I am abit curious how heavy the instanceing will be on such a game, because from seeing the trailers its clear to me that it has to be on the heavy side, if the game should have a fps over 10 that is...

Originally posted by tfwarlord

I am abit curious how heavy the instanceing will be on such a game, because from seeing the trailers its clear to me that it has to be on the heavy side, if the game should have a fps over 10 that is...

/sigh..

Please read the faq, it's located on their website.. There is no instancing.  All areas are seemless and all areas are public.  If you can run Unreal3 on your PC, you'll have no problem. 

Wish people would actually read instead of assuming.

Not everyone upgrades thier PC to play old games better.
I like graphics.

Did I hear "instancing" ? In MO ?

i n s t a n c i n g ?

Hmm...how big is supposed to be arena ? is it at least 0.01% of game world ? Supposing yes, that's your answer tfwarlord.

The arena wont be instanced. Only will be one (without copies), and when the arena is full of warriors and espectactors, they limited the entrance. ;-)

Mortal Online = 0% Instanced

That's one of my fears as well. It has great graphics AND is supposed to run smoothly in a seamless world? more than likely it will have a huge impact on performance.

Usually it's a double-edged sword. Amazing graphics vs Smooth seamless world. DF opted to choose crap graphics in a seamless world. FC on the other hand, chose to go the eye-candy route with AoC and chopped up the world into instanced zones.

Also, AoC was supposedly going to handle hundreds of players sieging and defending a keep. Shortly after launch it was limited to 48vs48, and it was still barely playable, a slideshow (I have no idea how much it improved since a few months ago).

Originally posted by Electriceye

That's one of my fears as well. It has great graphics AND is supposed to run smoothly in a seamless world? more than likely it will have a huge impact on performance.

Usually it's a double-edged sword. Amazing graphics vs Smooth seamless world. DF opted to choose crap graphics in a seamless world. FC on the other hand, chose to go the eye-candy route with AoC and chopped up the world into instanced zones.

Also, AoC was supposedly going to handle hundreds of players sieging and defending a keep. Shortly after launch it was limited to 48vs48, and it was still barely playable, a slideshow (I have no idea how much it improved since a few months ago).

Let's not speculate about things we don't know about yet.

This discussion shouldn't be up until we at least seen some beta movies.

There are already some gameplay videos.

www.youtube.com/watch

It's not speculation, past experiences have shown us that it's extremely hard to find the balance between graphics and seamlessness, let alone be perfect at both.

Hermm you do know that GFX have nothing to do with network performance yes?! If the server cant handle 200 players in one place it wont handle 200 players in an instance its all about Network coding, the GFX pipeline is a completely different system that only has relevance to GFX performance nothing to do with instancing which is network related.

Point being , if your PC cant render 60 characters in a seemless world on a well coded network system, it wont handle rendering 60 characters in an instance.

Originally posted by rav3n2

Hermm you do know that GFX have nothing to do with network performance yes?! If the server cant handle 200 players in one place it wont handle 200 players in an instance its all about Network coding, the GFX pipeline is a completely different system that only has relevance to GFX performance nothing to do with instancing which is network related.

Point being , if your PC cant render 60 characters in a seemless world on a well coded network system, it wont handle rendering 60 characters in an instance.

I won't bite as you are referring to the OP most probably.
 

Just to make one thing clear: seamless = zoneless. No loading screens. Whether there is Instancing or not is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Electriceye

Originally posted by rav3n2

Hermm you do know that GFX have nothing to do with network performance yes?! If the server cant handle 200 players in one place it wont handle 200 players in an instance its all about Network coding, the GFX pipeline is a completely different system that only has relevance to GFX performance nothing to do with instancing which is network related.

Point being , if your PC cant render 60 characters in a seemless world on a well coded network system, it wont handle rendering 60 characters in an instance.

I won't bite as you are referring to the OP most probably.
 

Just to make one thing clear: seamless = zoneless. No loading screens. Whether there is Instancing or not is irrelevant.

