Have you been reading the AoC forum? I never thought things would look so bad for that game. I bet this has a lot to do about WAR release being posponed, they knew they were safe making this move.
It's looking very good for WAR, the more I look at it, the more I feel WAR will be a huge succes, I mean by the milions, maybe a few milions but that's a lot, maybe really hurting WOW if it is good enough. Sadly by good I mean appealing to the masses, this is the only fear I have.
EDIT: I changed the title, since it's not clear anymore that it's really going that bad. OLD TITLE: AoC dropping like a sack of potatoes. Green light WAR.
I personally dont care what everyone thinks. I love the game, i m sold and hooked. Now back to playing it...
The initial impressions of the those who got into the Early Access for AoC are coming in and they appear to be fairly positive for those whose computers are up to the task. If it holds up through the launch it will just go to show that you can't really judge a game accurately through beta, closed or open, alone. Hopefully people will remember this once WAR's turn comes around. Beta is not a demo its a testing tool for the developers.
A game that LOOKS great is far different from a game that plays great.
Must have both.
Depends for me. People can argue Oblivion is both but in doing that it took what I liked in the genre to first person view (which I don't like) to make it look better.
I will also happily play games like Disgaea on the PS2 simply because the gameplay and the depth is amazing, even though it's s turnbased isometric view game with, well, nes graphics to most people I guess ^^
I think AoC looks nice graphics-wise, but as I said in an earlier post, there is nothing about the visuals that scream Conan to me. It could be the Forgotten Realms for all anyone knows. The WAR graphics, while not the greatest on the planet, scream Warhammer to me. And if they looked like anything else then it wouldn't be WAR.
A game that LOOKS great is far different from a game that plays great.
Must have both.
Depends for me. People can argue Oblivion is both but in doing that it took what I liked in the genre to first person view (which I don't like) to make it look better.
I will also happily play games like Disgaea on the PS2 simply because the gameplay and the depth is amazing, even though it's s turnbased isometric view game with, well, nes graphics to most people I guess ^^
It seems they had to pay a big price for the pretty (depends on taste) graphics. Linear zones, instanced zones limited to 100 players, constant zoning, a powerful computer... looks like a bad deal to me.
Originally posted by altairzq It seems they had to pay a big price for the pretty (depends on taste) graphics. Linear zones, instanced zones limited to 100 players, constant zoning, a powerful computer... looks like a bad deal to me.
I dunno why people have such angst against instancing and zoning. As long as it's fast zoning I could care less. As to instancing I've always loved it. Keeps me from having to fight other people for the same monster. Dunno about you but I HATED sitting and waiting for someone else to stop camping a spot for some item I wanted/needed.
When it comes to world RVR though that's when I draw the instancing line. Small battle grounds and such, perfectly fine.
If more people wanted non-instanced and no zoning then they'd all be lapping it up in VG. We all know how that worked out.
age of conans high spec requirements are really what will limit its success . the game itself looks nice enough . i predict a lot of angry posts in the coming months because the average pc wont run it well . this does nt mean age of conan will be a faliure it just means that it proberbly will be success on the level of something like lord of the rings . its not the next massive mmo . the developers made the huge mistake of overestimating how powerful the average mid range pc is . i hope it does well but i think its going to be a financial disaster for funcom .
No, not really. Pc gaming is largely a community of gamers who can,and do keep their Pc's pretty much with the times. Pc gaming has always been about pushing the envelope, with Pc gamers following suit with the hardware to run it. The average age of a Pc gamer is 35 years old. AOC hardware requirements is no obstacle for the majority of Pc gamers whom the game is catered towards.
You mean it WAS about keeping up. The 10.6 million new faces around here are somewhat...removed from that. Even I am..hell I'm sick of needing hardware upgrades that cost nearly as much as a new PC every 2 years because some yahoo couldn't be arsed with making a good game, and instead decided to make pretty ones. Then I have to cope with the good game guys push THEIR envelope to meet the sucky mans standard.
"I never thought things would look so bad for that game" LOL, that is total BS! The consensus on AoC is that is a fun game; but the open beta has some bugs and you need a decent pc to run it. Plus I have seen MANY beta leaks saying that at least right now, AoC is way better than Warhammer.
