Trending Games | Overwatch | World of Warcraft | Bless | Elder Scrolls Online

    Facebook Twitter YouTube Twitch.tv YouTube.Gaming Discord
Register
Quick Game Jump
Members:3,795,709 Users Online:0
Games:981 

Show Blog

Link to this blogs RSS feed

All Things MMO

A look at some of the things I've learned from playing MMO's and my thoughts on where they're headed.

Author: Zarcob

Instancing For the Future

Posted by Zarcob Thursday June 24 2010 at 5:23PM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!
You know that little mechanic?  Some hate it, some like it, but most just tolerate it.
 
I've seen instancing used in so many different ways over the years that it confuses me when people use blanket statements rejecting instancing altogether.  If I probe their mind (gently, no mechanical devices inserted of any type), eventually I come to realize they usually mean a specific type of instancing that they hate, not every incarnation of it.  I thought just for the sake of clarity I'd go over some of the definitions of instancing and the ways I've seen it used through the many years, and why I think it's not necessarily a good idea to cry foul at the mere mention of the word.
 
 
Definition:  The definition of an instance is an area in space that is replicated as a copy of itself for different reasons.  Most often these reasons have to do with logistical problems, like maintaining minimum frame rates or reducing server load, but it can be for gameplay reasons that I'll get to in a minute as well.
 
 
I've also seen it misconstrued a few times as a zone.  While it's true that moving into a instance is almost always going to include a loading screen, not every loading screen is an instance and not every zone is an instance.  EQ (both 1 and 2) utilize zones which were not instanced copies of one another.  These zones still required the tedious loading screens before entering a region but each was unique.  Because these zones aren't copies of one another they don't function as instances as much as separate pockets of the world.
 
If that's not your cup of tea - well, that's entirely up to you.  Although I honestly think it's being a bit picky.  Zones serve a variety of important functions.  They ensure the server load is rarely exceeded because highly populated zones can utilize separate hardware.  They also allow designers to use more memory on your video card because certain textures and models can be restricted to certain zones based on environment.  Even though this can be accomplished by swapping memory on the fly, it causes large video degradation on older machines, especially for graphic-hungry titles that use real lightning or cutting-edge effects like tessellation.  Current technical limitations often require a world to either suffer the demons of lag and framerate drag on older machines, or utilize some form of zones to segment the world.  Either or.
 
It's ugly, I know.  I'd certainly rather have a full seamless game that included the best of both worlds but we probably won't see that in our lifetime.  If you prefer the lag and have the money for a big machine, I can understand the opinion in favor of no-zones.  But it's a bit naive to insist on realistic graphics, lag-less worlds, diverse environments and no-zones with current hardware technology.
 
It just can't happen.  Yet.
 
 
But let's get back to instances.  Instances come in a few different forms, some of which we're all familiar with, some of which are quite new, and some of which will probably surprise you.  Let's start with a form of instancing that virtually every game uses but nobody really notices.
 
Servers - Most MMO's today operate with a number of different servers to help divide up the population.  We've come to accept this as a standard element of most MMO titles, but we don't usually notice servers are actually instance so large they encompass the entirety of the game.  Each server is usually an exact copy of the next, excluding whatever player-made changes can surface between them.  For the most part we don't even notice the existence of these instances because a game will forbid players from jumping servers, let alone even talking with players on different servers, so we tend to forget they're even there.
 
Zones - Wait a minute!  You thought I just said zones weren't instances!  Now here they are on the list!  LIAR!
 
That's partially true.  I included the example of EQ1 and 2 which had zones that were not instanced, but that doesn't mean that they can't be instanced.  CoH and AoC have zones which are instances.  These zones replicate themselves when they became too crowded.  If you wanted to go to Perez Park, you'd have a choice between instance 1, 2, 3, etc., that usually pops up in the form of an obnoxious drop-down menu.
 
I see a lot of hate for these types of instances and honestly I have to agree.  I don't see a need to include these if a server is correctly attuned for its population load.  If the zones are so small the server can only hold 500 people, then it seems like a better idea to have a new server than spawn a new instance of a zone on the old one.  But blaming the loading screen on the instance shows a lack of understanding of the game's mechanics.  It's actually the zone that creates the segmented loading screens between the areas of the world and the instance that simply replicates the zone and adds the tacky menu.
 
