---

Originally posted by ShakyMo
You guys responding to my "well look at planetside 2" post.Yes planetside 2 cuts down on the character creation optionsBut....It has to also do stuff tab Target mmos don't like trace bullet arcs, calculate momentum physics and what have you.If Sony can pull off what they've done with planetside 2. And ccp with eve and to a lesser extent arenanet with gw2.Then devs that make these highly instanced games like swtor are eitherA) bad at codingB) lazy and think they can get away with itC) for some bizarre reason think its actually better that way.Planetside 2 proves you can make a modern mmo with modern graphics (and a shitload if other stuff going on that most mmos won't have to worry about) while having ZERO instancing and minimal zoning (really minimal like wow level of zoning)

---

Originally posted by D_TOX

I was captivated by the Elder Scrolls video until they touted this game-breaker as if its a good thing. They basically just admitted the game will be heavily sharded/instanced all in one server. What this means is you will have a world much like Star Trek Online, Age of Conan, TOR and other flop MMO's that makes you and other players invisible to each other even when you're standing in the same Inn/house/landscape until you click a little button that swaps you into another version of that zone.

I really hate this retarded direction ALL MMO's are taking now. There's nothing MMO about them, just cheaper server architecture to ease the workload in return for a weaker player experience and community. Then you have games like Planetside 2, an MMOFPS that happily allows thousands of players to be connected simultaneously in one server zone. Maybe i'm just an old-schooler who enjoyed the days of SWG, EVE and WOW when everything you were experiencing was being experienced by other players too. You never missed a thing. Now it's all about minimizing waiting for 'mobs' to spawn and creating a streamlined fast-track experience for players which completely detracts from the real MMO experience of community, patience and dedication. 

We're moving into the future of gaming but game development appears to be going backwards. Instead of creating BIGGER worlds with MORE quests and MORE ways to level, they are creating SMALLER worlds and INSTANCING them to sh*t instead. I just don't get it. There's no boldness in developing any more, only shortcuts and unoriginal 'creativity'.  I would have thought of all developers the Elder Scrolls team would be brave and bold with their development but it looks like i was wrong. 

I despise instancing!

Maybe if you looked at it a different way.

Are you enraged that many games have people on multiple servers? you might be and that could be where this ends.

However, if you can live with the idea that many games have different servers then you can think of these different instances as "different servers where you are matched with like minded people and where you can easily switch to another "server" if a friend usually plays differently than you but you want to team up on occasion.

Not only that, but within those shards there will be phasing based on quests you've done, and many dungeons will be instanced. It's a damn shame really.

And I've reached out for a response from the devs and none of them have been able to tell me how the hell RvR works without multiple unique servers. (hint, it doesn't)

Originally posted by DavisFlight

Not only that, but within those shards there will be phasing based on quests you've done, and many dungeons will be instanced. It's a damn shame really.

 

And I've reached out for a response from the devs and none of them have been able to tell me how the hell RvR works without multiple unique servers. (hint, it doesn't)

I don't think we have enough information about the system to fully praise or condemn it yet. On one hand, phasing can be really jarring when you complete a world event and suddenly some players appear out of nowhere and some disappear into oblivion. On the other hand, it's nice to have choices in a game with visible outcomes and consequences, even if they are arbitrary choices (though obviously it's better if they're not arbitrary).

It could be that the phasing would be implemented poorly. As an above poster noted, it would be lame if you were in phase 1 and mined some ore, then just swapped through phases mining the same piece of ore because you're in a new version of the same world. That makes the world less unique and it makes the game less immersive. But what if it's not implemented like that? What if, instead of phases containing players, each player is a layer on top of one world, and some things, like a dock being on fire from an attack versus a fort being on fire from an attack are also layers that are attached to a player. And all players that enjoy PvP, role-playing, and are over the age of 25 are layered onto your layer, but anyone with a name containing xx, drizzt, death, or painsauce is removed.

There are a lot of little things to take into account and I don't have solutions or answers to the many problems, pros, and cons involved in the system, but then, Zenimax Online Studios doesn't pay me a salary.

Now, regarding RvR, I believe they have some sort of ongoing "campaign" system. A player joins a campaign and it creates a version of Cyrodiil. I suppose it's an effort to keep some semblance of balance and permanence. I think a campaign isn't a completely permanent choice, but more adamant than say, a phase filter such as those outlined above. This doesn't sound that great to me, but hopefully Zenimax figure it out.

