I remember how fun the early games were with massive amounts of people running around in the same area. I guess I'd rather have lower quality graphics and a large non-instanced world. I was going to make a thread about this over a month ago but forgot. Basically, I think developers are making a mistake creating high end graphical games if they have to use heavy instancing to make the game playable with massive amounts of people in one area.
The original MMORPG's laid the foundation and defined the genre, so I'd love to see the genre stick to it, not redefine it. Games that use the instanced technology I spoke of cuts out the Massive portion of MMORPG and leaves us with MORPG. Doesn't mean the game can't be fun, but playing with others online is what brought me to MMORPG's in 2002. Otherwise I'd just go play a Co-op game if I only want a few people on the screen.
Rift is a good example of this. While I'm enjoying this game right now, it's probably too beautiful to be an MMO. Running an HD6850 and 4GB Ram, I'll be darned if I can maintain double digit frame rates in a public raid group on medium graphics settings.
No dude, it isn't. All the best MMOs had open world environments with NO instancing. That was what made the MMO genre unique. MMOs with heavy instancing aren't even MMOs anymore. A SERVER is not the same as instancing any way you want to spin it.
If instancing and servers were the same thing they wouldn't have two different names.
Ok, let's do this, let's say you and I make plans to meet up in TSW, we'll pick a common time and a common location. We'll agree to meet there 6 months from today without talking to each prior to.
You say "all the best MMOs" blah blah blah. First of all, this is bullshit, because even older MMOs - like AO - had instancing. Second of, just because older MMOs didn't have something, doesn't make THAT the reason they were good. "All the best" MMOs were also built for under 10,000 players (or under 50,000). So i guess studios should stop pumping all this money into trying to produce MMOs for the masses, eh?
[Mod Edit] You realize that MMOs of the past had 250k, 500k, and even 700k subscribers, right? And their servers were generally bigger and could support more people? And no, AO was the only oldschool MMO to launch with instancing.
And this is where I stopped reading your uninformed mental leakage. You realize that MMOs of the past had 250k, 500k, and even 700k subscribers, right? And their servers were generally bigger and could support more people? And no, AO was the only oldschool MMO to launch with instancing.
No, i didn't realize that. Which major MMO older than AO had 700k subs and what is your source for this info?
The notion that server capacity capability has actually shrunk over the years is interesting and would run completely counter to every other piece of computer technology, so by all means, please share your sources.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
And this is where I stopped reading your uninformed mental leakage. You realize that MMOs of the past had 250k, 500k, and even 700k subscribers, right? And their servers were generally bigger and could support more people? And no, AO was the only oldschool MMO to launch with instancing.
No, i didn't realize that. Which major MMO older than AO had 700k subs and what is your source for this info?
The notion that server capacity capability has actually shrunk over the years is interesting and would run completely counter to every other piece of computer technology, so by all means, please share your sources.
Where did he say older than AO? AO was one of of the first MMOs. And EQ had 500k subs at its peak. SWG had near a million at one point. In old MMOs you could have 900+ people in the same zone. Now you can't even have 40. So yeah, I'd agree they've gone way down.
After experiencing instancing in all its incarnations, there's one type I can't stand and will keep me from playing a game, and that's instancing where there are multiple copies of the same zone. Anyone know if this game will have this?
It's personal preference of course and I respect it. Having said that, why would they not have it, especially at launch. It makes absolutely no sence not to have such a system, especially considering that PvP seems to be handled only in certain designated zones.
Some of the best MMORPG's don't and didn't have it: DAoC, EQ, SWG, WoW...
Actually yeah they did and they do. They just call them "servers". And before you tell "oh no, a server is not the same thing!", seriously dude, it is.
No dude, it isn't. All the best MMOs had open world environments with NO instancing. That was what made the MMO genre unique. MMOs with heavy instancing aren't even MMOs anymore. A SERVER is not the same as instancing any way you want to spin it.
If instancing and servers were the same thing they wouldn't have two different names.
While it feels different they are almost the same thing, with only slight differences. A server is another instance of the game world. Thats a fact. However, the main difference between instancing each zone as opposed to entire servers is that instancing each zone allows all players to play with each other as if they were all on the same server, and also allows for all items to be on the same "server". The only disadvantage is that they will have to manually select or make sure they are on the same instance as their friends.
You can look at it as basically allowing players to switch between servers at will. Imagine if each area has 5 instances. This is the same as having 5 servers except that you can actively switch between them at will. In a classic setup of 5 servers without zone instancing, you still have 5 instances of an area, they are just on separate servers and cannot be switched between at will.
As far as I know there is no official word whether TSW will have this form of instancing or not, but it wouldn't be surprising if they did.
While it feels different they are almost the same thing, with only slight differences. A server is another instance of the game world. Thats a fact. However, the main difference between instancing each zone as opposed to entire servers is that instancing each zone allows all players to play with each other as if they were all on the same server, and also allows for all items to be on the same "server". The only disadvantage is that they will have to manually select or make sure they are on the same instance as their friends.
You can look at it as basically allowing players to switch between servers at will. Imagine if each area has 5 instances. This is the same as having 5 servers except that you can actively switch between them at will. In a classic setup of 5 servers without zone instancing, you still have 5 instances of an area, they are just on separate servers and cannot be switched between at will.
As far as I know there is no official word whether TSW will have this form of instancing or not, but it wouldn't be surprising if they did.
Example from the most renowned PVP MMORPG, mostly due its Community Spirit.
