Seriously, Vanguard zoning was arguably worse than EQ's because you could never tell when you were about to get zinged by a loading freeze in the middle of a cornfield.
And yes, a lack of seamless world is going to hurt Pantheon. It's one of the (many) big reasons WoW wrecked EQ2. You hope to get a better graphical experience in each designated zone, but it's usually not worth the tradeoff.
That said, it's less important in the themepark-y game that Pantheon is likely to be than in a sandbox-y game.
Seriously, Vanguard zoning was arguably worse than EQ's because you could never tell when you were about to get zinged by a loading freeze in the middle of a cornfield.
And yes, a lack of seamless world is going to hurt Pantheon. It's one of the (many) big reasons WoW wrecked EQ2. You hope to get a better graphical experience in each designated zone, but it's usually not worth the tradeoff.
That said, it's less important in the themepark-y game that Pantheon is likely to be than in a sandbox-y game.
WoW wrecked EQ2 for a lot of reasons, the zones wouldn't even make the top 10 list.
Also, Pantheon aims to be more PvE sandbox than themepark, similar to classic EQ. What detracts from a sandbox game far more than zones, is instancing, which Pantheon does not plan to have.
I actually enjoy zoning systems. It adds a whole new level to gameplay that you don't have with seamless. Let me give you example, aggro a guard in everquest as a low level you better run like hell. Fact that mobs followed you forever created the concept of trains and a true fear for your life for what could be minutes depending on where you got aggro.
No game is as scary and hardcore as everquest. So many simple ways you can die, it was a great fear that made the game without quest grinding and literally just mob grinding so much fun.
WoW wrecked EQ2 for a lot of reasons, the zones wouldn't even make the top 10 list.
Well, reasonable people can disagree on that point. I personally loved the way zones flowed into each other in WoW and absolutely despised the way EQ2 ground to a halt as you tried to navigate the Freeport zone maze for basic beginner quests. Horrible newbie experience.
Also, Pantheon aims to be more PvE sandbox than themepark, similar to classic EQ. What detracts from a sandbox game far more than zones, is instancing, which Pantheon does not plan to have.
Besides a lack of instancing, what moves Pantheon down the continuum toward sandbox MMO?
I haven't seen any features that empower the player to affect the shared experience, but perhaps I haven't looked closely enough.
From what i understand it's going to be like classic EQ but set in a huge world on the scale of Vanguard. Running around a dangerous zone to find the zone entrance was a lot of fun in EQ.
Okay, flowing seamless zones would be nice but perhaps they are being realistic on what type of budget this game has. I think the people who are following this game don't really mind as long as it all works.
I quite like zones as long as they feel unique and distinctive (as a lot of EQ zones did). They need to feel like a self-contained region though.
I wouldn't even mind loading screens if they implied a journey rather than just loading e.g. zone in or out of a desert zone and the loading screen is a caravan crossing the desert.
The other thing about a zoned world with an implied journey rather than implied adjacency is it makes the game potentially more extendable. I never managed to get Vanguard to run but it seemed to me at the time the problem with it may have been trying to do too much up front. A skeleton zoned world could have other zones plugged in later.
It is embarrassing that Asheron's call allowed a seamless world back in the 90s, but 15+ years later, games are back to zones.
Yea, but on the other hand I played EQ, AC, and DAoC all during the same period of time and as much as I thought it would be cool if all games were seamless it was never remotely a determining factor in which I played more.
I quite like zones as long as they feel unique and distinctive (as a lot of EQ zones did). They need to feel like a self-contained region though.
I wouldn't even mind loading screens if they implied a journey rather than just loading e.g. zone in or out of a desert zone and the loading screen is a caravan crossing the desert.
The other thing about a zoned world with an implied journey rather than implied adjacency is it makes the game potentially more extendable. I never managed to get Vanguard to run but it seemed to me at the time the problem with it may have been trying to do too much up front. A skeleton zoned world could have other zones plugged in later.
I personally like zones because I hate leashed mobs. Zones allow for an escape plan, but still adds a more challenging element to combat (a contingency plan). It also makes those camps deeper into the zone more dangerous which helps with the risk vs. reward aspect. It also plays into the whole character reputation, just by simply having the courtesy to yell TRAIN. It is also a good indication of player(s) trying to hold down a camp they are not ready for (not just for simply training once- but when players have to repeatedly train to zone).
Ya, I'm not quite sure why they are going back to a zoned world.
Well, because they have a small development team, thats why. Pantheon is super cheap, compared to something like Vanguard. A seamless world is a lot of extra work to be done.
would be better if there was a system similar to Vanguard, but it was more clunky than chunky.
