Keep in mind that that's from the demo, and could simply be a way to stop players from moving from one chunk into an incomplete one. A temporary 'you can't go this way' indicator rather than an actual instance gate. Myself I think it was that, and that it looks like an instance gate was just a poor choice. If you look at the environment surrounding it, it doesn't look like it would have a gate there naturally, it just doesn't fit.
Think about it. If that was there naturally, it would look ugly and unprofessional, look at the amount of blank space at the bottom-right of the gate. It just looks like something that was slapped there to signify an invisible barrier.
Also the game will be more seamless than people think, but not completely. Check out my wall of text on page 5.
Shrug. Believe what you want to believe, I guess there's a slim chance that it was an optical barrier purely for the demo. I myself however am of the same opinion as the people (at least most of them) on GW2Guru were when discussing this topic, and that is that the portals all seen are actual zoning borders, whether that's from outside area into the city or from outside area into an instanced zone or between outside areas.
I played GW and in there the same portals were used in the same manner and location spots, also from one zone to another zone. It didn't trouble me then in GW, zoning didn't trouble me in EQ and AoC, and it doesn't really trouble me in GW2. The return is a stunning looking dynamic world.
Originally posted by Dubhlaith
I could swear I have seen a video of someone walking between regular zones. I would have no idea where to start looking for it, though. Of course, maybe I was wrong about that one too.
Try GW2Guru forums, it's a good place to start any GW2 related search
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Although instancing can have an effect on immersion I seriously don't get why it's such a big deal.. It doesn't effect actual gameplay.. unless you're on a bad network and loading screens take 20mins in which case it's niether the fault of the game or it's loading screens...
Besides does anyone here even know the difference between a "zone" and an "instance" it's all a matter of interpretations since both are technically the same thing. However a Zone implies it's a publically accessible area while an instance implies it is a personal or private area with limited access by other people (usually only people in your group).
Anet made no promise of a "seamless" world they only promised a "persistant" world.
As long as what I'm doing between loading screens is a great deal of fun, I couldn't care less.
Link to the video that has a character going from one zone to another please! And do not link the capital city loading, we have known about that for a long time, and it does not prove that zones are going to have a load screen that we will see. Also I have never said that it is going to be 100% seamless, I know that they have instances for the personal story and dungeons. But that does not mean that the zones are going to have a load screen we see when we go between zones.
Didn't someone already link you to one (at 7:11) and yet you simply dismissed it as non-factual evidence of a static load screen between zones. There's even this video of a person trying to reach the Black Citadel, from the Human starter area and being blocked off by a zone portal (at 5:00), which will obviously come with a loading screen in the full version. So I don't know what anyone else can do, until the open beta arrives and you see it for yourself. Till then I advice you and anyone else just drop this and simple say that the game will have static load screens between every zone transition. If it does (which is likely) then you won't be disappointed and if it doesn't then you'll just be pleasantly surprised.
That's obviously not what he was asking for. A zone block marker and actually porting from zone to zone are two completely different things. He is saying that until we actually see people teleporting from zone to zone via a portal, everyone is merely speculating.
That is exactly what he was asking for. The character walks from one zone to another. We can see the portal. We can see the character walk into the portal. We can see the load screen. The end. There is no discussion. This is known fact. I love what I know of this game, and this is not a problem for me. But we do know there will be load screens when walking from one zone into another. This is not speculation.
Actually that portal is the one that leads to and from Hoelbrak, a capitol city, which he already mentioned we all already know about. He asked for a link that shows someone going between 2 zones with one of them not being a capitol city.
Ah. I see that. Thanks.
Ridiculous norn and their outdoor layouts.
I could swear I have seen a video of someone walking between regular zones. I would have no idea where to start looking for it, though. Of course, maybe I was wrong about that one too.
There are no videos of people walking between regular zones. The demos were all locked to 2 zones, Queensdale and the Blazeridge Steppes in the older one, and the Norn starting area and the land around Lion's Arch (don't know the names of either of those areas) in the newer one. Divinity's Reach and Hoelbrak were accesible but we already knew capitol cities were zoned off.
Anet made no promise of a "seamless" world they only promised a "persistant" world.
As long as what I'm doing between loading screens is a great deal of fun, I couldn't care less.
Yep, same here.
