"Are there going to be loading screens? Is it a completely seamless world?
There are loading screens when you travel between waypoints within a zone. Between some zones there are portals which will trigger a loading screen like in Guild Wars. Save for access to cities and outposts, portals are rare."
Don't forget that about one-third of the content takes place underwater, so underwater areas in a zone also contribute to size and amount of content.
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.
Oh, it isn't about hopes being (unrealistically) high. I mean, I didn't find GW nor its expansions exactly small games or such, and this applies even more to GW2: its world will be 1.25-1.5 times the size that WoW vanilla was, underwater areas included.
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."
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.
Not necessarily, greatly in part because the (in)famous "we need your sub money or servers cannot be held on-line" is a myth nowadays and sub money is merely a constant income for the devs. The 90s are over and servers no longer cost their weight in gold, as the saying goes. After all, Anet wouldn't be going for persistent world approach if it was an impossibility on their server cost without subs.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
As long as you don't portal into completely different areas that are nowhere near eachother on a geographical map I don't care to much as long as the loading times aren't obscene.
As long as you don't portal into completely different areas that are nowhere near eachother on a geographical map I don't care to much as long as the loading times aren't obscene.
*Cough* Shogun 2 Total War *Cough*.
In the videos you can see the loading times are fairly short.
Edit: To Maverick: Not really districts, because you're on a server that connects all people active in every zone on that server.
I mean phasing of public zones like in AoC: when a zone has a max player count the game creates a fresh copy of that zone to distribute the player load. i.e. You might be playing in Hurpmaderpa Hills A, while your friends are in Hurpmaderpa Hills B.
Edit: To Maverick: Not really districts, because you're on a server that connects all people active in every zone on that server.
I mean phasing of public zones like in AoC: when a zone has a max player count the game creates a fresh copy of that zone to distribute the player load. i.e. You might be playing in Hurpmaderpa Hills A, while your friends are in Hurpmaderpa Hills B.
Hope it won't be like that.
No it doesn't work like that, it's when you enter a zone:
For example, you are on (Server) Cute Squirrel, in the zone Chocolate Mushroom Forest and you walk into Furrball's Pony Paradise, but on your server Furrball's Pony Paradise is full, so while you are entering the zone you may get a loading screen because you're being connected to a different (and random) server where the zone isn't full.
It's likely that everyone in your party (if you are in one) will go into the same zone in the same server, and that you can freely switch to another server where the zone you're in isn't full.
No it doesn't work like that, it's when you enter a zone:
For example, you are on (Server) Cute Squirrel, in the zone Chocolate Mushroom Forest and you walk into Furrball's Pony Paradise, but on your server Furrball's Pony Paradise is full, so while you are entering the zone you may get a loading screen because you're being connected to a different (and random) server where the zone isn't full.
It's likely that everyone in your party (if you are in one) will go into the same zone in the same server, and that you can freely switch to another server where the zone you're in isn't full.
This is new to me, or maybe I didn't pick this up when I read the Q&A interviews about this topic.
It leaves me with 2 questions though:
- when you're moved to the same area on another server, won't you suffer the World vs World PvP block off that happens whenever you switch servers, in that you won't be able to join world vs world pvp by a circumstance that was out of your control?
- when you enter another area, will you switch back to your own server or will you stay at that other server? In fact, will you be able to select your server whenever you portal zone between areas, just like you could select your district instance 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."
Edit: To Maverick: Not really districts, because you're on a server that connects all people active in every zone on that server.
I mean phasing of public zones like in AoC: when a zone has a max player count the game creates a fresh copy of that zone to distribute the player load. i.e. You might be playing in Hurpmaderpa Hills A, while your friends are in Hurpmaderpa Hills B.
Hope it won't be like that.
No it doesn't work like that, it's when you enter a zone:
For example, you are on Server Cute Squirrel, in the zone Chocolate Mushroom Forest and you walk into Furrball's Pony Paradise, but on your server Furrball's Pony Paradise is full, so while you are entering the zone you may get a loading screen because you're being connected to a different (and random) server where the zone isn't full.
Are you serial? 0_0
Hmmf, I don't like that either. Bad call when you want to nurture server communities. Hope it won't happen so often.
p.s. I wonder how they will combine that with the bonusses your world gets if you are winning in WvWvW.
p.p.s. the 'perpetuality' bit does get a dent by this.