Agreed. Vanguards seamlessness left quite something to desire.
The best system to make a game seamless is to have relatively small chunks and always keep all 8 chunks - this assumes chunks are square - next to the current one in memory as well. Or all 6 chunks - if you use the somewhat more efficient honeycomb pattern.
This way, if a player crosses over to another chunk, one can load the adjacent chunks missing in the background, thus the player never actually notices that the world is split in chunks.
Finally you'll have to optimize this a bit more so players who run circles
around the spots where four chunks (or three, with the honeycomb
pattern) meet will not cause massive lag due to the fact you have to
keep loading the missing adjacent chunks, and then the player will never
see any loading screens.
I was always a bit annoyed that Vanguard didnt used this system. For example Morrowind already used it long before Vanguard was released.
I
never played eq but did play VG and loved it minus the bugs and lack of
peeps due mostly to bugs. That game is still legendary to many folks
and I would be so hooked with something like that i might consider
leaving my wife since she bitches so much when i am hooked on a good
mmo, but thats another story.
Haha, dont look at me ! I played Europe - and there have been times I was ALONE ON THE WHOLE SERVER !
I don't know whether there are any mmo style games these days, including the likes of Skyrim, that don't have some "loading". There could be but the my point is that most people are used to and, imo, accept a certain amount of "loading". Not just games: watch something on YouTube or Amazon Prime etc. and there is a check/load element at the start.
So whilst none is the ideal I think we will accept "some" loading. Now whether it is chunks or zones or instances or phasing that are being loaded .... doesn't really matter. The key is how long and how often. Zone a few times an hour for 10 secs maybe - probable none issue. Have areas in which you need to load multiple times in the space of a minute - not good (PotBS when it launched say).
Our patience is elastic. We will tolerate a certain amount of stretch but not to much at anyone time - and its good to let the tension ebb between stretches.
But I think for me its more about breaking the illusion of being in a "real", connected, non-instanced world, than about losing time with loading screens.
Running around a dangerous zone to find the zone entrance was a lot of fun in EQ.
That is a good point. There are a lot of elements to which traditional zones brought in terms of game play. Mobs were not tethered and could chase you to the zone line which created many dangerous conditions of play.
There is more freedom in size and relationship compared to a seamless world. You can break certain rules with a zone that you can't (or would be extremely difficult) with a seamless one. This form of implementation works well with their multiple world reality concept that Terminus is. For instance, one poster complained about how the geography did not mesh correctly on the map, but being that Terminus is numerous worlds and realities thrown together, it makes sense that they would not mesh correctly and it would be far more difficult to make that work in a seamless world than using zones.
There are numerous pros/cons for a zoned world with Pantheon, so It really comes down to what works best for their design direction, tools used, budget, game play elements, etc...
There is more freedom in size and relationship compared to a
seamless world. You can break certain rules with a zone that you can't
(or would be extremely difficult) with a seamless one. This form of
implementation works well with their multiple world reality concept that
Terminus is. For instance, one poster complained about how the
geography did not mesh correctly on the map, but being that Terminus is
numerous worlds and realities thrown together, it makes sense that they
would not mesh correctly and it would be far more difficult to make that
work in a seamless world than using zones.
But I think for me its more about breaking the illusion of being in a "real", connected, non-instanced world, than about losing time with loading screens.
Yeah I had that in mind in my post above: loading screens break the illusion.
I absolutely love a seamless world, anything that helps a world feel more plausible. Zoning is ok as long as the zones are large enough and you don't have to cross them too often. FF14 zoning was god awful and was my biggest (not only) factor for leaving the game.
Question:
Could a game world be designed where you made use of zoning (because of funding etc.) but then at a later date be converted into a seamless world?
Could a game world be designed where you made use of zoning (because of funding etc.) but then at a later date be converted into a seamless world?
Anything is possible, but I doubt it is likely. I don't think Unity supports that style and even if it were able to eventually, converting a game from zone to seamless would be an enormous undertaking across all areas of the game (core engine, networking code, Databases, Graphics and animations, etc...). I think it would be easier to write a whole new game than attempt such a conversion.
A zoneless world is nice, but honestly on the grand scheme of things. If I were to make a list of a 100 things that are important in mmos.
This would be at the bottom or not even on it.
If the game is well designed, with alot of depth, and they actually pull off all the ideas they are shooting for. Zones will not matter in the games success at all in the grand scheme of things.
The issue with zones is if you get something like FFXIV 2.X series. Where the zones are minature (1/4th the size of a area in say WoW,Aion, FFXI, GW2)... so it is zone line then 2mins... zone line then another 2 mins.... zone line.
