I personally don't care one bit if GW2 was completely non-seamless.
I have no problem at all with instancing too. Actually i liked the GW1 system, especially that you could donwload a new zone if was not discovered early.
Non-seamless != instanced.
Zoned != instanced.
Non-seamless == zoned.
Catplay seems to be one of the few here that cannot comprehend the difference between a zone & an instance, so your attempt to clear the misunderstanding is pretty much futile. In the end people will play GW2 and experience its non-seamless, persistent world firsthand.
I personally don't care one bit if GW2 was completely non-seamless.
I have no problem at all with instancing too. Actually i liked the GW1 system, especially that you could donwload a new zone if was not discovered early.
Non-seamless != instanced.
Zoned != instanced.
Non-seamless == zoned.
Catplay seems to be one of the few here that cannot comprehend the difference between a zone & an instance, so your attempt to clear the misunderstanding is pretty much futile. In the end people will play GW2 and experience its non-seamless, persistent world firsthand.
If GW2 has 4 regions + cities it will be technically more instanced than WoW (at launch, right now it's pretty much the same number), though I prefer magnificent instanced cities than tiny non-instanced ones (provived they're well architected).
These are not instances. An instance is basically a private area, like a raid in WoW. When your group goes in, you get your own private version of that raid. Other people won't enter the raid area and suddenly be fighting along side you. The regions are not instanced, even though there's a load screen between them.
People using the wrong definitions are the reason there's so much confusion.
Actually, no, that would be a great misconception that probably started when people started shortening "instanced dungeon aidwhatever" to instance, limiting greatly the true meaning of the word.
An instance is an occurency or copy of an object (or class, or whatever depending on the language), may it be running or not.
Kalimdor is an instance, each realm has its own copy, it's private for people on that realm and it doesn't get deleted by players' actions inactions. But it's still an instance, as in isolated object that has its persistent and unique data over the rest of the world. It can crash bug separately from the rest of the world.
From a code point of view they are based on the same principle, even though they have a few different properties (because they are instances from different classes).
A "true persistent world" is still an instance, be it unique or not. A zone in GW2 is an instance, the cities will be instances. I just differentiated the "persistent instances" (as in, their state isn't volatile, and surely they are instances from different classes) from the spawned ones, as in WoW it's difficult to name them otherwise (each continent has plenty of zones, but Eastern Kingdoms for example is separated in 2 instances (Ghostlands being one) so I can't call them by continent as well).
I know it might confuse lots of non-tech savvy people, but still, instance is an english word, it doesn't take a Rocket Science degree to know its meaning, be it programming computer oriented or not.
Anyway, we still don't really know how it will pan out for GW2, but I surely would prefer 1 instance per region and not zone, I think too many portals disconnect the world and severely limit the possibility of exploring (for those people like me that like to climb and go to those places where it seemed impossible).
If GW2 has 4 regions + cities it will be technically more instanced than WoW (at launch, right now it's pretty much the same number), though I prefer magnificent instanced cities than tiny non-instanced ones (provived they're well architected).
These are not instances. An instance is basically a private area, like a raid in WoW. When your group goes in, you get your own private version of that raid. Other people won't enter the raid area and suddenly be fighting along side you. The regions are not instanced, even though there's a load screen between them.
People using the wrong definitions are the reason there's so much confusion.
Actually, no, that would be a great misconception that probably started when people started shortening "instanced dungeon aidwhatever" to instance, limiting greatly the true meaning of the word.
An instance is an occurency or copy of an object (or class, or whatever depending on the language), may it be running or not.
Kalimdor is an instance, each realm has its own copy, it's private for people on that realm and it doesn't get deleted by players' actions inactions. But it's still an instance, as in isolated object that has its persistent and unique data over the rest of the world. It can crash bug separately from the rest of the world.
From a code point of view they are based on the same principle, even though they have a few different properties (because they are instances from different classes).
A "true persistent world" is still an instance, be it unique or not. A zone in GW2 is an instance, the cities will be instances. I just differentiated the "persistent instances" (as in, their state isn't volatile, and surely they are instances from different classes) from the spawned ones, as in WoW it's difficult to name them otherwise (each continent has plenty of zones, but Eastern Kingdoms for example is separated in 2 instances (Ghostlands being one) so I can't call them by continent as well).
I know it might confuse lots of non-tech savvy people, but still, instance is an english word, it doesn't take a Rocket Science degree to know its meaning, be it programming computer oriented or not.
