Where did i say that if someone bought an SSD it would miracously rewrite the game code and get rid of all the load screens? That kind of thinking is just plain stupid but it does go with your1. "Only ANET devs know how MMOs work" implication just fine.
I implied that an SSD will fasten your load times making you look at them less. Everyone hates load screens. Even more so if they are slow. Now if you dont know how an SSD drive works that aint my problem.
As for zones reaching the maximum number of players the option of changing servers is indeed the most viable one since 2. "servers" for the GW model are nothing more than a group of districted zones. With a technology like that i doubt they d want to let pople wait in queues or suffer penalties because of it. Then again it does make a good player population control mechanism.
1. Oh so then you knew that GW2 did not use background loading before the developers said that there would be a load screen? Because this whole time I was talking about background loading versus load screens, and was looking for evidence of how the game was designed. You were the one that came in and decided to argue your point of view that had nothing to do with what I was saying. And nowhere did I say that ANet was the only one that knew MMO design; I said that ANet is the only one that knows how they coded their game. Reading comprehension for the win! But I am done responding to this discussion this is getting way off topic and is truly a worthless conversation.
2. That is not how GW2 works!
Eric Flannum: There is no districting in Guild Wars 2. In place of districting, we have divided our player base into various worlds (what other games might refer to as servers or shards). Each map within a world does have a player limit, but it is high enough that we expect it to be rarely if ever reached. http://gw2.luna-atra.fr/interview_etape_avec_arenanet/#vo
Originally posted by MMO.Maverick
As for GW2, all the maps I've seen so far have a calculated pure crossing time of 3-4.5 minutes.
Well since we do not know what zone she is talking about, her comment for being 15 minutes could still be valid. We have only seen a few low level zones and a few mid-level zones, so we have no idea what the higher end zones look like.
Plus the developer specifically stated that she was at the upper level range for the zone and only fought what she couldn’t avoid. So there is no way anyone can say that what she said is not valid, at least not until we know what zone she is talking about and get a chance to test it in game. Since at this point in time we know nothing of the high level zones in the game.
As for GW2, all the maps I've seen so far have a calculated pure crossing time of 3-4.5 minutes.
Well since we do not know what zone she is talking about, her comment for being 15 minutes could still be valid. We have only seen a few low level zones and a few mid-level zones, so we have no idea what the higher end zones look like.
Plus the developer specifically stated that she was at the upper level range for the zone and only fought what she couldn’t avoid. So there is no way anyone can say that what she said is not valid, at least not until we know what zone she is talking about and get a chance to test it in game. Since at this point in time we know nothing of the high level zones in the game.
I was merely saying that those 15 minutes were gross time, which included fighting with mobs, getting around obstacles and not traveling in a course as straight as an arrow etc. Even fighting a couple of mobs can severely add up to the crossing time with several minutes.
Think of it whatever you like, but I sincerely doubt that GW2 will have zones that are 1/3 the length or more of the total world map or 1/9 the size of the total world map of Tyria.
Especially since she said herself that a single map is just a small part of Tyria.
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 was merely saying that those 15 minutes were gross time, which included fighting with mobs, getting around obstacles and not traveling in a course as straight as an arrow etc. Even fighting a couple of mobs can severely add up to the crossing time with several minutes.
Think of it whatever you like, but I sincerely doubt that GW2 will have zones that are 1/3 the length or more of the total world map or 1/9 the size of the total world map of Tyria.
Especially since she said herself that a single map is just a small part of Tyria.
Originally posted by MMO.Maverick
As for GW2, all the maps I've seen so far have a calculated pure crossing time of 3-4.5 minutes.
So you are saying that combat and getting around obstacles is going to take the zone the developer is describing to 3-4.5 minutes? That would make it so she was fighting and navigating between 11 and 10.5 minutes, I will be interested in seeing if that is true or not when the game launches. I guess I am going to have to find out what zone she is talking about somehow.
1/3 the length of the total map, or 1/9 of the size of the total world, huh! Where did you come up with these figures, in order to know that you would have to know the total size of the world in game? So where did you get the numbers for the world size when we have not even seen a high level zone, or anything close to the whole game. Or is this from some fans speculation how big the world is and now people are considering it facts? I really want to see a developer quote saying this is how big the whole world of Tryia is in GW2.
Also how do your numbers factor in when they have said GW2 is going to be larger than all of Guild Wars Prophecies, Guild Wars Factions, Guild Wars Nightfall, and Eye of the North combined.
I am really curious now to see where you are coming up with these numbers.
So you are saying that combat and getting around obstacles is going to take the zone the developer is describing to 3-4.5 minutes?
I'm saying that the net time of crossing that map she was in will have been a lot less than 15 minutes, and that all known maps (Charr, Norn, human demos) have been the size of 3 to 4.5 minutes max crossing time.
1/3 the length of the total map, or 1/9 of the size of the total world, huh! Where did you come up with these figures, in order to know that you would have to know the total size of the world in game? So where did you get the numbers for the world size when we have not even seen a high level zone, or anything close to the whole game.
Also how do your numbers factor in when they have said GW2 is going to be larger than all of Guild Wars Prophecies, Guild Wars Factions, Guild Wars Nightfall, and Eye of the North combined.
? First time I read this. Official quote please.
I am really curious now to see where you are coming up with these numbers.
See my sig.
Read the map discussion threads on the GW2 forums.
From video footage and seeing how long it takes to traverse an avenue in a straight line, it becomes clear that the diameter of the human capital is about 2 minutes crossing distance (in a straight line). When that figure is used extrapolated on the world map, the worldmap turns out to be the size of 38 by 45 minutes crossing time, which makes it almost exactly the size of Tyria in GW.
To compare: WoW's Kalimdor has the size of 42 by 17 minutes crossing time from coast to coast. Which I think would make Tyria roughly the size of 1.25-1.5 times WoW vanilla depending how you measure things.
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 was merely saying that those 15 minutes were gross time, which included fighting with mobs, getting around obstacles and not traveling in a course as straight as an arrow etc. Even fighting a couple of mobs can severely add up to the crossing time with several minutes.
Think of it whatever you like, but I sincerely doubt that GW2 will have zones that are 1/3 the length or more of the total world map or 1/9 the size of the total world map of Tyria.
Especially since she said herself that a single map is just a small part of Tyria.
Originally posted by MMO.Maverick
As for GW2, all the maps I've seen so far have a calculated pure crossing time of 3-4.5 minutes.
