devtrackers.gg
(TL;DR at bottom)
I recently finished watching an online lecture series titled Power and Politics in Today's World, and one of the concepts mentioned was "exit, voice, and loyalty," which describes how members of an organization respond to a decline in the quality of that organization. Faced with this problem, members can either leave (exit) or seek to reform the organization (voice). I think applying this concept to Eco will yield some interesting conclusions while also shedding light on a problematic feature (not necessarily unique to Eco) that is preventing this game from realizing fully the regenerative and simulatory open-world concept that I, in my opinion, wish it could be.
Just to be clear, I love this game. I played roughly 130 hours in about 2 weeks (I've since cut back because such levels are unsustainable). There's a lot to admire in Eco, and it would be pointless in listing all the features that I found enjoyable. The most relevant feature, and perhaps the most important one, is the open-world concept that largely leaves players free to pursue their individual goals aside from the stated goal of averting global catastrophe and stewarding the world environment. The simulatory nature of the game is what led me to purchase it in the first place, and the videos and photos of the game led me to believe that there would be servers with enough people to really sustain a specialized economy in which someone could, for instance, derive their in-game livelihood solely by transporting goods from one place to another.
After spending several hours in several different servers, it quickly became apparent that such an experience was not yet within reach. I, and, I am sure, many other players, have noticed that servers empty out rapidly. The official servers see almost a hundred active players on day 0 and hardly anyone by day 7. Even well-advertised unofficial servers that commit to long-term gameplay might see active player counts between 30-50 players right after a refresh that soon dwindle to 20 or less just a couple days later.
Some might say that there's nothing wrong with this. Specialization settings can be modified to make it easier for fewer people to amass more skills, and it is perfectly feasible for even a handful of players to work together to take out the meteor. On this view, it doesn't matter whether you have 80 players or 20 players--those few who remain can finish the game.
I agree that the official objective of the game, as it was designed, can be accomplished with only a few active players. What I am arguing here is that low and declining player counts prevent the game from realizing fully its potential as an open-world simulation of human society. The real world economy, for example, depends on a large number of participants to set market prices based on aggregate supply and demand. Hence, the more players there are in a server, the more goods are sold, and the more demand for goods is generated. Likewise, modern economies are specialized as a result of technology and population. Advancements in agriculture freed people up for other occupations that arose to meet the demands of previously nonexistent or niche markets that grew proportionate to the population. Hence, the more players there are in a server, the more specialized and narrow occupations become. To put it another way, it becomes more efficient for people to focus on one skill rather than to handle many tasks. Only a sufficiently populated server could sustain realtors, advertising agencies, campaign managers, garbage collectors, arbitrage traders, and many other specialized occupations. The possibilities are endless.
All of this sounds exciting, and others have expressed similar interest in such gameplay. Why, then, don't servers have hundreds of players interacting in an immersive sandbox as I've described it above? Applying the concept of "exit, voice, and loyalty" might offer an explanation. Simply put, the exit costs of leaving a server are too low. New servers attract lots of players because they offer a fresh start and a level playing field for everyone. People want to get ahead, to hone their skills, and to design and construct high-tier and furnished buildings. Even without money in the picture, all of these are measures of success or advancement. Some people, as a result of a timing head start, of an advantageous setup location, or of taking up an in-demand specialization, will come out ahead. These players have an incentive to remain. Others who are dissatisfied with their status in the server, however, can simply quit and join another server and start over from scratch, hoping that they will fare better this time. This hurts those who did well in the original server because it depletes the server of a population base, which is detrimental for all the reasons given in the preceding paragraph.
The alternative to exit is voice. When members of an organization cannot easily leave, they instead may opt to reform the organization and improve it from within. Seafarers on a lifeboat can't ditch their situation. If there's a hole, they'll have to plug it. Likewise, if the costs of exit for players in a server were to be much higher, they would have to remain in the server and seek to improve their lot instead of attempting to start over someplace else.
What might this look like in practice? I offer some possible solutions. I do not necessarily endorse any of these proposals, but I do offer them as food for thought. First, SLG could consolidate its four official servers into one longer running server and require all new players to spend a certain amount of time in that official server (say, 5 hours) before being able to join other servers. This would provide the server with a steady stream of new players who could choose to remain in the server, knowing that their investment in the server will be rewarded by the presence of players who come after them, or they could choose to move on after they have satisfied the time requirement (and gotten some initial experience with the game).
A second proposal might be to limit the number of servers a player can join in a given time period. This would prevent server hopping and would force players to invest more time and effort in a server. This could be a hard cap or a token system in which players could purchase more tokens in order to hop into more servers (disclaimer: I am not a business major, nor do I have any monetization experience).
The third and most radical proposal might be to prohibit private multiplayer servers and to simply host one single universal server. Because I believe the number of players who would play this game no matter what exceeds the number of players who would only be willing to play if given a choice among servers, this would be the most realistic because it would produce the highest active player counts.
Some might object that the game privileges first movers and that latecomers are disadvantaged, and hence that raising exit costs forces players to play an unfair game. I would concede that first movers do have some advantages, such as determining where the urban centers will be and being first to specialize; however, if specialization settings are set to high or very high (as I would hope and expect it to be), then first movers will have largely early-stage specializations and will therefore, in the mid- to late-game, have to rely on latecomers who specialize in late-stage specializations. Furthermore, players who are generally dissatisfied with their condition in the server, perhaps because they feel that a small cadre of successful elites control most of the land, resources, and capital in the world, can always choose to exercise their power in numbers through the in-game government. All of this is to say that Eco is structured enough to provide recourse even for players who are lower on the ladder or late to join the game.
There are obviously technical problems with all of these approaches. The most glaring one might be whether the server would be capable of handling hundreds or even thousands of players simultaneously. From the standpoint of multiplayer gameplay, however, I think that any effort that raises the costs of exiting a server will lead to an improved and more simulatory experience for all.
TL;DR: Eco's potential to simulate real-world politics and economics depends on the number of players in a server. The more players there are, the more efficient in-game markets become, and the more specialized occupations become. Currently, active player counts in servers are low to begin with and decline over time because of low exit costs. Players who don't like their situation in a server can leave and join another server for a fresh start. If the exit costs were higher, then players would have to stay in a server and exercise their "voice" by improving their condition and the quality of the server. Three proposals are suggested as purely food for thought. First, SLG could host a single official server that all new players would have to play in for a certain time before being able to access other servers. Second, all players could be limited in the number of different servers they can join in a given time period. Third, all official and nonofficial servers could be replaced by a single universal server.
External link →