Originally posted by romanator0
There are no videos of people walking between regular zones. The demos were all locked to 2 zones, Queensdale and the Blazeridge Steppes in the older one, and the Norn starting area and the land around Lion's Arch (don't know the names of either of those areas) in the newer one. Divinity's Reach and Hoelbrak were accesible but we already knew capitol cities were zoned off.
Let's make a bet of it. I'm going with that there'll be portals between outside zones, just like GW had and just like ANet dev statements and footage seem to point towards, and you'll keep with saying that all outside areas (or at least most of the maps) will be seamless, with no portals and zoning between area maps.
I'll bookmark this thread and after some time we'll check back and see who was closest to reality
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
That's obviously not what he was asking for. A zone block marker and actually porting from zone to zone are two completely different things. He is saying that until we actually see people teleporting from zone to zone via a portal, everyone is merely speculating.
Originally posted by romanator0
There are no videos of people walking between regular zones. The demos were all locked to 2 zones, Queensdale and the Blazeridge Steppes in the older one, and the Norn starting area and the land around Lion's Arch (don't know the names of either of those areas) in the newer one. Divinity's Reach and Hoelbrak were accesible but we already knew capitol cities were zoned off.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you both for trying to understand what I was saying instead of just pointing to the capital city portal and going see there is a load screen (I honestly thought everyone just decided to forget about gamescom and Divinity’s Reach). I honestly do not care! I just did not like the fact that everyone was holding up their opinion as fact, without the ability to point to any evidence to prove what they were saying is right.
Originally posted by chadatog
We understand that while it's more of a persistent world than Guild Wars, there will still be loading screens between the big zones. About how much time will a normal player spend going through loading screens as they play?
[EricFlannum] It really depends on the player in question, but we try to pace the game such that a player is never required to go through multiple loads in a short period of time. That being said loads are for the most part pretty infrequent unless you are prurposefully bouncing back and forth between maps.
Any way I think this statement from the developer proves that there will be load screens between zones in the game, now I guess we just have to wait to see it in game. I will be interested in seeing how frequent these loads screens will be and how long they last. I honestly would like the game to switch to background loading but I can live with load screens. Since some of the best single players gamer ever, in my eyes, had load screens.
Originally posted by grimm6th
Seriously...are seemless games better than zoned games (retorical question)?...no
Any way I think this statement from the developer proves that there will be load screens between zones in the game, now I guess we just have to wait to see it in game. I will be interested in seeing how frequent these loads screens will be and how long they last. I honestly would like the game to switch to background loading but I can live with load screens. Since some of the best single players gamer ever, in my eyes, had load screens.
Aww and i was just about to paint you a picture. Touche.
I could tell you where and how the loading system works but then again you wouldnt recognize it as a fact since i dont work for ANET. And obviously anyone not working for them has no clue on how MMOs work.
Anyways as i said in my first post in this thread: Dont like loading screens? Buy an SSD drive.
why is that? are you saying that the loading screen is inversely proportionate to hard drive speed?
To the caterpillar it is the end of the world, to the master, it is a butterfly.
I played GW and in there the same portals were used in the same manner [...]
I played GW too, otherwise I wouldn't be as familiar with its lore as I am, and my point was that the portals weren't used in that manner at all. Point me at one portal where they had an ugly amount of space at the side of a portal, there are none in any of the three campaigns, nor in Eye of the North. They always designed the area to be a sort of a 'frame' around the portal. Whereas in the screenshot there's a big amount of black space at the bottom-right that just looks ugly.
If that's a Guild Wars 1-style portal then their art-direction has gone to hell, and considering that we've seen everything opposed to that, I don't think that's the case. If it is, I'll eat my hat. But indeed, to each their own, I just think that it won't have instanced zones in that way. That's just my opinion though based on what a dev said once about the world background loading in chunks.
I played GW and in there the same portals were used in the same manner [...]
I played GW too, otherwise I wouldn't be as familiar with its lore as I am, and my point was that the portals weren't used in that manner at all. Point me at one portal where they had an ugly amount of space at the side of a portal, there are none in any of the three campaigns, nor in Eye of the North. They always designed the area to be a sort of a 'frame' around the portal. Whereas in the screenshot there's a big amount of black space at the bottom-right that just looks ugly.
