Dynamic Layers

Eldurian

This is an interesting subject I've seen brought up within other discussions a couple times this week so I figured it could use it's own thread. 

A dynamic layer is when an area of the world is broken into separate layers that can each support a set number of players. For instance if each layer allows 100 players in the zone and there is 100 players in the zone, the next player who logs on will log into a new version of that zone populated by the overflow from the first zone, and if there are over 200 players a third zone will be made etc. Either that or there are a set number of layers that players are distributed through per a different system. It varies a bit but the consistent theme is multiple copies of a zone of which at least one copy is always in existence. 

Elder Scrolls Online is a game well known for doing this, Guild Wars 1 did this in towns, Star Citizen is apparently planning to do this, and LotRO has apparently done this to some areas now.

So here are a few points for discussion.

1. What do you think of dynamic layers? Do you like them, dislike them, or something inbetween?

2. Would you classify a dynamic layered area as Open World, as an instance, or as something entirely new / outside those definitions?

3. Would a game that is fully broken up into dynamic layers (Such as Elder Scrolls Online or Star Citizen) support your definition of an MMO or what conditions would it need to meet to satisfy your definition of an MMO?

For once, while I have some thoughts, I have no especially strong opinions either way on the subject. So I'll let other people get the debate started.

Vrika

GW2 does it: Overflow servers
WoW does it: Sharding
SWTOR does it: World instances

Personally I think it's good tool when used correctly.

RexKushman

It all depends on the type of game. For PVE it is the most preferred method IMO, there is nothing worse in a PVE game than going into a town and every jackass on the server is parked in front of the auction house or mailboxes. Then there is the mobs out in the world being unkillable because an area is flooded with people all rushing to get a hit in. 

For PVP i don't like it, I prefer just a server population cap because you're supposed to be playing against the other players. That's hard to do when they are bouncing around different instances trying to avoid a fight.

cameltosis

In the method you have described (layers being determined and spawned based on number of players), I am 99% against it. 

In my opinion, if you're building a Massively Multiplayer Online game, it should, you know, support massively-multiplayer numbers. If your engine cannot handle lots of people, you've failed. If you've designed your game where lots of people kills the enjoyment, you've failed. Segregation, which is what "layers" are, is a proven negative force within our world so I am almost totally against it within my MMOs. 

The exception is when you start approaching common sense limits. There comes a point where the tradeoff between number of players, lag and graphics becomes untenable and trying to increase the number of players just results in such lag or low quality graphics that your playerbase drops. This being the MMO genre, i feel 250 people should be the minimum, but preferably 500+. If your game can't support 250 people standing in a town using the AH, you've definitely chosen the wrong engine to build an MMO. 


Now, when you first said "dynamic layering" (which is just instancing, don't give it fancy words to make it seem better!), my first thought was of phasing, something which WoW and LotRO use. 

Phasing, as I understand it, is where you have different instances of a zone based on progression through the story. So, for example, you start as a newbie and see your first village, which is fully built and full of NPCs. Everyone else at the same stage as you sees the same village. But, then you do a quest which destroys the village. From then on, you see instance number 2, with a burnt out village and few NPCs. You can no longer see the players in instance 1, because they are in a different phase. 

I am ambivalent about phasing. I can appreciate it's use in helping with the story telling, but it is still a form of segregation so still has a negative impact. It has the benefit in that everyone eventually ends up in the same place, so the segregation is only temporary, but it can still be a pain earlier, especially if there are group quests only available to those in the earlier phase. 

I would still much prefer a world where we're all in the same virtual world and actions made are reflected by everyone. E.g. if that village gets destroyed for one, it gets destroyed for all. 

Eldurian

Dynamic layers are certainly worth their own term as the one thing I will say about them is they are more than just a regular instance. Your traditional instance is very small, very temporary and for a set purpose. 6 people enter the the dungeon, which creates the instance, they play through and leave, then the instance is deleted. 20 people queue for arena PvP which creates the instance, they play though and leave, then the instance is deleted.

By contrast dynamic layers 10 to be far larger and aren't created / deleted for any specific group of players. Plus at least one layer is fully persistent. 

Where this has serious implications is gameplay. One of the big things I keep throwing own when people ask "Why do you enjoy MMOs?" "Why do you enjoy Open World PvP?" is the answer of "random encounters with other players." The idea that you and your buddies can be out doing things and then boom, another group of players you weren't expecting to run into.

This isn't possible in traditional instances, nor is it possible in a traditional multiplayer game like Diablo or LoL. However it is still possible in dynamic layers.

