which they will be paying the exact same amount of dollars for, exept later, for a game in a much more finished state. Where's the unfairness in that? Unfair to us, who paid for their XP while the game was unfinished still? ;)
Also, I am convinced that if the game is fun, players will come and not bother with the fact that they start "behind the curve". This game will need to cater to other players then just those hardcore competitive PvP folk anyway if it ever wants to be successful. This is not an Arena-match where you start late, with all sorts of handicaps: it's a rich engaging Fantasyworld with lots of PvE and Building and social stuff.
Unless the game never reaches "that state". Then those who have bailed early on, will have been proven the wiser.
The reason I won't let my subscription, with some 21 months to go, lapse is that it is already money spent. If the game never reaches the supposed OE (although it can be argued we are already there), at least I left nothing on the table if the doors shut.
Even if I find myself more invested in another game, I'll continue to bank that time and look to sell off my characters with close to a million unspent XP. I play enough of the game to grind the gates away, almost all tier 9 gates reached for my primary and secondary weapons.
True. I am having fun though so my money is currently well spent. In the meantime I have huge doubts if this game will ever take off. I even have huge doubts that *if* this game takes off, it might be in a way that is less fun for me and I will simply quit. But right now I am going with the flow, I am having fun doing the building and watching the PvP antics and enjoy the rollercoaster ride of new buggy and unfinished features being implemented every few weeks. The game is an ugly, buggy and unfinished hotchpotch, but there are already elements in that hotchptoch that keep drawing me in. Many of the recent Themepark MMO's did not manage to keep that interest.
To name two simple things:
I LOVE that its one, single world. I can put my marker 80 hexes to the South and start running. (yes, the world is monotonous). All the people in the same world. LOVE it.
I also LOVE the character-building where you can mix and match. Yes, it takes way too much XP and takes too long and ability gates and what not, but I have never had so much fun planning out my character (and making the wrong choice though nothing is truly ever wrong).
Even so I consider the chance that this game is still around in 3 years about 20%.
The ridiculous gap and strength between newb and vet is something holding back the MMO industry as a whole. It's so deeply in-grained In people's minds it's really become somewhat of an expectation.
It's also a frequently cited reason I hear single-player game, MOBA, FPS, RTS, Minecraft etc. enthusiasts give for avoiding the rich and immersive worlds MMOs could offer them. That's actually the reason most of my Freelancer crew gave up on MMOs.
I personally am of the school of thought veterans should be rewarded with skills (player skills), social connections etc. that they have built during their time playing.
In an engaging world with driven by either creativity (Minecraft) social or social dynamics (EVE) grinding stats as a reason to play isn't really needed.
Of course in order to make a "no combat-stat progression" model work you would need an engaging / skill based combat system that really rewards veteran players for their extra practice. That's likely where PFO falls short.
But anyway "I dumped X$ into a crappy game before it was playable" really isn't going to be a convincing argument to newbs forced to deal with a ridiculous stat gaps for month or years when they join PFO. They will simply allow you to remain king of your ant hill while they leave.
Before everyone says "EVE is doing fine" let me remind you ~75% of their population lives in high security space.
Also the "feeling they could never catch up" was an extremely common reason for leaving EVE given to me by college friends.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I dunno. I think you over-estimate the number of people that are so competitive that they refuse to play a MMO where they can't poopsock their way to max level in 2 weeks, and run with the big boys.
Those people exist for sure, but they are also usually the loudest people in the MMO communities so they seem a bit over-represented. There is a huge batch of people that just enjoy a game for what it is and can pick up any MMO, no matter where its playerbase is at.
Now, an *empty* MMO, that's a real downer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree, I don't think there are many MMO players that expect that they will be on par with veteran players (with years of xp spent or experience with the game systems).
That is one of those MMO myths that has been bandied about on these forums for years.
Now, there are theme park MMOs where you can hit max level in 2 weeks, but that is more a reflection of player behavior and the availability of time that Developers just can't compensate for.
They could develop an MMO with a whopping 200 hours of content and someone out there will complete that in 2 weeks, and then whine that there is not enough content. I personally know players who will log in 16 - 20 hours per day.
@Bluddwolf. I don't think people have any expectation of being on par with veteran players in terms of experience with the game systems. Nobody picks up a new title that they have no experience with nor experience with anything like it, and trashes everything. I do think there is some expectation by many people that the better player will win. Rage that trash vets are able to beat someone simply because of their character stats is a common thing I've heard echoed by many, many, many players not just on forums but in-game, on Teamspeak, and even in person. Is that not the root of your issue with DFUW's prowess system?