So you are saying that combat and getting around obstacles is going to take the zone the developer is describing to 3-4.5 minutes? That would make it so she was fighting and navigating between 11 and 10.5 minutes, I will be interested in seeing if that is true or not when the game launches. I guess I am going to have to find out what zone she is talking about somehow.
1/3 the length of the total map, or 1/9 of the size of the total world, huh! Where did you come up with these figures, in order to know that you would have to know the total size of the world in game? So where did you get the numbers for the world size when we have not even seen a high level zone, or anything close to the whole game. Or is this from some fans speculation how big the world is and now people are considering it facts? I really want to see a developer quote saying this is how big the whole world of Tryia is in GW2.
Also how do your numbers factor in when they have said GW2 is going to be larger than all of Guild Wars Prophecies, Guild Wars Factions, Guild Wars Nightfall, and Eye of the North combined.
I am really curious now to see where you are coming up with these numbers.
He wasn't trying to measure the size at all, but rather referring to the world to zone ratio. Coming from the devs statement that each map or zone is only a small part of the entire GW2 world, it was doubltful that each zone was as big as 1/3 or even 1/9 of the total world. In other words, there will be more than just 3 or 9 zones. Would you agree that there will probably be more than 9 separate zones?
I'm saying that the net time of crossing that map she was in will have been a lot less than 15 minutes, and that all known maps (Charr, Norn, human demos) have been the size of 3 to 4.5 minutes max crossing time.
? First time I read this. Official quote please.
See my sig.
Read the map discussion threads on the GW2 forums.
From video footage and seeing how long it takes to traverse an avenue in a straight line, it becomes clear that the diameter of the human capital is about 2 minutes crossing distance (in a straight line). When that figure is used extrapolated on the world map, the worldmap turns out to be the size of 38 by 45 minutes crossing time, which makes it almost exactly the size of Tyria in GW.
To compare: WoW's Kalimdor has the size of 42 by 17 minutes crossing time from coast to coast. Which I think would make Tyria roughly the size of 1.25-1.5 times WoW vanilla depending how you measure things.
Of course some of that content is background for the cities, but that still leaves a lot of content to be packed into the land mass of Tryia.
And in this video Colin Johanson reinforces the notion that GW2 is a large as all the games Arena net has done to date. There is also an interview where a developer says that GW2 is as large as 3 or 4 single player games, I am currently looking for it and I will post it after I find it.
Originally posted by MMO.Maverick
Hmm, that's actually a good point you make. I was counting the whole worldmap in GW2, which is so far measured to be 13 * 11 miles.
Originally posted by MMO.Maverick
Guild Wars 2
crossing distance:Tyria world map from North to South 38 min by 46 min (E -> W)
Comments: I used the HD video footage, the crossing distance of the human capital (huge circle) from one end to the other is roughly 2 min, extrapolated by measuring the time it took a player to travel a street in a straight line.
I will be curious to see how right your theory is based on the video footage! I will give you this it is an interesting theory to put out this early since no one has seen the full game yet. I know I am going to put it to the test at release. Once I hit level 80 I am going to see if I can run the map in the time you have speculated on 38 minutes north to south and 26 east to west. I will make sure to do this more than once so I have a good sampling and then I will report the results and see if your theory before release is true or not.
Although if what the developers are saying is true and there is that much content packed into the same land mass as GW1, I am actually kind of worried about the game now. The only way I can see that happening is to have content packed so tight together that you will not make it more than 3 meters without getting assaulted by one thing or another.
Although if what the developers are saying is true and there is that much content packed into the same land mass as GW1, I am actually kind of worried about the game now. The only way I can see that happening is to have content packed so tight together that you will not make it more than 3 meters without getting assaulted by one thing or another.
Remember there is underwater content that is said to be 1/3 of the game's content.
Of course some of that content is background for the cities, but that still leaves a lot of content to be packed into the land mass of Tryia.
And in this video Colin Johanson reinforces the notion that GW2 is a large as all the games Arena net has done to date. There is also an interview where a developer says that GW2 is as large as 3 or 4 single player games, I am currently looking for it and I will post it after I find it.
? This is all about content, not world size. You forget, GW's Tyria had a lot of invisible walls and places you couldn't reach, for example there was none underwater content whatsoever. They also stated that each Dynamic Event takes as much time as 3 normal quests because of the various stages, so the amount of content per area is automatically larger than in GW.
But in any case, like I said, this is all about content and thus has nothing to do with the actual size of GW2's world.
I will be curious to see how right your theory is based on the video footage! I will give you this it is an interesting theory to put out this early since no one has seen the full game yet. I know I am going to put it to the test at release. Once I hit level 80 I am going to see if I can run the map in the time you have speculated on 38 minutes north to south and 26 east to west. I will make sure to do this more than once so I have a good sampling and then I will report the results and see if your theory before release is true or not.
Although if what the developers are saying is true and there is that much content packed into the same land mass as GW1, I am actually kind of worried about the game now. The only way I can see that happening is to have content packed so tight together that you will not make it more than 3 meters without getting assaulted by one thing or another.
See my comment above.
I don't think traveling the whole world map from north to south or east to west will give you an accurate figure due to various reasons. You can test it with WoW, I can guarantuee you that when you travel from north to south coast in Kalimdor at normal run speed, you'll have nowhere near the 45 minutes that it's long in pure crossing time in a straight line.
The most dependable way is to measure distanced travelled in a straight line and work from there: for example, if it took you 1 minute to cross 1 cm or 100 pixels on a map, then there's no ground to question that a distance of 10 cm or 1000 pixels on that map isn't 10 minutes if it could be traveled in a straight line.
If you know how long it takes to cross 1 cm unhindered in a straight line and a worldmap is like 30 cm by 45 cm, then there you go, you know the size of the ingame world measured in crossing time.
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. Back to square one eh? Background loading doesnt exclude load screens. I knew GW2 will have load screens the moment they said they are using maps and not a seamless world. That has nothing to do with background loading. 2. Different wording, same result. The game will most likely have one single database of characters unlike other games that use split character databases for each "server" else switching "servers" wouldnt be as easy as they say it will. Thus grouped districted zones can basically be called a "server" or world. What you or the devs call em is irrelevant to as how they are set up and work. You may say you play on a "server" while you are actually passed between several servers handling zones, instances, chat etc. Or you can compare it to people saying GW1 is not an MMO since by their definition of MMO it must have a certain percentage of persistant zones or since the devs said its a CoRPG it cant be an MMO. I really dont want to start an argument on the meaning of words.
