We have no idea what the limit of players will be. That has not been revealed yet. Beta was capped at 24 and with 6.5 million people I can see why they capped it.
As i have explained more than once and as a programmer myself and as someone who has seen a of beta projects go wrong...its EXTREEMLY important in a beta specifically to get as many players in as you can to get it as close as possible in numbers to what live will be so that you can stress test in ways that otherwise will not reveal problems.
I can not stress how important it is to have the player count close to production levels it is THE most important part of beta testing
I think I already explained that in enough detail, I don't believe it requires explanation again. We aren't talking about their business practices. None of us have any clue to their closed testing.. they could have tested 300 people in the zone.. they could have tested 3000. They specifically limited the beta.. strictly so... to where we couldn't test 3/4s of the game. Few developers ever allow for that.. most developers want as much tested as possible.
That doesn't invalidate your point.. but you aren't validated either. The simple answer is.. we just don't know. What I do know .. is that 24 people is not the correct number for the live game. you saw the area the dark zone is... by any scale... its way too biig for only 24 people.
We have no idea what the limit of players will be. That has not been revealed yet. Beta was capped at 24 and with 6.5 million people I can see why they capped it.
As i have explained more than once and as a programmer myself and as someone who has seen a of beta projects go wrong...its EXTREEMLY important in a beta specifically to get as many players in as you can to get it as close as possible in numbers to what live will be so that you can stress test in ways that otherwise will not reveal problems.
I can not stress how important it is to have the player count close to production levels it is THE most important part of beta testing
I think I already explained that in enough detail, I don't believe it requires explanation again. We aren't talking about their business practices. None of us have any clue to their closed testing.. they could have tested 300 people in the zone.. they could have tested 3000. They specifically limited the beta.. strictly so... to where we couldn't test 3/4s of the game. Few developers ever allow for that.. most developers want as much tested as possible.
That doesn't invalidate your point.. but you aren't validated either. The simple answer is.. we just don't know. What I do know .. is that 24 people is not the correct number for the live game. you saw the area the dark zone is... by any scale... its way too biig for only 24 people.
want to make me calm down and stop being so balastic?
then just restate the explanation or copy and paste it. I repeat myself all the time here and usually when someone says what you just said i later find out that they were just avoiding you dont want to be that guy
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
We have no idea what the limit of players will be. That has not been revealed yet. Beta was capped at 24 and with 6.5 million people I can see why they capped it.
As i have explained more than once and as a programmer myself and as someone who has seen a of beta projects go wrong...its EXTREEMLY important in a beta specifically to get as many players in as you can to get it as close as possible in numbers to what live will be so that you can stress test in ways that otherwise will not reveal problems.
I can not stress how important it is to have the player count close to production levels it is THE most important part of beta testing
I think I already explained that in enough detail, I don't believe it requires explanation again. We aren't talking about their business practices. None of us have any clue to their closed testing.. they could have tested 300 people in the zone.. they could have tested 3000. They specifically limited the beta.. strictly so... to where we couldn't test 3/4s of the game. Few developers ever allow for that.. most developers want as much tested as possible.
That doesn't invalidate your point.. but you aren't validated either. The simple answer is.. we just don't know. What I do know .. is that 24 people is not the correct number for the live game. you saw the area the dark zone is... by any scale... its way too biig for only 24 people.
want to make me calm down and stop being so balastic?
then just restate the explanation or copy and paste it. I repeat myself all the time here and usually when someone says what you just said i later find out that they were just avoiding you dont want to be that guy
I'm not trying to calm you down. You even replied to my post then. It had actual pictures and everything. It states the area of which we were allowed to play.. it shows that extrapolated throughout the entire open world PvP/PvE area.
You simply state that you have experience that you've worked on games before and that beta testing, or stress testing purposes, wouldn't be capped if that wasn't what they planned for the live game.
I simply stated, that even if 24 players was the live game cap.. that the size of the area is so large.. that you would have to increase the cap per Dark Zone area.. which would still increase that 24 player cap well into the 100 - 200 range.
I asked whether that was considered massive... you said.. "one thing at a time" as you wanted to prove that they did originally state that the division is an MMO.
But what we end up with are these points.
1/7 of the open "mmo style" world was playable during beta. 24 people was supposedly the cap during that time.
The area opens into larger areas.. it is seamless.. it is an open world. The world wasn't sectioned off by physical walls, just walls that were forced upon us by the development team. "Soft walls" we could cross them, but would receive an error message.
We have no clue how the sections work of the DZ.. but based on what we saw we can only assume it is completely open.. with pieces of the city restricted not by a wall but by leveled mobs.
The majority of the game wasn't testable.. we have no idea on end game, crafting, skills, abilities, and talent trees.
The PvE only portions are invite only instances at least at the low levels. There are player hubs here where you can meet and greet other players. This is in contrast to the completely open and PvPable, Open World PvP darkzone.
On the point of MMO vs MORPG, I feel that the division has the opportunity to fill both of these realms. I don't see any strict guidelines showing it can't. The strictest lines are from those that haven't played the game, nor desire to. These are also the guidelines that publications and the majority won't base this game off of.... its really the publications and the developers that will drive perception of this game.
I mean if there are any other specific questions please feel free to ask. I really just want to help clear up the misinformation or get to the bottom of most of it. Regardless if tomorrow they say The Division is a "Super Duper Single Player Game With Friends And Stuff" I'm still going to play it and have fun. I'll even still classify it personally as something different. Until the game launches and I have every tidbit of information.. to me.. it still classifies as an MMO, an MO, an RPG, a TPS and so forth.