Quit lying. Saying I have seen many beta leaks only says that you aren't in either beta and think that by saying "I have seen many beta leaks" makes your word credible and end all. How about some substance to your claims?
I have seen many beta leaks and WAR looks alot better than AoC. AoC looks like it plays like a console RPG. WAR looks fun, has depth, revolves around PvP, has more stlye and class, and will run on 90% of consumer's PC's and not 10% like AOC.
Anyone else see the golden irony ? This kid cracks me up.
It seems they had to pay a big price for the pretty (depends on taste) graphics. Linear zones, instanced zones limited to 100 players, constant zoning, a powerful computer... looks like a bad deal to me.
I dunno why people have such angst against instancing and zoning. As long as it's fast zoning I could care less. As to instancing I've always loved it. Keeps me from having to fight other people for the same monster. Dunno about you but I HATED sitting and waiting for someone else to stop camping a spot for some item I wanted/needed.
When it comes to world RVR though that's when I draw the instancing line. Small battle grounds and such, perfectly fine.
If more people wanted non-instanced and no zoning then they'd all be lapping it up in VG. We all know how that worked out.
Hmmm... it's not instanced dungeons, they have whole instanced zones, like in EQ2.
Originally posted by altairzq It seems they had to pay a big price for the pretty (depends on taste) graphics. Linear zones, instanced zones limited to 100 players, constant zoning, a powerful computer... looks like a bad deal to me.
I dunno why people have such angst against instancing and zoning. As long as it's fast zoning I could care less. As to instancing I've always loved it. Keeps me from having to fight other people for the same monster. Dunno about you but I HATED sitting and waiting for someone else to stop camping a spot for some item I wanted/needed. When it comes to world RVR though that's when I draw the instancing line. Small battle grounds and such, perfectly fine. If more people wanted non-instanced and no zoning then they'd all be lapping it up in VG. We all know how that worked out.
Hmmm... it's not instanced dungeons, they have whole instanced zones, like in EQ2.
Who does? Warhammer or AoC? Because if you mean AoC you're not right. They spawn off clones for over crowded zones (good idea for a new game and a flood of people) but I've yet to play a private instance outside of the "night time" starter quests in Tortage.
I wouldn't be surprised if WAR did the same thing so that the newbie starter areas at release were not cram packed and nothing for people to kill.
It seems they had to pay a big price for the pretty (depends on taste) graphics. Linear zones, instanced zones limited to 100 players, constant zoning, a powerful computer... looks like a bad deal to me.
I dunno why people have such angst against instancing and zoning. As long as it's fast zoning I could care less. As to instancing I've always loved it. Keeps me from having to fight other people for the same monster. Dunno about you but I HATED sitting and waiting for someone else to stop camping a spot for some item I wanted/needed.
When it comes to world RVR though that's when I draw the instancing line. Small battle grounds and such, perfectly fine.
If more people wanted non-instanced and no zoning then they'd all be lapping it up in VG. We all know how that worked out.
Hmmm... it's not instanced dungeons, they have whole instanced zones, like in EQ2.
Who does? Warhammer or AoC? Because if you mean AoC you're not right. They spawn off clones for over crowded zones (good idea for a new game and a flood of people) but I've yet to play a private instance outside of the "night time" starter quests in Tortage.
I wouldn't be surprised if WAR did the same thing so that the newbie starter areas at release were not cram packed and nothing for people to kill.
War will not have AOC issue, they have six different starter zones. Also not having mobs to kill will not matter when you have players to kill.
2gigs of ram will be highly reccomended if you want to be apart of the larger battles. 1gig can play the game fine but you would be happier with 2 in a fortress fight
It seems they had to pay a big price for the pretty (depends on taste) graphics. Linear zones, instanced zones limited to 100 players, constant zoning, a powerful computer... looks like a bad deal to me.
I dunno why people have such angst against instancing and zoning. As long as it's fast zoning I could care less. As to instancing I've always loved it. Keeps me from having to fight other people for the same monster. Dunno about you but I HATED sitting and waiting for someone else to stop camping a spot for some item I wanted/needed.
When it comes to world RVR though that's when I draw the instancing line. Small battle grounds and such, perfectly fine.
