One server, the Eve model, and MMORPGs. Viable?

[Draegan]

Almost.  I was having this same discussion on another board and I used the Linkshell system as a basic example.

The only difference is with the server blending that WOW seems to be trending towards is that you can prioritize who you see in the real world by which circles (linkshells, groups, guilds etc.) that you are in.

So if you've toggled on your F13 group, you'll most likely come across more F13 people than others.  So if you're playing with 20 different small circles, you players are then prioritized to play with people in the circles they are members of.  Visually, imagine each circle drawn on a page scaled to it's population.  Overlap all those circles and the population in the densest part are the people you're likely to be pushed into as a game like WOW creates shards for.

You can create a whole slew of social tools that are embeddable or worked with on the web on the official page, on fansites, on blogs or guild rosters.

[Venkman]

If everyone sort of agreed to put in no more than 2 hours a day, you could have a "casual" game like that.  But the problem is it doesn't work that way, and when you enforce the 2 hour limit or otherwise arbitrarily limit the ability of those sieges etc to take place all the time in order to allow the game to be playable by a wider audience you actually fundamentally change the game so that it really isn't the same thing anymore, and suddenly (at least to me) not only does is not feel worth playing 5 hours a day, it often times doesn't feel worth playing at all.

That's a lower level problem. The higher level one is the small market even thinking that. Assynchronous multiplayer and session-based experiences evolved because for the most part, people avoid the more difficult side of 24/7 persistent worlds. Only a few MMOs can have the level of permanence you're talking about not because it's hard, but because that's the size of the market for those kinds of games.

The vast majority of gamers are not interested in getting up at 4am to camp decaying deeds so they can place their house, being first on at server up to get the SoW boots, to try and time a 30-hour spawn, to even need to worry if your guild is 24/7 enough to hold the town against a bane. Some of the best stories we all have are because of these very ideas. But those stories don't generate revenue and certainly don't contribute brand loyalty. As much as we all used to like games that by today's standards would be considered largely broken, we were more than happy to move on en masse to things that removed what in retrospect largely sucked.

They want to have all the fun they want to have on their schedule, which is going to likely be an hour or two every couple of nights. They want to get in, have fun, get out, maybe see if they added a few notches to some metagame tracking system so they can unlock some other foozle. They will occasionally jump in to harvest some wheat or collect a rent. But only if it's a browser they have open while sitting bored to death on a conference call.

That's the general market. Of course there are niches within it. But then that goes back to: what can you afford to make for the market you have. Anyone can make a competent game if they size it right and are correct in their assumptions. Just don't go expecting it to be WoW 

[Malakili]

They want to have all the fun they want to have on their schedule, which is going to likely be an hour or two every couple of nights. They want to get in, have fun, get out, maybe see if they added a few notches to some metagame tracking system so they can unlock some other foozle. They will occasionally jump in to harvest some wheat or collect a rent. But only if it's a browser they have open while sitting bored to death on a conference call.

I don't disagree with anything you are saying.  I'm just saying that you can't really design a one server EVE model MMORPG that is ALSO accessible to these types of people.

But at this point, I guess it is besides they point as the discussion has moved on to other possible server models.

[Kageru]

A game that is flashy but short and easy, like the endless parade of sameish console shooters, probably won't generate any memories other than the fact you completed it.

GLaDOS would like to have a word with you.

I'll give you that... brilliant games that are highly innovative and styled can leave you with a strong impression too. I was more thinking of the mass of production line titles that make things like portal stand out.

[eldaec]

Procedural generation (which is what accounts for 99.5%¹ of Eve's content) for a terrain world isn't actually that hard, AC did it back in 99, Horizons did it, Wish was going to do it on a really big scale.  But then travel times kick your ass people complain about not being able to meet up with their friends, and everyone so far has given in and put in teleportation systems that made the overwhelming majority of their carefully generated terrain completely useless, "flyover country".

Eve found the answer: Let them bitch.  On shortest-route autopilot it takes hours to cross Empire space, and 0.0 travel is easy but survival is hard.  

EVE's position is more subtle than that - it is actually reasonably easy and quick to get your character anywhere you want in the game world, using small fast ships and various types of clone. But it gets harder when you want to move your stuff. Works well because movement stays relatively simple for new or poor players, but keeps the advantages of diverse markets and power projection limited by logistics as you start wanting to do more complex stuff.

[Lantyssa]

I don't disagree with anything you are saying.  I'm just saying that you can't really design a one server EVE model MMORPG that is ALSO accessible to these types of people.

Why not?  EVE has all kinds of players.

The majority of the game needs to encompass the demographic you are targeting.  Even the hard-core likes to take a break and hang out with their friends.  Now they may not play it 24-7, but that doesn't mean they aren't interested at all.

And there's nothing preventing the devs from adding systems which do interest them.  They just cannot focus upon them to such a degree they ignore the people paying the bills.  (WoW Cataclysm, NGE, et. al.)

[Venkman]

Eve is really the perfect model for what an actual massively-multiplayer game is. It's 24/7 but big enough that everyone can play a part. It's got territory turn over, but a mix of enough players to have 24/7 coverage. There's things for casuals to do depending on your definition of casual.

Malakaii: I think the only place we really depart is on the premise itself.

If we start by saying the game is about PvP and getting better gear and skill to be better at PvP, I feel it's going to stay session based games where the fun is at the moment but not permanent.

But, if we start by saying the game is actually a living virtual world where a whole lot is going on and PvP is either an active or background part of every part of the economy, then a uniserver model that spans multiple time zones makes sense. And is somewhat required :smile:

All depends on the fundamental concept.