 

Actually you are wrong most if not all seamless MMOs have zoning in them, the zones are loaded seamlessly, but they are still zoned, no developer would be crazy enough to not zone an entire map, again i think you are confusing concepts and what they actually mean.

Originally posted by rav3n2

Originally posted by Electriceye

Originally posted by rav3n2

Hermm you do know that GFX have nothing to do with network performance yes?! If the server cant handle 200 players in one place it wont handle 200 players in an instance its all about Network coding, the GFX pipeline is a completely different system that only has relevance to GFX performance nothing to do with instancing which is network related.

Point being , if your PC cant render 60 characters in a seemless world on a well coded network system, it wont handle rendering 60 characters in an instance.

I won't bite as you are referring to the OP most probably.
 

Just to make one thing clear: seamless = zoneless. No loading screens. Whether there is Instancing or not is irrelevant.

 

 

Actually you are wrong most if not all seamless MMOs have zoning in them, the zones are loaded seamlessly, but they are still zoned, no developer would be crazy enough to not zone an entire map, again i think you are confusing concepts and what they actually mean.

Yes I'm well aware that all seamless games consist of zones, I meant  "zoneless" as in "no loading screens".

I was pointing to the fact that instances have got nothing to do with anything, they're irrelevant.

However when a game is zoned in a way it improves the performance of the server as every zone becomes independant. I'm going to need someone to confirm this, but looking at previous MMOs, it becomes obvious that a smooth seamless world (No loading screens) cannot coexist with beautiful graphics.

EDIT: I hope they prove me wrong, but Vanguard (hardly smooth), DF (bad graphics), AoC (zoned to the core) etc. I don't know of any recent Dev with recent technology creating a seamless, beautiful world which runs without performance issues.

Originally posted by Electriceye

Originally posted by rav3n2

Originally posted by Electriceye

Originally posted by rav3n2

Hermm you do know that GFX have nothing to do with network performance yes?! If the server cant handle 200 players in one place it wont handle 200 players in an instance its all about Network coding, the GFX pipeline is a completely different system that only has relevance to GFX performance nothing to do with instancing which is network related.

Point being , if your PC cant render 60 characters in a seemless world on a well coded network system, it wont handle rendering 60 characters in an instance.

I won't bite as you are referring to the OP most probably.
 

Just to make one thing clear: seamless = zoneless. No loading screens. Whether there is Instancing or not is irrelevant.

 

 

Actually you are wrong most if not all seamless MMOs have zoning in them, the zones are loaded seamlessly, but they are still zoned, no developer would be crazy enough to not zone an entire map, again i think you are confusing concepts and what they actually mean.

Yes I'm well aware that all seamless games consist of zones, I meant  "zoneless" as in "no loading screens".

I was pointing to the fact that instances have got nothing to do with anything, they're irrelevant.

However when a game is zoned in a way it improves the performance of the server as every zone becomes independant. I'm going to need someone to confirm this, but looking at previous MMOs, it becomes obvious that a smooth seamless world (No loading screens) cannot coexist with beautiful graphics.

 

EDIT: I hope they prove me wrong, but Vanguard (hardly smooth), DF (bad graphics), AoC (zoned to the core) etc. I don't know of any recent Dev with recent technology creating a seamless, beautiful world which runs without performance issues.

I see where you are coming from dont get me wrong but seamless loading does not affect graphics, seemless loading or a loading screen is usually dictated my the amount of information that each zone has to relay, so sometimes its just not realiable to have two zones being relayed to one client, the only real noticeable impact of a loading screen is reduction in data transfer your client does not render whats outside of the view of the camera, its not like your pc is going to render more content because its seamless if you enter a house your pc is only rendering what you see wether it was seamlessly loaded or with a loading screen only difference is there was more network data transfer.