2001-2005, Dark Age of Camelot 250k Subs, on EU 2 servers. At best 600 in same raid, on screen. At around 800 the region server crashed, we knew this, had to keep reinforcements elsewhere. Clients Pentiums, ISDN 2-liners topping 128kbs bandwidth or first xDSL's. Servers were just top end PC's, one region running on one core, seamless change between regions. DAoC operates on MySQL and everything but the most time critical interactions (PVP) are done with TCP/IP. UDP was a new invention.
Comfortable amount of people on screen at 2003-04 was about 250-300, after that at least my comp lowered FPS bellow 24. With 500+ Raids, it was still playable but most importantly, enjoyable as hell. Seriously, google 'em grafics.
Sure in typical modern game graphics take immeasureable more raw strenght from our client ends, and to compete on grapihcal appeal a game actually needs to be fantastico. That is however completely a client side issue, where as lag is an engine and server level issue.
Servers are servers, who ever came up with the idea that they resemble instances or are somehow connected to the discussion should go back to reading "For Dummies" books.
Phasing is justified by lore/story mechanics and from that perspective is perfectly okay. If you burn the town, its just silly that after the quest its just as it was so that next player can burn it. (WoW, early days, remember?)
Generally instances are type "Battleground", where certain kind of events are set behind a loading screen for a purpose and that's just okay.
The kind of instancing currently on topic - the one where population hubs or regions are - justified by lag, or FPS drop due too much people on the screen. All its excuses can be summarized by "easy way out" for development. For F2P or low budget games this is an acceptable drawback.
There are other options than instancing to be considered, that many of us would probably enjoy more than a dropdown menu to choose which reality we should be in
1.) LAG itself is a client - server - engine issue, to which grapics don't effect. Bandwidth is no longer any sort of an issue for playing a MMO, so all of that comes down to is doing the communication right. Recently game houses have came out with the idea that perhaps not "everything" is worth broadcasting to "everyone" on screen, if there is bit too many of them around. Sounds so damn obvious after its been invented right? Also, if MySQL (known to be relatively slow database) can handle 600 client's transactions on a pentium, and in EVE 1600 on same grid, is this really an actual problem?
2.) Dynamic graphics. At its simplicity the client engine will reduce graphic settings based on clients on screen. This is ofcourse the hard part for lower budget houses. In its complex form animations, effects and broadcasting of certain less important actions will reduce dynamically same time as wiev range and polygon amount is controlled (GA2 style).
3.) Timedialation. When graphical lag reaches a defree, the pace of game actually lowers down percentually to everyone to maintain the immersion and controllability of the environment.
Edit:
4.) Overflow server system. An additional server completely is dynamically brought in to handle activity of those clients that exceed the limitation of a certain vision grid. Guild Wars 2 uses this as queue system, basically when you queue to the real server, you can do PVE or crafting related things alone on an overflow server. It can also be implemented so that server divides up the regions dynamically and assigns more servers on one "map region" if there is say, 2 concentrations of people.
5.) Dynamic Server Allocation Management. Ignore compeletely the limitations of one server entity managing one vision grid, and run the whole of servers in a cross-system virtual platform. More server capacity and bandwith is dynamically allocated exactly where it is needed, when it is needed.
As you see it comes down to Commander Dollar again. Establishing instancing in any form is also a way to reduce development time and making launch activity alot easier. In the current MMO Entertainment Industry, its just plain obvious that this is the way we'll see them coming.
I would like to add "Deal With It". But as explained before, they are basicly only excuses, the problem is not real, but solving it costs money and time. It is also a trait of this industry, that developers press matters screamed by their paying customers.
So I say, grow up, understand the current environment, learn about the issue, and press the matter to the direction you want it to go. Devs know the field, they play the games too, make them hear and vote with the wallet.
.....
tl;dr. Like anyone takes an intellectual debate seriously anyway. Skip to next troll.
DAoC - 00-06 - And every now and then WoW - Online since launch - and now back again. EVE - Online since 07 - and still on, and on, and on.. WHO - Online 08-10 LOTR-O - Online 06-08 Also played : Asherons Call, EverQuest, EQ2, Dungeons & Dragons, Cabal, Dark & Light, GW, GW2, LA2, Ryzom, Shaiya, SWG, Allods, Forsaken World, ArcheAge, Secret World, Darkfall, Rift, ESO, Tera.
Example from the most renowned PVP MMORPG, mostly due its Community Spirit.
2001-2005, Dark Age of Camelot, 400k Subs on EU, 2 servers. At best 600 in same raid, on screen. At around 800 the region server crashed, we knew this, had to keep reinforcements elsewhere. Clients Pentiums, ISDN 2-liners topping 128kbs bandwidth or first xDSL's. Servers were just top end PC's, one region running on one core, seamless change between regions. DAoC operates on MySQL and everything but the most time critical interactions (PVP) are done with TCP/IP. UDP was a new invention.
Comfortable amount of people on screen at 2003-04 was about 250-300, after that at least my comp lowered FPS bellow 24. With 500+ Raids, it was still playable but most importantly, enjoyable as hell. Seriously, google 'em grafics.
Sure in typical modern game graphics take immeasureable more raw strenght from our client ends, and to compete on grapihcal appeal a game actually needs to be fantastico. That is however completely a client side issue, where as lag is an engine and server level issue.
Servers are servers, who ever came up with the idea that they resemble instances or are somehow connected to the discussion should go back to reading "For Dummies" books.
Phasing is justified by lore/story mechanics and from that perspective is perfectly okay. If you burn the town, its just silly that after the quest its just as it was so that next player can burn it. (WoW, early days, remember?)
Generally instances are type "Battleground", where certain kind of events are set behind a loading screen for a purpose and that's just okay.
