Originally posted by Metrobius I dont know who's right or wrong in this debate, but your arrogance makes you seem like a caricature, Grahor.
That's because people I'm arguing with are a caricature in itself. It's not possible to argue with them seriously. I mean, the post above this one assumes that EvE is currently running on the hardware it was built on. What can anyone possibly say to that?
You missed the point of my post. Obviously nobody would continue using hardware for 10 years, but the entire system was designed around hardware that was much less powerful. Creating a system based on new hardware allows for a much more ambitious design.
As you said, this argument is totally pointless. None of us have worked on designing an MMO before or really know any technical details about landmark. All I can say is I've been really impressed with everything I've seen from Voxelfarm and am excited to see more.
I've been secretly watching you in this thread. I will throw you a bone and agree with you. EQ:L will be a bland instanced disappointment. In order to update all that information realtime, you would need a 2050 internet infrastructure and a super computer (by today's standards).
Each personal instance of EQ:L will exist as some lobby to join where you will subsequently download that person's data. And that estimation is very liberal and idealistic. Who's to say your personal claim will even have a multiplayer feature? Maybe all you can do is record yourself walking around and upload it to youtube?
As Grahor is basically arguing, people need to have realistic expectations of EQ:L. People are overhyping this system, which by realistic standards wont be the sandbox utopia everyone has been dreaming of; modern technology simply won't support it.
My most generous prediction is that, like the video, you throw down your flag and claim some territory. This flag will act as the entrance to your "area of minecraftable land" People can then hover over a field of flags until they find your name and click on it to zone into your work. That is my expectation of EQ:L. There is no way in hell there will be actual tracks of land that exist in a massive multiplayer arena which can be edited real-time while you share the same space with 10's of 100's of others. Not for another 50 years at least.
I respect that you are picking up the flag for an unpopular position, not everyone would do that.
That said, you haven't addressed any of the arguments about why Landmark doesn't need to be significantly more taxing than any other MMO.
Think about what happens in a shared (non-instanced) dungeon now in, say, WoW. Or better yet, mass PVP.
You can have 100 different people kiling 100 different entities at the same time. Each of these 100 people has to get constant updates for every player and every entity animation. Even if some of the entities are out of sight, the players still have to be notified of position updates and deaths.
So the question is: what's the big deal about building? A combat mouseclick isn't sending any less information than a building mouseclick. Yes, it's true that building changes last for a long time. So what?
a) Building updates can be streamed to nearby viewers, just like combat data now
b) Distant yet visible updates (towers) can be delayed and bundled before streaming
c) Construction done while the user is offline can be packaged and downloaded at login time
d) Local construction updates can be streamed to the user as he travels around the world
If you've seen the EQ2 "raptor" icon, you know that SOE has experience with live terrain downloading. You can get into that game in 3 minutes on a clean machine, and it streams uninstalled content as you move around.
100's of people all building on the same site would be very taxing, and would probably require ramping up the refresh lag, but I don't see that 100 people watching a build is a big deal. Putting 100's of people in the same space is taxing for any MMO, I don't see why Landmark should be held to a higher standard.
I don't see why this has to be 2050 science fiction.
I don't see why this has to be 2050 science fiction.
Well, I'm not as privy on technical specs as Grahor, I'm just looking at it logically.
Also, if you watch the EQ:L video's. The avatar is floating around above the terrain.
How are you supposed to mimic the physics of EQ:N (where you have gravity holding you to the ground) while still being able to float up in the air and edit your terrain?
The answer: You are in a completely different zone. Or better yet, EQ:L is a totally different program completely separate from EQ:N. You just use it as an editor of sorts to be ported into the actual game later.
The physics argument doesnt work. Devs have said again and again that many items in eqn will give players new abilities, a d there is no reason why t here cant be a tool that allows a player to levitate while on their claim. In any case, we will all find out the truth this winter.
I don't see why this has to be 2050 science fiction.
Well, I'm not as privy on technical specs as Grahor, I'm just looking at it logically.
Also, if you watch the EQ:L video's. The avatar is floating around above the terrain.
