An official response please. Will STO use AOC style sharding?

[Bigwig]

I had really hoped it wouldn't come to this, but the more i follow this game the more i hear STO will be completely sharded. The fact that Champions Online uses this out-dated and completely anti-immersive technology for an MMO worries me even more.

For those who don't know, sharding/instancing/noding is when every single zone in the game has multiple copies running at the same time. Let's say im in DS9, sitting in quarks bar and you arrive there too at the exact same place at the exact same time. However, you cant see me. That's because im in Quarks Bar Instance 11 and you were zoned into Quarks Bar Instance 21. You would have to re-enter the zone and/or switch shard to number 11 to interact with me.

Or lets say a massive super-cool-uber PvP battle is going on in the EXAMPLE NEBULA! You warp there but see nothing, hear nothing, know nothing. You just missed out on a great PERSISTENT massively-multiplayer experience, and may miss out on many more to come. Simply because you were zoned into the wrong 'shard'.

For a SPACE game above all things, this is a game-breaking approach. It completely broke AOC for me, one of the reasons i don't play it to this day. How can you have anything massively-multiplayer when you're only ever seeing 70 people at a time while another 70+ run past you and do their day-to-day business without you ever seeing them?

In this day and age with the technology we have, i would have thought this approach to MMORPG developing would long be gone, yet devs seem to continue to take the easy route. If this game is noded/sharded whatever, you can bet your butt there will be nothing 'massive' or 'vast' or 'expansive' in Star Trek Online. You'll be plagued by constant loading screens and constant shameful linear-exploration mechanics pointing you along your merry way as you advance through the path set out by the developers, not your own.

I have followed STO for a long time now and this is my biggest concern yet. That will be all.

[Bigwig]

Bah, didn't see the other threads on the subject. Could a mod please merge this post with the existing threads or something. Thanks.

[Rota]

anti-immersive

I'm still on the fence about the issue.
But that is a strong argument against shards.

[xcess]

i am afraid it will be like Champions Online too ... quite immersive breaking.

[Nyanya]

The fact that Champions Online uses this out-dated and completely anti-immersive technology for an MMO worries me even more.
Considering that Champions Online is the first to use that type of ‘Sharding’, every game making heavy use of instancing before it also had multiple servers and even then that technology is newer than running un-instanced separate servers, I don’t see how it’s out-dated by any stretch of the imagination. If nothing else, it’s the wave of the future and I’m glad for it.

“anti-immersive” is a matter of perspective. Personally I find it no less immersive than having separate servers to begin with. In fact it can be more immersive because it allows the developers to much better control the population numbers in the zones. Using ‘Sharding’ they can ensure that a section of space that’s supposed to be nearly empty really is nearly empty despite of there being thousands of players in the zone. And a zone that’s supposed to feel really crowded can feel so simply by greatly limiting the number of ‘Shards’.

All that is really required is for you to pretend that the other ‘Shards’ don’t exist, much like you pretend not to be sitting behind a keyboard when immersing yourself in the universe. The reality of the world you’re immersing yourself in is whatever the ‘Shard’ you’re in presents.

And the most important benefit, for me, is that it allows them to have just a single ‘server’ that everyone plays on regardless of where in the world they are. Personally I find it rather immersion breaking if I can’t play with my friends.

You would have to re-enter the zone and/or switch shard to number 11 to interact with me.
Is it really that hard to just be Transported to the other location? In Star Trek people move out of reality all the time, it’s not really that much of a stretch to see them move into another one. Besides, the way CO does it you actually know which ‘Shard’ to go into to meet up with your friends so very little instance switching is needed (and what little there is I find no more immersion breaking than agreeing over chat to meet up to begin with).

Or lets say a massive super-cool-uber PvP battle is going on in the EXAMPLE NEBULA! You warp there but see nothing, hear nothing, know nothing. You just missed out on a great PERSISTENT massively-multiplayer experience, and may miss out on many more to come. Simply because you were zoned into the wrong 'shard'.
Or, let’s say, a massive super-cool-uber PvP battle is going on in the EXAMPLE NEBULE on server X! You warp there, but see nothing, hear nothing, know nothing because you happen to play on server Y! You just missed out on a great PERSISTENT massively-multiplayer experience, and may miss out on many more to come, because the game is not so massive after all in that it fragments the community over several servers and doesn’t even allow you to switch to said cool event (where all you’d have to do with CO’s system to experience that event is switch to the right instance).

Honestly, CO’s way is better than what most non-instanced games do.

It completely broke AOC for me, one of the reasons i don't play it to this day.
AoC had a particularly poor implementation of instancing (on top of multiple servers to boot, giving you the worst of both worlds). It’s a lot better now and you rarely if ever have to switch instances anymore. They even show one good side of instancing; you can have instances with different rules. In AoC this is normal instances and ‘Epic’ instances (meant for groups; all mobs are a lot tougher and dealier), but it could equally be PvE, PvP and RP instances so that you don’t have to dedicate yourself 100% to one single playstyle.

How can you have anything massively-multiplayer when you're only ever seeing 70 people at a time while another 70+ run past you and do their day-to-day business without you ever seeing them?
By having a massively-multiplayer game where you see hundreds of people at a time. What you’re talking about here is purely a matter of instancing limits and just because a game is instanced doesn’t mean that the instances are limited or small. CO shows this quite decently in that the zones are huge and allow for a large number of players (at least after you leave the introductory Crisis zones). Certainly no less than you’d get in a single zone in a traditional multi-server MMO.

I have followed STO for a long time now and this is my biggest concern yet. That will be all.
It is a big concern for me too, but the other way around. I fear that they might go with the antiquated multi-server approach that is still the predominant model for MMOs this day instead of with the vastly superior single-server instanced approach of Champions Online.

I guess different people prefer different things. Just don’t try to make it sound like your opinion is the only valid one as there are, I’m sure, many people who feel similar as I do (particularly after having seen Champions Online).

[.Spartan]

This is one of the big reasons I stopped playing AoC.

[CoffinDNC]

I have never ever seen a MMO, which was able to handle a massive concentration of players. Auction Houses are the best example for this. I hated going to Ironforge in WoW, the 21st Hall is almost unplayable for me in LotrO...

If you have your massive battle in STO and everyone on a server would be able to warp to it, you hardly get more than a slide show.

Well done instancing doesn't hurt in my opinion.

[Beladan]

There is a thread somewhere that makes an excellent point that STO is about my TV series. I am the 'star' as the captain, I have crew, we have episodic content, and so forth.

In Sharding terms, this means that my story is - my series - unfolds the way it does in complete isolation from yours. It's unlike a traditional approach to thinking about MMO's where there is ONE TRUE HISTORY FOREVER AND EVER AMEN. It's more post-modern, really. My story is my story and your story is your story.

To your points then. In your story, you are sitting in a booth on DS9 drinking whatever it is you're drinking when, suddenly, I don't walk in. In my story, I am walking into the bar when, suddenly, you are not there. I don't think either story is any the poorer because in shard 1 Billy walks into the bar instead of me and in shard 2 Bobby is in the booth instead of you.

Naturally, friends may want to share elements of a story and a simple choice in entering a shard means you can share common space and your stories can intersect. But it also means we can both pursue adventures independantly of each other as well. I think we limit ourselves if we think our fun comes only from seeing the exact same thing at the exact same time - instead of seeing the fun that can come from seeing the same event from the perspective of other players. It's a multiversal approach rather than a universal one and I think that seeing that as inherently bad prima facie makes for a impoverished view of the game rather than a defence for a richer one.

So I miss the epic battle in Shard2 on Tuesday. However, I survive the epic battle on shard9 on Friday. Am I poorer for not having had both? Only if I see the game as a finite number of experiences. If I'm playing in a more big-picture way, it's fine. And, as the previous poster pointed out, switching shards is not verboten so you could see both anyway.

I hope to play and write the story for my series moer organically. Just because we defend Starbase 6 in our shard and you don't in yours - doesn't make for a worse game. It really just means your story is going to be different from mine. Twice the fun because I can use your experiences to share an alternate reality.

Factional PvP is perhaps where this does get problematic and it remains to be seen what the plan is there. Adding victories across shards to alter all shards; battlegrounds; some other idea. For factional PvP'ers, I can understand a degree of concern as they wonder how this will be handled precisely. For the rest of us, I think sharding is a bit of a storm in a teacup.

[Veglargh]

To me it doesn't make sense to have multiple "instance" zones because this takes away from the Massive Multiplayer aspect of the game (which is supposed to be a MMO). Specially when there are games out there that allow or have the capability to support massive amount of players in one area.

[Nyanya]

To me it doesn't make sense to have multiple "instance" zones because this takes away from the Massive Multiplayer aspect of the game (which is supposed to be a MMO). Specially when there are games out there that allow or have the capability to support massive amount of players in one area.
I really don't get this argument. How does it make it 'less massive' to have an instanced game?

You can either have ten servers with 30,000 people each, or one server with instances with 300,000 people. I don't know about you, but I find 300,000 a much more 'massive' number than 30,000... and they're all in the same universe as me (I could, if I wanted to, play with any one of them).

I can somewhat understand the fear that the zones themselves would be less crowded, but that is because until CO all you saw was games that did both instancing and multiple servers. If a single instance has as many players as a single zone would in the multi-server approach, then how does that make it less massive? I'd argue it makes it more massive since you don't just have the one instance and can get a similar number of completely different people in any of the other instances.

So I have a very hard time seeing how a single, instanced server somehow takes away from the Massive Multiplayer aspect of the game, because in my mind it does the exact opposite.

[dru_mcd]

Nice to see you back, Nyanya.

[Snakeguy]

After trying out CO's way of doing it, I'm much in favor of the sharding over the servers.

The only downside I can think of to it is that it's like being on one of the separate servers in, say, WoW or EQ2 as examples, except every time you zone you're with a random set of people instead of the same people every time. To reword, say a zone holds 100 people. Separate servers, you'll typically see the same group of people mostly, but you'll never get to interact with everyone, where as with sharding you never know who you'll get...unless you're friends or in a supergroup/fleet/guild/whatever. End result, you get better friend and team unity (everyone being able to group should they choose without switching servers), at the cost of server unity (it's a lot harder to know everyone on one HUGE server than a small one.)

Besides that, both systems are essentially the same, so any examples of missing some event or interaction with another PC can go either way, both systems have drawbacks. The ideal for getting to see everything would be no servers or instances...but who wants 50,000 starships running the tutorial together?

[Revod]

Nice to see you back, Nyanya.

I'll second that and add that your arguments are logical and well presented. I was originally worried about the multi-instance approach, but have since changed my mind. :)

[SelorKiith]

I really don't get this argument. How does it make it 'less massive' to have an instanced game?

You can either have ten servers with 30,000 people each, or one server with instances with 300,000 people. I don't know about you, but I find 300,000 a much more 'massive' number than 30,000... and they're all in the same universe as me (I could, if I wanted to, play with any one of them).

I can somewhat understand the fear that the zones themselves would be less crowded, but that is because until CO all you saw was games that did both instancing and multiple servers. If a single instance has as many players as a single zone would in the multi-server approach, then how does that make it less massive? I'd argue it makes it more massive since you don't just have the one instance and can get a similar number of completely different people in any of the other instances.

So I have a very hard time seeing how a single, instanced server somehow takes away from the Massive Multiplayer aspect of the game, because in my mind it does the exact opposite.

Very well said...
I think the most aggression towards the sharding system evolves from Not-Knowing how it really works...
That it IS a tremendous advantage over Single Closed Down Servers... because you really have nothing more then interconnected servers that you can switch with 2-Clicks (thanks to thefrayl for these good words)...

[Bigwig]

In Sharding terms, this means that my story is - my series - unfolds the way it does in complete isolation from yours. It's unlike a traditional approach to thinking about MMO's where there is ONE TRUE HISTORY FOREVER AND EVER AMEN. It's more post-modern, really. My story is my story and your story is your story.


So, the post-modern era of MMORPG's has begun! Where developers can simply sweep aside the MASSIVE in MMORPG and stitch over the original fabric that made MMORPG's so special. By your logic, you might as well go play a single-player game and save on the monthly fee.