I still have to agree that a phased world is hardly different than several versions of a world in the form of separate servers. To me, it seems to have a lot more pros than cons.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by D_TOX

I was captivated by the Elder Scrolls video until they touted this game-breaker as if its a good thing. They basically just admitted the game will be heavily sharded/instanced all in one server. What this means is you will have a world much like Star Trek Online, Age of Conan, TOR and other flop MMO's that makes you and other players invisible to each other even when you're standing in the same Inn/house/landscape until you click a little button that swaps you into another version of that zone.

I really hate this retarded direction ALL MMO's are taking now. There's nothing MMO about them, just cheaper server architecture to ease the workload in return for a weaker player experience and community. Then you have games like Planetside 2, an MMOFPS that happily allows thousands of players to be connected simultaneously in one server zone. Maybe i'm just an old-schooler who enjoyed the days of SWG, EVE and WOW when everything you were experiencing was being experienced by other players too. You never missed a thing. Now it's all about minimizing waiting for 'mobs' to spawn and creating a streamlined fast-track experience for players which completely detracts from the real MMO experience of community, patience and dedication. 

We're moving into the future of gaming but game development appears to be going backwards. Instead of creating BIGGER worlds with MORE quests and MORE ways to level, they are creating SMALLER worlds and INSTANCING them to sh*t instead. I just don't get it. There's no boldness in developing any more, only shortcuts and unoriginal 'creativity'.  I would have thought of all developers the Elder Scrolls team would be brave and bold with their development but it looks like i was wrong. 

I despise instancing!

Maybe if you looked at it a different way.

Are you enraged that many games have people on multiple servers? you might be and that could be where this ends.

However, if you can live with the idea that many games have different servers then you can think of these different instances as "different servers where you are matched with like minded people and where you can easily switch to another "server" if a friend usually plays differently than you but you want to team up on occasion.

 

this guy gets it. 

Originally posted by D_TOX

I was captivated by the Elder Scrolls video until they touted this game-breaker as if its a good thing. They basically just admitted the game will be heavily sharded/instanced all in one server. What this means is you will have a world much like Star Trek Online, Age of Conan, TOR and other flop MMO's that makes you and other players invisible to each other even when you're standing in the same Inn/house/landscape until you click a little button that swaps you into another version of that zone.

I really hate this retarded direction ALL MMO's are taking now. There's nothing MMO about them, just cheaper server architecture to ease the workload in return for a weaker player experience and community. Then you have games like Planetside 2, an MMOFPS that happily allows thousands of players to be connected simultaneously in one server zone. Maybe i'm just an old-schooler who enjoyed the days of SWG, EVE and WOW when everything you were experiencing was being experienced by other players too. You never missed a thing. Now it's all about minimizing waiting for 'mobs' to spawn and creating a streamlined fast-track experience for players which completely detracts from the real MMO experience of community, patience and dedication. 

We're moving into the future of gaming but game development appears to be going backwards. Instead of creating BIGGER worlds with MORE quests and MORE ways to level, they are creating SMALLER worlds and INSTANCING them to sh*t instead. I just don't get it. There's no boldness in developing any more, only shortcuts and unoriginal 'creativity'.  I would have thought of all developers the Elder Scrolls team would be brave and bold with their development but it looks like i was wrong. 

I despise instancing!

So all of that is the fault of the game companies, none of the blame can be put on the players?

I have yet to find a game that forces me NOT to interact and forces me to RUSH to "end game", thats all bulls**t. All of that is the players themselves.

Originally posted by ShakyMo
It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Although it is a good way to avoid having to spin doctor server merges at a later date.

launch day cue's,  being on the same server as your friend, and dead zones a few months after launch are problems that don't exist?   those have been a problem for almost every mmo.  it's nice to see they are trying to do something about it.

Originally posted by Jostle

Originally posted by DavisFlight

Not only that, but within those shards there will be phasing based on quests you've done, and many dungeons will be instanced. It's a damn shame really.

