Kaplan at GDC09, mistakes made in quest design.

[Kail]

Which means more mobs for the server to track spread across all these phases.  It can only handle so many entities in the area, and PCs have a larger footprint.  Phasing would only make it worse because now you have mobs that exist which can't be touched by the majority of the players.

I think that depends on where your bottleneck is, doesn't it?  As I understand it, currently, if a mob is "out of phase" with a client, it doesn't send that client information on the mob at all.  That would theoretically cut the bandwidth down, wouldn't it?  If the problem is something to do with CPU load or something, then it wouldn't help, but it should be fairly efficient for fighting the "everyone is in one place and the zone lags" problem, shouldn't it?  Or am I reading the problem wrong?  I am a total layman when it comes to programming, but while I can understand why having ten players in the same room is more bandwidth intensive than having ten players in ten rooms, I don't see why it would be more CPU intensive.

[Lantyssa]

There are several problems we're touching on here.  For CPU limits though, the server, not the player, is the problem.

[Gobbeldygook]

I think that depends on where your bottleneck is, doesn't it?  As I understand it, currently, if a mob is "out of phase" with a client, it doesn't send that client information on the mob at all.

I am pretty sure this is only partially true.  I've heard people complain about graphic lag in the Ahn instance when fighting the boss who phases the party.  I'm guessing the information IS sent to the client and the client even loads the models, but we just don't get to see it.

[Ingmar]

You can easily test it by going to the edge of a phase. The one right behind Hodir is a good example. From outside the little phased area you can see the dead iron giants even if you've already done the quest to loot them. If you go in to the phased area, though, they disappear.

[Sheepherder]

You can easily test it by going to the edge of a phase. The one right behind Hodir is a good example. From outside the little phased area you can see the dead iron giants even if you've already done the quest to loot them. If you go in to the phased area, though, they disappear.

Which doesn't discount the possibility of it being garbage collected client-side when you cross the boundary.

Lantyssa, I talking about the very specific issue of several people farming the same mobs, the ensuing depopulation and associated shenanigans, and Blizzard's quirky spawn rate adjustment algorithm.

Now that I think about it, you could have spawn nodes near instantly repopulate after you aggro the previous mob from said node, but have the new mob be phased so that the player which just killed it's predecessor cannot interact with said respawn.  You still run into the "monster poping into existence when the player hits it" visual problem, although I really don't see how that's any more immersion breaking than respawn rates of >15 seconds.  As a plus, the number of mobs needed would be exactly proportionate to the number currently in existence amongst all subspaces.  You would need to be creative about building the mechanism for phasing though, I can see it being memory intensive.

[Lantyssa]

You would need to be creative about building the mechanism for phasing though, I can see it being memory intensive.

The technical limitations are why I'm saying this won't work.  If what Ingmar is saying is true, this is doubly so because then the player's machine becomes yet another point of failure.

Phasing saves a bit of memory on the server-side in that it doesn't have to track mulitple copies of world geometry.  It loses some of those savings in keeping track of the differences between "histories", with more changes meaning less savings.  When you start adding players and multiple phases of mobs, then it starts eating into the server CPU because it still has to perform calculations to check whether A can interact with B, with C, with D, then B with C, with D, then C with D, etc.

Phasing hits the CPU while saving memory.  Memory is cheap.  CPU time is not.

To overlap a couple of "instances" it's an acceptable trade-off, especially if the art assets don't change much.  There are good reasons to use it in moderation.  Layer too many though and suddenly you have to do a massive number of calculations just to cast an area spell on two or three targets.  To check aggro.

If you're worried about spawn rate, it would be far better to discuss adjusting their algorithm than how phasing can solve that problem.  It can't, because that isn't what it is designed for.

[Phred]

Thrymm must be a bug or something. I don't know if everyone else has noticed but you fight him in a phase, only available to people doing the fight. Why they can't make him disappear when you kill him I have no idea but it's a big immersion breaker imo. (lol, did I just say immersion in a WoW thread?)

[Sheepherder]

If you're worried about spawn rate, it would be far better to discuss adjusting their algorithm than how phasing can solve that problem.  It can't, because that isn't what it is designed for.

Refer back to original argument: if you're respawn rate is near instantaneous but a player is not capable of killing more than one spawn per point the spawn rate problem is fixed completely, there is never any shortage and not a lot of reference bloat.  The only additional measure needed would be a scripted effect (likely attached to an aura, itself attached to a node) which stores which node you are and aren't allowed to see the corresponding mob references for, and boolean variables are cheap.

