MMOGs are all about time. The goal of the game developers is to spend as much time with their game as possible. This doesn't necessarily mean as much time spent *in* the game as possible, but rather with their game. While that doesn't make a lot of semantic sense at the beginning, it becomes clearer if you think about it. What online game companies want is for you to keep spending your money on them. This means that you need to get enough enjoyment out of their game every month to not cancel your account. However, how much time you spend per month doesn't need to be that much. There are 24 hours in a day, and roughly 30 days in a month. How many of those 720 hours are you going to spend logged in, eating up server resources and bandwidth? The 'optimal' player is one who keeps spending the money, but who plays a minimal amount of time per month. The problem stems here from striking that careful balance. Users are finicky people, walking that razor's edge is no easy trick. You want to maximize the number of subscribers, but minimize the amount of time each subscriber spends in game. In this regard, the original Animal Crossing was great. After you played for a while that day... the amount of stuff you could do just dried up, and you'd stop playing. Something similar to this would probably be what MMOG developers would like to do.

In a completely tangential note...

There was another thing I found very interesting, mathematically speaking, with MMO Gaming. In the MMOG genre, there's a couple of basic axioms that pretty much hold true: the more people you have in a single group, the harder it is to coordinate. The more people you have in a single group, the more specialized each individual player's contributions become, often becoming limited to only one or two major tasks for the entire course of the encounter. So, for example, you might have 5 or 6 people in a group, and they'd have widely different roles in the group, each covering many multiple tactics. However, take that group and increase its size... let's say to 30, 40, 50, or even 100 people, and the effective roles they take decrease significantly. A final fantasy 11 black mage will always be the damage dealer, but against HNMs they stick to the same spells repeatedly. In World of Warcraft, warlocks spam shadowbolt and reapply their DoTs. Hunters spam their damage dealing abilities, mages spam their damage dealing abilities, and it's pretty much reduced to a routine. Everquest was very similar... keep the buffs up, keep the debuffs up, damage the monster till it dies while clerics chain cast complete heal on the tank(s). Why is this?

Imagine an encounter where the players would have to react dynamically... maybe one would need to use skill A in response to attack 1, then skill B to counter attack 2, and so on and so forth. The more complex a role the players have in the group, the easier it is for them to cause the group to fail.

*"Ok" you're nodding. "That makes sense. And large group encounters are way more complex than small group ones, right?"*

Obviously, large group encounters are more complex on an overall level than small group encounters, yes. However, on an individual basis, they are actually *simpler* than small group encounters. How can I prove this? Here comes the math.

**Axiom: The complexity of an encounter is directly proportional to how often a player will fail while doing it with full knowledge.**This is a question of execution. If you know exactly what will happen, you will know what you (individually) need to do during the encounter. Sometimes you know you need to do three front kicks followed by a roundhouse kick when you see a red flag, but you just mess the timing up, or press the wrong button, or miss seeing the flag, or whatever. This leads us to...

**Logical Conclusion A:**The simpler an encounter is, the easier it is to execute. The more complex an encounter, the more difficult it is to execute. Thus, the more complex an encounter is, the less chance you have of doing it perfectly.

Make sense so far?

**Logical Conclusion B:**Since complexity directly decreases the chances of successfully completing the encounter, the more people you have, the more each individual's chance to screw up becomes magnified.

How's that work?

Well, let's say that you screw up. And let's say that if you screw up, you have a chance of wiping the group. Let's say that your chance of wiping the group is 50%, since you can screw up small, or screw up big. Then let's calculate your chance of screwing up. Let's say that in a very complex fight, you have a 20% chance of screwing up (80% chance to do it right). So your chance of screwing up and wiping is 0.50 x 0.20 = 10% chance to wipe the group. 90% chance to not wipe the group. The group of one, which includes only you, or people who never mess up. Ever.

So let's put you in a group of people who are the same as you. Let's say there are 5 people total. You and 4 you-clones. You all have the same chance of screwing up, and the same chance of wiping on a screwup. That means you've got 90% x 90% x 90% x 90% x 90%. This becomes magnified. The actual chance for the full group NOT to wipe because of a screwup is only 59%. This is with a 20% chance to screw up, and a 50% chance that given a screwup, you wipe the group.

So what's this mean for a larger group? With 20 people, you have a (0.90)^20 chance to not wipe due to a screwup. This means you have a 12.2% chance to not wipe due to a mistake.

With a group of 30 people, you have a (0.90)^30 chance to not fail. This equates out to 4.3% chance of success.

With 40 people, your chances of success are 1.5%. At Everquest's magical 100 person raid mark, the chances of success would be .0026% to succeed.

*"Hogwash! I beat raid encounters all the time! They're on farm status, we beat them all the time."*you may be saying.

Yes, you are correct. You probably do beat raid encounters all the time. You want to know why? Here's why:

**Logical Conclusion C:**Raid encounters have an absurdly low chance to fail on an individual basis. Let's say, for example, that you've got a raid encounter. And if you make a mistake, you've got an averaeg of 10% chance to wipe the raid (this is averaged out among every member of the group). Let's say that your average chance of not making a mistake (once again, spread out across the entire group) is 90%. So you've got an average of 0.1 x 0.1 = 1% chance to wipe the raid on a mistake. A 99% chance *not* to wipe the raid, any given attempt.

SUCCESS RATE:

With a group of 5: 95.1%

With a group of 20: 81.8%

With a group of 30: 74.0%

With a group of 40: 66.9%

With a group of 100: 36.6%

If you're aiming for an encounter where groups succeed roughly 80% of the time, here are the individual chances of success you would need:

Solo: 80%

Group of 5: 95.64%

Group of 20: 98.89%

Group of 30: 99.23%

Group of 40: 99.44%

Group of 100: 99.78%

Now... while these numbers look similar, they are actually very very different relative to each other. In a group of 5, you've got 4.36% chance to fail. In a group of 20, you have 1.11% chance... almost 1/4th the chance of a 5-man. In a group of 40, you have a 0.56% chance to fail, roughly 1/8th the chance of a 5-man to fail. This is all in order to hit the 80% success rate for the whole group.

*"Right, so it's easier to screw up in a 5-man, and harder to screw up in a big raid. Duh." is what you may be thinking.*

Yes, my friend. That's exactly it... but not necessarily for the reasons you may think. If you ran a 40-man raid with individual difficulty equivalent to a 20-man, you'd have a .9889^40 = 63.99% chance to succeed. If you ran a 100-man raid with the individual difficulty of a 5-man group, you'd have a 0.9564^100 = 1.16% chance to succeed. The aggregate difficulty of a raid is more complex than a smaller group, but each individual's contribution *must* be reduced to a super simplistic state, or the group will have almost no chance at all of succeeding regularly.

This is why most raid encounters reduce most classes to performing a set (and very simplistic) pattern. You need to make it so simple that the average player can succeed over 99% of the time, when they know what to do. If they do not, they will not have a chance to succeed more than they fail.

--Rawr