Not sure why everyone is bagging on this guy for his contribution. CO is innovative ( to introduce something new; make changes in anything established. ) in its shardless design. Does not mean the INVENTED it which he does not declare.
EVE is one shard with multiple zones. GW is multiple instances with common areas for grouping. CO has a nice system that tracks friends and plaers through the intances and gives you the feeling that you are playing a massivly popular game by allowing you to choose the instances you want to go to. Is it something they invented or came up with?? No, did they enhance it, yes.
They are using instances to remove the isolation of players from each other. I see the same players in various instancing all of the time. Now the search and friend function actually have a purpose ( I did not use them in other games ). There are some drawbacks which he mentioned... Like any evoloution the viability of this slight modification in the MMORPG gene pool will either suffer and die out in this itteration or be picked up and expanded on for future games.
For a fast paced game this is a good idea. I can see something like Global Agenda really benefitting from a game model such as this. Especially since most of the action in that game will be similar in effect to GW. Common area and instanced action and game content.
Firstoff, the concept of innovation means by definition that is doing something new and NOT already done so...yah...CS is not being innovative by being shardless. And you might want to re-look up the definition of zone and instance...there is no difference, they are one in the same...
Not to be rude but, I did include a definition in my post. I think you need to start looking at definitions. There is a BIG difference between ZONE and INSTANCE.
A ZONE is one area where everyone can go in. It is a singular INSTANCE of a gaming area.
An INSTANCE is a zone that is duplicated on one server to allow a finite number of players to access.
They ARE being INNOVATIVE (DEFINITION HERE --> to introduce something new; make changes in anything established. ) by taking the instanced concept and using it to remove the need to isolate players by server or shard.
Say hello, To the things you've left behind. They are more a part of your life now that you can't touch them.
Well, I define MMORPG with emphasis on RPG. Sorta like a single player RPG just that you share it with people in a constant world. Now a space sim is not a RPG, so a game where you don't play a person can still be cool and be an Online Game, but as I see it no MMORPG. How can a Starship be a role?
And as a sidenote, yes, I am just annoyed EVERY time any debate out any MMO feature starts at least 3 people jump and and say something like "EVE has this better, because bla bla". Well as the Queen usually says "how interesting for you". Nothing against EVE, but as Online space shooter/sim is is only for a special audience. Most people prefer to be a virtual person rather than a virtual ship, so it is for me such a different category, it really does matter little. And many EVE players here on forums DO seem a bit... well high nosed. Like they play an elite game and they are elite gamers and blah blah EVE is the holy grail of gaming, and all that just starts to annoy me by now.
I'm guessing you've never actually played Eve. You are not a ship. You are a pilot inside the ship. Eve actually has a very extensive character customization tool when you create your character. Your skills are also associated with your character so you actually do "level up" your character....not a ship.
And I would say that Eve is almost the pure definition of RPG in an mmo. Players create a vast portion on the ingame "content" (i.e. wars, economy, feuds...etc), while CCP actively crafts the NPC stories and events in the Eve Universe to take into account the actions of the player base.
Albeit Eve is not for the faint of heart. Then again, it's never been positioned to try and grab a wide population such as WoW.
while you're at it, take a look at Dust 514...which is an extension of the Eve universe in the works. No ships there.
I tried it out, about a year ago. But in the 6 weeks I played it, I did see black space about... 90% of the game time. *shrug*
Well, I define MMORPG with emphasis on RPG. Sorta like a single player RPG just that you share it with people in a constant world. Now a space sim is not a RPG, so a game where you don't play a person can still be cool and be an Online Game, but as I see it no MMORPG. How can a Starship be a role?
And as a sidenote, yes, I am just annoyed EVERY time any debate out any MMO feature starts at least 3 people jump and and say something like "EVE has this better, because bla bla". Well as the Queen usually says "how interesting for you". Nothing against EVE, but as Online space shooter/sim is is only for a special audience. Most people prefer to be a virtual person rather than a virtual ship, so it is for me such a different category, it really does matter little. And many EVE players here on forums DO seem a bit... well high nosed. Like they play an elite game and they are elite gamers and blah blah EVE is the holy grail of gaming, and all that just starts to annoy me by now.
I'm guessing you've never actually played Eve. You are not a ship. You are a pilot inside the ship. Eve actually has a very extensive character customization tool when you create your character. Your skills are also associated with your character so you actually do "level up" your character....not a ship.
And I would say that Eve is almost the pure definition of RPG in an mmo. Players create a vast portion on the ingame "content" (i.e. wars, economy, feuds...etc), while CCP actively crafts the NPC stories and events in the Eve Universe to take into account the actions of the player base.
Albeit Eve is not for the faint of heart. Then again, it's never been positioned to try and grab a wide population such as WoW.
while you're at it, take a look at Dust 514...which is an extension of the Eve universe in the works. No ships there.
For all practical purposes, in Eve, you are a ship. Your character is just a portrait and some skills that gets auto learned without you having to do anything (beside buying the skill). For everything else it is your ship that does it. Your ship fires weapons, your ship has a holding area and it is your ship that travels from point A to point B.
In almost all other RPGs it is your character that does those things. So after playing RPG since I was a kid then I would say Eve is the game that feels least like an RPG because your are effectively a ship and not a character.
Kinda hard to get immersed into a virtual world with 10 identical clones of the same area that you can freely switch between.
There are numerous clones of the same zone with statically defined servers, you just don't see them. Does that mean that they are not there?
No, its a matter of feeling. I agree with Yamota. It also takes a lot away from Aion, when you know you can swap into a copy of the same world at any time. With a server you know it is there, but it is essentially out of reach, and a server creates a server history with events and things going on, like "do you recall how on Server X this and that happend last year?" and people recall it. They identify with that. With clone areas of the entire world it can't happen.
Well, I define MMORPG with emphasis on RPG. Sorta like a single player RPG just that you share it with people in a constant world. Now a space sim is not a RPG, so a game where you don't play a person can still be cool and be an Online Game, but as I see it no MMORPG. How can a Starship be a role?
