And as a player what difference does it make to you whether it's [multiple servers] or [multiple instances]? You say there is a difference.. to me, the only difference is that if we're in different [instances] we can still play together, but if we're on different servers, we cannot. If anything, that makes [instancing] the lesser evil of the two. from an immersion perspective, it's exactly the same thing - there is a copy of the world that shouldn't be there
...snip...
You want a live example, look at SWTOR. SWTOR's [instancing] is never used. They've split up their game into so many servers that you never get more than 20 people in a zone. Fantastic! This - according to you - is the mark of a great MMO! But honestly, it blows goats - it feels empty and lifeless. If you don't believe me, try it out. I'd much rather have 5 [instances] of 300 people each than 50 servers where there is only 1 [instance]with 20 people in it - it just makes for better community and gameplay.
thanks for getting to the heart of whats important here. and not getting lost in the irrelevant details of what the technical difference is between "server" and "instance". like is commonly happening. what matters is the experience to the player, and how the technology helps them connect with friends/others, or segregates them from each other.
for (IMO) clarity, i changed some words that are now in [brackets].
i think use of the words "phasing" and "sharding" is confusing to too many people.
You know forums are great... I agree with above post and think the same, we want to see a good experience for all players so that as a group we can all have fun!
And as a player what difference does it make to you whether it's [multiple servers] or [multiple instances]? You say there is a difference.. to me, the only difference is that if we're in different [instances] we can still play together, but if we're on different servers, we cannot. If anything, that makes [instancing] the lesser evil of the two. from an immersion perspective, it's exactly the same thing - there is a copy of the world that shouldn't be there
...snip...
You want a live example, look at SWTOR. SWTOR's [instancing] is never used. They've split up their game into so many servers that you never get more than 20 people in a zone. Fantastic! This - according to you - is the mark of a great MMO! But honestly, it blows goats - it feels empty and lifeless. If you don't believe me, try it out. I'd much rather have 5 [instances] of 300 people each than 50 servers where there is only 1 [instance]with 20 people in it - it just makes for better community and gameplay.
thanks for getting to the heart of whats important here. and not getting lost in the irrelevant details of what the technical difference is between "server" and "instance". like is commonly happening. what matters is the experience to the player, and how the technology helps them connect with friends/others, or segregates them from each other.
for (IMO) clarity, i changed some words that are now in [brackets].
i think use of the words "phasing" and "sharding" is confusing to too many people.
I definitely agree with you guys. The new instancing thing can only help mmos, not hurt it.
And as a player what difference does it make to you whether it's [multiple servers] or [multiple instances]? You say there is a difference.. to me, the only difference is that if we're in different [instances] we can still play together, but if we're on different servers, we cannot. If anything, that makes [instancing] the lesser evil of the two. from an immersion perspective, it's exactly the same thing - there is a copy of the world that shouldn't be there
...snip...
You want a live example, look at SWTOR. SWTOR's [instancing] is never used. They've split up their game into so many servers that you never get more than 20 people in a zone. Fantastic! This - according to you - is the mark of a great MMO! But honestly, it blows goats - it feels empty and lifeless. If you don't believe me, try it out. I'd much rather have 5 [instances] of 300 people each than 50 servers where there is only 1 [instance]with 20 people in it - it just makes for better community and gameplay.
thanks for getting to the heart of whats important here. and not getting lost in the irrelevant details of what the technical difference is between "server" and "instance". like is commonly happening. what matters is the experience to the player, and how the technology helps them connect with friends/others, or segregates them from each other.
for (IMO) clarity, i changed some words that are now in [brackets].
i think use of the words "phasing" and "sharding" is confusing to too many people.
I definitely agree with you guys. The new instancing thing can only help mmos, not hurt it.
Nah, how long before we are all playing on little 8v8 instances against each other, then they'll be telling us how far mmo's have come now with faultless fpspvp. People are so myopic no wonder there's such stagnation in mmo's (with the obvious exception of inventing new and interesting ways to fleece the playerbase). Half the problem imo is many people (esp newer gamers) don't really want mmo's at all they're just after faultless co-ops with tourney play. This web site doesn't help by displaying all the games in one place, the thing is I don't dislike these games, but they're not really mmo's.
I know there are technical restrictions ofc but it should be a case of pushing that envelpe as far as it can go and the cutting edge pushing it further each time creating larger persistant worlds to explore with more people around. Imagine SWG planets now, you used wander about and come across a campsite now and then where you could rest up, with 100 people per instance either sqeezed into a little play area or over a larger zone you either don't need to explore or would never come across them.
But whatever as I get older I'm not sure if I'm getting more cynical or seeing things more simply for what they are, fucked, things seem to be going backwards.
----- The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
And as a player what difference does it make to you whether it's [multiple servers] or [multiple instances]? You say there is a difference.. to me, the only difference is that if we're in different [instances] we can still play together, but if we're on different servers, we cannot. If anything, that makes [instancing] the lesser evil of the two. from an immersion perspective, it's exactly the same thing - there is a copy of the world that shouldn't be there
...snip...
