Are We A MMO?

Well that is WHAT this thread is asking, is it not?

 

There are set definitions already.

 

Show me.

 

SotA can have a massive playerbase. Must be an MMO. You win if that's you definition. Playerbase isn't the only criteria though. But I get it, you want MMO to mean any game that is online with a very large player base. So be it. What you end up with is not productive and carries expectations that pigeon hole the direction of the game.

This is where people like @Lord_Darkmoon have a very strong argument. "SotA is an MMO we have to expect crappy collection quests and horrific grinds."

Welcome to SotA MMO, it's not one but that's the what we are getting. Even though we should be getting more. Run with that MMO label and that's all we will get.

 

Keep in mind, for the sake of clarification, I'm not claiming that the game is sending packets at every frame. I'm saying it can only send or receive data (and react to that data) before it draws a frame. So if the server is telling the client "player X moved at Y location" and the client isn't done drawing the first frame, it won't compute the information given until it's ready to draw the next frame.

Dynamic objects have an impact but, aside from that, I'm not part of Albion's dev team but I can certainly make some educated guesses:

[1] World of Warcraft has a single character model (per race) that includes every possible shape for armour variant and just displays/hides whatever piece of armour a particular player is wearing. So, like, if you load an Orc player, you have loaded every other possible Orc that might encounter in the area... regardless if it's a player or NPC. Albion Online has a very simple set of equipment so it's most likely working the same way (to keep things mobile friendly as its super easy on memory). Each TYPE of equipment has about 8 variants each.

A particular item could be decomposed of a few elements:

• Type: "heavy armour", "sword", "shield", etc.
• Tier: it goes from 1 to 8.
• Quality: "regular", "exquisite", etc
• Durability: from 0 to 1.0f
• Name of crafter.

That's pretty much it. Each item has a pre-determined set of values so it makes it really easy to send that kind of data as opposed to unique and varied (crafted) equipment. In Albion, if you make a "Good Quality Adept Sword", it's like any other good quality adept swords out there... you print your name on it and you're done.

Now, you could save a LOT of time if that data is sent DURING loading time. The scene you're loading is most likely from data stored locally (which is already really small; the entire game in total is 3gb in size) so most of what you need is player information. Server could stream data from any new player they come across... the game might not even wait until it gets every info before drawing the characters on the screen as the quality or durability of the item doesn't influence how the item looks. What does an "Tier 4 Cloth hat" looks like? Done! I'll worry about the nuances later.

Resource nodes in the world has two states (like SotA) but they're static in the world (aka: not randomized) and always regenerate at a pre-determined pace... so the logic for that is probably stupid simple. If it's being tracked by using Coroutines, then there's most likely a cap like "if there's too many coroutines tracking nodes, stop a coroutine (force refresh the resources) on the oldest coroutine and start a new one" so that the server doesn't overload itself. It tracks how many units of a resources it has per node and I'm pretty sure those packets have low priorities. That's probably why everyone can mine at the same node even though only one player will come out on top with the resources.

So that's one thing.

[2] The game also has a low amount of skills that players can use at any given time. Like a MOBA, it has about 5 buttons (7 of you count food and potions) and has very little math to compute the damage output.

"Do [action] with [item] at [target] and add [proficiency level] bonus"

There's no combos, no skill XP pool, no validation to determine whenever or not you can use a cloth armour skill with a heavy armour... .because the skills are associated with the equipment you wear. So if you hack the game, lets say, and fool the server into thinking that you have light armour when you're actually wearing heavy, the ability that you're going to launch is going to be whatever that's associated with the light armour.

Wherever your target it, the server will make your character move to pull it off. It's tab-targeting at its basic form.

The entire game was designed with a sort of (K)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid mindset which saves the server from cross-referencing and double-checking everything.

[4] NPCs don't have dialogue. They don't move. If they do move, they move to a player and have a very simple path-finding logic that doesn't have to deal with elevation. You can't jump on a rock in Albion. You can't jump at all. Hit-detection in 2D space is a lot simpler to do and the hit-boxes for all objects are really, really simple... meaning the AI (including the player's path-finding) will find the "correct" path a lot sooner (at the cost of immersion) which lightens the load on the server. Anything you do to alleviate the workload on the server, the better.

I'm just guessing.

 

1 is lonely
2 is a relation
3 is a party

(nevermind)

 

You don't have Google to look up definitions?

 

Thats not my intent. You didnt read the thread. MMO's started way back in the 90s and there were limitations on how many could be on a server at a time. So, what we can do now and call massively was not the same back then. However, the term was made back then and those lower numbers by today's standards were considered "massively" multiplayer online games. Do some research first please... at least a little.

 

Proper debate etiquette puts the responsibility of someone claiming something exists to show the proof. I said there wasn't a concrete definition, so therefore, there would be nothing to show.

However, let's look at Wikipedia:

"A massively multiplayer online game (MMOG or MMO) is an online game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players, typically from hundreds to thousands, simultaneously in the same instance (or world)"

What's the cutoff to consider a game 'massively multiplayer?' What is the 'large number of players?' 100? 500? 1000? Also, keep in mind it says 'typical' meaning there could be outliers. That doesn't look concrete to me. It's all fuzzy.

