You're still thinking in terms of 'one mmo-server' == 'one machine'
No, actually I'm not. Today's server virtualization technology could certainly give them the capability of adding/removing hardware to support the demand on a particular world. However, it isn't an issue of performance but rather practicality. Consider if say 25,000 people all wanted to login at once on a particular world on launch day. Assuming the best case of the 5 (one per race) starter areas having an even population distribution, that's still 5,000 people per starter area. Assuming the server hardware runs that smoothly, it's still going to create problems for the client, and each zone would be so overcrowded that it would ruin the experience for everyone. For example, you know the event they showed a demo of in one of the starter areas where you have to help the farmer... image 300 people all trying to pack in there and do that event at the same time. That would be ugly, even if your PC could draw all 300 players smoothly (which is doubtful).
The only way I know of to allow everyone to login at the same time without queues, without client lag, and without overcrowding is instancing. That way they can control how many people are in a particular area at a time.
Would be an option, you probably wouldn't notice, and I'd actually rather have some instancing in starter area's then an overcrowded area.
Otherwise, I don't expect people to stay long in starter area's / zones and - depending on how 'big' they are - they'll spread out quickly enough. Also, there's probably not much happening in starter zones that would requires much server power, player characters require little processing as they do the moving (and drawing is done on the clients), until they enter zones with combat and npc's moving around.
You're still thinking in terms of 'one mmo-server' == 'one machine'
No, actually I'm not. Today's server virtualization technology could certainly give them the capability of adding/removing hardware to support the demand on a particular world. However, it isn't an issue of performance but rather practicality. Consider if say 25,000 people all wanted to login at once on a particular world on launch day. Assuming the best case of the 5 (one per race) starter areas having an even population distribution, that's still 5,000 people per starter area. Assuming the server hardware runs that smoothly, it's still going to create problems for the client, and each zone would be so overcrowded that it would ruin the experience for everyone. For example, you know the event they showed a demo of in one of the starter areas where you have to help the farmer... image 300 people all trying to pack in there and do that event at the same time. That would be ugly, even if your PC could draw all 300 players smoothly (which is doubtful).
The only way I know of to allow everyone to login at the same time without queues, without client lag, and without overcrowding is instancing. That way they can control how many people are in a particular area at a time.
The point he was trying to make is that Guild Wars handled this just fine, and as far as I know they're going to have server clusters in GW2 just as they did in 1. Meaning, when a portion of the world gets over-crowded, another instance of it opens up. There were times in GW1 where there were 20+ instances, not including international zones, of a particular outpost. If one was too crowded for you, you just select from the pulldone and pick one further down the list. It's all automated, so new instances of the zone instantly appear when population is heavy, and likewise they disappear when the population starts spreading out/logging off.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
I caved in and bought SWTOR and am currently in a typical MMO launch...
I still think SWTOR is a good fun MMO, but man, I am getting tired of the same old problems the plague almost all MMOs.
What's the worst problem that affects typical MMOs?
Is there anything I've missed?
I selected 'Other,' because nowhere in the poll did you mention the event thing. I think people are going to flock to GW2, and they're going to do so after coming off of games like WoW and SWTOR where you're guided through your levels with quests and icons. GW2 doesn't do that to the degree most have come to anticipate from MMOs. I think a lot of people are going to feel lost, like they were dropped off from the tutorial without being told what they should do next. Hopefully that's not the case, because if anything hurts the population of GW2, that's what it will be.
You also didn't include PvP in the poll, which could make or break the game for a lot of people who are looking forward to jumping right into max level PvP out of the tutorial. If its bad or unbalanced, or the Mists doesn't feel 'open' enough, the PvPers will be turned off.