And as a sidenote, yes, I am just annoyed EVERY time any debate out any MMO feature starts at least 3 people jump and and say something like "EVE has this better, because bla bla". Well as the Queen usually says "how interesting for you". Nothing against EVE, but as Online space shooter/sim is is only for a special audience. Most people prefer to be a virtual person rather than a virtual ship, so it is for me such a different category, it really does matter little. And many EVE players here on forums DO seem a bit... well high nosed. Like they play an elite game and they are elite gamers and blah blah EVE is the holy grail of gaming, and all that just starts to annoy me by now.
I'm guessing you've never actually played Eve. You are not a ship. You are a pilot inside the ship. Eve actually has a very extensive character customization tool when you create your character. Your skills are also associated with your character so you actually do "level up" your character....not a ship.
And I would say that Eve is almost the pure definition of RPG in an mmo. Players create a vast portion on the ingame "content" (i.e. wars, economy, feuds...etc), while CCP actively crafts the NPC stories and events in the Eve Universe to take into account the actions of the player base.
Albeit Eve is not for the faint of heart. Then again, it's never been positioned to try and grab a wide population such as WoW.
while you're at it, take a look at Dust 514...which is an extension of the Eve universe in the works. No ships there.
For all practical purposes, in Eve, you are a ship. Your character is just a portrait and some skills that gets auto learned without you having to do anything (beside buying the skill). For everything else it is your ship that does it. Your ship fires weapons, your ship has a holding area and it is your ship that travels from point A to point B.
In almost all other RPGs it is your character that does those things. So after playing RPG since I was a kid then I would say Eve is the game that feels least like an RPG because your are effectively a ship and not a character.
Well then, for practical purposes you are a suit of armor in WoW... In Eve your ship(what ever class you are currently using) is little different than the armor and weapons you use in other games. Eve is very much a RPG in the classical sense. Some of the political antics and backstabbing put other games to shame. But it does have a steep learning curve(more like a wall). That plus the open PvP aspect(outside of high sec or with conditions inside of it) is what keeps Eve a niche game. Which is just as well, since they are already pushing the bleeding edge of technology to keep everyone in the same universe as it is.
Kinda hard to get immersed into a virtual world with 10 identical clones of the same area that you can freely switch between.
There are numerous clones of the same zone with statically defined servers, you just don't see them. Does that mean that they are not there?
No, its a matter of feeling. I agree with Yamota. It also takes a lot away from Aion, when you know you can swap into a copy of the same world at any time. With a server you know it is there, but it is essentially out of reach, and a server creates a server history with events and things going on, like "do you recall how on Server X this and that happend last year?" and people recall it. They identify with that. With clone areas of the entire world it can't happen.
Exclusive elitism. People want to feel that "their" server is somehow "better" than somebody else's server. That's not to say that it isn't true, but this kind of exclusion is exactly what MMO developers seek to eliminate. They want that epic player content to be available to all players, not just a random few who were fortunate enough to select the "cool" server.
Shardless??? there is no innovation there mate: - Makind Online - EVE-Online - Dune Generation (never went past beta)
That's just three examples right here... give me the day and I can probably pull out 5 more titles with a bit of googling.
It's a good article but come on guys... you're suppose to be pros here.
EVE Online is the abberation. games that didn't make it out of beta just can't count in this case, and with all due respect to mankind Online, I think that the article refers to the lack of AAA, high-budget titles using a shardless system.
Also, the Champions Online shardless system operates differently from the EVE shardless system, or really any other.
I'm just saying, you're awfully quick to try to tear someone down without really fully understanding what was said or considering all possibilities.
Ah, EVE does count when you look at the meaning innovate. To bring something new. Shardless is certainly not new to the mmo market.
Not to be rude, but this article is a great example of why the industry sucks. Push the boundaries, get more creative or informed. "Server identity and feeling of community are lost."...don't instance then, load balance.
"The MMO Gamer: The website says that there is no maximum limit on how many people can play simultaneously, but most 3D MMOGs have a server limit between 3000 and 5000 people, how can Fallen Earth have no limit?
Lee Hammock: Chris Pavlou, our network genius, has designed a dynamic load-balancing system which automatically adjusts the number of players handled by any one machine. Therefore you can have any number of servers all linked together, fluidly sharing as many players as you want. So it’s not just one machine, it’s a large number of machines all working as one."
Server identity is an arbitrary division generated by technological or financial limitations of the company. Factional , regional , guild, playstyle and their sub-communities identity is all the identity we need.
As far as hiding from those who know you, how about a "hide" feature that covers different groups like guild, global, friends, etc. like Coh which I would assume a guy who worked for Cryptic and on CO would have heard of. I mean, my gosh, is that so revolutionary?
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." -Edmund Burke
Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?" (Psalm 94:16)
Some worlds simple isn't big enough to be one single server. Just imagine if all +10mill players in WoW was on one realm (as they call it). Even if they split it in 3 (usa, eu, asia) the population would be huge. Game worlds like EVE support this kind of population. Worlds like WOW and LOTRO (and 95% of all other current MMO's) does not. New games like Star Trek and Star Wars might be able to support "one server", but popular places in their lore could be problematic.
Also. Zoneless MMO's is NEVER gonna happen. Please keep in mind that we have 3 different words and need the right definition:
1. Server
2. Zone
3. Instance
A server is the global container for a certent amount af players (could be all (like EVE) or 10.000). A server is not just one computer. It's a collection of many (databases and world servers).
A zone is a specific area of the gameworld.
An instance is a dublicate of a zone.
The problem is what defines a zone? No game in the world can send infomation about every player/action to every client all the time. They only submit infomation about the near surroundings. Do we realy want to calculate the distance to every player every time, or do we create predefined (overlapping) areas and registreate a players and send the information to all players in each area (yes we do). Now.. Is that a zone?