I think it's larger than you are estimating. The main people I had in mind weren't forum warriors. They were real life friends that cited ridiculous grinds and level imbalances as their reason for not playing either specific MMOs or in some cases MMOs period.
I don't think anyone wants an MMO were you poopsock to max level in week two and that's not what I said. What I said is "no combat-stat progression."
In other words the combat stats you start with will never get better. In terms of character strength, you are always equal to everyone else. It's knowing how to play your character that sets the newbs and vets apart.
I've actually put a lot of thought into how you would do such a system. There is a few principle things you would need:
1. You need new "bulk" content. In most MMO's level grinding is the "bulk" of the content for most players. Models that have proven successful other than scripted content are creativity (Minecraft or 2nd Life) and interaction (EVE, MOBAs).
2. There has to be gear progression but gear should be more of a temporary power up than a permanent character upgrade. That means 100% gear-loss to the loser and at least 50% of those items being permanently circulated out of the economy. The reason being is that you need something driving either the economy or social interaction. Gear loss drives them both as a reason to continually produce goods and an objective to fight over. Not just inventory loss. GEAR loss. When you must consistently maintain the gear you can't be a trash player running around in good gear all the time. People can't grind or "whale" their way to the top and then stay there unless they have the skills to back it up.
3. You do still need some way for players to showcase their accomplishments and feel like they are building on something. Achievements are a big way to do this. NOT PFO-style achievements that gate progression. Being able to show off your achievements pages, get some titles, maybe a unique cosmetic-skin for items. That all works fine. Also you can do it like they did in the original Guild Wars after hitting level cap. It was easy to max out your gear and level in that game but they still had tons of skills to hunt down for your character. The skills weren't better than any of the skills you started with but they opened up new build options so they were still highly desirable to hunt down. Another example is Team Fortress 2 where you can earn new items with cool properties but they always have a downside to keep them on par with your original ones.
4. You can still have non-combat skills you progress in. Leveling gathering, crafting, social, merchant, etc. type skills does kind of increase your power in that you have more economic weight to throw around but as long as you keep market relevancy for low grade items and such and keep crafting/gathering tied to a risk vs. reward system it kind of works out. Social connections will even things out a bit where effective groups aren't going to spend all their money getting someone gear thats 5 times as effective as rank 1 gear for 20 times the cost but have a bunch of guys running around in trash when they could get a ton of guys gear thats 3 times effective for only 5 times the cost. In a risk vs. reward system they need all those guys to help mitigate risks and increase their rewards.
5. Combat would have to be very skill based. There would need to be substantial learning room to become a truly great player. Tab-targeting would almost certainly have to go.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually, my issue with the prowess system in DFUW had nothing to do with more experienced characters having better attacks. My issue was that the only way to earn Prowess was the incredible amount of grinding it took to earn Prowess.
The PVP threshold in DFUW was about 17k PW. The quickest way to get there was to kill 500 x of monster A - Z, and to craft 150 x of armors A - D, and 150 x weapons of A-C.
The combat was quite fun, even when getting owned, because there was always a risk and always a reward when you won.
Another myth heavily spread about here on these forums was that DFUW failed because of the open world PVP being too harsh (FFA, full loot, meaningless reputation system). I strongly disagreed with that myth, instead I pointed to the grind as the true culprit.
From what I understand, DFUW has had a resurgence in population and that mostly has to do with a revamp of the prowess and skill system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think PFO would be better served if we look at what the OP has stated was the cause of both her's and her group's loss of interest in PFO.
It is the issue of SCALE, which AvenaOats has gone into great detail over and has so far been ignored as an issue by Ryan.
It is also the issue that most are pointing to as a major problem with the Holding / Outpost system.
There is insufficient supports for the small group, to participate fully in the PFO experience, even though they are paying the same fee for doing so. Not everyone wants to be forced into a large player organization, and the systems being put into place are even stressing those larger organizations by converting much of their game time into chores.
Generic
Grinding
Chores
Repetitive
Soulless
Lack Luster
Restrictive
Safe
Dated
Uninspired
These are the 10 words that spring to mind, and I have seen as descriptions for the game in multiple posts on several websites.
I would like to see a Developer address how they plan to remove three of those words in the next month. Another six in the next 3 months after that, and the final (most difficult) in the 2 months of the 6 month plan.
if they make the combat and animations fun and smooth this might have a chance
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
if they make the combat and animations fun and smooth this might have a chance
I agree, and it should be noted that combat animations have improved, however even with that the combat is still generic.