How are you supposed to mimic the physics of EQ:N (where you have gravity holding you to the ground) while still being able to float up in the air and edit your terrain?
The answer: You are in a completely different zone. Or better yet, EQ:L is a totally different program completely separate from EQ:N. You just use it as an editor of sorts to be ported into the actual game later.
I think the video showing the player flying around building was just a demo where the dev used some sort of creative mode. They have said that they will *not* give players a creative mode in Landmark. I think this means that you will not be able to float around in either Landmark or EQN.
Also, I think it was pretty clear that Landmark is is a separate game from EQN. It will be totally separate from EQN, though you can export designs from Landmark (I am assuming through a tool in the Player Studio), submit it for approval for EQN, and then build it in EQN (if you have land).
I think it was pretty clear that Landmark is is a separate game from EQN. It will be totally separate from EQN, though you can export designs from Landmark (I am assuming through a tool in the Player Studio), submit it for approval for EQN, and then build it in EQN (if you have land).
SOE has said EQNL will support different themes unrelated to EQN - scifi, modern, etc
EQNL wont be just a tool for EQN -- only the norrath theme will pertain to EQN
I think it was pretty clear that Landmark is is a separate game from EQN. It will be totally separate from EQN, though you can export designs from Landmark (I am assuming through a tool in the Player Studio), submit it for approval for EQN, and then build it in EQN (if you have land).
SOE has said EQNL will support different themes unrelated to EQN - scifi, modern, etc
EQNL wont be just a tool for EQN -- only the norrath theme will pertain to EQN
One area of Landmark will be reserved for art in the Norrathian style.
That doesn't make any sense, if it is one instance (or client side dev box) then what is this mystical "area"? If it is one instance dev box per person then the other stuff in this article also makes no sense, what is the point of guilds in next if you are on your own computer? What is the point of resource gathering and trading...and how the hell do you trade on a client side dev box.. What does it mean to "claim" a part of the land that you explore if the entire thing is on your computer? Isn't that a false silly distinction to make?
or maybe...the OP...is right and SOE is tossing out B.S. to get people interested in a dev tool kit....but I doubt it.
The O.P. uses pretty outlandish scenario's to attempt to prove his or her point, like the idea that the entire server is going to be so interested in a build project they are all going to hoof it over to that project to watch...this is probably not the case and of course there will have to be stress tests done. This however is a problem for ANY online game, my computer now can handle any number of people in WoW but I remember back in the day Stormwind would cause serious client lag on ultra. GW2 solved this problem by limiting the nuymber of toons on the screen at once, which would be a viable solution in Landmark more than a real MMO. Landmark will probably have less character types running around as well, I am guessing human only at release and so far they have said nothing to contradict that, probably limited clothing at first as well.
The more likely outcome is that just like older engines have been able to do, SOE will release something that lets a few dozen people stand around without major lag and watch something being built, there will probably be more lag if it goes over a certain number, we will deal with it like we do in every other online game. Second Life did it, Mine Craft can handle several dozen...it is unlikely people are all at once going to decide to visit one spot on the server...and it is important to remember this game HAS servers which can be used to throttle the amount of people in any given "shard" to account for system performance.
@graykodiak: Grahor's main argument seems to be that current server hardware and player broadband infrustructure are not capable of handling the huge amounts of data that Grahor says would need to be processed and transmitted to the clients to allow building in real time in the open world. At least that's what I took away from his posts. Other posters question grahors expertise and gave examples of ways to do the work, so I dont know if his argument holds water.
Well, I'm not as privy on technical specs as Grahor, I'm just looking at it logically.
I'm not aware of him posting any technical specs, he's doing the same thing you are.
Also, if you watch the EQ:L video's. The avatar is floating around above the terrain.
How are you supposed to mimic the physics of EQ:N (where you have gravity holding you to the ground) while still being able to float up in the air and edit your terrain?
The answer: You are in a completely different zone. Or better yet, EQ:L is a totally different program completely separate from EQ:N. You just use it as an editor of sorts to be ported into the actual game later.
Good catch on the floating, but that says nothing about zones.