I really don't get this argument. How does it make it 'less massive' to have an instanced game?
.

Because there's nothing massive about playing with 10 other players in an MMORPG. Sure, in a conventional MMORPG, you'll rarely be in a zone with more than 80 people in it, but its the fact that if you wanted to, it could happen. You could organize one big bad-ass attack on the enemy, you could get you're entire guild, allies and uncles all in one place. That's freedom, which is staple to an MMORPG. Cryptics sharding system is simply a limitation, it is not an advantage.

[Snakeguy]

Because there's nothing massive about playing with 10 other players in an MMORPG. Sure, in a conventional MMORPG, you'll rarely be in a zone with more than 80 people in it, but its the fact that if you wanted to, it could happen. You could organize one big bad-ass attack on the enemy, you could get you're entire guild, allies and uncles all in one place. That's freedom, which is staple to an MMORPG. Cryptics sharding system is simply a limitation, it is not an advantage.

They can set the limit to whatever they like...they had zones in CO at 300 for a time, far more than EQ2 supports in a zone - I've seen those zones get instanced into multiple shards in more crowded areas.

[Hagon]

You'll have to excuse Nyana and a few others. Cryptic as well. They're all caught up in thinking because something can be done it should. They don't care how it will ruin the experience for players.

It's important to note that many games that use sharding to a degree still recognize the importance of having multiple servers. It's key in offering players alternatives. Cryptic is trying to remove choice from people, both in being able to carry a unique name and where they play.

[slingbladez]

I think some people are forgetting that while a lot of MMORPG's only have one instance of each zone they are essentially instanced because they have more than one server. The difference is that you can't change serves with your existing character so if you want to play with someone on a different server you have to create a new character in that server(some allow you to pay for it, but you can't seamlessly change between each at will).

If Cryptic manages to create high enough population limits then their system will be superior to others because you won't have to worry about what server you choose when starting out. You will be able to change instance and have the potential of playing with every single person in the game instead of only those on your server like in other games. You won't be stuck with a limited player base playing against the same people over and over again.

In Warhammer Online i got stuck on a server that was underpopulated and i had to wait for the devs to let us transfer to higher population servers (the pvp was pretty population dependent). I would have killed to be able to change servers/instances at will and play with all those high population servers. The pvp was pretty stagnant also because you were playing against the same players over and over again. Even though the game had about 20-30x the players i wasn't able to play against any of them because they were on a different server.

[USS_Parallax]

It's not the numbers so much as the fact that since you're in such a huge community that's constantly switching servers you'll likely almost never see anyone you know. The community could have trouble growing when everyone is constantly changing.

Think of it this way:

Real life. Pretend that you have a nice community with your neighbors (lol who knows their neighbors anymore?). Now pretend that the real world goes under these instanced rules from Champions Online.
Every day you have new neighbors. You'd rarely if ever see the same people. Everyone is constantly moving. People are getting to know each other less. It's just hard to keep up a community in those circumstances.

The result is a community of more strangers than usual. Often in games that don't rely so heavily on instancing I would recognize or even know who's talking in the chat. In Champions people talked in the chat less often and I never knew them since there were literally thousands of people moving in and out of my 'neighborhood' including me.


Now of course it has it's pros and cons. You won't get stuck on a server that's not your friend's because you can simply switch servers whenever you want. Spawn camping is less of an issue (though it still exists). etc etc. However the public community is weaker. I don't know about guild community. I never joined a guild in CO.

[DanSeale]

Considering that Champions Online is the first to use that type of ‘Sharding’, every game making heavy use of instancing before it also had multiple servers and even then that technology is newer than running un-instanced separate servers, I don’t see how it’s out-dated by any stretch of the imagination. If nothing else, it’s the wave of the future and I’m glad for it.

“anti-immersive” is a matter of perspective. Personally I find it no less immersive than having separate servers to begin with. In fact it can be more immersive because it allows the developers to much better control the population numbers in the zones. Using ‘Sharding’ they can ensure that a section of space that’s supposed to be nearly empty really is nearly empty despite of there being thousands of players in the zone. And a zone that’s supposed to feel really crowded can feel so simply by greatly limiting the number of ‘Shards’.

All that is really required is for you to pretend that the other ‘Shards’ don’t exist, much like you pretend not to be sitting behind a keyboard when immersing yourself in the universe. The reality of the world you’re immersing yourself in is whatever the ‘Shard’ you’re in presents.

And the most important benefit, for me, is that it allows them to have just a single ‘server’ that everyone plays on regardless of where in the world they are. Personally I find it rather immersion breaking if I can’t play with my friends.


Is it really that hard to just be Transported to the other location? In Star Trek people move out of reality all the time, it’s not really that much of a stretch to see them move into another one. Besides, the way CO does it you actually know which ‘Shard’ to go into to meet up with your friends so very little instance switching is needed (and what little there is I find no more immersion breaking than agreeing over chat to meet up to begin with).


Or, let’s say, a massive super-cool-uber PvP battle is going on in the EXAMPLE NEBULE on server X! You warp there, but see nothing, hear nothing, know nothing because you happen to play on server Y! You just missed out on a great PERSISTENT massively-multiplayer experience, and may miss out on many more to come, because the game is not so massive after all in that it fragments the community over several servers and doesn’t even allow you to switch to said cool event (where all you’d have to do with CO’s system to experience that event is switch to the right instance).

Honestly, CO’s way is better than what most non-instanced games do.


AoC had a particularly poor implementation of instancing (on top of multiple servers to boot, giving you the worst of both worlds). It’s a lot better now and you rarely if ever have to switch instances anymore. They even show one good side of instancing; you can have instances with different rules. In AoC this is normal instances and ‘Epic’ instances (meant for groups; all mobs are a lot tougher and dealier), but it could equally be PvE, PvP and RP instances so that you don’t have to dedicate yourself 100% to one single playstyle.


By having a massively-multiplayer game where you see hundreds of people at a time. What you’re talking about here is purely a matter of instancing limits and just because a game is instanced doesn’t mean that the instances are limited or small. CO shows this quite decently in that the zones are huge and allow for a large number of players (at least after you leave the introductory Crisis zones). Certainly no less than you’d get in a single zone in a traditional multi-server MMO.


It is a big concern for me too, but the other way around. I fear that they might go with the antiquated multi-server approach that is still the predominant model for MMOs this day instead of with the vastly superior single-server instanced approach of Champions Online.

I guess different people prefer different things. Just don’t try to make it sound like your opinion is the only valid one as there are, I’m sure, many people who feel similar as I do (particularly after having seen Champions Online).

(/scratches head)

ya know .. this is a well written response.

Some of this is a bit fuzzy for me ..

Letr me simplyfy in laymens terms what I'd like to be able to do:

1. Travel around the galaxie ... some at warp speed .. some not. Will I see others while at warp speed ? Maybe .. depends on their destination : but for the most part probably not unless they are on the same coarse and speed I am. ( I hope that makes sense).
2. Some areas not instanced ? ... Arrival at a major space station .. probably should not be. Other wise there might be 50 people there and not see anyone ? IMHO that seems a little odd.
3. Combat: regardless of wheather PvP or PvE not all of this should be instanced .. If I'm exploring a new area .. and I run across enemy ships (we'll use PvE for now) ... and I'm ini combat .. I might need one of my buds close by.

That said .. I think Cryptic has said (please correct me if I'm wrong) that I can invite a buddy into the battle.

Over all I simply wnat to be able to really "get into the game" .. do a lot of combat from my ship, make a lot of new friends (IMHO one of the main points of a MMO) ... and be able to easily share that game as a team or friends.

I'm not sure if that all makes sense.

I do appreciate what has been discussed thus far. Defiantely food for thought.

Perhaps this something that a few well done "press release" concerning STO and it's unique approach on this matter might help to better understand what is taking place.

Just a few thoughts.

[Beladan]

So, the post-modern era of MMORPG's has begun! Where developers can simply sweep aside the MASSIVE in MMORPG and stitch over the original fabric that made MMORPG's so special. By your logic, you might as well go play a single-player game and save on the monthly fee.



Because there's nothing massive about playing with 10 other players in an MMORPG. Sure, in a conventional MMORPG, you'll rarely be in a zone with more than 80 people in it, but its the fact that if you wanted to, it could happen. You could organize one big bad-ass attack on the enemy, you could get you're entire guild, allies and uncles all in one place. That's freedom, which is staple to an MMORPG. Cryptics sharding system is simply a limitation, it is not an advantage.

A text out of context is a pretext.

C'mon - don't just pull one sentance from a quote and extrapolate the whole argument from that. Nowhere at all did I say that it would be equivalent to single playerness. What I said was that the idea that there can be only storyline that you either are there for or not is no longer valid.

I don't think you can say that sharding means means 10 players only. It's a presumption and we - none of us - really has any idea of how numbers will shake out zonewise.

[kwiecia]

You'll have to excuse Nyana and a few others. Cryptic as well. They're all caught up in thinking because something can be done it should. They don't care how it will ruin the experience for players.

It's important to note that many games that use sharding to a degree still recognize the importance of having multiple servers. It's key in offering players alternatives. Cryptic is trying to remove choice from people, both in being able to carry a unique name and where they play.Now its obvious you haven't played CO and you write about something you don't know much (at least how Cryptic handles that). In CO you can name your character whatever you like, and one hundred people can have characters named Spock, because characters are identified not only by their names but also by account. For example in game chat you would see something like this:
Spock@KwiatW: I'm Spock!
Spock@Hagon: I'm Spock too!

But yes, this takes you the freedom to bee separated from thousands of other players on other servers.

[dryzabone]

In CO i have not heard a single complaint about this sharding problem you guys seem to have.
You can still team up with people, i still see people everywhere i go, in fact i see more traffic in offpeak hours then i see for example in WoW's ogrimmar at night, more instanced pvp going on etc.
Please, also elaborate how you cannot play with 80 people in a zone in STO when in CO you have 140+ capacity shards in the later zones. But yea, i suppose it could happen that 80 people decide to roll the barrens, laying destruction on the enemy (reason number 1 why the whole pvp got instanced, and now Blizz is doing it again with Wintergrasp because its a lagging clusterfxxx party i might ad) or maybe its even better to have something like the infamous EVE Jita system, oh what a joy and immersive experience that is right? :rolleyes:

[Hagon]

Now its obvious you haven't played CO and you write about something you don't know much (at least how Cryptic handles that). In CO you can name your character whatever you like, and one hundred people can have characters named Spock, because characters are identified not only by their names but also by account. For example in game chat you would see something like this:
Spock@KwiatW: I'm Spock!
Spock@Hagon: I'm Spock too!

But yes, this takes you the freedom to bee separated from thousands of other players on other servers.Yes, so no one can look forward to having a unique name. They have a name thrust on them without any choice. The same as they have one server thrust on them without any choice. Great idea there Cryptic. Offer no choices except whether to play the game or not. Anyway from what I see in the gaming communities out there I think you'll soon be seeing just how many people are going to be choosing NOT to play CO because of these decisions you've made. Thankfully there's still plenty of time for these mistakes not to make it into STO.

[Beladan]

Not trying to be stupid - but surely every game is only a choice of whether to play or not?

Multi-server games 'thrusts' having to pick a server
non-tagged names thrusts needing to have wholy unique names

I mean, I see what you are saying but I really don't get the idea that Cryptic is offering less choice - just different choice, right? It's not like we can go to WOW and say "Well - to heck with needing to pick. I'd like the single instance server, please" anymore than we can go to Cryptic and say "Boo to single servers. I'd like to pick from several please."

[Loekii]

Very well said...
I think the most aggression towards the sharding system evolves from Not-Knowing how it really works...
That it IS a tremendous advantage over Single Closed Down Servers... because you really have nothing more then interconnected servers that you can switch with 2-Clicks (thanks to thefrayl for these good words)...

I agree. This is how I would explain my experience in the CO Open Beta.

I found it to be a vast improvement, because it is a step in population control. It funnels the population into an 'zone', making the zone populated with players, but capping it so it does not turn into a slide-show (lag), nor a 'camping fest' (fighting over spawns and content).