Or is a zone a collection of these areas? what we would defind as a compleet area like a city or a countryside. This would be the normal definition as a zone, since the area/mobs and so on share the same textures, and entering a new zone, would require loading new textures. Most games today load textures for a new zone in the background when you aproace it. Does this mean there is no zone?
If a game is defined as "no zones" then ALL textures would have to be loaded on startup. How dull would that game look?
So we can conclude that all games from now and forever will have zones in some way. They might load textures on the fly, but each area of the gameworld will still be devided in groups.
And what about chat? I want my global and zone chat, so I can chat with people in my near surroundings and with all. So even if a game is zoneless (we allready established it is NOT), it would still have chat zones.
Eve is a single world seperated by a crap ton of zones, which in effect, is "multiple servers" sharing a common chat interface (EQ1 did this). As for a single world without zones, Eve can't do that, WW2 Online does. And did it well before Eve ever came around.
You've got two different things confused together there.
EVE has one shard with a lot of zones. Correct. There are not multiple "servers" (in the common usage of the term) because there is only one replica of the game running. People confuse the term "server" and "shard" all the time.
There is no MMO on the planet (afaik) that does not zone their worlds. Some have seamless transitions between zones and some don't - but all are zoned nonetheless. There simply isn't a technical way that I'm aware of to fit the expansive content inherrent to MMOs, with the "massive" number of players required, onto one physical CPU.
I.E. You can run the length and width of Vanguard (or LotRO - baring the PvP zone - when I last played) without encountering a loading screen. Both games have zones the same way EQ did, but handle the loading of the zones in a manner that seems seamless to the player.
As to the writer - the article comes off as very naieve to state boldly that CO innovated a shardless model. Their particular take on a single-shard game is slightly different, but the writing of the piece used too broad a brush when painting that statement. As a result, the author came across as having only played WoW and CO (which was probably not the intent).
I wasn't confused. I meant exactly what I said. Eve's world is subdivided into regions. Eve basically lets you move from "server to server" for free all the time. EQ1 charged you for that service. Sure, it is still part of "one world", but since that "world" is merely chat (the economy does not spill over from region to region directly), how innovative is it? It isn't. And eve gets away with zones that probably take 10 seconds of random number generation time to create, and then a little fine tuning by someone to make sure XYZ NPC corp has agents strewn about their regions in appropriate levels (but even that could be coded procedurally rather easily).
WW2 Online is zoneless. There are no zones (unless you count the whole world as a zone). There are terrain tiles, but only one "world/shard/server/zone". Its smart enough not to bog down someone in Reims, France with what is happening in Brussels, Belgium. But if they wanted to (and its coming soon (tm)), artillery and high altitude bombing will let people affect each other from (literally) miles away without ever rendering on the screen.
...... Also. Zoneless MMO's is NEVER gonna happen. Please keep in mind that we have 3 different words and need the right definition:
1. Server
2. Zone
3. Instance The problem is what defines a zone? No game in the world can send infomation about every player/action to every client all the time. They only submit infomation about the near surroundings. Do we realy want to calculate the distance to every player every time, or do we create predefined (overlapping) areas and registreate a players and send the information to all players in each area (yes we do). Now.. Is that a zone?
I think most people are confusing Zone and Seamless Zoning. Seamless Zoning has been around for a looooong time. You are correct, zones are created to segregate hardware resources. Some zones are based on regions, such as EQ and Eve. Some zones are based around the player base, such as Fallen Earth, that make sure that the players themselves are on the same physical hardware to eliminate lag between player to player interaction.
Seamless Zones are basically the same thing, but it allows the game client to load up a bubble around their character and load a single zone or a portion of two zones. Advanced MUDs and even Ultima Online used seemless zones. Dark Age of Camelot also used seamless zones until they split the frontiers off into a non-seamless zone.
Regarding the article, I must say that I am left a little puzzled. I am puzzled why the author of the article did not explain why CO's implementation of a single shard is innovative. The fact is that there are several other games, such as WW2 Online mentioned above, that are both a single server and Seamless Zoned. The same pros and cons pretty much apply to all of these games. However, I have no idea what sets the game's implementation apart from the rest. Without this information, I see no reason why people should not assume that it isn't innovative. The reader is not the reporter and should not have to investigate what was ommitted from the article. (FYI - not being harsh at all, I am just criticizing because I am either misreading something or the author or editor left something out)
I wasn't confused. I meant exactly what I said. Eve's world is subdivided into regions. Eve basically lets you move from "server to server" for free all the time. EQ1 charged you for that service. Sure, it is still part of "one world", but since that "world" is merely chat (the economy does not spill over from region to region directly), how innovative is it? It isn't. And eve gets away with zones that probably take 10 seconds of random number generation time to create, and then a little fine tuning by someone to make sure XYZ NPC corp has agents strewn about their regions in appropriate levels (but even that could be coded procedurally rather easily). WW2 Online is zoneless. There are no zones (unless you count the whole world as a zone). There are terrain tiles, but only one "world/shard/server/zone". Its smart enough not to bog down someone in Reims, France with what is happening in Brussels, Belgium. But if they wanted to (and its coming soon (tm)), artillery and high altitude bombing will let people affect each other from (literally) miles away without ever rendering on the screen.
WW2 online is not zoneless. It uses seamless zones. I used to play it a lot up until a couple of years ago. There were times were some of the zones were down and if you happened to wander (or fly) into those areas, your game client would disconnect and crash to desktop. It gave the impression that it does not use zones, but it really does and there is nothing wrong with that.
The end result is that the player believes that he or she is connecting to a single server and never has to wait a moment at a loading screen after first logging in. And yes, WW2 Online is a much more accurate comparison when giving an example of why many people here do not believe the article topic is innovative. Even more so than Eve, which I currently play.