The kind of instancing currently on topic - the one where population hubs or regions are - justified by lag, or FPS drop due too much people on the screen. All its excuses can be summarized by "easy way out" for development. For F2P or low budget games this is an acceptable drawback.
There are other options than instancing to be considered, that many of us would probably enjoy more than a dropdown menu to choose which reality we should be in
1.) LAG itself is a client - server - engine issue, to which grapics don't effect. Bandwidth is no longer any sort of an issue for playing a MMO, so all of that comes down to is doing the communication right. Recently game houses have came out with the idea that perhaps not "everything" is worth broadcasting to "everyone" on screen, if there is bit too many of them around. Sounds so damn obvious after its been invented right? Also, if MySQL (known to be relatively slow database) can handle 600 client's transactions on a pentium, and in EVE 1600 on same grid, is this really an actual problem?
2.) Dynamic graphics. At its simplicity the client engine will reduce graphic settings based on clients on screen. This is ofcourse the hard part for lower budget houses. In its complex form animations, effects and broadcasting of certain less important actions will reduce dynamically same time as wiev range and polygon amount is controlled (GA2 style).
3.) Timedialation. When graphical lag reaches a defree, the pace of game actually lowers down percentually to everyone to maintain the immersion and controllability of the environment.
Reasoning
As you see it comes down to Commander Dollar again. Establishing instancing in any form is also a way to reduce development time and making launch activity alot easier. In the current MMO Entertainment Industry, its just plain obvious that this is the way we'll see them coming.
I would like to add "Deal With It". But as explained before, they are basicly only excuses, the problem is not real, but solving it costs money and time. It is also a trait of this industry, that developers press matters screamed by their paying customers.
So I say, grow up, understand the current environment, learn about the issue, and press the matter to the direction you want it to go.
.....
tl;dr. Like anyone takes an intellectual debate seriously anyway. Skip to next troll.
I actually found your post very informative. My first MMORPG was DAoC, so I know it's possible to have hundreds of players on the same screen without the server crashing and with good FPS, assuming you had a decent computer with the recommended memory. The graphics for DAoC were pretty cutting edge realistic back then, so there really isn't any excuse.
It's possible that maybe developers need to implement graphical quality that allows several hundred players to be onscreen at once, instead of shooting for good-great graphics and implementing multiple copies of the same city/zones.
DAoC - 00-06 - And every now and then WoW - Online since launch - and now back again. EVE - Online since 07 - and still on, and on, and on.. WHO - Online 08-10 LOTR-O - Online 06-08 Also played : Asherons Call, EverQuest, EQ2, Dungeons & Dragons, Cabal, Dark & Light, GW, GW2, LA2, Ryzom, Shaiya, SWG, Allods, Forsaken World, ArcheAge, Secret World, Darkfall, Rift, ESO, Tera.
Originally posted by SignusM And this is where I stopped reading your uninformed mental leakage. You realize that MMOs of the past had 250k, 500k, and even 700k subscribers, right? And their servers were generally bigger and could support more people? And no, AO was the only oldschool MMO to launch with instancing.
No, i didn't realize that. Which major MMO older than AO had 700k subs and what is your source for this info?
The notion that server capacity capability has actually shrunk over the years is interesting and would run completely counter to every other piece of computer technology, so by all means, please share your sources.
Where did he say older than AO? AO was one of of the first MMOs. And EQ had 500k subs at its peak. SWG had near a million at one point. In old MMOs you could have 900+ people in the same zone. Now you can't even have 40. So yeah, I'd agree they've gone way down.
Nothing in your post is even remotely true. SWG never had 1 million. 900 people in same zone? Is that all you do now is make shit up?
In War - Victory. In Peace - Vigilance. In Death - Sacrifice.
And this is where I stopped reading your uninformed mental leakage. You realize that MMOs of the past had 250k, 500k, and even 700k subscribers, right? And their servers were generally bigger and could support more people? And no, AO was the only oldschool MMO to launch with instancing.
No, i didn't realize that. Which major MMO older than AO had 700k subs and what is your source for this info?
The notion that server capacity capability has actually shrunk over the years is interesting and would run completely counter to every other piece of computer technology, so by all means, please share your sources.
Where did he say older than AO? AO was one of of the first MMOs. And EQ had 500k subs at its peak. SWG had near a million at one point. In old MMOs you could have 900+ people in the same zone. Now you can't even have 40. So yeah, I'd agree they've gone way down.
Nothing in your post is even remotely true. SWG never had 1 million. 900 people in same zone? Is that all you do now is make shit up?
Best available information suggests that SWG sold 1 million boxes, and peaked 300k active subs.
DAoC - 00-06 - And every now and then WoW - Online since launch - and now back again. EVE - Online since 07 - and still on, and on, and on.. WHO - Online 08-10 LOTR-O - Online 06-08 Also played : Asherons Call, EverQuest, EQ2, Dungeons & Dragons, Cabal, Dark & Light, GW, GW2, LA2, Ryzom, Shaiya, SWG, Allods, Forsaken World, ArcheAge, Secret World, Darkfall, Rift, ESO, Tera.
Servers are servers, who ever came up with the idea that they resemble instances or are somehow connected to the discussion should go back to reading "For Dummies" books.
Phasing is justified by lore/story mechanics and from that perspective is perfectly okay. If you burn the town, its just silly that after the quest its just as it was so that next player can burn it. (WoW, early days, remember?)
First of all - thank you for a well thought-out and informative post.
As far as why i brought up servers - obviously i understand the technical difference between a server and a phase. The reason I always bring it up is that from an immersion/player experience perspective, it has exactly the same consequence. Taking your example (although i've never played WoW myself) - if there is a town on the world map that town is either there, or it has been burnt. From an immersion/story perspective there is only ONE town and if there happens to be a separate copy of this town which is completely untouched after i've burned it, then it is an immersion gap.