The rest of your poll shouldn't be an issue. Polish is sort of in the eyes of the beholder, but I like what I've seen and played so far. Server queues weren't a problem in GW1 and I doubt they'll be a problem in GW2. Subscription/Account problems...probably not, though I acknowledge some people have had issues with NCSoft account services, so you never know. There could potentially be blips on the whole HoM thing, too, which would upset people. Quest/Resource competition will never be a problem; everyone participates evenly with the events and benefits equally so there's no issue there, and everyone can attack the same resource node. It only depletes FOR YOU, but after you've finished getting all you can out of it, someone else can walk up to it and hack away as well.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
You're still thinking in terms of 'one mmo-server' == 'one machine'
No, actually I'm not. Today's server virtualization technology could certainly give them the capability of adding/removing hardware to support the demand on a particular world. However, it isn't an issue of performance but rather practicality. Consider if say 25,000 people all wanted to login at once on a particular world on launch day. Assuming the best case of the 5 (one per race) starter areas having an even population distribution, that's still 5,000 people per starter area. Assuming the server hardware runs that smoothly, it's still going to create problems for the client, and each zone would be so overcrowded that it would ruin the experience for everyone. For example, you know the event they showed a demo of in one of the starter areas where you have to help the farmer... image 300 people all trying to pack in there and do that event at the same time. That would be ugly, even if your PC could draw all 300 players smoothly (which is doubtful).
The only way I know of to allow everyone to login at the same time without queues, without client lag, and without overcrowding is instancing. That way they can control how many people are in a particular area at a time.
The point he was trying to make is that Guild Wars handled this just fine, and as far as I know they're going to have server clusters in GW2 just as they did in 1. Meaning, when a portion of the world gets over-crowded, another instance of it opens up. There were times in GW1 where there were 20+ instances, not including international zones, of a particular outpost. If one was too crowded for you, you just select from the pulldone and pick one further down the list. It's all automated, so new instances of the zone instantly appear when population is heavy, and likewise they disappear when the population starts spreading out/logging off.
I was unaware they were going to do instancing of zones in GW2. Got a link to that info please?
Lack of content is another big problem many new MMOs have. For example levels 1-20 might have great content, but then there might be a large void from 21-40 where you have to grind lots of monsters since there aren't enough quests.
Lack of content is another big problem many new MMOs have. For example levels 1-20 might have great content, but then there might be a large void from 21-40 where you have to grind lots of monsters since there aren't enough quests.
more gw2 hate on swtor....why am I not surprised.....
Yes, and i dont know whats the real problem here, is like they cant live in a game world where at the end swtor is better game than gw2, we dont know that yet, but what if gw2 is not that great?. i mean people is talking about something new and innovative but i cant find nothing like that in the game, dynamic events are just like the pqs in warhammer and rift. Gw2 is even older than swtor, we are in the 2012 and stll, we know nothing about a CB, i just wonder why?.
more gw2 hate on swtor....why am I not surprised.....
Yes, and i dont know whats the real problem here, is like they cant live in a game world where at the end swtor is better game than gw2, we dont know that yet, but what if gw2 is not that great?. i mean people is talking about something new and innovative but i cant find nothing like that in the game, dynamic events are just like the pqs in warhammer and rift. Gw2 is even older than swtor, we are in the 2012 and stll, we know nothing about a CB, i just wonder why?.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
more gw2 hate on swtor....why am I not surprised.....
Yes, and i dont know whats the real problem here, is like they cant live in a game world where at the end swtor is better game than gw2, we dont know that yet, but what if gw2 is not that great?. i mean people is talking about something new and innovative but i cant find nothing like that in the game, dynamic events are just like the pqs in warhammer and rift. Gw2 is even older than swtor, we are in the 2012 and stll, we know nothing about a CB, i just wonder why?.
I just hope it is not like SWTOR's launch. The way they started 'early access' for some users but everyone else got screwed was manipulative... They should have been up front with WHEN the game comes out and the game should have come out when they said it would instead of trying to pull players strings. And using multiple instances of areas worked in GW1 but it will not work in GW2 because this is a MMORPG we are talking about... And no, SWTOR, it did not work in your game either.
I would rather have some server problems, etc than to be pushed on different instances of the same area and told I cant play the game yet while other people get to play for 3-5 days with 'early access' ala SWTOR.
Comments
No, actually I'm not. Today's server virtualization technology could certainly give them the capability of adding/removing hardware to support the demand on a particular world. However, it isn't an issue of performance but rather practicality. Consider if say 25,000 people all wanted to login at once on a particular world on launch day. Assuming the best case of the 5 (one per race) starter areas having an even population distribution, that's still 5,000 people per starter area. Assuming the server hardware runs that smoothly, it's still going to create problems for the client, and each zone would be so overcrowded that it would ruin the experience for everyone. For example, you know the event they showed a demo of in one of the starter areas where you have to help the farmer... image 300 people all trying to pack in there and do that event at the same time. That would be ugly, even if your PC could draw all 300 players smoothly (which is doubtful).