1/7 of the open "mmo style" world was playable during beta. 24 people was supposedly the cap during that time.
The area opens into larger areas.. it is seamless.. it is an open world. The world wasn't sectioned off by physical walls, just walls that were forced upon us by the development team. "Soft walls" we could cross them, but would receive an error message.
We have no clue how the sections work of the DZ.. but based on what we saw we can only assume it is completely open.. with pieces of the city restricted not by a wall but by leveled mobs.
The majority of the game wasn't testable.. we have no idea on end game, crafting, skills, abilities, and talent trees.
The PvE only portions are invite only instances at least at the low levels. There are player hubs here where you can meet and greet other players. This is in contrast to the completely open and PvPable, Open World PvP darkzone.
On the point of MMO vs MORPG, I feel that the division has the opportunity to fill both of these realms. I don't see any strict guidelines showing it can't. The strictest lines are from those that haven't played the game, nor desire to. These are also the guidelines that publications and the majority won't base this game off of.... its really the publications and the developers that will drive perception of this game.
I will number my response to each one of those
1. I have zero idea what this means what is 'MMO Style' and what does it mean? 2. open world isnt a corner stone to an MMO I dont even understand why someone would think its a cornerstone to an MMO. More over, 'opening up into larger areas' isnt even a good descritpion of an open world in fact its just the opposite. It sounds more like a closed world then an open world. Open world means I go whenever, where ever I want. not based on me doing something first. Is ubisoft calling the EXACT OPPOSITE of an open world and open world? 3. again Open world is a requirement for Open world its not a requirement or a pillar of an MMO
4. nothing in that statement applies to what one would or would not call an MMO its not even revlant to that defintion. 5. from my reading of some articles they are implictly refering it to an MMO and not an MMORPG.
What defines an MMO would be more things like how many players at once, is the world game world 'always on', do my skill points preset between game plays or do they alway reboot, and more abstractly does it take longer to do everything in that world than 20 mins.
also There are a great many MMO that are closed world so open world is not a requirement to an MMO
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I dont understand why either Destiny or this game has such a hard on in calling themselves and MMO in the first place.
What they should have done is simply add more features to the game and then just say 'call it whatever you want no Fs given here the game rocks'
The Division has had no problems calling itself a Multiplayer Online RolePlaying Game. What they have not called it Massive.
The Division is clearly a multiplayer online game, much the same as Destiny is a multiplayer online shooter, they do have a lot in common, although one is a first person shooter, and the other a third person cover based shooter. Whether or not The Division, is also like Destiny in being a lobby based game, remains to be seen, but i half expect it to have the same kind of features, like the players base, if thats the focal point and players warp from there to whatever zone they are going to be playing in, whether its the Dark zone or a pve area, which sounds very much like a lobby based game?
Nope the main world isn't like Destiny. Your base of operation is closer to Garrisons in WoW. If you are playing with others in the open world each have their own base just like each player has their own garrison. There is an area that is open to other players but that is not a focal point it's more like fleet in swtor. This isn't a lobby game.
1/7 of the open "mmo style" world was playable during beta. 24 people was supposedly the cap during that time.
The area opens into larger areas.. it is seamless.. it is an open world. The world wasn't sectioned off by physical walls, just walls that were forced upon us by the development team. "Soft walls" we could cross them, but would receive an error message.
We have no clue how the sections work of the DZ.. but based on what we saw we can only assume it is completely open.. with pieces of the city restricted not by a wall but by leveled mobs.
The majority of the game wasn't testable.. we have no idea on end game, crafting, skills, abilities, and talent trees.
The PvE only portions are invite only instances at least at the low levels. There are player hubs here where you can meet and greet other players. This is in contrast to the completely open and PvPable, Open World PvP darkzone.
On the point of MMO vs MORPG, I feel that the division has the opportunity to fill both of these realms. I don't see any strict guidelines showing it can't. The strictest lines are from those that haven't played the game, nor desire to. These are also the guidelines that publications and the majority won't base this game off of.... its really the publications and the developers that will drive perception of this game.
I will number my response to each one of those
1. I have zero idea what this means what is 'MMO Style' and what does it mean? 2. open world isnt a corner stone to an MMO I dont even understand why someone would think its a cornerstone to an MMO. More over, 'opening up into larger areas' isnt even a good descritpion of an open world in fact its just the opposite. It sounds more like a closed world then an open world. Open world means I go whenever, where ever I want. not based on me doing something first. Is ubisoft calling the EXACT OPPOSITE of an open world and open world? 3. again Open world is a requirement for Open world its not a requirement or a pillar of an MMO
4. nothing in that statement applies to what one would or would not call an MMO its not even revlant to that defintion. 5. from my reading of some articles they are implictly refering it to an MMO and not an MMORPG.
What defines an MMO would be more things like how many players at once, is the world game world 'always on', do my skill points preset between game plays or do they alway reboot.
There are a great many MMO that are closed world so open world is not a requirement to an MMO
Now we're getting somewhere... Here are the answers to your question.
1) Their MMO STYLE area.. this is what GW2 Calls the WvWvW area. This is what modern MMOs call a PvP server. Its what WARHAMMER called a PvP Lake. Its a completely persistent area where you can see other players doing PvE.. and if you so choose.. you can attack them.. like an oldschool PK system.. that by doing so, you go rogue.. which is what other games would consider flagging red, or PvP flagging.