If that's a Guild Wars 1-style portal then their art-direction has gone to hell, and considering that we've seen everything opposed to that, I don't think that's the case. If it is, I'll eat my hat. But indeed, to each their own, I just think that it won't have instanced zones in that way. That's just my opinion though based on what a dev said once about the world background loading in chunks.
Looking at the picture, I couldn't for the life of me find the blank space to which you were referring. However, I then realized what you must be speaking of is a rock covered in a shadow. Bottom-right corner?
I played GW and in there the same portals were used in the same manner [...]
I played GW too, otherwise I wouldn't be as familiar with its lore as I am, and my point was that the portals weren't used in that manner at all. Point me at one portal where they had an ugly amount of space at the side of a portal, there are none in any of the three campaigns, nor in Eye of the North. They always designed the area to be a sort of a 'frame' around the portal. Whereas in the screenshot there's a big amount of black space at the bottom-right that just looks ugly.
If that's a Guild Wars 1-style portal then their art-direction has gone to hell, and considering that we've seen everything opposed to that, I don't think that's the case. If it is, I'll eat my hat. But indeed, to each their own, I just think that it won't have instanced zones in that way. That's just my opinion though based on what a dev said once about the world background loading in chunks.
It could also be possible that the portal will be there but that particular graphic and design is a place holder to be replaced bya better looking portal.
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.
I played GW and in there the same portals were used in the same manner [...]
I played GW too, otherwise I wouldn't be as familiar with its lore as I am, and my point was that the portals weren't used in that manner at all. Point me at one portal where they had an ugly amount of space at the side of a portal, there are none in any of the three campaigns, nor in Eye of the North. They always designed the area to be a sort of a 'frame' around the portal. Whereas in the screenshot there's a big amount of black space at the bottom-right that just looks ugly.
If that's a Guild Wars 1-style portal then their art-direction has gone to hell, and considering that we've seen everything opposed to that, I don't think that's the case. If it is, I'll eat my hat. But indeed, to each their own, I just think that it won't have instanced zones in that way. That's just my opinion though based on what a dev said once about the world background loading in chunks.
You don't seriously plan to go for that argument as 'proof' that there'll be no portals between outside areas, now, don't you? I mean, seriously? The effing artstyle?
Anyway, you're entitled to whatever you want to believe.
As am I, and I'm going for the more believable dev statements, ingame footage and precedence in GW that all point towards outside areas being zoned and connected with border portals. To each their own.
Originally posted by dinams
here we go again..
People confusing seamless with persistent and not-seamless with instanced..
Ah...facepalm is the best expression to describe this
All too true.
Although they did say in one of the interviews iirc that there would be an upper limit to the number of players that could be in an area, but that that number would be so high that it would be hardly possible to reach that limit.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
That's obviously not what he was asking for. A zone block marker and actually porting from zone to zone are two completely different things. He is saying that until we actually see people teleporting from zone to zone via a portal, everyone is merely speculating.
Originally posted by romanator0
There are no videos of people walking between regular zones. The demos were all locked to 2 zones, Queensdale and the Blazeridge Steppes in the older one, and the Norn starting area and the land around Lion's Arch (don't know the names of either of those areas) in the newer one. Divinity's Reach and Hoelbrak were accesible but we already knew capitol cities were zoned off.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you both for trying to understand what I was saying instead of just pointing to the capital city portal and going see there is a load screen (I honestly thought everyone just decided to forget about gamescom and Divinity’s Reach). I honestly do not care! I just did not like the fact that everyone was holding up their opinion as fact, without the ability to point to any evidence to prove what they were saying is right.
Originally posted by chadatog
We understand that while it's more of a persistent world than Guild Wars, there will still be loading screens between the big zones. About how much time will a normal player spend going through loading screens as they play?
[EricFlannum] It really depends on the player in question, but we try to pace the game such that a player is never required to go through multiple loads in a short period of time. That being said loads are for the most part pretty infrequent unless you are prurposefully bouncing back and forth between maps.
Any way I think this statement from the developer proves that there will be load screens between zones in the game, now I guess we just have to wait to see it in game. I will be interested in seeing how frequent these loads screens will be and how long they last. I honestly would like the game to switch to background loading but I can live with load screens. Since some of the best single players gamer ever, in my eyes, had load screens.
Originally posted by grimm6th
Seriously...are seemless games better than zoned games (retorical question)?...no
I completely agree with grimm6th!
