Got to thinking about this particular buzz word the other day. It generally means that there is some kind of continuity between game sessions. More broadly, it means that certain parts of the game continue when you aren't playing or happen without your direct intervention. In Diablo 2, for instance, the character stats and equipment remained the same even though the online session they would join was always a brand new instance. In Animal Crossing, the player could make changes to their town, or someone else's town, and the game used the system clock / calendar to trigger various world events that would happen even when the player wasn't playing. In a different direction, DoW: Dark Crusade had several planets divided up into series of territories (Risk style) that would maintain the same base structures as you attacked and defended. I remember some talk of doing something similar with the original Total Annihilation, but I don't think it ever happened.

In MMORPGs, we tend to think of persistence as meaning one space, that all players log on to, that is running 24/7. That space can be completely static, but so long as it's shared by everyone, it's considered persistent. But is this really the only way that an MMO can be persistent?

Let's take the idea of a sports MMO. Each game is it's own instance, but a team's standing in a certian league or season is persistent. Given the fact that there can be different regional and professional divisions with some crossover and compitition amongst them, wouldn't that be persistence?

Or let's apply the Risk like territorial conquest of Shattered Galaxy to an FPS. For the sake of argument, let's say that each territory has five maps and each map can hold about 150 players concurrently. The conquest of territory would be persistent, even if the maps themselves were just instances. You could take this even further by having the server load a map state according to what was damaged, or in that instance after the last fight there. Would this be persistent?

It's actually a pretty interesting question once you start looking at what persistence actually means as opposed to what it popularly means. Then again, I'm kind of a language geek so I'm probably just weird in this regard...

"Persistence" loses it's meaning when there are no changes to the game world. For example, I haven't logged into WoW for over 6 months now but when I do Orgrimmar will still be there and Onyxia will still be there and people will still be running Scarlet Monastery just like they did when the game first launched.

So yes, the game world is persistent but on the other hand, that persistence is not as noticeable because they game world is static.

On the other hand, you take a game like EVE and coming back after 6 months can result in certain systems changing hands, certain corps and alliances being destroyed, etc. The game world is ever changing and the feeling that the game continues without you, is there. 

Even on a smaller scale, like Planetside, when you can log off in your base and log back in deep in enemy territory "persistence" has more meaning.

It's just my personal opinion though.

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

In MMORPGs, we tend to think of persistence as meaning one space, that all players log on to, that is running 24/7. That space can be completely static, but so long as it's shared by everyone, it's considered persistent. But is this really the only way that an MMO can be persistent?

You're reading too much into the word. Persistent just means continuing.  You can have a persistent world or persistent characters or both. "Shared" has nothing to do with it - that's the massively multiplayer part.

Look at it this way:

On non-persistant worlds, wen you enter, the world is reset, and your character is reset.  You start from Zero, and all the mobs have spawned.  So you have to kill everything again, and collect all your gear again, progress your skills, etc.

Originally posted by heartless

"Persistence" loses it's meaning when there are no changes to the game world. For example, I haven't logged into WoW for over 6 months now but when I do Orgrimmar will still be there and Onyxia will still be there and people will still be running Scarlet Monastery just like they did when the game first launched.

So yes, the game world is persistent but on the other hand, that persistence is not as noticeable because they game world is static.

But isn't that more an issue of static vs dynamic rather than persistence? 

Planetside and WWII online are the best and easiest example of persistence in the mmo community. In non mmo community the games like chromehounds, mechassault 2, and various others all had "Conquest modes" Where the world or planets where faught over, although lobby created, the cluster of lobbies all played into a web of continuity to make a actual flow.

You could win a battle in a certain planet and if enough matches on that planet where won by a certain side, it would be taken over and a new map that hadnt been played at all by the previous side would finally open up because they advanced forward. You

Planetside and WWII online are amazing in that it is one huge world that is fought over, and as the tide of battle changes that makes a very real effect on where the battles take place. One instance in planetside I was fighting on a bridge battle on the very north of a continent to lock the oposing side out. I went to work, came back and the battle was in the same place still being fought over!! That is a freaking war of momentum. Before I logged out we where pushing them to the bridge, and now we where on the heavy defensive inside of the base trying to push them out.

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

In MMORPGs, we tend to think of persistence as meaning one space, that all players log on to, that is running 24/7. That space can be completely static, but so long as it's shared by everyone, it's considered persistent. But is this really the only way that an MMO can be persistent?

 

You're reading too much into the word. Persistent just means continuing.  You can have a persistent world or persistent characters or both. "Shared" has nothing to do with it - that's the massively multiplayer part.