2) An Open World.. no .. it isn't a necessity.. but.. most people consider persistent open worlds to be what modern MMOs are made of. As my pictures showed that I gave you before... and I'll repost one here
That red area.. that is the PVP zone. That is about 1/3 of the entire map.. and the yellow part highlighted there.. that is the amount of what we were allowed to play in beta. The so called.. .24 Capped area. This portion of the world is entirely open despite the little yellow area I highlighted.
What does that mean? It means.. if I start at the bottom of the map and walk north... I won't load into any other areas.. its a single instance. Conceivably, if someone was chasing me.. trying to kill me.. they would have to chase me through all of those other areas to the top of the map to do so.
So in the event.. 24 people were allowed in the entirety of this PVP zone.. .. meaning the ENTIRE red area... we would never see another person.... It would be like finding a needle in a haystack... the haystack being PvE mobs that inhabit the PvP zone. (herein called the Darkzone.. DZ)
3. I think I answered.
4) While it doesn't matter if thats what makes an MMO (not being able to test the other things) It actually does matter what makes a game. In an MMO Test.. as you should be aware.. its more than just stress testing.. while I'm sure the amount of players they had... 6.4 mil was more than enough to stress test their servers.. they likely limited the zones because.. as you can tell from the picture.. 24 people in that area.. is actually a pretty large amount of people. While you could fit more in... its a very small area to want to try to pack in 200 people (what I'm supposing the entirety of the zone will allow). If you did that.. everyone would be dead... granted there wasn't a major hardware issue. Equally, if I were a business testing my game.. I'd want as many features tested by as any people as I could... that wasn't the case in either the CB or OB tests.
5) I've posted plenty of links.. as have you... many of my links state that the developers stray from calling it an MMO in most cases. Publications do not. Ubisoft doesn't stop them. So .. they could conceivably be considered as allowing it to be called and MMO. In most cases.. they do specifically state (the developers) that it is an RPG. It is a TPS. It is a Multiplayer game. Most recently they don't say specifically "Its an MMO." but they liken it to MMOs. Semantics... thats all.
This basically boils down to perception. It can easily be just a Single Player or Multiplayer RPG... but it can also be an MMO to some. What they specifically call it is irrelevant at this point as publications have called it an MMO many times... that is what much of the public expects.. and in many parts it has delivered just that.
I will number my response to each one of those
1. I have zero idea what this means what is 'MMO Style' and what does it mean? 2. open world isnt a corner stone to an MMO I dont even understand why someone would think its a cornerstone to an MMO. More over, 'opening up into larger areas' isnt even a good descritpion of an open world in fact its just the opposite. It sounds more like a closed world then an open world. Open world means I go whenever, where ever I want. not based on me doing something first. Is ubisoft calling the EXACT OPPOSITE of an open world and open world? 3. again Open world is a requirement for Open world its not a requirement or a pillar of an MMO
4. nothing in that statement applies to what one would or would not call an MMO its not even revlant to that defintion. 5. from my reading of some articles they are implictly refering it to an MMO and not an MMORPG.
What defines an MMO would be more things like how many players at once, is the world game world 'always on', do my skill points preset between game plays or do they alway reboot.
There are a great many MMO that are closed world so open world is not a requirement to an MMO
Now we're getting somewhere... Here are the answers to your question.
1) Their MMO STYLE area.. this is what GW2 Calls the WvWvW area. This is what modern MMOs call a PvP server. Its what WARHAMMER called a PvP Lake. Its a completely persistent area where you can see other players doing PvE.. and if you so choose.. you can attack them.. like an oldschool PK system.. that by doing so, you go rogue.. which is what other games would consider flagging red, or PvP flagging.
2) An Open World.. no .. it isn't a necessity.. but.. most people consider persistent open worlds to be what modern MMOs are made of. As my pictures showed that I gave you before... and I'll repost one here
That red area.. that is the PVP zone. That is about 1/3 of the entire map.. and the yellow part highlighted there.. that is the amount of what we were allowed to play in beta. The so called.. .24 Capped area. This portion of the world is entirely open despite the little yellow area I highlighted.
What does that mean? It means.. if I start at the bottom of the map and walk north... I won't load into any other areas.. its a single instance. Conceivably, if someone was chasing me.. trying to kill me.. they would have to chase me through all of those other areas to the top of the map to do so.
So in the event.. 24 people were allowed in the entirety of this PVP zone.. .. meaning the ENTIRE red area... we would never see another person.... It would be like finding a needle in a haystack... the haystack being PvE mobs that inhabit the PvP zone. (herein called the Darkzone.. DZ)
3. I think I answered.
4) While it doesn't matter if thats what makes an MMO (not being able to test the other things) It actually does matter what makes a game. In an MMO Test.. as you should be aware.. its more than just stress testing.. while I'm sure the amount of players they had... 6.4 mil was more than enough to stress test their servers.. they likely limited the zones because.. as you can tell from the picture.. 24 people in that area.. is actually a pretty large amount of people. While you could fit more in... its a very small area to want to try to pack in 200 people (what I'm supposing the entirety of the zone will allow). If you did that.. everyone would be dead... granted there wasn't a major hardware issue. Equally, if I were a business testing my game.. I'd want as many features tested by as any people as I could... that wasn't the case in either the CB or OB tests.
