Seamless or Zoned ?

[tommynj]

Well according to GW2 wiki Guild Wars 2 will be introducing a persistent world outside of dungeons and missions. Though we have yet to find out wether the world outside will be zoned or seamless ? Which would you prefer and why ?

[Nochtflamir]

Seamless is a nice concept, but zoned is more efficient bandwidth and memory-wise. I personally would like to see seamless because it makes the game more immersive, I hate load screens and have a fairly decent internet connection, but there are still a lot of people on sub-standard internet connections, so zoned would probably be the best bet all around.

[kookkamajunga]

I like persistent games. Right now in GW, when I go out with henches and heroes, I get the feeling of crickets chirping.

MMO's are about interaction with others, and instanced games definitely aren't as interactive. Especially when there is such a good alternative to people (heros, henches). 90% of the game can be done solo and imo, that isn't how a MMO should be laid out.

Don't get me wrong, I love GW, but the instanced system has always bugged me.

I probably interacted with more people when I used to play Runescape back in the day than I have in all my years of GW.

[Brodly]

I'd go for zoned, because of the kill stealing you see in other MMORPG's. For example: how are you going to farm a popular spot with 1000 others doing the same.

[kookkamajunga]

I'd go for zoned, because of the kill stealing you see in other MMORPG's. For example: how are you going to farm a popular spot with 1000 others doing the same.

No one said it had to be COMPLETELY persistent. Popular boss spots could be instanced. I believe thats what they do in lotro.

[Sunbane]

I think we're confusing zones with instances here. There's a difference:

The game could very well consist of non-instanced map zones that would allow for more than one party in each zone, much like how the outposts work in GW1.

A seamless world on the other hand, would be one where the next map loads in the background, and you never really notice the switchover from one map to the next. It could still be instanced like GW1 without any problems.

I have never really played any games with seamless map-switching, but I think it would be a cool thing to see in GW2.

As for instancing vs non-instancing; I believe the explorable areas in GW2 will have a mix of both (much like the current outposts, where you have a varying number of districts depending on how many people are on). At least that's how I've interpreted the info gathered from the early GW2 interviews with ANet.

[sorudo]

I'd go for zoned, because of the kill stealing you see in other MMORPG's. For example: how are you going to farm a popular spot with 1000 others doing the same.
it's gonna be like GW, but there are other groups you can see.
but because they already know about kill stealer's, they don't allow to much ppl in one area, more likely around 6 groups and that's it.

[Akirai Annuvil]

Seamless. I don't really seem any redeeming features to a zoned persistent world, besides it being obviously cheaper. Therefore, if at all possible within the f2p model, I'd far prefer seamless.
[..]
but because they already know about kill stealer's, they don't allow to much ppl in one area, more likely around 6 groups and that's it.
Source?

[Jair of the Forest]

Seamless and, except for Towns and Ouposts, nearly entirely empty (as in no players). :grin:

Not that that is possible but that gives me the feeling that the world is actually huge = realistic.

[GWartinox]

I think seamless would be cool in some areas.. Outposts should be seamless with the explorable areas hence a real outpost, while cities and towns can be cut off from that. But i think seamless would be a nice change to GW.

Look me up on GW my name is Sir Artinox.

[sorudo]

Source?
pc gameplay magazine.:wink:

[Ace Bear]

Could you link that or something because that one article counters like 12 others.

[JasonLa]

You can have seamless zones. There have been games in the past and even in the present where only so much of the world is loaded at once. When you reach a certain point you cross over to the new zone but without realizing it. By dividing up the world into these seamless zones you get the seamlessness without the entire world being loaded or huge parts of it being loaded. Basically a radious around your character is loaded initially and as you move a certain distance away from you is preloaded up so that seamlessness is maintained while bandwidth, memory and system resources are handled efficiently. By definition a persistent world is seamless otherwise its not a persistent world and you would have how GW1 was done. Some newer games handle this very well.

[KyppDuron]

it's gonna be like GW, but there are other groups you can see.
but because they already know about kill stealer's, they don't allow to much ppl in one area, more likely around 6 groups and that's it.

