Trending Games | ArcheAge | Guild Wars 2 | WildStar | Warhammer 40K: Eternal Crusade

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,788,530 Users Online:0
Games:723  Posts:6,193,481
Zenimax Online Studios | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 04/04/14)  | Pub:Bethesda Softworks
Distribution: | Retail Price:$59.99 | Pay Type:Subscription
System Req: PC Mac Playstation 4 Xbox One | Out of date info? Let us know!

Elder Scrolls Online Forum » General Discussion » ''One mega server which is smart about putting you with your friends'' - no thanks.

8 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Last Search
155 posts found
  User Deleted
11/27/12 8:51:03 AM#21
Originally posted by Hostar

MMOs are more mainstream these days. Hell, I remember when Mythic were proud and did a server broadcast because they had 500 users online at one time in Dark age of Camelot.

It is in that light you need to be realistic about your servers. You need to accept the fact your game might attract MILLIONS of players now. You can either choose to entertain the instancing system or you need to set up more and more servers.

Sure, you lose a bit of immersion with the instancing systems but a "game breaker?" Not sure i'd call it that. Especially if each instance holds 2000 players. It becomes a mild annoyance when wanting to play with friends.

Frankly i'd rather see MMOs go with this type of architecture because inevitably you avoid the age old problem of server A which has lag, queues and 10,000 people vs server B which has 1000 players and is dead as a doornail, thus forcing even more onto server A.

I'm struggling to see how having 10 unique servers with a 2000 player cap vs one server with a 2000 player instance cap is in any way different.

Yep this hits the nail on the head.

With a game as popular as the Elder Scrolls you will either end up with dozens to hundreds of servers of unaccessable players, or they can do the instancing option.

Would anyone claim that EQ2 isnt a MMO? No. Yet that game has multiple instances of zones when they get overpopulated (usually only at the start of an expansion).  Its just a fact of life. Yes eventually there will be servers capable of handling millions of players at once, but for now they have to be realistic with the options.

  lizardbones

Elite Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 10427

I've become dependent upon spell check. My apologies for stupid grammatical errors.

11/27/12 8:52:31 AM#22


Originally posted by MyTabbycat
Would it be possible to make persistant phasing? Such as you would have phases 1-10 and the megaserver picks say phase 5 for you. Every time you play you would play in phase 5 until you decided you wanted to move to phase 7 to play with your cousin Johnny who just bought the game and didn't know you played.

In that case it would make the phased instances on the megaserver more like individual shards. I don't even know if that's possible. Just throwing it out there.




My guess would be that this is the opposite of what would happen. The point of having those shards is that they can keep a decent population around all players. So channel 1 would get nearly full then channel 2 would get nearly full, then channel 3 would get nearly full, etc. Whatever channel you're in when you login is determined by the population and where the other people in your friends list are, not by which channel you were in last night when you logged out.

The persistence would be the people you normally hang out with. Since it's a theme park, the server itself would have persistence, but that's because nothing really changes in a theme park server except the people. There wouldn't be any persistence in the people you didn't know and didn't usually hang out with. But then...how much persistence is there in the people you don't know on a theme park server anyway?

For every large, complex problem, there is a simple, clear solution that also happens to be absolutely wrong.

  User Deleted
11/27/12 8:53:25 AM#23
Originally posted by zimike
Originally posted by LizardEgypt
The more I hear the worse it gets. I'm sure the technology is excellent but that's not what makes an MMORPG. I'm sure many of you MMO gamers are actually just looking for games like Diablo, Torchlight ect. I truly think Darkfall 2 is going to be the last hope for real one-server immersive games with a sense of community not just teleporting around your friendslist..

 

I agree fully!  DF:UW is a game that invokes strong emotions(good and bad). You feel really connected to your character and become deeply immersed in the world around you. 

Games like GW2, STWOR, etc, never got my heart pumping, or gave me an overwhelming since of accomplishment. I think  the Neogamers of today never really got the chance to experience this type of game-play. They basically wish to support large scale zone based server models, that turn out to provide only a single player experience, which becomes boring after a while or get bored when reaching the so called end-game content.