5) I've posted plenty of links.. as have you... many of my links state that the developers stray from calling it an MMO in most cases. Publications do not. Ubisoft doesn't stop them. So .. they could conceivably be considered as allowing it to be called and MMO. In most cases.. they do specifically state (the developers) that it is an RPG. It is a TPS. It is a Multiplayer game. Most recently they don't say specifically "Its an MMO." but they liken it to MMOs. Semantics... thats all.
This basically boils down to perception. It can easily be just a Single Player or Multiplayer RPG... but it can also be an MMO to some. What they specifically call it is irrelevant at this point as publications have called it an MMO many times... that is what much of the public expects.. and in many parts it has delivered just that.
yeah i disagree with all of that and items that are vauge I just discarded
Sorry but a open world game (like Skyrim) that has an online aspect with 24 players in pvp doesnt qualify to me as an MMO
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
On their own website, they do not describe it as an MMO. They describe it as a open world RPG, 3rd person shooter.
Unfortunately there is one poster here who doesn't care and is just trying to stir things up. According to him if a random writer post something it's automatically fact and the developers of the product vet every single article from every single random website on the Internet.
I guess if you are around 50 and have nothing better to do in life you troll a video game forum for days...boy doesn't that sound depressing...
On their own website, they do not describe it as an MMO. They describe it as a open world RPG, 3rd person shooter.
Unfortunately there is one poster here who doesn't care and is just trying to stir things up. According to him if a random writer post something it's automatically fact and the developers of the product vet every single article from every single random website on the Internet.
I guess if you are around 50 and have nothing better to do in life you troll a video game forum for days...boy doesn't that sound depressing...
I posted 5 links that said the same thing so its not a random writer.
I also explain in detailed why a company like ubisoft wold not let such a pervasive misunderstanding from multiple journalism sites without publically addressing it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I will number my response to each one of those
1. I have zero idea what this means what is 'MMO Style' and what does it mean? 2. open world isnt a corner stone to an MMO I dont even understand why someone would think its a cornerstone to an MMO. More over, 'opening up into larger areas' isnt even a good descritpion of an open world in fact its just the opposite. It sounds more like a closed world then an open world. Open world means I go whenever, where ever I want. not based on me doing something first. Is ubisoft calling the EXACT OPPOSITE of an open world and open world? 3. again Open world is a requirement for Open world its not a requirement or a pillar of an MMO
4. nothing in that statement applies to what one would or would not call an MMO its not even revlant to that defintion. 5. from my reading of some articles they are implictly refering it to an MMO and not an MMORPG.
What defines an MMO would be more things like how many players at once, is the world game world 'always on', do my skill points preset between game plays or do they alway reboot.
There are a great many MMO that are closed world so open world is not a requirement to an MMO
Now we're getting somewhere... Here are the answers to your question.
1) Their MMO STYLE area.. this is what GW2 Calls the WvWvW area. This is what modern MMOs call a PvP server. Its what WARHAMMER called a PvP Lake. Its a completely persistent area where you can see other players doing PvE.. and if you so choose.. you can attack them.. like an oldschool PK system.. that by doing so, you go rogue.. which is what other games would consider flagging red, or PvP flagging.
2) An Open World.. no .. it isn't a necessity.. but.. most people consider persistent open worlds to be what modern MMOs are made of. As my pictures showed that I gave you before... and I'll repost one here
That red area.. that is the PVP zone. That is about 1/3 of the entire map.. and the yellow part highlighted there.. that is the amount of what we were allowed to play in beta. The so called.. .24 Capped area. This portion of the world is entirely open despite the little yellow area I highlighted.
What does that mean? It means.. if I start at the bottom of the map and walk north... I won't load into any other areas.. its a single instance. Conceivably, if someone was chasing me.. trying to kill me.. they would have to chase me through all of those other areas to the top of the map to do so.
So in the event.. 24 people were allowed in the entirety of this PVP zone.. .. meaning the ENTIRE red area... we would never see another person.... It would be like finding a needle in a haystack... the haystack being PvE mobs that inhabit the PvP zone. (herein called the Darkzone.. DZ)
3. I think I answered.
4) While it doesn't matter if thats what makes an MMO (not being able to test the other things) It actually does matter what makes a game. In an MMO Test.. as you should be aware.. its more than just stress testing.. while I'm sure the amount of players they had... 6.4 mil was more than enough to stress test their servers.. they likely limited the zones because.. as you can tell from the picture.. 24 people in that area.. is actually a pretty large amount of people. While you could fit more in... its a very small area to want to try to pack in 200 people (what I'm supposing the entirety of the zone will allow). If you did that.. everyone would be dead... granted there wasn't a major hardware issue. Equally, if I were a business testing my game.. I'd want as many features tested by as any people as I could... that wasn't the case in either the CB or OB tests.
5) I've posted plenty of links.. as have you... many of my links state that the developers stray from calling it an MMO in most cases. Publications do not. Ubisoft doesn't stop them. So .. they could conceivably be considered as allowing it to be called and MMO. In most cases.. they do specifically state (the developers) that it is an RPG. It is a TPS. It is a Multiplayer game. Most recently they don't say specifically "Its an MMO." but they liken it to MMOs. Semantics... thats all.