Is it really either? Or do you have to have both a persistent world AND persistent characters. If it's either or, then Diablo 2 over bnet in hardcore mode would be considered persistent. By that same token, a BF2 server that only runs one map 24/7 could also be considered persistent.

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

In MMORPGs, we tend to think of persistence as meaning one space, that all players log on to, that is running 24/7. That space can be completely static, but so long as it's shared by everyone, it's considered persistent. But is this really the only way that an MMO can be persistent?

 

You're reading too much into the word. Persistent just means continuing.  You can have a persistent world or persistent characters or both. "Shared" has nothing to do with it - that's the massively multiplayer part.

 

Is it really either? Or do you have to have both a persistent world AND persistent characters. If it's either or, then Diablo 2 over bnet in hardcore mode would be considered persistent. By that same token, a BF2 server that only runs one map 24/7 could also be considered persistent.

Not too familiar with BF2. Does the map reset?

Do you retain the same character or create a new one each session?

Persistence isn't solely the domain of MMOs, btw.

The only MMO type that are meaningfully persistant and for every player that plays them... are browser based text games(Empire building, and others).

I mean you can't have "stat saving" be meaningfully persistant anymore because even shooters do it now.

Originally posted by paulscott

The only MMO type that are meaningfully persistant and for every player that plays them... are browser based text games(Empire building, and others).

I mean you can't have "stat saving" be meaningfully persistant anymore because even shooters do it now.

So... When a shooter does it.... then it loses it's viability?

I'm confused. Why was stat saving "meaningful" in Diablo 2, but not "meaningful" in Call of Duty 4?

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

In MMORPGs, we tend to think of persistence as meaning one space, that all players log on to, that is running 24/7. That space can be completely static, but so long as it's shared by everyone, it's considered persistent. But is this really the only way that an MMO can be persistent?

 

You're reading too much into the word. Persistent just means continuing.  You can have a persistent world or persistent characters or both. "Shared" has nothing to do with it - that's the massively multiplayer part.

 

Is it really either? Or do you have to have both a persistent world AND persistent characters. If it's either or, then Diablo 2 over bnet in hardcore mode would be considered persistent. By that same token, a BF2 server that only runs one map 24/7 could also be considered persistent.

 

Not too familiar with BF2. Does the map reset?

Do you retain the same character or create a new one each session?

 

Persistence isn't solely the domain of MMOs, btw.

There's really nothing on a BF2 map other than the terrain, vehicles (respawning) and flags. Everything else is brought in by whatever the players put in their loadout. Players don't really have stats, but with time playing they do get access to more equipment that they can use in a given spawn loadout.

And yes, the flags and vehicles would reset between games.

Really good thread.

I have always wondered exactly what developers meant by "persistent". Normally it is used in the context of the game world, so I have taken it to mean the game world itself persists after the character logs out. When my toon is offline, the world keeps turning. Houses keep being built, bosses keep getting killed (and this is persistent in that when I log in, the boss will still not have spawned yet), and my friends keep gaining level.

I agree that the gameworld changing is better described as dynamic vs static, as even tho the world may not change, it does persist after I log off.

However, this would mean that a Counterstrike map that never resets would be a persistent world as well, so while it might be semantically correct, it seems to lose the intent when framed that way.

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by heartless

"Persistence" loses it's meaning when there are no changes to the game world. For example, I haven't logged into WoW for over 6 months now but when I do Orgrimmar will still be there and Onyxia will still be there and people will still be running Scarlet Monastery just like they did when the game first launched.

So yes, the game world is persistent but on the other hand, that persistence is not as noticeable because they game world is static.

But isn't that more an issue of static vs dynamic rather than persistence? 

In my opinion those two concepts are not mutually exclusive. The game world is obviously persistent but the persistence is really only noticeable in dynamic games.

By 'persistence' I mean the fact that the game is going on while you're not playing. With a static game, the feeling is the same as in a single-player game. When I load Fallout 3 next time, the game world will be right where I left it. Just like if I were to load up WoW right now. In other words, nothing ever changes and the persistence of the world becomes irrelevant.

Now if I were to load up WoW and find out that Thunderbluff was taken over by Night Elves, the fact that the game exists while I'm away would hit me like a runaway shopping cart which put a dent into my car's door last week. But since, unlike the shopping cart, the chances of that happening and small to none, I don't feel like I'm missing anything.

Originally posted by heartless

In my opinion those two concepts are not mutually exclusive. The game world is obviously persistent but the persistence is really only noticeable in dynamic games.

