Anybody have any information on Instancing in this game? I was reading some info in the ArcheAge forum and someone mentioned all of Tera being instances in order to handle the graphics and all all that sort of stuff..

If the whole world is set up into instaces then there will be less player interaction :(

..side note anyone interested in "sandbox" MMO should check out ArcheAge...graphically its on the same level as Tera!

"TERA is fundamentally an open-world game, though it does have some instanced dungeons because players enjoy them. In the crowded open areas, we’ll split players into separate “channels” of the world during launch so that the game world won’t be too crowded—we’ve got to give the monsters a reasonable chance of surviving, right? But don't worry—you’ll be able to freely switch between the channels so you can stick together with your friends! After launch, we’ll remove channels in areas that aren’t overcrowded so that everyone can play together again."

http://www.tera-online.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11027

Originally posted by bygeorge

"TERA is fundamentally an open-world game, though it does have some instanced dungeons because players enjoy them. In the crowded open areas, we’ll split players into separate “channels” of the world during launch so that the game world won’t be too crowded—we’ve got to give the monsters a reasonable chance of surviving, right? But don't worry—you’ll be able to freely switch between the channels so you can stick together with your friends! After launch, we’ll remove channels in areas that aren’t overcrowded so that everyone can play together again."

http://www.tera-online.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11027

 This sounds like what they do in Vindictus.

Is nothing like Vindictus, it is a seamless world like L2 or WoW, they just add channels to the zones in the same way that EQ2 did.

I just meant the channels.. when you load into an area it says "you're in channel X" I didn't mean the map was like that..

This actually sounds like AoC without the zone loading bit. It is not a bad thing. They probably did it because their server capacity could hold a lot more players than their landmass could keep entertained.

Here's the thing:

• When your server capacity can hold 10000 concurent players but you need instancing to keep them entertained, when the world eventually expands, the instancing will go away, but the superior server capacity will allow a bigger amount of players to interact per shard.
• When your server capacity can hold, say 2500 and that's the sweet spot where you don't need instancing to keep your players entertained with the current land mass, when you add more  landmass, it will feel more empty than before.

I think the channels sound like a good thing imo, it keeps the balance with the massive playercount on a game launch as long as they remove it few weeks later when things settle down it will be just fine.

Originally posted by JamesErnst

Originally posted by bygeorge

"TERA is fundamentally an open-world game, though it does have some instanced dungeons because players enjoy them. In the crowded open areas, we’ll split players into separate “channels” of the world during launch so that the game world won’t be too crowded—we’ve got to give the monsters a reasonable chance of surviving, right? But don't worry—you’ll be able to freely switch between the channels so you can stick together with your friends! After launch, we’ll remove channels in areas that aren’t overcrowded so that everyone can play together again."

http://www.tera-online.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11027

 This sounds like what they do in Vindictus.

Or EQ 2, AoC, CO or any other game that instance every zone when a certain player threshold is passed.

This does not sound good indeed as it is really an immersion killer to have multiple instances of every zone that is deemed overcrowded.

Originally posted by Yamota

...

Or EQ 2, AoC, CO or any other game that instance every zone when a certain player threshold is passed.

This does not sound good indeed as it is really an immersion killer to have multiple instances of every zone that is deemed overcrowded.

It's more of an immersion killer when you have a zerg of players rushing at the few unfortunate mobs that have barely time to spawn before they are taken down.

I'd love to see them implement enough landmass that could cover every player without resorting to instancing, but since they didn't, I feel that this is the best alternative.

PvE servers should be fine with this set-up for NA/EU,  But I wonder how they are going to do it on the PvP servers or will that part be the same.

Originally posted by Xasapis

This actually sounds like AoC without the zone loading bit. It is not a bad thing. They probably did it because their server capacity could hold a lot more players than their landmass could keep entertained.

Here's the thing:

• When your server capacity can hold 10000 concurent players but you need instancing to keep them entertained, when the world eventually expands, the instancing will go away, but the superior server capacity will allow a bigger amount of players to interact per shard.
• When your server capacity can hold, say 2500 and that's the sweet spot where you don't need instancing to keep your players entertained with the current land mass, when you add more  landmass, it will feel more empty than before.

So there are both positive and negatives to be found in any design.

 

What matters is whether you find the instancing part disruptive. As far as I'm concerned, it wasn't disruptive for me in AoC, so I don't expect to have issues in Tera. Others however may disagree.

I find it greatly disruptive. Specially when you are trying to find a group and the conversation goes something like this:

Person #1 tell Person #2: Hello, can I join your party?

Person #2 tell Person #1: Sure we are at the town center.

 #1 tell #2: ok Im there, but I cant see you.

 #2 tell #1: Which instance are you in?

 #1 tell #2: Instance 3.

 #2 tell #1:  Ah ok, Im in instance 1. let me switch.

Or if there is a PvP raid going on.

Person #1 yell: Help, a raid is ongoing in Town X.

Person #2 tell Person #1: Just switch instance and you will be fine.