You want a live example, look at SWTOR. SWTOR's [instancing] is never used. They've split up their game into so many servers that you never get more than 20 people in a zone. Fantastic! This - according to you - is the mark of a great MMO! But honestly, it blows goats - it feels empty and lifeless. If you don't believe me, try it out. I'd much rather have 5 [instances] of 300 people each than 50 servers where there is only 1 [instance]with 20 people in it - it just makes for better community and gameplay.
thanks for getting to the heart of whats important here. and not getting lost in the irrelevant details of what the technical difference is between "server" and "instance". like is commonly happening. what matters is the experience to the player, and how the technology helps them connect with friends/others, or segregates them from each other.
for (IMO) clarity, i changed some words that are now in [brackets].
i think use of the words "phasing" and "sharding" is confusing to too many people.
I definitely agree with you guys. The new instancing thing can only help mmos, not hurt it.
Nah, how long before we are all playing on little 8v8 instances against each other, then they'll be telling us how far mmo's have come now with faultless fpspvp. People are so myopic no wonder there's such stagnation in mmo's (with the obvious exception of inventing new and interesting ways to fleece the playerbase). Half the problem imo is many people (esp newer gamers) don't really want mmo's at all they're just after faultless co-ops with tourney play. This web site doesn't help by displaying all the games in one place, the thing is I don't dislike these games, but they're not really mmo's.
I know there are technical restrictions ofc but it should be a case of pushing that envelpe as far as it can go and the cutting edge pushing it further each time creating larger persistant worlds to explore with more people around. Imagine SWG planets now, you used wander about and come across a campsite now and then where you could rest up, with 100 people per instance either sqeezed into a little play area or over a larger zone you either don't need to explore or would never come across them.
But whatever as I get older I'm not sure if I'm getting more cynical or seeing things more simply for what they are, fucked, things seem to be going backwards.
you're just having a negative reaction to the word "instance", which i am sympathetic to, since i am %98 opposed to private/small-scale instances. i think instancing how its done in most MMOs has been the death of the genre.
but if you had read the content of this discussion you are quoting, you'd we are talking about PUBLIC LARGE SCALE instances, versus instancing an entire world, like EQ1 and Vanguard does. we're not talking about 8v8 or anyting like that.
its the ONE appropriate use (out of the various ways uses of instances people have seen) of instancing that DOES NOT stop them from being populated virtual worlds. does NOT stop them from being true MMOs.
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).
Why would it be great? It would be too crowded.
Each server has a optimal population. Too many and it will feel crowded, too few and it will feel empty.
Comments
thanks for getting to the heart of whats important here. and not getting lost in the irrelevant details of what the technical difference is between "server" and "instance". like is commonly happening. what matters is the experience to the player, and how the technology helps them connect with friends/others, or segregates them from each other.
for (IMO) clarity, i changed some words that are now in [brackets].
i think use of the words "phasing" and "sharding" is confusing to too many people.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
You know forums are great... I agree with above post and think the same, we want to see a good experience for all players so that as a group we can all have fun!
wibble
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
I definitely agree with you guys. The new instancing thing can only help mmos, not hurt it.
Nah, how long before we are all playing on little 8v8 instances against each other, then they'll be telling us how far mmo's have come now with faultless fpspvp. People are so myopic no wonder there's such stagnation in mmo's (with the obvious exception of inventing new and interesting ways to fleece the playerbase). Half the problem imo is many people (esp newer gamers) don't really want mmo's at all they're just after faultless co-ops with tourney play. This web site doesn't help by displaying all the games in one place, the thing is I don't dislike these games, but they're not really mmo's.
I know there are technical restrictions ofc but it should be a case of pushing that envelpe as far as it can go and the cutting edge pushing it further each time creating larger persistant worlds to explore with more people around. Imagine SWG planets now, you used wander about and come across a campsite now and then where you could rest up, with 100 people per instance either sqeezed into a little play area or over a larger zone you either don't need to explore or would never come across them.
But whatever as I get older I'm not sure if I'm getting more cynical or seeing things more simply for what they are, fucked, things seem to be going backwards.
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
you're just having a negative reaction to the word "instance", which i am sympathetic to, since i am %98 opposed to private/small-scale instances. i think instancing how its done in most MMOs has been the death of the genre.
but if you had read the content of this discussion you are quoting, you'd we are talking about PUBLIC LARGE SCALE instances, versus instancing an entire world, like EQ1 and Vanguard does. we're not talking about 8v8 or anyting like that.
its the ONE appropriate use (out of the various ways uses of instances people have seen) of instancing that DOES NOT stop them from being populated virtual worlds. does NOT stop them from being true MMOs.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
Why would it be great? It would be too crowded.
Each server has a optimal population. Too many and it will feel crowded, too few and it will feel empty.