I push the #1 button and I swing the #1 swing. I push the #2 button and I swing the #2 swing. Maybe #1 is a set up and #2 is an exploit, so pressing in sequence is a possible critical.
Very generic, nothing innovative or skill based. No timing required, and no increased chance for critical for better timing.
Every MMO on the horizon has some innovative or even unique aspect, where is that in PFO?
Fallen Earth had a crafting system, mount / vehicle system + combat while mounted, a faction system, a voluntary PVP flagging system, and an open world sandbox where they were all brought together to breathe the soul into the game. If Lee Hammock brought that together in 2009, why can't we see more of that in 2015 PFO?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skill based combat has a ton of inherent issues with large numbers of players and processing the instructions they generate quickly. There's a reason most twitch based games have the player limits they do. Just look at Star Citizen's and Elite Dangerous instancing mechanics despite being MMOs with respectable budgets. 'Traditional' MMO combat is the way it is for a very good reason.
Options are limited if you aren't willing to severely limit the number of players in a particular 'area'. While it might not be true right now, the goal is to have larger amounts of players involved in a given fight, part of the reason they have a plan for formation combat is to get around this very problem by reducing the amount of commands they would have to process for large battles.
@Bludd
Your description of the combat is a bit incorrect. Timing, interrupts, movement, and resource management are very intricate to winning an evenly matched fight in PFO. It's not super complex once you get the hang of it, but it still requires you to do more than just slam a rotation as fast as you can.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree that the PvE combat is boring and generic, but the PvP combat can be quite fun. It is most definitely skill based, there is definitely timing involved, and though it isn't particularly innovative it certainly has promise.
They really, really need to get everything working more smoothly, but they have a good basic system in place. A skilled player can kill multiple equally equipped enemies if they play the fight right. A skilled player can destroy quite a few lesser equipped enemies.
Consumables need to be fixed and balanced, casting times on expendables need to be a hell of a lot clearer, and there needs to be a better user feedback system, but that will come in time. Hopefully.
Skill based combat has a ton of inherent issues with large numbers of players and processing the instructions they generate quickly. There's a reason most twitch based games have the player limits they do. Just look at Star Citizen's and Elite Dangerous instancing mechanics despite being MMOs with respectable budgets. 'Traditional' MMO combat is the way it is for a very good reason.
Options are limited if you aren't willing to severely limit the number of players in a particular 'area'. While it might not be true right now, the goal is to have larger amounts of players involved in a given fight, part of the reason they have a plan for formation combat is to get around this very problem by reducing the amount of commands they would have to process for large battles.
@Bludd
Your description of the combat is a bit incorrect. Timing, interrupts, movement, and resource management are very intricate to winning an evenly matched fight in PFO. It's not super complex once you get the hang of it, but it still requires you to do more than just slam a rotation as fast as you can.
There is a universal constant in modern technology. It is constantly improving at a fairly rapid pace.
The smallest siege I ever attended in Darkfall had about three times as many players as TEO's server wide escalation event or over twice as large as PFO's "stress test." That was a few years after DF's release when it's population had declined. The largest I ever attended definately had at least 200-300 players and I never played before the American/European server split.
DFO of course being fully manually aim with a combat system about as difficult to truly master as QWOP.
Some of those sieges were very laggy and chaotic but they did work. I am not at all convinced that a smoothly operating combat system based on smart-targeting cannot support hundreds of players in 2015. And it will only get smoother as time goes on.
Even so. Big battles look more impressive in hindsight than in reality. All of my favorite PvP memories involve less than 30 players because there was room for individuals to stand out, and more of a feeling that the team was really depending on you and your performance. I don't think mass scale PvP is as important or impressive as this community hypes it up to be.
Toward the end of my DFO career I remember 90% of a siege for me was simply communication to figure out which of the dozen or more groups coming to our sieges were there as allies, enemies, or just there to scavenge loot. In the big scale of things it was mainly massive blobs throwing AoEs at eachother or chaotic melees where it was often difficult to tell friend from foe and your actions had very little chance to sway the siege one way or another unless you were the one giving commands.
I think avoiding blob vs. blob combat may be an intelligent design direction even if the tech can support it flawlessly.
As to PFO's formation system, I'll believe it when I see it. I'd say its a 50/50 on whether they ever do it at all with the chances of it being done well far, far, dimmer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One of the EVE dev blogs has an amazing write up about the problem and how they came up with and adjusted their time dilation issue to solve it. Pretty interesting, they also had a blog about their database server architecture that I thought was really neat. I mostly work with business applications that are pretty localized (geographically) so reading about how they use the same technology but in a drastically different configuration is pretty cool.
