Trending Games | World of Warcraft | Elder Scrolls Online | WildStar | Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,737,762 Users Online:0
Games:714  Posts:6,176,872

Show Blog

Link to this blogs RSS feed

3D Vision, your favourite MMO seen thrue the NVIDIA 3D VISION Glasses

I discontinued my old blog "random ideas for mmos" to blog about a couple of tests playing various MMOs with NVIDIAs new 3D-Vision Shutter Glasses.

Author: craynlon

a WAR game with more instanciation

Posted by craynlon Monday September 29 2008 at 2:44AM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!

The topic of pro and contra instanciation has probably been diskussed to death but yet heres another blog about the topic:

After playing warhammer online for around 10days now i fell in love with szenario pvp. i never was into online fps shooters like team fortress or unreal but in warhammer, even tough i find there could be more variety, i really love to play them. for people not familiar with war its usually taking 7-14 people from each realm (side) and let them fight an opponent team the same number.

all this happens in a closed area, an instance

heres the benefits of instanciation:
- fair matches can be guaranteed by letting the server pick
- even more complex matching mechanism could be implemented to even out not only numbers but also classes and levels
- hardly any lag issues due to limiting the numbers of participants and having a confined game space
- no afk/ waiting for class. players only wait for the instance/match to happen then jump into it. they can just go their normal mmo life (pve/questing/world pvp..) while waiting for the match to start
 

this is a good use of instancing but only a start imho

id like to see even more instanciation in war(hammer) like games

heres the improvements id like to see implemented:

- recruit people from all servers for the instance
- instanciate open world pvp/ sieges
- make more complex matching algorithms to ensure more even fights
- maybe even instanciate the public quests


now the usual argument against instanciation is that it breaks the immersion/ the feeling of a seemless world.

but it never is a world in the first place:
if you can run from one end to the other on foot thrue the whole country in one day, how can it be a world ?
in the world of warhammer their should be 100th of border keeps along a vast border. the realm should have population in the millions not in the 1000th.

now a server probably cant handle 1milion players so i suggest that the servers are like patched up parts of the realms where the player lives in and spends his/her every day live of keeping their village save and training for war.

yet when they hear the call of war i doubt it breaks immersion that they could go to their local recruiting officer to be shipped of to war on a distant battlefield (the instance) to return later to their local life

Eluwien writes:

[FIX]

Here's the benfits of instanciation:
-Fair matches, equal amount of paper, stones and sciccors. In case more sciccors appear, sciccors win.
- Even more complex matching system could be implemented to ensure equal amount of above 3, thus removing all need for player skill, teamwork skill and tactics.
- Hardly any lag issues, due limiting playing on static never changing area size of a stamp, that you're forced to lick over and over, and over again.
- No waiting for class, so no group cohesion, tactics, teamwork and who wants to play with paper anyway, sciccors are teh win.

I'd never want to see instanciation in any game ever again, I want to play a MMO, with pressure on first M.

Here's the improvements I'd like never to be implemented:

- Recruit people from all other servers too, so that there is absolutely no feeling of competition, no meaning in losing and you will never learn your enemy. Completely destroy realm pride.
- Instanciate the last open world pvp, remove the words world and open from the whole thing. Instance sieges too, because no fortress never has been reinforced.
- Make more complex mathiching algorithms to absolutely ensure that absolutely no team player or social contact is needed, and all fights en up in a tie or timeout.
- Maybe even remove public from public quests, and instance them so they're just quests. While you're at it, give NPC henchmen to do these instances with, so we can remove the 2nd M from MMO too and pay monthly for online solo scenario game.

[/FIX]

I pray for all possible deitys and gods, that some of them would strike you and your kind with horrific things and throw pie on your general direction.

Please buy GuildWars, it already has all you want, everything is instanced, even most of the instances have sub instances. You can play it alone, completely, against extremely well calulated enemies that match by the 3rd decimal your stats and ability. Its like the perfect birthday cake you'll eat alone, go, do it, get it now. 20,000 instances, and it doesn't even cost monthly. Go now, oh please go...

 

Mon Sep 29 2008 3:19AM Report
craynlon writes:

well i agree that the game i described may not be a double MM O

on the other hand lets face it, people butchered the RPG out of MMORPG alreaddy often enough and who really can play the double MMs when most systems not to mention todays network architecture wont handle a 300vs300 match with ease anyway

in my gaming experience the only massivly encounter i played was sieges in lineage2 and while that ran much smoother then aoc or war it still was a big lagfest and from the pvp experience it wasnt half as enjoyable for me then evenly matched war szenarios

to make it short, i agree with you on the fact that this instanced "sportlike pvp game" may only be a bastard child of true MMOing but id rather not be stuck down by the gods trying to improve one of the evolving branches of the mmorpg biz.