With this system, people will no longer find themselves stranded on DEAD servers, or wish they were on another server (because their friends are on a different server, or they want to get away from specific players, etc).

As SelorKith stats, all this system basically is, is a bunch of single servers LINKED together, allowing you to simply pick which one you want to go to for each zone.

I find this system to be a breath of fresh air, to the olds multi-server system, like WAR, that basically killed the game because of population issues.

[dryzabone]

I agree. This is how I would explain my experience in the CO Open Beta.

I found it to be a vast improvement, because it is a step in population control. It funnels the population into an 'zone', making the zone populated with players, but capping it so it does not turn into a slide-show (lag), nor a 'camping fest' (fighting over spawns and content).

With this system, people will no longer find themselves stranded on DEAD servers, or wish they were on another server (because their friends are on a different server, or they want to get away from specific players, etc).

As SelorKith stats, all this system basically is, is a bunch of single servers LINKED together, allowing you to simply pick which one you want to go to for each zone.

I find this system to be a breath of fresh air, to the olds multi-server system, like WAR, that basically killed the game because of population issues.
Well said Loekii, and i agree 100%. Also i am sure that a lot of STO players are going to enjoy this system well beyond of what separated servers can offer.

[Loekii]

So, the post-modern era of MMORPG's has begun! Where developers can simply sweep aside the MASSIVE in MMORPG and stitch over the original fabric that made MMORPG's so special. By your logic, you might as well go play a single-player game and save on the monthly fee.

Its Massive Multiplayer, not massive Multi-Server. Its about the number of players in the game.

I would say that:

200 People in a 'Shard' on a Single Server system > 20 People in a 'Zone' in a Multiple-server system


See, the Shard system has MORE players in each of their zones, while the multiple server system suffers from 'ghost towns' and 'low populations'.

With the Sharding system, each area is going to feel populated -- something not found on Multiple Server systems.

[DanSeale]

Don't anyone take this the wrong way... BUT

Frankly I don't care what it's called: As long as if I pull into port: If my buds are there I might choose to stop and chat with them... If I'm in an area and need to help a friend (or need to be helped) .. I can do so. If I'm exploring an area ... I can hook up with a friend and explore the area togeather.

Some areas NEED to be done as an instance I understand that. The only question remains .. do they ALL need to be that way.

This is something I will keep an open mind to and see how this shakes out !

[Hagon]

I agree. This is how I would explain my experience in the CO Open Beta.

I found it to be a vast improvement, because it is a step in population control. It funnels the population into an 'zone', making the zone populated with players, but capping it so it does not turn into a slide-show (lag), nor a 'camping fest' (fighting over spawns and content).

With this system, people will no longer find themselves stranded on DEAD servers, or wish they were on another server (because their friends are on a different server, or they want to get away from specific players, etc).

As SelorKith stats, all this system basically is, is a bunch of single servers LINKED together, allowing you to simply pick which one you want to go to for each zone.

I find this system to be a breath of fresh air, to the olds multi-server system, like WAR, that basically killed the game because of population issues.Population issues have nothing to do with WAR's woes. Any issues they've had, which have been very minor, have been easily rectified. Yes dead servers happen, but that's a part of there being a choice. That's the players themselves deciding where they want to be. It's the way it's meant to be. In fact one can easily see that reading any WAR related forum. People have primarily made their choice of server based on the atmosphere. Each server has already developed it's own. With this silly one server concept people are going to be stuck with no choice. They'll just have to take the pervasive atmosphere or leave. Just like it happens with EvE. Which also illustrates that this isn't anything new or a "breath of fresh air" at all. It's stagnant air that's already been shown to be a huge mistake.

Ya, it's worked out great for EvE. alright. :rolleyes: Close to 2 million people have tried it since it's been around, yet they've never been able to have more that 250 to 300k concurrent subscriptions after more than six years, and the atmosphere created by the long term players is one of the main reasons people don't stay playing it.

[Snakeguy]

Some areas NEED to be done as an instance I understand that. The only question remains .. do they ALL need to be that way.

What do you mean?

If you mean like a major hub (say Sector 001), I'd say, yes, I think it does need instancing. Otherwise overpopulation becomes an issue.

A minor place (hey look, I found a new system) can be instanced all it likes...new instances open up as more players are in an area, if there are only 3 people in a zone supporting 30...there will just be one instance.

Let me know if I'm off target with what you mean.

[DanSeale]

What do you mean?

If you mean like a major hub (say Sector 001), I'd say, yes, I think it does need instancing. Otherwise overpopulation becomes an issue.

A minor place (hey look, I found a new system) can be instanced all it likes...new instances open up as more players are in an area, if there are only 3 people in a zone supporting 30...there will just be one instance.

Let me know if I'm off target with what you mean.

I understand what you are saying ... (not trying to be argumentive) ... but there are 2 sides to that as well.

IMHO ... this is a good topic I just wish I were better versed at the programming side of the subject to better discuss it.

[Hornet331]

Ya, that's worked out great for EvE. alright. :rolleyes: Close to 2 million people have tried it since it's been around, yet they've never been able to have more that 250 to 300k concurrent subscriptions after more than six years, and the atmosphere created by the long term players is one of the main reasons people don't stay playing it.

Lulz... if you bash a game at least get your facts right...

Eve broke 100k subscriptions in Feb 2006, 200k in Nov 2007 and 300k in May 2009, in fact they gained over 54k in just a few month in 2009.

Eve grows slow but steadly, so you whole bashing that it has only 300k subscribers after 6 years is just hilarious, when its the highest subscriptions they ever had. And there momentum doesn't slows down. I wouldn't be suprised if the could break 400k in 2010.

[Loekii]

1. Travel around the galaxie ... some at warp speed .. some not. Will I see others while at warp speed ? Maybe .. depends on their destination : but for the most part probably not unless they are on the same coarse and speed I am. ( I hope that makes sense).

You will be able to see everyone that is in your Sector Map Instance. So lets say there are 10k players in the Sector, and the game spreads those players over 5 'instances/copies' of the Sector Map. You would see 2k players on the map more or less (depending on where their ship is and if it is 'visible' on a Sector map at that moment).

Basically, you will see the players your sensors allow you to see, who are in your copy of the instance map.


2. Some areas not instanced ? ... Arrival at a major space station .. probably should not be. Other wise there might be 50 people there and not see anyone ? IMHO that seems a little odd.

Think of an 'instance' as looking like a Zone in other games. It will be populated with other players, up to the cap (which can be 200+ players).

So you might exit warp around the Space Station, and find 200 players arriving and leaving the station, flying around the area, doing various quests or what not.

The 'Private' instances, are more for when you are doing a mission and the setting is staged to make it 'empty' -- ie You are supposedly the only ship in the area, and seeing 180 other players would sort of break that immersion.



3. Combat: regardless of wheather PvP or PvE not all of this should be instanced .. If I'm exploring a new area .. and I run across enemy ships (we'll use PvE for now) ... and I'm ini combat .. I might need one of my buds close by.

That said .. I think Cryptic has said (please correct me if I'm wrong) that I can invite a buddy into the battle.


Again, think of instances not as 'private areas', but more public areas. These public areas are instanced as well.

All instancing is really, is making multiple copies of a zone, so that you do not have 1k players in a zone designed only for 200. So rather than have all 1k players tripping over each other and causing the system to lagg out, they break it up into say 5 'Instances/Copies' of the zone, with 200 players each.

And yes, if you are in a Private Instance -- think 'WoW dungeon', you may invite your buddy in for help -- provided that you have room in your group. They do not want people to exploit the system and Zerg content that is specfiically designed for only a single 5 man group. Again, think 'Wow Dungeon'.

[dryzabone]

well its like this atm with classic server setups.

In a classic MMO server setup ala WoW or EQ you have
server 1
server 2
server 3
server 4
server 5
You roll on one of those servers and you are stuck on those servers.
So say you rolled on server 2, but after a while that server starts to die down you are either screwed with a low traffic server, trouble finding groups for pugging (since most serious guilds will have left, you are basically forced to pug if you decide to stay on that server) and there will be no atmosphere left at all on that server.
or you can migrate to say server 5 (most of the time for the bargain price of $25,-), which is now a clusterfxxx because everyone is going there. On this server you will also discover that finding a guild is hard since their full. If you want to do a quest on this server expect overpopulated mob zones, hoping to tag that one mob you need to finish that quest. Has outrageous trading prices going etc etc.
The shard system is far superior to this by eliminating all that, and more.

[Piotrek]

Sharding, its defintly old outdated technology so for those who are saying its something new, yeah you would be incorrect.

Sharding takes away from the MMO feel because there is always a chance of you possibly missing out, as one person mentioned what if there is a great battle going on a fleet on fleet pvp encounter and half the fleet is stuck sitting at home cause the instance could only fit 30-50 people. Same could be said for a ground battle too. SWG and EVE online are very progressive using new zoning technology so everyone who plays the game is seen in the game at the locations they are at so no picking a zone to play in. This also keeps adding to the actual rp and feel of the game, because as mentioned before no picking a zone and no waiting on load screens every time you jump into something, cause that just kills the mood.

When i started playing CO and i got past the tutorial seeing the amount of instanced locations just killed the feel of the game. Knowing that my possibility to team up or randomly meet up with a person or group i might one day call my friend in the game and out is hampered all because i might not be in the same instance and in reality never meeting the person (im talking about people i never met before till i met them in the instance). I have many good long time friends from previous MMO's that i just stumbled into while exploring and with those friends while there were many other people around, there is just a click that happens and i can say yep i want to be friends with that guy/girl or that group. You miss this option cause the people you click with might always be on another instance and you just never end up meeting.

CO using this technology ruined any possibility of me ever playing that game, which i was happy cause i almost dished out the money for the lifetime subs.

A instanced game like this should be free, cause its just like guild something or another that once you paid for the game rest was free. It really does show a lazy developer and another reason why i think this game has taken a turn for the worse. As seen by ship designs creativity and innovation is defiantly not cryptics strong point only thing they can boost is a character customization tool which really is not that great when SWG had a tool just like it for physical features, and then supplemented thousands of clothing items to make your character look like they want.

Also as mentioned it defiantly does make things more linear in the game.

[Piotrek]

Lulz... if you bash a game at least get your facts right...

Eve broke 100k subscriptions in Feb 2006, 200k in Nov 2007 and 300k in May 2009, in fact they gained over 54k in just a few month in 2009.

Eve grows slow but steadly, so you whole bashing that it has only 300k subscribers after 6 years is just hilarious, when its the highest subscriptions they ever had. And there momentum doesn't slows down. I wouldn't be suprised if the could break 400k in 2010.

Unfortunately looking at CO the biggest instance they have is 50 people so good luck with your number of 2000 or anywhere near that. Also in reference to the person with the classic server setups, they let you move your characters with items/stats to other servers in most of the games.

[Loekii]

Yeah, seems there might be some misconceptions on how Sharding works. It is not like GuildWars or DDO, where you basically are at a common starbase, and the rest of the game is all 'private' rooms, cut off from every other player.

Rather is very similar to say WoW or EQ. Infact, if you turn off the option to 'Allow Me to Select the Instance', it will auto load you into the shard -- effectively feeling like you are playing EQ or WoW (you do not really notice that there are 'other shards').

There are two types of Instances(sharding):

Public - Where you share the area with upto 200 other players.

Imagine 'The Barrens' in WoW.

Private - Where only you and your group are in the area.

Imagine Deadmines Dungeon Instance in WoW.



It is mainly just a different way of distributing the community. You can have them distributed, but Isolated, across a bunch of separate servers - like WoW. Or you can have the entire community interlinked together with the STO system.

Again, it is an improvement over the Multiple-server system, because it manages the population much better, and allows everyone to play and intermingle with everyone else in the game (rather than segregating them to specific servers, and never allowing them to interact).

[Hagon]

Lulz... if you bash a game at least get your facts right...

Eve broke 100k subscriptions in Feb 2006, 200k in Nov 2007 and 300k in May 2009, in fact they gained over 54k in just a few month in 2009.

