Mind if I ask what software you used to create it?
I'm working on the world map for a project of my own (daunting task to be sure... but quite fun at the same time), and I'm doing most of it in Photoshop/GIMP. I'm trying to go for a sorta rustic, hand-drawn look, so it's quite a lot of work.
so how do you get around 5000 people who all decide to go to the same store or sit in the same area.
I've been thinking a lot about this and given how most games tend to shudder when you get a large amount of people in one area, how does one handle a single world where anyone can go everywhere?
I can think of many artificial ways of doing it but I think they defeat the intention of "one single world".
The same one that games on ancient 1999 tech did without any problems? By making gameplay design good enough so that you never get 5000 people all going to the same spot all at once, give people enough worthy options to spread them out. Or, do that, AND have code that can support big 500 man battles like Dark Age of Camelot managed to do when many people were still on dial up.
which was what?
I'm doubting that 500 man battles are possible I know they are. I've been in them.
Is it just that they spread everyone out and made available all sorts of resources so that 100 people didn't show up at the blacksmith?
I don't even doubt that it can be done now provided that the avatars weren't too complex.
But if players are looking for a one shard open world without instances like EVE then the possibility of hundreds of people among thousands upon thousands showing up in a small space is there.
Well Darkfall has only two servers without instances, sometimes hundreds of people show up for sieges, but the game handles that alright, and that's real time combat!
In the past, in Dark Age of Camelot's time, they provided a large number of things for people to do and balanced items so that there was no ONE thing that EVERYONE needed. If you wanted a great sword you COULD go raiding (in which case there were dozens of different raids, more added every few months or so) or you could find a crafter (there were about a dozen craftin stations spread out across the land, not including the housing zone) or get it with diamond seals in Darkness Falls (which would attract hundreds of players at a time but still work fine.
So, population was spread between dungeons, overland and underland raiding areas, Darkness Falls, the frontiers, battlegrounds, cities, and housing. By giving people a number of different things to do, all balanced so that one does not DOMINATE, giving multiple ways to achieve the same goal, you spread out the population. But, if everyone wants to go to the same zone at the same time, why stop them?
I would say that's half true. I know a good portion of old school players who have a strong desire for a world of this caliber. The old school mmo market is untapped. The publishers and developers are still trying to cater to the new age mmo gamer. What about the old school gamer? There is still a fairly good portion of players that only play current titles to just play. I really believe if implemented correctly, there would be a mass exodus of players leaving this "wow saturated" market for a title I have described.
Present data that supports that, and you'll find people willing to finance such projects. Personally, I'd be very interested in the charts or data you based that assessment on.
I never said there was any sample data. I just said I know a good portion. Essentially, I'll go round some mmos that I think houses the market that would be interested in an idea. So I'll ask around take a poll in general chat on different servers. It's just based on word of mouth. When I mentioned my idea to my old professor, he thought the old school gamer is an untapped market. He was an indy developer for about 10 years. I don't know the capacity of that market. But I do know it's there. I think the capacity of that market will make or break this design to an invenstor and a developer.
This comes up a lot and you're not the only one to do it. It is kind of a contradiction to say that publishers and developers are a lazy bunch who are just out for the easy money, and then claim there is an untapped market that no one is creating games for. The easy money is in selling to an untapped market because they're the ones who will gladly pay twice as much for half the product/service.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I would say that's half true. I know a good portion of old school players who have a strong desire for a world of this caliber. The old school mmo market is untapped. The publishers and developers are still trying to cater to the new age mmo gamer. What about the old school gamer? There is still a fairly good portion of players that only play current titles to just play. I really believe if implemented correctly, there would be a mass exodus of players leaving this "wow saturated" market for a title I have described.
Present data that supports that, and you'll find people willing to finance such projects. Personally, I'd be very interested in the charts or data you based that assessment on.
I never said there was any sample data. I just said I know a good portion. Essentially, I'll go round some mmos that I think houses the market that would be interested in an idea. So I'll ask around take a poll in general chat on different servers. It's just based on word of mouth. When I mentioned my idea to my old professor, he thought the old school gamer is an untapped market. He was an indy developer for about 10 years. I don't know the capacity of that market. But I do know it's there. I think the capacity of that market will make or break this design to an invenstor and a developer.
This comes up a lot and you're not the only one to do it. It is kind of a contradiction to say that publishers and developers are a lazy bunch who are just out for the easy money, and then claim there is an untapped market that no one is creating games for. The easy money is in selling to an untapped market because they're the ones who will gladly pay twice as much for half the product/service.
Right, unfortunately, the CEOs running the big huge budgets needed for these games don't understant that they'd strike gold catering to a "niche" (a huge niche) instead of trying to compete in the oversaturated WoW clone market. They're just money men, not gamers or developers.
I would say that's half true. I know a good portion of old school players who have a strong desire for a world of this caliber. The old school mmo market is untapped. The publishers and developers are still trying to cater to the new age mmo gamer. What about the old school gamer? There is still a fairly good portion of players that only play current titles to just play. I really believe if implemented correctly, there would be a mass exodus of players leaving this "wow saturated" market for a title I have described.
Present data that supports that, and you'll find people willing to finance such projects. Personally, I'd be very interested in the charts or data you based that assessment on.
I never said there was any sample data. I just said I know a good portion. Essentially, I'll go round some mmos that I think houses the market that would be interested in an idea. So I'll ask around take a poll in general chat on different servers. It's just based on word of mouth. When I mentioned my idea to my old professor, he thought the old school gamer is an untapped market. He was an indy developer for about 10 years. I don't know the capacity of that market. But I do know it's there. I think the capacity of that market will make or break this design to an invenstor and a developer.