1. Oh so you just knew the truth from them saying there would be zones. That is interesting LOTRO has zones, and when you go from Erud Luin to the shire there is a load screen, when you go from Moria to Lothlorien there is a load screen (IE from a zone to a zone). But when I go from the Shire to Bree there is not a load screen instead there is background loading. When I go from the North Downs to Evendim there is not a load screen, again background loading. That is interesting that you just knew, when LOTRO uses both, but somehow you knew supposable without the developers saying anything that GW2 only uses one. Well that is awesome for you!
2. So then you must know then that no one could make an automated tool to make it easier to transfer the character folder from one server to the next to make it easier (only one example of how they could of made it easier so they do not need to charge a fee). I would love to see your resume of all the MMO that you have helped design. Please share it with us all, since you like stating facts like you are an expert in MMO design, you must have at least 2 or 3 completed by now. Or are you like a business professor that has never built a business but still likes giving everyone their expert opinion on how to build a business. So please do share your resume I would love to know all the games you have made. Since you know apparently everything ANet is doing on their design. So please before you decide to share your vast developer knowledge again, please share your resume. Plus since you like stating you know so much about server setup please share your resume on all the servers you have helped setup and run (And please go into great detail here, I work in the IT field on servers and I would love to see all that knowledge you make claim to here)
Originally posted by MMO.Maverick
I don't think traveling the whole world map from north to south or east to west will give you an accurate figure due to various reasons. You can test it with WoW, I can guarantuee you that when you travel from north to south coast in Kalimdor at normal run speed, you'll have nowhere near the 45 minutes that it's long in pure crossing time in a straight line.
The most dependable way is to measure distanced travelled in a straight line and work from there: for example, if it took you 1 minute to cross 1 cm or 100 pixels on a map, then there's no ground to question that a distance of 10 cm or 1000 pixels on that map isn't 10 minutes if it could be traveled in a straight line.
If you know how long it takes to cross 1 cm unhindered in a straight line and a worldmap is like 30 cm by 45 cm, then there you go, you know the size of the ingame world measured in crossing time.
So you have created something here that cannot be tested to be proven true and you still point to it as fact that is intriguing to say the least.
Well if it is the size of the in game world measure in crossing time, wouldn’t that mean you should be able to cross the world in that amount of time? After all that is what crossing time means to me; If I look to find out how long it would take to drive the United States from East to West coast, then that would be a crossing time for driving. If I looked to see how long it look it takes to cross the United States from east to west in a plane, then that would be the crossing time in a plane. So wouldn’t the crossing time for your character be the crossing time that we would be interested in here, which is what you use as the bases of your measurement.
I guess I really do not care, since you say that it cannot be tested and proven right or wrong. I will play the game and see how big it feels to me and other people can have theories on how big it is. To each their own!
The most dependable way is to measure distanced travelled in a straight line and work from there: for example, if it took you 1 minute to cross 1 cm or 100 pixels on a map, then there's no ground to question that a distance of 10 cm or 1000 pixels on that map isn't 10 minutes if it could be traveled in a straight line.
If you know how long it takes to cross 1 cm unhindered in a straight line and a worldmap is like 30 cm by 45 cm, then there you go, you know the size of the ingame world measured in crossing time.
So you have created something here that cannot be tested to be proven true and you still point to it as fact that is intriguing to say the least.
I guess I really do not care, since you say that it cannot be tested and proven right or wrong. I will play the game and see how big it feels to me and other people can have theories on how big it is. To each their own!
I hope you're not acting dense on purpose, since imo I gave no sign that I was trolling, yet the way how you post I'm starting to suspect that you are, or at least that you're obtuse.
So let me make another attempt that may be clearer to you: if you know how long it takes to travel from 1 location to another in a straight line, then you know how long it'll take to travel to another location from another starting point as long as it's in a straight line.
To give concrete examples: I can tell you how long it'll take to travel the avenue from the main gate to the wall surrounding the center district in the human capital, or how long it'll take to cross the human starter area from the capital gate to the south border, as long as you run it in a (fairly) straight line and as long as you don't stop to fight or anything else. And whenever people might be able to test it, they'd discover that their time comes close to the ones I mentioned.
I can even tell the time how long it would take to cross Tyria, if a player was able to do that via a long highway that would go through the landscape straight as a knife from the eastern edge of the worldmap to the western edge of the worldmap.
Of course, since there are no such highways or tunnels, the actual crossing time will be longer if you have to circumvent stuff and make detours etc than if you'd have that highway.
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."
what does the size of the world have to do with load screens?
The size of the world got involved when the discussion turned to how frequently you'd likely see a load screen, and that 15 minutes that was mentioned in a Q&A wasn't representative for the actual size of an area, since it included fighting and such in it.
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."
So you have created something here that cannot be tested to be proven true and you still point to it as fact that is intriguing to say the least.
I guess I really do not care, since you say that it cannot be tested and proven right or wrong. I will play the game and see how big it feels to me and other people can have theories on how big it is. To each their own!
I hope you're not acting dense on purpose, since imo I gave no sign that I was trolling, yet the way how you post I'm starting to suspect that you are, or at least that you're obtuse.
So let me make another attempt that may be clearer to you: if you know how long it takes to travel from 1 location to another in a straight line, then you know how long it'll take to travel to another location from another starting point as long as it's in a straight line.
To give concrete examples: I can tell you how long it'll take to travel the avenue from the main gate to the wall surrounding the center district in the human capital, or how long it'll take to cross the human starter area from the capital gate to the south border, as long as you run it in a (fairly) straight line and as long as you don't stop to fight or anything else. And whenever people might be able to test it, they'd discover that their time comes close to the ones I mentioned.
I can even tell the time how long it would take to cross Tyria, if a player was able to do that via a long highway that would go through the landscape straight as a knife from the eastern edge of the worldmap to the western edge of the worldmap.Of course, since there are no such highways or tunnels, the actual crossing time will be longer if you have to circumvent stuff and make detours etc than if you'd have that highway.
Hence why I said your theory can not be proven or disproven, IE there is no highway. So travel time would have to include things such as mountain you have to scale, detours, and anything else that effects the time it takes to cover said distance. Now if you would have said this is the surface area of GW2 and not the travel time, then how the geography of the world effects travel time would not matter.