This basically boils down to perception. It can easily be just a Single Player or Multiplayer RPG... but it can also be an MMO to some. What they specifically call it is irrelevant at this point as publications have called it an MMO many times... that is what much of the public expects.. and in many parts it has delivered just that.
yeah i disagree with all of that and items that are vauge I just discarded
Sorry but a open world game (like Skyrim) that has an online aspect with 24 players in pvp doesnt qualify to me as an MMO
Well.. I tried with you.. You've specifically chosen to see only what you want to see. You haven't played the game and I literally couldn't explain it more simply. If you don't understand the point of the 24 person cap.. and how to extrapolate that.. (even with pictures pretty much anyone could decipher) then you either aren't reading what I'm writing, or willfully disregarding it.
Long story short, I stated the minimum we'd likely see is 100 players. For an open world persistent shooter.. thats pretty good. I anticipate the maximum could be 200+ but well below 300.. the gameplay area at launch just wouldn't handle it.
100+ players in a single persistent zone instance is pretty massive. Take that for what you will..
On their own website, they do not describe it as an MMO. They describe it as a open world RPG, 3rd person shooter.
Unfortunately there is one poster here who doesn't care and is just trying to stir things up. According to him if a random writer post something it's automatically fact and the developers of the product vet every single article from every single random website on the Internet.
I guess if you are around 50 and have nothing better to do in life you troll a video game forum for days...boy doesn't that sound depressing...
I posted 5 links that said the same thing so its not a random writer.
I also explain in detailed why a company like ubisoft wold not let such a pervasive misunderstanding from multiple journalism sites without publically addressing it.
They did address it, it's on their website...not a word of mmo. But hey you keep posting your random websites and thinking companies vet every single article about their product that's posted on the web. The rest of the educated world will laugh at you for thinking that. It's pretty easy for you to keep saying that crap because you aren't here to actually discuss anything. You are here just to stir the pot.
Well.. I tried with you.. You've specifically chosen to see only what you want to see. You haven't played the game and I literally couldn't explain it more simply. If you don't understand the point of the 24 person cap.. and how to extrapolate that.. (even with pictures pretty much anyone could decipher) then you either aren't reading what I'm writing, or willfully disregarding it.
Long story short, I stated the minimum we'd likely see is 100 players. For an open world persistent shooter.. thats pretty good. I anticipate the maximum could be 200+ but well below 300.. the gameplay area at launch just wouldn't handle it.
100+ players in a single persistent zone instance is pretty massive. Take that for what you will..
since your not going to ask. 'sure i will be more than happy to explain to you what I consider an MMO thanks'
as in a lot of things attempts a definition turns out like trying to define porn. Hard to define but you know when you see it and you know what you do when you are exposed to it. So lets look at what people DO when they play a traditional MMO.
They play for 20-4 hours a week. It takes them often months at full speed to see all areas of the game They very rarely over the course of at least months if not years ever play the same mission twice. every play session they have higher stats and more stuff then when they started.
If actually playing The Division matches this experience then its easy to call it an MMO, if it doesnt even come close its going to be a struggle not worth even trying and ubisoft will be just making themselves look like opportunists . Why they dont think these things thru I dont know, I think maybe (not for sure here) that they dont care about the long run they just want as much exposure as possible (and being listed in sites like this help in that) so that they can sell quick and get out before people start complaining.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
On their own website, they do not describe it as an MMO. They describe it as a open world RPG, 3rd person shooter.
Unfortunately there is one poster here who doesn't care and is just trying to stir things up. According to him if a random writer post something it's automatically fact and the developers of the product vet every single article from every single random website on the Internet.
I guess if you are around 50 and have nothing better to do in life you troll a video game forum for days...boy doesn't that sound depressing...
I posted 5 links that said the same thing so its not a random writer.
I also explain in detailed why a company like ubisoft wold not let such a pervasive misunderstanding from multiple journalism sites without publically addressing it.
Seanmcad, please do not reproduce.
By the sounds of it he hasn't and statistically by his age you don't have to worry about it.
since your not going to ask. 'sure i will be more than happy to explain to you what I consider an MMO thanks'
as in a lot of things attempts a definition turns out like trying to define porn. Hard to define but you know when you see it and you know what you do when you are exposed to it. So lets look at what people DO when they play a traditional MMO.
They play for 20-4 hours a week. It takes them often months at full speed to see all areas of the game They very rarely over the course of at least months if not years ever play the same mission twice. every play session they have higher stats and more stuff then when they started.
If actually playing The Division matches this experience then its easy to call it an MMO, if it doesnt even come close its going to be a struggle not worth even trying and ubisoft will be just making themselves look like opportunists . Why they dont think these things thru I dont know, I think maybe (not for sure here) that they dont care about the long run they just want as much exposure as possible (and being listed in sites like this help in that) so that they can sell quick and get out before people start complaining.
So in your estimation.. there are no real MMOs anymore. You could easily go into the darkzone and never do another mission... ever..... but thats repetitive gameplay. What you consider an MMO isn't law. its actually nowhere close to what an MMO even is...
Games that would also fit the same points
It takes them months to see all areas of the game -- That could easily be shooters. Destiny could be that way... as some high level raids required gear that took months to achieve. That also has nothing to do with the amount of people.
In fact... The Division could drop its cap to 3 people per area... and fulfill those requisites.
Content does not equal Massive Multiplayer or Online.
Amount of hour played.. doesn't equal Massive.. Multiplayer or Online.
Seeing the same missions.. guess what? I think you know..
MMO doesn't stand for those things.. Massive doesn't refer to any specific amount of content.. or game world size. It doesn't even have a player cap attached to it does it? No. No it doesn't.