The same thing is if two people try to meet up, go to the same place, but aren't actually in the same place - the technology driving this could be phasing or could be split servers. The reason i bring it up is that from a player-experience perspective, the two look identical - the fact is that I am in place X and my friend is also in place X, but we're not in the same place, we're in different copies. The technology driving it may be different, but the net effect is exactly the same - we cannot interact together in what is supposed to be ONE SHARED WORLD.
Why does it matter to the discussion? Mostly, because i find it extremely ironic that people find it totally ok that there are 70 copies of the the entire planet (servers), but then they scream "foul!" if there are two copies of the same continent (phases).
It goes back to the games we started with. I started playing Anarchy Online, in which everyone i ever knew played on the same server. So when i then started playing other MMOs, it just felt completely wrong to me that people i know may be on a different copy of the world, that i woudln't be able to interact with them or see them. I just found this totally appalling. At the same time, AO always had instances and it always made sense that my mission isn't the same as everyone else's mission.
IMHO, people really need to focus less on "omg instances = death" and more on how well instancing is used. Rift, TOR and LoTRO all use both instancing and phasing, yet the 3 games wouldn't feel more different. LoTRO feels like a totally old-school open world. Rift - despite phasing capability - has massive 200-people-on-screen events that are bigger than anything i've seen in non-phased MMOs, SWTOR has phasing, but it doesn't even get used because they chopped the game into so many servers that there is never more than 20 people of the same level in the game.
It's awesome to have 100 people on the screen. Sometimes it might be awesome to have 200. The question is, how is the game's world built? For example, the "cities" in Rift look like about 20 people live there. It would make no sense to see 500 people there. 500 people on tattooine in SWTOR though? Sure. There is no "one answer" to the right way to apply instancing, phasing or server technology. The question shouldn't be "does it have instancing?", it should be "does the manner in which instancing is used support the gameworld created well or not?".
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
GAH! An icy chill went dowm my spine as I read this and understood what you were getting at. Reading the thread title alone was enough really. I hope to goodness that whatever instancing is used that is nothing like Star Wars the Old Republic point motherfucking blank dude..
Lots of games do instancing in some way I dare say a good majority if I wouldn't be crossing the troll line. They just do them in different and more seamless ways that what is currently being employed in the most recent MMO release of "noteworthiness". The instancing in that game is horrid; it may be so bad because the game is just shit really and the world is as souless as your latest baby snatcher..
OH MY GOODNESS! Please do not be instancing be the downfall of this game.. I'll except anything esle right now excpet for the world feeling like ...................................................................................................................................
Obviously, you did only read the thread title because you certainly missed the entire point of his post. He's not talking about instancing---he's talking about sharding, which is when there are multiple copies of each zone. Please try to keep up before you go on a rant. Thanks.
I read instancing, the thread says instancing. So I think I read that part pretty well...
Sharding and instancing share the same principle for the most part. Instantcing has multiple copies of an area. SWTOR uses instances. I'm on Imperial Fleet 1 and can change instance to Imperial Fleet 2... That system sucks in SWTOR because the game is so hollow.
If a game were more lively maybe this would be fine, actually showing the person what instance they are in. EVE I know usues Sharding, jumping through a gate puts you on a different server than the last system you just left. That also serves to relieve server stress..
I believe he's explaining instancing and not sharding. He said same area, not different planet. Instancing is for the same area that you are in having multiple copies.
PM before you report at least or you could just block.
I think LOTRO did the best job when it comes to open non- instanced world that looks great and can run on many systems but then again, character models and animations suffered from it, those really sucked and were sub-par from the rest of the game.
Basically, we can't have it all.
And LotRO even does the multi-shard thing now, though it's usually only done in busier social hubs.
It's personal preference of course and I respect it. Having said that, why would they not have it, especially at launch. It makes absolutely no sence not to have such a system, especially considering that PvP seems to be handled only in certain designated zones.
Some of the best MMORPG's don't and didn't have it: DAoC, EQ, SWG, WoW...
Actually yeah they did and they do. They just call them "servers". And before you tell "oh no, a server is not the same thing!", seriously dude, it is.
No dude, it isn't. All the best MMOs had open world environments with NO instancing. That was what made the MMO genre unique. MMOs with heavy instancing aren't even MMOs anymore. A SERVER is not the same as instancing any way you want to spin it.
If instancing and servers were the same thing they wouldn't have two different names.
I agree the big difference is If I play on a server with 2 people if they are logged in I will see them if they are at the same location as me. Obviously if they are on a different server I won't (Servers in my mind are like parellel universes). Sharding on the other hand is IMO a lazy way to get around a complex problem. Basicly I think it leads down a slipperly slope and that almost takes away from the very heart of what an MMO should be. That being said sharding for a game release is ok as long as its put to bed a month in
Example from the most renowned PVP MMORPG, mostly due its Community Spirit.
2001-2005, Dark Age of Camelot 250k Subs, on EU 2 servers. At best 600 in same raid, on screen. At around 800 the region server crashed, we knew this, had to keep reinforcements elsewhere. Clients Pentiums, ISDN 2-liners topping 128kbs bandwidth or first xDSL's. Servers were just top end PC's, one region running on one core, seamless change between regions. DAoC operates on MySQL and everything but the most time critical interactions (PVP) are done with TCP/IP. UDP was a new invention.
Comfortable amount of people on screen at 2003-04 was about 250-300, after that at least my comp lowered FPS bellow 24. With 500+ Raids, it was still playable but most importantly, enjoyable as hell. Seriously, google 'em grafics.