Mon Sep 29 2008 4:30AM Report
Eluwien writes:

I would like to hear your views and some proof, of how roleplaying was butchered from games like EQ, Vanguard, LOTR-O, that are quest driven and lore content based games specially to please a roleplayer. Or EVE in the other end, which story creates books and players write the content. Pencil&paper changed to notepad and dice to a CPU, argue otherwise and you're a fool.

What comes to current day hardware requirements, I would like you to pay attention to DAoC from 2001, where 7 years back 100vs100 was possible smoothly at that dates gaming comp and poor old architecture. Lineage2 is made on pretty similar clusterized network of PC nodes, as is all others I'm aware up to AoC, they're fysically limited to up to certain level of grafical depth and AI on same field of vision. In near future 1st game (afaik) using Dynamic Load Balancing , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_balancing_(computing) is setting new standards for possible AI, content and player amount on same area by sharing CPU load dynamicly over available CPU in same network. Then we reach your 300vs300 "with ease".

You can and may argue that your home computer doesn't run Lineage2 (also 5 years old game) sieges with ease, and that its your only experience of massive encounters. It yet to lacks to have anything to do with instancing and the ideology you represented in original post, nor it cannot be a direct answer to my reply that was directed exactly against the ideology that comes with instancing and your so called "improvements" to it.

Instancing takes away those very defining points of the whole MMO culture and indeed turns whole experience into casual everyday singleplayer game, with option for doing it online with others. There is a name for those games, and they're plenty about already. Those games are characterized by their lack of social contact, team pride, RPG depth, backroudn story, need for teaming up and using tactic and making real friends. Some of them ofcourse sprung up clans and guilds, but the instanced content doesn't bring together these clans, like in MMORPG enviroment they do and there is hardly nothing to push/force people to use their social skills or be responsible of their actions.

If you do really enjoy this kind of sportlike PVP game, please go search them around in the interwebs, but dont bring your futile ideas to MMORPG genre. Not only is the outcome made of utter excrement, its not even close to be "evolving branches of mmorpg biz", as I said before, you're talking about online solo scenario game.

 

 

 

Mon Sep 29 2008 6:00AM Report
craynlon writes:

0. rpg is roleplaying, roleplaying is playing your role, playing your role is talking in character and living your character. i would say that 80% of the players that considder themselve mmoers would not play a game where the game is striped of the grind for level and gear aspect solemnly focusing on roleplaying interactions

1. my system is lower high end and the bottleneck of a 300 vs 300 encounter is not the server cpu or the client cpu but coordinating all actions of all players over the internet => network lag. maybe we have a different definition of smoothly but i doubt that you can play a 300vs300 (where you can actually see a few 100 players fighting simultaniously at 60fps opposed to a limited field of view)

2. i believe the mayority of the people actually enjoy soloing. forced grouping will only lead to a nieche product. most developement (see ddo henchman, l2 buff herbs) try to please these soloers.

3. appart from equal matched pvp opposed to massively zerg games storytelling also requires instancing (or would you watch a movie with 300main actors) but that wasnt the subject of my statement.

4. imho you failed to produce a genre name for the aoc, ddo, guildwar type of game that allows both group and soloplay over the internet while keeping a persistand world. i would call it a subclass of mmorpg nontheless

Mon Sep 29 2008 8:10AM Report
Thekandy writes:

And of course the fact that instancing removes the need to sit and wait for that dungeon boss mob to spawn only to watch another group swoop in and ninja it in front of your nose.
Never again, for that reason alone can i tolerate instancing.

Mon Sep 29 2008 3:11PM Report
Abrahmm writes:

Please please no. The LAST thing this genre needs is more instancing. Instancing completely kills the feeling of being in a living breathing world... Why do so many people come to this genre and demand it conforms to other styles of games already out there? You want an instanced fair match, go play counter strike.

Mon Sep 29 2008 3:35PM Report
CosbySweater writes:

There should be a tweak on instancing at least maybe for questing.  I never liked how you had a quest to kill a named npc.  You go to the area and kill said npc.  If you wait around long enough he respawns for the next player to kill.  That would always bug me.  Maybe have it so if you completed a quest to kill a specific npc then that npc would no longer appear to you.  Or maybe show if you are helping someone else out with that quest.  It is fine if it isn't a named npc.  Like having to kill 20 boars, that doesn't take away from the experience.  I don't know, it was just always a little annoying.