There are some advantages to this type of instance, of course, such as when a game first comes out or after it's been out for several years; in either case the population tends to bunch up at either the low or high levels, making a server population limit misleading and causing congestion.  It's also much easier to swap players between instanced zones than servers, creating the possibility of having servers with much higher population caps.  Although I'm not so sure this is such a big advantage.  If the extra people existing on a server thanks to the addition of zone instances can't even interact because Zone A has spawned 50 copies, the functionality may as well not be there.
 
Dungeons & Encounters - I've lumped these two together because they operate virtually the same, but for some people there can be a world of difference.  When a dungeon is instanced it means each group (or individual) that enters gets their own separate copy.  Sometimes the dungeons themselves are not instanced, but an encounter at the end of the dungeon may be, usually the boss.  Both types have popped up in a variety of games, but they serve a very important function - the same function virtually all instancing solves - preventing the possibility of over-crowding.
 
Whereas Zones and Servers are mass instances that utilize large groups of players, Dungeon and Encounter instances are private instances that spawn only for a single player, or players mutually cooperating.  This type of instancing offers a great deal of power for creating narrative and encounter design, because it is only here that a designer can be sure that one player won't interfere with another in the middle of a scripted, and possibly unique, event.  These are the best places to make a person feel like a "hero" because in these small instances they can actually be a unique character.
 
Older players might try to convince you that dungeon over-crowding was not a big deal.  They dealt with over-crowding in UO and EQ, right?  Players just need to learn to share!
 
But I can tell you that opinion is a lot of bunk.  UO and EQ were roughly as populated as today's failed games, and they still had massive crowding issues.  In my opinion, a dungeon should always be a scary, lonely and forbidding place.  If you manage to traverse to the bottom and face a formidable foe, you shouldn't find three groups of players all sitting around waiting for the same foe to magically reappear.  This problem is way more jarring to a sense of realism than the loading screen for the dungeon could be.
 
However, this may be an area where technology has finally advanced to the point where we can kiss the loading screen goodbye.  How?  By using the next type of instancing that's just appeared in the last year.
 
Phasing - A few players aren't yet familiar with this so I'll give a quick explanation.  Phasing is essentially an instance, it can be of a zone or dungeon type instance, or even an instance that only includes a certain square-foot radius around an open-world location.  This instance has no loading necessary in most cases because the area is loaded in the background while out of view.
 
How is that possible?  Think of it this way: When your character is out in the world the server doesn't load objects you can't see.  To your computer, the top of that distant mountain doesn't exist.  You may be able to see some of the landscape, or it may be obscured by some kind of fog, but you can rarely make out individual objects like trees or enemies because none of it has been loaded.  What you can see is what your computer is simply "assuming" should be there.
 
As you get closer to the mountain the game is told to start loading the objects.  This is where phasing comes into play.  If you're visiting the mountain top of the first time, then the game loads Mountain_Version_A.  In this phase you find the mountain and a small mining village like you might any standard MMO.  Let's say there are a few other players there hanging around and the lot of you decide to descend into the nearby mine in search of adventure.  When you reach the bottom, perhaps you're presented with a choice that ultimately results in freeing some ancient evil.  You and your new friends barely manage to escape with your lives.
 
When you get back to the surface, the game loads Mountain_Version_Evil_Escaped, instead of the Version_A you saw before.  The landscape might be the same but all of the trees may be scorched black and the villagers dead.  Since all your friends were together, they all see the same version loaded as well.  In this version of the mountain the small mining village has been viciously destroyed by the evil you so ignominiously released from its prison.
 
Oops.
 
 
Phasing technology has just been used to some success by WoW with their latest expansion.
 
Oh GODS what?!  WoW did something I should be interested in?  I know right.  Turns out there actually are some advantages to being the biggest company on the block.
 
I only got a chance to play around with it briefly but I was incredibly surprised at the power behind it.  It could possibly present solutions to issues that old instances previously solved but without any of the drawbacks.  Phasing could potentially maintain the illusion of a seamless and open world and solve every problem with over-crowding.
 