I'm guessing there's a build-site-only power to hover that requires an item (or maybe it's innate, dunno). There's no harm in them granting you that power only on build-sites.
As for Landmark being an editor, they are on record in many places stating it is NOT an editor, as there is no Minecraft-style creative mode. You have to work for everything by going out into the world and harvesting, acquiring tools, etc.
The hovering could also just be an issue with the early releases where the proper shadowing isn't in yet so its giving the appearance of hovering when its not really the case. hard to say at this point.
Originally posted by GrayKodiak I think the recent dev diary is another nail in the already well fastened coffin on the OP's dubious theory.
*sigh* not really, no. It seems the game follows the steps of Minecraft, which is: an isntance of the world is built on users' machine, becomes server, capable of keeping a limited number of connections, in case of minecraft, like, 20 users at a time; probably a bit more for EQ:L. Which is pretty much what I thought it would be, only I didn't count on it being a "game", but rather considered it a shared environment for group builds.
There is no possible way it can be transfered in real time from computer to server.
It's very easy to do, even more if they decide to divide a virtual world into regions/zones what you wish to name it and you load it whenever you are nearby.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
I am a skeptic first and for good reason,everyone is out to mislead you into buying their products,be it gaming or anything else in life.
IMO it is VERY obvious what Landmark is trying to achieve.I believe this is the sole reason SOE decided a change in design philosophy about 18 months ago,it was not for the sake of the game but instead for >>>$$$$$
IMO Landmark is simply part of the full game ,a way to make money while still designing the game,basically a real sneaky gimmick,not much different than the current trend of free handouts.It costs a lot of money to design a full scale triple a game,SOE knows how much debt they incur designing it and decided this was a smart approach to players help fund the design process because they also know a free handout scheme like Indie devs are trying would most likely not work for a giant like SOE.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I am a skeptic first and for good reason,everyone is out to mislead you into buying their products,be it gaming or anything else in life.
IMO it is VERY obvious what Landmark is trying to achieve.I believe this is the sole reason SOE decided a change in design philosophy about 18 months ago,it was not for the sake of the game but instead for >>>$$$$$
IMO Landmark is simply part of the full game ,a way to make money while still designing the game,basically a real sneaky gimmick,not much different than the current trend of free handouts.It costs a lot of money to design a full scale triple a game,SOE knows how much debt they incur designing it and decided this was a smart approach to players help fund the design process because they also know a free handout scheme like Indie devs are trying would most likely not work for a giant like SOE.
You really are a skeptic, and I'm afraid incredibly jaded. It perplexes me that you didn't do any research and yet took the time to write this much.
It states, on the front page: "EverQuest Next Landmark is a Free to Play, next-generation online sandbox game."
Now I'm not entirely certain that you don't mean that they would make money through some other method of this Free to Play game, but it sure seems like a pretty sub-standard way to make money instead of it being Buy to Play, or utilising some other payment method - much like Minecraft was and I presume you could say still is.
"Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys. Look on them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death!" - Sun Tzu, the Art of War
Originally posted by GrayKodiak I think the recent dev diary is another nail in the already well fastened coffin on the OP's dubious theory.
*sigh* not really, no. It seems the game follows the steps of Minecraft, which is: an isntance of the world is built on users' machine, becomes server, capable of keeping a limited number of connections, in case of minecraft, like, 20 users at a time; probably a bit more for EQ:L. Which is pretty much what I thought it would be, only I didn't count on it being a "game", but rather considered it a shared environment for group builds.
Oh well.
Well what you said was
you get in queue and download that asset, load it into your own instance on your computer and look at it from any angle. All alone.
Which does not appear to be the case at all, actually I think in my first response to this idea I brought up all the information that pointed to a mine craft like experience as opposed to a, in my opinion, far more useful developer oriented experience. It is a game in every sense of the word though for good or ill and it appears to be massive multiplayer..
I am sure there will be lag if too many people get together, same in any MMO, or they will use gimmicks like decreasing avatar visibility over a certain number...which will not be a problem because lets face it most MMO's do not have the entire population ever doing the same thing at the same time, also it will be server based so that will split up the player population even more...even though they say jumping from one server to the other will be an in game feature via the mage spires.