Anyways I agree in principle, smaller sizes in the 20-30 range are more interesting that giant blobs. Just take a look at a modern round based shooters, 36 players is about the current max for smooth gameplay and tends to avoid too much blob play. Unfortunately in an open world MMO you need to either artificially limit things or come up with a architecture that makes players want to split up, but even then someone will always try to play a numbers advantage if they can.
As to tech getting better yea it does but it's a huge complex problem for multiplayer stuff, it's not really about your computer (which progresses the fastest) or the server, it's about the network infrastructure between you, the server, and everyone else involved in that particular game. The numbers have surprisingly not changed as much as I would have expected over time. They will change, I just don't expect 1000 person shooters to just start happening it will probably be pretty gradual. Someone figures out some tricks once in awhile but it's usually via sacrificing something else (see typical MMO combat).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One of the EVE dev blogs has an amazing write up about the problem and how they came up with and adjusted their time dilation issue to solve it. Pretty interesting, they also had a blog about their database server architecture that I thought was really neat. I mostly work with business applications that are pretty localized (geographically) so reading about how they use the same technology but in a drastically different configuration is pretty cool.
Anyways I agree in principle, smaller sizes in the 20-30 range are more interesting that giant blobs. Just take a look at a modern round based shooters, 36 players is about the current max for smooth gameplay and tends to avoid too much blob play. Unfortunately in an open world MMO you need to either artificially limit things or come up with a architecture that makes players want to split up, but even then someone will always try to play a numbers advantage if they can.
As to tech getting better yea it does but it's a huge complex problem for multiplayer stuff, it's not really about your computer (which progresses the fastest) or the server, it's about the network infrastructure between you, the server, and everyone else involved in that particular game. The numbers have surprisingly not changed as much as I would have expected over time. They will change, I just don't expect 1000 person shooters to just start happening it will probably be pretty gradual. Someone figures out some tricks once in awhile but it's usually via sacrificing something else (see typical MMO combat).
EVE have a serious technical issue with old code that is essentially single core. Aside from Tidi, they used to do some funky stuff like shut down extra cores on the Xeons to allow more overclocking for single core performance and have dedicated servers that step in and run a single system when one of the crazy big battles takes place. They also have system quota's, you cannot get into Jita (which has a dedicated server core of its own) once player numbers exceeds a set limit (around 2000 players in system I think) and you can get caught on the in-gate unable to jump.
Tidi is not an ideal solution, in EVE I have had to log out after multiple hours online simply because the battle was taking forever and I had real life commitments.
PFO cannot currently handle even medium sized battles. Even observing in tower battles with 20 or 30 players will kick me to the desktop though that may be partly a client side issue or due to be located in Australia.
One of the EVE dev blogs has an amazing write up about the problem and how they came up with and adjusted their time dilation issue to solve it. Pretty interesting, they also had a blog about their database server architecture that I thought was really neat. I mostly work with business applications that are pretty localized (geographically) so reading about how they use the same technology but in a drastically different configuration is pretty cool.
Anyways I agree in principle, smaller sizes in the 20-30 range are more interesting that giant blobs. Just take a look at a modern round based shooters, 36 players is about the current max for smooth gameplay and tends to avoid too much blob play. Unfortunately in an open world MMO you need to either artificially limit things or come up with a architecture that makes players want to split up, but even then someone will always try to play a numbers advantage if they can.
As to tech getting better yea it does but it's a huge complex problem for multiplayer stuff, it's not really about your computer (which progresses the fastest) or the server, it's about the network infrastructure between you, the server, and everyone else involved in that particular game. The numbers have surprisingly not changed as much as I would have expected over time. They will change, I just don't expect 1000 person shooters to just start happening it will probably be pretty gradual. Someone figures out some tricks once in awhile but it's usually via sacrificing something else (see typical MMO combat).
I had suggested awhile back that sieges should not be based on doing damage to a single target to take control of the keep but more of a battle over multiple objectives that takes place over a longer time. If a battle is less over "Everyone push the clanstone" and more over building points holding objectives A,B, C, D, E and F for X hours then you naturally need to split up a bit and rather than sending out an emergency call to arms to wake up and defend at 3 am it's best just to have your members put the time they can afford into it.
Star Wars Battlefront 2 has a lot of the idea I'm going for.
Your individual actions may have little impact on changing the course of the siege but at least you can get the rush of being "The hero of objective C."
Of course that's kind of a moot point for PFO until you get more than 20-40 players showing up for major server wide events.