By 'persistence' I mean the fact that the game is going on while you're not playing. With a static game, the feeling is the same as in a single-player game. When I load Fallout 3 next time, the game world will be right where I left it. Just like if I were to load up WoW right now. In other words, nothing ever changes and the persistence of the world becomes irrelevant.

Now if I were to load up WoW and find out that Thunderbluff was taken over by Night Elves, the fact that the game exists while I'm away would hit me like a runaway shopping cart which put a dent into my car's door last week. But since, unlike the shopping cart, the chances of that happening and small to none, I don't feel like I'm missing anything.

I'd have to agree with you there. Ultima Online was originally advertised as a massively multiplayer persistent state world, where events still occur even after you log off and when you return things may not be the same as you left it. The persistence was very noticeable there, as you log back in to see a new house rose next to yours, rat vatlley is now infested with orcs, the price and quantities of items in shops had changed, etc.

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by heartless

In my opinion those two concepts are not mutually exclusive. The game world is obviously persistent but the persistence is really only noticeable in dynamic games.

By 'persistence' I mean the fact that the game is going on while you're not playing. With a static game, the feeling is the same as in a single-player game. When I load Fallout 3 next time, the game world will be right where I left it. Just like if I were to load up WoW right now. In other words, nothing ever changes and the persistence of the world becomes irrelevant.

Now if I were to load up WoW and find out that Thunderbluff was taken over by Night Elves, the fact that the game exists while I'm away would hit me like a runaway shopping cart which put a dent into my car's door last week. But since, unlike the shopping cart, the chances of that happening and small to none, I don't feel like I'm missing anything.

 

I'd have to agree with you there. Ultima Online was originally advertised as a massively multiplayer persistent state world, where events still occur even after you log off and when you return things may not be the same as you left it. The persistence was very noticeable there, as you log back in to see a new house rose next to yours, rat vatlley is now infested with orcs, the price and quantities of items in shops had changed, etc.

Most people like the idea of persistence but when faced with the reality and how damagting it can be to the gameplay and experience, people dont' like it.

Its not like Blizzard isn't capable of allowing Ogrimar to get overrun with Elves and Dwarves and let the name change to New Stormwind.  Its the ramifications that would occur and how many players would actually approve of something like that occuring.  Who guessing there would be a million pissed off players for every giggling nerd that said "cool"?  Is that a good business decisiont to create an environment that could potentialy be very UNFUN for the majority of your players?  Not really=)

I'm with Hearthless on this one.

I think you now have to break down Persistance in to a Static and Dynamic definition as well.  How I tend to view this subject is in the following way:

Static Persistence:  A world like World of Warcraft.  I can do very little to change the layout of the map.  I can not build new structures to occupy space nor can I capture terrain in a way that will make it now part of my faction for an extended period of time.

Dynamic Persistence:  I think of this when I think of the battlegrounds and RvR from Dark Age of Camelot.  I could log in one day, rampage through the rvr zonez, take keeps, capture relics and log off and know that there's not a forced game mechanic that will reset this to some sort of neutral state.  I can also log into battle grounds and take the center keep and come back in 30 minutes to find that it's got numerous holes blown into it's walls and the enemy is swarming it as we speak abou to take it for themselves.

What I think I'm trying to get at is that the changes to the game state are player driven rather then by an arbitrary proces designed by the game designer to reset to a neutral position.

You guys are trying to put the definitions of Dynamic and Static into the word Persistant, and I don't know why.

Persistant:

Def 1.Never Ceasing. When you log off, is the game still there? Yes. It does not cease to exist.

Def 2. Retained. Again, when you log off, is it still there? yes.

Def 3. Continuity. Does things continue to happen? Yes. People still play, missions are still accomplished.

Nowhere, in any of those 3 definitions do any of the other things you guys are talking about occur. They are not even hinted at.

There is nothing to stop the game from being Static, or Dynamic. However there is no dynamic persistance, or static persistance. The game IS persistant. They are both adjectives describing the game itself. The game would be a massively multiplayer online role playing game, where the world is dynamic AND persistant. Not Dynamic persistant.

Originally posted by ZivaDomini

You guys are trying to put the definitions of Dynamic and Static into the word Persistant, and I don't know why.

Persistant:

Def 1.Never Ceasing. When you log off, is the game still there? Yes. It does not cease to exist.

Def 2. Retained. Again, when you log off, is it still there? yes.

Def 3. Continuity. Does things continue to happen? Yes. People still play, missions are still accomplished.

Nowhere, in any of those 3 definitions do any of the other things you guys are talking about occur. They are not even hinted at.