Sure in typical modern game graphics take immeasureable more raw strenght from our client ends, and to compete on grapihcal appeal a game actually needs to be fantastico. That is however completely a client side issue, where as lag is an engine and server level issue.
Servers are servers, who ever came up with the idea that they resemble instances or are somehow connected to the discussion should go back to reading "For Dummies" books.
Phasing is justified by lore/story mechanics and from that perspective is perfectly okay. If you burn the town, its just silly that after the quest its just as it was so that next player can burn it. (WoW, early days, remember?)
Generally instances are type "Battleground", where certain kind of events are set behind a loading screen for a purpose and that's just okay.
The kind of instancing currently on topic - the one where population hubs or regions are - justified by lag, or FPS drop due too much people on the screen. All its excuses can be summarized by "easy way out" for development. For F2P or low budget games this is an acceptable drawback.
There are other options than instancing to be considered, that many of us would probably enjoy more than a dropdown menu to choose which reality we should be in
1.) LAG itself is a client - server - engine issue, to which grapics don't effect. Bandwidth is no longer any sort of an issue for playing a MMO, so all of that comes down to is doing the communication right. Recently game houses have came out with the idea that perhaps not "everything" is worth broadcasting to "everyone" on screen, if there is bit too many of them around. Sounds so damn obvious after its been invented right? Also, if MySQL (known to be relatively slow database) can handle 600 client's transactions on a pentium, and in EVE 1600 on same grid, is this really an actual problem?
2.) Dynamic graphics. At its simplicity the client engine will reduce graphic settings based on clients on screen. This is ofcourse the hard part for lower budget houses. In its complex form animations, effects and broadcasting of certain less important actions will reduce dynamically same time as wiev range and polygon amount is controlled (GA2 style).
3.) Timedialation. When graphical lag reaches a defree, the pace of game actually lowers down percentually to everyone to maintain the immersion and controllability of the environment.
Edit:
4.) Overflow server system. An additional server completely is dynamically brought in to handle activity of those clients that exceed the limitation of a certain vision grid. Guild Wars 2 uses this as queue system, basically when you queue to the real server, you can do PVE or crafting related things alone on an overflow server. It can also be implemented so that server divides up the regions dynamically and assigns more servers on one "map region" if there is say, 2 concentrations of people.
5.) Dynamic Server Allocation Management. Ignore compeletely the limitations of one server entity managing one vision grid, and run the whole of servers in a cross-system virtual platform. More server capacity and bandwith is dynamically allocated exactly where it is needed, when it is needed.
As you see it comes down to Commander Dollar again. Establishing instancing in any form is also a way to reduce development time and making launch activity alot easier. In the current MMO Entertainment Industry, its just plain obvious that this is the way we'll see them coming.
I would like to add "Deal With It". But as explained before, they are basicly only excuses, the problem is not real, but solving it costs money and time. It is also a trait of this industry, that developers press matters screamed by their paying customers.
So I say, grow up, understand the current environment, learn about the issue, and press the matter to the direction you want it to go. Devs know the field, they play the games too, make them hear and vote with the wallet.
.....
tl;dr. Like anyone takes an intellectual debate seriously anyway. Skip to next troll.
I agree that it would be great if mmo companies find ways to integrate all the players into a single server/instance, but so far its never been done (except for really small mmos).
I think this game is very interesting in game history and on the modern day type of mmorpg, and i hope they make a great game with instances that are thrilling with lots of huge big baddasses bosses
After experiencing instancing in all its incarnations, there's one type I can't stand and will keep me from playing a game, and that's instancing where there are multiple copies of the same zone. Anyone know if this game will have this?
This frame of thought is baffling to me.
People dont have problems wih instanced pvp or instanced pve. People dont hate instancing when...say you have to go to another planet.
People hate even more than istanced playfields are playfields that are choked with players and you have to wait in line and fight with others.
Also...most games that do offer multiple instances only make use of them at launch when they are needed. After that theres just one playfield since the population in that area doesnt require another instance.
Load screens never botherd me. I agree that...say in EQ2 in the Freeport town where you had to instance and sub instance to get to one part of the town was horrible, mainly since there was no congruent map explaining the path you need to take. Even with something like that i shouldnt have to instance every 15min or 5 times just to get across an area...they wont do that.
I think instancing in mmorpgs (which often offer superior mechanics and ability to design an area) is like player housing. Every complains when they dont get their preference regarding the two, however when given their preference no one actually cares.
The great thing about all this ridiculous instancing going on in new mmos is that it makes it really easy to completely dismiss a game without having to research it any further. The second I read about multiple copies of a zones or instanced pvp, I immediately know it's something I'll never play. Following upcoming mmos has become a lot less time consuming.
Tera, GW2 and the Secret World are all out. I'll just check back in a few more months to see if any real mmos are in development.
The great thing about all this ridiculous instancing going on in new mmos is that it makes it really easy to completely dismiss a game without having to research it any further. The second I read about multiple copies of a zones or instanced pvp, I immediately know it's something I'll never play. Following upcoming mmos has become a lot less time consuming.
Tera, GW2 and the Secret World are all out. I'll just check back in a few more months to see if any real mmos are in development.
Pretty much. The fact that these games are called MMOs... disgusting.
After experiencing instancing in all its incarnations, there's one type I can't stand and will keep me from playing a game, and that's instancing where there are multiple copies of the same zone. Anyone know if this game will have this?
funny, this is almost the only kind of instancing i find acceptable.
because there are physically based limitations on how many players can be in one area at a time.....its either this kind of instancing, or the time dilation of EVE. the MMOs you mentioned (DAoC, EQ, SWG, WoW) all had this kind of instancing.......
