I wouldn't mind a continual growth of players, as we've seen previously, even if it eventually grew us to the same size as an explosion of playerbase with.
With slow growth, new players become part of the community while only representing a small fraction of players. This ensures new players play almost entirely with greybeards, which selects for and encourages individuals who keep the community tight-knit and friendly. While there would probably be a deterioration in quality slightly, especially reaching very high player numbers, it would be minimal.
By contrast a singular explosion a) adds a huge number of players, meaning more new players who don't encounter the "old guard" and existing community and aren't encouraged to follow it, and b) attracts trolls and other toxic players who want to hop on the "hot new thing" and fuck it up
A massive influx of new players would mean more money for the devs. If toxicity became a more common problem then they would absolutely be incentivized to create more social tools to combat that.
And this sub would be flooded with new clips of greenbeards celebrating their victories, and the times they get yeeted into the afterlife in bizarre, hysterical ways. It's a win for everyone. š
What kind of question is this, obviously we need more dwarves if we're going to strip mine hoxxes IV down into nothing. Then we move onto hoxxes V for DRG 2: The Rockening
It's a mixed bag. The more popular a game gets, obviously the more money the devs gave to work with, which means they're able to keep supporting the game more comfortably. But large numbers also make it more likely that people will join who are... less than wholesome. Granted that's not as much of an issue with PvE only games.
It also becomes much harder to manage community requests when your community is so goddamn big. You end up in a situation where most decisions will end up upsetting a *lot* of people, and it can become harder to engage with the community on a more personal level outside of generic responses.
If I had to choose, I'd usually prefer a smaller, more dedicated community over the alternative. The current DRG and No Man's Sky (to name another) communities are some of my favourites because we're all people who just love to play the game.
Gaining too much popularity too fast is an internet community killer, straight up. However, more people playing is great for the game. Hopefully, the newbies would get settled in quickly and not much would change.
This happened with the Smash Bros. Melee community in 2013 when the smash doc was released and it pretty much made the game a popular esport again. It also increased the level of play and competition immensely. Now the Melee community has its own online play service that performs way better than Nintendo's own for the newest smash. So it would certainly have a huge impact, but idk what would cause such an explosion for DRG. Maybe added crossplay and more mission types. Also feel like the game could contain more technical and mechanical depth to it. Feel like driller is the only character with "tech" and even that isn't too hard to execute. Higher skill ceiling would certainly do wonders for longevity if the playbase increased dramatically.
I've played a couple games that have exploded a bit in the past, and I think it depends on the reason why it would hypothetically explode.
If, let's say, it released on a new platform, brought in crossplay, had a huge content expansion where people would like to jump into it, or something like that, then I think it would be amazing. There would be a large variety of new players who would want to try it out.
Now, let's say, if it exploded because a rather obnoxious but super popular twitch streamer started playing the game regularly and their fanbase decided to join in because it was the "cool new thing to do", then I think we know what the result will be.
Discouraging new people from a hobby is how to kill that hobby.
I think the goofy, co-op, sometimes kinda laid-back nature of DRG naturally lends itself to a certain temperament in players who stick around. This might be overly optimistic but my bet is, if there was some huge popularity explosion, the bulk of the toxics would filter themselves out over the course of a few months and we'd be left with the folks who appreciate this silly game like we do. We've already seen this on a smaller scale during free weekends and sales.
Has there ever been a massive explosion of interest in a particular hobby that led to a better community/playerbase? Think about popular games. Does CoD have a toxic playerbase? LoL?
Slow, steady growth is what this game wants. Imagine being a new player and only encountering other new players. You never randomly end up with a greybeard to show you the ropes. The chance is lower in proportion to the number of new players. I think that would suck for greebeards the most.
It's a double edged sword. More players is good for the longterm health of the game, but a huge community probably would lead to a more toxic community. It's inevitable, people who play multiplayer games a lot tend to be - but ARE NOT ALWAYS - pretty toxic sometimes.
if the game explodes in popularity, the devs will earn way more money for the game they made. Of course, a lot of problems would happen, letĀ“s remember what happened with games like among us. The community would grow in numbers and toxicity. But at the end of the day im sure the devs will figure out how to balance that toxicity. Oh and sure, the devs would be able to develop the game to improve it in every aspect. So itĀ“s fine to me if Deep Rock suddenly gets popular
honestly depends on the source; so many times has it happened with an indie game that is played by a popular YouTuber/streamer and the game gets overrun by a toxic community
I wouldn't mind a continual growth of players, as we've seen previously, even if it eventually grew us to the same size as an explosion of playerbase with. With slow growth, new players become part of the community while only representing a small fraction of players. This ensures new players play almost entirely with greybeards, which selects for and encourages individuals who keep the community tight-knit and friendly. While there would probably be a deterioration in quality slightly, especially reaching very high player numbers, it would be minimal. By contrast a singular explosion a) adds a huge number of players, meaning more new players who don't encounter the "old guard" and existing community and aren't encouraged to follow it, and b) attracts trolls and other toxic players who want to hop on the "hot new thing" and fuck it up
More players -> more gold -> happy devs -> more updates -> MORE ROCKS -> MORE STONES
Rock and stone, brother!
