You have a unique mud, with an all-original world, an engaging storyline, and a unique system of medieval feudalism. You have two dedicated coders, and wonderful builders who are continually adding more to the game. You have a helpful immortal staff who interact with players, in and out of character, and players who are always willing to give advice to those in need. Your mud is one of the best you've ever played (Of course. That's why you play it.). But something's missing...

You've logged onto other muds at this time of night, and have seen more players online than your mud has had online EVER. Granted, quantity is not always quality, but those players seem decent, not much different than any of the players on your mud. But.. what draws them there? Compared to your mud, this mud is pretty sad-looking. Not near the amount of effort has been put into it. No wonder you don't stay long. But, for some reason, they do. And yet the players on your "perfect mud" come and go. It just doesn't make sense...

And so you analyze your own mud and these others, and try to comprehend just what is holding you back. Your mud seems like a great place to play. Sometimes, the immortals can come across the wrong way. Some players seem elitist and only concerned for themselves. There's not as much roleplay as you would like. The staff works on too many changes at once, so some things get put on hold for longer than anticipated. Yet is that enough to drive people away from a mud with so much promise?

Things aren't dying, though you do wish you could see some growth. On occassion, a wave of new players will come through, though they seem to filter out, with only a few choosing to stay for good. No, your mud isn't for everyone, though it does seem odd that a mud with much less quality can retain so many players, while yours cannot. And so you analyze some more, and try to think of a solution. But each time, you end up back in the same place. And so you wonder...

...what went wrong?

How many players would you say is the minimum for a healthy game? I'm playing a new MUX--so new there aren't many players--but I have the feeling that, even if it's a bit too sophisticated (in my opinion, of course) for many people to enjoy, those playing it will stick around. So what's the minimum number?

Well that's strictly a matter of opinion, really.

My minimum number of players for a good game is about ten, and that's strictly players. Admins, and the like are not included in that.

My maximum preferred is about fifty - sixty or so. Beyond that the game will be too crowded and will be more spam that fun. One of the reasons I support coding in a maximum allowed players online. It would limit the game to a tolerable level.

Never even -considered- the maximum number! The MUD with the most players I've ever been on hit 45 once. And that was spread out over seven cities in four kingdoms. Still felt kind of underpoplated.

Would you say different code-bases support different optimal numbers? MUD, MUSH, etc?

Personally? I wouldn't know. The things I've been most interested in are MUDs. Never really (meaning seriously) played on anything else for too long, so I never got a real feel for the others. I would guess it also depends on the size of the world, the type of game, the code, and in some cases even the theme.