Curse

Meat Axe · Mar 17, 2007, 02:44 AM // 02:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenO_Under

I translated the инстансовой word using google translater and got instansova which might mean instances which might mean they're removing instances

I hope they don't remove instances. Isn't the whole of the instances to reduce the load on their servers? And as I understand it, this reduced load is a lot cheaper, and so it enables the company to not go broke without monthly fees. With no instances comes a much more expensive server, which may mean the introduction of fees.

Also, I like the instances. I have no one stealing my kills, I have a choice to play on my own or not. Also, there's almost no lag.

But that article does read an awful lot like the Inquirer one, so I think we'll have to wait for PC Gamer to reach subscribers (I was hoping that would have happened by today) to be sure on any of the information.

sindex · Mar 17, 2007, 02:50 AM // 02:50

However if the magazine does not come in tomorrow, we have to wait till Monday to get it. U.S. post officials hvae Sundays off.

The Ernada · Mar 17, 2007, 02:51 AM // 02:51

Well from my understand of reading that article, there will still be instances but they'll be limited to missions/quests. It seems that the game world itself isnt instanced. So no more multiple districts of outposts? And more of a feeling that it's an actual world now?

Meat Axe · Mar 17, 2007, 02:56 AM // 02:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Ernada

Well from my understand of reading that article, there will still be instances but they'll be limited to missions/quests. It seems that the game world itself isnt instanced. So no more multiple districts of outposts? And more of a feeling that it's an actual world now?

Yeah, that's one of the good things about no instances. More realistic game world. As long as it doesn't lead to monthly fees, I think that it'll be good.

Scutilla · Mar 17, 2007, 02:56 AM // 02:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lotrfish

She said some was right, some was wrong and quite a bit was misleading. The Russian thing doesn't seem to show anything wrong from the original article and nothing seems misleading.

Unless the Inquirer and Igromania got their info from the same source, which was itself partially right, partially wrong, and partially misleading.

Yaga Philipe · Mar 17, 2007, 03:00 AM // 03:00

I hoping and thinking that at least California will get PCG tomorrow.

Sectus · Mar 17, 2007, 03:09 AM // 03:09

GW:EN the final chapter of GW1? GW2 will be non-instanced?

I'm getting a bad feeling about all this

Jaythen Tyradel · Mar 17, 2007, 03:15 AM // 03:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sectus

GW:EN the final chapter of GW1? GW2 will be non-instanced?

I'm getting a bad feeling about all this

I wouldn't be worrying until it is offically said by Anet or read in the PC gamer magazine..which ever you get the info from first.

Rhedd · Mar 17, 2007, 03:31 AM // 03:31

Breaking news!

An obscure source from Indonesia states that the next installment of Guild Wars will completely remove everything that made the game unique and successful! It'll be great!

Yeah...

MAN will I be happy when that stupid magazine arrives. The forums are so boring these days.

Zonzai · Mar 17, 2007, 03:45 AM // 03:45

ROFL

Rhedd! I like you. And not in that funny, 'we might be cousins but we like eachother' way either.

sindex · Mar 17, 2007, 03:55 AM // 03:55

Hey there is nothing wrong with a shot in the dark. Considering other games are hogging the press lately. Hopefully the new news about GW will bring the developer company some brand new attention.

Scutilla · Mar 17, 2007, 04:20 AM // 04:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhedd

Breaking news!

An obscure source from Indonesia states that the next installment of Guild Wars will completely remove everything that made the game unique and successful! It'll be great!

Yeah...

That made me giggle

I have to disagree with you, though- the forums haven't been this interesting in weeks, due to both the rampant speculation and "oh noes"ing, and the silly sarcastic comments like yours

Rhedd · Mar 17, 2007, 04:46 AM // 04:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zonzai

ROFL

Rhedd! I like you. And not in that funny, 'we might be cousins but we like eachother' way either.

Thanks, but what if it turns out that we ARE cousins? 0_0

DutchGun · Mar 17, 2007, 05:07 AM // 05:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meat Axe

I hope they don't remove instances. Isn't the whole of the instances to reduce the load on their servers? And as I understand it, this reduced load is a lot cheaper, and so it enables the company to not go broke without monthly fees. With no instances comes a much more expensive server, which may mean the introduction of fees.