Clock time isn't an issue, boolean variable comparisons are computationally trivial.  It's not like I'm suggesting they calculate distance from an arbitrary point via processor intensive floating point arithmetic to four of five actors simultaneously, then applying damage using a two-roll system to said mobs every second in addition to pulsing a speed mod debuff, yet even if I were it's not like Blizzard has any problems with... well... Blizzard.

[Ratman_tf]

I rather disliked the phasing stuff. Partly because of the alternate reality feeling, and also because once you've tripped the quest flag and phased, the world goes back to being static again.
I also disliked the Wrathgate. It's a block of quest text wrapped up in a machinima wrapper. Bottom line is that I was still forced to take a break from playing the game in order to recieve a story infodump.
Generally, I was underwhelmed by the questing and storyline in Wrath as a whole. The only thing that kept me going was that after all the bullshit was over, I'd get back to raiding with my guild. That's what I'm paying 15 bucks a month for. Without raiding, I'd just quit and go offline single player and dream of the next sandbox MMOG.

[Fordel]

How do hate on Wrathgate?

[Tarami]

Sheepherder, I'll tell you this gently. Stop talking about things you clearly have no fucken clue of. You're talking about server design like someone who has built a Breakout clone might talk about rigid body dynamics. Lantyssa is, as far as I know, a chemist and appears to have twice the insight you do in general server architecture.

In short:

Anything that's calculated per actor = Bad (Why do you think collisons aren't server-side? It's just a distance check to an arbitrary plane, right?)

Anything that can be generalized across a large number of actors = Good

Ok, I'm done.

[Xanthippe]

How do hate on Wrathgate?

I don't get the Wrathgate hate.  I've only played through Alliance side, but I love it.

The phasing stuff is terrific, in my opinion.

Wrath has just knocked my socks off - but then, I'm a hardcore casual.  I don't raid much, preferring to go through zones when they're on farm status.  I like to sightsee through them.  Doing instances over and over again is not my idea of fun.  What I like to do is read the stories through the quests and explore through the zones.  Wrath has been superb.

[Draegan]

Cool article, terrible derail.

[Lantyssa]

Lantyssa is, as far as I know, a chemist and appears to have twice the insight you do in general server architecture.

Chemistry and Comp Sci, for what it's worth.  Though I've been programming since I was like ten, with an interest in design due to my MUD days.  Mind, there are people here who could crush me with their computer knowledge.

/informationalselfpromotion

[Merusk]

And yet the only job offers folks around here give you are as domestic help.

I think they're just trying to get you into a french maid's outfit.  Beware!

[Sheepherder]

Anything that's calculated per actor = Bad (Why do you think collisons aren't server-side? It's just a distance check to an arbitrary plane, right?)

Player geometry collision is already checked a second time by the server, though it's handled primarily by the client so that you don't get strange warping and shit.  Anyways...

1. The actual conditions used to determine whether or not something can be interacted with / seen are simple, being functionally identical to those employed to conceal path nodes, info actors, or triggers.
2. Toggling the proper flags on the mob only needs to happen once per spawned mob, thus the number of times the script actually needs to run is equal to the number of mobs that need to be killed.
3. The script that actually manages the flags can be attached to the player, the spawn point, a third actor placed in the vicinity tracking all the spawn points / mobs, or split up between any or all of three, possibly including the mob itself.  Of course, it could also be a global script, that would solve the "calculated per actor" problem, amirite?

Yes, we're trying to get Lan into a maid outfit, what does that have to do with anything?

EDIT: I'm going to stop fagging up this thread, honest.  Go inform yourself with a game editing tool or something.  I'd suggest tinkering with Warcraft III's "Combat - Targeted As" and "Combat - Attack # - Targets Allowed" settings in the object editor for a really simple GUI demonstration of what is effectively the same technology without the removal of visibility / collision.  There might be some associated triggers as well.

[Koyasha]

Player geometry collision is already checked a second time by the server, though it's handled primarily by the client so that you don't get strange warping and shit.

Except it's not.  That's why model editing your files allows you to bypass some parts of world geometry and is a major exploit.  The most well known instance of this was in AQ40 where people edited some files to be able to go directly to C'thun rather than go through the entire temple.  The only places where the server has extra checks for that are specific places like that where they really, really don't want you going.

[Sheepherder]

Except it's not.  That's why model editing your files allows you to bypass some parts of world geometry and is a major exploit.  The most well known instance of this was in AQ40 where people edited some files to be able to go directly to C'thun rather than go through the entire temple.  The only places where the server has extra checks for that are specific places like that where they really, really don't want you going.