The difference being that ESO will have many more players. Its easy to tout having a single game world without instancing when you are a niche game with few players.

  ste2000

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/28/04
Posts: 4721

11/27/12 8:53:32 AM#24
Originally posted by MyTabbycat
I do ask: What's the difference between having the population on 15 different shards (that's 14 shards worth of people you can't see) versus having the population in 15 different phased zones (that's 14 phased zones worth of people you can't see)? Is it just the ability to hop from one phase to another without having to buck up and pay a fee to transfer to another shard to play with your friend?

 

I will answer that. In a Single Server you eventually get to know other players, that creates a community. In Megaservers, you are just a number who plays together with another number. This is not why MMORPGs came about. This is more a Multiplayer design. I finally gave up on WOW because the Megaservers. Personally I hate them, they are so community unfriendly and I believe it will harm any MMO who abuse it.
  ShakyMo

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/21/11
Posts: 7246

11/27/12 8:54:05 AM#25
Look at what planetside 2 can handle

You don't need to do all this immersion breaking instancing nonsense.
  User Deleted
11/27/12 8:56:29 AM#26
Originally posted by ShakyMo
Look at what planetside 2 can handle

You don't need to do all this immersion breaking instancing nonsense.

Look at the degree of character customisation in Planetside 2. Or lack thereof I should say.

If you use fewer assets you can fit more players in.

  winter

Hard Core Member

Joined: 8/08/03
Posts: 2230

11/27/12 9:02:59 AM#27
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!

 Really having +200 plus players standing around in a small in or house is immersive? havinf a thousand players all camping the same rabbit spawn or boss is fun???

Eve is a different type of game and even then you get ebnough players in the same spot and  the lagfeast will make the game unplayable with actions taking 30 seconds or more just to fire off. you want more of that???

Personally i don't need hundreds of other players in every small town or dungeon i visit. With every twit dancing on the mailboxes or making every lost secret dungeon into grandcentral station.

  Alberel

Novice Member

Joined: 12/02/09
Posts: 1121

11/27/12 9:13:02 AM#28
Originally posted by ste2000
Originally posted by MyTabbycat
I do ask: What's the difference between having the population on 15 different shards (that's 14 shards worth of people you can't see) versus having the population in 15 different phased zones (that's 14 phased zones worth of people you can't see)? Is it just the ability to hop from one phase to another without having to buck up and pay a fee to transfer to another shard to play with your friend?

 

I will answer that. In a Single Server you eventually get to know other players, that creates a community. In Megaservers, you are just a number who plays together with another number. This is not why MMORPGs came about. This is more a Multiplayer design. I finally gave up on WOW because the Megaservers. Personally I hate them, they are so community unfriendly and I believe it will harm any MMO who abuse it.

This pretty much nails it.

In FFXI I used to regularly bump into the same players on my server when I was out adventuring. This led me to eventually get to know them and form some friendships that have spanned multiple games. The 'top players' on the server also became well known and recognisable as you would see them regularly and stare in envy at their equipment.

That doesn't happen in modern MMOs because the way the servers are designed you never really meet the same player more than once unless you already knew them. In WoW or any MMO since I have never built a lasting friendship with any player whereas the games before that introduced me to dozens of friends-to-be.

Isolated servers or worlds without phasing, instancing or overflow systems are simply better for the game community. In my opinion that's worth sacrificing the 'convenience' those systems may otherwise offer.

(A lot of people often respond to this with the 'join a guild' argument as well. This doesn't hold up though because a guild basically isolates you from the rest of the community by giving you no reason to interact with anyone outside of the guild and serves to only compound the problem).

  lizardbones

Elite Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 10427

I've become dependent upon spell check. My apologies for stupid grammatical errors.

11/27/12 9:15:36 AM#29


Originally posted by ste2000

Originally posted by MyTabbycat

I do ask: What's the difference between having the population on 15 different shards (that's 14 shards worth of people you can't see) versus having the population in 15 different phased zones (that's 14 phased zones worth of people you can't see)? Is it just the ability to hop from one phase to another without having to buck up and pay a fee to transfer to another shard to play with your friend?



 

I will answer that.
In a Single Server you eventually get to know other players, that creates a community.
In Megaservers, you are just a number who plays together with another number. This is not why MMORPGs came about. This is more a Multiplayer design.
I finally gave up on WOW because the Megaservers. Personally I hate them, they are so community unfriendly and I believe it will harm any MMO who abuse it.