 

And I've reached out for a response from the devs and none of them have been able to tell me how the hell RvR works without multiple unique servers. (hint, it doesn't)

I don't think we have enough information about the system to fully praise or condemn it yet. On one hand, phasing can be really jarring when you complete a world event and suddenly some players appear out of nowhere and some disappear into oblivion. On the other hand, it's nice to have choices in a game with visible outcomes and consequences, even if they are arbitrary choices (though obviously it's better if they're not arbitrary). Phasing has never been done well. It's a very poorly thought out system. Designers should not try to cram singleplayer storylines into MMOs. GW2's system, while not perfect, shows actual change in the game world, as a direct result of the players. What's more, phasing breaks players apart from one another, which is the opposite of what a multiplayer game should do.

 

It could be that the phasing would be implemented poorly. As an above poster noted, it would be lame if you were in phase 1 and mined some ore, then just swapped through phases mining the same piece of ore because you're in a new version of the same world. That makes the world less unique and it makes the game less immersive. But what if it's not implemented like that? What if, instead of phases containing players, each player is a layer on top of one world, and some things, like a dock being on fire from an attack versus a fort being on fire from an attack are also layers that are attached to a player. And all players that enjoy PvP, role-playing, and are over the age of 25 are layered onto your layer, but anyone with a name containing xx, drizzt, death, or painsauce is removed. People can bounce from layer to layer, which means there is no coherent game world. Individual servers work worlds better in terms of a coherent gameworld, which is imperative in RvR.

 

 Now, regarding RvR, I believe they have some sort of ongoing "campaign" system. A player joins a campaign and it creates a version of Cyrodiil. I suppose it's an effort to keep some semblance of balance and permanence. I think a campaign isn't a completely permanent choice which is a HUGE problem, permanent choice and meaningful realm reward are the only ways RVR work, but more adamant than say, a phase filter such as those outlined above. This doesn't sound that great to me, but hopefully Zenimax figure it out.

 

I still have to agree that a phased world is hardly different than several versions of a world in the form of separate servers. To me, it seems to have a lot more pros than cons.

It seems like FAR more cons than pros. Especially with RvR. It just seems like this is a way for them to make sure no servers have low population. The trade off is that barely any MMO features work now.

Originally posted by ShakyMo
It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Although it is a good way to avoid having to spin doctor server merges at a later date.

A problem that doesn't exist for you, perhaps. I won't say it's the worst thing about an MMO, or even an MMO launch, but there have been several times where I've discovered that someone I know plays the game I play, but on a different server. Often both of us are already invested in a character or community and it's difficult to really play together. This problem does exist.

Good point about the server merges as well. They're often have the least graceful implementation of all MMO happenings. As a long time warhammer online player, this especially rings true.

"Seventy buggy micro servers which will never put you with your friends even if you weely weely want to."

Ah. Much better.

On the + side, this mega server idea suggests that quest results and sulch won't restart or stay in a constaint state of flux. What you ... see... due to the mega servers sweet love capabilities is the results of your labor. No more werewolf or vamp attacks. You da man. the town loves you.

So the mechanics of a large MMO which break the immersion due to a need to cater to such a high volume could be gone and you will partake of the fruits of your loomish labours. If so I say.. Neil Armstrong me forward.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

"We hate server lag, disconnects, queue times, lines for respawns, and not being able to play with all of our friends!"

Well here you go, here is a solution to those problems.

"I hate this and you are ruining the MMOs I know and love!"

But I thought you didn't like these things we are fixing?

"No that's not it at all, we just don't understand our ass from a hole in the ground so we are illogical and angry!"

Oh, ok... well... we hope you give our game a try!

Originally posted by DavisFlight

Not only that, but within those shards there will be phasing based on quests you've done, and many dungeons will be instanced. It's a damn shame really.

 

And I've reached out for a response from the devs and none of them have been able to tell me how the hell RvR works without multiple unique servers. (hint, it doesn't)

Devs have explained this

You get assigned to a campaign (the same campaign as your guild), you are then locked to that campaign. You can change campaigns but at a preventative cost (alliance points), and also if you roll an alt on a different faction that toon will be completely locked out of the campaign your main is on to prevent cheating.

Originally posted by ShakyMo
Yeah it will go wrong and everyone and his dog will be in one sided campaigns.

Loosing alliance points won't work. Needs to be a hard ban.

You dont know that it wont work at all

It all depends on how important alliance points are, if its a pvp leveling system then i cant see pvpers wanting to lose there perks just to get a slight numbers gain (as long as the perks are worthwile)

Plus with the mega-server tech on each campaign they can just cap the population on the larger faction so it never exceeds double the lowest pop faction, that way they wont have an advantage even with more numbers