It is however, in no way a single person developer toolkit. I still think they may make "build mode" a phased event on any individual claims so they can get around the annoying floating player problem in build mode while still having an open landscape environment, and I still think they will have humans only for the player race because
a) they don't have the other races made yet
b) it will make for a smoother running environment.
c) it will give them something to sale in the player shop once they make the other race models.
Originally posted by GrayKodiak I think the recent dev diary is another nail in the already well fastened coffin on the OP's dubious theory.
*sigh* not really, no. It seems the game follows the steps of Minecraft, which is: an isntance of the world is built on users' machine, becomes server, capable of keeping a limited number of connections, in case of minecraft, like, 20 users at a time; probably a bit more for EQ:L. Which is pretty much what I thought it would be, only I didn't count on it being a "game", but rather considered it a shared environment for group builds.
Oh well.
Well what you said was
you get in queue and download that asset, load it into your own instance on your computer and look at it from any angle. All alone.
That was quite unfortunate choice of words in my case. Indeed, right from the start there was very certain emphasis on group build, so the instance on user's computer would have been able to support more than one player. Also, the argument was with people talking about single seamless world, of which minecrafts' separated servers aren't.
The idea of minecraft-like "personal servers" just wasn't what was in my mind, although it's a logical continuation of user-created instance of the build. It distributes processing load between user-owned machines instead of SOE-owned servers, putting a lot of the expenses of building and supporting servers to players. Plus, Minecraft shows that this model is successfull, so it makes a lot of sense from commercial point of view.
Which does not appear to be the case at all, actually I think in my first response to this idea I brought up all the information that pointed to a mine craft like experience as opposed to a, in my opinion, far more useful developer oriented experience. It is a game in every sense of the word though for good or ill and it appears to be massive multiplayer..
*shrug* I'll believe it when I'll see it. It would be a pity, though.
I am sure there will be lag if too many people get together, same in any MMO, or they will use gimmicks like decreasing avatar visibility over a certain number...which will not be a problem because lets face it most MMO's do not have the entire population ever doing the same thing at the same time, also it will be server based so that will split up the player population even more...even though they say jumping from one server to the other will be an in game feature via the mage spires.
I'm still pretty sure there simply will be hard limit on how many people may login at one time on every personal server. That limitation, though, will likely never be a serious concern, because, honestly, who but your friends would want to play on your server?
Grahor, I feel like you are radically misinterpreting the info we have, and now even backpeddling on your previous claims so you can still insist that you are right. Landmark is going to be an MMO. They have said that over and over.
Comments
You missed the point of my post. Obviously nobody would continue using hardware for 10 years, but the entire system was designed around hardware that was much less powerful. Creating a system based on new hardware allows for a much more ambitious design.
As you said, this argument is totally pointless. None of us have worked on designing an MMO before or really know any technical details about landmark. All I can say is I've been really impressed with everything I've seen from Voxelfarm and am excited to see more.
same - should be seeing a playable EQN Landmark in the next 4 months
EQ2 fan sites
I respect that you are picking up the flag for an unpopular position, not everyone would do that.
That said, you haven't addressed any of the arguments about why Landmark doesn't need to be significantly more taxing than any other MMO.
Think about what happens in a shared (non-instanced) dungeon now in, say, WoW. Or better yet, mass PVP.
You can have 100 different people kiling 100 different entities at the same time. Each of these 100 people has to get constant updates for every player and every entity animation. Even if some of the entities are out of sight, the players still have to be notified of position updates and deaths.
So the question is: what's the big deal about building? A combat mouseclick isn't sending any less information than a building mouseclick. Yes, it's true that building changes last for a long time. So what?
a) Building updates can be streamed to nearby viewers, just like combat data now
b) Distant yet visible updates (towers) can be delayed and bundled before streaming
c) Construction done while the user is offline can be packaged and downloaded at login time
d) Local construction updates can be streamed to the user as he travels around the world
If you've seen the EQ2 "raptor" icon, you know that SOE has experience with live terrain downloading. You can get into that game in 3 minutes on a clean machine, and it streams uninstalled content as you move around.