 

Fair enough, but if you are to engage in on something and make the claim that it is NOT or there is NOT... then the least you can do is to look it up before saying so, right? Proper etiquette and all that. So, don't just stop with wiki's, use dictionaries as well (not Urban). Even The Random House Dictionary lists the term MMO from the 1990-1995 range, though I don't know of any sources prior to the 1995 Dale Addink one, but they may have sources I haven't seen. So as said above, the terminology for what is considered massively today was not the same in the 90s. So it could be anything from 100+ to the large numbers seen in games such as WoW. But, the minimum wouldnt matter here because we are way above the minimums for the term started in the 90s here in SotA.

 

You've stated 30 vs 30 is an MMO by definition.

This definition does not support your claim. This definition is the one I go by and it does support my claims.

First we get real loose with the definition by lowering the qualifications to make things massive. Then we get even more loose with the definition of simultaneously in the same instance. Now we have SotA as an MMO. First Person Shooters are MMOs. RTS are MMOs. MOBAs are MMOs It's all about potential playerbase and not actual playerbase.

 

Noooo.... Stop trying to cherry pick your way through this and stop being so irrational. You said, "So a FPS with 1 lobby and thousands of 30 vs 30 battle ground maps is a MMO?", which means at least 120,000 players online playing the same game interacting with at least 59 other people at a time with this scenario. So yeah, that is a massively multiplayer online game by the very definition that came out in the 90s.

You really need to research the subject before yammering away on a forum thread about it. You're just making yourself look ill informed. The definition was not set by today's standards and then twisted to encompass smaller games of the past. It was started in the 90s with what was considered massively back then and from thereon the numbers have been growing in the capacity for most MMOs. SotA still fits into that description no matter how much you dislike it.

Also, you need to brush up on your gaming. There are plenty of games out there that can be considered an MMO. Never heard of the FPS game Destiny? Plenty of stuff out there. Maybe check out MMORPG.com sometime. Its a site for most MMOs and MMORPGs.

 

Once again with this example. You can't see the difference which is why you think I am uninformed. Once you do see where the line is drawn maybe you will get it.

A lobby with 1,000,000,000 players filling 30 vs 30 instances does not make an MMO. Yes, that's a massive playerbase. But, that massive playerbase doesn't fit the rest of the definition.

Ignore the lobby, that's not a game. Put a small portion of those players into a persistent world. 1,000 players spread across several zones. Even with an instance caps there is still a possibility of interaction. Here we have 1,000 players living in a game. Not playing their individual LAN party hosted by the game developers instead of their basement. If each zone can only handle 100 players then they are instanced off. The pool of potential players comes from within the game.

I didn't pop into the MMO industry yesterday. I have been here since before UO. I've watched the definition get brutalized by games like WoW where they have instanced the game down to 40 > 25 > 20 > 10 > 5 players. And I've seen gamers go as far as you have and simply looked at the playerbase size and not how those players actually get grouped together.

The OP asked if SotA can be called an MMO. The answer is yes. SotA does fit the label but only loosely. SotA is also a lot more than that label defines even when used in the most strict form.

 

Ignoring all the fluff.... if you finally agree it's an MMO or MMORPG, why are you still arguing against it? No one said it could not be more than one label.

 

Well this is also almost exactly in line with my guess, and you've explained it brilliantly. Thank you, I'm sure that will reach someone up there and its the very reason these types of threads should not be stopped.

 

We just want to disagree with you, actually, so notify us if you change your mind

 

I think I will pin that on my wall

 

At least you admit you are just trolling.

 

What is MMO?
Wiki says:
A massively multiplayer online game (MMOG or MMO) is an online game which is capable of supporting large numbers of players, typically from hundreds to thousands, simultaneously in the same instance (or world).
The source is techopedia and the definition changed slightly to:
A massively multiplayer online game (MMOG) refers to videogames that allow a large number of players to participate simultaneously over an internet connection.


I would like to point out few things:

• There is not a single definition of what is "large number of players". Most traditional multiplayer games were usually capped at 8, 16, or 32 players so anything beyond that used to be quite exceptional (64, 128 or even 256 players are being more common limits these days though still most multiplayer games have smaller numbers of supported players in one map). I know some people think that massive means more than thousand players, but for me it is really more than what the average multiplayer game allows.
• Both definition include words such as "capable of supporting" or "allow", which implies that the game needs to be capable of supporting large number of players in the game at the same time, but even when the number is small it is still MMO if it is capable of supporting more players.
• Both definition do not insist on those players being actually in the single instance. First one allows for the world "(or world)", the second just states "participate simultaneously" without specifying what is meant by participation.
• Both definitions are very loose, which is needed because MMOs are very different games, from WoW to Trackmania.

 

@Net

I agree. I just would like to add that people need to understand that when the terminology came out in the 90s it certainly would fit the above descriptions. Just because today's standards are higher doesn't mean the definition changed. We would have to nix a lot of early MMO's from the list if we did.