Mon Sep 29 2008 7:23PM Report
craynlon writes:

 ok let me take a step back a bit from the hate world instance

how about the battlefields/ pvp areas are not instanced but there is just a huge number of non instanced battlegrounds players get transported to instantly if a match can happen there.
wouldnt that be pretty close to warpgates and limits per sector that eve has, wich many considder the poster boy for a large non instanciated world ?

and btw did you notice that a concept with 100+ servers is instancing itselve? i mean each server is an isntance of the game opposed to a 1 server concept like eves. my intention was actually to implement a system where the combatants are not limited to their own server but the pvp recruits players from all servers to have a broader base of players to ensure a greater number of matches that are more evenly matched.

another argument came up that instancing kills the community.
i think thats wrong. for me the bonding process in lineage2 didnt come from the fact that there were no instances. it came from the fact that you basicly couldnt do shit without a group. so you spend your time shouting in area chat for a healer or a tank or a buffer (l2 needed both healer, buffer and tank and a 2nd buffer to have good xp). once you spend 30 min to build that good group you added these healers and tanks to your friendlist to have them on speed dial when you needed to xp again. that (and the guild vs guild wars/alliances) were much more responsible for a good community in l2 then the fact that you could run around and see people grinding on mobs...

Mon Sep 29 2008 10:44PM Report
Eluwien writes:

@Craylon

0.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game RPG is NOT role playing as you state, infact RPG is a abbrevation for a game type in where role playing ascepts are possible. "Although these games do not involve the playing of roles,[1] they take their name from the settings and game mechanics which they inherit from early role-playing games." You claimed originally that the "RPG was butchered from MMORPG", to what I claimed that roleplaying aspects and story driven content, character sheets and killing mobs and all other role playing game aspects are still very much alive. And in 2nd post you say that 80% wouldn't play a game, from where those would be removed. Did you actually have a real opinnion?

1.) Infact the very reason why 600 person fights are impossible by current day tech, is that netwroks that keep up a single server are clusters of single PC's connected together and that areas and/or aspects of the game are also divided over these computers staticly. For example 1 zone's players activity may be handled by 2 computer, its mobs AI by one and its databases by one more that also takes care of all other zones databases. Already the softwares are built so that they do not need to load actively content that is not in field of vision of a client. In this kind of architecture, when enough people end up for reason or another on same field of vision area and start to interact with each other, the NPC's and the databases, server load is directed into these certain computers that are fysicly, by their CPU capability, limited to certain roof. This is exactly what makes LA2 and AOC and all games built on that kind of server tech have server lag when their CPU's hits the roof. Clientside FPS may be 120 for all you care, it will lag (glitching, jumping, etc) if servers cant handle the data. Dynamic Load Balancing is only starting to become MMO server tech, brought in from supercomputers, it has its downsides too being exponentially more difficult to configure and build complicated servers like MMO servers on.

2.) Infact its impossible to say what majory of MMO players want and dont want. If they're catered soloable content, they'll do it. If they're catered small/large group content, they'll do it. Players vote with their money, specially in B2P games. What comes to LA2, and other similar games that are older already, they've got to make the designing decissions and keep their existing playerbase pleased to slow the gradual diminishining of it. Also currentday designing "mood" seems to be, that even the soloer must be catered, to attract even more customers. Even tho it has absolutely nothing to do with instancing again, it does infact have direct  negative effect on social contact, team playing and the multiplayer purpose of whole MMO genre.

3. You're still not getting it? Not instancing doesn't mean zerging. It means tactics, constantly changing factors, smaller bands fighting larger bands and winning by player skil. Having no automated algorithms to make instance groups makes it almost needed to work in a team, get friends, co operate, have loyalty. It enables group cohesion, group setups and instantly brings depth to the game that instancing rips by mere existing. 40 soloers together in an instance that is pre-created for 40 soloers has nothing to do with tactics, its pre scripted pre written and will be repeated exactly the same way thousands of times over. A dungeon with mobs that are pretty hard, you may enter with 50 randoms that may not be equally qualifying, or with 5 extreme guildies that are top notch team workers. Telling the story of the dungeon has no decicive effect  to do with the approach of game mechanics designing. And I rather watch 300 The Movie, than 6 episodes of 50 men doing exactly same TV show.

4.) For once I have to agree with you, MMORPG is too wide and generalizing name for a genre that has so obviously different approahes, some of that dont fit any of the letters of the abbrevation. Wanna try crete new names?

Players get transported instantly to where match can happen? Wheres the tactic in this? What the hell is with you and wanting everything spoonfed, instantly, without any reason to teamwork and straight to your pleasement. If you want to be instantly teleported to a fight without bothering at all how war is really ran, play battlefield or any other FPS. Any "appearing location", teleport node, fortress, graveyard, warpgate, they instantly become points of excessive farming of kills and/or use of abuse.