Of course, phasing isn't perfect.  There are still a myriad of questions to answer in regards to its function and development: Does it have limitations?  How do players interact if they have different phases loaded without an annoying drop-down menu?  How widespread can it be?
 
Time will tell how well phasing is used in the future but it's an excellent example of how the industry stuck with a basic idea and kept improving upon it.  It represents a bright spot on some of the stagnant archaic devices still lurking around most MMOs and why it might not be as good an idea to toss out the old devices when we should try to reinvent them.

The Game vs World

Posted by Zarcob Tuesday June 22 2010 at 2:16PM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!
I've learned most MMO's are a constant struggle between the rules of the Game and the systems in the World.  At times they're in direct opposition to one another; one's improvement causing the decline of the other, while other times they can actually share a bit of synergy.  In some MMO's one is expressly favored over the other, most often the Game, but many titles attempt to strike a delicate balance.
 
 
What is a game?  What is a world?  Well we think we know what a world is - we live in one, right?  I mean we just look around us, obviously this is qualifies as a world!
 
But how do you define such a thing?  When you sit down to read a great book it can seem just as real.  Surely that can be a World as well?  Perhaps somewhere in the vastness of the cosmos the World of your favorite book actually exists.  Who's to say that there isn't a Krypton somewhere in the trillions upon trillions of stars in the universe?
 
When we sit down to play a game of Pac-Man, though, the same feeling is never conveyed.  We can use our imaginations, surely, and construct Pac-Man's mundane life of eating pellets at his day job and paying Ms. Pac-Man's alimony with his fruit scores, but Pac-Man's world is little more than an interpretation of the abstract.  Pac-Man is a Game.
 
 
Worlds construct complete systems that interact with one another, ecosystems, economic systems, or even social systems.  They adhere to rules but not for the sake of preserving the system, since the system is beyond the capability of failing, and certainly not for the sake of fairness.  The rules in a World exist simply to construct the world itself and lay the laws for its interaction, such as the Laws of Physics in our own world.
 
Worlds thrive with life.  They can evolve and change, even if it is only to follow a predetermined cycle like the changing of seasons.  They provide entertainment by making the mundane interesting - by making little actions carry significant weight - by making intricate systems that can be as beautiful and terrifying as they are complex - and by ensuring that the system builds itself up from the smallest blocks.  Worlds are fluid.  In the most basic sense every MMO community is a World because it constantly changes, adopts new standards and modicums of behavior, and never has the same people active from one year to the next.
 
Games are not concerned with the smallest common denominator, because a Game is built around specific goals.  In a Game, there is usually a winner, even if it is not readily apparent.  In fact the Game may even include uncertainty over the winner - Who has the best gear?  Who is the best PvP'er?  Or who has the most respect?  The debate becomes part of the goal to win, even if the debate itself is purely a social element of the World
 
These systems are built specifically around the rules and preventing some actions in order to maintain some level of fairness (but of course, fair for those willing to pay whatever the price is to win the game, most often a time investment).  The rules also ensure the Game itself remains intact - their underlying mechanism is limiting the player's freedom to interact so they may only succeed by approaching the Game from specific angles.  Games are fun to win, and that's why we play them, but they can be fun to compete as well.  Their obstacles can be anything from direct competition against players, a puzzle, a form of exploration, mastering techniques to defeat an AI opponent, formulating strategies for victory, managing limited resources, or any combination of these together.
 
 
I like to think of MMO's with the division between World and Game.  Sometimes I hear them described as Sandbox and Theme Park, which I feel are grossly misleading and inaccurate descriptions.  I feel the word Theme Park carries a distinctly derogatory tone as well.  A person deems an MMO to be childish but they want to veil the insult behind rhetoric; "A child enjoys going to Disney Land.  Disney Land is a Theme Park.  Children enjoy playing this game, therefore this game is a Theme Park."  I think it's been used as such for a while now and its usage is further perpetrated by people apparently oblivious to this undertone.  It implies the game is chalk full of irreverent and childish toys that appeal to only the most immature and inane gamers.
 
But even this is an affront to the real word.  A true Theme Park is built on the idea of letting someone have fun.  First and foremost, the rule for all video games decreed by the Gaming Gods themselves is thus: Let it be fun.
 