[UnSub]

Critical to EVE's function on a one-server set up is the design philosophy of, "If you play here, you're on your own". True exploits get stopped, but if another player screws you over the devs are willing to let it ride.

It was a risk that worked for EVE. As soon as someone running a sandbox tries to mitigate "bad" player behaviour, or tries to minimise what players can lose, it ends up breaking how the sandbox works. (Not trying to mitigate "bad" player behaviour can also see most of your players leave too. So good luck with that.)

The issue of single server isn't just technology, it is also how players interact with each other, what they can build, what they can destroy and where the boundaries are. A single server static theme park would still have all the issues of a multi-server static theme park.

[Numtini]

So if you've toggled on your F13 group, you'll most likely come across more F13 people than others.  So if you're playing with 20 different small circles, you players are then prioritized to play with people in the circles they are members of.  Visually, imagine each circle drawn on a page scaled to it's population.  Overlap all those circles and the population in the densest part are the people you're likely to be pushed into as a game like WOW creates shards for.

I didn't monkey with the guild stuff the last beta weekend. In GW2, I know you have to for lack of a better term equip one guild at a time. But can you still see logons, chat, and the social functions of guilds? If not, do the comms have the potential for private channels. One of the two of those is going to be necessary to really max out the usefulness of this.

[Chimpy]

It seems like everyone wanting this expansive sandbox single world thing are asking for SecondLife to me. It had pretty much everything people are asking for (and more if you include the deviant behaviors).

[Malakili]

It seems like everyone wanting this expansive sandbox single world thing are asking for SecondLife to me. It had pretty much everything people are asking for (and more if you include the deviant behaviors).

From my perspective I'd just like a few things to compete with EVE.  EVE is great, I played it for a long time, but no game lasts forever and I'd like to see some alternative.   

[Kageru]

Eve's design is inherently niche though. Truly being part of the emergent game-play takes a massive investment of time well beyond most people. A modern game with the same game-play could just as easily fail through the community not "gelling" into power-blocks or deciding the pay off isn't worth the investment. Though people are surprisingly competitive and willing to sink insane amounts of time and effort into "beating" other people even in a virtual world so maybe I under-estimate that.

I prefer GW2 which has another model of an MMO that works. You will see other players while gaming and you can always work with them. The task always gains from more players, you don't need to organize it all in advance and everyone's game-play is improved, and never damaged, by more players getting involved. This is what a lot of MMO's missed with the focus on either solo (leveling) content or fixed size, group composition dependent content.

Though GW2 (and CoH) content probably cannot be as challenging as fixed group content because it has to be a bit more permissive. That's a fine trade off to me, but those who really want an "elite-team" activity will seek out the game that provides that. There's no reason to think there's only one solution to the problem.

[ezrast]

As for the original question, I've always thought the GW2 approach is pretty spot-on, even before GW2 was announced. Splitting up world zones into channels Champions-style brings basically the same benefits and problems to the overworld that cross-server dungeon finders bring to instances. Keeping separate servers but allowing people easy guest access and transfers to other servers avoids each of the cons in the OP and captures 2/3 of the pros.

[Dark_MadMax]

It seems like everyone wanting this expansive sandbox single world thing are asking for SecondLife to me. It had pretty much everything people are asking for (and more if you include the deviant behaviors).

Err I want sandbox with fun "game" part.  Thats why EvE doesnt qualify

[Xuri]

It seems like everyone wanting this expansive sandbox single world thing are asking for SecondLife to me. It had pretty much everything people are asking for (and more if you include the deviant behaviors).

SecondLife is lacking the game part, Eve is lacking the "do something other than spreadsheet to victory" part, Darkfall/Mortal Online are too PvP centric (sandbox != FFA consequence-free PvP), ArcheAge is ....actually ArcheAge is probably the closest to what I want, based on what little I've seen so far.

[Mrbloodworth]

Procedural generation (which is what accounts for 99.5%¹ of Eve's content) for a terrain world isn't actually that hard[/spoiler]

wut.

[Mrbloodworth]

The vast majority of gamers are not interested in getting up at 4am to camp decaying deeds so they can place their house

I can confirm this.

[MahrinSkel]

Procedural generation (which is what accounts for 99.5%¹ of Eve's content) for a terrain world isn't actually that hard[/spoiler]

wut.

Which part is causing you confusion?  That it's the overwhelming majority of Eve content (even though the blocks, in terms of deadspace/etc, may be handmade, they are managed and tacked together in a procedural content fashion), or that it isn't that hard?

--Dave

[Phred]

Procedural generation (which is what accounts for 99.5%¹ of Eve's content) for a terrain world isn't actually that hard

Wasn't that how they did the terrain in SWG? The biggest issue with procedural generation is most of it is pretty damn boring.

[Mrbloodworth]

Procedural generation (which is what accounts for 99.5%¹ of Eve's content) for a terrain world isn't actually that hard[/spoiler]

wut.

Which part is causing you confusion?  That it's the overwhelming majority of Eve content (even though the blocks, in terms of deadspace/etc, may be handmade, they are managed and tacked together in a procedural content fashion), or that it isn't that hard?

--Dave

The "Procedural generation ( of content ) for a terrain world is not that hard" part. You didn't go into detail ( and im not ether ), but as you know there are some fundamental differences in making content for a terrain based world as opposed to a non-terrain setting. First and foremost, density. I personally can't make the connection between eve's sectors and the valleys and hills of a terrain world.

[MahrinSkel]

Okay, yes, there is a lot of handwaving and footnotes hiding behind that sentence.  Explaining it would probably take me a very large whiteboard, two interns to handle the secondary research for references, and 12 cases of Red Bull.

--Dave