Edit: Im not trying to defend MO btw , this is just a general concept, chances are MO will have the same GFX performance issues as VG and AoC these games main issues were gfx badly optimized thats why they ran really poorly specially in cluttered areas such as sieges (AoC case) , VG was just horribly optimized all the way.

Edit 2: On a more considerate thought Loading does reduce a bit the overhead of the extra models that have to be cached so it can increase graphical performance since loading zones usually mean the models from the previous zone are not needed anymore. My apologies, its late and i should be in bed.This is just the case in low performance machines tho, on a high end machine you wont gain that much performance.

Originally posted by rav3n2

Originally posted by Electriceye

Originally posted by rav3n2

Originally posted by Electriceye

Originally posted by rav3n2

Hermm you do know that GFX have nothing to do with network performance yes?! If the server cant handle 200 players in one place it wont handle 200 players in an instance its all about Network coding, the GFX pipeline is a completely different system that only has relevance to GFX performance nothing to do with instancing which is network related.

Point being , if your PC cant render 60 characters in a seemless world on a well coded network system, it wont handle rendering 60 characters in an instance.

I won't bite as you are referring to the OP most probably.
 

Just to make one thing clear: seamless = zoneless. No loading screens. Whether there is Instancing or not is irrelevant.

 

 

Actually you are wrong most if not all seamless MMOs have zoning in them, the zones are loaded seamlessly, but they are still zoned, no developer would be crazy enough to not zone an entire map, again i think you are confusing concepts and what they actually mean.

Yes I'm well aware that all seamless games consist of zones, I meant  "zoneless" as in "no loading screens".

I was pointing to the fact that instances have got nothing to do with anything, they're irrelevant.

However when a game is zoned in a way it improves the performance of the server as every zone becomes independant. I'm going to need someone to confirm this, but looking at previous MMOs, it becomes obvious that a smooth seamless world (No loading screens) cannot coexist with beautiful graphics.

 

EDIT: I hope they prove me wrong, but Vanguard (hardly smooth), DF (bad graphics), AoC (zoned to the core) etc. I don't know of any recent Dev with recent technology creating a seamless, beautiful world which runs without performance issues.

 

I see where you are coming from dont get me wrong but seamless loading does not affect graphics, seemless loading or a loading screen is usually dictated my the amount of information that each zone has to relay, so sometimes its just not realiable to have two zones being relayed to one client, the only real noticeable impact of a loading screen is reduction in data transfer your client does not render whats outside of the view of the camera, its not like your pc is going to render more content because its seamless if you enter a house your pc is only rendering what you see wether it was seamlessly loaded or with a loading screen only difference is there was more network data transfer.

Edit: Im not trying to defend MO btw , this is just a general concept, chances are MO will have the same GFX performance issues as VG and AoC these games main issues were gfx badly optimized thats why they ran really poorly specially in cluttered areas such as sieges (AoC case) , VG was just horribly optimized all the way.

Ok I was kinda sure zoning makes a difference in performance, for some reason. If what you say is true and it doesn't, then I stand corrected.

I'm not trying to put down MO either, I would love it to succeed and I'm going to keep one eye on it.

Let's just hope it doesn't suffer from poor gfx optimization then, because what kills a game, regardless of whether it has all the features and has an incredible amount of content, what kills a game is it's performance.

---

Originally posted by javifugitivo
The arena wont be instanced. Only will be one (without copies), and when the arena is full of warriors and espectactors, they limited the entrance. ;-)
Mortal Online = 0% Instanced

---

As long as the devs do thier jobs right, and the game runs smooth on a system that is adiquate to run the game then it doesn't matter if the game is seemless or not.

Graphics are magorily the responcibility of the player to support.
If your PC can't handle high graphics demand then it doesn't matter if the world is instanced or not.

Instanced zones are a way to keep lag under control and limit the amount of information that needs to be cached to help improve performance. 

People are going to complain about thier PC's not running the game well when it's released.  They'll complain that SV did a poor job, they'll complain that they shouldn't have to upgrade thier PC's to run a game, people will think that they have an uber system cause they just baught it a year or two ago.  These people will be wrong.

