Originally posted by Cthulhu23

Originally posted by Opapanax

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.

Originally posted by Benjola

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.

Originally posted by Garvon3

Originally posted by arieste

Originally posted by nate1980

Originally posted by Xasapis

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

Originally posted by Eluwien

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Originally posted by nate1980

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.

Originally posted by Fratman

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.

Originally posted by nate1980

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.

Originally posted by Disastorm

Originally posted by Eluwien

.....snip......

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.

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.

Originally posted by arieste

Originally posted by Garvon3

 

 

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!

wibble

Originally posted by corpusc

Originally posted by arieste

Originally posted by Garvon3

 

 

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.

Originally posted by Disastorm

Originally posted by corpusc

Originally posted by arieste

Originally posted by Garvon3

 

 

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.

Originally posted by mrw0lf

Originally posted by Disastorm

Originally posted by corpusc

Originally posted by arieste

Originally posted by Garvon3

 

 

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.

Originally posted by Disastorm

 

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.