100 people can be massive... hell 20 years ago 50 people was massive. Nothing that you said.. is considered an MMO...
since your not going to ask. 'sure i will be more than happy to explain to you what I consider an MMO thanks'
as in a lot of things attempts a definition turns out like trying to define porn. Hard to define but you know when you see it and you know what you do when you are exposed to it. So lets look at what people DO when they play a traditional MMO.
They play for 20-4 hours a week. It takes them often months at full speed to see all areas of the game They very rarely over the course of at least months if not years ever play the same mission twice. every play session they have higher stats and more stuff then when they started.
If actually playing The Division matches this experience then its easy to call it an MMO, if it doesnt even come close its going to be a struggle not worth even trying and ubisoft will be just making themselves look like opportunists . Why they dont think these things thru I dont know, I think maybe (not for sure here) that they dont care about the long run they just want as much exposure as possible (and being listed in sites like this help in that) so that they can sell quick and get out before people start complaining.
So in your estimation.. there are no real MMOs anymore. You could easily go into the darkzone and never do another mission... ever..... but thats repetitive gameplay. What you consider an MMO isn't law. its actually nowhere close to what an MMO even is...
Games that would also fit the same points
It takes them months to see all areas of the game -- That could easily be shooters. Destiny could be that way... as some high level raids required gear that took months to achieve. That also has nothing to do with the amount of people.
In fact... The Division could drop its cap to 3 people per area... and fulfill those requisites.
Content does not equal Massive Multiplayer or Online.
Amount of hour played.. doesn't equal Massive.. Multiplayer or Online.
Seeing the same missions.. guess what? I think you know..
MMO doesn't stand for those things.. Massive doesn't refer to any specific amount of content.. or game world size. It doesn't even have a player cap attached to it does it? No. No it doesn't.
100 people can be massive... hell 20 years ago 50 people was massive. Nothing that you said.. is considered an MMO...
its like music you can define, redefine all you want but when someone rolls the song they know what they are listening to.
and you can win this debate by a landslide but the disk is still going to roll isnt?
think on it, sleep on it.
and I am saying this sh aint rock and roll
oh and 'open world' not something I can come close to agreeing with as a pillar of an MMO definition
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
what I am about to say is a bit off topic but I feel like it really needs to be said.
RPG is not really about story or stats-driven combat. It can be stats driven anything really not just combat its just that combat is what is most focused on because of tradition and how RPGs where born. But I will say I really really dont think one of the core corner stones of RPG is story. That is something that came out of the computer era.
anyway sorry I just wanted to say that, not trying to debate but just letting you know not everyone who played RPGs in during the birth (late 70s early 80s) would agree with that definition.
We're talking about videogame RPGs, which are a distinct genre from tabletop RPGs. Be sure not to confuse the two.
Across the history of those videogame RPGs (since the late 70s), 99% of them have been combat focused. So what I said is perfectly acceptable, and you're really not going to be able to name enough non-combat videogame RPGs to make my statement look false.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Haven't we had this "discussion" before - GW1, Destiny etc.?
I am with those who say: play it (or don't) for what it is.
One thing I have found amusing in these threads is that if you applied some of the "it's not an mmo because it hasn't got x, y and z" to some older games then e.g. EQ wouldn't qualify as an mmo! Classic.
what I am about to say is a bit off topic but I feel like it really needs to be said.
RPG is not really about story or stats-driven combat. It can be stats driven anything really not just combat its just that combat is what is most focused on because of tradition and how RPGs where born. But I will say I really really dont think one of the core corner stones of RPG is story. That is something that came out of the computer era.
anyway sorry I just wanted to say that, not trying to debate but just letting you know not everyone who played RPGs in during the birth (late 70s early 80s) would agree with that definition.
We're talking about videogame RPGs, which are a distinct genre from tabletop RPGs. Be sure not to confuse the two.
Across the history of those videogame RPGs (since the late 70s), 99% of them have been combat focused. So what I said is perfectly acceptable, and you're really not going to be able to name enough non-combat videogame RPGs to make my statement look false.
yeah I know but its a subject that pains me greatly and I felt like saying it.
Its not what the intent of RPG was but the industry basterized it and made it very limiting because of their lack of understanding and now its considered a defintion that make me sad enough to reponse to it when I see it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
its like music you can define, redefine all you want but when someone rolls the song they know what they are listening to.
and you can win this debate by a landslide but the disk is still going to roll isnt?
think on it, sleep on it.
and I am saying this sh aint rock and roll
I'm not entirely sure anybody understands what you're saying anymore. How can you even determine what you're "listening to" if you haven't "heard it" LOL.
It would be different had you played the game and given specifics... the only reason I indulged you the way I have is because I honestly believed you didn't know what this game was about and you were interested in finding out. I didn't tell you what the game wasn't.. I just told you what it was. Its not Rock and Roll. Its an open world multiplayer online game.. just like all the others on this site. Which game on this site is Rock and Roll?
its like music you can define, redefine all you want but when someone rolls the song they know what they are listening to.
and you can win this debate by a landslide but the disk is still going to roll isnt?
think on it, sleep on it.
and I am saying this sh aint rock and roll
I'm not entirely sure anybody understands what you're saying anymore. How can you even determine what you're "listening to" if you haven't "heard it" LOL.