I wasn't confused. I meant exactly what I said. Eve's world is subdivided into regions. Eve basically lets you move from "server to server" for free all the time. EQ1 charged you for that service. Sure, it is still part of "one world", but since that "world" is merely chat (the economy does not spill over from region to region directly), how innovative is it? It isn't. And eve gets away with zones that probably take 10 seconds of random number generation time to create, and then a little fine tuning by someone to make sure XYZ NPC corp has agents strewn about their regions in appropriate levels (but even that could be coded procedurally rather easily). WW2 Online is zoneless. There are no zones (unless you count the whole world as a zone). There are terrain tiles, but only one "world/shard/server/zone". Its smart enough not to bog down someone in Reims, France with what is happening in Brussels, Belgium. But if they wanted to (and its coming soon (tm)), artillery and high altitude bombing will let people affect each other from (literally) miles away without ever rendering on the screen.
WW2 online is not zoneless. It uses seamless zones. I used to play it a lot up until a couple of years ago. There were times were some of the zones were down and if you happened to wander (or fly) into those areas, your game client would disconnect and crash to desktop. It gave the impression that it does not use zones, but it really does and there is nothing wrong with that.
The end result is that the player believes that he or she is connecting to a single server and never has to wait a moment at a loading screen after first logging in. And yes, WW2 Online is a much more accurate comparison when giving an example of why many people here do not believe the article topic is innovative. Even more so than Eve, which I currently play.
Hrm, I'm a day 1 WW2OL player and have never seen any "zone" crash ever. I've seen map tiles not load due to bugs, and I've seen a strat server bug that caused the city of Metz that wouldn't let it be recapped by the allies, but aside from the "pixel of death" while flying, or the odd dropping through the world bugs, nothing that says "zone" crash. Those map tiles are not zones.
Shardless??? there is no innovation there mate: - Makind Online - EVE-Online - Dune Generation (never went past beta)
That's just three examples right here... give me the day and I can probably pull out 5 more titles with a bit of googling.
It's a good article but come on guys... you're suppose to be pros here.
EVE Online is the abberation. games that didn't make it out of beta just can't count in this case, and with all due respect to mankind Online, I think that the article refers to the lack of AAA, high-budget titles using a shardless system.
Also, the Champions Online shardless system operates differently from the EVE shardless system, or really any other.
I'm just saying, you're awfully quick to try to tear someone down without really fully understanding what was said or considering all possibilities.
That may be, Jon, but I don't think the majority of this site's viewers, and MMO gamers who keep up with the hobby at large, aren't willing to just pat Cryptic and CO on the back for being "unique" or "different" when another company, or companies I should say, have been doing this. AAA or not, it has been done and I know I personally am not willing to give Crytpic kudos or write an article for it before any of the companies who have pioneered the idea before them. If anything you guys should have had an article giving respect to those companies and also giving due respect to Icarus and Fallen Earth who, at worst, was implementing the same idea (in general) as Cryptic (as the games were pretty much in development at the same time.
Sure, I get per his disclaimer that Mr. Wachter is a "homer" for Cryptic but that doesn't take away from the fact that if he's going to try to present information in a generalized, "this is pioneering for the industry" manner, well, he should be more versed in the industry. If he is, then he should write in such a way and not present himself as if this is something the rest of the industry should be following Cryptic on. If he isn't, then it should be made clear, in a like disclaimer.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Reading through the responses to this thread is like reading the responses to a thread on the official EVE forums by someone who jumped his uber faction-fit marauder into lowsec, got ganked by pirates, then decided to put up a post about how he shouldn't be able to be shot by other players anywhere, at any time. It's almost like a shark feeding frenzy. As such....
-throws a bag of popcorn into the microwave and drags out a big bowl and some popcorn cheese-
In reality, much as I may violently disagree with the design theory behind Champions (I play EVE, after all, and that's one shard with one--and only one!--instance), the truth is that, as far as I know, the only-one-shard-instanced-to-Hell approach hasn't been tried before. This meets the criteria for "innovative" in my book. As a result, most of the objections to the article posted here have little validity.
Now, as to whether that was a good design decision, that's another matter....
-Wrayeth "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
Eh, I enjoyed the few points on what's good or bad about being on a single-shard server, regardless of whether or not EVE did it first, etc.
I don't know if you should be trying to use the words like "douchebag" in the future, I mean, "Gankers", "Griefers" and "Ninja-looters" could have been used to replace the word and remained more "professional"
But meh, I agree with most of the pros and cons, anyway. A big con, though, as someone pointed out, is that a single-shard server will likely have some high-population-density zones that'll screw with the players computers if there are too many characters on screen, etc. etc.
But nowadays, I think MMO companies have the budget for a really nice, big ol' server computer with some ridiculous mish-mash of two PlayStation 3, like, eight-core processors or whatever (maybe the i7 processors?), with several dozen GBs of RAM, with crazy fibre-optic 400Mb network connection speeds... I mean, a little monster like that's only gotta be something like $50,000, tops, right?
...right?
I am playing EVE and it's alright... level V skills are a bit much.
Reading through the responses to this thread is like reading the responses to a thread on the official EVE forums by someone who jumped his uber faction-fit marauder into lowsec, got ganked by pirates, then decided to put up a post about how he shouldn't be able to be shot by other players anywhere, at any time. It's almost like a shark feeding frenzy. As such.... -throws a bag of popcorn into the microwave and drags out a big bowl and some popcorn cheese- In reality, much as I may violently disagree with the design theory behind Champions (I play EVE, after all, and that's one shard with one--and only one!--instance), the truth is that, as far as I know, the only-one-shard-instanced-to-Hell approach hasn't been tried before. This meets the criteria for "innovative" in my book. As a result, most of the objections to the article posted here have little validity. Now, as to whether that was a good design decision, that's another matter....
Yes, thats always funny as hell...Pass the popcorn. Then there are those who start foaming at the mouth at the mere mention of Eve... I suspect they had a typical run in with the Goonies. But Eve is what one makes of it..