Eve grows slow but steadly, so you whole bashing that it has only 300k subscribers after 6 years is just hilarious, when its the highest subscriptions they ever had. And there momentum doesn't slows down. I wouldn't be suprised if the could break 400k in 2010.The numbers you quote for EvE are false. You're taking the numbers they released after they began including free trial accounts created and trying to pass them off as "concurrent subscriptions". Anyone that plays EvE can tell you there sure isn't even 200K people playing it. You don't find it odd that they supposedly have all these subs, but only recently got up to @50k on at one time (most of those just logged on for the special event and not moving by the way)? Don't you think that there'd be a real uproar on, say a weekend, with players not able to get on the server? I think someone else needs to do their homework. EvE might, and that's a big might, have 150K actual subscribers right now.

[Zepath]

People can't accept a game that doesn't have Blizzard size subscriptions is a serious game. I won't even go into the reasons why (I think) they have that mentality, but it exists.

But the bottom line is, any MMO that makes money in this market is a serious game.

CCP Games has 300K active subscriptions for Eve Online as of the first part of this year. That's more than AoC and Warhammer online combined at this moment in time. AoC is down to 54K subscribers left.

Warhammer doesn't have much more than that. Most servers are set up to handle about 4,500 active players at any given time, so a server's active account assignment is typically 10K-12K. So let's say at best, they have 84K active accounts left across the 7 active servers they have remaining.

CCP Game's 300K subscribers mean $4.5M dollars a month coming in for a company that has less than 30 employees. Most small companies would kill for those kinds of revenues.

Eve Online is a niche game ... but it is a solid game, its a stable game, its a fun game to play, and its a proven product.

[Hagon]

Unfortunately looking at CO the biggest instance they have is 50 people so good luck with your number of 2000 or anywhere near that. Also in reference to the person with the classic server setups, they let you move your characters with items/stats to other servers in most of the games.Exactly. They offer you a choice, and know that servers are like any other social group at their core. Some people will fit into one and not into another, and people need a chance to see where they fit.

[Zepath]

The numbers you quote for EvE are false. You're taking the numbers they released after they began including free trial accounts created and trying to pass them off as "concurrent subscriptions". Anyone that plays EvE can tell you there sure isn't even 200K people playing it. You don't find it odd that they supposedly have all these subs, but only recently got up to @50k on at one time (most of those just logged on for the special event and not moving by the way)? Don't you think that there'd be a real uproar on, say a weekend, with players not able to get on the server? I think someone else needs to do their homework. EvE might, and that's a big might, have 150K actual subscribers right now.

People paying for subscriptions, and people playing the game, are two different issues. In their annual report, March of this year, they announced they had 300K active subscriptions, and 450K people on trial.

Companies don't lie in their annual reports ... there's no faster way to get shut down and see people go to jail.

[Snakeguy]

Unfortunately looking at CO the biggest instance they have is 50 people so good luck with your number of 2000 or anywhere near that. Also in reference to the person with the classic server setups, they let you move your characters with items/stats to other servers in most of the games.

That is untrue. Beyond level 8 or so (past crisis zones) the cap expands to 200 in most areas. They had it set to 300 at one point in open beta but it was too crowded and lines for quests were an issue.

And in reference to the classic server setups, the problem I personally have with that is I have different groups of friends I like to play with. There are my college buddies, my gamer group, my friends from other MMOs and games, and my family. In WoW I had to have characters on 5 different servers to play with them, transferring my character *FOR A FEE* wasn't really an option.

[dryzabone]

Sharding, its defintly old outdated technology so for those who are saying its something new, yeah you would be incorrect.

Sharding takes away from the MMO feel because there is always a chance of you possibly missing out, as one person mentioned what if there is a great battle going on a fleet on fleet pvp encounter and half the fleet is stuck sitting at home cause the instance could only fit 30-50 people. Same could be said for a ground battle too. SWG and EVE online are very progressive using new zoning technology so everyone who plays the game is seen in the game at the locations they are at so no picking a zone to play in. This also keeps adding to the actual rp and feel of the game, because as mentioned before no picking a zone and no waiting on load screens every time you jump into something, cause that just kills the mood.

When i started playing CO and i got past the tutorial seeing the amount of instanced locations just killed the feel of the game. Knowing that my possibility to team up or randomly meet up with a person or group i might one day call my friend in the game and out is hampered all because i might not be in the same instance and in reality never meeting the person (im talking about people i never met before till i met them in the instance). I have many good long time friends from previous MMO's that i just stumbled into while exploring and with those friends while there were many other people around, there is just a click that happens and i can say yep i want to be friends with that guy/girl or that group. You miss this option cause the people you click with might always be on another instance and you just never end up meeting.

CO using this technology ruined any possibility of me ever playing that game, which i was happy cause i almost dished out the money for the lifetime subs.

A instanced game like this should be free, cause its just like guild something or another that once you paid for the game rest was free. It really does show a lazy developer and another reason why i think this game has taken a turn for the worse. As seen by ship designs creativity and innovation is defiantly not cryptics strong point only thing they can boost is a character customization tool which really is not that great when SWG had a tool just like it for physical features, and then supplemented thousands of clothing items to make your character look like they want.

Also as mentioned it defiantly does make things more linear in the game.
Well, what if a great battle happened on a different server than the one you are playing in? And what the one server EVE battles? ever tried a 80+ ship battle in that game? if you did you know what a great experience that is. And please, this is nothing like Guild Wars where everyone gets a private world instance, absolutely nothing at all. And ship design, well i thought the whole idea was to make your own ships and characters in this game.

[Hagon]

Again, it is an improvement over the Multiple-server system, because it manages the population much better, and allows everyone to play and intermingle with everyone else in the game (rather than segregating them to specific servers, and never allowing them to interact).It's not an improvement. It's not giving anyone the choice of not having to interact with those they CHOOSE not to. It's FORCING people to stay where they may very well (because it's very very common) not want to be.

[Zepath]

That is untrue. Beyond level 8 or so (past crisis zones) the cap expands to 200 in most areas. They had it set to 300 at one point in open beta but it was too crowded and lines for quests were an issue.

And in reference to the classic server setups, the problem I personally have with that is I have different groups of friends I like to play with. There are my college buddies, my gamer group, my friends from other MMOs and games, and my family. In WoW I had to have characters on 5 different servers to play with them, transferring my character *FOR A FEE* wasn't really an option.

That's why virtually every game out there let's you create characters on many (most cases ALL) of their servers. For free.

[Loekii]

When i started playing CO and i got past the tutorial seeing the amount of instanced locations just killed the feel of the game. Knowing that my possibility to team up or randomly meet up with a person or group i might one day call my friend in the game and out is hampered all because i might not be in the same instance and in reality never meeting the person (im talking about people i never met before till i met them in the instance). I have many good long time friends from previous MMO's that i just stumbled into while exploring and with those friends while there were many other people around, there is just a click that happens and i can say yep i want to be friends with that guy/girl or that group. You miss this option cause the people you click with might always be on another instance and you just never end up meeting.


Actually the opposite is true. You have a much better chance of meeting people and connecting with people with a single-Server Sharding.

With this system, you CAN play with people you meet on the forum, rather than finding out that cannot because you are on two different servers and neither wants to re-roll.

Grouping just requires that you coordinate to be together -- sort of like being on line at the same time. Generally you can find an instance that will allow your group to be together.

The idea that a 'fleet' is divided, is also not really accurate either. If a zone can only support 200 people, and it currently has 200, your fleet is still going to be divided, or you are just going to turn the zone into a lag fest as you overpopulate the zone. At least with sharding, it provides the opportunity to find a less populated Shard to join.

If an event is occurring in a Shard, and that shard has reached its cap, then you miss out -- so that the players that are already there, can enjoy the event without it turning into a slide show. Imo, that is a fair price to pay, because other times, you will be inside the zone enjoying the fluid gameplay, while others are locked out. It is better to have fluid gameplay, than to allow unchecked population that creates lagfests just so everyone can be involved.

[dryzabone]

It's not an improvement. It's not giving anyone the choice of not having to interact with those they CHOOSE not to. It's FORCING people to stay where they may very well (because it's very very common) not want to be.
See, i really don't understand what you mean with this. If you are in shard 1 and there are ******s you wish not to play with you move to shard 2 or 3 or 4 for that matter. If anything, this is expanding your choices instead of limiting them.

[Snakeguy]

That's why virtually every game out there let's you create characters on many (most cases ALL) of their servers. For free.

And get to level each one up and keep up with your friends (in the case of games without sidekicking.)

I couldn't do it, just didn't have the time.

[DanSeale]

Yeah, seems there might be some misconceptions on how Sharding works. It is not like GuildWars or DDO, where you basically are at a common starbase, and the rest of the game is all 'private' rooms, cut off from every other player.

Rather is very similar to say WoW or EQ. Infact, if you turn off the option to 'Allow Me to Select the Instance', it will auto load you into the shard -- effectively feeling like you are playing EQ or WoW (you do not really notice that there are 'other shards').

There are two types of Instances(sharding):

Public - Where you share the area with upto 200 other players.

Imagine 'The Barrens' in WoW.

Private - Where only you and your group are in the area.

Imagine Deadmines Dungeon Instance in WoW.



It is mainly just a different way of distributing the community. You can have them distributed, but Isolated, across a bunch of separate servers - like WoW. Or you can have the entire community interlinked together with the STO system.

Again, it is an improvement over the Multiple-server system, because it manages the population much better, and allows everyone to play and intermingle with everyone else in the game (rather than segregating them to specific servers, and never allowing them to interact).

hmmm

interesting .. I think I follow ya ! makes sense.

again .. Though I don't pretend to understand all of the technical side of it ... heck .. I'll give it a whirl before I pass judgement..

[Zepath]

Actually the opposite is true. You have a much better chance of meeting people and connecting with people with a single-Server Sharding.

With this system, you CAN play with people you meet on the forum, rather than finding out that cannot because you are on two different servers and neither wants to re-roll.

Grouping just requires that you coordinate to be together -- sort of like being on line at the same time. Generally you can find an instance that will allow your group to be together.

The idea that a 'fleet' is divided, is also not really accurate either. If a zone can only support 200 people, and it currently has 200, your fleet is still going to be divided, or you are just going to turn the zone into a lag fest as you overpopulate the zone. At least with sharding, it provides the opportunity to find a less populated Shard to join.

If an event is occurring in a Shard, and that shard has reached its cap, then you miss out -- so that the players that are already there, can enjoy the event without it turning into a slide show. Imo, that is a fair price to pay, because other times, you will be inside the zone enjoying the fluid gameplay, while others are locked out. It is better to have fluid gameplay, than to allow unchecked population that creates lagfests just so everyone can be involved.


I hope you know I respect you Loekii, but I just don't buy it. I've played in both environments just as I'm sure you have ... and the advantages don't outweigh the disadvantages I've outlined.

Not to mention you lose the opportunity to have Open PvP servers, RP servers, Timezone Servers, etc.

The ONLY point you have, that anyone has, that I see as valid is ... "I'm on server A, and I find out my cousin is on server B" .... and for me, if I enjoy the game, I have no problem just rolling up another character on his server, or helping him level if he rolls one on mine.

If there is ANY arguement here that should make people not want instancing ... its that open PvP servers get the bulk of the greifers off the PvE servers, so those that don't want to PvP don't have to be bothered by them. Hard core PvP players will go to the Open PvP servers .... under this system, they are dumped in with everyone else.

[dryzabone]

That's why virtually every game out there let's you create characters on many (most cases ALL) of their servers. For free.
With all due respect, but not all of us are willing to reroll and regear everytime a server starts to die down

[blujester]

It's not an improvement. It's not giving anyone the choice of not having to interact with those they CHOOSE not to. It's FORCING people to stay where they may very well (because it's very very common) not want to be.



So..you want to choose whether to play with some people or not but you don't want to forced to choose whether you play with friends or not? You are making absolutly no sense here. If your in a zone and there is people you don't like, push the button. If your in a zone and your friends are in another one, push the button. If your on a server in a classic mmo and your friends are on another, reroll, pay for transfer, or do without. Which choice did you want again?