You're describing the difference between DAoC and WoW, not the difference between ESO with servers and ESO with channels. The player experience is going to be the same in both cases. At most 100 to 150 people that each player "knows", and thousands of faceless strangers running around. Short of limiting the population to 500 players or less per server, there's nothing ESO could do about this.

For every large, complex problem, there is a simple, clear solution that also happens to be absolutely wrong.

  Coman

Hard Core Member

Joined: 8/29/04
Posts: 1942

11/27/12 9:21:24 AM#30
The statement does not mean the gameworld is split by instances and even then is that not how TES is build anyway? Caves, cities and even houses are instanced in the singleplayer version of the game. 
  Jostle

Novice Member

Joined: 4/12/06
Posts: 63

11/27/12 9:21:27 AM#31
Originally posted by ste2000
Originally posted by MyTabbycat
I do ask: What's the difference between having the population on 15 different shards (that's 14 shards worth of people you can't see) versus having the population in 15 different phased zones (that's 14 phased zones worth of people you can't see)? Is it just the ability to hop from one phase to another without having to buck up and pay a fee to transfer to another shard to play with your friend?

 

I will answer that. In a Single Server you eventually get to know other players, that creates a community. In Megaservers, you are just a number who plays together with another number. This is not why MMORPGs came about. This is more a Multiplayer design. I finally gave up on WOW because the Megaservers. Personally I hate them, they are so community unfriendly and I believe it will harm any MMO who abuse it.

This isn't necessarily true. You can meet people just as easily with a phasing setup than with a standard server setup. The people are still there to be met. I think it's more that games so far that have seen heavy phasing have also been plagued with what I call "canned content." with canned content you either wait in a line or stumble upon something scripted and the players that are chosen to or happen to be around just go until the script is over and then you leave. Nine times out of ten, no one asks to go deeper into a dungeon or further along, or to something more challenging. They just keep their mouths shut and either go again or leave.

 

In fact, we know so little about how this will actually work, it's just as easy to praise it as genius as it is to condemn it as evil. Let's just make a little list of things that I can imagine won't happen because ZOS chose this direction. Well, you'd never have to discover a friend plats the game but on a different server so one of you has to start over. You'd never have to play an alternate because your server was down for maintenance but others weren't. You wouldn't have to play with people under the age of 25. You wouldn't have to play with non-role players or role players.To be honest, with their setup, it's sounding more and more likely that I'll meet someone that I will actually want to talk to.

 

And really, I fail to see any argument that having people still split up, but on inaccessible servers is somehow more immersive or conducive to community building. Sure, you won't hear the phrase,"I played Daggerfall on the Mehrunes Dagon server," but it should be more about the people than anything. So how exactly is having different phases of the world completely split more conducive to community building? I maintain that it isn't, necessarily. Especially if TSO stays away from canned content, which they seem to at least in PvP.

 

I think the OP hasn't thought this one through.

  Coman

Hard Core Member

Joined: 8/29/04
Posts: 1942

11/27/12 9:27:11 AM#32
Originally posted by Jostle
And really, I fail to see any argument that having people still split up, but on inaccessible servers is somehow more immersive or conducive to community building. Sure, you won't hear the phrase,"I played Daggerfall on the Mehrunes Dagon server," but it should be more about the people than anything. So how exactly is having different phases of the world completely split more conducive to community building? I maintain that it isn't, necessarily. Especially if TSO stays away from canned content, which they seem to at least in PvP.

 

I think the OP hasn't thought this one through.

I agree and like the statement in the OP. The system is smart about putting you with your friends. So if your about community building and meet people you like you befriend them and the server will try to keep you with as many friend as possible and the friend of you friend will also be there and there friend might also join that automaticly.

The changes you like the friends of your friends are bigger then that you like some random people. 

  Torgrim

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 12/15/05
Posts: 2125

11/27/12 9:31:25 AM#33
Originally posted by MyTabbycat
I do ask: What's the difference between having the population on 15 different shards (that's 14 shards worth of people you can't see) versus having the population in 15 different phased zones (that's 14 phased zones worth of people you can't see)? Is it just the ability to hop from one phase to another without having to buck up and pay a fee to transfer to another shard to play with your friend?

 

This.

 

If it's not broken, you are not innovating.

  Torgrim

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 12/15/05
Posts: 2125

11/27/12 9:39:15 AM#34
Originally posted by ShakyMo
Look at what planetside 2 can handle

You don't need to do all this immersion breaking instancing nonsense.