Anyway, we still don't really know how it will pan out for GW2, but I surely would prefer 1 instance per region and not zone, I think too many portals disconnect the world and severely limit the possibility of exploring (for those people like me that like to climb and go to those places where it seemed impossible).
Ah, gotcha. Yes, by the actual definition you're right... there's just the similar problem to people using the word "theory"... there's the layman's definition meaning a guess and the scientific definition which is completely different.
So based on what you said, each region is a persistent instance which includes all the zones of that region.
yeah, i just got a bunch of shit for speaking the truth. just watch the videos. load screens happen and they are as long as the swtor ones and as frequent. i dont know what the big deal with guys is. is shit but thats the way it is. deal with it.
The only problem with this is that you don't know what a load screen is, apparently. The voice over screens for quests are not "load screens" and the few times you actually ZONE (portal) you SHOULD have a load screen. Major cities do seem to have load screens, but for you to exaggerate and say they're "all the time" is just you being an ***, pure and simple. They don't happen "all the time."
I take it you're one of the many that won't be buying the game yet insist on spending all your time in the threads for the game just doggin' it for shits and giggles, huh? Well....enjoy.
If GW2 has 4 regions + cities it will be technically more instanced than WoW (at launch, right now it's pretty much the same number), though I prefer magnificent instanced cities than tiny non-instanced ones (provived they're well architected).
These are not instances. An instance is basically a private area, like a raid in WoW. When your group goes in, you get your own private version of that raid. Other people won't enter the raid area and suddenly be fighting along side you. The regions are not instanced, even though there's a load screen between them.
People using the wrong definitions are the reason there's so much confusion.
Actually, no, that would be a great misconception that probably started when people started shortening "instanced dungeon aidwhatever" to instance, limiting greatly the true meaning of the word.
An instance is an occurency or copy of an object (or class, or whatever depending on the language), may it be running or not.
Kalimdor is an instance, each realm has its own copy, it's private for people on that realm and it doesn't get deleted by players' actions inactions. But it's still an instance, as in isolated object that has its persistent and unique data over the rest of the world. It can crash bug separately from the rest of the world.
From a code point of view they are based on the same principle, even though they have a few different properties (because they are instances from different classes).
A "true persistent world" is still an instance, be it unique or not. A zone in GW2 is an instance, the cities will be instances. I just differentiated the "persistent instances" (as in, their state isn't volatile, and surely they are instances from different classes) from the spawned ones, as in WoW it's difficult to name them otherwise (each continent has plenty of zones, but Eastern Kingdoms for example is separated in 2 instances (Ghostlands being one) so I can't call them by continent as well).
I know it might confuse lots of non-tech savvy people, but still, instance is an english word, it doesn't take a Rocket Science degree to know its meaning, be it programming computer oriented or not.
Anyway, we still don't really know how it will pan out for GW2, but I surely would prefer 1 instance per region and not zone, I think too many portals disconnect the world and severely limit the possibility of exploring (for those people like me that like to climb and go to those places where it seemed impossible).
Ah, gotcha. Yes, by the actual definition you're right... there's just the similar problem to people using the word "theory"... there's the layman's definition meaning a guess and the scientific definition which is completely different.
So based on what you said, each region is a persistent instance which includes all the zones of that region.
Aye, that would be my guess based on what I've heard from beta, and it looks good enough to be honest. If each Zone is roughly the same size as Barrens, 25 Barrens make a big world (that surely will get expanded later on with DLC Expansions), and each Region having +- 6 Zones it's more than good enough for travel (especially since there will be no mounts in the beginning, the world will seem huge).
If the Zone design transition is smart, exploring will probably be great considering the Region size. I just hope they don't limit exploring that much inside of Regions (I understand there will probably be only a few portals between Regions). One of the things that annoyed me in Rift was the world size, despite the exploration being good. If GW2 can bring a big world + great exploration option it'll be a winner for many people.
Edit: Sorry for not following on the "word meaning" discussion, but I feel this is a gaming forum mostly and as we both got the idea I felt no need for further pursuing the discussion. By the way, I'm not a native English speaker, and I actually learned English playing "The Legend of Zelda" on the SNES, lol, just to give an example as to why I feel people deviate too much from the word meanings as internet trendings change.
For me it's important to have a world like WoW did back in classic where it is all seamless apart from the instances. Yet all I'm seeing is how you'll be able teleport everywhere which instantly kills the world and ruins the whole point of an MMORPG for me. The news on mounts just means they don't expect you to travel very far and the game will be all instanced and zoned.
The whole point of an MMO for me is to have this world, otherwise it might as well be a standard multiplayer game that just has a graphical server browser. The problem with SWTOR is you pay a subscription so I cannot justify that when I can get the same map design for free in a multiplayer game. GW2 however doesn't charge a subscription so I don't have to make the same choice or complaint around subscribing.
However with this news it isn't going to be the next MMO I and many people have been waiting for on these forums. It just looks like it'll be like all the other modern MMOs that have largely gotten rid of their world for instances and fast travel.
:
It is like WoW.. so, not completely seemless. In WoW you got 2 Zones(the two continents) and in GW you got 4 Zones. In both of them you will have some intances(WoW -> Dungeons, Raids) and in GW(Dungeons, a few Personal Story Instances).
In both games the seemless Zones are huge, so it is not really a big problem, that they are not completely seemless.
PS/Edit: Loading Screens apear when you cross the Zones, or enter a Instance(Dungeon, Story Instances) or you travel with a portal. The portals are spread around all Zones in GW2, but you have to discover them, before you can travel to this point(with other words, you have to walk at least one time there. You can use Portals within one Zone(seemless world) or to other Zones, but in any case you will have a loading screen. So if you dont like loading screens, dont use Portals.
Wait wait wait. I distinctly remember priests being able to swim across continents in WoW because they could shrug off fatigue. And they didnt have loading zones while swimming through! :O
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni ( o.o) (")(") **This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
id like to disagree. for whatever it's worth. if a zone is "full" you will be put into a differnt instance of that zone. check into the overflow server thing they talked about, about a month ago.
ahhh like districts in GW1? I was wondering if they'd have them. I'm not bothered by this personally but I'm used to it. Sometimes it's a benefit.
Instanced districts in GW1 and DDO was one of the most retarded things ever in mmorpg's we ve seen so far.
For what ? Wasting time asking eachother in a party: hey,im in dist3 which dist u guys are on? Being on the same place with your friends and not able to see them? Most ridiculous and unrealistic thing ever.
If u r saying u r not bothered by this and sometimes its a benefit i can only assume few things here.
Either u r ANET employee , fanboy, or simply u r the typical kind of player type that lacks the tinest ammount of judgement which in my opinion is one of the biggest reason the mmorpg developer companies are not punished with zero sales ,for the crap mmorpgs products they serve us to eat last years. One of the main reasons the mmorpg scene is so static last years.
Anet employee? Nope
Fanboy? I am a fan, I'm not a boy though. I've played many games for many years and enjoyed many different sorts.
People like me are to blame for bad mmo's? Ok.
I would much rather have another shard open up then wait in a queue to play a game. If you prefer waiting that's up to you.
It appears i missed the part about the district opening during queqe status only, and for that i apologise.
Its just i recall talking with some friends about this situation and all agreed that it was an uneseccary measure both in gw1 and ddo and it was a ball breaking buster issue most of the times while playing in party.
Wait wait wait. I distinctly remember priests being able to swim across continents in WoW because they could shrug off fatigue. And they didnt have loading zones while swimming through! :O
That is because WoW loads everything gradually in the background, it reduces loading screens but it by no means makes the world seamless. Kalimdor, Eastern Kingdoms, Outlands, Northrend, Dungeons and Raids, and PvP areas are all on their own separate server clusters. Pre-Cataclysm, some areas within them had loading screen just to enter. From Ghostlands to Plaguelands required a loading screen.
Those priests didn't see a loading zone as they swam because at the speed you go as they do it, the zones were loaded as they got there.
It's also why fatigue exists in the first place I'm willing to bet. They'd rather have you staying within server clusters instead of "swimming" to another.
MY GOD! Quit asking this question! I've lost track of how many threads have been made that ask this question. It's like we need to make some sort of wiki to house all of the internets stupid and repeated questions. We could call it "Noanswershere.com" or "Googlenotgoodenoughforyou?.com"...I think one day I'll find all the old threads that ask this question..and make a thread and just link them all.
but then again. I have a life...and cake(is a lie).
MMO's are the ark of the gaming world. Let it take us in new directions.
Comments
Catplay seems to be one of the few here that cannot comprehend the difference between a zone & an instance, so your attempt to clear the misunderstanding is pretty much futile. In the end people will play GW2 and experience its non-seamless, persistent world firsthand.
this
Actually, no, that would be a great misconception that probably started when people started shortening "instanced dungeon
aidwhatever" to instance, limiting greatly the true meaning of the word.
An instance is an occurency or copy of an object (or class, or whatever depending on the language), may it be running or not.