If it's choice you are worried about then why not take the one that gives it to you with a button push rather than a paid transfer?.... I don't get it?



Bj

[Zepath]

With all due respect, but not all of us are willing to reroll and regear everytime a server starts to die down

I haven't seen a company yet that didn't allow you to transfer your character, for free, when a server starts to die.

[Snakeguy]

I haven't seen a company yet that didn't allow you to transfer your character, for free, when a server starts to die.

I haven't seen one that does, at least til they decide to merge servers. A server's usually died down long before that.

But I haven't seen everything, I could be mistaken.

[dryzabone]

I haven't seen a company yet that didn't allow you to transfer your character, for free, when a server starts to die.
Yes true, but they tell you which server you go to though if you use the free option.

[Hagon]

See, i really don't understand what you mean with this. If you are in shard 1 and there are ******s you wish not to play with you move to shard 2 or 3 or 4 for that matter. If anything, this is expanding your choices instead of limiting them.Moving shards doesn't do anything to change the atmosphere on a server. For instance I can play on many different shards on Tyranny server in AoC, but it does me no good because it's the same server with the same predominant atmosphere permeating through all the shards. I know because it happened to me on that server. I was ready to quit playing after a very short time. Fortnately the choice was there to move to a different server, I made that choice, found a server that fit me better, and where they would have only had my sub for a month had they offered no choice they've now had it for months and probably will have it for many more months to come (at least until STO comes out anyway).

[dryzabone]

I haven't seen one that does, at least til they decide to merge servers. A server's usually died down long before that.

But I haven't seen everything, I could be mistaken.
WoW does it the other way around sometimes, when a server is too busy they give you the option to relocate to a designated server (read dead) for free.

[Bob177]

To be fair, I'm pretty sure that these days when one plays AoC they're generally all playing on a single shard.
:)

Bob

[Loekii]

I hope you know I respect you Loekii, but I just don't buy it. I've played in both environments just as I'm sure you have ... and the advantages don't outweigh the disadvantages I've outlined.

Not to mention you lose the opportunity to have Open PvP servers, RP servers, Timezone Servers, etc.

The ONLY point you have, that anyone has, that I see as valid is ... "I'm on server A, and I find out my cousin is on server B" .... and for me, if I enjoy the game, I have no problem just rolling up another character on his server, or helping him level if he rolls one on mine.

Both systems have their pros and cons. Ultimately, it comes down to personal opinions. In my opinion, it is a superior system because it offers things and solves issues I find important (Ability to play with anyone in the game, population control, ability to avoid people without having to re-roll, etc). In your opinion, it is an inferior system.

With regards to the specialty servers, Sharding does not lose that opportunity. For example, I have posted a proposal on how to use sharding to allow for specialty sharding: Instancing - Offer PvP and PvE versions of every Instance (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=25103)

[Snakeguy]

To be fair, I'm pretty sure that these days when one plays AoC they're generally all playing on a single shard.
:)

Bob

LOL!

*highfive*

[Zepath]

To be fair, I'm pretty sure that these days when one plays AoC they're generally all playing on a single shard.
:)

Bob

LOL! How long did we all wait for that game?

Remember how it was going to be the "WoW killer"? :rolleyes:

Hahahahaha

[Hagon]

Yes true, but they tell you which server you go to though if you use the free option.I've never seen a game where they didn't initially offer a choice of server for people to move to. I've seen where after a certain period of time, usually by the date they are going to close a server, they move players to a specific server, but even then they usually offer a grace period where players can still choose their server after closure.

[dryzabone]

Moving shards doesn't do anything to change the atmosphere on a server. For instance I can play on many different shards on Tyranny server in AoC, but it does me no good because it's the same server with the same predominant atmosphere permeating through all the shards. I know because it happened to me on that server. I was ready to quit playing after a very short time. Fortnately the choice was there to move to a different server, I made that choice, found a server that fit me better, and where they would have only had my sub for a month had they offered no choice they've now had it for months and probably will have it for many more months to come (at least until STO comes out anyway).
Ahh right, i think i get ya now, but please, could you provide us with specifics? what exactly dont you like on certain servers and what do you seek for when you decide to migrate to another.

[andrewprofit]

If they do it like CO, most of the zones will be duplicates.

weird! I sure hope the limit on the number of players per instance is not too low. One of the things I enjoyed about wow was the large numbers of players I could see in the cities. I don't think I would mind the limits out in deep space but in the social hubs it might be difficult to stand.

0. Are all zones the same size?

1. Will i be able to /t anyone on or just people in my instance?

2. Should I /group with someone and then transition zones to hook up with people?

3. Will we be able to scroll though the different duplicate zones to hook up with people?

4. With the duplicate zone try to match me up with players in my guild, and friends lists.

5. Will it the duplicate zones be mindful of my /ignore list and the /ignore lists that I might be on?

6. What about the /general chat will that be everyone accross duplicates or just the copy I am in? Or will we be able to customize our /general chat preferences to suit us?

[chris1701]

Sharding to many people does seem a step backwards, but theres nothing stopping Cryptic in the future increasing the max number of players per shard as their servers get better tech.

[Hagon]

To be fair, I'm pretty sure that these days when one plays AoC they're generally all playing on a single shard.
:)

BobKind of illustrates how out of touch you must be or how you rely on false info. I think you'd be surprised at just how much they've fixed the game, how well AoC is doing now, and how fast it's getting players back. It's definitely one of the best games on the market now.

[CaptainFreeFall]

LOL! How long did we all wait for that game?

Remember how it was going to be the "WoW killer"? :rolleyes:

Hahahahaha


Oh don't you mean star wars the old republic? ...now


HA

Imagine warping to starbase 001 at launch, hundreds and hundreds of ships, then a server wide crash.

I wouldnt mind seeing a few ships obviously maybe 10, but aslong as its not shards through the entire game for example you see 'cpt john smith' at starbase 001 then never see them again because the server has chosen them random shards throughout their time.

[Snakeguy]

Ahh right, i think i get ya now, but please, could you provide us with specifics? what exactly dont you like on certain servers and what do you seek for when you decide to migrate to another.

I can see where he's coming from on this.

In City of Heroes, my favorite server was Virtue because it had a high population of RPers, and the atmosphere just seemed to have a tighter community than the server I had tried before.

In my server hopping in WoW I noticed similar trends in servers having a sort of *feel* to them.

However, most of the benefit of that I take is the friends I make, and I can track them in shards just by adding them.

[naynayz]

meh, it doesn't bother me if I have them on my friends list so I know if they are on to talk to or team up with. I can see the point of not being able to see everyone. I think eve had it right there. everyone on the same server.

[dryzabone]

LOL! How long did we all wait for that game?

Remember how it was going to be the "WoW killer"? :rolleyes:

Hahahahaha

Yep, i played for 2 months, remember the memory leaks? oh my god that was horrible.
TBH, they really did fix the game up a lot though. But yeah, Funcom is no no for me now.

[DanSeale]

I haven't seen a company yet that didn't allow you to transfer your character, for free, when a server starts to die.

hey bud .. not trying to start something ... but WoW charges an Administrative fee for moving to other severs ( which I understand is an MT ... one in which I support) .. That part aside: Some MMO's do charge for server transfers.

BTW... I'm watching the discussion between you an Loekii. Both of you have your points to be made: BOTH of you are keeping your heads cool in the discussion.

Others are making some points as well ... but the two of you seem to be approaching it very well with good points on both sides of the discussion

(just my observation)

BTW.. thanks to both of you !

[dryzabone]

I can see where he's coming from on this.

In City of Heroes, my favorite server was Virtue because it had a high population of RPers, and the atmosphere just seemed to have a tighter community than the server I had tried before.

In my server hopping in WoW I noticed similar trends in servers having a sort of *feel* to them.

However, most of the benefit of that I take is the friends I make, and I can track them in shards just by adding them.
Yea, i guess that kinda sucks. Still though, cant this be replaced by joining a good guild?. If rp'ing is your thing you could join a big rp guild and maybe get satisfaction that way. I guess this is probably one of the downfalls with shards. Still imo the positives are outweighing the negatives.

[Bob177]

Kind of illustrates how out of touch you must be or how you rely on false info. I think you'd be surprised at just how much they've fixed the game, how well AoC is doing now, and how fast it's getting players back. It's definitely one of the best games on the market now.

I was kidding, sort of. When I left it was single-shard but I hear there have been signifigant improvements. Best game on the market might be a stretch though...the best potential of any game on the market, though, that I would agree with.
At any rate, Cryptic will do what they need to do. There's no possible way for them to please everyone, but they'll do their best, I'm sure.

Bob

[Loekii]

weird! I sure hope the limit on the number of players per instance is not too low. One of the things I enjoyed about wow was the large numbers of players I could see in the cities. I don't think I would mind the limits out in deep space but in the social hubs it might be difficult to stand.

Population in CO was around 200, or capped at what was appropriate for the content of the specific zone (so people are sharing content, rather than fighting over it). Apparently in Beta, caps were at 300, but people said it felt too crowded.

The Devs have had internal games in STO with 200 players, so I don't think that we are really going to see population caps being 'too small' for an area.

0. Are all zones the same size?
I think it will depend upon the map, but generally they appear to be pretty big, from the gameplay videos of STO.

1. Will i be able to /t anyone on or just people in my instance?
CO you could /t anyone in the game, and you can PM anyone on CO and STO. Your Forum mailbox is tied to both games, and you can send PM's from the Forums to the game.

2. Should I /group with someone and then transition zones to hook up with people?
Not sure how the mechanic will work, but I am sure that grouping will be made easy, and instance transitions will most likely keep groups together (ie you join a shard as a group).

3. Will we be able to scroll though the different duplicate zones to hook up with people?
Yes. And you will be able to 'transfer' with just a click. Rekhan said there is an button on the mini-map that allows you to do this.

4. With the duplicate zone try to match me up with players in my guild, and friends lists.
5. Will it the duplicate zones be mindful of my /ignore list and the /ignore lists that I might be on?
Unknown. Its good idea, but not sure if they will implement it. You might just need to coordinate with your guildies. Someone had mentioned doing things like 'We all go into instance #3' of every zone.

6. What about the /general chat will that be everyone accross duplicates or just the copy I am in? Or will we be able to customize our /general chat preferences to suit us?
The chat seemed pretty customizable. I did not fully test out the limtiations in CO, but I am sure STO will benefit from the feedback for CO. I would like to see Faction wide chats and Instance wide chats.

[dryzabone]

well in CO the shard list informs you where your friends are, don't know about guilds since i didn't join one yet, but i am sure they will do that as well.

[Piotrek]

Oh don't you mean star wars the old republic? ...now


HA

Imagine warping to starbase 001 at launch, hundreds and hundreds of ships, then a server wide crash.

I wouldnt mind seeing a few ships obviously maybe 10, but aslong as its not shards through the entire game for example you see 'cpt john smith' at starbase 001 then never see them again because the server has chosen them random shards throughout their time.

If EVE has done it, im not sure why this game cant. EVE did it right starting people depending on profession/School type in different parts of the galaxy. Also depending on the race offcourse they were able to subsection starting locations even more.

Also I dont see this game ever even coming close to the amount of fleet battles EVE online has, largest fleet battle to date which it has been awhile for me on a break, was 600+ ships with a battle that raged in a solar system for 4-5 hours. Yes at some points the game was more of a slideshow but just the whole feel and AW of seeing capital ships support ships fighters crusiers battle ships just lined up in a war line unleashing was incrediable. With the new system they implemented i successful participated in a 300 ship fleet battle and the game was very stable. I dont think Star trek online looking at how is just made will ever be able to come close to that scale and that saddens me.

[Snakeguy]

[COLOR="Olive"][INDENT]Unknown. Its good idea, but not sure if they will implement it. You might just need to coordinate with your guildies. Someone had mentioned doing things like 'We all go into instance #3' of every zone.

One thing to add to this.

Toward the end of the open beta in CO they added some features to the shard selection: the ability to not have to chose and have it auto-pick, and it displays in the list shards that have teammates or supergroup members in them, and how many. Presumably, with high demand, I have little doubt they'll eventually come up with an even easier way, perhaps a group command like the sidekicking where one person is the anchor and everyone else zones to that shard.