No it doesn't work like that, it's when you enter a zone:
For example, you are on (Server) Cute Squirrel, in the zone Chocolate Mushroom Forest and you walk into Furrball's Pony Paradise, but on your server Furrball's Pony Paradise is full, so while you are entering the zone you may get a loading screen because you're being connected to a different (and random) server where the zone isn't full.
It's likely that everyone in your party (if you are in one) will go into the same zone in the same server, and that you can freely switch to another server where the zone you're in isn't full.
This is new to me, or maybe I didn't pick this up when I read the Q&A interviews about this topic.
It leaves me with 2 questions though:
- when you're moved to the same area on another server, won't you suffer the World vs World PvP block off that happens whenever you switch servers, in that you won't be able to join world vs world pvp by a circumstance that was out of your control?
- when you enter another area, will you switch back to your own server or will you stay at that other server? In fact, will you be able to select your server whenever you portal zone between areas, just like you could select your district instance in GW?
-Well, you are automatically switched to a random server, so I guess the penalty for manually switching servers doesn't occur in this case.
-I don't know, but since ArenaNet is all huggy about community-building and such I suspect something like that may be in place. And: In GW1 if a district was full and you entered a city you would automatically be directed to a random district that wasn't full. Imagine how annoying it would be if you enter a portal and a menu pops up saying: "Please select a different server".
Edit: To Maverick: Not really districts, because you're on a server that connects all people active in every zone on that server.
I mean phasing of public zones like in AoC: when a zone has a max player count the game creates a fresh copy of that zone to distribute the player load. i.e. You might be playing in Hurpmaderpa Hills A, while your friends are in Hurpmaderpa Hills B.
Hope it won't be like that.
No it doesn't work like that, it's when you enter a zone:
For example, you are on Server Cute Squirrel, in the zone Chocolate Mushroom Forest and you walk into Furrball's Pony Paradise, but on your server Furrball's Pony Paradise is full, so while you are entering the zone you may get a loading screen because you're being connected to a different (and random) server where the zone isn't full.
Are you serial? 0_0
Hmmf, I don't like that either. Bad call when you want to nurture server communities. Hope it won't happen so often.
p.s. I wonder how they will combine that with the bonusses your world gets if you are winning in WvWvW.
p.p.s. the 'perpetuality' bit does get a dent by this.
Yeah, I don't agree with Alot's interpretation of the information at hand. I don't think that any of the interviews/articles on the subject particularly point toward this being the case. I am of course open to correction.
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.
We have no idea what happens when you enter a zone that is full. We only have the information that the population caps are very high and ArenaNet expects them to be hit very rarely if ever at all. No information was given about what happens when zone caps are hit.
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.
Edit: Post number 500!
Quote, s'il vous plait?
A quote I cannot find, but on GuildWars2Guru it is the general consensus that the system works like that.
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.
Edit: Post number 500!
Quote, s'il vous plait?
A quote I cannot find, but on GuildWars2Guru it is the general consensus that the system works like that.
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.
Edit: Post number 500!
Quote, s'il vous plait?
A quote I cannot find, but on GuildWars2Guru it is the general consensus that the system works like that.
I think the most logical and likely solution is that if you attempt to enter an area that is full, the game merely cancels your account, and when you try to log back in you get a message telling you "Don't be such a smartass and prove that our counts on likely server loads was wrong."
That way, you don't have to worry about being in another server, being phased, or waiting in a queue.
Also, Arenanet gets another (insert game price) dollars if you want to play again. Everybody wins!
I think the most logical and likely solution is that if you attempt to enter an area that is full, the game merely cancels your account, and when you try to log back in you get a message telling you "Don't be such a smartass and prove that our counts on likely server loads was wrong."
That way, you don't have to worry about being in another server, being phased, or waiting in a queue.
Also, Arenanet gets another (insert game price) dollars if you want to play again. Everybody wins!
In an alternate, Alice-in-Wonderland-style delirious world that would probably the best solution implemented
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."
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.
I am curious how did you come up with this viewpoint?
Do you live in an alternate universe where servers are extremely expensive? I work in the IT industry and I have 3 servers in my garage that I use for my business, and guess what they were not super expensive to buy. I also upgrade the servers for my clients and those servers do not cost them an arm and a leg. So where you did come up with the idea servers are still really expensive now days?