If more people wanted non-instanced and no zoning then they'd all be lapping it up in VG. We all know how that worked out.
Hmmm... it's not instanced dungeons, they have whole instanced zones, like in EQ2.
Who does? Warhammer or AoC? Because if you mean AoC you're not right. They spawn off clones for over crowded zones (good idea for a new game and a flood of people) but I've yet to play a private instance outside of the "night time" starter quests in Tortage.
I wouldn't be surprised if WAR did the same thing so that the newbie starter areas at release were not cram packed and nothing for people to kill.
Then I'm right, what you call a "spawn of clones for over crowded zones" it's what I call instanced zones (and everyone else). I hope WAR does not have that feature.
Originally posted by altairzq Then I'm right, what you call a "spawn of clones for over crowded zones" it's what I call instanced zones (and everyone else). I hope WAR does not have that feature.
It's clones not instances. Once the population has evened out they won't be around.
You'll wish you had them when you have 1000 new people trying to kill the 5 mobs you need for X quest, or the 10 berries you need to pick to feed the starving.
Have you ever played a MMO at release? Did you play DAoC at release? Do you know how extremely boring it was running around trying to find something to kill because there were so many people in the newbie areas?
Cloning and instancing are two words for the same function - a function that allows you to copy the same area. WAR tries to do as little of that as possible, but they do use it for Scenarios, PvE boss fights in dungeons (the dungeons themselves are not instanced), and capital city raids. Instancing brings a lot of benefits if used right, which is why most MMOs employ instancing in one way or another.
Cloning and instancing are two words for the same function - a function that allows you to copy the same area. WAR tries to do as little of that as possible, but they do use it for Scenarios, PvE boss fights in dungeons (the dungeons themselves are not instanced), and capital city raids. Instancing brings a lot of benefits if used right, which is why most MMOs employ instancing in one way or another.
EXACTLY. The word "clone" and "instance" are synonyms, as far as I'm concerned. It's putting clumps of people in their own little rooms, basically. Which destroys the immersion for me. I think AoC decided to invent a new word for it because of the negative connotation the word "instance" gives off for people. It's basically another way of saying "sh it."
To be fair, "cloning" implies that you're copying something that's already in existence, while "instancing" doesn't. So if there's a difference that would be it. Cloning is still instancing, though, while instancing isn't necessarily cloning. More like you could say such cloning is a specific form of instancing. So for cloning, this would mean that you have a persistant zone somewhere, from which you can spawn instances when needed. For instances, it could be a similar setup, but it could also mean that you're making zones where no persistent version of that zone. The idea of course is still the same - spawn copies of the same zone. Using the world "cloning" could simply be Funcom's way of describing the two variants of instancing they employ. This of course is only true if the original zone still stays in existence if no players are in it.
Other MMOs also employ "cloning", but they refer to it as "instancing". In any case,calling it "instancing" is correct, although possibly less specific.
Originally posted by Satarious Originally posted by Ixnatifual Cloning and instancing are two words for the same function - a function that allows you to copy the same area. WAR tries to do as little of that as possible, but they do use it for Scenarios, PvE boss fights in dungeons (the dungeons themselves are not instanced), and capital city raids. Instancing brings a lot of benefits if used right, which is why most MMOs employ instancing in one way or another.
EXACTLY. The word "clone" and "instance" are synonyms, as far as I'm concerned. It's putting clumps of people in their own little rooms, basically. Which destroys the immersion for me. I think AoC decided to invent a new word for it because of the negative connotation the word "instance" gives off for people. It's basically another way of saying "sh it."
AoC I don't think coined the term cloning. I used it because it's not the same as instancing. Instancing implies every single group or player gets their OWN copy of the zone. This is not the case in "zones" in AoC. They spawn off a clone zone when they reach XX players in one zone.
Yes they function similar to instances and you can just as easily call them instances but they are not the same as what most people would term instances.
In any case people wishing instances would go away, I don't see that ever happening... at least not on any game that is remotely popular. The majority of people will not want to fight other players for spawns or "content" because there just to many people playing.