Based on the changes I saw Cryptic make in open beta alone, if they make even a fraction of the effort they gave then, things are looking good.

[Piotrek]

I was kidding, sort of. When I left it was single-shard but I hear there have been signifigant improvements. Best game on the market might be a stretch though...the best potential of any game on the market, though, that I would agree with.
At any rate, Cryptic will do what they need to do. There's no possible way for them to please everyone, but they'll do their best, I'm sure.

Bob


Only reason a game would feel crowded is cause the game area is too small to support all of them again, showing the focus is on smaller sized groups/quests. Star trek is not about being small its about a EPIC experience in a vast enviornment. Again though since its all instanced you lose that free form feel.

[slingbladez]

If EVE has done it, im not sure why this game cant. EVE did it right starting people depending on profession/School type in different parts of the galaxy. Also depending on the race offcourse they were able to subsection starting locations even more.

Also I dont see this game ever even coming close to the amount of fleet battles EVE online has, largest fleet battle to date which it has been awhile for me on a break, was 600+ ships with a battle that raged in a solar system for 4-5 hours. Yes at some points the game was more of a slideshow but just the whole feel and AW of seeing capital ships support ships fighters crusiers battle ships just lined up in a war line unleashing was incrediable. With the new system they implemented i successful participated in a 300 ship fleet battle and the game was very stable. I dont think Star trek online looking at how is just made will ever be able to come close to that scale and that saddens me.

Some people have alleged they currently have 200 ships in the same instance at the moment in STO. I didn't ask where they saw the quotes so i don't know if it is but if it is that is pretty good, and if they can increase it to 300-400 by retail that would be more than enough.

[dryzabone]

If EVE has done it, im not sure why this game cant. EVE did it right starting people depending on profession/School type in different parts of the galaxy. Also depending on the race offcourse they were able to subsection starting locations even more.

Also I dont see this game ever even coming close to the amount of fleet battles EVE online has, largest fleet battle to date which it has been awhile for me on a break, was 600+ ships with a battle that raged in a solar system for 4-5 hours. Yes at some points the game was more of a slideshow but just the whole feel and AW of seeing capital ships support ships fighters crusiers battle ships just lined up in a war line unleashing was incrediable. With the new system they implemented i successful participated in a 300 ship fleet battle and the game was very stable. I dont think Star trek online looking at how is just made will ever be able to come close to that scale and that saddens me.
OMG, dont tell me i am talking to a Kenny here:D

[Aslan_chShran]

To me, I want a completely persistent world but if the game is going to be offered in Shards, then there is nothing I can do about it. I hope at least some areas (like DS9) won't be sharded, and everyone can meet up there. Or zones where there is PvP. Then they can use the sharding for the mission and planet zones. I don't know...

[Galv]

Well i can only compare SWG, Lotr and a weekend on CO, i much preferred the instancing on CO for a gameplay point of view. Even though my laptop is well under the min specs for CO i didn't suffer anywhere near the lag or fps slow down as with SWG or Lotr. I don't know about anyone else but if i went near any of the major social places or auction halls i'd pretty much be frying a full english on my latop.

[Hornet331]

The numbers you quote for EvE are false. You're taking the numbers they released after they began including free trial accounts created and trying to pass them off as "concurrent subscriptions". Anyone that plays EvE can tell you there sure isn't even 200K people playing it. You don't find it odd that they supposedly have all these subs, but only recently got up to @50k on at one time (most of those just logged on for the special event and not moving by the way)? Don't you think that there'd be a real uproar on, say a weekend, with players not able to get on the server? I think someone else needs to do their homework. EvE might, and that's a big might, have 150K actual subscribers right now.

Wrong again, there numbers always exclude trail accounts, which are aroud 50k additionaly to the 300k.

Also you seem to confuse subscribers with actually players playing the game at a given time.

Not all of those 300k play at the same time or the same day, Eve has around 40k at peaktimes on weekdays and 45-50k on weekends playing.

Wow has over 10 million subscribers but only ~800k playing each day... so there 10 million subscribers (lets exclude 4millions as asian servers are not included in the 800k) are also just big words?

[Hagon]

Ahh right, i think i get ya now, but please, could you provide us with specifics? what exactly dont you like on certain servers and what do you seek for when you decide to migrate to another.The differences in servers in that game is startling actually, and it's pretty much the same in most every other game I've played (which is quite a darn few), including City of that has sharding.

On Tyranny it's an atmosphere dominated by immature boys and man-boys where the most common thing read in global( and seen umpteen times a day) is "Quite QQing welcome to Tyranny bi*** (word for a female dog)". On Cimmeria, another PvP server, it's kind of uptight, on Bloodspire it's more cordial and mature with more fun loving people being predominant. The same holds true for the different PvE servers. Each one is different in "personality".

[DanSeale]

Population in CO was around 200, or capped at what was appropriate for the content of the specific zone (so people are sharing content, rather than fighting over it). Apparently in Beta, caps were at 300, but people said it felt too crowded.

The Devs have had internal games in STO with 200 players, so I don't think that we are really going to see population caps being 'too small' for an area.

I think it will depend upon the map, but generally they appear to be pretty big, from the gameplay videos of STO.

CO you could /t anyone in the game, and you can PM anyone on CO and STO. Your Forum mailbox is tied to both games, and you can send PM's from the Forums to the game.

Not sure how the mechanic will work, but I am sure that grouping will be made easy, and instance transitions will most likely keep groups together (ie you join a shard as a group).

Yes. And you will be able to 'transfer' with just a click. Rekhan said there is an button on the mini-map that allows you to do this.

Unknown. Its good idea, but not sure if they will implement it. You might just need to coordinate with your guildies. Someone had mentioned doing things like 'We all go into instance #3' of every zone.

The chat seemed pretty customizable. I did not fully test out the limtiations in CO, but I am sure STO will benefit from the feedback for CO. I would like to see Faction wide chats and Instance wide chats.


The only thing I see out of this that might be a matter of concern would be the neccessity to select a zone to keep from missing something.... If ya make the wrong choice the battle could be over before a player is able to correct the problem.

The other side of this MIGHT be (again dunno for certain) .. is that it MIGHT prevent the long waiting and waiting for respawns to regenerate before engaging in the part of the game a player is needing (for what ever reason).

Am I right on this ?

Really I don't see a HUGE problem with the rest of this. But then again I'm not much of an authority on this.

[Hagon]

Wrong again, there numbers always exclude trail accounts, which are aroud 50k additionaly to the 300k.

Also you seem to confuse subscribers with actually players playing the game at a given time.

Not all of those 300k play at the same time or the same day, Eve has around 40k at peaktimes on weekdays and 45-50k on weekends playing.

Wow has over 10 million subscribers but only ~800k playing each day... so there 10 million subscribers are also just big words?You've got to be kidding right? I mean you don't seriously believe things like EvE has 300K subs and WoW only has 800K playing each day? That's almost too funny for words. You really believe that EvE supposedly has all those subs, but they all conveniently decide to play at different times? It would take a miracle of scheduling for that to be even remotely possible. Even CCP has said the numbers they give are skewed. They rationalize it saying that trial accounts that people walk away from are just dormant, not cancelled, so maintain they're still valid subscriptions.

[dryzabone]

The differences in servers in that game is startling actually, and it's pretty much the same in most every other game I've played (which is quite a darn few), including City of that has sharding.

On Tyranny it's an atmosphere dominated by immature boys and man-boys where the most common thing read in global( and seen umpteen times a day) is "Quite QQing welcome to Tyranny bi*** (word for a female dog)". On Cimmeria, another PvP server, it's kind of uptight, on Bloodspire it's more cordial and mature with more fun loving people being predominant. The same holds true for the different PvE servers. Each one is different in "personality".
Yep, i can see it now. Like i said, that will be one of the downfalls of the shard system. I totally understand what you mean now, sorry for not getting it at first.
There is no way you can get a nice guild together, mainly interact with them and let the scrubs do their own thing?

[CaptainFreeFall]

Some people have alleged they currently have 200 ships in the same instance at the moment in STO. I didn't ask where they saw the quotes so i don't know if it is but if it is that is pretty good, and if they can increase it to 300-400 by retail that would be more than enough.

In Star trek the movies and the tv series was there ever 300-400 ships on screen at once? tbh i don't think Star trek really ever followed that kind of fleet system battle system(maybe star wars but not star trek) i can think of 2 times - the borg cube vs earth and that episode in DS9 fed vs dominion.

With 400 ships in a sector all trying to blow the crap out of each i'll be lucky not to fly into one lool.

[dryzabone]

You've got to be kidding right? I mean you don't seriously believe things like EvE has 300K subs and WoW only has 800K playing each day? That's almost too funny for words. You really believe that EvE supposedly has all those subs, but they all conveniently decide to play at different times? It would take a miracle of scheduling for that to be even remotely possible.
actually, EVE tells you how many people are on the server when you log on, he is pretty spot on, 40k is pretty much as high as it goes, dont know about WoW though

[slingbladez]

Is Star trek the movies and the tv series was there ever 300-400 ships on screen at once? tbh i don't think Star trek really ever followed that kind of fleet system battle system(maybe star wars but not star trek) i can think of 2 times - the borg cube vs earth and that episode in DS9 fed vs dominion.

With 400 ships in a sector all trying to blow the crap out of each i'll be lucky not to fly into one lool.

Actual in the dominion war there was a battle of roughly 2000 ships

Dominion had 1254, "outnumbered us[federation] 2:1" then the Klingons showed up.

And while there could be 200-400 in the same instance[depending on the player cap at launch], with the instances as large as they probably will it is likely that the players will be spread throughout the instance instead of all being in one spot.

[Hagon]

There is no way you can get a nice guild together, mainly interact with them and let the scrubs do their own thing?Oh of course there's a way. It's more and more looking like I'll have to find that way. It shouldn't have to be though. I should be looking forward to finding the server that fits and enjoying interacting with most of the community on that server. Instead it's more and more looking like most players will never enjoy that aspect because, like we see just with the microcosm here on these forums, there's no telling which way the prevailing atmosphere will go because of just having one server, and for a great many of us it's very very scary to think about.

So many are rah rah rah for one server, but it'll be interesting to see whether those people are still around a few months into the game if/when the prevailing "personality" on that server is opposite to their own. I think some are sitting smug in the belief that their type of people will be predominant, but I wouldn't be so sure. This game is still a looooong way from being released, and if pretty much every other mmo released is any indication (which it should be) the after release community is absolutely nothing like the pre-release one.

I'm predicting a LOT of very sad pandas that rue that they got what they wished for.

[Piotrek]

Some people have alleged they currently have 200 ships in the same instance at the moment in STO. I didn't ask where they saw the quotes so i don't know if it is but if it is that is pretty good, and if they can increase it to 300-400 by retail that would be more than enough.

200 ships is not the same as 200 player controlled ships, if you count the NPC ships in EVE that are in the system there are literally thousands of ships in one system at a time.

[Crank]

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, I had doubts about this from the start. I am not a fan of cryptics approach to MMo's but when I heard they got STO I thought I would give them the benefit of the doubt and go with it.

Sadly, over time I have been proven right with the soooooo crappy graphics engine, no players crews and seemingly lack of immersion waiting for us when this failboat launches. There is NO EXCUSE for using an existing, outdated graphic style for the new STO MMo.........well there is ONE, Cryptic are in this for cash, plain and simple, however they dress it up, they are not you're friends, buddies or anything else, but they DO want your subs.

They KNOW, dedicated Trek fans will have no choice but to pay for this tepid offering because they have no other options, myself- I'm waiting for SWOR, which unlike this, actually has some immersion and features that add to gameplay. I do not relish the repackaged CoH that this game is shaping up to be and I along with many other Trek fans are abanding this failboat BEFORE launch ( Come on, trying to gain subs buy packaging STO Beta keys? That smacks of money grabbing of the worse kind. Beta is allegedley for bug fixing and improvement and players should be chosen accordingly, not dependant on if "Daddy" can afford it. Bad move Cryptic).

