Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Why are MMORPG's no longer MASSIVE?
-Zeno-
Member CommonPosts: 1,298
Out of all the recent releases, only one game was designed to be "massive". AKA - able to handle more than 60 players in one area without bogging down the client/server. All the games that have released have been pretty.
Are we in a new era where MMORPG's don't exist, where they are now called PMORPG's?
Example:
Darkfall was designed for over 200 players to fight in one area without a hiccup. The downside, its not "pretty" game.
Age of Conan was one of best looking games on the market, but it will bog down even the best computer if more than 60 players are in one area. Same thing will happen with MO, and lag happens in every other game when over 60 players are in one area, like WAR, AION, etc.
Why are these games no longer MASSIVE? Innovation is not making the best looking game, its making a game that can run on any computer and handle more than 60 players in one area. Even WoW lags when more than 60 players are in one area, but it can run on almost any computer on the market, so that's one reason of its success.
The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
Comments
Wintergrasp? (I've seen some massive battles there but lag is horrendous and I have a pretty decent computer.)
I agree with you. These MMORPG don't really have a "massive" feeling especially with instances and zones...and most games have more than 1 server...wouldn't it be nice to only have 1 server?
Because these games are trying to put out cutting edge graphics and you can't have cutting edge graphics with hundreds of players on screen at once. Darkfall doesn't take a huge toll on your graphics card and RAM like other MMOs do. Also, the newer games don't use open worlds nearly as often and thus the servers are rarely designed to handle a large amount of players. It's pretty evident when you try to do Wintergrasp in WoW (which was nearly unplayable due to lag on my server when I did play WotLK) or some huge open event (how many times did your server crash and how playable was Silthus during the AQ event in WoW?). These games rely on instanced servers that are designed to handle less people, so their main server typically doesn't account for huge amounts of people in a single area (which winds up sending more data from server to client because each client needs data like positions for each character they see, which is normally irrelevant data and doesn't need to be sent to the client if the character isn't visible on another player's screen, it just needs to be sent to the server once).
I'll try to break it down like this:
You are playing normally and nobody is on your screen. Your data is sent to the server (the most important probably being your actual position in the world). The only data you receive from the server is on your screen, like where monster positions are. In this case the server is only sending a bit of information to you.
You are playing and there are 50 people on your screen. Not only do you need the relevant data like monster positions you also need these player's positions, any data relevant to those players (the spells they are casting, what you are getting hit with, their health bars, etc). Not only that, but they need YOUR data and the other people they see as well. This is an expotential increase in how much the server will be taxed. Has you can imagine the amount of data you'd be sending back is MUCH larger (let's say that any information sent out was a single packet, you'd need to send out ~2500X as many packets as you would to clients than in the situation above, interestingly enough if the players weren't near each other there would be no change in how much information you need to send to the server for it to receive - it's still 50).
Basically, games that are designed with instances don't have to handle this. They need to handle about 25 max (in WoW's case - 40 if you count Vanilla WoW) not 200+. Typically you won't have this many people running in these games with instances especially when in games like AoC or Champion's Online the "open world" areas are further divided into instances. A game like Darkfall was probably built to support this much information being sent out.
Seems like you pretty much answered your own question. Visual quality or variation must be sacrificed for a game to be capable of having massive content.
The result being that unless a game can come up with a good reason to have massive content, it *shouldn't* have massive content.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Games with instancing do not deserve to have the first "M" in MMORPG.
Aika's supposed to have no lag 1000v1000 as well as the majority of the game being serverside and the client itself being around 320 megs.
Check out the MUD I'm making!
Wintergrasp? (I've seen some massive battles there but lag is horrendous and I have a pretty decent computer.)
I agree with you. These MMORPG don't really have a "massive" feeling especially with instances and zones...and most games have more than 1 server...wouldn't it be nice to only have 1 server?
My machine lags a little with my graphics set to ultra (Dual Core 2.33, 4gb ram, 9800 gtx), but if I had a quad core with mutliple video cards and 8 or 16 gigs, then I would have NO lag, but I don't want to blow that kind of money so I adjust my settings a little
A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire
This is the whole point of my thread. While WoW may have "massive" battles in Wintergrasp, its still a lag fest. I was in an offensive siege in Darkfall that had about 150 players fighting about the same amount of defenders. I had a bow, I could aim and actually hit players. I felt like I was playing a massively multiplayer role playing game. Other games make up for lag by using a targeting system, but it still does not help if your target is 50 feet away from where you think they are. New games are not "massive" anymore, they try to look good and place limits on what the player can do, destorying the first M in MMORPG. Also ruins immersion, you realize your playing a computer game that sucks.