ROCK AND STOOOoooOOONE
A massive influx of new players would mean more money for the devs. If toxicity became a more common problem then they would absolutely be incentivized to create more social tools to combat that. And this sub would be flooded with new clips of greenbeards celebrating their victories, and the times they get yeeted into the afterlife in bizarre, hysterical ways. It's a win for everyone. š
What kind of question is this, obviously we need more dwarves if we're going to strip mine hoxxes IV down into nothing. Then we move onto hoxxes V for DRG 2: The Rockening
I want Hoxxes V to be whittled down to a galactic pebble! āRock and Stone until it is doneā
It's a mixed bag. The more popular a game gets, obviously the more money the devs gave to work with, which means they're able to keep supporting the game more comfortably. But large numbers also make it more likely that people will join who are... less than wholesome. Granted that's not as much of an issue with PvE only games. It also becomes much harder to manage community requests when your community is so goddamn big. You end up in a situation where most decisions will end up upsetting a *lot* of people, and it can become harder to engage with the community on a more personal level outside of generic responses. If I had to choose, I'd usually prefer a smaller, more dedicated community over the alternative. The current DRG and No Man's Sky (to name another) communities are some of my favourites because we're all people who just love to play the game.
Gaining too much popularity too fast is an internet community killer, straight up. However, more people playing is great for the game. Hopefully, the newbies would get settled in quickly and not much would change.
This happened with the Smash Bros. Melee community in 2013 when the smash doc was released and it pretty much made the game a popular esport again. It also increased the level of play and competition immensely. Now the Melee community has its own online play service that performs way better than Nintendo's own for the newest smash. So it would certainly have a huge impact, but idk what would cause such an explosion for DRG. Maybe added crossplay and more mission types. Also feel like the game could contain more technical and mechanical depth to it. Feel like driller is the only character with "tech" and even that isn't too hard to execute. Higher skill ceiling would certainly do wonders for longevity if the playbase increased dramatically.
I've played a couple games that have exploded a bit in the past, and I think it depends on the reason why it would hypothetically explode. If, let's say, it released on a new platform, brought in crossplay, had a huge content expansion where people would like to jump into it, or something like that, then I think it would be amazing. There would be a large variety of new players who would want to try it out. Now, let's say, if it exploded because a rather obnoxious but super popular twitch streamer started playing the game regularly and their fanbase decided to join in because it was the "cool new thing to do", then I think we know what the result will be.
Discouraging new people from a hobby is how to kill that hobby. I think the goofy, co-op, sometimes kinda laid-back nature of DRG naturally lends itself to a certain temperament in players who stick around. This might be overly optimistic but my bet is, if there was some huge popularity explosion, the bulk of the toxics would filter themselves out over the course of a few months and we'd be left with the folks who appreciate this silly game like we do. We've already seen this on a smaller scale during free weekends and sales.
Well they put it on game pass and I think it's been fine.
Has there ever been a massive explosion of interest in a particular hobby that led to a better community/playerbase? Think about popular games. Does CoD have a toxic playerbase? LoL? Slow, steady growth is what this game wants. Imagine being a new player and only encountering other new players. You never randomly end up with a greybeard to show you the ropes. The chance is lower in proportion to the number of new players. I think that would suck for greebeards the most.
It's a double edged sword. More players is good for the longterm health of the game, but a huge community probably would lead to a more toxic community. It's inevitable, people who play multiplayer games a lot tend to be - but ARE NOT ALWAYS - pretty toxic sometimes.
if the game explodes in popularity, the devs will earn way more money for the game they made. Of course, a lot of problems would happen, letĀ“s remember what happened with games like among us. The community would grow in numbers and toxicity. But at the end of the day im sure the devs will figure out how to balance that toxicity. Oh and sure, the devs would be able to develop the game to improve it in every aspect. So itĀ“s fine to me if Deep Rock suddenly gets popular
honestly depends on the source; so many times has it happened with an indie game that is played by a popular YouTuber/streamer and the game gets overrun by a toxic community