100's of people all building on the same site would be very taxing, and would probably require ramping up the refresh lag, but I don't see that 100 people watching a build is a big deal. Putting 100's of people in the same space is taxing for any MMO, I don't see why Landmark should be held to a higher standard.
I don't see why this has to be 2050 science fiction.
Well, I'm not as privy on technical specs as Grahor, I'm just looking at it logically.
Also, if you watch the EQ:L video's. The avatar is floating around above the terrain.
How are you supposed to mimic the physics of EQ:N (where you have gravity holding you to the ground) while still being able to float up in the air and edit your terrain?
The answer: You are in a completely different zone. Or better yet, EQ:L is a totally different program completely separate from EQ:N. You just use it as an editor of sorts to be ported into the actual game later.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
In any case, we will all find out the truth this winter.
I think the video showing the player flying around building was just a demo where the dev used some sort of creative mode. They have said that they will *not* give players a creative mode in Landmark. I think this means that you will not be able to float around in either Landmark or EQN.
Also, I think it was pretty clear that Landmark is is a separate game from EQN. It will be totally separate from EQN, though you can export designs from Landmark (I am assuming through a tool in the Player Studio), submit it for approval for EQN, and then build it in EQN (if you have land).
SOE has said EQNL will support different themes unrelated to EQN - scifi, modern, etc
EQNL wont be just a tool for EQN -- only the norrath theme will pertain to EQN
http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/08/21/gamescom-2013-in-depth-looks-at-everquest-next-and-eq-next-lan/
One area of Landmark will be reserved for art in the Norrathian style.
EQ2 fan sites
That doesn't make any sense, if it is one instance (or client side dev box) then what is this mystical "area"? If it is one instance dev box per person then the other stuff in this article also makes no sense, what is the point of guilds in next if you are on your own computer? What is the point of resource gathering and trading...and how the hell do you trade on a client side dev box.. What does it mean to "claim" a part of the land that you explore if the entire thing is on your computer? Isn't that a false silly distinction to make?
or maybe...the OP...is right and SOE is tossing out B.S. to get people interested in a dev tool kit....but I doubt it.
The O.P. uses pretty outlandish scenario's to attempt to prove his or her point, like the idea that the entire server is going to be so interested in a build project they are all going to hoof it over to that project to watch...this is probably not the case and of course there will have to be stress tests done. This however is a problem for ANY online game, my computer now can handle any number of people in WoW but I remember back in the day Stormwind would cause serious client lag on ultra. GW2 solved this problem by limiting the nuymber of toons on the screen at once, which would be a viable solution in Landmark more than a real MMO. Landmark will probably have less character types running around as well, I am guessing human only at release and so far they have said nothing to contradict that, probably limited clothing at first as well.
The more likely outcome is that just like older engines have been able to do, SOE will release something that lets a few dozen people stand around without major lag and watch something being built, there will probably be more lag if it goes over a certain number, we will deal with it like we do in every other online game. Second Life did it, Mine Craft can handle several dozen...it is unlikely people are all at once going to decide to visit one spot on the server...and it is important to remember this game HAS servers which can be used to throttle the amount of people in any given "shard" to account for system performance.
I'm not aware of him posting any technical specs, he's doing the same thing you are.
Good catch on the floating, but that says nothing about zones.
I'm guessing there's a build-site-only power to hover that requires an item (or maybe it's innate, dunno). There's no harm in them granting you that power only on build-sites.
As for Landmark being an editor, they are on record in many places stating it is NOT an editor, as there is no Minecraft-style creative mode. You have to work for everything by going out into the world and harvesting, acquiring tools, etc.
*sigh* not really, no. It seems the game follows the steps of Minecraft, which is: an isntance of the world is built on users' machine, becomes server, capable of keeping a limited number of connections, in case of minecraft, like, 20 users at a time; probably a bit more for EQ:L. Which is pretty much what I thought it would be, only I didn't count on it being a "game", but rather considered it a shared environment for group builds.