[DanSeale]

Oh of course there's a way. It's more and more looking like I'll have to find that way. It shouldn't have to be though. I should be looking forward to finding the server that fits and enjoying interacting with most of the community on that server. Instead it's more and more looking like most players will never enjoy that aspect because, like we see just with the microcosm here on these forums, there's no telling which way the prevailing atmosphere will go because of just having one server, and for a great many of us it's very very scary to think about.

So many are rah rah rah for one server, but it'll be interesting to see whether those people are still around a few months into the game if/when the prevailing "personality" on that server is opposite to their own. I think some are sitting smug in the belief that their type of people will be predominant, but I wouldn't be so sure. This game is still a looooong way from being released, and if pretty much every other mmo released is any indication (which it should be) the after release community is absolutely nothing like the pre-release one.

I'm predicting a LOT of very sad pandas that rue that they got what they wished for.

I guess I really am wierd ... While I don't see a problem with the way the game is being set up ... I'm also hoping for multiple servers ... eventually.


Frankly I see the benefit of both.

[Hagon]

actually, EVE tells you how many people are on the server when you log on, he is pretty spot on, 40k is pretty much as high as it goes, don't know about WoW thoughWe're talking subscriptions, not how many are playing at a given time. What we're supposed to believe though is that 300K people are paying monthly subscriptions knowing they'll only be able to play @ 1/6 th of the time (not even that because the record is up @ 50k, but for most people it was a complete lag fest with that many on).

[Hornet331]

You've got to be kidding right? I mean you don't seriously believe things like EvE has 300K subs and WoW only has 800K playing each day? That's almost too funny for words. You really believe that EvE supposedly has all those subs, but they all conveniently decide to play at different times? It would take a miracle of scheduling for that to be even remotely possible.

Your gota be kidding me right? Do you even read what i write?

Subscriptions:
Wow: 11.5 Millions subscriptons (http://www.wow.com/2008/12/23/world-of-warcraft-hits-11-5-million-subscribers/)(world wide including Asian Subscriptions)
Eve: 300k (http://www.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=3044&tid=1)

Each day playing avaraged over the month:
Wow: 800k (http://www.warcraftrealms.com/temp/activity.html) (only EU&US)
Eve: 30-35k (http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility)

From the Wow Subscriptions you could take away 5-6Millions (http://www.geek.com/articles/games/world-of-warcraft-passes-10-million-players-asia-leading-the-way-20080124/)as they are that much in asia.

So you have 6 million subscriptions in EU&US and there are only playing up to 800K each day vs 300k Subscriptions and 30-35k playing each day.

If you scale wow down to 300k you would get, suprise, 40k players each day. Combine it with that fact that You don't need to play as activly as in wow to level your carackter and the numbers fit.

Your still confusing between subscriptions and players playing the game.

Also CCP always excludes the trail accounts form the paying subscriptions.

[Zepath]

I don't even understand why you guys are arguing this.

Two completely different game designs, two completely different models, two completely different sets of corporate goals.

[Hagon]

Your gota be kidding me right? Do you even read what i write?

Subscriptions:
Wow: 11.5 Millions subscriptons (http://www.wow.com/2008/12/23/world-of-warcraft-hits-11-5-million-subscribers/)(world wide including Asian Subscriptions)
Eve: 300k (http://www.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=3044&tid=1)

Each day playing avaraged over the month:
Wow: 800k (http://www.warcraftrealms.com/temp/activity.html) (only EU&US)
Eve: 30-35k (http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility)

From the Wow Subscriptions you could take away 5-6Millions (http://www.geek.com/articles/games/world-of-warcraft-passes-10-million-players-asia-leading-the-way-20080124/)as they are that much in asia.

So you have 6 million subscriptions in EU&US and there are only playing up to 800K each day vs 300k Subscriptions and 30-35k playing each day.

If you scale wow down to 300k you would get, suprise, 40k players each day. Combine it with that fact that You don't need to play as activly as in wow to level your carackter and the numbers fit.

Your still confusing between subscriptions and players playing the game.

Also CCP always excludes the trail accounts form the paying subscriptions.You do realize that using WoW census as representative of actual numbers is a joke right? It only obtains data from players that have downloaded that application and are running it at the time. It's like using X-Fire data as being accurate representations of player activity beyond it being poll like data from which one can extrapolate an approximation of the true numbers, which would be a much much higher number.

We've already gone over how skewed EvE's total sub numbers are, and no one is debating how many they have online at one time. In fact it's part of why it's clear they don't actually have 300K concurrent subs. They MIGHT have @ 150 concurrent subs with @150 dormant ones.

CCP does not exclude trial accounts anymore. It excludes trial accounts that have been canceled, which few people do. They just walk away usually.

[Piotrek]

Honestly this whole time we been talking about this, i forgot to mention the most important reason why i hate instanced enviornments. For a game that has faction warefare and supposed to have PVP it takes away the whole reason to have strategic locations to hold and defend. If one system is really valuable and holding it is very important to the war, it becomes useless when there are 20 instances of it and they change hands constantly. Again it takes away from the epicness of combat and immerison of the game.

Man the more i think about this sharding thing, the more saddened i get by the developers lazy choice. They need to make this game more like SFC1,2,3/EVE/Freelancer and less like it is now.

[Kriss]

If Cryptic continues on this path then they better not try to call it a MMO. MMO by its very definition if MASSIVE multiplayer. They had better change the game description to RPG online game because that it was it is really turning into.

There will be nothing massive about it. And it sure as hell won't be persistent.

Death to whole-game instancing and death to any game that uses it because the game developers are too lazy or cheap to do it the RIGHT way!

[Loekii]

The only thing I see out of this that might be a matter of concern would be the neccessity to select a zone to keep from missing something.... If ya make the wrong choice the battle could be over before a player is able to correct the problem.

The other side of this MIGHT be (again dunno for certain) .. is that it MIGHT prevent the long waiting and waiting for respawns to regenerate before engaging in the part of the game a player is needing (for what ever reason).

Am I right on this ?

Really I don't see a HUGE problem with the rest of this. But then again I'm not much of an authority on this.

Well missing something 'big' in a shard, is basically like missing something Big on another server.

I see it more likely that you will 'encounter something big' in a shard system, because you are not locked to just your 'server', but can switch between each shard/instance. So if you are in Instance#4, and you hear that something cool is happening on Instance#2, you can simply click over to Instance#2 and check it out. You cannot click from Drinal Server to the Talbot Server in a multiple server game.

[SelorKiith]

If Cryptic continues on this path then they better not try to call it a MMO. MMO by its very definition if MASSIVE multiplayer. They had better change the game description to RPG online game because that it was it is really turning into.

There will be nothing massive about it. And it sure as hell won't be persistent.

Death to whole-game instancing and death to any game that uses it because the game developers are too lazy or cheap to do it the RIGHT way!

It's cool that only YOUR OPINION is the right way and anything else is Cheap and Lazy ;)
Well... I have a different Opinion than yours... does it mean I am Cheap and Lazy too?

[Zepath]

Well missing something 'big' in a shard, is basically like missing something Big on another server.

I see it more likely that you will 'encounter something big' in a shard system, because you are not locked to just your 'server', but can switch between each shard/instance. So if you are in Instance#4, and you hear that something cool is happening on Instance#2, you can simply click over to Instance#2 and check it out. You cannot click from Drinal Server to the Talbot Server in a multiple server game.


The point is ... in a shard system you're locked out because of a population cap. In the server scenario, the lag (if there is any) is the throttle to who's in the area.

Yes, there is lag ... but there's going to be lag in a shard system .... at least on a server system, I'm not locked out of participation.

I have seen it time and time again on shard systems ...

"Zep, the Klingon's are INC, we need you in this fight, get over here!"

"But I can't get in, pop cap!"

I can't get in, and it makes no sense for them to change instances ... cuz the fight isn't happening in the other instances.

And why does that happen? Because the PvPer's go where the most targets are. That's just one example.

[DanSeale]

Well missing something 'big' in a shard, is basically like missing something Big on another server.

I see it more likely that you will 'encounter something big' in a shard system, because you are not locked to just your 'server', but can switch between each shard/instance. So if you are in Instance#4, and you hear that something cool is happening on Instance#2, you can simply click over to Instance#2 and check it out. You cannot click from Drinal Server to the Talbot Server in a multiple server game.


I know you can not change servers with a "click" of the mouse (not unless you've already paid the fee to transfer) ... ! That much I DO have figured out.

I guess what I was saying would be more like this:

"Buzz .. need reinforcements ".. (yeah like they would really ask ME for help .. but just go with it for now) .. Coodinates 17 / 24 choose instance 3 .... "

We make it to the right area .. but for some boneheaded reason I managed to choose the wrong instance .. and YES I'd be the one person who WOULD make that mistake !

:D

[Zepath]

I know you can not change servers with a "click" of the mouse (not unless you've already paid the fee to transfer) ... ! That much I DO have figured out.

I guess what I was saying would be more like this:

"Buzz .. need reinforcements ".. (yeah like they would really ask ME for help .. but just go with it for now) .. Coodinates 17 / 24 choose instance 3 .... "

We make it to the right area .. but for some boneheaded reason I managed to choose the wrong instance .. and YES I'd be the one person who WOULD make that mistake !

:D

Scary Buzz ... do we really think that much alike?

[Loekii]

The point is ... in a shard system you're locked out because of a population cap. In the server scenario, the lag (if there is any) is the throttle to who's in the area.

Yes, there is lag ... but there's going to be lag in a shard system .... at least on a server system, I'm not locked out of participation.

I have seen it time and time again on shard systems ...

"Zep, the Klingon's are INC, we need you in this fight, get over here!"

"But I can't get in, pop cap!"

I can't get in, and it makes no sense for them to change instances ... cuz the fight isn't happening in the other instances.

And why does that happen? Because the PvPer's go where the most targets are. That's just one example.

Again, I think it is better that if I am in the battle, that it doesn't get ruined because a bunch of late comers are 'demanding' they get to play too.

If I miss out, then I miss out. If I am in, then I actually get to enjoy it, instead of watching it turn into a shutter-slide show lagfest.

I have seen it time and time again, an event starts, its pretty cool, and then it gets destroyed because everyone and their grandma show up and crash the zone.

I

[Commander_Nate]

Honestly this whole time we been talking about this, i forgot to mention the most important reason why i hate instanced enviornments. For a game that has faction warefare and supposed to have PVP it takes away the whole reason to have strategic locations to hold and defend. If one system is really valuable and holding it is very important to the war, it becomes useless when there are 20 instances of it and they change hands constantly. Again it takes away from the epicness of combat and immerison of the game.

Man the more i think about this sharding thing, the more saddened i get by the developers lazy choice. They need to make this game more like SFC1,2,3/EVE/Freelancer and less like it is now.

BINGO! WWII Online got it right like 9 flippin' years ago and it's developers probably didn't have a quarter of the resources Cryptic and Atari do.


Well missing something 'big' in a shard, is basically like missing something Big on another server.

I see it more likely that you will 'encounter something big' in a shard system, because you are not locked to just your 'server', but can switch between each shard/instance. So if you are in Instance#4, and you hear that something cool is happening on Instance#2, you can simply click over to Instance#2 and check it out. You cannot click from Drinal Server to the Talbot Server in a multiple server game.
What if you can't go to Instance 2 because nobody tells you about it and you have no way of finding out there's something going on. And don't forget the population cap. If it really is going to be around 100 or something, then expect this to be a huge problem.

[Kriss]

It's cool that only YOUR OPINION is the right way and anything else is Cheap and Lazy ;)
Well... I have a different Opinion than yours... does it mean I am Cheap and Lazy too?

Of course you can have your opinion as well.

And my opinion revolves around my experience with other games that have tried to use this so-called 'technology'. And it just down-right sucks.

As its not only my opinion, its the opinion of the MAJORITY of the descent in most of the instancing threads. Go ahead...count it up.

Cryptic can't claim its a persistent world yet shard the living hell out of everything. Thats called false advertising.