Let me give you a concrete example: the United States from the East coast to the west coast is 2578.38 miles, and the speed of sound is 761 MPH. So if we built a vehicle that traveled at the speed of sound we could travel across the U.S in just over 3 hours (to be precious 3.389 hours). But this is not the whole story; the speed of sound of 761MPH is at sea level, so in order to cross the United States in 3.389 hours you would have to travel through mountains which is impossible. So then you would have to find the altitude of the highest mountain in the United States, and then figure out the speed of sound at that altitude. In the lower 48 the tallest mountain is Mt. Whitney at 14,494 FT, so the actual speed of sound for the vehicle would be 660 MPH. So then the travel time goes to 3.907 hours instead of 3.389 hours.
You can see by the example I just gave that the travel time has a lot of variables to take into account. Unless you just stick with the speed of sound of 761 MPH and ignore all other data. While at the same time the total surface area of the United States stayed at 3,536,294 sq mi, since that does not change unless we add new territory. So measuring the surface area of Tyria is a simple mathematic formula that is easy to follow, travel time is not even close. Since your time does not take any other variables into consideration, since as you said no character in Tyria is going to be able to travel Tyria in the time you have allotted (No highway).
But if you do not agree I guess you could always build a vehicle that travels at the speed of sound at sea level and completely ignore the other aspects of travel time. Since you did that here and you point to it as fact, then why not do it in the real world too.
Originally posted by MMO.Maverick
Guild Wars 2
crossing distance:Tyria world map from North to South 38 min by 46 min (E -> W)
But you know in the end I really do not care, you can keep on pointing to your post and keep saying that the GW2 Developers gave a exaggerated claim for the travel time. In in the end it does not matter, when I play GW2 only the game will make the world feel big or small, nothing on a forum or piece of paper can change that.
But you know in the end I really do not care, you can keep on pointing to your post and keep saying that the GW2 Developers gave a exaggerated claim for the travel time. In in the end it does not matter, when I play GW2 only the game will make the world feel big or small, nothing on a forum or piece of paper can change that.
You cared enough to reply on my posts when I corrected that "15 minutes for the size of an area", and you cared enough about size to quote that statement - nope, it wasn't in square miles, it was a measurement of time that was used and that you quoted.
So, your former caring for the size of an area and now pretending not to care, it seems to me that you're being obstinate just for the sake of it or because you didn't like what I said: your arguments make no sense and flipflop all around as long as they're opposite of mine which seem to be their goal. Shrug. Which is fine.
I merely wanted to reply upon that '15 minute to travel an area' and point towards more realistic worldsizes, the followup discussion was just futile and pointless bickering it seems now, so I leave it at this.
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."
what does the size of the world have to do with load screens?
The size of the world got involved when the discussion turned to how frequently you'd likely see a load screen, and that 15 minutes that was mentioned in a Q&A wasn't representative for the actual size of an area, since it included fighting and such in it.
okay, i get it.
personally I think the whole idea of a load screen is not that appealing.
however, if the games content is immersive, and the load screens are few and far between, then I dont think its a big deal.
for a comparison I present tortage.
almost fuly voiced
great story (1st time through)
stunning graphics
hella load screens.
I didnt mind the load screens due to the voice overs, and cool story, and interactive enviroment (for the most part)
HOWEVER, after tortage, it got old, especially as the voice overs dwindled and the world seemed to get tunneled.
As long as guildwars 2 doesnt build our expectations in the starter area, and then half ass it there and beyond, I think most people will learn to live with some load screens, especially if they deliver everything they are saying :-)
As for size of worlds, you have to scale. I think your pixel/time ratio is an excellent idea, and really the only thing you could do.
Dont some games have distance counters?
Ohh, and the only other variant to be considered would be run speed.
Sometimes I am extremely bothered by the fact that my character runs everywhere, and if I use the walk option, its always toooooo slow
To the caterpillar it is the end of the world, to the master, it is a butterfly.
I'm kind of reminded of driving to work. It takes me over an hour to drive to work, but it's really not even 30 minutes away, if I could just drive in a straight line, top speed.
Design really DOES have a lot to do with how big a world really feels, compared to how big it is in physical space.
New games still use load screens, in this decade? I don't get it. There hasn't been a valid excuse for load screen in 10 years, unless you're trying to make it run on a tinker-toy computer (IE: a console).
Since everybody agrees that it's much more immersive to be in a seamless world, I think it can also have a huge immersion-breaking problem. If you look at this video (yeah I chose Rift since it's new and one of the most polished games), most objects appear ridiculously close to the player as he explores the world. And imo this is a lot more immersion breaking than loading screens. Now, of course this could be due to low graphic settings but with a seamless system, there IS a limit in how far you can see specific objects. At least with zones, you can see everything in that particular map from a high enough point, no?
New games still use load screens, in this decade? I don't get it. There hasn't been a valid excuse for load screen in 10 years, unless you're trying to make it run on a tinker-toy computer (IE: a console).
... so every game that uses load screens (... and there's a lot. Even more if you don't count MMOs, but plenty of MMOs use load screens) in the past 10 years is just doing it for no particular reason other than to try and reduce their sales?
Interesting point of view. I can tell you're definitely an industry insider. The idea of throttling back game sales probably has a pretty good reason I just can't see from here.
New games still use load screens, in this decade? I don't get it. There hasn't been a valid excuse for load screen in 10 years, unless you're trying to make it run on a tinker-toy computer (IE: a console).
... so every game that uses load screens (... and there's a lot. Even more if you don't count MMOs, but plenty of MMOs use load screens) in the past 10 years is just doing it for no particular reason other than to try and reduce their sales?
Interesting point of view. I can tell you're definitely an industry insider. The idea of throttling back game sales probably has a pretty good reason I just can't see from here.
Ye i don't think there is a point for loading screen apart from not using a perfectly working technology that make map seamless. The only reason is that they don't want to deal with such technology, thats all. Lineage2 and Darkfall are seamless mmo in the line of Uo, it is concidered as an immersive element. I guess immersion, and the idea of a ingame world, is not a big concern for most mmo, so they just don't care about such technology.
You cared enough to reply on my posts when I corrected that "15 minutes for the size of an area", and you cared enough about size to quote that statement - nope, it wasn't in square miles, it was a measurement of time that was used and that you quoted.
So, your former caring for the size of an area and now pretending not to care, it seems to me that you're being obstinate just for the sake of it or because you didn't like what I said: your arguments make no sense and flipflop all around as long as they're opposite of mine which seem to be their goal. Shrug. Which is fine.
I merely wanted to reply upon that '15 minute to travel an area' and point towards more realistic worldsizes, the followup discussion was just futile and pointless bickering it seems now, so I leave it at this.