Cloning and instancing are two words for the same function - a function that allows you to copy the same area. WAR tries to do as little of that as possible, but they do use it for Scenarios, PvE boss fights in dungeons (the dungeons themselves are not instanced), and capital city raids. Instancing brings a lot of benefits if used right, which is why most MMOs employ instancing in one way or another.
EXACTLY. The word "clone" and "instance" are synonyms, as far as I'm concerned. It's putting clumps of people in their own little rooms, basically. Which destroys the immersion for me. I think AoC decided to invent a new word for it because of the negative connotation the word "instance" gives off for people. It's basically another way of saying "sh it."
AoC I don't think coined the term cloning. I used it because it's not the same as instancing. Instancing implies every single group or player gets their OWN copy of the zone. This is not the case in "zones" in AoC. They spawn off a clone zone when they reach XX players in one zone.
Yes they function similar to instances and you can just as easily call them instances but they are not the same as what most people would term instances.
In any case people wishing instances would go away, I don't see that ever happening... at least not on any game that is remotely popular. The majority of people will not want to fight other players for spawns or "content" because there just to many people playing.
As i said before city of heroes/villains also does it its called zone instancing. It has share of advantages and disadvantages
Pros
Great graphics with little overhead
Server crash can be handled easily by just taking down the speific zone rather than server reboot.
Allows for great number of players in specific area (events, starter area)
Disadvantages
Takes away a sense of realism (loadscreens, no flight path or tram transport system etc)
Gives a lot of control to the client opening the potential for hacks.
it allows for nice graphics with little over head however it allows for exploit since it gives a lot of control to the client and also it takes a sense realism for example if i am about to die to a mob or player i can hit instance selection and magically teleport to an another instance in age of conan
Originally posted by Celestian Originally posted by Satarious Originally posted by Ixnatifual Cloning and instancing are two words for the same function - a function that allows you to copy the same area. WAR tries to do as little of that as possible, but they do use it for Scenarios, PvE boss fights in dungeons (the dungeons themselves are not instanced), and capital city raids. Instancing brings a lot of benefits if used right, which is why most MMOs employ instancing in one way or another.
EXACTLY. The word "clone" and "instance" are synonyms, as far as I'm concerned. It's putting clumps of people in their own little rooms, basically. Which destroys the immersion for me. I think AoC decided to invent a new word for it because of the negative connotation the word "instance" gives off for people. It's basically another way of saying "sh it."
AoC I don't think coined the term cloning. I used it because it's not the same as instancing. Instancing implies every single group or player gets their OWN copy of the zone. This is not the case in "zones" in AoC. They spawn off a clone zone when they reach XX players in one zone.
Yes they function similar to instances and you can just as easily call them instances but they are not the same as what most people would term instances.
In any case people wishing instances would go away, I don't see that ever happening... at least not on any game that is remotely popular. The majority of people will not want to fight other players for spawns or "content" because there just to many people playing.
that is precisely the definition and terminology that got guildwars in such heat on 'is it an mmorpg or not'
Originally posted by perendengue that is precisely the definition and terminology that got guildwars in such heat on 'is it an mmorpg or not'copies of areas depending on the population.
Difference here is that every zone (besides "cities") in GW was instanced for every single group or solo player. There are no other players in those zones. EQ2 does the same cloning of zones when populations are huge and I don't see anyone saying that's not a mmo
Difference here is that every zone (besides "cities") in GW was instanced for every single group or solo player. There are no other players in those zones. EQ2 does the same cloning of zones when populations are huge and I don't see anyone saying that's not a mmo GW is a different monster all together.
This is also how Hellgate: London stations work and how WAR city raid instancing will work. Lots of players in the same instance rather than a few. Likely hundreds of players in WAR city instances. Basically when the city reaches a certain population point, a new instance of it is spawned for the newcomers to join.
Difference here is that every zone (besides "cities") in GW was instanced for every single group or solo player. There are no other players in those zones. EQ2 does the same cloning of zones when populations are huge and I don't see anyone saying that's not a mmo GW is a different monster all together.
This is also how Hellgate: London stations work and how WAR city raid instancing will work. Lots of players in the same instance rather than a few. Likely hundreds of players in WAR city instances. Basically when the city reaches a certain population point, a new instance of it is spawned for the newcomers to join.