I've died by falling 5 feet onto a roof in Dalaran after my computer lagged heavily after being dismounted.  You might be surprised at some of the shit that a terrible connection and a mediocre computer can reveal.

[Koyasha]

That's because falling damage is calculated by time spent in the air, not distance fallen.  If your computer lags and therefore thinks you spend more time in the air, you take more falling damage proportional to the amount of time you spent falling.  Essentially, since it assumes you're falling at X rate of speed, it doesn't have to keep track of the exact Z position you started and ended your fall at, simply the amount of time your status = falling.

[Tarami]

Guys and gals, I'm so, so sorry for SirBruce'ing this. But I can't help myself.


Carry on.

[K9]

wtf does all this crap have to do with quest design?

[pxib]

The more I think about it, the more ways I realize Blizzard's quest system works against grouping.

Multi-part quests frequently take you all over a zone, and occasionally all over the world. Zone-wide communication won't necessarily help you find a group, and asking in a a capital city or large guild isn't much better. Even if you find someone within your level range who's either one step before or one step beyond what you need to do, it could be half an hour before you're both on the same page. Then, finally in an ideal situation, the entire quest chain may take an hour to complete... with no time estimate beforehand and, if either of you have to leave early, the promise of starting this whole lousy process again.

Now I specified "within your level range" because the loot reward is usually at the very end... so you can out-level anything that requires a group, at which point the reward is worthless. Helping low level players might be socially satisfying, but in game terms it's a waste of time. Equally, grabbing somebody whose low level means they can't receive the quest will waste their time too.

The LFG system added with Burning Crusade made it possible to look for other people on specific (Group) tagged quests, but only if they'd reached that particular point in the chain and hadn't given up entirely and stopped looking. That's a relatively narrow window for any individual player, and really no more helpful than asking in [1. General]. By Burning Crusade, however, Blizzard had aimed for considerably more localized quest chains, less worldwide travel, and almost no world elites, and plenty of soloable rewards. From what I hear, Lich King hardly ever requires groups outside of instances.

The Future of WoW: Massively parallel solo gaming, punctuated by instance groups.

[Ratman_tf]

The Future of WoW: Massively parallel solo gaming, punctuated by instance groups.

Future? It's been this way since vanillia. I soloed and 5 manned (mostly soloed) up unti the end of BC. (With a short bit of raiding, but I was tagging along with my brother's guild, and I wasn't really as gung-ho for raiding as I am now.) I won't crap on people who enjoy single player MMOGing, but lately I'm just done with it. Single player offline is better suited to storytelling, and doesn't have a monthly fee.

[Tarami]

wtf does all this crap have to do with quest design?

Very little, I apologize for my wall of text. I was sleep deprived.

[Sheepherder]

wtf does all this crap have to do with quest design?

Phasing, wave of the future (or not), enough said.

[Lantyssa]

The Future of WoW: Massively parallel solo gaming, punctuated by instance groups.

What I would like to see is if you do a step of a quest, you get credit for it.  Within limits perhaps, your level doesn't matter, you don't necessarily have to talk to anyone to get credit, but the game recognizes you've completed that step.  Basically allow players to come and go as they please.  The game already tracks what quest you have or haven't done, so it's not that big a leap.

Of course this has problems, too.  How do you keep people from joining their buddies on doing just the last leg?  Do you block access to previous steps (it'd be confusing to work backwards) or give credit at completion for previous steps so advancement isn't halted?  Rewards could be more of a renown system which you trade in, but I still see this having troubles working in a level-based game.

It would certainly be difficult to revamp WoW to fit anything I can conceive of.

[Paelos]

Group quests in general that aren't bound to an instance need to go away. Those are pointless and frustrating for very little to no actual award, usually just a crappy blue that's sub to a dungeon item. A group quest that encourages you to try a dungeon is completely different because it rewards you for participation in an already defined group activity. Random elite bastards roaming around the areas of a zone do not. Those only serve the purpose of annoying you, and all your guild members you have to hassle to get them done, especially if you didn't level up with the first round of people who saw the expansion.

You shouldn't be encouraging grouping to do quests. Quests are by nature a way to level your character by yourself. To me, "group quests" are an oxymoron.

[pxib]

So why not eliminated group content entirely until the endgame? Why endTortage at 20? Go all the way to 80!

Would that make it harder to justify demanding a monthly fee for a one-player game with a chat client?

[Paelos]

So why not eliminated group content entirely until the endgame? Why endTortage at 20? Go all the way to 80!