The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
This is the whole point of my thread. While WoW may have "massive" battles in Wintergrasp, its still a lag fest. I was in an offensive siege in Darkfall that had about 150 players fighting about the same amount of defenders. I had a bow, I could aim and actually hit players. I felt like I was playing a massively multiplayer role playing game. Other games make up for lag by using a targeting system, but it still does not help if your target is 50 feet away from where you think they are. New games are not "massive" anymore, they try to look good and place limits on what the player can do, destorying the first M in MMORPG. Also ruins immersion, you realize your playing a computer game that sucks.
Your preaching to the choir man.
What MMORPGs actually focused on massive interaction?
To my knowledge it's never been a focus. It happens. Sometimes. But the vast majority of the time you're not participating in massive interaction with other players.
Only games like WW2Online and Planetside consistently gave players massive gameplay. Which is why most of these arguments over what constitutes "MMO" ring rather hollow.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
MMOs are not massive now because there are so many of them.
Sure there's tons of players, but how many stick to one MMO?
I don't think there will ever be anything "massive" about MMOs ever again. WoW will have their player base, so will the old EQ.
No one else will get that....ever.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
They will if they design it right. How many ships can fight in one system in EVE Online without lagging to death? Hundreds? That's pretty massive. They are very sucessful too, with only 300k subscribers. EVE is not exactly your traditional MMO because there is no ground, trees, or NPC's to worry about, so they can go crazy with making the ships look good. The background is basicly painted in.
The only fantasy MMORPG that has accomplished the "massive" part on the market lately is Darkfall. My tiny 150 vs 150 fight was nothing compared to some of the sieges that happened on the EU server. Having 60 FPS during a 300 man fight in Darkfall and hitting targets (because I aimed at them with my bow, no auto target) is one hell of an accomplishment. Can any developer do better?
...or do developers even care to do better?
The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
Why do people expect MMO to Massive meaning millions,thousands or hunderds of people in one place.What game or computer can really handle 200 vs 200 people.Why focus on huge battles and raids when
a.games can't handle them
b.Strategy goes out of the window,Turns into Zergs fighting
Massive means lots of people are playing a game if a game has 100,000 people playing at the same that is massive.Massive does not 100,000 people on the same server, in same zone trying to pvp each other.
To tell the truth mmo need to concentrate on small group play.Where more strategy takes place, i need people to seriously answer the this question
What is more fun basically a huge alliance of guilds vs alliance of guilds in massive 300 vs 300 people in huge battle running smoothly for most time for almost everybody
or
Your tight 6 man group of friends who you know their every move they will make before the move versus other 6 man group who you fought many times before you guys and who you guys considers your rivals.You always have good battles in arena and world pvp.
The downside to Darkfall is that is' FFA, with a skill grind where yuo use skills to increase them so people shoot spells at trees all day to grind up their skills.
Bleh, that's the worst design ever.
The downside to Darkfall is that is' FFA, with a skill grind where yuo use skills to increase them so people shoot spells at trees all day to grind up their skills.
Bleh, that's the worst design ever.
Yeah, when I tried DF and saw that, I couldn't help but laugh. I don't mind grinding skills, but when you can bring them up by hitting trees and rocks...that's when you wonder about the logic of such a system.
The downside to Darkfall is that is' FFA, with a skill grind where yuo use skills to increase them so people shoot spells at trees all day to grind up their skills.
Bleh, that's the worst design ever.
Yeah, when I tried DF and saw that, I couldn't help but laugh. I don't mind grinding skills, but when you can bring them up by hitting trees and rocks...that's when you wonder about the logic of such a system.
So killing the same mob over and over and over is not as bad? EXP is about killing things. Skill is about using your weapon and actually doing something (or defense skills, they only raise when you are hit with that type of damage). Apples to Oranges? Each is unique, well except for the fact nearly every single game is a leveling game.
You don''t hit trees and rocks in DF, you never could with the exception for Archery at release. Now you have to hit another person or NPC. NPC's raise skills faster now, thanks to developers actually listening to their playerbase and making it eazier to skill up. I really hate it when people make stuff up.
..back on topic - 6 vs 6 is not massive. Who cares if you have 11 million subs, if your game can't handle more than 60 players in one area something is wrong.
The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
Regarding MO ... What I have heard (from a friend) so is the performance pretty good now in MO even thou the game is still in beta and it will be even better when the game is released. I havn't played DF, but I have heard about lag in that game even if that game have been released for some time now. MO have improved the performance for every patch. Since last patch, now people with lower settings can even play with shadows. If you read the patch notes. See below.