From a interivew with a ANet employee:
3. How big are the maps? Let’s say you walk from the most northern to the most southern point – how long will that take? Half an hour? Or more?
This is a tough one to answer. In a single map (which is just a small part of Tyria) there are a lot of things that can affect your run time, such as natural obstacles, monster encounters, character level, and the general shape of the map. I tried it out for you guys on my current map and, being in a familiar setting, running straight across, at the upper level range and only fighting what I couldn’t avoid, I made it across the map in about 15 minutes.
So what was that about large zones cost money to create and something has to give?
Originally posted by SonicTHI
Anyways as i said in my first post in this thread: Dont like loading screens? Buy an SSD drive.
Are you honestly saying that if someone bought a SSD drive that it would get rid of the all load screens? Let’s take LOTRO for example there is a portal that takes you from Ered Luin to the shire (which is what we are talking about in GW2), are you really saying that a SSD drive will remove that load screen and make it so it is background loaded?
I am not talking about slow load times which your hardware impacts, I am talking about how the game is designed. My laptop has a SSD and the load screen from Ered Luin to the Shire goes really fast but there still is a load screen. Now do you understand what I am talking about here? I am talking about background loading that you never see versus load screens that you have to look at. And I was asking for proof that GW2 has load screens we will see each time we change zones, which was provided.
So again are you really telling me that a SSD card would make it so I never have to see a load screen in GW2. If so I only have one thing to say….thanks for the laugh.
Originally posted by Meowhead
I think the most logical and likely solution is that if you attempt to enter an area that is full, the game merely cancels your account, and when you try to log back in you get a message telling you "Don't be such a smartass and prove that our counts on likely server loads was wrong."
That way, you don't have to worry about being in another server, being phased, or waiting in a queue.
Also, Arenanet gets another (insert game price) dollars if you want to play again. Everybody wins!
Oh I love this idea; ANet should add a tag that says “thanks go to Meowhead at MMORPG for the suggestion”. LOL
Oh, and just to add to the discussion, I guess, I think more likely than switching servers is an ordinary queue. He said there's no districting, and switching servers actually sounds a little ridiculous to me. They expect the zone cap to be rarely if ever reached, so a queue seems like the only thing left.
Perhaps if there is a queue, you might be presented with the option of changing servers. That actually sounds very reasonable. Perhaps if your server is overpopulated, you could even switch with no penalty, assuming there normally is one.
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
3. How big are the maps? Let’s say you walk from the most northern to the most southern point – how long will that take? Half an hour? Or more?
This is a tough one to answer. In a single map (which is just a small part of Tyria) there are a lot of things that can affect your run time, such as natural obstacles, monster encounters, character level, and the general shape of the map. I tried it out for you guys on my current map and, being in a familiar setting, running straight across, at the upper level range and only fighting what I couldn’t avoid, I made it across the map in about 15 minutes.
So what was that about large zones cost money to create and something has to give?
I just wanted to react upon this point - for the rest I agree that the size of the maps has nothing to do with money ANet may or may not have.
As for the 15 minutes, it reminds me of the remark someone made of his playtesting in SWTOR where it took him a small hour to cross Hutta, an origin world, from one end to the other. Fighting, having to avoid obstacles or any other sidetracking, it all adds time and makes it so that the end result time isn't the pure net crossing time, ie the time it'd take at normal speed from one end to the other if you could run the distance in as straight and unhindered a way as a bird flies it.
For SWTOR's Hutta, from everything that's known so far it's far likelier that the pure crossing time is more something between 7-10 minutes.
As for GW2, all the maps I've seen so far have a calculated pure crossing time of 3-4.5 minutes.
To compare: in WoW the Westfall zone from east to west end is like 3m40s and Kalimdor is from west to east coast 15-18 minutes and from north to south coast 45 minutes.
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."
Obviously, I'd prefer a seamless world, but I don't really care.
I have to think positively about it. WoW has been doing seamless world for like 7 years now. So there's simply no way that it's just that ArenaNet doesn't know how to do it. They have to be doing a zoned world for a very good reason. Whether it be because of the autosidekicking down in level in a zone, or so that they can maximize performance, or so they can have wildly different environments, or whatever, I trust that it's in the best interests of the game.
And to go a step further and put a silver lining on it, I think you have to give ArenaNet props for doing it. Things like no endgame raiding, no mounts, no dueling, no seamless zones. These are all potentially very unpopular decisions. It shows some courage that ArenaNet is willing to do what they think they have to in order to make what they think is the best game they can make.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Comments
From GuildWars2Wiki.com:
"Are there going to be loading screens? Is it a completely seamless world?
There are loading screens when you travel between waypoints within a zone. Between some zones there are portals which will trigger a loading screen like in Guild Wars. Save for access to cities and outposts, portals are rare."
Don't forget that about one-third of the content takes place underwater, so underwater areas in a zone also contribute to size and amount of content.
Oh, it isn't about hopes being (unrealistically) high. I mean, I didn't find GW nor its expansions exactly small games or such, and this applies even more to GW2: its world will be 1.25-1.5 times the size that WoW vanilla was, underwater areas included.
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."
As long as you don't portal into completely different areas that are nowhere near eachother on a geographical map I don't care to much as long as the loading times aren't obscene.
*Cough* Shogun 2 Total War *Cough*.
In the videos you can see the loading times are fairly short.
I mean phasing of public zones like in AoC: when a zone has a max player count the game creates a fresh copy of that zone to distribute the player load. i.e. You might be playing in Hurpmaderpa Hills A, while your friends are in Hurpmaderpa Hills B.
Hope it won't be like that.
My brand new bloggity blog.
No it doesn't work like that, it's when you enter a zone:
For example, you are on (Server) Cute Squirrel, in the zone Chocolate Mushroom Forest and you walk into Furrball's Pony Paradise, but on your server Furrball's Pony Paradise is full, so while you are entering the zone you may get a loading screen because you're being connected to a different (and random) server where the zone isn't full.
It's likely that everyone in your party (if you are in one) will go into the same zone in the same server, and that you can freely switch to another server where the zone you're in isn't full.
This is new to me, or maybe I didn't pick this up when I read the Q&A interviews about this topic.
It leaves me with 2 questions though:
- when you're moved to the same area on another server, won't you suffer the World vs World PvP block off that happens whenever you switch servers, in that you won't be able to join world vs world pvp by a circumstance that was out of your control?
- when you enter another area, will you switch back to your own server or will you stay at that other server? In fact, will you be able to select your server whenever you portal zone between areas, just like you could select your district instance 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."
Are you serial? 0_0
Hmmf, I don't like that either. Bad call when you want to nurture server communities. Hope it won't happen so often.
p.s. I wonder how they will combine that with the bonusses your world gets if you are winning in WvWvW.
p.p.s. the 'perpetuality' bit does get a dent by this.
My brand new bloggity blog.
-Well, you are automatically switched to a random server, so I guess the penalty for manually switching servers doesn't occur in this case.
-I don't know, but since ArenaNet is all huggy about community-building and such I suspect something like that may be in place. And: In GW1 if a district was full and you entered a city you would automatically be directed to a random district that wasn't full. Imagine how annoying it would be if you enter a portal and a menu pops up saying: "Please select a different server".
Wouldt a seamless world compromise Anet's vision of creating a game that dosen't need a monster PC to be played at high graphics?
My son. The day you were born the very staff of Blizzard whispered the name, profit.
Yeah, I don't agree with Alot's interpretation of the information at hand. I don't think that any of the interviews/articles on the subject particularly point toward this being the case. I am of course open to correction.
Quote, s'il vous plait?
We have no idea what happens when you enter a zone that is full. We only have the information that the population caps are very high and ArenaNet expects them to be hit very rarely if ever at all. No information was given about what happens when zone caps are hit.
The game is not out yet.
Currently Play: ?
Occasionally Play: Champions, Pirates of the Burning Sea, WOW, EVE ONLINE
A quote I cannot find, but on GuildWars2Guru it is the general consensus that the system works like that.
Follow this thread.
...You have no replies to the thread yet.
That's why I said "Follow", I made the thread like a few minutes before my earlier post.
I think the most logical and likely solution is that if you attempt to enter an area that is full, the game merely cancels your account, and when you try to log back in you get a message telling you "Don't be such a smartass and prove that our counts on likely server loads was wrong."