HUH?! WHAT AM I TALKING ABOUT!?
what do you think having seperate servers is doing? its instancing THE ENTIRE WORLD. its instancing EVERYthing on the WORLD level. you have to coordinate playing on the same world instance as your friends. but then if you didn't work out things beforehand, you and your friends may have invested alot of time on characters which can NOT join each other AT ALL without an expensive char transfer charge (if its even available in your game).
whereas with the kind of instancing that you hate (like Champions Online), its an easy/free matter of clicking a few options in your UI, and then you can be with your friends with virtually no coordination or loss of time/effort.
Servers are servers, who ever came up with the idea that they resemble instances or are somehow connected to the discussion should go back to reading "For Dummies" books.
.......snip........
a dropdown menu to choose which reality we should be in
.....snip.....
I
you mean like a server select screen?
now with those quotes next to each other, maybe you'll get it.
Do you like EVE's one big server world where everyone fits? I'll assume that some people do.
So, lets also assume that game developers are making a game that at end level (in a final state of the game) the land mass can keep happily occuppied 100.000 people.
Now, lets assume that the game is very successful and instead of 100k people, they get 500k people. Suddenly the land mass is simply not enough. Solutions:
Open five servers or
Have one big giant farm of servers that can have produce five channels of the same server, each one accessible by all players of the game.
The pros of the first choice? No instancing.
The pros of the second choice? All the players of the game in one server/shard.
Which design would you prefer?
(GW2 has actually produced a third solution, make all servers visitable from the login screen)
Comments
Rift is a good example of this. While I'm enjoying this game right now, it's probably too beautiful to be an MMO. Running an HD6850 and 4GB Ram, I'll be darned if I can maintain double digit frame rates in a public raid group on medium graphics settings.
[Mod Edit] You realize that MMOs of the past had 250k, 500k, and even 700k subscribers, right? And their servers were generally bigger and could support more people? And no, AO was the only oldschool MMO to launch with instancing.
Darkfall Travelogues!
No, i didn't realize that. Which major MMO older than AO had 700k subs and what is your source for this info?
The notion that server capacity capability has actually shrunk over the years is interesting and would run completely counter to every other piece of computer technology, so by all means, please share your sources.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
Where did he say older than AO? AO was one of of the first MMOs. And EQ had 500k subs at its peak. SWG had near a million at one point. In old MMOs you could have 900+ people in the same zone. Now you can't even have 40. So yeah, I'd agree they've gone way down.
That is what instancing is by definition.
While it feels different they are almost the same thing, with only slight differences. A server is another instance of the game world. Thats a fact. However, the main difference between instancing each zone as opposed to entire servers is that instancing each zone allows all players to play with each other as if they were all on the same server, and also allows for all items to be on the same "server". The only disadvantage is that they will have to manually select or make sure they are on the same instance as their friends.
You can look at it as basically allowing players to switch between servers at will. Imagine if each area has 5 instances. This is the same as having 5 servers except that you can actively switch between them at will. In a classic setup of 5 servers without zone instancing, you still have 5 instances of an area, they are just on separate servers and cannot be switched between at will.
As far as I know there is no official word whether TSW will have this form of instancing or not, but it wouldn't be surprising if they did.
An easier way to explain it is like this
All bees are insects but not all insects are bees
bees being servers and insects being instances
Example from the most renowned PVP MMORPG, mostly due its Community Spirit.
2001-2005, Dark Age of Camelot 250k Subs, on EU 2 servers. At best 600 in same raid, on screen. At around 800 the region server crashed, we knew this, had to keep reinforcements elsewhere. Clients Pentiums, ISDN 2-liners topping 128kbs bandwidth or first xDSL's. Servers were just top end PC's, one region running on one core, seamless change between regions. DAoC operates on MySQL and everything but the most time critical interactions (PVP) are done with TCP/IP. UDP was a new invention.
Comfortable amount of people on screen at 2003-04 was about 250-300, after that at least my comp lowered FPS bellow 24. With 500+ Raids, it was still playable but most importantly, enjoyable as hell. Seriously, google 'em grafics.
Sure in typical modern game graphics take immeasureable more raw strenght from our client ends, and to compete on grapihcal appeal a game actually needs to be fantastico. That is however completely a client side issue, where as lag is an engine and server level issue.
Servers are servers, who ever came up with the idea that they resemble instances or are somehow connected to the discussion should go back to reading "For Dummies" books.
Phasing is justified by lore/story mechanics and from that perspective is perfectly okay. If you burn the town, its just silly that after the quest its just as it was so that next player can burn it. (WoW, early days, remember?)
Generally instances are type "Battleground", where certain kind of events are set behind a loading screen for a purpose and that's just okay.
The kind of instancing currently on topic - the one where population hubs or regions are - justified by lag, or FPS drop due too much people on the screen. All its excuses can be summarized by "easy way out" for development. For F2P or low budget games this is an acceptable drawback.
There are other options than instancing to be considered, that many of us would probably enjoy more than a dropdown menu to choose which reality we should be in
1.) LAG itself is a client - server - engine issue, to which grapics don't effect. Bandwidth is no longer any sort of an issue for playing a MMO, so all of that comes down to is doing the communication right. Recently game houses have came out with the idea that perhaps not "everything" is worth broadcasting to "everyone" on screen, if there is bit too many of them around. Sounds so damn obvious after its been invented right? Also, if MySQL (known to be relatively slow database) can handle 600 client's transactions on a pentium, and in EVE 1600 on same grid, is this really an actual problem?