It would be different had you played the game and given specifics... the only reason I indulged you the way I have is because I honestly believed you didn't know what this game was about and you were interested in finding out. I didn't tell you what the game wasn't.. I just told you what it was. Its not Rock and Roll. Its an open world multiplayer online game.. just like all the others on this site. Which game on this site is Rock and Roll?
in short if the game doesnt 'feel' like any other MMO every played then the population is going to ask why and that will draw attention to the statement of MMO and strings like this one will be created.
People dont create strings like this in reference to WOW.
That is not to suggest we cant challenge the definition but when one is about to do so they should have a strong example/game/argument and this game and the arguments for it being an MMO are all extremely weak. given that it walks and talks almost EXACTLY like an online shooter
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
in short if the game doesnt 'feel' like any other MMO every played then the population is going to ask why and that will draw attention to the statement of MMO and strings like this one will be created.
People dont create strings like this in reference to WOW.
That is not to suggest we cant challenge the defintion but that is what ubisoft is doign and they are doing it with a weak example of that challenge and they should have thought that thru
Now I'm confused. You're saying because publications are creating "strings" from the Division being what the developers are stating as -- "Its an Open World RPG" to what publications are saying "Its an MMO" you're saying... that people are going to questions it?
Well yes sir. I believe you are right if that's what you're saying. Publications are stating "Its an MMO" while the development team has been trying to say "We're not going to call it an MMO" -- but the likeness is there.. so how.. in what capacity.. does it not feel like one? If they're tying those "strings" together between The Division and MMO... the likeness is there. The references are made.
Whether it is or isn't.. whether you have a definition or I do... type in The Division MMO... and it pops up... and most of them -- even small publications and tiny youtube channels that have no direct affiliation with Ubisoft.. they're saying MMO.
Maybe you would have said MMO too had you played it.
Comments
That doesn't invalidate your point.. but you aren't validated either. The simple answer is.. we just don't know. What I do know .. is that 24 people is not the correct number for the live game. you saw the area the dark zone is... by any scale... its way too biig for only 24 people.
then just restate the explanation or copy and paste it. I repeat myself all the time here and usually when someone says what you just said i later find out that they were just avoiding you dont want to be that guy
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
if they do then I am completley confused and dont understand it
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You simply state that you have experience that you've worked on games before and that beta testing, or stress testing purposes, wouldn't be capped if that wasn't what they planned for the live game.
I simply stated, that even if 24 players was the live game cap.. that the size of the area is so large.. that you would have to increase the cap per Dark Zone area.. which would still increase that 24 player cap well into the 100 - 200 range.
I asked whether that was considered massive... you said.. "one thing at a time" as you wanted to prove that they did originally state that the division is an MMO.
But what we end up with are these points.
I mean if there are any other specific questions please feel free to ask. I really just want to help clear up the misinformation or get to the bottom of most of it. Regardless if tomorrow they say The Division is a "Super Duper Single Player Game With Friends And Stuff" I'm still going to play it and have fun. I'll even still classify it personally as something different. Until the game launches and I have every tidbit of information.. to me.. it still classifies as an MMO, an MO, an RPG, a TPS and so forth.
1. I have zero idea what this means what is 'MMO Style' and what does it mean?
2. open world isnt a corner stone to an MMO I dont even understand why someone would think its a cornerstone to an MMO. More over, 'opening up into larger areas' isnt even a good descritpion of an open world in fact its just the opposite. It sounds more like a closed world then an open world. Open world means I go whenever, where ever I want. not based on me doing something first. Is ubisoft calling the EXACT OPPOSITE of an open world and open world?
3. again Open world is a requirement for Open world its not a requirement or a pillar of an MMO
4. nothing in that statement applies to what one would or would not call an MMO its not even revlant to that defintion.
5. from my reading of some articles they are implictly refering it to an MMO and not an MMORPG.
What defines an MMO would be more things like how many players at once, is the world game world 'always on', do my skill points preset between game plays or do they alway reboot, and more abstractly does it take longer to do everything in that world than 20 mins.
also There are a great many MMO that are closed world so open world is not a requirement to an MMO
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
1) Their MMO STYLE area.. this is what GW2 Calls the WvWvW area. This is what modern MMOs call a PvP server. Its what WARHAMMER called a PvP Lake. Its a completely persistent area where you can see other players doing PvE.. and if you so choose.. you can attack them.. like an oldschool PK system.. that by doing so, you go rogue.. which is what other games would consider flagging red, or PvP flagging.
2) An Open World.. no .. it isn't a necessity.. but.. most people consider persistent open worlds to be what modern MMOs are made of. As my pictures showed that I gave you before... and I'll repost one here
That red area.. that is the PVP zone. That is about 1/3 of the entire map.. and the yellow part highlighted there.. that is the amount of what we were allowed to play in beta. The so called.. .24 Capped area. This portion of the world is entirely open despite the little yellow area I highlighted.
What does that mean? It means.. if I start at the bottom of the map and walk north... I won't load into any other areas.. its a single instance. Conceivably, if someone was chasing me.. trying to kill me.. they would have to chase me through all of those other areas to the top of the map to do so.
So in the event.. 24 people were allowed in the entirety of this PVP zone.. .. meaning the ENTIRE red area... we would never see another person.... It would be like finding a needle in a haystack... the haystack being PvE mobs that inhabit the PvP zone. (herein called the Darkzone.. DZ)
3. I think I answered.
4) While it doesn't matter if thats what makes an MMO (not being able to test the other things) It actually does matter what makes a game. In an MMO Test.. as you should be aware.. its more than just stress testing.. while I'm sure the amount of players they had... 6.4 mil was more than enough to stress test their servers.. they likely limited the zones because.. as you can tell from the picture.. 24 people in that area.. is actually a pretty large amount of people. While you could fit more in... its a very small area to want to try to pack in 200 people (what I'm supposing the entirety of the zone will allow). If you did that.. everyone would be dead... granted there wasn't a major hardware issue. Equally, if I were a business testing my game.. I'd want as many features tested by as any people as I could... that wasn't the case in either the CB or OB tests.
