One server, many shards, = best solution

[lordpenquin]

I think the single server solution is a grand idea. Some people complain that it's not massive enough and that it break the immersion by having only a few hundred people per shard. Personally I think it's great for many reasons:

1. If you meet a person on the street that plays Trek, you can play with him. How many times have you met someone who plays wow or EQ2 or FFXI too but is on a different server.

2. If there are too many people hogging the resources / mobs, switch to a less populated instance.

3. If there aren't enough people on the shard to help you complete a quest, switch to a more populated instance.

4. Lagging a bit? Switch instance.

There are some drawbacks like if the server goes down you can't play the game but typically I don't have characters on multiple servers anyway so it's not that big of a deal.

Thoughts?

[mrjohng]

I think the single server solution is a grand idea. Some people complain that it's not massive enough and that it break the immersion by having only a few hundred people per shard. Personally I think it's great for many reasons:

1. If you meet a person on the street that plays Trek, you can play with him. How many times have you met someone who plays wow or EQ2 or FFXI too but is on a different server.

2. If there are too many people hogging the resources / mobs, switch to a less populated shard.

3. If there aren't enough people on the shard to help you complete a quest, switch to a more populated shard.

4. Lagging a bit? Switch shards.

There are some drawbacks like if the server goes down you can't play the game but typically I don't have characters on multiple servers anyway so it's not that big of a deal.

Thoughts?

Your terminology is a little screwed up. I think you meant to use the word "instance" instead of the word shard. In MMO parlance, a shard generally refers to a seperate server.

[Huutini]

Your terminology is a little screwed up. I think you meant to use the word "instance" instead of the word shard. In MMO parlance, a shard generally refers to a seperate server.

Actually pretty much everyone means something different with instances, shards, servers, realms etc. The terms never has been defined in a general way...

[USS_Parallax]

I think the single server solution is a grand idea. Some people complain that it's not massive enough and that it break the immersion by having only a few hundred people per shard. Personally I think it's great for many reasons:

1. If you meet a person on the street that plays Trek, you can play with him. How many times have you met someone who plays wow or EQ2 or FFXI too but is on a different server.

2. If there are too many people hogging the resources / mobs, switch to a less populated shard.

3. If there aren't enough people on the shard to help you complete a quest, switch to a more populated shard.

4. Lagging a bit? Switch shards.

There are some drawbacks like if the server goes down you can't play the game but typically I don't have characters on multiple servers anyway so it's not that big of a deal.

Thoughts?

Have you played Champions Online?

1. True.

2. This still happens. And switching is a drag since the way it has it in Champions is when you switch you get put back at the zone-in point. That means you have to run all the way back.
So basically by the time you get back to your mission you could have probably already done it on the other shard.

3. Shard switching is a drag like above. You'll likely switch over and over just to find a group whereas in a traditional server setup there's a lot more people and you don't have to switch.

4. I've still never experienced this. The shards are of the same quality. If one lags usually they all lag. If one falls usually they all fall.


Despite the problems with traditional servers I still favor them. The sense of community on shards is a fraction of what it is in a traditional server. The fact that I have an extremely limited view of people (since it's only like 100 per server) is also freakin' annoying. If your guild is over 100 people you can literally never all gather.

I just want more people per shard. 100 players is tiny. People barely talk in the chat. And I don't want to have to switch servers to find teams and stuff.

[mrjohng]

Actually pretty much everyone means something different with instances, shards, servers, realms etc. The terms never has been defined in a general way...

Well, Cryptic uses the word "instances" in Champions Online to describe what the OP is calling "shards", so it is at least defined that much.

[mrjohng]

2. This still happens. And switching is a drag since the way it has it in Champions is when you switch you get put back at the zone-in point. That means you have to run all the way back.
So basically by the time you get back to your mission you could have probably already done it on the other shard.

Sorta depends on the quest, but yes, sometimes it isn't worth switching instances.


3. Shard switching is a drag like above. You'll likely switch over and over just to find a group whereas in a traditional server setup there's a lot more people and you don't have to switch.

Actually, CO has a (mostly useless) LFG system that spans all instances. They also have global chat channels which you can join. For example, try joining the LFG channel.


4. I've still never experienced this. The shards are of the same quality. If one lags usually they all lag. If one falls usually they all fall.

Generally, this is true. However, on occasion, I have encountered a bug in one instance, such as a clicky item not being clickable, and switched to another instance to resolve the problem.


Despite the problems with traditional servers I still favor them. The sense of community on shards is a fraction of what it is in a traditional server. The fact that I have an extremely limited view of people (since it's only like 100 per server) is also freakin' annoying. If your guild is over 100 people you can literally never all gather.

Once people figure out the global chat channels this should improve, but you are mostly correct. I'm not sure why a mega-guild needs to all gather in one place though...

However, I suggest that you get use to the system, as it is extremely likely that STO will use it.

[Hagon]

The single server is the worst thing that will most likely happen with STO. It will render the faction vs faction elements of the game completely meaningless for the majority of players that were looking forward to that element. Then again, with recent developments we're now aware of, it looks like they intended to render the FvF elements meaningless from the get go anyway.