 

Yes you do, PS2 dont' have shitload of NPCs, PS2 dont have shitload of mobs, PS2 don't have breathtaken vista like awesome deep forrests, cool swamps, nice small hamlets. what PS2 do have a is poor toon customization and a desert planet with some snow and some woodland area with some grass.

That's why you can have big battles in that game beacuse the game dosen't have to render as much so you can have an enjoyable experince and not a lag fest.

 

If it's not broken, you are not innovating.

  fenistil

Novice Member

Joined: 9/22/11
Posts: 3016

11/27/12 9:41:24 AM#35
Deal breaker for me also.
  LizardEgypt

Novice Member

Joined: 2/25/09
Posts: 359

Hmm ?

11/27/12 9:42:18 AM#36
Originally posted by Torgrim
Originally posted by ShakyMo
Look at what planetside 2 can handle

You don't need to do all this immersion breaking instancing nonsense.

 

Yes you do, PS2 dont' have shitload of NPCs, PS2 dont have shitload of mobs, PS2 don't have breathtaken vista like awesome deep forrests, cool swamps, nice small hamlets. what PS2 do have a is poor toon customization and a desert planet with some snow and some woodland area with some grass.

That's why you can have big battles in that game beacuse the game dosen't have to render as much so you can have an enjoyable experince and not a lag fest.

 

"Yes you do" - Regarding a statement claiming you do not need immersion breaking nonsense. It seems this man here does not wish for immersive games. So I ask why he is here and what is intentions are.

I will remind you among vocal MMO veterans you are a minority, we're seeing a trend where the over-board conveinence is seeing it's negatives. Mainly that the games bear no weight and die instantaneously.

Currently playing - FF14ARR
Previous games - SWG, World of Warcraft, ShadowBane, Warhammer, Age of Conan, Darkfall, Planetside Asheron's Call, Everquest, Everquest 2, Too many.

  EricDanie

Tipster

Joined: 2/10/05
Posts: 2244

11/27/12 9:52:15 AM#37
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!

Indeed, it feels so backward.

It's lazy design, not just for bandwidth and server structure (hello folks, Ultima Online and EVE have been doing this for the last decades and both are alive, though the first one has different servers) but also for content, especially if you're using a themepark design. You'd need to keep these areas interesting and when the world is just about combat quest hubs, making a game world large enough to not need instancing would be quite inefficient.

  AlBQuirky

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 1/24/05
Posts: 2950

Tomorrow's just a future yesterday...

11/27/12 9:53:04 AM#38

So, if a player starts out in "Instance 1", can they farm the copper vein node in front of them and then switch to "Instance 2" to farm it's copper vein? And so on to Instances 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc? Then come back to Instance 1 and start all over again?

Or do the same with MOBs?

How easy will it be for players to switch instances?

- Al

Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
- FARGIN_WAR

  ShakyMo

Apprentice Member

Joined: 11/21/11
Posts: 7246

11/27/12 11:09:01 AM#39
You guys responding to my "well look at planetside 2" post.

Yes planetside 2 cuts down on the character creation options

But....

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 either
A) bad at coding
B) lazy and think they can get away with it
C) 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)
  Torgrim

Spotlight Poster

Joined: 12/15/05
Posts: 2125

11/27/12 11:39:56 AM#40
Originally posted by EricDanie
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!

Indeed, it feels so backward.

It's lazy design, not just for bandwidth and server structure (hello folks, Ultima Online and EVE have been doing this for the last decades and both are alive, though the first one has different servers) but also for content, especially if you're using a themepark design. You'd need to keep these areas interesting and when the world is just about combat quest hubs, making a game world large enough to not need instancing would be quite inefficient.

 

Ultima Online had simple 2D graphics and EVE has vast amount of emtyness AND instances (solarsystems) and if you are a EVE player and you have been into fleet battles with 600+ players you should know it lags a lot for many people.

It's simple

Great graphics=instances

Poor graphics= almost none instance

 

Personly I really like this mega server structure no more play a toon up to lvl 30 and my friends tries to join after a few weeks on my full server they can't so they roll on another server so either I have to pay for a server transfer or reroll a new toon.

 

 

If it's not broken, you are not innovating.

8 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Last Search