A game which is not fun is a failure.  When you plop down at your computer and log in to your favorite game, be it to track bounties across Jita or go toe-to-toe with the Lich King of Azeroth, you do it for fun.  It is not done out of duty to some MMO historical precedence.  Implying that a game has some higher standard than this simple golden rule of the Gaming Gods is patently absurd, blasphemous and idiotic.
 
What you find fun, well, that's entirely up to you.  But never pretend you play for a reason other than to have fun (short of those last few reluctant days before you quit a great game) and never suggest a game is bad because it puts fun first - even if it's not your idea of fun.  All games put the fun first, even if someone convinces themselves otherwise.  All MMOs are, and should be, a Theme Park.
 
 
But not all MMOs are a World, nor should they be, and not all MMOs put an emphasis on the Game.  World's often have a lot of annoying or mundane tasks with seemingly no point; like choosing food to eat for a virtual character that never poops or walking across a vast continent to join up with friends.  But these little parts of a bigger whole make the World of an MMO feel more life-like and give it depth.  A Game with no World is flat and repetitive, an FPS title that's single-player only.  Even a multiplayer, MMOFPS would introduce at least one element of a World: A social network where players can team up and battle each other for dominance.  Where the name of the best players are as famous as those of the worst gankers are infamous.
 
Conversely, having an MMO that is all World and no Game may sound appealing as well - but keep in mind how many elements of a Game we have come to expect.  All elements of combat, dealing damage, avoiding damage, and dying, are rules for a Game and not elements of a World.  Leaderboards, raids, gear upgrades, skill-sets and character abilities are as well.  They exist to be in careful balance with one another.  Each has a cost attached to it, either directly in the form of an element like mana, or indirectly in terms of a time investment.  Each fills a specific role and each is used to help you win the Game or compete in it more actively.
 
Many older games, like UO and EQ attempted to strike a balance between Game and World, and some of these elements have been carried over to more modern games.  PvP is often a good example of the great synergy between these two opposing forces.  Players begin by battling each other using combat mechanics and rules, the elements of a Game.  Eventually a victor is chosen, he takes the spoils of war from his opponent, and then moves on.
 
But the defeated foe is angry, so they take to the city and shout for help to track down the bandit that stole the merchant's prized possessions.  This is an element of a World, because now there is no telling how the situation will resolve itself.  Will the victim be ignored?  Will players raise an army to track down the bandit?  Will they organize a city-watch to protect incoming merchants?  Or does the bandit have a guild of thieves waiting in the woods to ambush the would-be aid?  Perhaps the merchant's things are already gone - making the entire quest an effort in futility.  As an element of a World, there's no real planning for the outcome because it is entirely unknowable.
 
 
Socializing, however, is one of the easiest elements of a World to create, as the game requires little more than a chat box and possibly a forum to foster its growth.  I've been more interested in the elements that have fallen by the wayside and failed to integrate as well into the Game.  Things that always come to my mind are crafting, human settlement, character building and expansive environments.
 
Crafting has become little more than a byproduct of primary advancement since the advent of WoW, which I sorely miss.  You may see human settlement and say, "Well wait a minute, I know Shadowbane had player-built cities and Eve has player-built space stations!"  That would certainly be true, and while player built houses and cities are important, they do not make up the entirety of human settlement.  In fact cities are simply the mega-centers that spring up naturally when trade between towns becomes most concentrated.  They're built on the backbone of other activities, like mining, farming, production, etc.  When a city is little more than a place to launch battles against opposing cities then it is just an element of a Game.
 
And then there are far more unusual areas of a World to explore like character building.  I do not mean character development where you gain skills or level abilities, which I certainly enjoy, but building up how your character would behave in the MMO.  Are they a priest of a certain religion?  Perhaps they would gain a bonus for each person they convert to their faith, or be forced to fight anyone of an opposing deity.  These elements have no succinct goal or purpose that can be quantified as part of a Game, and thus I feel it only correct to label them as part of a World.
 
Even though elements of a Game and a World both come together in an MMO, I can't help but feel that we've only barely touched on what a real virtual world would be like and what it would offer.  Perhaps we need more titles willing to try tipping the scales in one direction, but there are significant development obstacles to such a goal besides the overwhelming content requirements.
 
Still, a boy can dream.