/offtopic
OK you got me, I worded that wrong. I should of said I am starting to not care about this conversation! Is that better! You are right I did care at first because I wanted to see where you come off telling people that the developers are over exagerating time to travel across a zone.
You say I flip flop maybe that is because of the conversation, lets go back through what has been said so far. First you say the followign to my 15 minute qoute:
Originally posted by MMO.Maverick
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.
Then I ask how do you know, we do not even know what zone she is talking about, and talked about the details she gave.
Then you said
Originally posted by MMO.Maverick
I was merely saying that those 15 minutes were gross time, which included fighting with mobs, getting around obstacles and not traveling in a course as straight as an arrow etc. Even fighting a couple of mobs can severely add up to the crossing time with several minutes.
Think of it whatever you like, but I sincerely doubt that GW2 will have zones that are 1/3 the length or more of the total world map or 1/9 the size of the total world map of Tyria.
Especially since she said herself that a single map is just a small part of Tyria.
Then I said so you are saying that the fighting in the zone took 12 to 10.5 to get down to your 3-4.5 minute mark for travel time. I also asked how you knew the total size for a game that has not been developed. Plus I asked how it factors in to your theory that they have said the game was bigger then all of the other games they released combined.
And then you said:
Originally posted by MMO.Maverick
I'm saying that the net time of crossing that map she was in will have been a lot less than 15 minutes, and that all known maps (Charr, Norn, human demos) have been the size of 3 to 4.5 minutes max crossing time.
See my sig. Read the map discussion threads on the GW2 forums. From video footage and seeing how long it takes to traverse an avenue in a straight line, it becomes clear that the diameter of the human capital is about 2 minutes crossing distance (in a straight line). When that figure is used extrapolated on the world map, the worldmap turns out to be the size of 38 by 45 minutes crossing time, which makes it almost exactly the size of Tyria in GW. To compare: WoW's Kalimdor has the size of 42 by 17 minutes crossing time from coast to coast. Which I think would make Tyria roughly the size of 1.25-1.5 times WoW vanilla depending how you measure things.
Then I linked the qoutes that said there is as much content in the game as all of the games in GW1 combined. Then I said I would be interesting in putting your numbers to the test at release and seeing with a scietific experiement if you are right on the travel time. Plus I made the comment that I am little concerened that if you are right the game is going tofeel to compacted together.
Then you said:
Originally posted by MMO.Maverick
? This is all about content, not world size. You forget, GW's Tyria had a lot of invisible walls and places you couldn't reach, for example there was none underwater content whatsoever. They also stated that each Dynamic Event takes as much time as 3 normal quests because of the various stages, so the amount of content per area is automatically larger than in GW.
But in any case, like I said, this is all about content and thus has nothing to do with the actual size of GW2's world.
See my comment above.
I don't think traveling the whole world map from north to south or east to west will give you an accurate figure due to various reasons. You can test it with WoW, I can guarantuee you that when you travel from north to south coast in Kalimdor at normal run speed, you'll have nowhere near the 45 minutes that it's long in pure crossing time in a straight line.
The most dependable way is to measure distanced travelled in a straight line and work from there: for example, if it took you 1 minute to cross 1 cm or 100 pixels on a map, then there's no ground to question that a distance of 10 cm or 1000 pixels on that map isn't 10 minutes if it could be traveled in a straight line.
If you know how long it takes to cross 1 cm unhindered in a straight line and a worldmap is like 30 cm by 45 cm, then there you go, you know the size of the ingame world measured in crossing time.
(Here I marked the parts in RED that lead to my next response.) And my response was so you created something that could not be tested. Because if you are measuring the world in amount of time that it can be crossed shouldn't a character be able to cross the world in that amount of time. Then I said I really do not care since you said it can not be tested. (Now look at the parts in RED, you said that you don’t think that traveling in game will give you an accurate figure after I said I want to do a experiement to see if you are right after the game launches. Then you even make the comment at the end about knowing the size of the world in the time for a character to cross.)
Originally posted by MMO.Maverick
So let me make another attempt that may be clearer to you: if you know how long it takes to travel from 1 location to another in a straight line, then you know how long it'll take to travel to another location from another starting point as long as it's in a straight line.
To give concrete examples: I can tell you how long it'll take to travel the avenue from the main gate to the wall surrounding the center district in the human capital, or how long it'll take to cross the human starter area from the capital gate to the south border, as long as you run it in a (fairly) straight line and as long as you don't stop to fight or anything else. And whenever people might be able to test it, they'd discover that their time comes close to the ones I mentioned.
I can even tell the time how long it would take to cross Tyria, if a player was able to do that via a long highway that would go through the landscape straight as a knife from the eastern edge of the worldmap to the western edge of the worldmap. Of course, since there are no such highways or tunnels, the actual crossing time will be longer if you have to circumvent stuff and make detours etc than if you'd have that highway.
(Here I marked the parts in RED that lead to my next response, plus I want to first point out that you first state if I test your theory that in would not be accurate. Then here you say that people that test your theory they descover that the time comes close to what you have stated. So which one is it? Can it be tested or can’t it be tested accuratly. But then the next part in red clears up those contradicting statements by saying if there was a highway through Tyria your times would work out, but since it does not have a highway times in game will be longer.)
Then my response was you just confirmed why I said previously why your theory can not be proven. Then I went on to suggest that maybe you should use surface area for Tyria, instead of travel time in your examples. Because travel time has a lot of variables that you have to account for and I even gave a real world example. Since you even stated yourself that you do not think that in game chacter travel time will give a accurate figure.
Hence why I suggested Surface area since it would get rid of all of that since it has no variables that could change the outcome. Since no one can use your travel time in game as a point of refrence then it has no value to the player, since as you stated a in game character can not reach it because there is no highway. So you have a figure that is worthless at least to me besides to have a debate over, since it can not be used in game. Where as the surface area would give you the same details about size of each game, and would in no way shape or forum have any bearing on how a character can travel in the game. But I guess that doesn’t matter, who cares if we give people figures that they can never use , but should be able to because it is about the chacter in game.
Ok so where in there was my argument "your arguments make no sense and flipflop all around as long as they're opposite of mine which seem to be their goal."
Because reading thorugh our discussion it seems like I was just trying to understand where you were coming from, then I offered a suggestion that makes more since to me. Yep seems like I was just flipflopping everywhere . Like I said earlier to each their own, since this whole conversation as I began with, I have really stopped caring about. And no I still do not care, I just wanted to point out that I was not just flip flopping about, I was trying to see your point of view, then I came to the conclusion that I do not agree with your point of view and offered a suggestion. Which you took as being flip floppy, and I wanted to clear up the fact of what I was saying. But that still does not mean I care about the topic, only about the flip floppy comment, because only the game while I am playing it can make it feel big or not.
Originally posted by Meowhead
I'm kind of reminded of driving to work. It takes me over an hour to drive to work, but it's really not even 30 minutes away, if I could just drive in a straight line, top speed.
Design really DOES have a lot to do with how big a world really feels, compared to how big it is in physical space.
Thank you that is exactly what I was trying to say, you just worded it a lot better then I did with my examples.
Thank you that is exactly what I was trying to say, you just worded it a lot better then I did with my examples.
Well, MMO Maverick is trying to measure something that allows you to compare the physical space of one area to another, but it has limited, specific use.
For example, if you compare the same amount of physical area in a city, a suburb and corn fields, there's a huge difference in how 'meaningful' all that area is.
Also, you have to remember that the crossing time in GW2 appears to be faster than most MMO 'run' speed.
With weapons sheathed, GW2 characters REALLY book. Might have to get into the game to actually measure true distances (Usually there's some sort of coordinate system or 'meters away' system you can use to get some measurements), but I'm under the impression that GW2 no-weapons speed is comparable to many games early mounts.
So it's not like the 3-4 minute crossing time is comparable to say... a game where people run pretty slow.
Look at MMO Maverick's analysis of crossing time and distance more as... science and theoretical measurements, rather than an observation as to how big GW2 will feel, or how much content will be in it.
Comments
1. Oh so then you knew that GW2 did not use background loading before the developers said that there would be a load screen? Because this whole time I was talking about background loading versus load screens, and was looking for evidence of how the game was designed. You were the one that came in and decided to argue your point of view that had nothing to do with what I was saying. And nowhere did I say that ANet was the only one that knew MMO design; I said that ANet is the only one that knows how they coded their game. Reading comprehension for the win! But I am done responding to this discussion this is getting way off topic and is truly a worthless conversation.
2. That is not how GW2 works!
Eric Flannum: There is no districting in Guild Wars 2. In place of districting, we have divided our player base into various worlds (what other games might refer to as servers or shards). Each map within a world does have a player limit, but it is high enough that we expect it to be rarely if ever reached. http://gw2.luna-atra.fr/interview_etape_avec_arenanet/#vo
Well since we do not know what zone she is talking about, her comment for being 15 minutes could still be valid. We have only seen a few low level zones and a few mid-level zones, so we have no idea what the higher end zones look like.
Plus the developer specifically stated that she was at the upper level range for the zone and only fought what she couldn’t avoid. So there is no way anyone can say that what she said is not valid, at least not until we know what zone she is talking about and get a chance to test it in game. Since at this point in time we know nothing of the high level zones in the game.
I was merely saying that those 15 minutes were gross time, which included fighting with mobs, getting around obstacles and not traveling in a course as straight as an arrow etc. Even fighting a couple of mobs can severely add up to the crossing time with several minutes.
Think of it whatever you like, but I sincerely doubt that GW2 will have zones that are 1/3 the length or more of the total world map or 1/9 the size of the total world map of Tyria.
Especially since she said herself that a single map is just a small part of Tyria.
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."
So you are saying that combat and getting around obstacles is going to take the zone the developer is describing to 3-4.5 minutes? That would make it so she was fighting and navigating between 11 and 10.5 minutes, I will be interested in seeing if that is true or not when the game launches. I guess I am going to have to find out what zone she is talking about somehow.
1/3 the length of the total map, or 1/9 of the size of the total world, huh! Where did you come up with these figures, in order to know that you would have to know the total size of the world in game? So where did you get the numbers for the world size when we have not even seen a high level zone, or anything close to the whole game. Or is this from some fans speculation how big the world is and now people are considering it facts? I really want to see a developer quote saying this is how big the whole world of Tryia is in GW2.
Also how do your numbers factor in when they have said GW2 is going to be larger than all of Guild Wars Prophecies, Guild Wars Factions, Guild Wars Nightfall, and Eye of the North combined.
I am really curious now to see where you are coming up with these numbers.
See my sig.
Read the map discussion threads on the GW2 forums.
From video footage and seeing how long it takes to traverse an avenue in a straight line, it becomes clear that the diameter of the human capital is about 2 minutes crossing distance (in a straight line). When that figure is used extrapolated on the world map, the worldmap turns out to be the size of 38 by 45 minutes crossing time, which makes it almost exactly the size of Tyria in GW.
To compare: WoW's Kalimdor has the size of 42 by 17 minutes crossing time from coast to coast. Which I think would make Tyria roughly the size of 1.25-1.5 times WoW vanilla depending how you measure things.
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."
He wasn't trying to measure the size at all, but rather referring to the world to zone ratio. Coming from the devs statement that each map or zone is only a small part of the entire GW2 world, it was doubltful that each zone was as big as 1/3 or even 1/9 of the total world. In other words, there will be more than just 3 or 9 zones. Would you agree that there will probably be more than 9 separate zones?
As for the quote here you go:
Bobby: By rough estimates, Guild Wars 2 will have as much text as the entirety of the original Guild Wars series, including all three standalone campaigns and the Eye of the North expansion. http://tap-repeatedly.com/2011/05/07/exclusive-interview-arenanets-bobby-stein/
Of course some of that content is background for the cities, but that still leaves a lot of content to be packed into the land mass of Tryia.
And in this video Colin Johanson reinforces the notion that GW2 is a large as all the games Arena net has done to date. There is also an interview where a developer says that GW2 is as large as 3 or 4 single player games, I am currently looking for it and I will post it after I find it.
I will be curious to see how right your theory is based on the video footage! I will give you this it is an interesting theory to put out this early since no one has seen the full game yet. I know I am going to put it to the test at release. Once I hit level 80 I am going to see if I can run the map in the time you have speculated on 38 minutes north to south and 26 east to west. I will make sure to do this more than once so I have a good sampling and then I will report the results and see if your theory before release is true or not.
Although if what the developers are saying is true and there is that much content packed into the same land mass as GW1, I am actually kind of worried about the game now. The only way I can see that happening is to have content packed so tight together that you will not make it more than 3 meters without getting assaulted by one thing or another.
the only time when u get a loading screen is when you use the Asura Gates. the game doesnt use phasing to create alternate universes.
Remember there is underwater content that is said to be 1/3 of the game's content.
I don't think traveling the whole world map from north to south or east to west will give you an accurate figure due to various reasons. You can test it with WoW, I can guarantuee you that when you travel from north to south coast in Kalimdor at normal run speed, you'll have nowhere near the 45 minutes that it's long in pure crossing time in a straight line.
The most dependable way is to measure distanced travelled in a straight line and work from there: for example, if it took you 1 minute to cross 1 cm or 100 pixels on a map, then there's no ground to question that a distance of 10 cm or 1000 pixels on that map isn't 10 minutes if it could be traveled in a straight line.
If you know how long it takes to cross 1 cm unhindered in a straight line and a worldmap is like 30 cm by 45 cm, then there you go, you know the size of the ingame world measured in crossing time.
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. Oh so you just knew the truth from them saying there would be zones. That is interesting LOTRO has zones, and when you go from Erud Luin to the shire there is a load screen, when you go from Moria to Lothlorien there is a load screen (IE from a zone to a zone). But when I go from the Shire to Bree there is not a load screen instead there is background loading. When I go from the North Downs to Evendim there is not a load screen, again background loading. That is interesting that you just knew, when LOTRO uses both, but somehow you knew supposable without the developers saying anything that GW2 only uses one. Well that is awesome for you!
2. So then you must know then that no one could make an automated tool to make it easier to transfer the character folder from one server to the next to make it easier (only one example of how they could of made it easier so they do not need to charge a fee). I would love to see your resume of all the MMO that you have helped design. Please share it with us all, since you like stating facts like you are an expert in MMO design, you must have at least 2 or 3 completed by now. Or are you like a business professor that has never built a business but still likes giving everyone their expert opinion on how to build a business. So please do share your resume I would love to know all the games you have made. Since you know apparently everything ANet is doing on their design. So please before you decide to share your vast developer knowledge again, please share your resume. Plus since you like stating you know so much about server setup please share your resume on all the servers you have helped setup and run (And please go into great detail here, I work in the IT field on servers and I would love to see all that knowledge you make claim to here)
So you have created something here that cannot be tested to be proven true and you still point to it as fact that is intriguing to say the least.
Well if it is the size of the in game world measure in crossing time, wouldn’t that mean you should be able to cross the world in that amount of time? After all that is what crossing time means to me; If I look to find out how long it would take to drive the United States from East to West coast, then that would be a crossing time for driving. If I looked to see how long it look it takes to cross the United States from east to west in a plane, then that would be the crossing time in a plane. So wouldn’t the crossing time for your character be the crossing time that we would be interested in here, which is what you use as the bases of your measurement.
I guess I really do not care, since you say that it cannot be tested and proven right or wrong. I will play the game and see how big it feels to me and other people can have theories on how big it is. To each their own!
I hope you're not acting dense on purpose, since imo I gave no sign that I was trolling, yet the way how you post I'm starting to suspect that you are, or at least that you're obtuse.
So let me make another attempt that may be clearer to you: if you know how long it takes to travel from 1 location to another in a straight line, then you know how long it'll take to travel to another location from another starting point as long as it's in a straight line.
To give concrete examples: I can tell you how long it'll take to travel the avenue from the main gate to the wall surrounding the center district in the human capital, or how long it'll take to cross the human starter area from the capital gate to the south border, as long as you run it in a (fairly) straight line and as long as you don't stop to fight or anything else. And whenever people might be able to test it, they'd discover that their time comes close to the ones I mentioned.
I can even tell the time how long it would take to cross Tyria, if a player was able to do that via a long highway that would go through the landscape straight as a knife from the eastern edge of the worldmap to the western edge of the worldmap.
Of course, since there are no such highways or tunnels, the actual crossing time will be longer if you have to circumvent stuff and make detours etc than if you'd have that highway.
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."
what does the size of the world have to do with load screens?
To the caterpillar it is the end of the world, to the master, it is a butterfly.
The size of the world got involved when the discussion turned to how frequently you'd likely see a load screen, and that 15 minutes that was mentioned in a Q&A wasn't representative for the actual size of an area, since it included fighting and such in it.
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."
Hence why I said your theory can not be proven or disproven, IE there is no highway. So travel time would have to include things such as mountain you have to scale, detours, and anything else that effects the time it takes to cover said distance. Now if you would have said this is the surface area of GW2 and not the travel time, then how the geography of the world effects travel time would not matter.
Let me give you a concrete example: the United States from the East coast to the west coast is 2578.38 miles, and the speed of sound is 761 MPH. So if we built a vehicle that traveled at the speed of sound we could travel across the U.S in just over 3 hours (to be precious 3.389 hours). But this is not the whole story; the speed of sound of 761MPH is at sea level, so in order to cross the United States in 3.389 hours you would have to travel through mountains which is impossible. So then you would have to find the altitude of the highest mountain in the United States, and then figure out the speed of sound at that altitude. In the lower 48 the tallest mountain is Mt. Whitney at 14,494 FT, so the actual speed of sound for the vehicle would be 660 MPH. So then the travel time goes to 3.907 hours instead of 3.389 hours.
You can see by the example I just gave that the travel time has a lot of variables to take into account. Unless you just stick with the speed of sound of 761 MPH and ignore all other data. While at the same time the total surface area of the United States stayed at 3,536,294 sq mi, since that does not change unless we add new territory. So measuring the surface area of Tyria is a simple mathematic formula that is easy to follow, travel time is not even close. Since your time does not take any other variables into consideration, since as you said no character in Tyria is going to be able to travel Tyria in the time you have allotted (No highway).
But if you do not agree I guess you could always build a vehicle that travels at the speed of sound at sea level and completely ignore the other aspects of travel time. Since you did that here and you point to it as fact, then why not do it in the real world too.
But you know in the end I really do not care, you can keep on pointing to your post and keep saying that the GW2 Developers gave a exaggerated claim for the travel time. In in the end it does not matter, when I play GW2 only the game will make the world feel big or small, nothing on a forum or piece of paper can change that.
You cared enough to reply on my posts when I corrected that "15 minutes for the size of an area", and you cared enough about size to quote that statement - nope, it wasn't in square miles, it was a measurement of time that was used and that you quoted.
So, your former caring for the size of an area and now pretending not to care, it seems to me that you're being obstinate just for the sake of it or because you didn't like what I said: your arguments make no sense and flipflop all around as long as they're opposite of mine which seem to be their goal. Shrug. Which is fine.
I merely wanted to reply upon that '15 minute to travel an area' and point towards more realistic worldsizes, the followup discussion was just futile and pointless bickering it seems now, so I leave it at this.