That is the same for WoW but not AoC. AoC is like Guild Wars. It has about 10 instances per area, per server. So, for example, on Stormrage, there are 15 different instances for White Sands no matter how many people are in one instance. They are instances that are forever there and once they reach about 100 people, they close until people leave to make room. What instance you go to is random. That is why people in AoC are constantly complaining that they can't find their friends and that it is hard to coordinate instances because they fill open and close quickly.
Comments
I personally dont care what everyone thinks. I love the game, i m sold and hooked. Now back to playing it...
The initial impressions of the those who got into the Early Access for AoC are coming in and they appear to be fairly positive for those whose computers are up to the task. If it holds up through the launch it will just go to show that you can't really judge a game accurately through beta, closed or open, alone. Hopefully people will remember this once WAR's turn comes around. Beta is not a demo its a testing tool for the developers.
Games I've Played: WoW, FFXI, SWG, CoH, EVE Online
Games I'm Waiting for: WAR, Stargate Worlds
Must have both.
Depends for me. People can argue Oblivion is both but in doing that it took what I liked in the genre to first person view (which I don't like) to make it look better.
I will also happily play games like Disgaea on the PS2 simply because the gameplay and the depth is amazing, even though it's s turnbased isometric view game with, well, nes graphics to most people I guess ^^
www.youtube.com/watch
I think AoC looks nice graphics-wise, but as I said in an earlier post, there is nothing about the visuals that scream Conan to me. It could be the Forgotten Realms for all anyone knows. The WAR graphics, while not the greatest on the planet, scream Warhammer to me. And if they looked like anything else then it wouldn't be WAR.
Must have both.
Depends for me. People can argue Oblivion is both but in doing that it took what I liked in the genre to first person view (which I don't like) to make it look better.
I will also happily play games like Disgaea on the PS2 simply because the gameplay and the depth is amazing, even though it's s turnbased isometric view game with, well, nes graphics to most people I guess ^^
www.youtube.com/watch
What looks great to me is not advanced graphics. Looking great has to do with the art and simply using a graphics engine good enough to support art.
It seems they had to pay a big price for the pretty (depends on taste) graphics. Linear zones, instanced zones limited to 100 players, constant zoning, a powerful computer... looks like a bad deal to me.
I dunno why people have such angst against instancing and zoning. As long as it's fast zoning I could care less. As to instancing I've always loved it. Keeps me from having to fight other people for the same monster. Dunno about you but I HATED sitting and waiting for someone else to stop camping a spot for some item I wanted/needed.
When it comes to world RVR though that's when I draw the instancing line. Small battle grounds and such, perfectly fine.
If more people wanted non-instanced and no zoning then they'd all be lapping it up in VG. We all know how that worked out.
http://www.greycouncil.org/
No, not really. Pc gaming is largely a community of gamers who can,and do keep their Pc's pretty much with the times. Pc gaming has always been about pushing the envelope, with Pc gamers following suit with the hardware to run it. The average age of a Pc gamer is 35 years old. AOC hardware requirements is no obstacle for the majority of Pc gamers whom the game is catered towards.
You mean it WAS about keeping up. The 10.6 million new faces around here are somewhat...removed from that. Even I am..hell I'm sick of needing hardware upgrades that cost nearly as much as a new PC every 2 years because some yahoo couldn't be arsed with making a good game, and instead decided to make pretty ones. Then I have to cope with the good game guys push THEIR envelope to meet the sucky mans standard.
*Sigh*
I'm a hater :P
Quit lying. Saying I have seen many beta leaks only says that you aren't in either beta and think that by saying "I have seen many beta leaks" makes your word credible and end all. How about some substance to your claims?
I have seen many beta leaks and WAR looks alot better than AoC. AoC looks like it plays like a console RPG. WAR looks fun, has depth, revolves around PvP, has more stlye and class, and will run on 90% of consumer's PC's and not 10% like AOC.
Anyone else see the golden irony ? This kid cracks me up.
I dunno why people have such angst against instancing and zoning. As long as it's fast zoning I could care less. As to instancing I've always loved it. Keeps me from having to fight other people for the same monster. Dunno about you but I HATED sitting and waiting for someone else to stop camping a spot for some item I wanted/needed.