If they are large zones like in older mmos and to use FFXIV again 3.0 then I say who cares honestly, where it is 10-14 mins to travel across the zone. If the zones are big enough it does not take away from the game at least for me.
The only zoned game that I ABSOLUTELY hated for being zoned was Age of Conan, and it wasn't because it was zone. It was because of the completely random nature of where to go to get somewhere. If you were mid continent and wanted to get south, you had to go north. Completely wrong and annoying to the point of ruining the game for me righ at the start. I think there was one zone line that felt right, the rest were ass backwards.
A zoneless world is nice, but honestly on the grand scheme of things. If I were to make a list of a 100 things that are important in mmos.
This would be at the bottom or not even on it.
If the game is well designed, with alot of depth, and they actually pull off all the ideas they are shooting for. Zones will not matter in the games success at all in the grand scheme of things.
The issue with zones is if you get something like FFXIV 2.X series. Where the zones are minature (1/4th the size of a area in say WoW,Aion, FFXI, GW2)... so it is zone line then 2mins... zone line then another 2 mins.... zone line.
If they are large zones like in older mmos and to use FFXIV again 3.0 then I say who cares honestly, where it is 10-14 mins to travel across the zone. If the zones are big enough it does not take away from the game at least for me.
I think it that if you let everyone make their own list of a 100 things that are important in an MMO they would all be different.
I would really like to see some of the ideas that were tried and bandied about 15-20 years ago, tried again with lessons learned and the more powerful tech that we have at our disposal.
Just to add another opinion to the mix, zones are not an issue for me. I don't know of a single game that doesn't have some type of loading. Even older games like AC had loading screens when you went into a portal or recalled back to your bind point.
The VR team has already made mention that the zones are going to be huge so it shouldn't be a huge deal for most people I suspect, however there are always a few that will think something is the most terrible idea in the world. Hence some of the comments in this thread.
Not many developers appear to want to build a custom engine to properly implement seamless maps. Zoning is fine if done right and aligned with terrain logically. Hopefully load times are small enough and each zone large enough to facilitate exploration.
Even ESO's zones I find too small but they are also so entirely templated on their regional questing system that I find it very distracting.
... I don't know of a single game that doesn't have some type of loading. Even older games like AC had loading screens when you went into a portal or recalled back to your bind point. ...
Yeah, but loading while starting the game or using magical teleportation isn't immersion-breaking.
I much prefer smaller scale maps loaded with content, over large empty areas, which is usually what large maps end up being. As far as large maps go I am usually impressed by the size for about a week, after that it just means more ground to cover to get anything done.
Ever need anything at your house in SWG and have to make the swoop ride back? Yeah great fun at first, thirty minutes later you're so wishing you had a group recall option. As you still have 14k to go and two shuttle rides, and two group members just found a nice spawn of Krayt Dragons . OOps missed the shuttle..fun times...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Comments
Geez, the "chunking isn't zoning argument" again.
Seriously, Vanguard zoning was arguably worse than EQ's because you could never tell when you were about to get zinged by a loading freeze in the middle of a cornfield.
And yes, a lack of seamless world is going to hurt Pantheon. It's one of the (many) big reasons WoW wrecked EQ2. You hope to get a better graphical experience in each designated zone, but it's usually not worth the tradeoff.
That said, it's less important in the themepark-y game that Pantheon is likely to be than in a sandbox-y game.
WoW wrecked EQ2 for a lot of reasons, the zones wouldn't even make the top 10 list.
Also, Pantheon aims to be more PvE sandbox than themepark, similar to classic EQ. What detracts from a sandbox game far more than zones, is instancing, which Pantheon does not plan to have.
I actually enjoy zoning systems. It adds a whole new level to gameplay that you don't have with seamless. Let me give you example, aggro a guard in everquest as a low level you better run like hell. Fact that mobs followed you forever created the concept of trains and a true fear for your life for what could be minutes depending on where you got aggro.
No game is as scary and hardcore as everquest. So many simple ways you can die, it was a great fear that made the game without quest grinding and literally just mob grinding so much fun.
Well, reasonable people can disagree on that point. I personally loved the way zones flowed into each other in WoW and absolutely despised the way EQ2 ground to a halt as you tried to navigate the Freeport zone maze for basic beginner quests. Horrible newbie experience.
Besides a lack of instancing, what moves Pantheon down the continuum toward sandbox MMO?
I haven't seen any features that empower the player to affect the shared experience, but perhaps I haven't looked closely enough.
From what i understand it's going to be like classic EQ but set in a huge world on the scale of Vanguard. Running around a dangerous zone to find the zone entrance was a lot of fun in EQ.