/offtopic
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."
okay, i get it.
personally I think the whole idea of a load screen is not that appealing.
however, if the games content is immersive, and the load screens are few and far between, then I dont think its a big deal.
for a comparison I present tortage.
almost fuly voiced
great story (1st time through)
stunning graphics
hella load screens.
I didnt mind the load screens due to the voice overs, and cool story, and interactive enviroment (for the most part)
HOWEVER, after tortage, it got old, especially as the voice overs dwindled and the world seemed to get tunneled.
As long as guildwars 2 doesnt build our expectations in the starter area, and then half ass it there and beyond, I think most people will learn to live with some load screens, especially if they deliver everything they are saying :-)
As for size of worlds, you have to scale. I think your pixel/time ratio is an excellent idea, and really the only thing you could do.
Dont some games have distance counters?
Ohh, and the only other variant to be considered would be run speed.
Sometimes I am extremely bothered by the fact that my character runs everywhere, and if I use the walk option, its always toooooo slow
To the caterpillar it is the end of the world, to the master, it is a butterfly.
I'm kind of reminded of driving to work. It takes me over an hour to drive to work, but it's really not even 30 minutes away, if I could just drive in a straight line, top speed.
Design really DOES have a lot to do with how big a world really feels, compared to how big it is in physical space.
New games still use load screens, in this decade? I don't get it. There hasn't been a valid excuse for load screen in 10 years, unless you're trying to make it run on a tinker-toy computer (IE: a console).
I have a question..
Since everybody agrees that it's much more immersive to be in a seamless world, I think it can also have a huge immersion-breaking problem. If you look at this video (yeah I chose Rift since it's new and one of the most polished games), most objects appear ridiculously close to the player as he explores the world. And imo this is a lot more immersion breaking than loading screens. Now, of course this could be due to low graphic settings but with a seamless system, there IS a limit in how far you can see specific objects. At least with zones, you can see everything in that particular map from a high enough point, no?
Eat me!
... so every game that uses load screens (... and there's a lot. Even more if you don't count MMOs, but plenty of MMOs use load screens) in the past 10 years is just doing it for no particular reason other than to try and reduce their sales?
Interesting point of view. I can tell you're definitely an industry insider. The idea of throttling back game sales probably has a pretty good reason I just can't see from here.
Ye i don't think there is a point for loading screen apart from not using a perfectly working technology that make map seamless. The only reason is that they don't want to deal with such technology, thats all. Lineage2 and Darkfall are seamless mmo in the line of Uo, it is concidered as an immersive element. I guess immersion, and the idea of a ingame world, is not a big concern for most mmo, so they just don't care about such technology.
OK you got me, I worded that wrong. I should of said I am starting to not care about this conversation! Is that better! You are right I did care at first because I wanted to see where you come off telling people that the developers are over exagerating time to travel across a zone.
You say I flip flop maybe that is because of the conversation, lets go back through what has been said so far. First you say the followign to my 15 minute qoute:
Then I ask how do you know, we do not even know what zone she is talking about, and talked about the details she gave.
Then you said
Then I said so you are saying that the fighting in the zone took 12 to 10.5 to get down to your 3-4.5 minute mark for travel time. I also asked how you knew the total size for a game that has not been developed. Plus I asked how it factors in to your theory that they have said the game was bigger then all of the other games they released combined.
And then you said:
Then I linked the qoutes that said there is as much content in the game as all of the games in GW1 combined. Then I said I would be interesting in putting your numbers to the test at release and seeing with a scietific experiement if you are right on the travel time. Plus I made the comment that I am little concerened that if you are right the game is going tofeel to compacted together.
Then you said:
(Here I marked the parts in RED that lead to my next response.) And my response was so you created something that could not be tested. Because if you are measuring the world in amount of time that it can be crossed shouldn't a character be able to cross the world in that amount of time. Then I said I really do not care since you said it can not be tested. (Now look at the parts in RED, you said that you don’t think that traveling in game will give you an accurate figure after I said I want to do a experiement to see if you are right after the game launches. Then you even make the comment at the end about knowing the size of the world in the time for a character to cross.)
(Here I marked the parts in RED that lead to my next response, plus I want to first point out that you first state if I test your theory that in would not be accurate. Then here you say that people that test your theory they descover that the time comes close to what you have stated. So which one is it? Can it be tested or can’t it be tested accuratly. But then the next part in red clears up those contradicting statements by saying if there was a highway through Tyria your times would work out, but since it does not have a highway times in game will be longer.)
Then my response was you just confirmed why I said previously why your theory can not be proven. Then I went on to suggest that maybe you should use surface area for Tyria, instead of travel time in your examples. Because travel time has a lot of variables that you have to account for and I even gave a real world example. Since you even stated yourself that you do not think that in game chacter travel time will give a accurate figure.
Hence why I suggested Surface area since it would get rid of all of that since it has no variables that could change the outcome. Since no one can use your travel time in game as a point of refrence then it has no value to the player, since as you stated a in game character can not reach it because there is no highway. So you have a figure that is worthless at least to me besides to have a debate over, since it can not be used in game. Where as the surface area would give you the same details about size of each game, and would in no way shape or forum have any bearing on how a character can travel in the game. But I guess that doesn’t matter, who cares if we give people figures that they can never use , but should be able to because it is about the chacter in game.
Ok so where in there was my argument "your arguments make no sense and flipflop all around as long as they're opposite of mine which seem to be their goal."
Because reading thorugh our discussion it seems like I was just trying to understand where you were coming from, then I offered a suggestion that makes more since to me. Yep seems like I was just flipflopping everywhere
Thank you that is exactly what I was trying to say, you just worded it a lot better then I did with my examples.
Well, MMO Maverick is trying to measure something that allows you to compare the physical space of one area to another, but it has limited, specific use.
For example, if you compare the same amount of physical area in a city, a suburb and corn fields, there's a huge difference in how 'meaningful' all that area is.
Also, you have to remember that the crossing time in GW2 appears to be faster than most MMO 'run' speed.
With weapons sheathed, GW2 characters REALLY book. Might have to get into the game to actually measure true distances (Usually there's some sort of coordinate system or 'meters away' system you can use to get some measurements), but I'm under the impression that GW2 no-weapons speed is comparable to many games early mounts.
So it's not like the 3-4 minute crossing time is comparable to say... a game where people run pretty slow.
Look at MMO Maverick's analysis of crossing time and distance more as... science and theoretical measurements, rather than an observation as to how big GW2 will feel, or how much content will be in it.