Would that make it harder to justify demanding a monthly fee for a one-player game with a chat client?

There's nothing wrong with questing in groups. At times it can be hugely faster, but that's an honestly not the theme of most quests. They are there purely to advance your level in a fun way that's not grindy. Dungeons and raids are there purely to provide a fun challenge to advance your equipment. One can be solved almost exclusively solo, the other can only be solved in a group. Seperately they are fine, and I like doing them both.

Still, there are 8 group quests sitting in my quest log for Icecrown, just taking up space. I've run every dungeon and raid into the ground, and these quests are still around because I don't want to bother other people to get them done, and I've long since passed the need for any silly blue rewards they can provide. When I pick them up, I look for ANYTHING else I can do so I don't have to try and find other people for what would amount to a 5 minute task. It just seems to be a ridiculous waste of prep time for something that inconsequential.

[K9]

I'm not wholly against group quests, although I agree with Paelos' sentiment to an extent. I think group chests that are dumped midway through, or at the end of a solo quest chain are counter-intuitive. However, I think group quest chains where all the quests are group, and outdoor events like the ring of blood are a good thing.

The group quests mixed into a solo quest chain do feel like a cockblock, although the Group[2] quests are usually soloable by most competent players and the odd challenging mob which doesn't just fall over for you can be nice. The only exception are quest chains which lead you to a dungeon, and then the dungeon quest is implied to be a group one. These serve a useful purpose to both direct people to instances, set up some story, and offer a nice guaranteed instance-equivalent reward. These are a good thing.

Actually I wish they would add more level-80 quest chains associated to heroics and raids. I'm not advocating attunements (particularly of the kill end-boss X type); however the associated quest chains were fun to do. I particularly enjoyed doing the Kara and SSC/TK attunements, even after they ceased to be necessary as they offered interesting extensions to the level-80 game. These are the sole instance where mixing raid, group and solo quests into a single chain is acceptable in my view, as the raid requirement is implied, so you would not expect to solo all the elements.

[Tarami]

I like group quests as a change of pace, but I agree with what Paelos said. The overhead on doing them far exceeds the actual quest, even if you get boosted by a friend. Unless the reward is just silly for my level, I will likely not bother. In order for group quests to become effective as a tool for levelling, they'd have to pack lots of them into a small area so you can get ten done in an hour using the same group of people. But that's really just an un-instanced dungeon.

I really think WAR was onto something with PQs when it comes to grouping. Don't make it about Influence, but make group quests act the same way. First wave should be normal mobs that can be soloed and are quest mobs for another solo quest. Then a couple of easy waves of elites that can't easily be soloed, but done with 2 or 3 people and finally a boss that gives a nice XP reward and the chance at some sweet loot. I would like to see open-ended group quests of that sort. With some creativity you can make escort quests and what not.

[pxib]

There's nothing wrong with questing in groups. At times it can be hugely faster, but that's an honestly not the theme of most quests. They are there purely to advance your level in a fun way that's not grindy. Dungeons and raids are there purely to provide a fun challenge to advance your equipment.

Well sure, but apparently it comes at the cost of quality storytelling, quest design, and even the illusion of impact on the game world. Heck... let people play the single-player portion with their friends! You can always pop into somebody else's timeline and play along from wherever they are. Trading would be disallowed, and money and gear drops wouldn't come from mobs (making loot entirely quest based), and the whole thing can run client-side, only alerting the server when particular quests are completed and items are earned, bought, or sold. If people want to cheat, it's their loss! They'll just have had a shallower experience by the time they hit the MULTIPLAYER RAID ENDGAME.

[Paelos]

I don't understand at what point your rant has anything to do with the mechanic of non-dungeon, non-chained group questing. How do random group quests make the game deeper? How does having the random quest boss be an elite asshole that takes 5 people to kill have anything to do with the storyline or design that a soloable boss couldn't provide?

[pxib]

I'm just trying to understand why adding optional multiplayer to a mediocre single-player game with shallow, largely identical quests and lots of travel time makes it worth $15 a month. I agree that the way Blizzard implemented group quests was abysmal -- I had a whole post about that -- but eliminating all non-instanced group content seems a bit short-sighted. Random grouping is THE way I meet new people online, and the new people you meet online are largely what makes these games sticky. Unless quests encourage random grouping (or at least fail to punish you for it) then people are only going to meet new people in instance PUGs.

In my general experience, that was too late.

[Lantyssa]

The random people I meet definately aren't what keeps me playing.  My guild does that.