When it comes to world RVR though that's when I draw the instancing line. Small battle grounds and such, perfectly fine.
If more people wanted non-instanced and no zoning then they'd all be lapping it up in VG. We all know how that worked out.
Hmmm... it's not instanced dungeons, they have whole instanced zones, like in EQ2.
Who does? Warhammer or AoC? Because if you mean AoC you're not right. They spawn off clones for over crowded zones (good idea for a new game and a flood of people) but I've yet to play a private instance outside of the "night time" starter quests in Tortage.
I wouldn't be surprised if WAR did the same thing so that the newbie starter areas at release were not cram packed and nothing for people to kill.
http://www.greycouncil.org/
I dunno why people have such angst against instancing and zoning. As long as it's fast zoning I could care less. As to instancing I've always loved it. Keeps me from having to fight other people for the same monster. Dunno about you but I HATED sitting and waiting for someone else to stop camping a spot for some item I wanted/needed.
When it comes to world RVR though that's when I draw the instancing line. Small battle grounds and such, perfectly fine.
If more people wanted non-instanced and no zoning then they'd all be lapping it up in VG. We all know how that worked out.
Hmmm... it's not instanced dungeons, they have whole instanced zones, like in EQ2.
Who does? Warhammer or AoC? Because if you mean AoC you're not right. They spawn off clones for over crowded zones (good idea for a new game and a flood of people) but I've yet to play a private instance outside of the "night time" starter quests in Tortage.
I wouldn't be surprised if WAR did the same thing so that the newbie starter areas at release were not cram packed and nothing for people to kill.
War will not have AOC issue, they have six different starter zones. Also not having mobs to kill will not matter when you have players to kill.
2gigs of ram will be highly reccomended if you want to be apart of the larger battles. 1gig can play the game fine but you would be happier with 2 in a fortress fight
I dunno why people have such angst against instancing and zoning. As long as it's fast zoning I could care less. As to instancing I've always loved it. Keeps me from having to fight other people for the same monster. Dunno about you but I HATED sitting and waiting for someone else to stop camping a spot for some item I wanted/needed.
When it comes to world RVR though that's when I draw the instancing line. Small battle grounds and such, perfectly fine.
If more people wanted non-instanced and no zoning then they'd all be lapping it up in VG. We all know how that worked out.
Hmmm... it's not instanced dungeons, they have whole instanced zones, like in EQ2.
Who does? Warhammer or AoC? Because if you mean AoC you're not right. They spawn off clones for over crowded zones (good idea for a new game and a flood of people) but I've yet to play a private instance outside of the "night time" starter quests in Tortage.
I wouldn't be surprised if WAR did the same thing so that the newbie starter areas at release were not cram packed and nothing for people to kill.
Then I'm right, what you call a "spawn of clones for over crowded zones" it's what I call instanced zones (and everyone else). I hope WAR does not have that feature.
It's clones not instances. Once the population has evened out they won't be around.
You'll wish you had them when you have 1000 new people trying to kill the 5 mobs you need for X quest, or the 10 berries you need to pick to feed the starving.
Have you ever played a MMO at release? Did you play DAoC at release? Do you know how extremely boring it was running around trying to find something to kill because there were so many people in the newbie areas?
http://www.greycouncil.org/
Cloning and instancing are two words for the same function - a function that allows you to copy the same area. WAR tries to do as little of that as possible, but they do use it for Scenarios, PvE boss fights in dungeons (the dungeons themselves are not instanced), and capital city raids. Instancing brings a lot of benefits if used right, which is why most MMOs employ instancing in one way or another.
EXACTLY. The word "clone" and "instance" are synonyms, as far as I'm concerned. It's putting clumps of people in their own little rooms, basically. Which destroys the immersion for me. I think AoC decided to invent a new word for it because of the negative connotation the word "instance" gives off for people. It's basically another way of saying "sh it."
To be fair, "cloning" implies that you're copying something that's already in existence, while "instancing" doesn't. So if there's a difference that would be it. Cloning is still instancing, though, while instancing isn't necessarily cloning. More like you could say such cloning is a specific form of instancing. So for cloning, this would mean that you have a persistant zone somewhere, from which you can spawn instances when needed. For instances, it could be a similar setup, but it could also mean that you're making zones where no persistent version of that zone. The idea of course is still the same - spawn copies of the same zone. Using the world "cloning" could simply be Funcom's way of describing the two variants of instancing they employ. This of course is only true if the original zone still stays in existence if no players are in it.