I've never read anything like this.

btw, oblivion has seamless zones, for anyone who might still be confused.

[Balan Makki]

I want Zones that load seamlessly so you never see a loading screen, unless you choose to enter an instance.

This is how most MMOs do it, if you begin to near a new zone, then the client prepares to load it in when you near the zone barrier. The server loads in what it needs to simultaneously. See WoW and many other MMOs.

I'd also like to see all persistent areas available as instanced areas as well. . quests, missions, exploration, farming. . .

So I guess my answer is Both, I want both, via instancing and Seamless Zones.

[Akirai Annuvil]

pc gameplay magazine.:wink:
Just checked the PCG. Didn't find anything relating to the topic except for this analogy:
[..]"A persistent world doesn't alter much," he [Jeff Strain] says. "It's oversimplifying of course, but really, instead of 8 instances with 100 people in them it's like one with 800 people in it."[..]
Page36, PC Gamer Mag
As it's an analogy I don't find it conclusive proof either way, but as a lead it directly contradicts your previous statement.

[sorudo]

then i wonder why there are 2 sides, that's pc gamers, not pc gameplay :wink:

[Bergil Sunfyre]

Zoned

If there are zones, everywhere must be in a named zone
If everywhere is named, they must live up to their names, or at least try. At the vary least, "such-and-such plains" must be plains "thingamajig canyons" must be canyons).
If places have to live up to their names, there will be variety loads of variety.

a "seamless" world runs the risk of entire regions looking the same.

[JasonLa]

a "seamless" world runs the risk of entire regions looking the same.

As long as the environment designers do as good a job if not better as they did with the variety of looks in GW1's environments we will not even have to remotely worry about that. I think they really will go all out and make our exploration of the world be jaw dropping as we go. I don't think we will ever go such and such place looks just like such and such other place. From building architecture, to climate zone, to wildlife and the hostiles we meet I think we will be pleased with how things will look. Remember too that their reputation as a game company are on the line with the design of this game. That is reason enough to give it 1,000% effort to make it a huge success.

[Bergil Sunfyre]

aye, a seamless world COULD torn out to be varied. All I said was that I believe a zoned world is much more likely to be varied. And as much as I trust ArenaNet, I will not let that prevent me from taking precautions.

Zones and zone names, for me, defined much of the Guild Wars style of world. Maybe you don't find this, but I really think it helped.

[lmaonade]

it shouldnt be fully seamless, a mix, mostly zoned, would be ideal for players like me who have sub-par internet connections and average graphics (although i dunno if graphics have to do with anything, i guess it would have to load more in the background since everything is weaved into one giant map).

nvm, i lied, i have a fairly fast internet connection. but i dunno if my comp can run it up to standards cause its a dual-core, 2gb ram labtop with an intel graphics media accelerator 950 card >.>, i believe has 256mb memory, so i dunno if i will be able to run the game smoothly.

[Sunbane]

When you think about it, the big difference between seamless and zoned, is just the way how the maps load (pre-loading a little at a time, vs. loading it all at once). I don't think there's any greater risk of maps looking alike with seamless as opposed to zoned.

Zones and zone names, for me, defined much of the Guild Wars style of world. Maybe you don't find this, but I really think it helped.

I think I see your point. The good things about having loading screens, is that you become distinctly aware of what the area is called. This makes a good reference to use when talking about the game with other players.

I can see how a seamless landscape might make it more difficult to determine exactly what area you're in;
"Hey wait! We're supposed to look for 'Village X' in 'Province Y'? Is that where we are now? Where are we heading?"

[JasonLa]

Typically in a persistent world where you are at is shown below the radar. And typically follows similar style to how areas are named in GW1. Basically if you can imagine GW1 without the seams at the protals and imagine crossing the lines where the portals were. When you do so the label below your radar updates to indicate the name of that area. But instead of getting a loading screen you continue walking because the world is persistent. Obviously as stated before and elsewhere the world will be designed with a much greater freedom of movement and will likely also be of a greater virtual square footage.