Reading through the responses to this thread is like reading the responses to a thread on the official EVE forums by someone who jumped his uber faction-fit marauder into lowsec, got ganked by pirates, then decided to put up a post about how he shouldn't be able to be shot by other players anywhere, at any time. It's almost like a shark feeding frenzy. As such.... -throws a bag of popcorn into the microwave and drags out a big bowl and some popcorn cheese- In reality, much as I may violently disagree with the design theory behind Champions (I play EVE, after all, and that's one shard with one--and only one!--instance), the truth is that, as far as I know, the only-one-shard-instanced-to-Hell approach hasn't been tried before. This meets the criteria for "innovative" in my book. As a result, most of the objections to the article posted here have little validity. Now, as to whether that was a good design decision, that's another matter....
Isn't that exactly what Guild Wars is?
Also, I didn't catch that in the article - so, how are any of the readers supposed to know that by reading the article. From reading it, "Champions Online recently launched, and one of the innovations that it brought to the table was shardlessness - a single server hosting the entire game population" The opening doesn't make any reference to zones or instances. It simply says that CO launched the game on a single server and it was innovative. It's not. There are a lot of different games that are on a single server. It could be innovative in its implementation, but I'm not spending $50 to find out what the author left out of the article.
Believe it or not, alot of people haven't played EVE and don't consider it a AAA release. (I personally don't consider it one, no matter how good it is.)
Also, Guild Wars is not even close to being Champion's Online. (I think you'd find pros and cons for both styles... only one is really suited for an MMO. Guild Wars would have more in common with Hellgate than it would CO imo.)
The author basically listed concisely a number of pros and cons for the style of shardlessness employed by Champion's Online, a type of shardlessness that would be reasonable to assume could well be modeled off of in the future.
Finding one phrase that really doesn't have that much to do with the point of the article, nitpicking it to death, and then holding it up as some sort of triumphant dismissal of this author's contribution doesn't make you look perceptive and smart, it makes you look like a short sighted jackass.
Having played Champion's Online, I would by and large agree with his feelings towards their system. He listed three legitimate "Pros" and he listed three legitimate "Cons". What varies from individual is the "weight" that each of these systems have... for example, someone who enjoys playing with friends regardless of server may not feel the lack of a server identity a bad tradeoff. A roleplayer may well feel the loss of server identiy more deeply, with the notion of having to potentially play with "everyone" a bad thing in and of itself.
Comments
There are numerous clones of the same zone with statically defined servers, you just don't see them. Does that mean that they are not there?
Stop crying in my beer.
Firstoff, the concept of innovation means by definition that is doing something new and NOT already done so...yah...CS is not being innovative by being shardless. And you might want to re-look up the definition of zone and instance...there is no difference, they are one in the same...
Not to be rude but, I did include a definition in my post. I think you need to start looking at definitions. There is a BIG difference between ZONE and INSTANCE.
A ZONE is one area where everyone can go in. It is a singular INSTANCE of a gaming area.
An INSTANCE is a zone that is duplicated on one server to allow a finite number of players to access.
They ARE being INNOVATIVE (DEFINITION HERE --> to introduce something new; make changes in anything established. ) by taking the instanced concept and using it to remove the need to isolate players by server or shard.
Say hello, To the things you've left behind. They are more a part of your life now that you can't touch them.
Well, I define MMORPG with emphasis on RPG. Sorta like a single player RPG just that you share it with people in a constant world. Now a space sim is not a RPG, so a game where you don't play a person can still be cool and be an Online Game, but as I see it no MMORPG. How can a Starship be a role?
And as a sidenote, yes, I am just annoyed EVERY time any debate out any MMO feature starts at least 3 people jump and and say something like "EVE has this better, because bla bla". Well as the Queen usually says "how interesting for you". Nothing against EVE, but as Online space shooter/sim is is only for a special audience. Most people prefer to be a virtual person rather than a virtual ship, so it is for me such a different category, it really does matter little. And many EVE players here on forums DO seem a bit... well high nosed. Like they play an elite game and they are elite gamers and blah blah EVE is the holy grail of gaming, and all that just starts to annoy me by now.
I'm guessing you've never actually played Eve. You are not a ship. You are a pilot inside the ship. Eve actually has a very extensive character customization tool when you create your character. Your skills are also associated with your character so you actually do "level up" your character....not a ship.
And I would say that Eve is almost the pure definition of RPG in an mmo. Players create a vast portion on the ingame "content" (i.e. wars, economy, feuds...etc), while CCP actively crafts the NPC stories and events in the Eve Universe to take into account the actions of the player base.
Albeit Eve is not for the faint of heart. Then again, it's never been positioned to try and grab a wide population such as WoW.
while you're at it, take a look at Dust 514...which is an extension of the Eve universe in the works. No ships there.
I tried it out, about a year ago. But in the 6 weeks I played it, I did see black space about... 90% of the game time. *shrug*
Well, I define MMORPG with emphasis on RPG. Sorta like a single player RPG just that you share it with people in a constant world. Now a space sim is not a RPG, so a game where you don't play a person can still be cool and be an Online Game, but as I see it no MMORPG. How can a Starship be a role?
And as a sidenote, yes, I am just annoyed EVERY time any debate out any MMO feature starts at least 3 people jump and and say something like "EVE has this better, because bla bla". Well as the Queen usually says "how interesting for you". Nothing against EVE, but as Online space shooter/sim is is only for a special audience. Most people prefer to be a virtual person rather than a virtual ship, so it is for me such a different category, it really does matter little. And many EVE players here on forums DO seem a bit... well high nosed. Like they play an elite game and they are elite gamers and blah blah EVE is the holy grail of gaming, and all that just starts to annoy me by now.
I'm guessing you've never actually played Eve. You are not a ship. You are a pilot inside the ship. Eve actually has a very extensive character customization tool when you create your character. Your skills are also associated with your character so you actually do "level up" your character....not a ship.
And I would say that Eve is almost the pure definition of RPG in an mmo. Players create a vast portion on the ingame "content" (i.e. wars, economy, feuds...etc), while CCP actively crafts the NPC stories and events in the Eve Universe to take into account the actions of the player base.
