[Opinion] EQ Next - Game Changers/Breakers

[t0lkien]

Originally Posted by August [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wrong. You're talking about launch when they hard capped servers to maximum pop because of server load. FWIW I remember being #14XXX in line for Archimonde queue.

Maximum capacity for a WoW server is 40k active connections.

You are going to have to provide a link for that. 40k active connections is serious tech.

If a single server can support 40k connections, there is no reason to ever implement instancing. As I said though, link please. I honestly doubt that is true - but happy to be wrong!

[Kiwaukee]

Originally Posted by August [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't understand why you think that having 'instances' causes your entire gameplay is non-instanced.

As to my focus, it's anything but narrow. You cannot limit an MMO launch to 5k people. The amount of uptake and then submission relapse is huge on new releases. If you start with 5k people per server, it may end up with only 1k active people. Increase this cap but don't increase the game world, and people are constantly fighting over resources (quest mobs, drops, camps) and people quit out of frustration. There is a very fine balance between world size and population that I feel the majority of people don't put into consideration.

And please stop bringing up WoW in its current incarnation. I don't like it and I don't participate it, and I'm not advocating that system at all if you read what I write.

I don't understand your first sentence, but if you're trying to say that my perspective is that instances are evil and that there should be absolutely zero of them, that's not correct.

And of course I didn't mean that servers should be limited to exactly 5k people on release, it was just a number that I threw out there to show that server population can be controlled as a means to promote un-instanced content. Obviously, more people will be playing in the first few weeks than over the life of the game, but that's the same for any MMO. You shouldn't build your entire game to try to work around the fact that the low level zones will be a disaster for a month or two. That's part of the process. Once the levels begin to bell curve out, population will stabilize.

Build your servers with an ideal peak population that fits the size of your open world. The first week or two will be nuts, and every server will feel like Orc Hill or the Newbie Log would feel if P99 wiped and rerolled tomorrow. After a while, it would settle. Yes, some people would quit because they get frustrated with the early overcrowding, but that's just part of the process.

Some instances would be fine, but you'd have to limit them. I personally enjoyed the LDoN instances because they encouraged repeat runs for progress and had some element of randomness to them. The format promoted grouping with the same people and developing a system of progression through each dungeon type. That's the type of instancing that works FOR the community of the game without taking a huge chunk out of the competition element, and that's the type of stuff I'm talking about.

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Kiwaukee [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't understand your first sentence, but if you're trying to say that my perspective is that instances are evil and that there should be absolutely zero of them, that's not correct.

I would say the same.

Levels 1-5 mines of gloomingdeep instances. Once you hit lvl 5 you get 'released' to your town and the rest is a static world. Noobie log/Orc Hill problem solved. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[t0lkien]

Here's the thing though - removing the "down" side of open world also removes the positive, deep side. They two are sides of the same coin. Same with a punitive death penalty, and a slow progression curve. You can't make things easier and less painful, and keep the immensity of the reward.

Also, you lose the inevitable moments of synchronicity that happen when players are forced into community that could never be planned for or designed. That is the beauty of open world MMOs. I hated aspects of the endgame cluster on live, but I loved what accompanied it. You don't get that love without that hate. This informed guild structures, and the entire meta game that was the community. Instances reduce and inevitably kill all that. It creates a smaller experience.

I understand a lot of people prefer that, but I also understand we are talking about different games. I won't commit to a game that has any type of instancing for these and many other reasons that have to do with inevitable design impact. It's like avoiding certain openings in chess because they lead to certain types of middle and endgame. You may not be able to see that during the opening, but it's inevitable and logically inescapable. A seemingly innocuous pawn move during the first 10 moves can lose you the game 30 moves later. Instancing may not be immediately obviously bad, but the results of it are IMO. And that can be seen in all the games that have implemented it.

P.S. LDoN was crap for me, and I actually quit the game for a long time after it. The augmentation system accompanying it was also ugly, inelegantly complex, and game changing in a bad way (and clearly implemented to force players to play longer, and farm instances, not because it increased the fun aspect i.e. it was an SOE-ism that the original designers would never have considered).... but that's another discussion.

P.P.S. I'm still waiting on a link showing 40k active connections per WoW server.

[Kagatob]

I like to compare instancing as a gaming mechanic to cell-shading as a graphical medium.
Both were quick cheap fixes that became essentially the standard for a while before a better solution was created, but boy did things suck during the transition.

[Millburn]

I thought Wind Waker and XIII were pretty awesome actually.

[Kiwaukee]

Dark Cloud 2 was cell-shaded and was beautiful. I think it worked with games like that, where the protagonists were younger.

[Rooj]

I hated Wind Waker... That was the last Zelda I will ever play.

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Millburn [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I thought Wind Waker and XIII were pretty awesome actually.

If you saw the game that would of been Wind Waker before Nintendo went the cheap rout you'd shit your pants. Game still looked better than anything Twilight Princess or Skyward Sword ever dreamt of being. I don't know if they are still up on youtube (can't look don't have access where I am currently) but I think it was Zelda Spaceworld trailer. Spaceworld being the convention it debuted at not the name of the game.

XIII was awesome, but it was also a parody game of sorts and didn't set any industry standards for several years.

Originally Posted by Kiwaukee [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Dark Cloud 2 was cell-shaded and was beautiful. I think it worked with games like that, where the protagonists were younger.

Paper Mario worked too, but those games were targeting younger audiences, I dislike Cell-shading less then I dislike the fact that it became an industry standard when developers all wanted to go cheap.

[gotrocks]

guarantee you wow servers are not currently hardcapped at 5k active connections.

At launch, maybe, but 8 years later that tech has been improved upon.

40k sounds like a stretch though.