Every second week they come with a hugh patch. Here is the last patch, a small one.
http://www.mortalonline.com/files/beta/Mortal_Online_Beta_v_081112_changelog.txt
I also heard they are now fixing performance for characters and will be included in one of the coming patches. Then even more players will be able to play against eachother without much lag.
And yeah Darkfall doesn't look pretty. Mortal Online look much better.
I also heard ... next patch ... coming this monday ... should be a HUGH patch adding alot of new things.
Your question ... why MMORPG isnt massive any more ... it's Funcom's fault. They invented instancing. Luckily Mortal Online wont have any instances at all. Not even the player houses have instances.
The downside to Darkfall is that is' FFA, with a skill grind where yuo use skills to increase them so people shoot spells at trees all day to grind up their skills.
Bleh, that's the worst design ever.
Yeah, when I tried DF and saw that, I couldn't help but laugh. I don't mind grinding skills, but when you can bring them up by hitting trees and rocks...that's when you wonder about the logic of such a system.
So killing the same mob over and over and over is not as bad? EXP is about killing things. Skill is about using your weapon and actually doing something (or defense skills, they only raise when you are hit with that type of damage). Apples to Oranges? Each is unique, well except for the fact nearly every single game is a leveling game.
You don''t hit trees and rocks in DF, you never could with the exception for Archery at release. Now you have to hit another person or NPC. NPC's raise skills faster now, thanks to developers actually listening to their playerbase and making it eazier to skill up. I really hate it when people make stuff up.
..back on topic - 6 vs 6 is not massive. Who cares if you have 11 million subs, if your game can't handle more than 60 players in one area something is wrong.
6 vx 6 is not massive, 200 vs 200 is massive. You said so, So? I need to fill my screen with 400 avatars to feel massive? I pay for an MMO so I can cluster my screen? Come on, I suffer from that clustering whenever I port into dalaran.
I pay my $15 a month so I can enjoy my own form of gaming. I play with people I like, not with some random 200 all the times. In DAoC, we have 200vs 200 zergs in the entire frontier, its fun at time when I care, but its also fun when 10 of us are defending our keep against 20, while the major army is out there somewhre.
When I am raiding, I am working with my guild. Who care where the remaining server population is.
Very seriously, I pay to have fun in a game, and I do not need 200 people filling my screen to have fun.
The OP is just a viel attempt to sell DF. But selling DF as a game that has 200vs200? Big zerg gaming we already played for years during the DAoC days, when I use only a 386DX. With far better PvE contents, and a superb community. It is nothing new with DF, and done inferior when comparing to a game years old.
I do not need to torture my new 2 grand PC with a weaker game like DF, and torture myself with a bad community like DF.
Being a veteran player of SWG I'm not a fan of instancing myself, but I don't believe that instancing as a whole is the problem. If they would limit the instances to entering buildings I would be alright with it, its when they make cities, continents, and caves instances. This causes claustrophobia and a feeling of limit in a game that should be open and limitless. A possible fix for this could be as simple as giving players "an option to pay" for fast travel (Via Morrowind Siltstrider), if they are in a hurry and have the funds to cover it. Unfortunately, most developers are too worried about high end graphics to consider creating a "world". I personally favor a game that is more realistic vs cartoon like (Via WoW), but only to that extent. There really is no need for perfect shading and lighting to create a good "massive" morpg.
i agree with the thread title but not the OP. Plenty of games can handle alot of people around a single area, but what i want to know is why are game worlds no longer massive? More and more games come out and the worlds seem to be shrinking. Where are the large worlds of lineage 2, UO, EQ etc etc. When i get into the game i like to explore a little bit with friends, to go find areas not traversed so often. One of the best moments in my MMORPG playing experience was going through some no-named dungeon with a RL friend in lineage 2. We didnt do it for exp, or some quest, we went there because it was on the map and we've never heard of people going there as a common hunting ground. We went there to see what we could find, which was pretty awesome. We saw mobs we've never seen before and reached a point where we ran into rooms with little zombie girls with cleavers, i wish more games would implement stuff like that. But nowadays it just seems that every place has to have a reason to go through besides just exploring the unknown. (although i hear FE did a very good job doing what i described above)
Playing: EVE Online
Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online
Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2
KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
Fallen Earth is Massive as in Size of the game world and there is only 1 server so everyone that plays the game is playing together. Now as for the PvP im not quite sure how many people can be in the same area since I havent done PvP yet. But I know Embry can lag like a mofo and I have no idea how many players horses and NPCs are there but Im guessing its a shitload.