This is either just another troll thread or well, yeah.
I played GW and in there the same portals were used in the same manner [...]
I played GW too, otherwise I wouldn't be as familiar with its lore as I am, and my point was that the portals weren't used in that manner at all. Point me at one portal where they had an ugly amount of space at the side of a portal, there are none in any of the three campaigns, nor in Eye of the North. They always designed the area to be a sort of a 'frame' around the portal. Whereas in the screenshot there's a big amount of black space at the bottom-right that just looks ugly.
If that's a Guild Wars 1-style portal then their art-direction has gone to hell, and considering that we've seen everything opposed to that, I don't think that's the case. If it is, I'll eat my hat. But indeed, to each their own, I just think that it won't have instanced zones in that way. That's just my opinion though based on what a dev said once about the world background loading in chunks.
You don't seriously plan to go for that argument as 'proof' that there'll be no portals between outside areas, now, don't you? I mean, seriously? The effing artstyle?
Anyway, you're entitled to whatever you want to believe.
As am I, and I'm going for the more believable dev statements, ingame footage and precedence in GW that all point towards outside areas being zoned and connected with border portals. To each their own.
Originally posted by dinams
here we go again..
People confusing seamless with persistent and not-seamless with instanced..
Ah...facepalm is the best expression to describe this
All too true.
Although they did say in one of the interviews iirc that there would be an upper limit to the number of players that could be in an area, but that that number would be so high that it would be hardly possible to reach that limit.
So what happens if they somehow hit that upper limit? Do you get a zone isn't available?
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.
I don't have any problem with loading screens, just so often as they aren't long or pop up every 15 seconds. And as long as you don't map travel like a wired crack rabbit there shouldn't. And to have an idea of how often these portals will happen, I present to you the Map of Tyria! It gives you an idea of the size of the zones, where the portals are, and the size of the entire map. Enjoy.
I played GW and in there the same portals were used in the same manner [...]
I played GW too, otherwise I wouldn't be as familiar with its lore as I am, and my point was that the portals weren't used in that manner at all. Point me at one portal where they had an ugly amount of space at the side of a portal, there are none in any of the three campaigns, nor in Eye of the North. They always designed the area to be a sort of a 'frame' around the portal. Whereas in the screenshot there's a big amount of black space at the bottom-right that just looks ugly.
If that's a Guild Wars 1-style portal then their art-direction has gone to hell, and considering that we've seen everything opposed to that, I don't think that's the case. If it is, I'll eat my hat. But indeed, to each their own, I just think that it won't have instanced zones in that way. That's just my opinion though based on what a dev said once about the world background loading in chunks.
You don't seriously plan to go for that argument as 'proof' that there'll be no portals between outside areas, now, don't you? I mean, seriously? The effing artstyle?
Anyway, you're entitled to whatever you want to believe.
As am I, and I'm going for the more believable dev statements, ingame footage and precedence in GW that all point towards outside areas being zoned and connected with border portals. To each their own.
Originally posted by dinams
here we go again..
People confusing seamless with persistent and not-seamless with instanced..
Ah...facepalm is the best expression to describe this
All too true.
Although they did say in one of the interviews iirc that there would be an upper limit to the number of players that could be in an area, but that that number would be so high that it would be hardly possible to reach that limit.
So what happens if they somehow hit that upper limit? Do you get a zone isn't available?
No, you automatically switch to a random server where the zone isn't full.
I don't have any problem with loading screens, just so often as they aren't long or pop up every 15 seconds. And as long as you don't map travel like a wired crack rabbit there shouldn't. And to have an idea of how often these portals will happen, I present to you the Map of Tyria! It gives you an idea of the size of the zones, where the portals are, and the size of the entire map. Enjoy.
Yeah, I have that one bookmarked, or at least the forumthread on GW2Guru where the maker of this map had posted all his links to the maps he gathered and made. I think he did an awesome job, he has as good as everything that can be seen in maps in the footage collected in a stunningly detailed worldmap. Kudos to the guy, he deserves it
Originally posted by Alot
No, you automatically switch to a random server where the zone isn't full.
? I didn't know that, is that true? I assumed that there'd be another instance or such, but it'll be more like you're swapped to another server in the same way that you landed in another district in GW?