The only way I know of to allow everyone to login at the same time without queues, without client lag, and without overcrowding is instancing. That way they can control how many people are in a particular area at a time.
Would be an option, you probably wouldn't notice, and I'd actually rather have some instancing in starter area's then an overcrowded area.
Otherwise, I don't expect people to stay long in starter area's / zones and - depending on how 'big' they are - they'll spread out quickly enough. Also, there's probably not much happening in starter zones that would requires much server power, player characters require little processing as they do the moving (and drawing is done on the clients), until they enter zones with combat and npc's moving around.
The point he was trying to make is that Guild Wars handled this just fine, and as far as I know they're going to have server clusters in GW2 just as they did in 1. Meaning, when a portion of the world gets over-crowded, another instance of it opens up. There were times in GW1 where there were 20+ instances, not including international zones, of a particular outpost. If one was too crowded for you, you just select from the pulldone and pick one further down the list. It's all automated, so new instances of the zone instantly appear when population is heavy, and likewise they disappear when the population starts spreading out/logging off.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
I selected 'Other,' because nowhere in the poll did you mention the event thing. I think people are going to flock to GW2, and they're going to do so after coming off of games like WoW and SWTOR where you're guided through your levels with quests and icons. GW2 doesn't do that to the degree most have come to anticipate from MMOs. I think a lot of people are going to feel lost, like they were dropped off from the tutorial without being told what they should do next. Hopefully that's not the case, because if anything hurts the population of GW2, that's what it will be.
You also didn't include PvP in the poll, which could make or break the game for a lot of people who are looking forward to jumping right into max level PvP out of the tutorial. If its bad or unbalanced, or the Mists doesn't feel 'open' enough, the PvPers will be turned off.
The rest of your poll shouldn't be an issue. Polish is sort of in the eyes of the beholder, but I like what I've seen and played so far. Server queues weren't a problem in GW1 and I doubt they'll be a problem in GW2. Subscription/Account problems...probably not, though I acknowledge some people have had issues with NCSoft account services, so you never know. There could potentially be blips on the whole HoM thing, too, which would upset people. Quest/Resource competition will never be a problem; everyone participates evenly with the events and benefits equally so there's no issue there, and everyone can attack the same resource node. It only depletes FOR YOU, but after you've finished getting all you can out of it, someone else can walk up to it and hack away as well.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
I was unaware they were going to do instancing of zones in GW2. Got a link to that info please?
Zones will not be instanced, you can travel to other servers that have a lower population though.
Lack of content is another big problem many new MMOs have. For example levels 1-20 might have great content, but then there might be a large void from 21-40 where you have to grind lots of monsters since there aren't enough quests.
Wow, creepy Age of Conan deja-vu here.
Yes, and i dont know whats the real problem here, is like they cant live in a game world where at the end swtor is better game than gw2, we dont know that yet, but what if gw2 is not that great?. i mean people is talking about something new and innovative but i cant find nothing like that in the game, dynamic events are just like the pqs in warhammer and rift. Gw2 is even older than swtor, we are in the 2012 and stll, we know nothing about a CB, i just wonder why?.
Hikaru I could easily lecture you but there is no reason to take my time out of my day to talk to a hater who hates haters for no good reason. At the end of the day since I experienced it any way I'll let the OB do the walk for the talk.
May the common sense be with your clueless self.
By the way they are still in NDA CB, take care.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
Read http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/337506/Guild-Wars-2-Mass-info-for-the-uninitiated.html and ask yourself if that really sounds like every WoW-esque game that has come out during the last years or if it sounds very different?
I just hope it is not like SWTOR's launch. The way they started 'early access' for some users but everyone else got screwed was manipulative... They should have been up front with WHEN the game comes out and the game should have come out when they said it would instead of trying to pull players strings. And using multiple instances of areas worked in GW1 but it will not work in GW2 because this is a MMORPG we are talking about... And no, SWTOR, it did not work in your game either.
I would rather have some server problems, etc than to be pushed on different instances of the same area and told I cant play the game yet while other people get to play for 3-5 days with 'early access' ala SWTOR.
Play as your fav retro characters: cnd-online.net. My site: www.lysle.net. Blog: creatingaworld.blogspot.com.