This comes up a lot and you're not the only one to do it. It is kind of a contradiction to say that publishers and developers are a lazy bunch who are just out for the easy money, and then claim there is an untapped market that no one is creating games for. The easy money is in selling to an untapped market because they're the ones who will gladly pay twice as much for half the product/service.
Right, unfortunately, the CEOs running the big huge budgets needed for these games don't understant that they'd strike gold catering to a "niche" (a huge niche) instead of trying to compete in the oversaturated WoW clone market. They're just money men, not gamers or developers.
Like the rest, you are saying that the people and corporations who make fortunes off of multi-million dollar investments are not as knowledgeable as you are in regards to where they can 'strike gold' in this market. My suggestion, again, is for you to bring your data to them, explain why it is more accurate and reliable than what their R&S teams have compiled, and those fat cat CEOs will toss buckets of cash in the direction of that that huge niche.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Coming from someone who enjoys the MMO Worlds and Themeparks both for their own reasons, I think the biggest hurdle for developers is creating this massive sand-box world and actually filling it with content.
The map posted is really impressive (well done), but the amount of folks who would be needed to fuel that amount of a game would be a HUGE. The development team for coders/designers/artists might even dwarf Blizzard's size in creating a MMO. In order for anyone to invest that amount of money, they have to have a proven example that it works out there.
Plus another thing working against sand-box MMOs right now is that even though they are very open, they still have to stand-up to the quality of MMOs out these days. Several sand-box games released in the past couple of years have proven that releasing a MMO that was still in the 90's didn't work out that great.
I think over the next couple of years, the lines between theme park and sandbox are going to start blurring. Games like Arch-Age (which I have high hopes for) will start blending together. Large quest lines in sandbox worlds with NPCs that actually have stuff for you to do, and not just a world where you *have* to make your own fun. Then, I think people will start making more open-world type of MMOS.
I would say that's half true. I know a good portion of old school players who have a strong desire for a world of this caliber. The old school mmo market is untapped. The publishers and developers are still trying to cater to the new age mmo gamer. What about the old school gamer? There is still a fairly good portion of players that only play current titles to just play. I really believe if implemented correctly, there would be a mass exodus of players leaving this "wow saturated" market for a title I have described.
Present data that supports that, and you'll find people willing to finance such projects. Personally, I'd be very interested in the charts or data you based that assessment on.
I never said there was any sample data. I just said I know a good portion. Essentially, I'll go round some mmos that I think houses the market that would be interested in an idea. So I'll ask around take a poll in general chat on different servers. It's just based on word of mouth. When I mentioned my idea to my old professor, he thought the old school gamer is an untapped market. He was an indy developer for about 10 years. I don't know the capacity of that market. But I do know it's there. I think the capacity of that market will make or break this design to an invenstor and a developer.
This comes up a lot and you're not the only one to do it. It is kind of a contradiction to say that publishers and developers are a lazy bunch who are just out for the easy money, and then claim there is an untapped market that no one is creating games for. The easy money is in selling to an untapped market because they're the ones who will gladly pay twice as much for half the product/service.
Right, unfortunately, the CEOs running the big huge budgets needed for these games don't understant that they'd strike gold catering to a "niche" (a huge niche) instead of trying to compete in the oversaturated WoW clone market. They're just money men, not gamers or developers.
Like the rest, you are saying that the people and corporations who make fortunes off of multi-million dollar investments are not as knowledgeable as you are in regards to where they can 'strike gold' in this market. My suggestion, again, is for you to bring your data to them, explain why it is more accurate and reliable than what their R&S teams have compiled, and those fat cat CEOs will toss buckets of cash in the direction of that that huge niche.
Yes, I am saying that I know more about a genre I've been heavily invested in for 13 years than CEOs who don't even have a clear concept of what an MMORPG is, much less all the intricate pieces of one. Huge failures like AoC, LotRO, WAR and the like prove the CEOs don't know what they're doing. Meanwhile, companies like CCP and Aventurine are growing and growing.
Coming from someone who enjoys the MMO Worlds and Themeparks both for their own reasons, I think the biggest hurdle for developers is creating this massive sand-box world and actually filling it with content.
The map posted is really impressive (well done), but the amount of folks who would be needed to fuel that amount of a game would be a HUGE. The development team for coders/designers/artists might even dwarf Blizzard's size in creating a MMO. In order for anyone to invest that amount of money, they have to have a proven example that it works out there.
Plus another thing working against sand-box MMOs right now is that even though they are very open, they still have to stand-up to the quality of MMOs out these days. Several sand-box games released in the past couple of years have proven that releasing a MMO that was still in the 90's didn't work out that great.
I think over the next couple of years, the lines between theme park and sandbox are going to start blurring. Games like Arch-Age (which I have high hopes for) will start blending together. Large quest lines in sandbox worlds with NPCs that actually have stuff for you to do, and not just a world where you *have* to make your own fun. Then, I think people will start making more open-world type of MMOS.
At least that's my hope anyways.
Thanks for your comments regarding the map design. This world is designed for a single shard server which means that everyone plays on one server. If this world hosts 100k players it would be enough room in theory. However, this world is designed for a themepark game, not sandbox. Not sure why everyone is saying this map is made for a sandbox game..maybe because they think open directly ties into a sandbox game. The only design element I like from sandbox games is the open world and non restricting zone areas. I personally think themepark mmos are designed better and fit more my taste than a sandbox game. <--- old Eq player for ya
Right, unfortunately, the CEOs running the big huge budgets needed for these games don't understant that they'd strike gold catering to a "niche" (a huge niche) instead of trying to compete in the oversaturated WoW clone market. They're just money men, not gamers or developers.
Like the rest, you are saying that the people and corporations who make fortunes off of multi-million dollar investments are not as knowledgeable as you are in regards to where they can 'strike gold' in this market. My suggestion, again, is for you to bring your data to them, explain why it is more accurate and reliable than what their R&S teams have compiled, and those fat cat CEOs will toss buckets of cash in the direction of that that huge niche.
Thumbs up for this post. I'm sick of people stating that the guys who made a career out of running a game company have no idea what they're talking about compared to the average MMO player/forumgoer.
Right, unfortunately, the CEOs running the big huge budgets needed for these games don't understant that they'd strike gold catering to a "niche" (a huge niche) instead of trying to compete in the oversaturated WoW clone market. They're just money men, not gamers or developers.
Like the rest, you are saying that the people and corporations who make fortunes off of multi-million dollar investments are not as knowledgeable as you are in regards to where they can 'strike gold' in this market. My suggestion, again, is for you to bring your data to them, explain why it is more accurate and reliable than what their R&S teams have compiled, and those fat cat CEOs will toss buckets of cash in the direction of that that huge niche.
Thumbs up for this post. I'm sick of people stating that the guys who made a career out of running a game company have no idea what they're talking about compared to the average MMO player/forumgoer.
The truth is the principle of the industry has averted to a new direction. It use to be about passion and making revenue. Now its all about making money with no passion. If there was passion in the games that the industry is producing we as gamers would see it and respect it. Money is the evil of the world. If I ever get my chance its not about the money its about the passion I have for this genre. But I guess I am a minority here.
I enjoyed looking at your map. Have you thought of including something to compare it with for a sense of scale it? Perhaps one of the continents from WoW that people are familiar with.
On the topic of Mahdran as a world, I'd say that bigger is not necessarily better. Nothing really jumps out at me about this particular world map. I doubt I could pick it out of a pile of procedurally-generated worlds like those of Dwarf Fortress. And with so many areas, can they really all be different from one another? If I make it to King Mynx Necropolis for the very first time after a year of playing, am I really going to be awe-struck by it or is it just going to be a remixed Moonryn Temple with sand and zombies in place of water and mermaids? I think that if you took the southeast island and spent as much time on that as you would have spent on all of Mahdran, you'd end up with a game consisting of 6 fantastic and unique zones rather than dozens and dozens of zones with effort and polish spread very thin.
I also have to question the appeal of a "seamless world" to old-school gamers. Standard procedure for many older MMOs was to funnel you into a mountain pass to go from one zone to the next, and quite a few of them had lengthy loading times between zones as well. I can somewhat see that your style of open world would appeal to some players, although I also see the drawbacks. But I wouldn't imagine that there is any correllation between people who want seamless worlds and people who enjoyed old-school MMOs.
Edit: I wanted to add that I am not 100% on this but I'm almost positive that modern games already spread each shard across multiple servers so that each computer is running a handful of zones. It might have even worked this way back in EQ1.
so how do you get around 5000 people who all decide to go to the same store or sit in the same area.
I've been thinking a lot about this and given how most games tend to shudder when you get a large amount of people in one area, how does one handle a single world where anyone can go everywhere?
I can think of many artificial ways of doing it but I think they defeat the intention of "one single world".
Ah the 'one world' ideaology.....it doesn't work. And unless an exceptionally wealthy game enthusiast gets into production it never will. Do you want to know why huge, open worlds don't work in online games? Too many characters running around, too much going on, tech to support it is either too expensive or doesn't exist yet.
And even if you have the server infrastructure to support it then you still have to actually get to the point that that's a problem. This means dev time. Creating worlds and then populating those worlds is extremely tedious and time consuming. Because it's so time consuming that means it's expensive. Add to the the need for smooth character animations, spells and abilities plus balancing those things, crafting, character creation and so on you start to make things more and more expensive.
Let me clarify: I'm not saying that this can't be done, but I am saying it won't be done because it's just too expensive. You have to lease or create a number of engines and a good graphics engine is expensive no matter how you look at it. Then you have to create a crap load of new code to modify that engine so that it works with your game. Then you have to hire artists and both your concept and modelling artists are expensive....primarily because GOOD artists are hard to find and the process is extremely time consuming.
It all boils down to money. The studios that have the production backing to actually make something like this won't do it for really two reasons: 1. it's too much of a gamble and 2. Trends have shown that even if you make a wide open world the vast majority of people are going to explore most with their main and then after that they're just going to stick to the best areas to play in. Oh, you want dynamic areas that change frequently? That's even more money and nobody has ever done it before, so it's just another gamble. Some games have -tried- to do it, but you can see the scripted nature of things pretty quick.
What you really need to do is just think about it from a creators point of view. If, from previous experience, you -know- that most of your players aren't going to see even 90% of your planned massive world then what motivation do you have for making it? Sure, you're going to please maybe 1-4% of your players, but the rest couldn't give a damn.
Edit: I'm agreeing with the quote, btw. Just in case there's any confusion.
I really dont mind if a game is seamless or not. Id just like more than one way to interact with the world.
Devs spend all this time and money creating a world and my only real interaction with it is killing stuff. Sure a mineral node will spawn somewhere and i can make it despawn, but its not really part of the actual world that was created.
All around me, npcs are rebuilding their barracks decorating their homes, opening up their shops, etc. All I can do is swing my weapon or throw a fireball. Id like to do more in a virtual world than destroy.
Why cant devs make a game where youre not a combat character, but rather just a character that can choose a variety of ways to interact with the world around him? If you want to still be combat, go for it. But if we are talking virtual worlds here, there are tons of other ways to experience it.
I really dont mind if a game is seamless or not. Id just like more than one way to interact with the world.
Devs spend all this time and money creating a world and my only real interaction with it is killing stuff. Sure a mineral node will spawn somewhere and i can make it despawn, but its not really part of the actual world that was created.
All around me, npcs are rebuilding their barracks decorating their homes, opening up their shops, etc. All I can do is swing my weapon or throw a fireball. Id like to do more in a virtual world than destroy.
Why cant devs make a game where youre not a combat character, but rather just a character that can choose a variety of ways to interact with the world around him? If you want to still be combat, go for it. But if we are talking virtual worlds here, there are tons of other ways to experience it.
Games like this already exist, but they aren't 'mainstream'.
Eve is the most notable example.
You're always a capsuleer, but depending on what skills you choose to level first you don't even have to leave a station or fire a weapon.
Doing this is entirely possible in other games, but it again comes down to where you want to spend your money. Do I want to spend more money on combat-oriented combat (majority of gamers) and polish or do I want to spend more money developing more play styles?
This is something that could either cost relatively little or relatively a lot....depends on the level of complexity you want to go for.
Bottom line with everything is money and spending it to please the most people. The people on this website do not represent the majority.
so how do you get around 5000 people who all decide to go to the same store or sit in the same area.
I've been thinking a lot about this and given how most games tend to shudder when you get a large amount of people in one area, how does one handle a single world where anyone can go everywhere?
I can think of many artificial ways of doing it but I think they defeat the intention of "one single world".
The same one that games on ancient 1999 tech did without any problems? By making gameplay design good enough so that you never get 5000 people all going to the same spot all at once, give people enough worthy options to spread them out. Or, do that, AND have code that can support big 500 man battles like Dark Age of Camelot managed to do when many people were still on dial up.
which was what?
I'm doubting that 500 man battles are possible I know they are. I've been in them.
Is it just that they spread everyone out and made available all sorts of resources so that 100 people didn't show up at the blacksmith?
I don't even doubt that it can be done now provided that the avatars weren't too complex.
But if players are looking for a one shard open world without instances like EVE then the possibility of hundreds of people among thousands upon thousands showing up in a small space is there.
Well Darkfall has only two servers without instances, sometimes hundreds of people show up for sieges, but the game handles that alright, and that's real time combat!
In the past, in Dark Age of Camelot's time, they provided a large number of things for people to do and balanced items so that there was no ONE thing that EVERYONE needed. If you wanted a great sword you COULD go raiding (in which case there were dozens of different raids, more added every few months or so) or you could find a crafter (there were about a dozen craftin stations spread out across the land, not including the housing zone) or get it with diamond seals in Darkness Falls (which would attract hundreds of players at a time but still work fine.
So, population was spread between dungeons, overland and underland raiding areas, Darkness Falls, the frontiers, battlegrounds, cities, and housing. By giving people a number of different things to do, all balanced so that one does not DOMINATE, giving multiple ways to achieve the same goal, you spread out the population. But, if everyone wants to go to the same zone at the same time, why stop them?
I had to edit my post there should have been a "not" there. I'm "not" doubting that huge battles or congregations of people can take place.
I was in one of the largest battles that I've ever experienced in an mmo. hundreds. The first onslaught brought down the program but as we died we spawned in the castle and that helped.
But that's not the issue. I don't think you are reading what I'm saying.
First of all that is a huge part of my point. Why stop them? The answer is you shouldn't. Right? I mean, if this is gonig to be one huge open world with every play then it has to be open to everyone to go anywhere.
But that's not the issue.
The issue is that if 300 people decide to go to one small area for whatever reason then you have 300 players who are trying to get into, let's say a small building. Or one small cave.
There is a bank in EQ2 on the "evil" side that is pretty small. Now, what if 500 people decide they need to get into that bank?
Of course, part of the answer is that there should be numerous banks around. But thats' not going to keep people from going to "that one bank".
Now of course I'm throwing out large numbers for illustrative purposes. But if these modern servers can hold severl thousand (10,000?) people and we are talking about eliminating the need for separate servers then how many people are we talking about?
At one time on this "uber server". Again, let's suppose the technology is there and the server wont' crash. We could have multiple starting areas so taht can help.
but at some point a large number of players are going to get wind of some really cool event that some guild is planning and it's not going to be too far fetched to imagine that a large number of players will want to watch/participate.
So again, if there is collision there is going to be a huge bit of traffic. I was once at the Boston Marathon and I literally stood between two parallel streets for over 30 minutes becuase I just couldn't get through. The throng of people was as unpassable as as steel wall.
Have you ever been to a large city during a crowded time? The largest city I've ever been to on a regular basis is New York. there was one day in a summer severla years ago that I had to duck into a coffee shop because I just couldn't make my way down the street. That's how crowded and slow it was.
Or, if there is no collishion these areas are going to be a mish mash of arms and legs.
I can imagine ways to entice players to be in one area or another but as you say "why stop them". And I'm saying "no they shouldn't be stopped. And THAT'S the problem!!!!"
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
so how do you get around 5000 people who all decide to go to the same store or sit in the same area.
I've been thinking a lot about this and given how most games tend to shudder when you get a large amount of people in one area, how does one handle a single world where anyone can go everywhere?
I can think of many artificial ways of doing it but I think they defeat the intention of "one single world".
The same one that games on ancient 1999 tech did without any problems? By making gameplay design good enough so that you never get 5000 people all going to the same spot all at once, give people enough worthy options to spread them out. Or, do that, AND have code that can support big 500 man battles like Dark Age of Camelot managed to do when many people were still on dial up.
which was what?
I'm doubting that 500 man battles are possible I know they are. I've been in them.
Is it just that they spread everyone out and made available all sorts of resources so that 100 people didn't show up at the blacksmith?
I don't even doubt that it can be done now provided that the avatars weren't too complex.
But if players are looking for a one shard open world without instances like EVE then the possibility of hundreds of people among thousands upon thousands showing up in a small space is there.
Well Darkfall has only two servers without instances, sometimes hundreds of people show up for sieges, but the game handles that alright, and that's real time combat!
In the past, in Dark Age of Camelot's time, they provided a large number of things for people to do and balanced items so that there was no ONE thing that EVERYONE needed. If you wanted a great sword you COULD go raiding (in which case there were dozens of different raids, more added every few months or so) or you could find a crafter (there were about a dozen craftin stations spread out across the land, not including the housing zone) or get it with diamond seals in Darkness Falls (which would attract hundreds of players at a time but still work fine.
So, population was spread between dungeons, overland and underland raiding areas, Darkness Falls, the frontiers, battlegrounds, cities, and housing. By giving people a number of different things to do, all balanced so that one does not DOMINATE, giving multiple ways to achieve the same goal, you spread out the population. But, if everyone wants to go to the same zone at the same time, why stop them?
I had to edit my post there should have been a "not" there. I'm "not" doubting that huge battles or congregations of people can take place.
I was in one of the largest battles that I've ever experienced in an mmo. hundreds. The first onslaught brought down the program but as we died we spawned in the castle and that helped.
But that's not the issue. I don't think you are reading what I'm saying.
First of all that is a huge part of my point. Why stop them? The answer is you shouldn't. Right? I mean, if this is gonig to be one huge open world with every play then it has to be open to everyone to go anywhere.
But that's not the issue.
The issue is that if 300 people decide to go to one small area for whatever reason then you have 300 players who are trying to get into, let's say a small building. Or one small cave.
There is a bank in EQ2 on the "evil" side that is pretty small. Now, what if 500 people decide they need to get into that bank?
Of course, part of the answer is that there should be numerous banks around. But thats' not going to keep people from going to "that one bank".
Now of course I'm throwing out large numbers for illustrative purposes. But if these modern servers can hold severl thousand (10,000?) people and we are talking about eliminating the need for separate servers then how many people are we talking about?
At one time on this "uber server". Again, let's suppose the technology is there and the server wont' crash. We could have multiple starting areas so taht can help.
but at some point a large number of players are going to get wind of some really cool event that some guild is planning and it's not going to be too far fetched to imagine that a large number of players will want to watch/participate.
So again, if there is collision there is going to be a huge bit of traffic. I was once at the Boston Marathon and I literally stood between two parallel streets for over 30 minutes becuase I just couldn't get through. The throng of people was as unpassable as as steel wall.
Have you ever been to a large city during a crowded time? The largest city I've ever been to on a regular basis is New York. there was one day in a summer severla years ago that I had to duck into a coffee shop because I just couldn't make my way down the street. That's how crowded and slow it was.
Or, if there is no collishion these areas are going to be a mish mash of arms and legs.
I can imagine ways to entice players to be in one area or another but as you say "why stop them". And I'm saying "no they shouldn't be stopped. And THAT'S the problem!!!!"
The only way to make a truly huge server is to go to CCP and then ask them how they do it.
The idea seems to be a bunch of small servers (one for support major hubs, one supporting several smaller hubs, etc.) all combined together into a meta server.
So far CCP is the only company that has been able to achieve the Eve server. I think they killed a space man and took his technology....for video games.
The only way to make a truly huge server is to go to CCP and then ask them how they do it.
The idea seems to be a bunch of small servers (one for support major hubs, one supporting several smaller hubs, etc.) all combined together into a meta server.
So far CCP is the only company that has been able to achieve the Eve server. I think they killed a space man and took his technology....for video games.
You do realize that in EVE more then 90% of the universe is empty and you need to zone into it right?
I am not knocking CCP as I did play EVE for a few year.EVE has got to be the simplest of programming Ive ever seen in any MMO. The only thing that seperates one zone from the next is the colors of the stars/planet/sun in that system.Granted some system are bigger then others and have varying amounts of planets/moons but this is not the work of geniuses.
So In actually , you could ask CCP how to make 1 zone, then duplicate it 1000 times with small variance, and get people to think you did a good job.
Fallen Earth and Earthrise both feature a single shard seamless world. If a handful of indie companies can pull it off there's no reason why someone who actually has money couldn't.
Fallen Earth and Earthrise both feature a single shard seamless world. If a handful of indie companies can pull it off there's no reason why someone who actually has money couldn't.
They also feature a much smaller player-base. Eventually a server still hits a limit and either has to go into phasing/instancing if you start getting 300+ people in an area, or it just crashes.
Lots of things have been done over the years to help with that, but for it to be optimal is still a ways off.
In other words, a lot of opinions and no evidence. How *many* people have you talked to? 10? 100? 1000? For a population of MILLIONS (2009 research shows 45M people playing MMO in the US), you need at least a random survey of a few thousands to make any informed conclusions.
Talking to a few people does not count.
Nah, this been over the past 3-4 years Ive talked to people. I don't know an exact number but its not been a few at all. Maybe I should make a seervay to truely find out the correct numbers.
Way to go to convince people.
Yes, you should make a survey. Please make sure you follow good survey methodologies, such as random sampling and stuff like that.
BTW, look up Nick Yee, he did a lot of MMORPG survey work. For example, his research shows that the average (or was that median) age of WOW players is ~28, a fact conveniently forgotten by many on this forum when it does not suit their arguments.
I wonder if I could contact him to be interested in doing this poll. I would really like to know a number here. I am not looking for wows numbers. If i could get the old Eq numbers that would be great. And thanks for the info. I don't like half assed work anyways (:
Please do. If you can show concrete numbers, i will be the first to admit there is such a market. Without that, i am not convinced at all. All data is indicating that Wow & Diablo type hack & slash is still kind of games.
I enjoyed looking at your map. Have you thought of including something to compare it with for a sense of scale it? Perhaps one of the continents from WoW that people are familiar with.
The maps dimensions are 10k by 6k5 square miles. Azeroth is 80 square miles. However, for a world of this capacity to exist, the dimensions would have to be at least half the size. It's made big enough for 100k players to play on it in peak hours theorethically. So Kalmindor would fit nicely in one zone, the Jacal Barrens. When you think about it, that is massive. Because of budget costs, time constraints and lack of technology the map could be downsized to 5k by 3.3k miles. If you played Vanguard, Telon is 600 square miles for the whole world.
I think this design hasn't been done before because of it's risks and lack of technology and time to build such a server to hold this. Making a world map for this size is tricky. Initially, I had 6 small world maps. This Pangaea style world is combined of all of those worlds into one. The other way is like what current mmos are doing now. I wanted to make it feel like a large world that is enriched with adventure and something different. I didn't necessarly want to be condemmed to comfority.
Originally posted by Ravik
Originally posted by Eronakis
So, any feedback on the world map it self?
I noticed the mountains up top don't show up on the bottom so I'm assuming the map is only showing part of the world, probably for expansion?
You hit the nail on the head. Here is some lore for ya. At the end of the first age, when the Hawthorne Barbarian Tribe started the first northern expanse expedition they wanted to trek further northward beyond the Frozen Dunes. However, there was an everlasting storm. Curious, two attempted to travel through it. One came back half frozen and the other disapeared. Many men attempt their fate and want to see what is on the other side of this blizzard. Many fail. To this day, no one knows the cause of this Eternal Blizzard. Some say, on the other side is the gateway to the Divine's Throne.
Comments
www.profantasy.com
Well Darkfall has only two servers without instances, sometimes hundreds of people show up for sieges, but the game handles that alright, and that's real time combat!
In the past, in Dark Age of Camelot's time, they provided a large number of things for people to do and balanced items so that there was no ONE thing that EVERYONE needed. If you wanted a great sword you COULD go raiding (in which case there were dozens of different raids, more added every few months or so) or you could find a crafter (there were about a dozen craftin stations spread out across the land, not including the housing zone) or get it with diamond seals in Darkness Falls (which would attract hundreds of players at a time but still work fine.
So, population was spread between dungeons, overland and underland raiding areas, Darkness Falls, the frontiers, battlegrounds, cities, and housing. By giving people a number of different things to do, all balanced so that one does not DOMINATE, giving multiple ways to achieve the same goal, you spread out the population. But, if everyone wants to go to the same zone at the same time, why stop them?
This comes up a lot and you're not the only one to do it. It is kind of a contradiction to say that publishers and developers are a lazy bunch who are just out for the easy money, and then claim there is an untapped market that no one is creating games for. The easy money is in selling to an untapped market because they're the ones who will gladly pay twice as much for half the product/service.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Right, unfortunately, the CEOs running the big huge budgets needed for these games don't understant that they'd strike gold catering to a "niche" (a huge niche) instead of trying to compete in the oversaturated WoW clone market. They're just money men, not gamers or developers.
Kinda related, not part of the discussion but it is related to the title at least.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAr9OhGBrts
Thought it was funny. It's from big bang theory where one guy tries to convience a girl that MMORPG's aren't a game but a world. See it fits :P
Help me Bioware, you're my only hope.
Is ToR going to be good? Dude it's Bioware making a freaking star wars game, all signs point to awesome. -G4tv MMo report.
Like the rest, you are saying that the people and corporations who make fortunes off of multi-million dollar investments are not as knowledgeable as you are in regards to where they can 'strike gold' in this market. My suggestion, again, is for you to bring your data to them, explain why it is more accurate and reliable than what their R&S teams have compiled, and those fat cat CEOs will toss buckets of cash in the direction of that that huge niche.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Coming from someone who enjoys the MMO Worlds and Themeparks both for their own reasons, I think the biggest hurdle for developers is creating this massive sand-box world and actually filling it with content.
The map posted is really impressive (well done), but the amount of folks who would be needed to fuel that amount of a game would be a HUGE. The development team for coders/designers/artists might even dwarf Blizzard's size in creating a MMO. In order for anyone to invest that amount of money, they have to have a proven example that it works out there.
Plus another thing working against sand-box MMOs right now is that even though they are very open, they still have to stand-up to the quality of MMOs out these days. Several sand-box games released in the past couple of years have proven that releasing a MMO that was still in the 90's didn't work out that great.
I think over the next couple of years, the lines between theme park and sandbox are going to start blurring. Games like Arch-Age (which I have high hopes for) will start blending together. Large quest lines in sandbox worlds with NPCs that actually have stuff for you to do, and not just a world where you *have* to make your own fun. Then, I think people will start making more open-world type of MMOS.
At least that's my hope anyways.
Yes, I am saying that I know more about a genre I've been heavily invested in for 13 years than CEOs who don't even have a clear concept of what an MMORPG is, much less all the intricate pieces of one. Huge failures like AoC, LotRO, WAR and the like prove the CEOs don't know what they're doing. Meanwhile, companies like CCP and Aventurine are growing and growing.
Thanks for your comments regarding the map design. This world is designed for a single shard server which means that everyone plays on one server. If this world hosts 100k players it would be enough room in theory. However, this world is designed for a themepark game, not sandbox. Not sure why everyone is saying this map is made for a sandbox game..maybe because they think open directly ties into a sandbox game. The only design element I like from sandbox games is the open world and non restricting zone areas. I personally think themepark mmos are designed better and fit more my taste than a sandbox game. <--- old Eq player for ya
Thumbs up for this post. I'm sick of people stating that the guys who made a career out of running a game company have no idea what they're talking about compared to the average MMO player/forumgoer.
The truth is the principle of the industry has averted to a new direction. It use to be about passion and making revenue. Now its all about making money with no passion. If there was passion in the games that the industry is producing we as gamers would see it and respect it. Money is the evil of the world. If I ever get my chance its not about the money its about the passion I have for this genre. But I guess I am a minority here.
I enjoyed looking at your map. Have you thought of including something to compare it with for a sense of scale it? Perhaps one of the continents from WoW that people are familiar with.
On the topic of Mahdran as a world, I'd say that bigger is not necessarily better. Nothing really jumps out at me about this particular world map. I doubt I could pick it out of a pile of procedurally-generated worlds like those of Dwarf Fortress. And with so many areas, can they really all be different from one another? If I make it to King Mynx Necropolis for the very first time after a year of playing, am I really going to be awe-struck by it or is it just going to be a remixed Moonryn Temple with sand and zombies in place of water and mermaids? I think that if you took the southeast island and spent as much time on that as you would have spent on all of Mahdran, you'd end up with a game consisting of 6 fantastic and unique zones rather than dozens and dozens of zones with effort and polish spread very thin.
I also have to question the appeal of a "seamless world" to old-school gamers. Standard procedure for many older MMOs was to funnel you into a mountain pass to go from one zone to the next, and quite a few of them had lengthy loading times between zones as well. I can somewhat see that your style of open world would appeal to some players, although I also see the drawbacks. But I wouldn't imagine that there is any correllation between people who want seamless worlds and people who enjoyed old-school MMOs.
Edit: I wanted to add that I am not 100% on this but I'm almost positive that modern games already spread each shard across multiple servers so that each computer is running a handful of zones. It might have even worked this way back in EQ1.
I noticed the mountains up top don't show up on the bottom so I'm assuming the map is only showing part of the world, probably for expansion?
Make games you want to play.
http://www.youtube.com/user/RavikAztar
Ah the 'one world' ideaology.....it doesn't work. And unless an exceptionally wealthy game enthusiast gets into production it never will. Do you want to know why huge, open worlds don't work in online games? Too many characters running around, too much going on, tech to support it is either too expensive or doesn't exist yet.
And even if you have the server infrastructure to support it then you still have to actually get to the point that that's a problem. This means dev time. Creating worlds and then populating those worlds is extremely tedious and time consuming. Because it's so time consuming that means it's expensive. Add to the the need for smooth character animations, spells and abilities plus balancing those things, crafting, character creation and so on you start to make things more and more expensive.
Let me clarify: I'm not saying that this can't be done, but I am saying it won't be done because it's just too expensive. You have to lease or create a number of engines and a good graphics engine is expensive no matter how you look at it. Then you have to create a crap load of new code to modify that engine so that it works with your game. Then you have to hire artists and both your concept and modelling artists are expensive....primarily because GOOD artists are hard to find and the process is extremely time consuming.
It all boils down to money. The studios that have the production backing to actually make something like this won't do it for really two reasons: 1. it's too much of a gamble and 2. Trends have shown that even if you make a wide open world the vast majority of people are going to explore most with their main and then after that they're just going to stick to the best areas to play in. Oh, you want dynamic areas that change frequently? That's even more money and nobody has ever done it before, so it's just another gamble. Some games have -tried- to do it, but you can see the scripted nature of things pretty quick.
What you really need to do is just think about it from a creators point of view. If, from previous experience, you -know- that most of your players aren't going to see even 90% of your planned massive world then what motivation do you have for making it? Sure, you're going to please maybe 1-4% of your players, but the rest couldn't give a damn.
Edit: I'm agreeing with the quote, btw. Just in case there's any confusion.
I really dont mind if a game is seamless or not. Id just like more than one way to interact with the world.
Devs spend all this time and money creating a world and my only real interaction with it is killing stuff. Sure a mineral node will spawn somewhere and i can make it despawn, but its not really part of the actual world that was created.
All around me, npcs are rebuilding their barracks decorating their homes, opening up their shops, etc. All I can do is swing my weapon or throw a fireball. Id like to do more in a virtual world than destroy.
