Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Truly Massive MMO


flankster's Avatar


flankster
03.20.2012 , 09:58 AM | #21
i think the best game for massive battles was Planetside with 3 factions all fighting over same nodes was great fun and lagg was not a real issue and cant wait for Planetside 2
Smuggler of No Win Scenario http://www.nowinscenario.co.uk
Server = ToFN
PEW PEW Real open space PLEASE!!

Muscaat's Avatar


Muscaat
03.20.2012 , 10:01 AM | #22
Quote: Originally Posted by NasherUK View Post
Well it's not really one server. It's just one big cluster containing many servers, there is a limit of how many players can be on each server.
Implementation detail The unique thing is that it's a single shard - that is, every player inhabits the same game world, and there's nothing to stop you interacting with, cooperating with or shooting in the face any other player (whereas in SW:TOR they need to be on "your server").

Big fan of EVE and a long-time player, along with some of my colleagues; one of whom, when I mentioned that SW:TOR was sharded, responded, "Why do people still make games like that in this day and age?"

Lord_Ravenhurst's Avatar


Lord_Ravenhurst
03.20.2012 , 10:12 AM | #23
I always suggested 1 planet = 1 server.

Make them bigger, actual planetsize. There might be other clusters you switch to if you enter specific zonea, but at the end you could meet basically everyone with a subscription if you want. You should be able to travel between servers seamlessly.

AstarielleUK's Avatar


AstarielleUK
03.20.2012 , 10:18 AM | #24
Perfect World features 80 vs 80 Territory Wars. These ran fine on my machine until they introduced the Genies which were graphically intensive and started to stutter a lot with full 160 person battles.

Another route games such as Battle of the Immortals (which I otherwise don't recommend) use are 'realms' which equate to the instance phases SWTOR was using at launch. So one realm became the go-to realm for player permanent shops, some others for getting groups for certain dailies instances etc. and others might be always sparsely populated if you wanted less competition and general chatter.

Nyla's Avatar


Nyla
03.20.2012 , 10:34 AM | #25
Quote: Originally Posted by Muscaat View Post
Implementation detail The unique thing is that it's a single shard - that is, every player inhabits the same game world, and there's nothing to stop you interacting with, cooperating with or shooting in the face any other player (whereas in SW:TOR they need to be on "your server").

Big fan of EVE and a long-time player, along with some of my colleagues; one of whom, when I mentioned that SW:TOR was sharded, responded, "Why do people still make games like that in this day and age?"
Because Jita crashes with 2k people, because there's more than 2k people on Dromund Kaas/Coruscant on all TOR servers, because comparing the graphical load of Eve with TOR is silly, because comparing the amount of exchanges with a server with 50k people or 1M is stupid.
“When 900 years old, you reach… Look as good, you will not.”

Lunablade's Avatar


Lunablade
03.20.2012 , 10:39 AM | #26
Quote: Originally Posted by Valkirus View Post
I prefer the way TOR is now.

I can go do quests and not have to worry about others running up and ninja a item while I am fighting mobs.

Or having to wait for mobs to respawn and then have to camp a spot to tag them before others do...:P.

The only thing I see which would improve the population on servers for raid runs, is a LFR tool.

Other than that...they donot need to change a thing. The answer for the fps drops for some is to not have massive battles going on. Limit the grps to 8 players at a time. That is more than enough IMO.

This is horrible way of thinking , TOR is one of the most instanced MMOS I ever seen where you can count on your fingers how many times you seen other players around you when questing and encountered world PVP in the open world that I would rather call this game more single player game online with optional grouping rather than massively multiplayer game.

And you would want this type of design to continue because I got the impression that you dont like much to group up with other players and you like more carebear style of play so youre asking from designers to turn this game even more into lobby based game because you want everything instanced and instant and traveling in the open world , exploration, game which would encourage grouping with other players and world pvp would bother you.

Maybe you should consider to switch to co-op and single player games because I have a feeling that those types of games would suit you better than MMOS.

SNEAKYSIX's Avatar


SNEAKYSIX
03.20.2012 , 10:44 AM | #27
i play Arma II online, sometimes 32 can play on one side and no lag. 16v16 no lag. Including vehicles and so on. In some MP missions its your squad versus 100s of spawning enemies, spawning through scripts so theyre not in actuall game world at that time. This could be a consideration for flashpoints and spawning. That way we can play in larger grould than 4 without lag. Sadly it wont happen, game engine thus far limits it.
You've never heard of the Millennium Falcon?... It's the ship that made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs."
....

MackumDog's Avatar


MackumDog
03.20.2012 , 10:45 AM | #28
Quote: Originally Posted by Zannis View Post
There are 2 limits to what you propose. Bandwidth and Hardware.

The more communication between the servers and various clients, the more bandwidth needed. The hardware on the client side would have to be able to render so many objects.

I don't see it happening. While hardware will keep improving at a decent rate, the bandwidth available to most people is much harder to improve on. I've given up hope of Fios ever becoming available in my area.


networking cards on servers can easily handle this, and you will often see banking systems doing massive users online, the problem is the investment and risk, if you go off and buy such equipment and you fail to deliver ...your screwed.

What I think the future is, Lots of small servers working as shards, this is how facebook do things, it does mean instancing small areas in the game, but as long as the transaction between instances is seamless people would not worry and it could be done.
I can't brain today...I have the dumb

MackumDog's Avatar


MackumDog
03.20.2012 , 10:48 AM | #29
Quote: Originally Posted by Lord_Ravenhurst View Post
I always suggested 1 planet = 1 server.

Make them bigger, actual planetsize. There might be other clusters you switch to if you enter specific zonea, but at the end you could meet basically everyone with a subscription if you want. You should be able to travel between servers seamlessly.
split if further, inside a building is a server, remember lots of small servers all running Linux will do the job, you can use bigger servers for bigger areas, but by keeping zones small and transactions instant you can make a seemless but versitile universe
I can't brain today...I have the dumb

Nyla's Avatar


Nyla
03.20.2012 , 10:56 AM | #30
Quote: Originally Posted by MackumDog View Post
split if further, inside a building is a server, remember lots of small servers all running Linux will do the job, you can use bigger servers for bigger areas, but by keeping zones small and transactions instant you can make a seemless but versitile universe
until you go to the GTN or the PvP board on the fleet with hundreds of players there and your PC freeze.
“When 900 years old, you reach… Look as good, you will not.”