Albeit Eve is not for the faint of heart. Then again, it's never been positioned to try and grab a wide population such as WoW.
while you're at it, take a look at Dust 514...which is an extension of the Eve universe in the works. No ships there.
For all practical purposes, in Eve, you are a ship. Your character is just a portrait and some skills that gets auto learned without you having to do anything (beside buying the skill). For everything else it is your ship that does it. Your ship fires weapons, your ship has a holding area and it is your ship that travels from point A to point B.
In almost all other RPGs it is your character that does those things. So after playing RPG since I was a kid then I would say Eve is the game that feels least like an RPG because your are effectively a ship and not a character.
My gaming blog
There are numerous clones of the same zone with statically defined servers, you just don't see them. Does that mean that they are not there?
No, its a matter of feeling. I agree with Yamota. It also takes a lot away from Aion, when you know you can swap into a copy of the same world at any time. With a server you know it is there, but it is essentially out of reach, and a server creates a server history with events and things going on, like "do you recall how on Server X this and that happend last year?" and people recall it. They identify with that. With clone areas of the entire world it can't happen.
There are numerous clones of the same zone with statically defined servers, you just don't see them. Does that mean that they are not there?
You get immersed in one server, which is the virtual world, not several servers.
One server = One world.
My gaming blog
Well, I define MMORPG with emphasis on RPG. Sorta like a single player RPG just that you share it with people in a constant world. Now a space sim is not a RPG, so a game where you don't play a person can still be cool and be an Online Game, but as I see it no MMORPG. How can a Starship be a role?
And as a sidenote, yes, I am just annoyed EVERY time any debate out any MMO feature starts at least 3 people jump and and say something like "EVE has this better, because bla bla". Well as the Queen usually says "how interesting for you". Nothing against EVE, but as Online space shooter/sim is is only for a special audience. Most people prefer to be a virtual person rather than a virtual ship, so it is for me such a different category, it really does matter little. And many EVE players here on forums DO seem a bit... well high nosed. Like they play an elite game and they are elite gamers and blah blah EVE is the holy grail of gaming, and all that just starts to annoy me by now.
I'm guessing you've never actually played Eve. You are not a ship. You are a pilot inside the ship. Eve actually has a very extensive character customization tool when you create your character. Your skills are also associated with your character so you actually do "level up" your character....not a ship.
And I would say that Eve is almost the pure definition of RPG in an mmo. Players create a vast portion on the ingame "content" (i.e. wars, economy, feuds...etc), while CCP actively crafts the NPC stories and events in the Eve Universe to take into account the actions of the player base.
Albeit Eve is not for the faint of heart. Then again, it's never been positioned to try and grab a wide population such as WoW.
while you're at it, take a look at Dust 514...which is an extension of the Eve universe in the works. No ships there.
For all practical purposes, in Eve, you are a ship. Your character is just a portrait and some skills that gets auto learned without you having to do anything (beside buying the skill). For everything else it is your ship that does it. Your ship fires weapons, your ship has a holding area and it is your ship that travels from point A to point B.
In almost all other RPGs it is your character that does those things. So after playing RPG since I was a kid then I would say Eve is the game that feels least like an RPG because your are effectively a ship and not a character.
Well then, for practical purposes you are a suit of armor in WoW...
In Eve your ship(what ever class you are currently using) is little different than the armor and weapons you use in other games. Eve is very much a RPG in the classical sense. Some of the political antics and backstabbing put other games to shame. But it does have a steep learning curve(more like a wall). That plus the open PvP aspect(outside of high sec or with conditions inside of it) is what keeps Eve a niche game. Which is just as well, since they are already pushing the bleeding edge of technology to keep everyone in the same universe as it is.
There are numerous clones of the same zone with statically defined servers, you just don't see them. Does that mean that they are not there?
You get immersed in one server, which is the virtual world, not several servers.
One server = One world.
You Yamoto may feel that you are more immersed. But me? Nah. I feel trapped by a static server configuration. Immersion is in the eye of the beholder.
I am perfectly willing to suspend my disbelief so that I can switch instances whenever I get the fancy.
Stop crying in my beer.
There are numerous clones of the same zone with statically defined servers, you just don't see them. Does that mean that they are not there?
No, its a matter of feeling. I agree with Yamota. It also takes a lot away from Aion, when you know you can swap into a copy of the same world at any time. With a server you know it is there, but it is essentially out of reach, and a server creates a server history with events and things going on, like "do you recall how on Server X this and that happend last year?" and people recall it. They identify with that. With clone areas of the entire world it can't happen.
Exclusive elitism. People want to feel that "their" server is somehow "better" than somebody else's server. That's not to say that it isn't true, but this kind of exclusion is exactly what MMO developers seek to eliminate. They want that epic player content to be available to all players, not just a random few who were fortunate enough to select the "cool" server.
Stop crying in my beer.
EVE Online is the abberation. games that didn't make it out of beta just can't count in this case, and with all due respect to mankind Online, I think that the article refers to the lack of AAA, high-budget titles using a shardless system.
Also, the Champions Online shardless system operates differently from the EVE shardless system, or really any other.
I'm just saying, you're awfully quick to try to tear someone down without really fully understanding what was said or considering all possibilities.
Ah, EVE does count when you look at the meaning innovate. To bring something new. Shardless is certainly not new to the mmo market.
Not to be rude, but this article is a great example of why the industry sucks. Push the boundaries, get more creative or informed. "Server identity and feeling of community are lost."...don't instance then, load balance.
"The MMO Gamer: The website says that there is no maximum limit on how many people can play simultaneously, but most 3D MMOGs have a server limit between 3000 and 5000 people, how can Fallen Earth have no limit?