That way, you don't have to worry about being in another server, being phased, or waiting in a queue.
Also, Arenanet gets another (insert game price) dollars if you want to play again. Everybody wins!
In an alternate, Alice-in-Wonderland-style delirious world that would probably the best solution implemented
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."
I am curious how did you come up with this viewpoint?
Do you live in an alternate universe where servers are extremely expensive? I work in the IT industry and I have 3 servers in my garage that I use for my business, and guess what they were not super expensive to buy. I also upgrade the servers for my clients and those servers do not cost them an arm and a leg. So where you did come up with the idea servers are still really expensive now days?
From a interivew with a ANet employee:
3. How big are the maps? Let’s say you walk from the most northern to the most southern point – how long will that take? Half an hour? Or more?
This is a tough one to answer. In a single map (which is just a small part of Tyria) there are a lot of things that can affect your run time, such as natural obstacles, monster encounters, character level, and the general shape of the map. I tried it out for you guys on my current map and, being in a familiar setting, running straight across, at the upper level range and only fighting what I couldn’t avoid, I made it across the map in about 15 minutes.
http://www.tyria.eu/community/interview-mit-leah-rivera-englisch/
So what was that about large zones cost money to create and something has to give?
Are you honestly saying that if someone bought a SSD drive that it would get rid of the all load screens? Let’s take LOTRO for example there is a portal that takes you from Ered Luin to the shire (which is what we are talking about in GW2), are you really saying that a SSD drive will remove that load screen and make it so it is background loaded?
I am not talking about slow load times which your hardware impacts, I am talking about how the game is designed. My laptop has a SSD and the load screen from Ered Luin to the Shire goes really fast but there still is a load screen. Now do you understand what I am talking about here? I am talking about background loading that you never see versus load screens that you have to look at. And I was asking for proof that GW2 has load screens we will see each time we change zones, which was provided.
So again are you really telling me that a SSD card would make it so I never have to see a load screen in GW2. If so I only have one thing to say….thanks for the laugh.
Oh I love this idea; ANet should add a tag that says “thanks go to Meowhead at MMORPG for the suggestion”. LOL
GG
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
Oh, and just to add to the discussion, I guess, I think more likely than switching servers is an ordinary queue. He said there's no districting, and switching servers actually sounds a little ridiculous to me. They expect the zone cap to be rarely if ever reached, so a queue seems like the only thing left.
Perhaps if there is a queue, you might be presented with the option of changing servers. That actually sounds very reasonable. Perhaps if your server is overpopulated, you could even switch with no penalty, assuming there normally is one.
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -Dr. Seuss
I just wanted to react upon this point - for the rest I agree that the size of the maps has nothing to do with money ANet may or may not have.
As for the 15 minutes, it reminds me of the remark someone made of his playtesting in SWTOR where it took him a small hour to cross Hutta, an origin world, from one end to the other. Fighting, having to avoid obstacles or any other sidetracking, it all adds time and makes it so that the end result time isn't the pure net crossing time, ie the time it'd take at normal speed from one end to the other if you could run the distance in as straight and unhindered a way as a bird flies it.
For SWTOR's Hutta, from everything that's known so far it's far likelier that the pure crossing time is more something between 7-10 minutes.
As for GW2, all the maps I've seen so far have a calculated pure crossing time of 3-4.5 minutes.
To compare: in WoW the Westfall zone from east to west end is like 3m40s and Kalimdor is from west to east coast 15-18 minutes and from north to south coast 45 minutes.
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."
Obviously, I'd prefer a seamless world, but I don't really care.
I have to think positively about it. WoW has been doing seamless world for like 7 years now. So there's simply no way that it's just that ArenaNet doesn't know how to do it. They have to be doing a zoned world for a very good reason. Whether it be because of the autosidekicking down in level in a zone, or so that they can maximize performance, or so they can have wildly different environments, or whatever, I trust that it's in the best interests of the game.
And to go a step further and put a silver lining on it, I think you have to give ArenaNet props for doing it. Things like no endgame raiding, no mounts, no dueling, no seamless zones. These are all potentially very unpopular decisions. It shows some courage that ArenaNet is willing to do what they think they have to in order to make what they think is the best game they can make.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007