There is nothing to stop the game from being Static, or Dynamic. However there is no dynamic persistance, or static persistance. The game IS persistant. They are both adjectives describing the game itself. The game would be a massively multiplayer online role playing game, where the world is dynamic AND persistant. Not Dynamic persistant.

The problem with your definition is that even a Counter-Strike server that runs the same map 24/7 could be considered a "persistent world."

Originally posted by Josher

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by heartless

In my opinion those two concepts are not mutually exclusive. The game world is obviously persistent but the persistence is really only noticeable in dynamic games.

By 'persistence' I mean the fact that the game is going on while you're not playing. With a static game, the feeling is the same as in a single-player game. When I load Fallout 3 next time, the game world will be right where I left it. Just like if I were to load up WoW right now. In other words, nothing ever changes and the persistence of the world becomes irrelevant.

Now if I were to load up WoW and find out that Thunderbluff was taken over by Night Elves, the fact that the game exists while I'm away would hit me like a runaway shopping cart which put a dent into my car's door last week. But since, unlike the shopping cart, the chances of that happening and small to none, I don't feel like I'm missing anything.

 

I'd have to agree with you there. Ultima Online was originally advertised as a massively multiplayer persistent state world, where events still occur even after you log off and when you return things may not be the same as you left it. The persistence was very noticeable there, as you log back in to see a new house rose next to yours, rat vatlley is now infested with orcs, the price and quantities of items in shops had changed, etc.

 

Most people like the idea of persistence but when faced with the reality and how damagting it can be to the gameplay and experience, people dont' like it.

Its not like Blizzard isn't capable of allowing Ogrimar to get overrun with Elves and Dwarves and let the name change to New Stormwind.  Its the ramifications that would occur and how many players would actually approve of something like that occuring.  Who guessing there would be a million pissed off players for every giggling nerd that said "cool"?  Is that a good business decisiont to create an environment that could potentialy be very UNFUN for the majority of your players?  Not really=)

Well, obviously the game has to be designed around it. Taking a game like WoW and making the game world dynamic would not work since a lot of content (quests, vendors, etc) are city specific.

However, it's possible even for that game to have dynamic content. Which Blizzard kind of, implemented in the form of PvP objectives in certain zones. Obviously those objectives are pretty pointless outside of a small buff or a vendor but they are dynamic and persistent.

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by ZivaDomini

You guys are trying to put the definitions of Dynamic and Static into the word Persistant, and I don't know why.

Persistant:

Def 1.Never Ceasing. When you log off, is the game still there? Yes. It does not cease to exist.

Def 2. Retained. Again, when you log off, is it still there? yes.

Def 3. Continuity. Does things continue to happen? Yes. People still play, missions are still accomplished.

Nowhere, in any of those 3 definitions do any of the other things you guys are talking about occur. They are not even hinted at.

There is nothing to stop the game from being Static, or Dynamic. However there is no dynamic persistance, or static persistance. The game IS persistant. They are both adjectives describing the game itself. The game would be a massively multiplayer online role playing game, where the world is dynamic AND persistant. Not Dynamic persistant.

 

The problem with your definition is that even a Counter-Strike server that runs the same map 24/7 could be considered a "persistent world."

That's not "my" definition. That is THE definition of Persistant. Look it up. It's plainly defined in dictionary.com.

FPSs are NOT persistant worlds. Because the worlds reset each time.Whenever you end the game, that world ends. It no longer exists in any form at all. The maps reset entirely.  Just because your character saves it's rewards or unlocks or whatever you call them, doesn't make the world persistant. It simply means your character was saved.

A persistant world and a saved character are not the same thing.

Editted for better definition.

Originally posted by ZivaDomini

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by ZivaDomini

You guys are trying to put the definitions of Dynamic and Static into the word Persistant, and I don't know why.

Persistant:

Def 1.Never Ceasing. When you log off, is the game still there? Yes. It does not cease to exist.

Def 2. Retained. Again, when you log off, is it still there? yes.

Def 3. Continuity. Does things continue to happen? Yes. People still play, missions are still accomplished.

Nowhere, in any of those 3 definitions do any of the other things you guys are talking about occur. They are not even hinted at.

There is nothing to stop the game from being Static, or Dynamic. However there is no dynamic persistance, or static persistance. The game IS persistant. They are both adjectives describing the game itself. The game would be a massively multiplayer online role playing game, where the world is dynamic AND persistant. Not Dynamic persistant.

 

The problem with your definition is that even a Counter-Strike server that runs the same map 24/7 could be considered a "persistent world."