Okay, flowing seamless zones would be nice but perhaps they are being realistic on what type of budget this game has. I think the people who are following this game don't really mind as long as it all works.
A niche game for a niche mmo crowd, sweet PVE.
I wouldn't even mind loading screens if they implied a journey rather than just loading e.g. zone in or out of a desert zone and the loading screen is a caravan crossing the desert.
The other thing about a zoned world with an implied journey rather than implied adjacency is it makes the game potentially more extendable. I never managed to get Vanguard to run but it seemed to me at the time the problem with it may have been trying to do too much up front. A skeleton zoned world could have other zones plugged in later.
But oh well, most of my favorite games (Baldurs Gate, Knights of the Old Republic, Vampire Bloodlines etc) are zone based, so I'll survive.
Well not the only thing, but its the main disappointment.
Well, because they have a small development team, thats why. Pantheon is super cheap, compared to something like Vanguard. A seamless world is a lot of extra work to be done.
Agreed. Vanguards seamlessness left quite something to desire.
The best system to make a game seamless is to have relatively small chunks and always keep all 8 chunks - this assumes chunks are square - next to the current one in memory as well. Or all 6 chunks - if you use the somewhat more efficient honeycomb pattern.
This way, if a player crosses over to another chunk, one can load the adjacent chunks missing in the background, thus the player never actually notices that the world is split in chunks.
Finally you'll have to optimize this a bit more so players who run circles around the spots where four chunks (or three, with the honeycomb pattern) meet will not cause massive lag due to the fact you have to keep loading the missing adjacent chunks, and then the player will never see any loading screens.
I was always a bit annoyed that Vanguard didnt used this system. For example Morrowind already used it long before Vanguard was released.
Haha, dont look at me ! I played Europe - and there have been times I was ALONE ON THE WHOLE SERVER !
So whilst none is the ideal I think we will accept "some" loading. Now whether it is chunks or zones or instances or phasing that are being loaded .... doesn't really matter. The key is how long and how often. Zone a few times an hour for 10 secs maybe - probable none issue. Have areas in which you need to load multiple times in the space of a minute - not good (PotBS when it launched say).
Our patience is elastic. We will tolerate a certain amount of stretch but not to much at anyone time - and its good to let the tension ebb between stretches.
How often; for how long are the keys.
But I think for me its more about breaking the illusion of being in a "real", connected, non-instanced world, than about losing time with loading screens.
There is more freedom in size and relationship compared to a seamless world. You can break certain rules with a zone that you can't (or would be extremely difficult) with a seamless one. This form of implementation works well with their multiple world reality concept that Terminus is. For instance, one poster complained about how the geography did not mesh correctly on the map, but being that Terminus is numerous worlds and realities thrown together, it makes sense that they would not mesh correctly and it would be far more difficult to make that work in a seamless world than using zones.
There are numerous pros/cons for a zoned world with Pantheon, so It really comes down to what works best for their design direction, tools used, budget, game play elements, etc...
Thats actually a really good point !
Yeah I had that in mind in my post above: loading screens break the illusion.
Question:
Could a game world be designed where you made use of zoning (because of funding etc.) but then at a later date be converted into a seamless world?
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
This would be at the bottom or not even on it.
If the game is well designed, with alot of depth, and they actually pull off all the ideas they are shooting for. Zones will not matter in the games success at all in the grand scheme of things.
The issue with zones is if you get something like FFXIV 2.X series. Where the zones are minature (1/4th the size of a area in say WoW,Aion, FFXI, GW2)... so it is zone line then 2mins... zone line then another 2 mins.... zone line.
If they are large zones like in older mmos and to use FFXIV again 3.0 then I say who cares honestly, where it is 10-14 mins to travel across the zone. If the zones are big enough it does not take away from the game at least for me.
I would really like to see some of the ideas that were tried and bandied about 15-20 years ago, tried again with lessons learned and the more powerful tech that we have at our disposal.
Things like virtual ecosystems.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
The VR team has already made mention that the zones are going to be huge so it shouldn't be a huge deal for most people I suspect, however there are always a few that will think something is the most terrible idea in the world. Hence some of the comments in this thread.
Even ESO's zones I find too small but they are also so entirely templated on their regional questing system that I find it very distracting.
You stay sassy!
Yeah, but loading while starting the game or using magical teleportation isn't immersion-breaking.
Ever need anything at your house in SWG and have to make the swoop ride back? Yeah great fun at first, thirty minutes later you're so wishing you had a group recall option. As you still have 14k to go and two shuttle rides, and two group members just found a nice spawn of Krayt Dragons . OOps missed the shuttle..fun times...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson