This thread seems a bit daft, tbh. OP, You realize, of course, that any MMO you've ever played that had multiple servers are like instances when compared to a Mega-server, right? Lets compare:
Traditional MMO: Multiple gameplay servers where the player Has to pick one to join, permenantly. Players can only play with people on the same server. Moving to another server is usually a premium service, costing real cash. Server merges usually resulting in player merges and forced name changes for some.
TESO Mega-Server concept: Probably multiple servers as far as hardware goes, but to the player one single server that everyone joins. Players can play with anyone who is playing the game, though i expect some communication is required between the parties to arrive in the same shard. Moving between the servers is now possible at-will, and appear to the player as selectable shards, and costs no real world cash to effect the change. A reduction to the requisite servers should be transparent to the player, with no forced name changes.
I don't see what all the fuss is about. This really is not that different that an MMO with multiple servers, except now you are not separated from those players by a 20 buck character transfer fee.
Now, if the auto-shard assignment cannot be overridden, then it's daft. Auto should auto-sort guild members to the same shards, etc.
While your post is 100% true, your missing the main beef with it. The individual 'instances' can only hold a very low amount of people. If you played AoC when it had a decent population, which had a simmilar setup but no 'megaserver' you would know its a huge pain is the ass swapping back and forth between instances, not to mention the RP kids really dont like things that break immersion. This apparenty being a TES game, the RP crowd is agruably the majority or at least a very large percentage of the potential playerbase.
This thread seems a bit daft, tbh. OP, You realize, of course, that any MMO you've ever played that had multiple servers are like instances when compared to a Mega-server, right? Lets compare:
Traditional MMO: Multiple gameplay servers where the player Has to pick one to join, permenantly. Players can only play with people on the same server. Moving to another server is usually a premium service, costing real cash. Server merges usually resulting in player merges and forced name changes for some.
TESO Mega-Server concept: Probably multiple servers as far as hardware goes, but to the player one single server that everyone joins. Players can play with anyone who is playing the game, though i expect some communication is required between the parties to arrive in the same shard. Moving between the servers is now possible at-will, and appear to the player as selectable shards, and costs no real world cash to effect the change. A reduction to the requisite servers should be transparent to the player, with no forced name changes.
I don't see what all the fuss is about. This really is not that different that an MMO with multiple servers, except now you are not separated from those players by a 20 buck character transfer fee.
Now, if the auto-shard assignment cannot be overridden, then it's daft. Auto should auto-sort guild members to the same shards, etc.
While your post is 100% true, your missing the main beef with it. The individual 'instances' can only hold a very low amount of people. If you played AoC when it had a decent population, which had a simmilar setup but no 'megaserver' you would know its a huge pain is the ass swapping back and forth between instances, not to mention the RP kids really dont like things that break immersion. This apparenty being a TES game, the RP crowd is agruably the majority or at least a very large percentage of the potential playerbase.
but we don't know how big each megaserver "pocket" will be. could be each holds the same as a traditional server.
This thread seems a bit daft, tbh. OP, You realize, of course, that any MMO you've ever played that had multiple servers are like instances when compared to a Mega-server, right? Lets compare:
Traditional MMO: Multiple gameplay servers where the player Has to pick one to join, permenantly. Players can only play with people on the same server. Moving to another server is usually a premium service, costing real cash. Server merges usually resulting in player merges and forced name changes for some.
TESO Mega-Server concept: Probably multiple servers as far as hardware goes, but to the player one single server that everyone joins. Players can play with anyone who is playing the game, though i expect some communication is required between the parties to arrive in the same shard. Moving between the servers is now possible at-will, and appear to the player as selectable shards, and costs no real world cash to effect the change. A reduction to the requisite servers should be transparent to the player, with no forced name changes.
I don't see what all the fuss is about. This really is not that different that an MMO with multiple servers, except now you are not separated from those players by a 20 buck character transfer fee.
Now, if the auto-shard assignment cannot be overridden, then it's daft. Auto should auto-sort guild members to the same shards, etc.
While your post is 100% true, your missing the main beef with it. The individual 'instances' can only hold a very low amount of people. If you played AoC when it had a decent population, which had a simmilar setup but no 'megaserver' you would know its a huge pain is the ass swapping back and forth between instances, not to mention the RP kids really dont like things that break immersion. This apparenty being a TES game, the RP crowd is agruably the majority or at least a very large percentage of the potential playerbase.
but we don't know how big each megaserver "pocket" will be. could be each holds the same as a traditional server.
The article link has slipped my mind but its been confirmed its only a hundred or two.
These conversations about how they "destroy community" strike me as so wrong. It seems more that these players want the game by design to force them to build a community than to be social human beings and seek out interaction. I just bought GW2 since Im bored waiting to head back to America and once a tittle over 30 someone invited me to do AC explore with them even though I wasn't quite high enough. Everyone in the group got along, friended each other adn we still group to this day. Well I'll be damned the solo centric GW2 game helped me make friends because someone took the time to reach out.
To the guy that mentioned sitting around a rabbit. Why do you think thats the better way to do it? Do you think everyone will politely wait their turn to tag the rabbit and get the credit? It would have to be first hit, because everyone getting credit and moving on wouldn't build community.
More often than not the statments I see seem to imply that because the system doesn't force you into interaction then you won't have any. And you aren't going to know all 2000 people on your server anyways. Its doubtful your "community" is larger than 150 and that implies a strong, cohesive community.
All games have a system to form a community. A simple chat option gives you the ability to form a community. You just don't want to be the one to reach out and make a friend. If you're shy and you have trouble reaching out, then that is a reason that I can respect for wanting that kind of population clustering and forced interaction. But to say that a game with instancing doesn't give you the chance to form communities is just a blatant falsehood.
Wow 7 pages worth of threads and no one mentions the obvious. Im not here to defend what they are doing, but there is a reason. It's called game programming. Have you ever in your life seen a seemless world that can support hundreds of thousands of players on one server? You could probably answer yes to that on one game, EVE. But heres where things go wrong, ENTITIES!!!!!! You can only have so many moving objects on a screen before the server load gets to high and eventually crashes. If anyone of you have ever read anything John Carmack has written, then you would see why it can't happen with todays technology. There isnt one server that could handle 10000+ players on top of NPC's and the like.
So the question really is, would you rather play a game that crashes constantly but looks amazing and you can play with everyone, or would you rather have smooth gameplay and no crashes and only play with a select few? Trust me on this, you will never see a one server seemless world anytime soon. Getting over this now will help you move on and maybe you can start enjoying what you have.
How about option 3 where the game doesn't look amazing, but passable, yet in return allows me to play with thousands of people?
Two reasons come to mind. One, if it doesn't look amazing, you've lost one of your main hooks into the typical main stream market. In todays competitive market thats a BIG deal.
Second, beyond a certain point, you aren't going to have personal interactions with more than a relative handful (30-50) people on a regular basis any way. Even the most social people aren't going to go much above 100 (if that).
Those who go on (and on and on...) about this abstract known as "community" seldom if ever take that into account. What makes a "community" memerable, isn't its numbers, but its *individuals* and your interactions with them. Honestly, when you start thinking about it, how many *individuals* do you remember from a given game?
These conversations about how they "destroy community" strike me as so wrong. It seems more that these players want the game by design to force them to build a community than to be social human beings and seek out interaction. I just bought GW2 since Im bored waiting to head back to America and once a tittle over 30 someone invited me to do AC explore with them even though I wasn't quite high enough. Everyone in the group got along, friended each other adn we still group to this day. Well I'll be damned the solo centric GW2 game helped me make friends because someone took the time to reach out.
To the guy that mentioned sitting around a rabbit. Why do you think thats the better way to do it? Do you think everyone will politely wait their turn to tag the rabbit and get the credit? It would have to be first hit, because everyone getting credit and moving on wouldn't build community.
More often than not the statments I see seem to imply that because the system doesn't force you into interaction then you won't have any. And you aren't going to know all 2000 people on your server anyways. Its doubtful your "community" is larger than 150 and that implies a strong, cohesive community.
All games have a system to form a community. A simple chat option gives you the ability to form a community. You just don't want to be the one to reach out and make a friend. If you're shy and you have trouble reaching out, then that is a reason that I can respect for wanting that kind of population clustering and forced interaction. But to say that a game with instancing doesn't give you the chance to form communities is just a blatant falsehood.
In theory you are correct. In practise you are incredibly wrong. The majority of people in MMO's will seek the path of least resistance.
ie. If a person can quickly find a group with a dungeon/raid finder tool get teleported there instantly and acheive their goals without uttering a word they will never go through the hassle of actually interacting with others, making friends, forming a group, going to a desination on foot/mount and then acheiving their goals.
Those that would prefer the longer and harder way do try, but quickly get fed up of being behind the 8 ball and generally go allong with the easy route players.
This behaviour has been displayed very prominently in every single last clone.
Wow 7 pages worth of threads and no one mentions the obvious. Im not here to defend what they are doing, but there is a reason. It's called game programming. Have you ever in your life seen a seemless world that can support hundreds of thousands of players on one server? You could probably answer yes to that on one game, EVE. But heres where things go wrong, ENTITIES!!!!!! You can only have so many moving objects on a screen before the server load gets to high and eventually crashes. If anyone of you have ever read anything John Carmack has written, then you would see why it can't happen with todays technology. There isnt one server that could handle 10000+ players on top of NPC's and the like.
So the question really is, would you rather play a game that crashes constantly but looks amazing and you can play with everyone, or would you rather have smooth gameplay and no crashes and only play with a select few? Trust me on this, you will never see a one server seemless world anytime soon. Getting over this now will help you move on and maybe you can start enjoying what you have.
Yes. DAOC, Darkfall, hell even at release Warhammer had some pretty high numbers in endgame RvR.
More recently, Planetside 2.
Please stop spouting what zenimax's staff has said as impossible or too hard. It's not, not by a long shot. Zenimax has been in damage control since day one, and will continue to spout utter lies as fact right up to release of the game.
Its more reality than lies. I played EVE for almost six years. CCP has pushed damn near to the limits of whats possible (and in many cases beyond...) with currently existing technology. But even with their fanatical dedication to their goal of having everyone in one universe, they have had SERIOUS problems.
They have *created* entire software and hardware infrastructures to deal with the problems involved, and its still not enough when battles go above a certain number. Their data center has frequently been on the top five hundred super computer list, and its still not been nearly enough.
There really is a limit to how many interactions can be achieved (in real time) at any given tech level. Couple that with having to deal with a distributed communications system, and its literally amazing that they've managed to push it even as far as they have. Lord knows, I'm no fan of Zenimax, but lets not let that blind us to the various realities that exist.
This thread seems a bit daft, tbh. OP, You realize, of course, that any MMO you've ever played that had multiple servers are like instances when compared to a Mega-server, right? Lets compare:
Traditional MMO: Multiple gameplay servers where the player Has to pick one to join, permenantly. Players can only play with people on the same server. Moving to another server is usually a premium service, costing real cash. Server merges usually resulting in player merges and forced name changes for some.
TESO Mega-Server concept: Probably multiple servers as far as hardware goes, but to the player one single server that everyone joins. Players can play with anyone who is playing the game, though i expect some communication is required between the parties to arrive in the same shard. Moving between the servers is now possible at-will, and appear to the player as selectable shards, and costs no real world cash to effect the change. A reduction to the requisite servers should be transparent to the player, with no forced name changes.
I don't see what all the fuss is about. This really is not that different that an MMO with multiple servers, except now you are not separated from those players by a 20 buck character transfer fee.
Now, if the auto-shard assignment cannot be overridden, then it's daft. Auto should auto-sort guild members to the same shards, etc.
While your post is 100% true, your missing the main beef with it. The individual 'instances' can only hold a very low amount of people. If you played AoC when it had a decent population, which had a simmilar setup but no 'megaserver' you would know its a huge pain is the ass swapping back and forth between instances, not to mention the RP kids really dont like things that break immersion. This apparenty being a TES game, the RP crowd is agruably the majority or at least a very large percentage of the potential playerbase.
but we don't know how big each megaserver "pocket" will be. could be each holds the same as a traditional server.
The article link has slipped my mind but its been confirmed its only a hundred or two.
UGG! Ok that would suck. Can someone find a source to co firm this number. 200 to 300 players per shard?
Frank 'Spankybus' Mignone www.spankybus.com -3d Artist & Compositor -Writer -Professional Amature
+ new generation of players acustomed to fast paced gratification, no commitment, no seriousness
(pro tip: role-playing is now the exception, not the rule... see many RP servers if any? in games called mmoRPGs!, and no, RP is not having a skill tree)
+ no need what so ever to socialize in an mmo since there are other networking media (playing while on facebook anyone?)
+ influx of console-minded gamers since mmos are now mainstream -> different view of gaming
+ which leads to angry birds or eve? meh both nice games (ok, i am being harsh)
+ companies think WOWesque success is within reach
+ companies think WOWesque success is NOT within reach, but will instead milk the cow
+ retards like us, who rush and praise, believe the hype, play, over-play, get burned and then discredit all the lastest releases.
We are hard-core players trying to get into now main-stream games. adapt, or find a niche game and really enjoy ourselves.
Well too bad. In the end, things usually change for the better. If not, then the game dies. You and everyone else complaining about undemonstrated concepts will not change a damn thing. You'll probably hop back on whatever wagon is around the corner anyway. So at least look foward to that?
I wish this was true. If things usually change for the better then why have all the MMOs that have come out in the past 5 years been crap failures? They try to change things a bit....more like devs are just taking the WoW formula and tweaking it a bit and calling that a "change". But even if the tweaking made it a little different than WoW it is still WoW at the core. And look at all the changes to WoW in the past 5+years...most of the changes have been for the worse with more phasing and dumbing down of the game. Things usually change for the better? Not so sure.
Wow 7 pages worth of threads and no one mentions the obvious. Im not here to defend what they are doing, but there is a reason. It's called game programming. Have you ever in your life seen a seemless world that can support hundreds of thousands of players on one server? You could probably answer yes to that on one game, EVE. But heres where things go wrong, ENTITIES!!!!!! You can only have so many moving objects on a screen before the server load gets to high and eventually crashes. If anyone of you have ever read anything John Carmack has written, then you would see why it can't happen with todays technology. There isnt one server that could handle 10000+ players on top of NPC's and the like.
So the question really is, would you rather play a game that crashes constantly but looks amazing and you can play with everyone, or would you rather have smooth gameplay and no crashes and only play with a select few? Trust me on this, you will never see a one server seemless world anytime soon. Getting over this now will help you move on and maybe you can start enjoying what you have.
I completely agree with this. I am a Microsoft SQL DBA and I can tell you, yes you have have millions of transactions goes on in a database. However only so many transactions can go on before network, Disk, Memory or CPU utilization will be maxed. Yes in the next 10 to 20 years Mega servers will be possible because where computing power is going. Yes Eldar Scrools can go this route with phasing and instancing out of the world. The problem with that is you get closed zones like SWTOR has and not wide open zones like WOW, Rift or many other MMOs have.
These conversations about how they "destroy community" strike me as so wrong. It seems more that these players want the game by design to force them to build a community than to be social human beings and seek out interaction. I just bought GW2 since Im bored waiting to head back to America and once a tittle over 30 someone invited me to do AC explore with them even though I wasn't quite high enough. Everyone in the group got along, friended each other adn we still group to this day. Well I'll be damned the solo centric GW2 game helped me make friends because someone took the time to reach out.
To the guy that mentioned sitting around a rabbit. Why do you think thats the better way to do it? Do you think everyone will politely wait their turn to tag the rabbit and get the credit? It would have to be first hit, because everyone getting credit and moving on wouldn't build community.
More often than not the statments I see seem to imply that because the system doesn't force you into interaction then you won't have any. And you aren't going to know all 2000 people on your server anyways. Its doubtful your "community" is larger than 150 and that implies a strong, cohesive community.
All games have a system to form a community. A simple chat option gives you the ability to form a community. You just don't want to be the one to reach out and make a friend. If you're shy and you have trouble reaching out, then that is a reason that I can respect for wanting that kind of population clustering and forced interaction. But to say that a game with instancing doesn't give you the chance to form communities is just a blatant falsehood.
In theory you are correct. In practise you are incredibly wrong. The majority of people in MMO's will seek the path of least resistance.
ie. If a person can quickly find a group with a dungeon/raid finder tool get teleported there instantly and acheive their goals without uttering a word they will never go through the hassle of actually interacting with others, making friends, forming a group, going to a desination on foot/mount and then acheiving their goals.
Those that would prefer the longer and harder way do try, but quickly get fed up of being behind the 8 ball and generally go allong with the easy route players.
This behaviour has been displayed very prominently in every single last clone.
I understand it is human nature to take the easiest route however there are opportunities to develop community in the games that people will not take advantage of, or outside of them to facilitate building a community in that game. Perhaps the people on this site that complain about that but are still intent on trying out a game form a guild so that they have that community before they even log in. With this kind of server that is entirely possible since you don't even have to worry about launch day coordination on learning server names and making sure everyone picks the correct server.
The issue I take is that people don't take advantage of it. I personally haven't had trouble making friends from groups I find through LFD in Rift when I played it for example. Maybe because I seek out the connection its easier to get. The fact of the matter is avenues exist and if you don't take advantage of them, even if they are hard that still isn't the developers fault that you won't do it. The path exists, and you have that choice.
I will admit that in the sense that people want to be forced into grouping and interaction since that would be the simplest and easiest way from their perspective instead of reaching out, I think its unfair to blame the game or developers for not pandering, but that is a business discussion and this is more about building a community and not the economic viability of this or that process.
This thread seems a bit daft, tbh. OP, You realize, of course, that any MMO you've ever played that had multiple servers are like instances when compared to a Mega-server, right? Lets compare:
Traditional MMO: Multiple gameplay servers where the player Has to pick one to join, permenantly. Players can only play with people on the same server. Moving to another server is usually a premium service, costing real cash. Server merges usually resulting in player merges and forced name changes for some.
TESO Mega-Server concept: Probably multiple servers as far as hardware goes, but to the player one single server that everyone joins. Players can play with anyone who is playing the game, though i expect some communication is required between the parties to arrive in the same shard. Moving between the servers is now possible at-will, and appear to the player as selectable shards, and costs no real world cash to effect the change. A reduction to the requisite servers should be transparent to the player, with no forced name changes.
I don't see what all the fuss is about. This really is not that different that an MMO with multiple servers, except now you are not separated from those players by a 20 buck character transfer fee.
Now, if the auto-shard assignment cannot be overridden, then it's daft. Auto should auto-sort guild members to the same shards, etc.
While your post is 100% true, your missing the main beef with it. The individual 'instances' can only hold a very low amount of people. If you played AoC when it had a decent population, which had a simmilar setup but no 'megaserver' you would know its a huge pain is the ass swapping back and forth between instances, not to mention the RP kids really dont like things that break immersion. This apparenty being a TES game, the RP crowd is agruably the majority or at least a very large percentage of the potential playerbase.
but we don't know how big each megaserver "pocket" will be. could be each holds the same as a traditional server.
The article link has slipped my mind but its been confirmed its only a hundred or two.
UGG! Ok that would suck. Can someone find a source to co firm this number. 200 to 300 players per shard?
i've read and or watched every bit of info and have not seen or heard that referenced anywhere. if that guy can provide a source i'd be happy to back that number up though. but as far as i know that has not been confirmed. (or denied).
+ new generation of players acustomed to fast paced gratification, no commitment, no seriousness
(pro tip: role-playing is now the exception, not the rule... see many RP servers if any? in games called mmoRPGs!, and no, RP is not having a skill tree)
+ no need what so ever to socialize in an mmo since there are other networking media (playing while on facebook anyone?)
+ influx of console-minded gamers since mmos are now mainstream -> different view of gaming
+ which leads to angry birds or eve? meh both nice games (ok, i am being harsh)
+ companies think WOWesque success is within reach
+ companies think WOWesque success is NOT within reach, but will instead milk the cow
+ retards like us, who rush and praise, believe the hype, play, over-play, get burned and then discredit all the lastest releases.
We are hard-core players trying to get into now main-stream games. adapt, or find a niche game and really enjoy ourselves.
Very well said Kostanits.
I too agree that we have too many MMOS and the community is watered down to the point of instance gratification. Do I think we need more than 2 or 3 MMOS Yes, do I feel we need what 100+? No Look on MMORPG's list of games there are well over 500 MMO games there some are more web based MMOs however still MMOS all together. Because of the amount of games out there the current games all try to become like WOW and bid for every subscription or sale in a shop they can. This waters down MMOS from what MMOS started as. Very little advertising use to be done in MMOs, friends would bring friends in game who would bring friends and so on. Thats how the population increased.
This thread seems a bit daft, tbh. OP, You realize, of course, that any MMO you've ever played that had multiple servers are like instances when compared to a Mega-server, right? Lets compare:
Traditional MMO: Multiple gameplay servers where the player Has to pick one to join, permenantly. Players can only play with people on the same server. Moving to another server is usually a premium service, costing real cash. Server merges usually resulting in player merges and forced name changes for some.
TESO Mega-Server concept: Probably multiple servers as far as hardware goes, but to the player one single server that everyone joins. Players can play with anyone who is playing the game, though i expect some communication is required between the parties to arrive in the same shard. Moving between the servers is now possible at-will, and appear to the player as selectable shards, and costs no real world cash to effect the change. A reduction to the requisite servers should be transparent to the player, with no forced name changes.
I don't see what all the fuss is about. This really is not that different that an MMO with multiple servers, except now you are not separated from those players by a 20 buck character transfer fee.
Now, if the auto-shard assignment cannot be overridden, then it's daft. Auto should auto-sort guild members to the same shards, etc.
While your post is 100% true, your missing the main beef with it. The individual 'instances' can only hold a very low amount of people. If you played AoC when it had a decent population, which had a simmilar setup but no 'megaserver' you would know its a huge pain is the ass swapping back and forth between instances, not to mention the RP kids really dont like things that break immersion. This apparenty being a TES game, the RP crowd is agruably the majority or at least a very large percentage of the potential playerbase.
but we don't know how big each megaserver "pocket" will be. could be each holds the same as a traditional server.
The article link has slipped my mind but its been confirmed its only a hundred or two.
UGG! Ok that would suck. Can someone find a source to co firm this number. 200 to 300 players per shard?
i've read and or watched every bit of info and have not seen or heard that referenced anywhere. if that guy can provide a source i'd be happy to back that number up though. but as far as i know that has not been confirmed. (or denied).
Pretty sure it here on mmorpg, one of the string of articles/previews.
Every time I read something about ESO it looks more and more like an uninspired and uncreative knock-off of GW2, oh well as long as the single-player Elder Scrolls are still being produced I guess I dont really care. It would have been cool to see an ESO but I think part of the reason the Elder Scrolls series is so good is because of the modding community and with an mmo you cant have that.
These conversations about how they "destroy community" strike me as so wrong. It seems more that these players want the game by design to force them to build a community than to be social human beings and seek out interaction. I just bought GW2 since Im bored waiting to head back to America and once a tittle over 30 someone invited me to do AC explore with them even though I wasn't quite high enough. Everyone in the group got along, friended each other adn we still group to this day. Well I'll be damned the solo centric GW2 game helped me make friends because someone took the time to reach out.
To the guy that mentioned sitting around a rabbit. Why do you think thats the better way to do it? Do you think everyone will politely wait their turn to tag the rabbit and get the credit? It would have to be first hit, because everyone getting credit and moving on wouldn't build community.
More often than not the statments I see seem to imply that because the system doesn't force you into interaction then you won't have any. And you aren't going to know all 2000 people on your server anyways. Its doubtful your "community" is larger than 150 and that implies a strong, cohesive community.
All games have a system to form a community. A simple chat option gives you the ability to form a community. You just don't want to be the one to reach out and make a friend. If you're shy and you have trouble reaching out, then that is a reason that I can respect for wanting that kind of population clustering and forced interaction. But to say that a game with instancing doesn't give you the chance to form communities is just a blatant falsehood.
In theory you are correct. In practise you are incredibly wrong. The majority of people in MMO's will seek the path of least resistance.
ie. If a person can quickly find a group with a dungeon/raid finder tool get teleported there instantly and acheive their goals without uttering a word they will never go through the hassle of actually interacting with others, making friends, forming a group, going to a desination on foot/mount and then acheiving their goals.
Those that would prefer the longer and harder way do try, but quickly get fed up of being behind the 8 ball and generally go allong with the easy route players.
This behaviour has been displayed very prominently in every single last clone.
I understand it is human nature to take the easiest route however there are opportunities to develop community in the games that people will not take advantage of, or outside of them to facilitate building a community in that game. Perhaps the people on this site that complain about that but are still intent on trying out a game form a guild so that they have that community before they even log in. With this kind of server that is entirely possible since you don't even have to worry about launch day coordination on learning server names and making sure everyone picks the correct server.
The issue I take is that people don't take advantage of it. I personally haven't had trouble making friends from groups I find through LFD in Rift when I played it for example. Maybe because I seek out the connection its easier to get. The fact of the matter is avenues exist and if you don't take advantage of them, even if they are hard that still isn't the developers fault that you won't do it. The path exists, and you have that choice.
I will admit that in the sense that people want to be forced into grouping and interaction since that would be the simplest and easiest way from their perspective instead of reaching out, I think its unfair to blame the game or developers for not pandering, but that is a business discussion and this is more about building a community and not the economic viability of this or that process.
Rift does have a good LFD tool. The reason why is the community there. Most of the time people will grab 2 or 3 friends then queue up. This way its a fast queue to pull that 1 or 2 people into the group. They will make a effort to talk to people. Why? Its simple the queue in Rift is like 30 to 60 minutes so there are no 5 or 10 minute queues and go. The problem is 2 fold Developers started in WoW with a cross server LFD tool that offered more loot and faster ways of getting loot then it was if a person created a group with friends. So discouraging the social aspects of MMOs. The 2nd is humand nature to take the path of least resistance. Because of that we are where we are.
This thread seems a bit daft, tbh. OP, You realize, of course, that any MMO you've ever played that had multiple servers are like instances when compared to a Mega-server, right? Lets compare:
Traditional MMO: Multiple gameplay servers where the player Has to pick one to join, permenantly. Players can only play with people on the same server. Moving to another server is usually a premium service, costing real cash. Server merges usually resulting in player merges and forced name changes for some.
TESO Mega-Server concept: Probably multiple servers as far as hardware goes, but to the player one single server that everyone joins. Players can play with anyone who is playing the game, though i expect some communication is required between the parties to arrive in the same shard. Moving between the servers is now possible at-will, and appear to the player as selectable shards, and costs no real world cash to effect the change. A reduction to the requisite servers should be transparent to the player, with no forced name changes.
I don't see what all the fuss is about. This really is not that different that an MMO with multiple servers, except now you are not separated from those players by a 20 buck character transfer fee.
Now, if the auto-shard assignment cannot be overridden, then it's daft. Auto should auto-sort guild members to the same shards, etc.
While your post is 100% true, your missing the main beef with it. The individual 'instances' can only hold a very low amount of people. If you played AoC when it had a decent population, which had a simmilar setup but no 'megaserver' you would know its a huge pain is the ass swapping back and forth between instances, not to mention the RP kids really dont like things that break immersion. This apparenty being a TES game, the RP crowd is agruably the majority or at least a very large percentage of the potential playerbase.
but we don't know how big each megaserver "pocket" will be. could be each holds the same as a traditional server.
The article link has slipped my mind but its been confirmed its only a hundred or two.
UGG! Ok that would suck. Can someone find a source to co firm this number. 200 to 300 players per shard?
i've read and or watched every bit of info and have not seen or heard that referenced anywhere. if that guy can provide a source i'd be happy to back that number up though. but as far as i know that has not been confirmed. (or denied).
Pretty sure it here on mmorpg, one of the string of articles/previews.
you could be right. im not gonna search for it. i just don't know why a developer would announce a specific number while they are in alpha. they have said that they are aiming for 200+ players on the screen during AvA fights. but one battte is hardly a zone.
Rift does have a good LFD tool. The reason why is the community there. Most of the time people will grab 2 or 3 friends then queue up. This way its a fast queue to pull that 1 or 2 people into the group. They will make a effort to talk to people. Why? Its simple the queue in Rift is like 30 to 60 minutes so there are no 5 or 10 minute queues and go. The problem is 2 fold Developers started in WoW with a cross server LFD tool that offered more loot and faster ways of getting loot then it was if a person created a group with friends. So discouraging the social aspects of MMOs. The 2nd is humand nature to take the path of least resistance. Because of that we are where we are.
But loot is only the be all end all of it if you let it be. Plus in a gear grindy game like WoW you're forced by the game mechanics into a group or raid group to get it done. And if you do that HM or whatever they call it or the raid well, why not stay in touch with those people because you know they are good and go at it again. There ya go, its a community. Maybe not a large one but it still exists. The fact that you don't want to be the first one to say " Hey we worked real well together. Maybe we should take a crack at another dungeon/raid again some other time." Sure some people will say no but eventually someone will say yes and there you go, you're starting to form a bond with someone and then they bring in friends or you meet more through some more random dungeons. Stop blaming the mechanics if you don't want to be the one to reach out. Yes i agree some games have fairly easy and quick dungeons that don't facilitate discussion well, but you can stil try. The fact it is easier not to is the persons fault. Like you said its human nature, you are aware of this. So take steps to avoid it by being the least shy one of your group. It tends to be easier for people to join a conversation then start one, so be brave and take the first step and stop saying its lazy development or poorly thought out.
Comments
While your post is 100% true, your missing the main beef with it. The individual 'instances' can only hold a very low amount of people. If you played AoC when it had a decent population, which had a simmilar setup but no 'megaserver' you would know its a huge pain is the ass swapping back and forth between instances, not to mention the RP kids really dont like things that break immersion. This apparenty being a TES game, the RP crowd is agruably the majority or at least a very large percentage of the potential playerbase.
but we don't know how big each megaserver "pocket" will be. could be each holds the same as a traditional server.
The article link has slipped my mind but its been confirmed its only a hundred or two.
What happens when you log off your characters????.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
Dark Age of Camelot
These conversations about how they "destroy community" strike me as so wrong. It seems more that these players want the game by design to force them to build a community than to be social human beings and seek out interaction. I just bought GW2 since Im bored waiting to head back to America and once a tittle over 30 someone invited me to do AC explore with them even though I wasn't quite high enough. Everyone in the group got along, friended each other adn we still group to this day. Well I'll be damned the solo centric GW2 game helped me make friends because someone took the time to reach out.
To the guy that mentioned sitting around a rabbit. Why do you think thats the better way to do it? Do you think everyone will politely wait their turn to tag the rabbit and get the credit? It would have to be first hit, because everyone getting credit and moving on wouldn't build community.
More often than not the statments I see seem to imply that because the system doesn't force you into interaction then you won't have any. And you aren't going to know all 2000 people on your server anyways. Its doubtful your "community" is larger than 150 and that implies a strong, cohesive community.
All games have a system to form a community. A simple chat option gives you the ability to form a community. You just don't want to be the one to reach out and make a friend. If you're shy and you have trouble reaching out, then that is a reason that I can respect for wanting that kind of population clustering and forced interaction. But to say that a game with instancing doesn't give you the chance to form communities is just a blatant falsehood.
Two reasons come to mind. One, if it doesn't look amazing, you've lost one of your main hooks into the typical main stream market. In todays competitive market thats a BIG deal.
Second, beyond a certain point, you aren't going to have personal interactions with more than a relative handful (30-50) people on a regular basis any way. Even the most social people aren't going to go much above 100 (if that).
Those who go on (and on and on...) about this abstract known as "community" seldom if ever take that into account. What makes a "community" memerable, isn't its numbers, but its *individuals* and your interactions with them. Honestly, when you start thinking about it, how many *individuals* do you remember from a given game?
In theory you are correct. In practise you are incredibly wrong. The majority of people in MMO's will seek the path of least resistance.
ie. If a person can quickly find a group with a dungeon/raid finder tool get teleported there instantly and acheive their goals without uttering a word they will never go through the hassle of actually interacting with others, making friends, forming a group, going to a desination on foot/mount and then acheiving their goals.
Those that would prefer the longer and harder way do try, but quickly get fed up of being behind the 8 ball and generally go allong with the easy route players.
This behaviour has been displayed very prominently in every single last clone.
they only reason why planetside can pull this off is the complete absence of pve.
as soon you introduce questing, you actually need to limit the area.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
Traditional static clone questing that everyone on the planet is sick of, yes.
Its more reality than lies. I played EVE for almost six years. CCP has pushed damn near to the limits of whats possible (and in many cases beyond...) with currently existing technology. But even with their fanatical dedication to their goal of having everyone in one universe, they have had SERIOUS problems.
They have *created* entire software and hardware infrastructures to deal with the problems involved, and its still not enough when battles go above a certain number. Their data center has frequently been on the top five hundred super computer list, and its still not been nearly enough.
There really is a limit to how many interactions can be achieved (in real time) at any given tech level. Couple that with having to deal with a distributed communications system, and its literally amazing that they've managed to push it even as far as they have. Lord knows, I'm no fan of Zenimax, but lets not let that blind us to the various realities that exist.
name any pve game with a server that supports about 2k players in the same zone.
otherwise:
hello you too ^^
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
UGG! Ok that would suck. Can someone find a source to co firm this number. 200 to 300 players per shard?
Frank 'Spankybus' Mignone
www.spankybus.com
-3d Artist & Compositor
-Writer
-Professional Amature
well, to OP:
unfortunately we now have this:
too many mmos
+ new generation of players acustomed to fast paced gratification, no commitment, no seriousness
(pro tip: role-playing is now the exception, not the rule... see many RP servers if any? in games called mmoRPGs!, and no, RP is not having a skill tree)
+ no need what so ever to socialize in an mmo since there are other networking media (playing while on facebook anyone?)
+ influx of console-minded gamers since mmos are now mainstream -> different view of gaming
+ which leads to angry birds or eve? meh both nice games (ok, i am being harsh)
+ companies think WOWesque success is within reach
+ companies think WOWesque success is NOT within reach, but will instead milk the cow
+ retards like us, who rush and praise, believe the hype, play, over-play, get burned and then discredit all the lastest releases.
We are hard-core players trying to get into now main-stream games. adapt, or find a niche game and really enjoy ourselves.
I completely agree with this. I am a Microsoft SQL DBA and I can tell you, yes you have have millions of transactions goes on in a database. However only so many transactions can go on before network, Disk, Memory or CPU utilization will be maxed. Yes in the next 10 to 20 years Mega servers will be possible because where computing power is going. Yes Eldar Scrools can go this route with phasing and instancing out of the world. The problem with that is you get closed zones like SWTOR has and not wide open zones like WOW, Rift or many other MMOs have.
I understand it is human nature to take the easiest route however there are opportunities to develop community in the games that people will not take advantage of, or outside of them to facilitate building a community in that game. Perhaps the people on this site that complain about that but are still intent on trying out a game form a guild so that they have that community before they even log in. With this kind of server that is entirely possible since you don't even have to worry about launch day coordination on learning server names and making sure everyone picks the correct server.
The issue I take is that people don't take advantage of it. I personally haven't had trouble making friends from groups I find through LFD in Rift when I played it for example. Maybe because I seek out the connection its easier to get. The fact of the matter is avenues exist and if you don't take advantage of them, even if they are hard that still isn't the developers fault that you won't do it. The path exists, and you have that choice.
I will admit that in the sense that people want to be forced into grouping and interaction since that would be the simplest and easiest way from their perspective instead of reaching out, I think its unfair to blame the game or developers for not pandering, but that is a business discussion and this is more about building a community and not the economic viability of this or that process.
i've read and or watched every bit of info and have not seen or heard that referenced anywhere. if that guy can provide a source i'd be happy to back that number up though. but as far as i know that has not been confirmed. (or denied).
Very well said Kostanits.
I too agree that we have too many MMOS and the community is watered down to the point of instance gratification. Do I think we need more than 2 or 3 MMOS Yes, do I feel we need what 100+? No Look on MMORPG's list of games there are well over 500 MMO games there some are more web based MMOs however still MMOS all together. Because of the amount of games out there the current games all try to become like WOW and bid for every subscription or sale in a shop they can. This waters down MMOS from what MMOS started as. Very little advertising use to be done in MMOs, friends would bring friends in game who would bring friends and so on. Thats how the population increased.
Welcome to mainstream MMORPG's, boring shit that are more like single player games.
If you need something new and worthy check out Darkfall Unholy Wars, the better Morrowind Online
Pretty sure it here on mmorpg, one of the string of articles/previews.
Rift does have a good LFD tool. The reason why is the community there. Most of the time people will grab 2 or 3 friends then queue up. This way its a fast queue to pull that 1 or 2 people into the group. They will make a effort to talk to people. Why? Its simple the queue in Rift is like 30 to 60 minutes so there are no 5 or 10 minute queues and go. The problem is 2 fold Developers started in WoW with a cross server LFD tool that offered more loot and faster ways of getting loot then it was if a person created a group with friends. So discouraging the social aspects of MMOs. The 2nd is humand nature to take the path of least resistance. Because of that we are where we are.
you could be right. im not gonna search for it. i just don't know why a developer would announce a specific number while they are in alpha. they have said that they are aiming for 200+ players on the screen during AvA fights. but one battte is hardly a zone.
But loot is only the be all end all of it if you let it be. Plus in a gear grindy game like WoW you're forced by the game mechanics into a group or raid group to get it done. And if you do that HM or whatever they call it or the raid well, why not stay in touch with those people because you know they are good and go at it again. There ya go, its a community. Maybe not a large one but it still exists. The fact that you don't want to be the first one to say " Hey we worked real well together. Maybe we should take a crack at another dungeon/raid again some other time." Sure some people will say no but eventually someone will say yes and there you go, you're starting to form a bond with someone and then they bring in friends or you meet more through some more random dungeons. Stop blaming the mechanics if you don't want to be the one to reach out. Yes i agree some games have fairly easy and quick dungeons that don't facilitate discussion well, but you can stil try. The fact it is easier not to is the persons fault. Like you said its human nature, you are aware of this. So take steps to avoid it by being the least shy one of your group. It tends to be easier for people to join a conversation then start one, so be brave and take the first step and stop saying its lazy development or poorly thought out.