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
*prays that zones will be huge and those upper limits in player count will almost never be reached*
I estimate that it takes 4.5 minutes to cross the human starter area from east to west and 3 minutes from north to south, which would make it somewhat larger than Westfall in WoW. The dragonbranded midlevel Charr area is somewhat over 4.5 minutes from north to south when crossed in a straight line.
It's hard to determine what is counted as an area in ANet devs' book - is it 1 area map or a cluster of them, more like a region of areas? - but even, say that a player limit is set on 500 people max, then that would hardly ever be reached for just 1 area.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
*prays that zones will be huge and those upper limits in player count will almost never be reached*
I estimate that it takes 4.5 minutes to cross the human starter area from east to west and 3 minutes from north to south, which would make it somewhat larger than Westfall in WoW. The dragonbranded midlevel Charr area is somewhat over 4.5 minutes from north to south when crossed in a straight line.
It's hard to determine what is counted as an area in ANet devs' book - is it 1 area map or a cluster of them, more like a region of areas? - but even, say that a player limit is set on 500 people max, then that would hardly ever be reached for just 1 area.
I wouldn't put your hopes too high.
The simple fact that their game is B2P instead of P2P means that they're going to have to make sacrifices when it comes to scale.
Larger zones cost more money to create. More players on the same server requires more expensive servers.
ANet and NCSoft will be buying the best they can, but missing 15 bucks per month from all their players means something's gotta give.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
Comments
Shrug. Believe what you want to believe, I guess there's a slim chance that it was an optical barrier purely for the demo. I myself however am of the same opinion as the people (at least most of them) on GW2Guru were when discussing this topic, and that is that the portals all seen are actual zoning borders, whether that's from outside area into the city or from outside area into an instanced zone or between outside areas.
I played GW and in there the same portals were used in the same manner and location spots, also from one zone to another zone. It didn't trouble me then in GW, zoning didn't trouble me in EQ and AoC, and it doesn't really trouble me in GW2. The return is a stunning looking dynamic world.
Try GW2Guru forums, it's a good place to start any GW2 related search
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Although instancing can have an effect on immersion I seriously don't get why it's such a big deal.. It doesn't effect actual gameplay.. unless you're on a bad network and loading screens take 20mins in which case it's niether the fault of the game or it's loading screens...
Besides does anyone here even know the difference between a "zone" and an "instance" it's all a matter of interpretations since both are technically the same thing. However a Zone implies it's a publically accessible area while an instance implies it is a personal or private area with limited access by other people (usually only people in your group).
Anet made no promise of a "seamless" world they only promised a "persistant" world.
As long as what I'm doing between loading screens is a great deal of fun, I couldn't care less.
---
Live a life less ordinary.
There are no videos of people walking between regular zones. The demos were all locked to 2 zones, Queensdale and the Blazeridge Steppes in the older one, and the Norn starting area and the land around Lion's Arch (don't know the names of either of those areas) in the newer one. Divinity's Reach and Hoelbrak were accesible but we already knew capitol cities were zoned off.
Yep, same here.
Let's make a bet of it. I'm going with that there'll be portals between outside zones, just like GW had and just like ANet dev statements and footage seem to point towards, and you'll keep with saying that all outside areas (or at least most of the maps) will be seamless, with no portals and zoning between area maps.
I'll bookmark this thread and after some time we'll check back and see who was closest to reality
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you both for trying to understand what I was saying instead of just pointing to the capital city portal and going see there is a load screen (I honestly thought everyone just decided to forget about gamescom and Divinity’s Reach). I honestly do not care! I just did not like the fact that everyone was holding up their opinion as fact, without the ability to point to any evidence to prove what they were saying is right.
Any way I think this statement from the developer proves that there will be load screens between zones in the game, now I guess we just have to wait to see it in game. I will be interested in seeing how frequent these loads screens will be and how long they last. I honestly would like the game to switch to background loading but I can live with load screens. Since some of the best single players gamer ever, in my eyes, had load screens.
I completely agree with grimm6th!
why is that? are you saying that the loading screen is inversely proportionate to hard drive speed?
To the caterpillar it is the end of the world, to the master, it is a butterfly.
The thread title is one of those times where the difference between English and US English makes me chuckle.
Keep on reaching for that rainbow, OP!
here we go again..
People confusing seamless with persistent and not-seamless with instanced..