Your idea that having multiple servers would be instancing, like the topic we're discussing. Different server worlds are in no contact with each other and they've completely separated invidiual everything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instance_dungeon  . Having separated servers is due the limitations of the world itself, and by the marketing side that its better to have 11 million customers, than 30,000. Even EVE would be financially forced to open another server, if they would suddenly peak to quadruple player amounts.

Your "intention" to implement system where combatants to instances are not picked only from the same server, is already existing in WoW. The direct effect of this on any PVP is that a player is in no responsibility of his own actions, the enemies will hardly ever be the same, you'll not know them, they dont know you. You also gain some anonymousity among your friendlies, and thus winning/losing, trying hard or not giving a crap, or teaming up properly, having loyalty or any kind of team pride becomes obsolete. Similar effects come on PVE aswell, whats the point of putting up my best, or listening to anyone, I'll never meet them again, and I'm not accountable of my own actions or the outcome, I better go AFK get some dinner. Even matches = rock paper sciccors = no skill, no tactic, no benefit from social contact = same as playing singleplayer game.

Lineage2 was and still is indeeed one of the good games, mostly because it drives players to create communities and work together to gain something. Throw into that henchmen, instance PVE content to match your group equally, and make your group consist of people you've never heard of and will never meet again, and left assured that your community has no reason to play together again. Oh, and if ya throw in soloable content so much, that there is no point in grouping at all, its GG.

Tue Sep 30 2008 3:26AM Report
Eluwien writes:

@Thekandy

That was indeed bit annoying. So easily worked around with, without instancing. Some simple ideas are offering the reward from the boss in a form of quest reward, instead of loot. Creating instance of a mob instead of the instance, when boss is "tagged", and another raid group tags it, the boss even is dublicated and the "competing" raid group removed from field of vision. The problem is not the other group, its the waiting part for those who weren't the fastest, eliminating that is simple.

Tue Sep 30 2008 3:32AM Report
zuratai writes:

Geek  battle!!!! Bring on the words of gaming!Hilarious

Tue Sep 30 2008 6:23AM Report
craynlon writes:

i think we have to agree on disagreeing on many points like whats rpg and wheres the limit of todays technology towards big MM

i agree with you on one core point wich is the accountability of the players action in a match if the players get picked to randomly for the battles. i agree with you that it is harder to "make a name for yourselve" in an environment of 1milion players compared to a server environment of 10k players. yet on the other hand i believe that games like guild wars have team spirit and "popstar players" even tough they form even matches.

let me get back one more time to lineage2 since its the game i have the most experience with spending 4 years as clan leader there.
on my server, and i noticed that on other servers as well, the pvp content was dominated by one guild over years. if you were lucky you would find a 2nd guild that had the power to challenge them but most of the time power followed a very easy to spot human process:

> guild A has all the hardcore players
> guild A uses these human resources to raid gear and xp
> guild A takes controll

> player xy wants to be on the winning side and will join guild A

> guild A starts an upward spiral of power attracting the best players

even tough order seems to be the underdogs on most of the war servers the szenarios allow for pvp where an equal nuber of equally geared, equally leveled players fight each other. this has nothing to do with paper-scissor-stone

if you want open pvp based on the same kind of "fairness" maybe it would work if the login queue wouldnt be based on the number of chaos players currently logged in but on the number of order players/levels loged in so that the 1000th chaos player at lvl range 20-25 can only log in if there are at least 800 order players of the same level range online.

i agree with you that i would enjoy the challenge to organise and deploy the players that are online to defend strategic points in an open world. i also would have np with the fact of order loosing because they are wussies that rather pve then defend their homeland. after 4 years of l2 i just enjoy the fact that i can have a fight of 10vs10, 30vs30 or 200vs200 in war in contrast to constant 3vs10, 8vs30 or 100vs200 battles.

wether this developement is furthered by instanciating/ doing more szenarios, having easier transportation/ communication for a realm or other means it just boosts my fun i have in the game.

Tue Sep 30 2008 6:25AM Report
Eluwien writes:

I think I just WON!!! Hurray!

No seriously heh =) You dont like to be on the underdog or the 2nd best or fight against unfriendly odds, I can imagine that, its so common in these days where everyone is offered similar start and chances to become "the hero". Sadly I find that the only way to be have that upper ground, be the 1st and beat the unbeatable odds, is to just being plain better than those others. And I find personally that MMORPG are the playground, where I can express that wish to compete and need to archieve and feel the burn in blood when I conquered those heretics. You may wish it to be another socialist, even for everyone, mild enjoyement and no real effort requiring entertainment that we've been offered from all directions and we accept as basic of life.

In the end, its clear which one is on inside of that fortress owned by the "hardcore players" who tried harder =)

Tue Sep 30 2008 8:39AM Report

MMORPG.com writes:
Login or Register to post a comment