2.) Dynamic graphics. At its simplicity the client engine will reduce graphic settings based on clients on screen. This is ofcourse the hard part for lower budget houses. In its complex form animations, effects and broadcasting of certain less important actions will reduce dynamically same time as wiev range and polygon amount is controlled (GA2 style).
3.) Timedialation. When graphical lag reaches a defree, the pace of game actually lowers down percentually to everyone to maintain the immersion and controllability of the environment.
Edit:
4.) Overflow server system. An additional server completely is dynamically brought in to handle activity of those clients that exceed the limitation of a certain vision grid. Guild Wars 2 uses this as queue system, basically when you queue to the real server, you can do PVE or crafting related things alone on an overflow server. It can also be implemented so that server divides up the regions dynamically and assigns more servers on one "map region" if there is say, 2 concentrations of people.
5.) Dynamic Server Allocation Management. Ignore compeletely the limitations of one server entity managing one vision grid, and run the whole of servers in a cross-system virtual platform. More server capacity and bandwith is dynamically allocated exactly where it is needed, when it is needed.
Read more:
http://www.mendeley.com/research/dynamic-load-balancing-massive-multiplayer-online-game-server/
Reasoning
As you see it comes down to Commander Dollar again. Establishing instancing in any form is also a way to reduce development time and making launch activity alot easier. In the current MMO Entertainment Industry, its just plain obvious that this is the way we'll see them coming.
I would like to add "Deal With It". But as explained before, they are basicly only excuses, the problem is not real, but solving it costs money and time. It is also a trait of this industry, that developers press matters screamed by their paying customers.
So I say, grow up, understand the current environment, learn about the issue, and press the matter to the direction you want it to go. Devs know the field, they play the games too, make them hear and vote with the wallet.
.....
tl;dr. Like anyone takes an intellectual debate seriously anyway. Skip to next troll.
DAoC - 00-06 - And every now and then
WoW - Online since launch - and now back again.
EVE - Online since 07 - and still on, and on, and on..
WHO - Online 08-10
LOTR-O - Online 06-08
Also played : Asherons Call, EverQuest, EQ2, Dungeons & Dragons, Cabal, Dark & Light, GW, GW2, LA2, Ryzom, Shaiya, SWG, Allods, Forsaken World, ArcheAge, Secret World, Darkfall, Rift, ESO, Tera.
I actually found your post very informative. My first MMORPG was DAoC, so I know it's possible to have hundreds of players on the same screen without the server crashing and with good FPS, assuming you had a decent computer with the recommended memory. The graphics for DAoC were pretty cutting edge realistic back then, so there really isn't any excuse.
It's possible that maybe developers need to implement graphical quality that allows several hundred players to be onscreen at once, instead of shooting for good-great graphics and implementing multiple copies of the same city/zones.
Added something I forgot to previous post.
DAoC - 00-06 - And every now and then
WoW - Online since launch - and now back again.
EVE - Online since 07 - and still on, and on, and on..
WHO - Online 08-10
LOTR-O - Online 06-08
Also played : Asherons Call, EverQuest, EQ2, Dungeons & Dragons, Cabal, Dark & Light, GW, GW2, LA2, Ryzom, Shaiya, SWG, Allods, Forsaken World, ArcheAge, Secret World, Darkfall, Rift, ESO, Tera.
No, i didn't realize that. Which major MMO older than AO had 700k subs and what is your source for this info?
The notion that server capacity capability has actually shrunk over the years is interesting and would run completely counter to every other piece of computer technology, so by all means, please share your sources.
Where did he say older than AO? AO was one of of the first MMOs. And EQ had 500k subs at its peak. SWG had near a million at one point. In old MMOs you could have 900+ people in the same zone. Now you can't even have 40. So yeah, I'd agree they've gone way down.
Nothing in your post is even remotely true. SWG never had 1 million. 900 people in same zone? Is that all you do now is make shit up?In War - Victory.
In Peace - Vigilance.
In Death - Sacrifice.
Best available information suggests that SWG sold 1 million boxes, and peaked 300k active subs.
http://users.telenet.be/mmodata/Charts/Subs-2.png
DAoC - 00-06 - And every now and then
WoW - Online since launch - and now back again.
EVE - Online since 07 - and still on, and on, and on..
WHO - Online 08-10
LOTR-O - Online 06-08
Also played : Asherons Call, EverQuest, EQ2, Dungeons & Dragons, Cabal, Dark & Light, GW, GW2, LA2, Ryzom, Shaiya, SWG, Allods, Forsaken World, ArcheAge, Secret World, Darkfall, Rift, ESO, Tera.
First of all - thank you for a well thought-out and informative post.
As far as why i brought up servers - obviously i understand the technical difference between a server and a phase. The reason I always bring it up is that from an immersion/player experience perspective, it has exactly the same consequence. Taking your example (although i've never played WoW myself) - if there is a town on the world map that town is either there, or it has been burnt. From an immersion/story perspective there is only ONE town and if there happens to be a separate copy of this town which is completely untouched after i've burned it, then it is an immersion gap.
The same thing is if two people try to meet up, go to the same place, but aren't actually in the same place - the technology driving this could be phasing or could be split servers. The reason i bring it up is that from a player-experience perspective, the two look identical - the fact is that I am in place X and my friend is also in place X, but we're not in the same place, we're in different copies. The technology driving it may be different, but the net effect is exactly the same - we cannot interact together in what is supposed to be ONE SHARED WORLD.
Why does it matter to the discussion? Mostly, because i find it extremely ironic that people find it totally ok that there are 70 copies of the the entire planet (servers), but then they scream "foul!" if there are two copies of the same continent (phases).