Lee Hammock: Chris Pavlou, our network genius, has designed a dynamic load-balancing system which automatically adjusts the number of players handled by any one machine. Therefore you can have any number of servers all linked together, fluidly sharing as many players as you want. So it’s not just one machine, it’s a large number of machines all working as one."
http://www.mmogamer.com/06/29/2007/interview-with-fallen-earth-lead-game-designer-lee-hammock
Server identity is an arbitrary division generated by technological or financial limitations of the company. Factional , regional , guild, playstyle and their sub-communities identity is all the identity we need.
As far as hiding from those who know you, how about a "hide" feature that covers different groups like guild, global, friends, etc. like Coh which I would assume a guy who worked for Cryptic and on CO would have heard of. I mean, my gosh, is that so revolutionary?
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." -Edmund Burke
Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?"
(Psalm 94:16)
Some worlds simple isn't big enough to be one single server. Just imagine if all +10mill players in WoW was on one realm (as they call it). Even if they split it in 3 (usa, eu, asia) the population would be huge. Game worlds like EVE support this kind of population. Worlds like WOW and LOTRO (and 95% of all other current MMO's) does not. New games like Star Trek and Star Wars might be able to support "one server", but popular places in their lore could be problematic.
Also. Zoneless MMO's is NEVER gonna happen. Please keep in mind that we have 3 different words and need the right definition:
1. Server
2. Zone
3. Instance
A server is the global container for a certent amount af players (could be all (like EVE) or 10.000). A server is not just one computer. It's a collection of many (databases and world servers).
A zone is a specific area of the gameworld.
An instance is a dublicate of a zone.
The problem is what defines a zone? No game in the world can send infomation about every player/action to every client all the time. They only submit infomation about the near surroundings. Do we realy want to calculate the distance to every player every time, or do we create predefined (overlapping) areas and registreate a players and send the information to all players in each area (yes we do). Now.. Is that a zone?
Or is a zone a collection of these areas? what we would defind as a compleet area like a city or a countryside. This would be the normal definition as a zone, since the area/mobs and so on share the same textures, and entering a new zone, would require loading new textures. Most games today load textures for a new zone in the background when you aproace it. Does this mean there is no zone?
If a game is defined as "no zones" then ALL textures would have to be loaded on startup. How dull would that game look?
So we can conclude that all games from now and forever will have zones in some way. They might load textures on the fly, but each area of the gameworld will still be devided in groups.
And what about chat? I want my global and zone chat, so I can chat with people in my near surroundings and with all. So even if a game is zoneless (we allready established it is NOT), it would still have chat zones.
You've got two different things confused together there.
EVE has one shard with a lot of zones. Correct. There are not multiple "servers" (in the common usage of the term) because there is only one replica of the game running. People confuse the term "server" and "shard" all the time.
There is no MMO on the planet (afaik) that does not zone their worlds. Some have seamless transitions between zones and some don't - but all are zoned nonetheless. There simply isn't a technical way that I'm aware of to fit the expansive content inherrent to MMOs, with the "massive" number of players required, onto one physical CPU.
I.E. You can run the length and width of Vanguard (or LotRO - baring the PvP zone - when I last played) without encountering a loading screen. Both games have zones the same way EQ did, but handle the loading of the zones in a manner that seems seamless to the player.
As to the writer - the article comes off as very naieve to state boldly that CO innovated a shardless model. Their particular take on a single-shard game is slightly different, but the writing of the piece used too broad a brush when painting that statement. As a result, the author came across as having only played WoW and CO (which was probably not the intent).
I wasn't confused. I meant exactly what I said. Eve's world is subdivided into regions. Eve basically lets you move from "server to server" for free all the time. EQ1 charged you for that service. Sure, it is still part of "one world", but since that "world" is merely chat (the economy does not spill over from region to region directly), how innovative is it? It isn't. And eve gets away with zones that probably take 10 seconds of random number generation time to create, and then a little fine tuning by someone to make sure XYZ NPC corp has agents strewn about their regions in appropriate levels (but even that could be coded procedurally rather easily).
WW2 Online is zoneless. There are no zones (unless you count the whole world as a zone). There are terrain tiles, but only one "world/shard/server/zone". Its smart enough not to bog down someone in Reims, France with what is happening in Brussels, Belgium. But if they wanted to (and its coming soon (tm)), artillery and high altitude bombing will let people affect each other from (literally) miles away without ever rendering on the screen.
I think most people are confusing Zone and Seamless Zoning. Seamless Zoning has been around for a looooong time. You are correct, zones are created to segregate hardware resources. Some zones are based on regions, such as EQ and Eve. Some zones are based around the player base, such as Fallen Earth, that make sure that the players themselves are on the same physical hardware to eliminate lag between player to player interaction.
Seamless Zones are basically the same thing, but it allows the game client to load up a bubble around their character and load a single zone or a portion of two zones. Advanced MUDs and even Ultima Online used seemless zones. Dark Age of Camelot also used seamless zones until they split the frontiers off into a non-seamless zone.
Regarding the article, I must say that I am left a little puzzled. I am puzzled why the author of the article did not explain why CO's implementation of a single shard is innovative. The fact is that there are several other games, such as WW2 Online mentioned above, that are both a single server and Seamless Zoned. The same pros and cons pretty much apply to all of these games. However, I have no idea what sets the game's implementation apart from the rest. Without this information, I see no reason why people should not assume that it isn't innovative. The reader is not the reporter and should not have to investigate what was ommitted from the article. (FYI - not being harsh at all, I am just criticizing because I am either misreading something or the author or editor left something out)
WW2 online is not zoneless. It uses seamless zones. I used to play it a lot up until a couple of years ago. There were times were some of the zones were down and if you happened to wander (or fly) into those areas, your game client would disconnect and crash to desktop. It gave the impression that it does not use zones, but it really does and there is nothing wrong with that.
The end result is that the player believes that he or she is connecting to a single server and never has to wait a moment at a loading screen after first logging in. And yes, WW2 Online is a much more accurate comparison when giving an example of why many people here do not believe the article topic is innovative. Even more so than Eve, which I currently play.