Also, I like the instances. I have no one stealing my kills, I have a choice to play on my own or not. Also, there's almost no lag.

But that article does read an awful lot like the Inquirer one, so I think we'll have to wait for PC Gamer to reach subscribers (I was hoping that would have happened by today) to be sure on any of the information.

I'm not so sure that makes any sense to me - reducing server load? So instead of a dozen instances with hundreds of players in each, they've got hundreds of instances with dozens of players in each. Seems like it would work out to roughly the same load (with the caveat that large numbers of entities does take up more bandwidth per client - but that's not much different than large numbers of enemies, which they already do). And how would it be any different than what we'd already see in towns and outposts (except obviously weapons would be enabled).

I've always thought that GW worked this way purely for design reasons. I'll bet they could adapt their current technology pretty easily to have fully persistent areas. But it's the game mechanics that would really take the most time to work out, I think.

Even if they do have shared areas, I doubt very much they'd lose instances altogether. It seems like some marriage between the two would produce a pretty sexy game - so long as it remained monthly-fee-free, of course.

MirageMaster · Mar 17, 2007, 05:51 AM // 05:51

Well, i am happy that GWEN will be in charr therretory.Hope shapeshifters will be able to do the wolf thingy too,werewolfe ruled in D2.

Deagol · Mar 17, 2007, 05:52 AM // 05:52

Dynamic instances allows you to balance the load better on multiple machines, and is a key to make Guild Wars a good business even with no monthly fee. No monthly fee was not a last minute decision, it was decided early on, and the whole game was designed around that requirement.

Persistent areas could not be done with the current GW technology, and it could not be done economically with no monthly fee using traditional MMORPG technology, so if ArenaNet dreams of persistent areas with no monthly fee, they will have to invent something new.

Cacheelma · Mar 17, 2007, 06:13 AM // 06:13

If you can't imagine how instance would save bandwidth, think about this:

In a large area with a lot of people, player A casts a spell. The server will have to send such information to EVERYONE near player A (Probably more than 10 players. It could be less, but it also could be A LOT MORE). Now, if more than one players are casting a spell at that moment, I think you can do the maths.

Now, in the case of an instance area, the maximum number of players that the server will have to send such information to would be around 11 (in Elite PvE areas) or something less than 70 (in the case of a HoH match, which is the only case right now that such number could reach pass 20).

See the differences? The number of instances on the server doesn't really increase much bandwidth usage since the data to be sent to each player at any given moment are a lot lot less.

ynot · Mar 17, 2007, 06:30 AM // 06:30

as some one states the Russian article does not contains a lot of new info , it actually explicitly says that nearly all of what they say about chp4 was already publish on the net
BUT this article confirm what was said by the inq : confirm as in official. Now as you said and as it is written this is only a teaser for the full article they will publish.

it confirm that GW EotN will be the last
it states that W EotN will play in the Ascalon region (and that we will start to see norns and asura)
it sates that GW 2 will have playable race (5) that there will be shape changer , more interaction with the environment ( i heard this song before ie for GW1) that it will take place around ascalon , and some stuff about group and dynamic quest..

of course wait for a full artcile to get more..but if you tire of waiting for NC little arrangements with the press its better than nothing

Cacheelma · Mar 17, 2007, 06:38 AM // 06:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynot

as some one states the Russian article does not contains a lot of new info , it actually explicitly says that nearly all of what they say about chp4 was already publish on the net
BUT this article confirm what was said by the inq : confirm as in official. Now as you said and as it is written this is only a teaser for the full article they will publish.

it confirm that GW EotN will be the last
it states that W EotN will play in the Ascalon region (and that we will start to see norns and asura)
it sates that GW 2 will have playable race (5) that there will be shape changer , more interaction with the environment ( i heard this song before ie for GW1) that it will take place around ascalon , and some stuff about group and dynamic quest..

of course wait for a full artcile to get more..but if you tire of waiting for NC little arrangements with the press its better than nothing

How do you know they don't just copy what the INQ said?

And where is the part that said "This is official info from Anet" in this so-called Russian article?

maket · Mar 17, 2007, 07:25 AM // 07:25

Looks like GW slowly becoming a WOW clone. Sad news indeed.