And then everyone on the opposite side that does not want to be bothered switches instances, thus avoiding the raid.

Or even worse, a defence party is formed but by the time everyone are in the correct instance the raiders are long gone, maybe even switched instances.

So for me it is an immersion killer and makes PvP territorial control, completely pointless.

Originally posted by stayontarget

PvE servers should be fine with this set-up for NA/EU,  But I wonder how they are going to do it on the PvP servers or will that part be the same.

I don't see it as a problem in PvP servers either (although I'd consider thouse hybrid, since no server for this type of MMOs is PvP only).

Lets think about what can happen in a battleground, which is essencially a mini-zone. Lets say that a mini-zone holds 20 players per side, 40 total. Now you allow 100 players per side, total 200 so as not to allow instancing. While the game was fun and challenging in the 20x20 population limit, the 100x100 suddenly becomes a zerg rush, considering the confined space and the mass of people.

Bottom line, PvP servers will be just fine even with instancing. Well, unless you're hunting for specific people to PK.

Originally posted by Xasapis

Originally posted by stayontarget

PvE servers should be fine with this set-up for NA/EU,  But I wonder how they are going to do it on the PvP servers or will that part be the same.

I don't see it as a problem in PvP servers either (although I'd consider thouse hybrid, since no server for this type of MMOs is PvP only).

Lets think about what can happen in a battleground, which is essencially a mini-zone. Lets say that a mini-zone holds 20 players per side, 40 total. Now you allow 100 players per side, total 200 so as not to allow instancing. While the game was fun and challenging in the 20x20 population limit, the 100x100 suddenly becomes a zerg rush, considering the confined space and the mass of people.

Bottom line, PvP servers will be just fine even with instancing. Well, unless you're hunting for specific people to PK.

Or if you have territorial control, which will be meaningless since you can just go to another instance which is not controlled.

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by Xasapis

Originally posted by stayontarget

PvE servers should be fine with this set-up for NA/EU,  But I wonder how they are going to do it on the PvP servers or will that part be the same.

I don't see it as a problem in PvP servers either (although I'd consider thouse hybrid, since no server for this type of MMOs is PvP only).

Lets think about what can happen in a battleground, which is essencially a mini-zone. Lets say that a mini-zone holds 20 players per side, 40 total. Now you allow 100 players per side, total 200 so as not to allow instancing. While the game was fun and challenging in the 20x20 population limit, the 100x100 suddenly becomes a zerg rush, considering the confined space and the mass of people.

Bottom line, PvP servers will be just fine even with instancing. Well, unless you're hunting for specific people to PK.

Or if you have territorial control, which will be meaningless since you can just go to another instance which is not controlled.

Territorial control is not done like it is in DF.  Control will be in the hands of the lords & kings, and those will come from and supported by guilds.

Originally posted by stayontarget

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by Xasapis

Originally posted by stayontarget

PvE servers should be fine with this set-up for NA/EU,  But I wonder how they are going to do it on the PvP servers or will that part be the same.

I don't see it as a problem in PvP servers either (although I'd consider thouse hybrid, since no server for this type of MMOs is PvP only).

Lets think about what can happen in a battleground, which is essencially a mini-zone. Lets say that a mini-zone holds 20 players per side, 40 total. Now you allow 100 players per side, total 200 so as not to allow instancing. While the game was fun and challenging in the 20x20 population limit, the 100x100 suddenly becomes a zerg rush, considering the confined space and the mass of people.

Bottom line, PvP servers will be just fine even with instancing. Well, unless you're hunting for specific people to PK.

Or if you have territorial control, which will be meaningless since you can just go to another instance which is not controlled.

Territorial control is not done like it is in DF.  Control will be in the hands of the lords & kings, and those will come from and supported by guilds.

And will the control be in all instances of the same zone or how does it work?

Originally posted by Yamota

And will the control be in all instances of the same zone or how does it work?

I posted the political system for Lordship in this thread: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/306952/page/2#4135452  Lords will only be able to change things in their county regardless of channels.  

The political system for Kingship has not been added yet but I would have to guess he will have control over his continent.

Originally posted by bygeorge

"TERA is fundamentally an open-world game, though it does have some instanced dungeons because players enjoy them. In the crowded open areas, we’ll split players into separate “channels” of the world during launch so that the game world won’t be too crowded—we’ve got to give the monsters a reasonable chance of surviving, right? But don't worry—you’ll be able to freely switch between the channels so you can stick together with your friends! After launch, we’ll remove channels in areas that aren’t overcrowded so that everyone can play together again."

http://www.tera-online.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11027

I was excited for this game until I read this quote. Another game instanced to hell yet claiming to be "open world".

Necromancy.

Any changes to that?

I don't like the "After launch, we’ll remove channels in areas that aren’t overcrowded so that everyone can play together again." Part.

For me, it sounds like they plan on keeping the channels alive forever if there is a zone that is highly populated for some reason and this sucks.

Any info on that or info on how big a channel can become without the game creating another copy?

well if u like to play 1 fps then there wouldnt be any instancing.