 

That's not "my" definition. That is THE definition of Persistant. Look it up. It's plainly defined in dictionary.com.

FPSs are NOT persistant worlds. Because the worlds reset each time.Whenever you end the game, that world ends. It no longer exists in any form at all. The maps reset entirely.  Just because your character saves it's rewards or unlocks or whatever you call them, doesn't make the world persistant. It simply means your character was saved.

A persistant world and a saved character are not the same thing.

 

Editted for better definition.

Persistent World. Yes, I know it's wikipedia but I found the first sentence to be adequate.

You can also try:

nwn.bioware.com/players/profile_persistent_worlds_introduction.html

That's what we're talking about. Obviously the English language definition is slightly different.

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Originally posted by ZivaDomini

You guys are trying to put the definitions of Dynamic and Static into the word Persistant, and I don't know why.

Persistant:

Def 1.Never Ceasing. When you log off, is the game still there? Yes. It does not cease to exist.

Def 2. Retained. Again, when you log off, is it still there? yes.

Def 3. Continuity. Does things continue to happen? Yes. People still play, missions are still accomplished.

Nowhere, in any of those 3 definitions do any of the other things you guys are talking about occur. They are not even hinted at.

There is nothing to stop the game from being Static, or Dynamic. However there is no dynamic persistance, or static persistance. The game IS persistant. They are both adjectives describing the game itself. The game would be a massively multiplayer online role playing game, where the world is dynamic AND persistant. Not Dynamic persistant.

 

The problem with your definition is that even a Counter-Strike server that runs the same map 24/7 could be considered a "persistent world."

Not true. The game resets and the characters do not keep what they gather during the previous map. You're confusing "persistent" with "static" now. :) 

Originally posted by heartless

nwn.bioware.com/players/profile_persistent_worlds_introduction.html

That's what we're talking about. Obviously the English language definition is slightly different.

That also supports the dictionary definition of it. Brynsaar doesn't reset or get shut off when you log off. The game world is persistent. The dynamic or static nature of that world is independent of its persistence.

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by heartless

nwn.bioware.com/players/profile_persistent_worlds_introduction.html

That's what we're talking about. Obviously the English language definition is slightly different.

 

That also supports the dictionary definition of it. Brynsaar doesn't reset or get shut off when you log off. The game world is persistent. The dynamic or static nature of that world is independent of its persistence.

2. What is a Persistent World (PW)?

Lycius: A world you can log into 24/7 with plots and events evolving as time passes. There's no pause key nor save option; what you do has consequences you can't undo with a click of a button.

4. Can I affect the world I am playing in?

Image 1 - Introduction to Persistent Worlds Lycius: Definitely! Without the actions of players, PWs would be dull and boring. Just think, you could be the hero that saves day or the mastermind behind a major conflict. Most worlds run on events engineered by staff members of that world. Most likely you could change the outcome of these events through roleplay, actions, or great ideas. It all depends on what kind of persistent world you're playing on; RP or action. I would think most of the staff members have an open mind to new suggestions and twists that their 'pre-scripted' events might take.

I think those passages support it nicely.

Dynamic and static are part of the "Persistent World" concept of MMOs.

Originally posted by heartless

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by heartless

nwn.bioware.com/players/profile_persistent_worlds_introduction.html

That's what we're talking about. Obviously the English language definition is slightly different.

 

That also supports the dictionary definition of it. Brynsaar doesn't reset or get shut off when you log off. The game world is persistent. The dynamic or static nature of that world is independent of its persistence.

 

2. What is a Persistent World (PW)?

Lycius: A world you can log into 24/7 with plots and events evolving as time passes. There's no pause key nor save option; what you do has consequences you can't undo with a click of a button.

4. Can I affect the world I am playing in?

Image 1 - Introduction to Persistent Worlds Lycius: Definitely! Without the actions of players, PWs would be dull and boring. Just think, you could be the hero that saves day or the mastermind behind a major conflict. Most worlds run on events engineered by staff members of that world. Most likely you could change the outcome of these events through roleplay, actions, or great ideas. It all depends on what kind of persistent world you're playing on; RP or action. I would think most of the staff members have an open mind to new suggestions and twists that their 'pre-scripted' events might take.

I think those passages support it nicely.

Dynamic and static are part of the "Persistent World" concept of MMOs.

I think you're looking at a PR piece for a game and using it as a definition there.  I think, too, that you might be taking it out of context. He is defining a persistent world in such a way as to explain to NWN fans how this is different from a regular NWN game. That's actually the purpose of that interview. He selling the cool features of his game.