Kalimdor is an instance, each realm has its own copy, it's private for people on that realm and it doesn't get deleted by players' actions inactions. But it's still an instance, as in isolated object that has its persistent and unique data over the rest of the world. It can crash bug separately from the rest of the world.
From a code point of view they are based on the same principle, even though they have a few different properties (because they are instances from different classes).
A "true persistent world" is still an instance, be it unique or not. A zone in GW2 is an instance, the cities will be instances. I just differentiated the "persistent instances" (as in, their state isn't volatile, and surely they are instances from different classes) from the spawned ones, as in WoW it's difficult to name them otherwise (each continent has plenty of zones, but Eastern Kingdoms for example is separated in 2 instances (Ghostlands being one) so I can't call them by continent as well).
I know it might confuse lots of non-tech savvy people, but still, instance is an english word, it doesn't take a Rocket Science degree to know its meaning, be it programming computer oriented or not.
Anyway, we still don't really know how it will pan out for GW2, but I surely would prefer 1 instance per region and not zone, I think too many portals disconnect the world and severely limit the possibility of exploring (for those people like me that like to climb and go to those places where it seemed impossible).
Ah, gotcha. Yes, by the actual definition you're right... there's just the similar problem to people using the word "theory"... there's the layman's definition meaning a guess and the scientific definition which is completely different.
So based on what you said, each region is a persistent instance which includes all the zones of that region.
Oderint, dum metuant.
The only problem with this is that you don't know what a load screen is, apparently. The voice over screens for quests are not "load screens" and the few times you actually ZONE (portal) you SHOULD have a load screen. Major cities do seem to have load screens, but for you to exaggerate and say they're "all the time" is just you being an ***, pure and simple. They don't happen "all the time."
I take it you're one of the many that won't be buying the game yet insist on spending all your time in the threads for the game just doggin' it for shits and giggles, huh? Well....enjoy.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
Aye, that would be my guess based on what I've heard from beta, and it looks good enough to be honest. If each Zone is roughly the same size as Barrens, 25 Barrens make a big world (that surely will get expanded later on with DLC Expansions), and each Region having +- 6 Zones it's more than good enough for travel (especially since there will be no mounts in the beginning, the world will seem huge).
If the Zone design transition is smart, exploring will probably be great considering the Region size. I just hope they don't limit exploring that much inside of Regions (I understand there will probably be only a few portals between Regions). One of the things that annoyed me in Rift was the world size, despite the exploration being good. If GW2 can bring a big world + great exploration option it'll be a winner for many people.
Edit: Sorry for not following on the "word meaning" discussion, but I feel this is a gaming forum mostly and as we both got the idea I felt no need for further pursuing the discussion. By the way, I'm not a native English speaker, and I actually learned English playing "The Legend of Zelda" on the SNES, lol, just to give an example as to why I feel people deviate too much from the word meanings as internet trendings change.
Wait wait wait. I distinctly remember priests being able to swim across continents in WoW because they could shrug off fatigue. And they didnt have loading zones while swimming through! :O
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
( o.o)
(")(")
**This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
It appears i missed the part about the district opening during queqe status only, and for that i apologise.
Its just i recall talking with some friends about this situation and all agreed that it was an uneseccary measure both in gw1 and ddo and it was a ball breaking buster issue most of the times while playing in party.
That is because WoW loads everything gradually in the background, it reduces loading screens but it by no means makes the world seamless. Kalimdor, Eastern Kingdoms, Outlands, Northrend, Dungeons and Raids, and PvP areas are all on their own separate server clusters. Pre-Cataclysm, some areas within them had loading screen just to enter. From Ghostlands to Plaguelands required a loading screen.
Those priests didn't see a loading zone as they swam because at the speed you go as they do it, the zones were loaded as they got there.
It's also why fatigue exists in the first place I'm willing to bet. They'd rather have you staying within server clusters instead of "swimming" to another.
Everytime you kill a mob there we be a loading screen. Does that mean its instanced?
What loading screen is that? Are you chaning zones? Are you entering a private area?
None, NO and NO.
I assume he is joking.
[mod edit] you can see his comments over on TERA, defending that game like its was the his own child.
Its clear he doesnt like GW2, so I dont understand why he is here.
MY GOD! Quit asking this question! I've lost track of how many threads have been made that ask this question. It's like we need to make some sort of wiki to house all of the internets stupid and repeated questions. We could call it "Noanswershere.com" or "Googlenotgoodenoughforyou?.com"...I think one day I'll find all the old threads that ask this question..and make a thread and just link them all.
but then again. I have a life...and cake(is a lie).
MMO's are the ark of the gaming world. Let it take us in new directions.