Other MMOs also employ "cloning", but they refer to it as "instancing". In any case,calling it "instancing" is correct, although possibly less specific.
AoC I don't think coined the term cloning. I used it because it's not the same as instancing. Instancing implies every single group or player gets their OWN copy of the zone. This is not the case in "zones" in AoC. They spawn off a clone zone when they reach XX players in one zone.
Yes they function similar to instances and you can just as easily call them instances but they are not the same as what most people would term instances.
In any case people wishing instances would go away, I don't see that ever happening... at least not on any game that is remotely popular. The majority of people will not want to fight other players for spawns or "content" because there just to many people playing.
http://www.greycouncil.org/
EXACTLY. The word "clone" and "instance" are synonyms, as far as I'm concerned. It's putting clumps of people in their own little rooms, basically. Which destroys the immersion for me. I think AoC decided to invent a new word for it because of the negative connotation the word "instance" gives off for people. It's basically another way of saying "sh it."
AoC I don't think coined the term cloning. I used it because it's not the same as instancing. Instancing implies every single group or player gets their OWN copy of the zone. This is not the case in "zones" in AoC. They spawn off a clone zone when they reach XX players in one zone.
Yes they function similar to instances and you can just as easily call them instances but they are not the same as what most people would term instances.
In any case people wishing instances would go away, I don't see that ever happening... at least not on any game that is remotely popular. The majority of people will not want to fight other players for spawns or "content" because there just to many people playing.
As i said before city of heroes/villains also does it its called zone instancing. It has share of advantages and disadvantagesPros
Great graphics with little overhead
Server crash can be handled easily by just taking down the speific zone rather than server reboot.
Allows for great number of players in specific area (events, starter area)
Disadvantages
Takes away a sense of realism (loadscreens, no flight path or tram transport system etc)
Gives a lot of control to the client opening the potential for hacks.
it allows for nice graphics with little over head however it allows for exploit since it gives a lot of control to the client and also it takes a sense realism for example if i am about to die to a mob or player i can hit instance selection and magically teleport to an another instance in age of conan
AoC I don't think coined the term cloning. I used it because it's not the same as instancing. Instancing implies every single group or player gets their OWN copy of the zone. This is not the case in "zones" in AoC. They spawn off a clone zone when they reach XX players in one zone.
Yes they function similar to instances and you can just as easily call them instances but they are not the same as what most people would term instances.
In any case people wishing instances would go away, I don't see that ever happening... at least not on any game that is remotely popular. The majority of people will not want to fight other players for spawns or "content" because there just to many people playing.
that is precisely the definition and terminology that got guildwars in such heat on 'is it an mmorpg or not'
copies of areas depending on the population.
perendengue
Difference here is that every zone (besides "cities") in GW was instanced for every single group or solo player. There are no other players in those zones. EQ2 does the same cloning of zones when populations are huge and I don't see anyone saying that's not a mmo
GW is a different monster all together.
http://www.greycouncil.org/
Well lets call it cloned zones, it doesn't matter, they suck just the same.
This is also how Hellgate: London stations work and how WAR city raid instancing will work. Lots of players in the same instance rather than a few. Likely hundreds of players in WAR city instances. Basically when the city reaches a certain population point, a new instance of it is spawned for the newcomers to join.
This is also how Hellgate: London stations work and how WAR city raid instancing will work. Lots of players in the same instance rather than a few. Likely hundreds of players in WAR city instances. Basically when the city reaches a certain population point, a new instance of it is spawned for the newcomers to join.
That is the same for WoW but not AoC. AoC is like Guild Wars. It has about 10 instances per area, per server. So, for example, on Stormrage, there are 15 different instances for White Sands no matter how many people are in one instance. They are instances that are forever there and once they reach about 100 people, they close until people leave to make room. What instance you go to is random. That is why people in AoC are constantly complaining that they can't find their friends and that it is hard to coordinate instances because they fill open and close quickly.