Why cant devs make a game where youre not a combat character, but rather just a character that can choose a variety of ways to interact with the world around him? If you want to still be combat, go for it. But if we are talking virtual worlds here, there are tons of other ways to experience it.
Games like this already exist, but they aren't 'mainstream'.
Eve is the most notable example.
You're always a capsuleer, but depending on what skills you choose to level first you don't even have to leave a station or fire a weapon.
Doing this is entirely possible in other games, but it again comes down to where you want to spend your money. Do I want to spend more money on combat-oriented combat (majority of gamers) and polish or do I want to spend more money developing more play styles?
This is something that could either cost relatively little or relatively a lot....depends on the level of complexity you want to go for.
Bottom line with everything is money and spending it to please the most people. The people on this website do not represent the majority.
I had to edit my post there should have been a "not" there. I'm "not" doubting that huge battles or congregations of people can take place.
I was in one of the largest battles that I've ever experienced in an mmo. hundreds. The first onslaught brought down the program but as we died we spawned in the castle and that helped.
But that's not the issue. I don't think you are reading what I'm saying.
First of all that is a huge part of my point. Why stop them? The answer is you shouldn't. Right? I mean, if this is gonig to be one huge open world with every play then it has to be open to everyone to go anywhere.
But that's not the issue.
The issue is that if 300 people decide to go to one small area for whatever reason then you have 300 players who are trying to get into, let's say a small building. Or one small cave.
There is a bank in EQ2 on the "evil" side that is pretty small. Now, what if 500 people decide they need to get into that bank?
Of course, part of the answer is that there should be numerous banks around. But thats' not going to keep people from going to "that one bank".
Now of course I'm throwing out large numbers for illustrative purposes. But if these modern servers can hold severl thousand (10,000?) people and we are talking about eliminating the need for separate servers then how many people are we talking about?
At one time on this "uber server". Again, let's suppose the technology is there and the server wont' crash. We could have multiple starting areas so taht can help.
but at some point a large number of players are going to get wind of some really cool event that some guild is planning and it's not going to be too far fetched to imagine that a large number of players will want to watch/participate.
So again, if there is collision there is going to be a huge bit of traffic. I was once at the Boston Marathon and I literally stood between two parallel streets for over 30 minutes becuase I just couldn't get through. The throng of people was as unpassable as as steel wall.
Have you ever been to a large city during a crowded time? The largest city I've ever been to on a regular basis is New York. there was one day in a summer severla years ago that I had to duck into a coffee shop because I just couldn't make my way down the street. That's how crowded and slow it was.
Or, if there is no collishion these areas are going to be a mish mash of arms and legs.
I can imagine ways to entice players to be in one area or another but as you say "why stop them". And I'm saying "no they shouldn't be stopped. And THAT'S the problem!!!!"
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Nice map.
Though if you were ever to have naval battle pvp,( I know you said it was for EQ players )it would need bigger bodies of water in the middle
The only way to make a truly huge server is to go to CCP and then ask them how they do it.
The idea seems to be a bunch of small servers (one for support major hubs, one supporting several smaller hubs, etc.) all combined together into a meta server.
So far CCP is the only company that has been able to achieve the Eve server. I think they killed a space man and took his technology....for video games.
You do realize that in EVE more then 90% of the universe is empty and you need to zone into it right?
I am not knocking CCP as I did play EVE for a few year.EVE has got to be the simplest of programming Ive ever seen in any MMO. The only thing that seperates one zone from the next is the colors of the stars/planet/sun in that system.Granted some system are bigger then others and have varying amounts of planets/moons but this is not the work of geniuses.
So In actually , you could ask CCP how to make 1 zone, then duplicate it 1000 times with small variance, and get people to think you did a good job.
Fallen Earth and Earthrise both feature a single shard seamless world. If a handful of indie companies can pull it off there's no reason why someone who actually has money couldn't.
They also feature a much smaller player-base. Eventually a server still hits a limit and either has to go into phasing/instancing if you start getting 300+ people in an area, or it just crashes.
Lots of things have been done over the years to help with that, but for it to be optimal is still a ways off.
Please do. If you can show concrete numbers, i will be the first to admit there is such a market. Without that, i am not convinced at all. All data is indicating that Wow & Diablo type hack & slash is still kind of games.
The maps dimensions are 10k by 6k5 square miles. Azeroth is 80 square miles. However, for a world of this capacity to exist, the dimensions would have to be at least half the size. It's made big enough for 100k players to play on it in peak hours theorethically. So Kalmindor would fit nicely in one zone, the Jacal Barrens. When you think about it, that is massive. Because of budget costs, time constraints and lack of technology the map could be downsized to 5k by 3.3k miles. If you played Vanguard, Telon is 600 square miles for the whole world.
I think this design hasn't been done before because of it's risks and lack of technology and time to build such a server to hold this. Making a world map for this size is tricky. Initially, I had 6 small world maps. This Pangaea style world is combined of all of those worlds into one. The other way is like what current mmos are doing now. I wanted to make it feel like a large world that is enriched with adventure and something different. I didn't necessarly want to be condemmed to comfority.
You hit the nail on the head. Here is some lore for ya. At the end of the first age, when the Hawthorne Barbarian Tribe started the first northern expanse expedition they wanted to trek further northward beyond the Frozen Dunes. However, there was an everlasting storm. Curious, two attempted to travel through it. One came back half frozen and the other disapeared. Many men attempt their fate and want to see what is on the other side of this blizzard. Many fail. To this day, no one knows the cause of this Eternal Blizzard. Some say, on the other side is the gateway to the Divine's Throne.