It goes back to the games we started with. I started playing Anarchy Online, in which everyone i ever knew played on the same server. So when i then started playing other MMOs, it just felt completely wrong to me that people i know may be on a different copy of the world, that i woudln't be able to interact with them or see them. I just found this totally appalling. At the same time, AO always had instances and it always made sense that my mission isn't the same as everyone else's mission.
IMHO, people really need to focus less on "omg instances = death" and more on how well instancing is used. Rift, TOR and LoTRO all use both instancing and phasing, yet the 3 games wouldn't feel more different. LoTRO feels like a totally old-school open world. Rift - despite phasing capability - has massive 200-people-on-screen events that are bigger than anything i've seen in non-phased MMOs, SWTOR has phasing, but it doesn't even get used because they chopped the game into so many servers that there is never more than 20 people of the same level in the game.
It's awesome to have 100 people on the screen. Sometimes it might be awesome to have 200. The question is, how is the game's world built? For example, the "cities" in Rift look like about 20 people live there. It would make no sense to see 500 people there. 500 people on tattooine in SWTOR though? Sure. There is no "one answer" to the right way to apply instancing, phasing or server technology. The question shouldn't be "does it have instancing?", it should be "does the manner in which instancing is used support the gameworld created well or not?".
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
I REALLY hope the whole sharding thing is ignored. It completely kills immersion.
It makes the world feel restriced. Something like Maple Story.
I read instancing, the thread says instancing. So I think I read that part pretty well...
Sharding and instancing share the same principle for the most part. Instantcing has multiple copies of an area. SWTOR uses instances. I'm on Imperial Fleet 1 and can change instance to Imperial Fleet 2... That system sucks in SWTOR because the game is so hollow.
If a game were more lively maybe this would be fine, actually showing the person what instance they are in. EVE I know usues Sharding, jumping through a gate puts you on a different server than the last system you just left. That also serves to relieve server stress..
I believe he's explaining instancing and not sharding. He said same area, not different planet. Instancing is for the same area that you are in having multiple copies.
PM before you report at least or you could just block.
And LotRO even does the multi-shard thing now, though it's usually only done in busier social hubs.
I agree the big difference is If I play on a server with 2 people if they are logged in I will see them if they are at the same location as me. Obviously if they are on a different server I won't (Servers in my mind are like parellel universes). Sharding on the other hand is IMO a lazy way to get around a complex problem. Basicly I think it leads down a slipperly slope and that almost takes away from the very heart of what an MMO should be. That being said sharding for a game release is ok as long as its put to bed a month in
I agree that it would be great if mmo companies find ways to integrate all the players into a single server/instance, but so far its never been done (except for really small mmos).
I think this game is very interesting in game history and on the modern day type of mmorpg, and i hope they make a great game with instances that are thrilling with lots of huge big baddasses bosses
This frame of thought is baffling to me.
People dont have problems wih instanced pvp or instanced pve. People dont hate instancing when...say you have to go to another planet.
People hate even more than istanced playfields are playfields that are choked with players and you have to wait in line and fight with others.
Also...most games that do offer multiple instances only make use of them at launch when they are needed. After that theres just one playfield since the population in that area doesnt require another instance.
Load screens never botherd me. I agree that...say in EQ2 in the Freeport town where you had to instance and sub instance to get to one part of the town was horrible, mainly since there was no congruent map explaining the path you need to take. Even with something like that i shouldnt have to instance every 15min or 5 times just to get across an area...they wont do that.
I think instancing in mmorpgs (which often offer superior mechanics and ability to design an area) is like player housing. Every complains when they dont get their preference regarding the two, however when given their preference no one actually cares.
The great thing about all this ridiculous instancing going on in new mmos is that it makes it really easy to completely dismiss a game without having to research it any further. The second I read about multiple copies of a zones or instanced pvp, I immediately know it's something I'll never play. Following upcoming mmos has become a lot less time consuming.
Tera, GW2 and the Secret World are all out. I'll just check back in a few more months to see if any real mmos are in development.
Pretty much. The fact that these games are called MMOs... disgusting.
funny, this is almost the only kind of instancing i find acceptable.
because there are physically based limitations on how many players can be in one area at a time.....its either this kind of instancing, or the time dilation of EVE. the MMOs you mentioned (DAoC, EQ, SWG, WoW) all had this kind of instancing.......
HUH?! WHAT AM I TALKING ABOUT!?
what do you think having seperate servers is doing? its instancing THE ENTIRE WORLD. its instancing EVERYthing on the WORLD level. you have to coordinate playing on the same world instance as your friends. but then if you didn't work out things beforehand, you and your friends may have invested alot of time on characters which can NOT join each other AT ALL without an expensive char transfer charge (if its even available in your game).
whereas with the kind of instancing that you hate (like Champions Online), its an easy/free matter of clicking a few options in your UI, and then you can be with your friends with virtually no coordination or loss of time/effort.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
you mean like a server select screen?
now with those quotes next to each other, maybe you'll get it.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
This comes down to preference really.
Do you like EVE's one big server world where everyone fits? I'll assume that some people do.
So, lets also assume that game developers are making a game that at end level (in a final state of the game) the land mass can keep happily occuppied 100.000 people.
Now, lets assume that the game is very successful and instead of 100k people, they get 500k people. Suddenly the land mass is simply not enough. Solutions:
Open five servers or
Have one big giant farm of servers that can have produce five channels of the same server, each one accessible by all players of the game.
The pros of the first choice? No instancing.
The pros of the second choice? All the players of the game in one server/shard.
Which design would you prefer?
(GW2 has actually produced a third solution, make all servers visitable from the login screen)