Oh well.
It's very easy to do, even more if they decide to divide a virtual world into regions/zones what you wish to name it and you load it whenever you are nearby.
"going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"
*rolls eyes*
I am a skeptic first and for good reason,everyone is out to mislead you into buying their products,be it gaming or anything else in life.
IMO it is VERY obvious what Landmark is trying to achieve.I believe this is the sole reason SOE decided a change in design philosophy about 18 months ago,it was not for the sake of the game but instead for >>>$$$$$
IMO Landmark is simply part of the full game ,a way to make money while still designing the game,basically a real sneaky gimmick,not much different than the current trend of free handouts.It costs a lot of money to design a full scale triple a game,SOE knows how much debt they incur designing it and decided this was a smart approach to players help fund the design process because they also know a free handout scheme like Indie devs are trying would most likely not work for a giant like SOE.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
You really are a skeptic, and I'm afraid incredibly jaded. It perplexes me that you didn't do any research and yet took the time to write this much.
For example: http://www.everquest-next.co.uk/about-landmark.html
It states, on the front page: "EverQuest Next Landmark is a Free to Play, next-generation online sandbox game."
Now I'm not entirely certain that you don't mean that they would make money through some other method of this Free to Play game, but it sure seems like a pretty sub-standard way to make money instead of it being Buy to Play, or utilising some other payment method - much like Minecraft was and I presume you could say still is.
"Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys. Look on them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death!"
- Sun Tzu, the Art of War
Support the Indie Developers - Kickstarter
Well what you said was
you get in queue and download that asset, load it into your own instance on your computer and look at it from any angle. All alone.
Which does not appear to be the case at all, actually I think in my first response to this idea I brought up all the information that pointed to a mine craft like experience as opposed to a, in my opinion, far more useful developer oriented experience. It is a game in every sense of the word though for good or ill and it appears to be massive multiplayer..
I am sure there will be lag if too many people get together, same in any MMO, or they will use gimmicks like decreasing avatar visibility over a certain number...which will not be a problem because lets face it most MMO's do not have the entire population ever doing the same thing at the same time, also it will be server based so that will split up the player population even more...even though they say jumping from one server to the other will be an in game feature via the mage spires.
It is however, in no way a single person developer toolkit. I still think they may make "build mode" a phased event on any individual claims so they can get around the annoying floating player problem in build mode while still having an open landscape environment, and I still think they will have humans only for the player race because
a) they don't have the other races made yet
b) it will make for a smoother running environment.
c) it will give them something to sale in the player shop once they make the other race models.
That was quite unfortunate choice of words in my case. Indeed, right from the start there was very certain emphasis on group build, so the instance on user's computer would have been able to support more than one player. Also, the argument was with people talking about single seamless world, of which minecrafts' separated servers aren't.
The idea of minecraft-like "personal servers" just wasn't what was in my mind, although it's a logical continuation of user-created instance of the build. It distributes processing load between user-owned machines instead of SOE-owned servers, putting a lot of the expenses of building and supporting servers to players. Plus, Minecraft shows that this model is successfull, so it makes a lot of sense from commercial point of view.
*shrug* I'll believe it when I'll see it. It would be a pity, though.
I'm still pretty sure there simply will be hard limit on how many people may login at one time on every personal server. That limitation, though, will likely never be a serious concern, because, honestly, who but your friends would want to play on your server?
Landmark is going to be an MMO. They have said that over and over.
agree
joystiq has done a decent job for giving articles detailing Landmark as a mmo
EQNL info from SOE Live weekend, Aug 04
http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/08/04/soe-live-2013-delving-deeper-into-eqns-landmark/
EQNL info from Gamescom 2013, Aug 21
http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/08/21/gamescom-2013-in-depth-looks-at-everquest-next-and-eq-next-lan/
EQNL info from PAX 2013, Aug 31
http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/08/31/pax-prime-2013-the-strange-case-for-everquest-next-landmark/
EQ2 fan sites
Wow. Turns out Grahor was wrong. [mod edit]
Yup! Dead wrong.