It used to be that the people who played games on PCs were pretty hardcore about their machines. Game developers had a small audience who leaned toward having more powerful computers (or computers at all). I started gaming online when Quake 1 came out, so I remember watching the FPS genre change massively as things like OpenGL became common discussion in the game's community. Those of us who were hardcore, went out and bought the first graphics cards from 3DFX and Matrox, and we were pushing hardware to the max. We were running dual modem connections to our ISP, or paying ridiculous amounts of money for ISDN connections. It was a fun time.
These days, you have a much wider audience in gaming, especially in MMORPG's, and with that you have a very wide range of desktop computers to deal with. Game companies naturally want to get as many subscribers as they can, so they program these games for the lowest common denominator. Instanced / Zoned areas allowed them to kick the graphics visuals up a few notches and still cater to a wide audience. One of the underplayed reasons for WoW's insane success is that you can almost run the game on a calculator. The minimum requirements to play WoW stretch back to computers that are 7+ years old.
Yes, it sucks for those of us would like to see the genre evolve. We have been stuck where we are now, and in many cases the game worlds have devolved to allow better graphics by taking away the open world, and other virtual world features.
A sure sign that you are in an old, dying paradigm/mindset, is when you are scared of new ideas and new technology. Don't feel bad. The world is moving on without you, and you are welcome to yell "Get Off My Lawn!" all you want while it happens. You cannot, however, stop an idea whose time has come.
There is no conspiracy theory behind this.
The reason is simple:
To make an MMORPG truely live to its first "M" of the acronymn, you require massive time and effort investment from the developers. They are too lazy and want to get away with it the "MMO" label, selling RMT and half 0assed games.
A generic poorly-reasoned angst-ridden anti-MMO statement? In my MMORPG.com forums?
Seriously though, it's not laziness but merely the inefficiency of fun in massive-player content. Is it fun to rush over a hill with 40 infantry teammates in Planetside? Absolutely. Just like EVE, WAR, and similar games' massive-player content. But as you increase player-count you also introduce additional negative gameplay elements at nearly the game rate.
So a lot of it is designers wanting to efficiently deliver fun to a wide audience, and massive-player content not being ideal in that regard.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Seriously, of all letters in the MMORPG acronym, we're going to choose the most insignificant one out of the whole thing. Massive is a matter of semantics, who defines which are massive and which are not within the MMORPG realm? Is it you? Is it the OP? Is it the people actually making/inventing these games? Can we define Ultima Online as Massive? Probably not by OP's standard but in my opinion, it isn't any less of an MMORPG (even if we include massive in there). The acronym was practically coined when it came out but in terms of size, you could of ran from one end to the other in an hour. Oh people like the OP probably haven't either played through that era, lived through it, or forgotten about it.
Why does it matter how Massive is used, when they originally coined this term, it was Massive in terms of player population size. Anyone remember how big a single game of Diablo 1 or 2 got back in the day? No more than 6 or 8 from my memory, but if you compared 1 server of Ultima to 1 game of Diablo, it would definitely be massive in difference. The most important part of MMORPG here is what it stands for and how to correctly apply something like a genre. Genres are used to loosely describe a game, it doesn't define it totally, but explains a very broad view of the basis behind it. Should we drop off the first M and make it MORPG just to satisfy a very small handful of stuck-up individuals who want to argue semantics behind Massive? That sounds ridiculous.
Who cares what the literal size of the environment is, what's most important about the game is that it contains single environments that bring large groups of people together under 1 rule set (defined by the game). That's it people, its really that simple, it isn't defined by being X size in width or Y size in height and Z size in depth, it just brings a very large group of people together under 1 environment. If some of you guys want to complain about the size and that it isn't massive, you try to make a large enough game and THEN get enough people to consider your game "massive". I bet most of you cannot even get more than 20 people into a single chat room and THEN get them to stay there long enough to even care for 10 seconds about what you have to say. This is very basically what game companies have to do with MMORPG's, it may look easy on the outside, but put into this perspective, I can imagine it is far from easy.
Again, is arguing about semantics behind "massive" in the acronym MMORPG really that important especially when the acronym was coined back in Ultima Online days?
EDIT: Here's a good reference in regards to this from a recent MMORPG blog from last month.
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/staffblog/102009/4897_Definition-Insanity-What-is-an-MMO
IMO, ever since MMO's have gone mainstream and drawn in a lot of players from other genres, these developer's are catering more to that crowd since they are now the majority. Hence, semi-linear worlds and instancing, which further draws the "open world/massive world" feel out of most games.