WW2 online is not zoneless. It uses seamless zones. I used to play it a lot up until a couple of years ago. There were times were some of the zones were down and if you happened to wander (or fly) into those areas, your game client would disconnect and crash to desktop. It gave the impression that it does not use zones, but it really does and there is nothing wrong with that.
The end result is that the player believes that he or she is connecting to a single server and never has to wait a moment at a loading screen after first logging in. And yes, WW2 Online is a much more accurate comparison when giving an example of why many people here do not believe the article topic is innovative. Even more so than Eve, which I currently play.
Hrm, I'm a day 1 WW2OL player and have never seen any "zone" crash ever. I've seen map tiles not load due to bugs, and I've seen a strat server bug that caused the city of Metz that wouldn't let it be recapped by the allies, but aside from the "pixel of death" while flying, or the odd dropping through the world bugs, nothing that says "zone" crash. Those map tiles are not zones.
EVE Online is the abberation. games that didn't make it out of beta just can't count in this case, and with all due respect to mankind Online, I think that the article refers to the lack of AAA, high-budget titles using a shardless system.
Also, the Champions Online shardless system operates differently from the EVE shardless system, or really any other.
I'm just saying, you're awfully quick to try to tear someone down without really fully understanding what was said or considering all possibilities.
That may be, Jon, but I don't think the majority of this site's viewers, and MMO gamers who keep up with the hobby at large, aren't willing to just pat Cryptic and CO on the back for being "unique" or "different" when another company, or companies I should say, have been doing this. AAA or not, it has been done and I know I personally am not willing to give Crytpic kudos or write an article for it before any of the companies who have pioneered the idea before them. If anything you guys should have had an article giving respect to those companies and also giving due respect to Icarus and Fallen Earth who, at worst, was implementing the same idea (in general) as Cryptic (as the games were pretty much in development at the same time.
Sure, I get per his disclaimer that Mr. Wachter is a "homer" for Cryptic but that doesn't take away from the fact that if he's going to try to present information in a generalized, "this is pioneering for the industry" manner, well, he should be more versed in the industry. If he is, then he should write in such a way and not present himself as if this is something the rest of the industry should be following Cryptic on. If he isn't, then it should be made clear, in a like disclaimer.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
/facepalm
All MMOs since Ultima Online are "shardless."
Good Point.
Say hello, To the things you've left behind. They are more a part of your life now that you can't touch them.
Reading through the responses to this thread is like reading the responses to a thread on the official EVE forums by someone who jumped his uber faction-fit marauder into lowsec, got ganked by pirates, then decided to put up a post about how he shouldn't be able to be shot by other players anywhere, at any time. It's almost like a shark feeding frenzy. As such....
-throws a bag of popcorn into the microwave and drags out a big bowl and some popcorn cheese-
In reality, much as I may violently disagree with the design theory behind Champions (I play EVE, after all, and that's one shard with one--and only one!--instance), the truth is that, as far as I know, the only-one-shard-instanced-to-Hell approach hasn't been tried before. This meets the criteria for "innovative" in my book. As a result, most of the objections to the article posted here have little validity.
Now, as to whether that was a good design decision, that's another matter....
-Wrayeth
"Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
Eh, I enjoyed the few points on what's good or bad about being on a single-shard server, regardless of whether or not EVE did it first, etc.
I don't know if you should be trying to use the words like "douchebag" in the future, I mean, "Gankers", "Griefers" and "Ninja-looters" could have been used to replace the word and remained more "professional"
But meh, I agree with most of the pros and cons, anyway. A big con, though, as someone pointed out, is that a single-shard server will likely have some high-population-density zones that'll screw with the players computers if there are too many characters on screen, etc. etc.
But nowadays, I think MMO companies have the budget for a really nice, big ol' server computer with some ridiculous mish-mash of two PlayStation 3, like, eight-core processors or whatever (maybe the i7 processors?), with several dozen GBs of RAM, with crazy fibre-optic 400Mb network connection speeds... I mean, a little monster like that's only gotta be something like $50,000, tops, right?
...right?
I am playing EVE and it's alright... level V skills are a bit much.
You all need to learn to spell.
Yes, thats always funny as hell...Pass the popcorn.
Then there are those who start foaming at the mouth at the mere mention of Eve... I suspect they had a typical run in with the Goonies. 
But Eve is what one makes of it..
Hahaha. All it needs is pinky in the background.
Isn't that exactly what Guild Wars is?
Also, I didn't catch that in the article - so, how are any of the readers supposed to know that by reading the article. From reading it, "Champions Online recently launched, and one of the innovations that it brought to the table was shardlessness - a single server hosting the entire game population" The opening doesn't make any reference to zones or instances. It simply says that CO launched the game on a single server and it was innovative. It's not. There are a lot of different games that are on a single server. It could be innovative in its implementation, but I'm not spending $50 to find out what the author left out of the article.
Believe it or not, alot of people haven't played EVE and don't consider it a AAA release. (I personally don't consider it one, no matter how good it is.)
Also, Guild Wars is not even close to being Champion's Online. (I think you'd find pros and cons for both styles... only one is really suited for an MMO. Guild Wars would have more in common with Hellgate than it would CO imo.)
The author basically listed concisely a number of pros and cons for the style of shardlessness employed by Champion's Online, a type of shardlessness that would be reasonable to assume could well be modeled off of in the future.
Finding one phrase that really doesn't have that much to do with the point of the article, nitpicking it to death, and then holding it up as some sort of triumphant dismissal of this author's contribution doesn't make you look perceptive and smart, it makes you look like a short sighted jackass.
Having played Champion's Online, I would by and large agree with his feelings towards their system. He listed three legitimate "Pros" and he listed three legitimate "Cons". What varies from individual is the "weight" that each of these systems have... for example, someone who enjoys playing with friends regardless of server may not feel the lack of a server identity a bad tradeoff. A roleplayer may well feel the loss of server identiy more deeply, with the notion of having to potentially play with "everyone" a bad thing in and of itself.