Then again for those who say they love large group PvP the question is, are the dynamic layers small enough to prevent the kind of mass scale EVEesque battles they want? This could still be a major issue from them and prevent them from getting what they would get in a traditional MMO/Open World setting.

So I am unsure how we would classify fully dynamic layered worlds such as ESO, and while in a strictly technical sense I would say it's an instance and you could only consider it an MMO if each instance has a player cap in the hundreds or thousands... it's also worth noting that it satisfies the most important aspects of what I look for in an MMO and Open World PvP. 

So while I would draw a technical distinction, it's one that doesn't matter greatly to me as a player.

waynejr2

City of Heroes had that at release.  I remember seeing Atlas Park 1 - 6 on opening day.

Loke666

My experience is that it works well as long as you have mechanics that makes the whole party join the same shard.

The real advanatges is when a game just releases, adds an expansion or have some kind of event in a zone. Other games add queues for that or in the release case adds way too many servers that will feel empty 6 weeks after launch.

In a perfect world you would have thousands of players in the same zone with no lagg... But we will have to live with this for a while yet instead.

laxie

The big positive is the ability to balance changes in player activity. Most AAA games follow the infamous pattern of huge player numbers on release date, dropping to 10-20% within two months. Dynamic layers let you keep the number of players you play with constant. If the world instance supports 100 players, you don't really care if there is 100.000 players or 5.000 players, as long as there is enough to fill your instance.

Open world, in my opinion, has nothing to do with instancing. It simply means that at any point in time, you can freely travel between multiple areas in the game world. Even single-player games can be "open world". Skyrim is a good example.

The key distinction is a persistent interaction with the environment. This is the ability to destroy an orc hut in an area called "The Black Forest", returning in a day and seeing it destroyed as a result of your actions. Dynamic layers usually make this impossible, as there may be 20 different  (but same) Black Forests. Returning after a longer period of time connects you to a different Black Forrest, based on population - this is the key idea of Dynamic Layers. Unique player housing (plot in an area belonging to only one player) is also not practical for this reason.

I think most people who say MMOs with 100 players aren't MMOs don't actually care about numbers, but about the ability to persistently influence (or own) their environment. If you had a game with 50 players who all relied on each other in a small village, you'd have much more of a MMO than something like present day World of Warcraft.

Loke666

laxie said:

The big positive is the ability to balance changes in player activity. Most AAA games follow the infamous pattern of huge player numbers on release date, dropping to 10-20% within two months. Dynamic layers let you keep the number of players you play with constant. If the world instance supports 100 players, you don't really care if there is 100.000 players or 5.000 players, as long as there is enough to fill your instance.

Open world, in my opinion, has nothing to do with instancing. It simply means that at any point in time, you can freely travel between multiple areas in the game world. Even single-player games can be "open world". Skyrim is a good example.

The key distinction is a persistent interaction with the environment. This is the ability to destroy an orc hut in an area called "The Black Forest", returning in a day and seeing it destroyed as a result of your actions. Dynamic layers usually make this impossible, as there may be 20 different  (but same) Black Forests. Returning after a longer period of time connects you to a different Black Forrest, based on population - this is the key idea of Dynamic Layers. Unique player housing (plot in an area belonging to only one player) is also not practical for this reason.

I think most people who say MMOs with 100 players aren't MMOs don't actually care about numbers, but about the ability to persistently influence (or own) their environment. If you had a game with 50 players who all relied on each other in a small village, you'd have much more of a MMO than something like present day World of Warcraft.

Actually, the orc hut thing is pretty easy to do if you use phasing as well. All things like that will be made in a whole and destroyed way, if it is destroyed for you the game will show it that way.

The disadvantage is that you will see players fighting invisible orcs around the burnt hut.

If you just have a couple of destroyable things in each zone you could possible puzzle so that there are seperate layers for everyone with the same conditions as you but you probably can't have more then 3 or so destroyable objects then.

Phasing is a great mechanic if you use it carefully and it can make the world feel more interactive but if you overuse it we get the problems ESO had at launch (they have fixed that since). You probably shouöd hide people that interact with the destroyed object though.

Say that a bridge have been razed so you can't walk it, then you shouldn't see people walking on air either where it used to be.

Phasing probably works best if you mix it up with DE chains so some objects will be rebuilt for the entire zone while others will stay destroyed.

Jemcrystal

I swear I glanced at this title and saw, "Dynamic Lovers."  Thought this was going to be a thread on artificially intelligent npc erp.