[stat]

Well, Cryptic uses the word "instances" in Champions Online to describe what the OP is calling "shards", so it is at least defined that much.

They may use that word, but really, neither the word instance or shard fits perfectly with what was done in Champions Online, it is much more closer to a shard IMO.

[mrjohng]

They may use that word, but really, neither the word instance or shard fits perfectly with what was done in Champions Online, it is much more closer to a shard IMO.

Not may - do. Every zone has an instance number, and they use that exact word - instance.

Traditionally, "shards" refer to copies of game worlds that do not interact with one another. For example, in WoW, each game server is a shard. Within a shard, there can be instances, such as what WoW does for dungeons.

Champions Online is basically one giant shard, with all zones being instanced.

[Malakili]

Then again, with recent developments we're now aware of, it looks like they intended to render the FvF elements meaningless from the get go anyway.

Yep. Cryptic will put up the defense like "we are really concentrated on making the game fun and accessible to everyone." But its really just cover for "we are just making WoW in space because we think it will sell more copies"

[mrjohng]

Yep. Cryptic will put up the defense like "we are really concentrated on making the game fun and accessible to everyone." But its really just cover for "we are just making WoW in space because we think it will sell more copies"

No reason that both statements can't be true.

[lordpenquin]

I think with both CO and STO they will gradually increase the number of people in each instance, based on capacity. Aion does the same thing (which they call channels), although when you switch instances you pop in at the same location. It is rather annoying that you go back to the starting area when you switch instances / channels.

It was rather amusing when they had a glitch in CO the other day where the server wouldn't generate new areas and everyone was in the same spot. Some people were complaining but others were saying "this finally feels like a reall mmo now.".

And I retconned my post because now that you brought it up, I remember playing UO and they had shards. They actually invented the term because of their lore. The crystal was shattered into different Shards, each one containing it's own copy of Britania. So yea, shards = non interactive servers while what CO and STO is doing is closer to the "channels" of Aion.

[Wallabees]

OK - from a Champs player who is actively using this system I can honestly say that it does not feel radically different from other MMOs

There are always other players about so you are aware that you are online - it does not feel single player at all
There is still competition for critters etc but not to the extent you feel cramped
If an area is overly competitive you can switch shards to a quieter area
The shard list indicates which ones have guild members/friends in and conveniently moves these shards to the top of the list

The only complaint is that to get from one area to another can involve several 'jumps' meaning a sometimes long loading screen between each jump; this is not ideal but you become used to it very quickly.

Overall the system gets a thumbs up from this observer.

EDIT - I will add to this, that due to the shard list offering you ones that have guild members already in it as a priority all your guildies tend to end up on the same shard naturally which is quite nice.

[Piotrek]

I think the single server solution is a grand idea. Some people complain that it's not massive enough and that it break the immersion by having only a few hundred people per shard. Personally I think it's great for many reasons:

1. If you meet a person on the street that plays Trek, you can play with him. How many times have you met someone who plays wow or EQ2 or FFXI too but is on a different server.

2. If there are too many people hogging the resources / mobs, switch to a less populated instance.

3. If there aren't enough people on the shard to help you complete a quest, switch to a more populated instance.

4. Lagging a bit? Switch instance.

There are some drawbacks like if the server goes down you can't play the game but typically I don't have characters on multiple servers anyway so it's not that big of a deal.

Thoughts?

As mentioned before your concept of the server setup is kind of off. The setup currently they are implementing is the same as CO. So yes you have one giant server, but content on the server like quests and game areas are split into multiple littler servers that can only hold a certain amount of people. Each server even though it is identical in no way effects the other, so people running a quest of go kill this guy. Will still be able to go kill this guy even though another group in a different server just killed him.

The big beef with this setup which was brought up a lot in the past is this leads to a game feeling like 100 separate games, cause nothing you do effects the total feel of the game at all. Its like your playing a single player game with only small multiplayer implications.

The setup that in my opinion would be preferable is just like what you see in SWG or EVE online, One giant world that everyone shares, and what you do in that world has effects for all players in the game. This opens up a lot more playability to the game cause it effects every aspect of the game from pvp, pve, to crafting.

There are at least 2 good old threads on server/shards that are massive long if you want to read up on whats been discussed so far. I for one hate instanced environments makes me feel like i am playing a single player game.

[peter13317]

Your wrong and posting that at this stage is stupid.

[Piotrek]

Your wrong and posting that at this stage is stupid.

Hehe usually you want to quote who your talking to. I am guessing your referring to me. If that's the case what am i incorrect about, the way the server is setup or my own opinions of what the server setup should be? Last i checked my opinions were my own so its hard to be incorrect about that.

[masonburrell]

ive only played the regular sever MMO and looks like this will be better. simply it does have some disavantages but it's avantages are greater than any problem. to me it looks like it's a bunch of small servers with the ability to transfer between them. witch i think is awsome. espesialy if i want to play with friends from all over the world. i just woundring how will this type of server affect Ping? will there just be one server farm in the states or will there be many smaller "shards" all over the world.

[Interdictor]

I agree - I think a single server is the best way to go for STO.