Ah...facepalm is the best expression to describe this
"It has potential"
-Second most used phrase on existence
"It sucks"
-Most used phrase on existence
I played GW too, otherwise I wouldn't be as familiar with its lore as I am, and my point was that the portals weren't used in that manner at all. Point me at one portal where they had an ugly amount of space at the side of a portal, there are none in any of the three campaigns, nor in Eye of the North. They always designed the area to be a sort of a 'frame' around the portal. Whereas in the screenshot there's a big amount of black space at the bottom-right that just looks ugly.
If that's a Guild Wars 1-style portal then their art-direction has gone to hell, and considering that we've seen everything opposed to that, I don't think that's the case. If it is, I'll eat my hat. But indeed, to each their own, I just think that it won't have instanced zones in that way. That's just my opinion though based on what a dev said once about the world background loading in chunks.
Looking at the picture, I couldn't for the life of me find the blank space to which you were referring. However, I then realized what you must be speaking of is a rock covered in a shadow. Bottom-right corner?
It could also be possible that the portal will be there but that particular graphic and design is a place holder to be replaced bya better looking portal.
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.
You don't seriously plan to go for that argument as 'proof' that there'll be no portals between outside areas, now, don't you? I mean, seriously? The effing artstyle?
Anyway, you're entitled to whatever you want to believe.
As am I, and I'm going for the more believable dev statements, ingame footage and precedence in GW that all point towards outside areas being zoned and connected with border portals. To each their own.
All too true.
Although they did say in one of the interviews iirc that there would be an upper limit to the number of players that could be in an area, but that that number would be so high that it would be hardly possible to reach that limit.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
This is either just another troll thread or well, yeah.
Free to play means pay to win.
So what happens if they somehow hit that upper limit? Do you get a zone isn't available?
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.
I don't have any problem with loading screens, just so often as they aren't long or pop up every 15 seconds. And as long as you don't map travel like a wired crack rabbit there shouldn't. And to have an idea of how often these portals will happen, I present to you the Map of Tyria! It gives you an idea of the size of the zones, where the portals are, and the size of the entire map. Enjoy.
Disagreement Heirarchy
Blargh, no, not going to bother, actually. I need to learn when to step out of an argument, so I'm stepping out of this one.
Im over it. I think what you quoted seems to tell me the game will be pretty vast and loading screens will be to a minimum.
As far as my original post. I am over it.
Thank you all, I am no longer bummed.:-)
To the caterpillar it is the end of the world, to the master, it is a butterfly.
you had such relevant information that you reversed my attitude. I dig it though....good job
To the caterpillar it is the end of the world, to the master, it is a butterfly.
No, you automatically switch to a random server where the zone isn't full.
Edit: Post number 500!
Yeah, I have that one bookmarked, or at least the forumthread on GW2Guru where the maker of this map had posted all his links to the maps he gathered and made. I think he did an awesome job, he has as good as everything that can be seen in maps in the footage collected in a stunningly detailed worldmap. Kudos to the guy, he deserves it
? I didn't know that, is that true? I assumed that there'd be another instance or such, but it'll be more like you're swapped to another server in the same way that you landed in another district in GW?
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
WAIT WHAT?
Loading screens as well as phasing of public zones?
World layout and mechanics are starting to look a lot like Age of Conan's. V_V
*prays that zones will be huge and those upper limits in player count will almost never be reached*
p.s. Gratz on post count
My brand new bloggity blog.
I estimate that it takes 4.5 minutes to cross the human starter area from east to west and 3 minutes from north to south, which would make it somewhat larger than Westfall in WoW. The dragonbranded midlevel Charr area is somewhat over 4.5 minutes from north to south when crossed in a straight line.
It's hard to determine what is counted as an area in ANet devs' book - is it 1 area map or a cluster of them, more like a region of areas? - but even, say that a player limit is set on 500 people max, then that would hardly ever be reached for just 1 area.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
1. Common knowledge.
2. Phasing Alot don't get? Alot demand explanation!
Edit: To Maverick: Not really districts, because you're on a server that connects all people active in every zone on that server.
I wouldn't put your hopes too high.
The simple fact that their game is B2P instead of P2P means that they're going to have to make sacrifices when it comes to scale.
Larger zones cost more money to create. More players on the same server requires more expensive servers.
ANet and NCSoft will be buying the best they can, but missing 15 bucks per month from all their players means something's gotta give.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")