If they want a persistent world they better spend the money to make it that way or split up the game onto different servers and axe most of the instancing.



This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Cryptic Studios Forum Usage Guidelines (http://forums.startrekonline.com/announcement.php?f=24&a=2). Thank you, Dionaea

[Loekii]

I know you can not change servers with a "click" of the mouse (not unless you've already paid the fee to transfer) ... ! That much I DO have figured out.

I guess what I was saying would be more like this:

"Buzz .. need reinforcements ".. (yeah like they would really ask ME for help .. but just go with it for now) .. Coodinates 17 / 24 choose instance 3 .... "

We make it to the right area .. but for some boneheaded reason I managed to choose the wrong instance .. and YES I'd be the one person who WOULD make that mistake !

:D

According to Rekhan, you mistake could be fixed quickly, as you click on the correct instance from your Mini-map, and instantly load into the proper zone.

It would be basically like taking the wrong 'flight path/griffen', and then teleporting to the proper zone.

[Piotrek]

It's cool that only YOUR OPINION is the right way and anything else is Cheap and Lazy ;)
Well... I have a different Opinion than yours... does it mean I am Cheap and Lazy too?

While instances do have some value in some situations, overall i do agree with others it is a cheap and lazy way to produce something.

[Loekii]

What if you can't go to Instance 2 because nobody tells you about it and you have no way of finding out there's something going on. And don't forget the population cap. If it really is going to be around 100 or something, then expect this to be a huge problem.

This would be no different than being in a different zone, and no one telling you theres a GM event one zone over.

As for the cap, Multiple servers have caps as well. So it would be like 'theres a GM Event on Drinal', you try to log in, and you see - Server FULL, you are number 39 in queue.

[Piotrek]

Well missing something 'big' in a shard, is basically like missing something Big on another server.

I see it more likely that you will 'encounter something big' in a shard system, because you are not locked to just your 'server', but can switch between each shard/instance. So if you are in Instance#4, and you hear that something cool is happening on Instance#2, you can simply click over to Instance#2 and check it out. You cannot click from Drinal Server to the Talbot Server in a multiple server game.


The major point you messed up with that statement is what you do in that instance might effect the server, what happens on another server does not effect your server. You get some sort of cool gear in a instance you can bring that gear with you to the rest of your server, you get something cool on another server, well your character is not on ours so why does it matter. A major battle happens in a instance well those people need ships, can tell stores, and do other things that effect the server and others that were not in the instance.

Also can you imagine the crappyness if one fleet of 40 or so people camps a instance that has a limit of 50 people and you dont know about it and you fly in and get poped by 40 people and most you can bring to the fight is 10.

[SelorKiith]

Of course you can have your opinion as well.

And my opinion revolves around my experience with other games that have tried to use this so-called 'technology'. And it just down-right sucks.

As its not only my opinion, its the opinion of the MAJORITY of the descent in most of the instancing threads. Go ahead...count it up.

This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Cryptic Studios Forum Usage Guidelines (http://forums.startrekonline.com/announcement.php?f=24&a=2). Thank you, Dionaea

I am not a Cryptic Fanboi... and I want you to stop insulting me...
I just happen to like what I have seen so far...

And just because you don't like it because of whatever... doesn't give you the right to insult anyone...
See you are not that important that it would do any good if you insult someone...

And I see no Majority... I just see the Same 6 People arguing over and over again and most either haven't tested CO or just don't understand the System... or just ignore anyhting that is not supporting their point...

On the other hand I can say... I tested it and I think it is a very good system and single Server Demassification and Splintering Up Sucks... so... I say Cryptic is on the right way... to just copy Wow servers would therefore be lazy and cheap...

[Piotrek]

This would be no different than being in a different zone, and no one telling you theres a GM event one zone over.

As for the cap, Multiple servers have caps as well. So it would be like 'theres a GM Event on Drinal', you try to log in, and you see - Server FULL, you are number 39 in queue.


SWG did not have any caps on the servers, and neither does eve online. Might overload the server temporarly trying to logon but thats normal if you dont prep the server matrix to handle a large load.

[Loekii]

As its not only my opinion, its the opinion of the MAJORITY of the descent in most of the instancing threads. Go ahead...count it up.


Would that be the majority that is not posting in these threads?

or

The majority that have long known about this plan (for months) and have not voice outrage?

or

The majority that purchased the CO LT subs, selling it out?

or

The majority of the 40k people that jumped into CO Open Beta, even though it was Instanced?

Cause all those people seem to indicate being okay with instancing. I respect your opinion to not like the system, but please, don't make bogus claims in an attempt to spin.

[SelorKiith]

SWG did not have any caps on the servers, and neither does eve online. Might overload the server temporarly trying to logon but thats normal if you dont prep the server matrix to handle a large load.

Eve is a single server system... so obviously there can't be such a thing... therefore only SWG stands here but I don't know anyting about it so I can't tell...

[Zepath]

SWG did not have any caps on the servers, and neither does eve online. Might overload the server temporarly trying to logon but thats normal if you dont prep the server matrix to handle a large load.

Uhm, sorry, but SWG did have caps on their server. Its was called a login queue.

Look, while I prefer multiple servers, over this system Cryptic is going with, even multiple severs have their limits.

When I left the development buisness 4 years ago ... the average (across the game industry), depending on your hardware and set up ... was about 3500-4500 active players on the server at a time. And most companies limited the accounts on a server to around 3 times what the active player limit was.

Still, there are times, like during special events and weekends, when a larger portion of your accounts are trying to get in, so they queue them up.

THAT, is the one argument that people who are against multiple servers have in their hip pocket, but no one has used it so far. I'm sure they will now.

[Kriss]

It's cool that only YOUR OPINION is the right way and anything else is Cheap and Lazy ;)
Well... I have a different Opinion than yours... does it mean I am Cheap and Lazy too?

I am not a Cryptic Fanboi... and I want you to stop insulting me...
I just happen to like what I have seen so far...

And I see no Majority... I just see the Same 6 People arguing over and over again and most either haven't tested CO or just don't understand the System... or just ignore anyhting that is not supporting their point...



I don't care about CO. I have read what some people have said about it already and looks ilke the junk piles I thought it would be. Yea, thats what I think about it.

I also dont need to see CO and its instancing as I already know about instancing and how it works. CO isn;t the only game in the world to try to and use it. And they will soon learn that instancing a whole world will kill it very quickly, just like any other games that have used it to the extent they are doing.

That is the problem with a company that doesn't have any experience in the MMO market. They might think they have a great idea or blue-print for their game, yet their "ideas" have been used before and those 'ideas' haven't worked because people don't like them!

And as for your "6 people" comment...ahh, being blind must be bliss for you. Try again mate. You'll have to use more than just both hands to count the number of people ****ed off about the instancing.

[Rgoodfel]

You can either have ten servers with 30,000 people each, or one server with instances with 300,000 people. I don't know about you, but I find 300,000 a much more 'massive' number than 30,000... and they're all in the same universe as me (I could, if I wanted to, play with any one of them).



I have to totally agree with you Nyanya. Personally I like the CO system. You never have to worry that you sre playing the wrong world. Or have your world become unpopulated.

[blujester]

Would that be the majority that is not posting in these threads?

or

The majority that have long known about this plan (for months) and have not voice outrage?

or

The majority that purchased the CO LT subs, selling it out?

or

The majority of the 40k people that jumped into CO Open Beta, even though it was Instanced?

Cause all those people seem to indicate being okay with instancing. I respect your opinion to not like the system, but please, don't make bogus claims in an attempt to spin.

No it would be the Majority of us who've already had this arguement in 10 different threads and are either fine with the system as is or are willing to wait and see before they rant about it. Cryptic has ALREADY built the game and this is the way they built it so endless screeds about how this game does it or that game does it and which you like better does not change the fact that this game is already built and will use zone shards.

I'm not getting into this discussion any more it is pointless.

Bj

[Loekii]

I have to totally agree with you Nyanya. Personally I like the CO system. You never have to worry that you sre playing the wrong world. Or have your world become unpopulated.

I agree. Both are big bonuses in my opinion.

[Hornet331]

You do realize that using WoW census as representative of actual numbers is a joke right? It only obtains data from players that have downloaded that application and are running it at the time. It's like using X-Fire data as being accurate representations of player activity beyond it being poll like data from which one can extrapolate an approximation of the true numbers, which would be a much much higher number.

We've already gone over how skewed EvE's total sub numbers are, and no one is debating how many they have online at one time. In fact it's part of why it's clear they don't actually have 300K concurrent subs. They MIGHT have @ 150 concurrent subs with @150 dormant ones.

CCP does not exclude trial accounts anymore. It excludes trial accounts that have been canceled, which few people do. They just walk away usually.

So now wer are playing the nitpinking game where A=A, but A=A1+A2.

Neither CCP or blizzard cares if the user whos is paying a subscribtion is playing there game or not.

If Eve would have that much dorment subs there total subscriptions wouldn't have incrased by over a 150k the last few years,

Its funny that you call BS on CCP numbers and the same time say WoW numbers are far to low... (jfyi the 800k avarage is an avarage over a month, they daily fluctuation is way higher)

Wow census might be not 100% accurate, but after acertain ammount of samples you get a reasonable picture of whats going on and thats more then enough for that purpose.

I don't know why your even here, to me it seems the only reason your here is bash Cryptics system or better bash STO as such and only predict its failure before its even playable.

It's a good thing thats it doesn't work like that.

[DanSeale]

back on topic ..

*** sigh ***

Ya know what would really be cool ...

I wish there was some way about 8 or 10 of us could hook up with this .. just for a few hours .. And become a pannel of QA .. of sorts. I'm not talking about beta: Pre ; closed ; open or any where in between. Just log a few folks on to demo the thing for a couple hours ...

Yeah .. I know ... that's not going to happen ..

just saying it might be interesting to see what sort of feed back would come out of something like that.

[Elboulevardo]

2 cents:

if the tech choice is to do AoC style sharding (i found AoC's sharding irritating to manage) then perhaps they just need to tweak how the players interact with those shards

For each sector, they could add tags for each shard such as Sector 12-Alpha, Beta, etc.

Player interface would show both the sector and the shard tag, maybe in the map view or in the minimap corner of the interface

So communication can be handled like this

[Capt. Player] [Sector 12-A]: Hey Captain Dood, warp on over to sector 12-Alpha, threat of Klingons striking a research outpost
[Capt. Dood] [Sector 42-B]: Acknowledged, course is set, ETA 18 minutes

When Captain Dood arrives and drops out of warp, an interface will prompt:
[Please choose which sub-sector to enter]
- Alpha
- Beta
- etc

I think if they added that minor tweak, you could easily assist players avoid having to switch shards on an "immersion-breaking" basis

using simple trek jargon in place of the name "shard", "instance", etc can mask it quite well

Cheers :)

PS. if any of this was already suggested, i apologize for stealing anyones thunder, i didnt feel like reading through 40 posts and hundreds of pages of this same topic ;)

[Tamgros]

Guys, this is one thing that really isn't going to change. They aren't going to drastically change their engine and the way they do 90% of their content because of a thread like this.

I also don't like how some people are tossing around "immersion breaking" as some sort of trump card even though that is entirely subjective.

To me, it's more immersion breaking if my Frames/Sec goes down to a slide show, or when I know someone is playing the game that I will never be able to play with (on a whole other shard...)

There are positives and negatives to this type of instances, but IMHO the positives outweigh the negatives. Either way, this isn't going to change....

[Loekii]

back on topic ..

*** sigh ***

Ya know what would really be cool ...

I wish there was some way about 8 or 10 of us could hook up with this .. just for a few hours .. And become a pannel of QA .. of sorts. I'm not talking about beta: Pre ; closed ; open or any where in between. Just log a few folks on to demo the thing for a couple hours ...

Yeah .. I know ... that's not going to happen ..

just saying it might be interesting to see what sort of feed back would come out of something like that.

Well there is the play test at PAX.

[DanSeale]

Well there is the play test at PAX.

how do I get there ?

[jblancato]

We've got enough threads on this right now, including one in which there are dev posts. Let's stick to that one to better focus the conversation.