5) I've posted plenty of links.. as have you... many of my links state that the developers stray from calling it an MMO in most cases. Publications do not. Ubisoft doesn't stop them. So .. they could conceivably be considered as allowing it to be called and MMO. In most cases.. they do specifically state (the developers) that it is an RPG. It is a TPS. It is a Multiplayer game. Most recently they don't say specifically "Its an MMO." but they liken it to MMOs. Semantics... thats all.
This basically boils down to perception. It can easily be just a Single Player or Multiplayer RPG... but it can also be an MMO to some. What they specifically call it is irrelevant at this point as publications have called it an MMO many times... that is what much of the public expects.. and in many parts it has delivered just that.
Sorry but a open world game (like Skyrim) that has an online aspect with 24 players in pvp doesnt qualify to me as an MMO
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I guess if you are around 50 and have nothing better to do in life you troll a video game forum for days...boy doesn't that sound depressing...
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
I also explain in detailed why a company like ubisoft wold not let such a pervasive misunderstanding from multiple journalism sites without publically addressing it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Well.. I tried with you.. You've specifically chosen to see only what you want to see. You haven't played the game and I literally couldn't explain it more simply. If you don't understand the point of the 24 person cap.. and how to extrapolate that.. (even with pictures pretty much anyone could decipher) then you either aren't reading what I'm writing, or willfully disregarding it.
Long story short, I stated the minimum we'd likely see is 100 players. For an open world persistent shooter.. thats pretty good. I anticipate the maximum could be 200+ but well below 300.. the gameplay area at launch just wouldn't handle it.
100+ players in a single persistent zone instance is pretty massive. Take that for what you will..
as in a lot of things attempts a definition turns out like trying to define porn. Hard to define but you know when you see it and you know what you do when you are exposed to it. So lets look at what people DO when they play a traditional MMO.
They play for 20-4 hours a week.
It takes them often months at full speed to see all areas of the game
They very rarely over the course of at least months if not years ever play the same mission twice.
every play session they have higher stats and more stuff then when they started.
If actually playing The Division matches this experience then its easy to call it an MMO, if it doesnt even come close its going to be a struggle not worth even trying and ubisoft will be just making themselves look like opportunists . Why they dont think these things thru I dont know, I think maybe (not for sure here) that they dont care about the long run they just want as much exposure as possible (and being listed in sites like this help in that) so that they can sell quick and get out before people start complaining.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Games that would also fit the same points
It takes them months to see all areas of the game -- That could easily be shooters. Destiny could be that way... as some high level raids required gear that took months to achieve. That also has nothing to do with the amount of people.
In fact... The Division could drop its cap to 3 people per area... and fulfill those requisites.
Content does not equal Massive Multiplayer or Online.
Amount of hour played.. doesn't equal Massive.. Multiplayer or Online.
Seeing the same missions.. guess what? I think you know..
MMO doesn't stand for those things.. Massive doesn't refer to any specific amount of content.. or game world size. It doesn't even have a player cap attached to it does it? No. No it doesn't.
100 people can be massive... hell 20 years ago 50 people was massive. Nothing that you said.. is considered an MMO...
and I am saying this sh aint rock and roll
oh and 'open world' not something I can come close to agreeing with as a pillar of an MMO definition
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Across the history of those videogame RPGs (since the late 70s), 99% of them have been combat focused. So what I said is perfectly acceptable, and you're really not going to be able to name enough non-combat videogame RPGs to make my statement look false.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I am with those who say: play it (or don't) for what it is.
One thing I have found amusing in these threads is that if you applied some of the "it's not an mmo because it hasn't got x, y and z" to some older games then e.g. EQ wouldn't qualify as an mmo! Classic.
Its not what the intent of RPG was but the industry basterized it and made it very limiting because of their lack of understanding and now its considered a defintion that make me sad enough to reponse to it when I see it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It would be different had you played the game and given specifics... the only reason I indulged you the way I have is because I honestly believed you didn't know what this game was about and you were interested in finding out. I didn't tell you what the game wasn't.. I just told you what it was. Its not Rock and Roll. Its an open world multiplayer online game.. just like all the others on this site. Which game on this site is Rock and Roll?
People dont create strings like this in reference to WOW.
That is not to suggest we cant challenge the definition but when one is about to do so they should have a strong example/game/argument and this game and the arguments for it being an MMO are all extremely weak. given that it walks and talks almost EXACTLY like an online shooter
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Well yes sir. I believe you are right if that's what you're saying. Publications are stating "Its an MMO" while the development team has been trying to say "We're not going to call it an MMO" -- but the likeness is there.. so how.. in what capacity.. does it not feel like one? If they're tying those "strings" together between The Division and MMO... the likeness is there. The references are made.
Whether it is or isn't.. whether you have a definition or I do... type in The Division MMO... and it pops up... and most of them -- even small publications and tiny youtube channels that have no direct affiliation with Ubisoft.. they're saying MMO.
Maybe you would have said MMO too had you played it.