Every game that releases that has high end graphics always gets a bad rep cause a bunch of people can't come to terms that you have to upgrade a PC just like you upgrade a console.

I don't care what a dev. does, or what they say.  There is no PC that is able to run a game with hundreds of skeletons and thousands of textures and particals  flawlessly, with no impact on performance, or the need to turn graphics settings down.  Even today, few people have a PC that is able to run a Lineage 2 seige with graphics setting all the way up.

Hell, most PC's today still have trouble running with full shadows.

The trick isn't always getting the game to run perfect with all the bling up, it's getting the game to LOOK good with all the bling down.  Few studios pull this off.  NCsoft happens to be one of them, L2 looks great even when you turn the settings down.  Sigil wasn't one of the, VG looked like crap with the settings down even a little bit.  I'm hoping SV is more like NCsoft, and less like Sigil.

They said that there will be a loading when you cross an other zone. Yeah, i heard somthing about zone, but they dont consider it as an instance, but just a wall that when you cross it, you would see a loading on your screen like runescape and everything in the other zone that you just pass will dissapear. I mean you wont see players or monsters on the zone you just passed. Same for dungeon. Dungeons are not instanced, but zone with a loading wall.

They said that its better that way because if there is no zone system or instance, they could not make something special in all different place like a big monster with good graphics and animation.

 In DF, they chosed to not have instance or zones and in DF, the result is that the whole world is the samething. Monsters move the same way excluding the dragon, animation are bad, you can only see 10 fps far way while in MO, they said that they will try to make it so you can see very far away. 10 fps is low and for pkers, its hard to find random players that way.

It is possible to have a seamless (from the players point of view) world with no loading screens and good graphics. A good example would be LOTRO. Now while there are instances with loading screens, its is also possible to run all the way from the Shire to almost the gates of Moria without hitting one loading screen. Thats a run of over an hour.

The problems come when you have lots of people on the screen with those graphics. The seamless world isn't the problem its the load of all those high quality textures, player models and magic effects all at the same time. Using our LOTRO example we see things work really really well even on ultra graphics in the world. The problem is that in the PvP zone when you have lots of players and monsters in the same place you end up with problems. Things are much better now than they were in the past, but if the fights get too big you get lag.

There really is Zero chance that MO will be able to have 200v200+ fights with graphics of that quality without players needing a super machine.

Another concern is server capacity. Look at WAR. in a fortress fight even if you have a super computer you still get massive server lag as the server can't handle all the calculations it needs to do with that many people in the same area.

I hope MO is good, but I have very little hope that it can cope with massive battles, at least at launch.

Originally posted by Realbigdeal

They said that there will be a loading when you cross an other zone. Yeah, i heard somthing about zone, but they dont consider it as an instance, but just a wall that when you cross it, you would see a loading on your screen like runescape and everything in the other zone that you just pass will dissapear. I mean you wont see players or monsters on the zone you just passed. Same for dungeon. Dungeons are not instanced, but zone with a loading wall.

They said that its better that way because if there is no zone system or instance, they could not make something special in all different place like a big monster with good graphics and animation.

 In DF, they chosed to not have instance or zones and in DF, the result is that the whole world is the samething. Monsters move the same way excluding the dragon, animation are bad, you can only see 10 fps far way while in MO, they said that they will try to make it so you can see very far away. 10 fps is low and for pkers, its hard to find random players that way.

Id like if you could prove that statement about SV stating that there will be loading areas.  From everything that I've read and watched.. which is quite a bit.. there aren't any loading areas other than perhaps the obvious loading into the game or some sort of teleportation travel, if there is that type of travel in the game. 

The best info we have is that they have said they want to try and make the world entirely seamless.

Note though, that they only said that they "will try", so I'm not sure if they themselves know just how they will do it yet. I think the world right now is pretty much seamless, but that might change depending on how stress tests are going.