|
[In this much-referenced technical piece originally published in Game Developer magazine late last year, the team behind idiosyncratic MMO success EVE Online discusses precisely why sharing a single world between all of its players makes sense.]
Most of the larger massively multiplayer online games use separate instances, or shards, of the game's universe in order to manage player populations and server issues. We feel that a single shard should be the natural choice of any MMO developer, and that's what we do with EVE Online.
When you ask the question "Why a single-sharded architecture?" it's also informative to look at the deeper question: "Why have shards?" There are two main reasons why a developer chooses a sharded implementation of a game -- lack of content and technical challenges. These are actually inter-related.
Content
Most current MMOs take place in environments essentially limited by strong physical constraints: avatars moving across earth-like landscapes or within enclosures like buildings. Furthermore, within these specific environments, players are confronted with a multitude of scripted activities such as quests and NPC encounters that only take place there.
The most limiting physical constraint concerns avatar density. This is both a technical problem and a usability problem. Players do not want to constantly navigate an overcrowded environment. In order to keep avatar density within reasonable limits, you either need a very large playing field or a limitation on the number of players in a given field. Both of these options are restricted by the amount of content you can design, and since content is the biggest cost in modern games, this quickly becomes a financial limitation.
The obvious solution is to have procedurally-generated content, such that you can essentially have a playing field as large as you want. The drawback with that approach is that you will most likely never reach the same artistic level displayed in hand-crafted environments, and scripted activities might become repetitive and lack context.
The real solution to this problem is to embrace the notion that in an MMO, just like in any other social network, players are the content. Once that is accepted as a fundamental design guideline, it becomes easier to navigate the challenges involved in creating and maintaining a single shard architecture and actually gives the advantage to that design model.
Looking more closely at this assumption, we can identify two types of content generated by people: material content, which we describe as persistent user-created assets within the world, and social content, here considered as persistent patterns of social interactions.
The first one is easy to comprehend. However it is implemented, persistent player-created content can populate large playing fields and make the world more "meaningful" for large groups of other players. This is the case in RTS games, where the backdrop may be relatively bland and automatically generated.
In EVE, for example, a lot of the high-end gameplay revolves around conquest and control of territory in unregulated areas of the map. By choosing where to place primary space stations, players shape the topography of the strategic battlefield. In selecting the position of those stations' supporting starbases and the configuration of their offensive and defensive systems, they shape the tactical context in which critical battles occur.

The second type of content, social content, is the most potent, but also requires careful design. The field of social interaction encompasses a very wide range of activities and concepts:
- Pure socialization, such as chat and messaging
- Combat between players or cooperative combat against the environment. This scales all the way from 1v1 combat to conflicts between factions numbering thousands of players
- Economic activities
With socialization, the main "content" is the social tapestry that materializes in buddy lists, membership of player associations, or guilds and forums. For all of these, a single shard adds to the richness of the content because players don't need to be split between servers; they can discuss issues and share experiences that arise in the shared world that are relevant to the whole player base rather than a specific server -- essentially giving them a shared history as a whole society rather than a disjointed one based on smaller server populations.
Furthermore, gaining fame becomes much more rewarding due to the size of the audience, thus strengthening the impetus to do so. The technical challenges to creating a single shard communication infrastructure should not be underestimated and we address them later in this article.
As part of CCP's efforts to nurture the development of the functioning society formed by EVE's player base, a democratically-elected player council was formed to act as representatives of player interests in the development process.
The single-sharded nature of the game enables the formation of a single coherent society and makes it much more likely that the elected players will form a representative cross-section of the interests of the electorate. Because everyone is sharing a single server, and thus a single social context, the community has a common baseline for discussion and debate, and famous figures are more likely to be known to the entire player base rather than just fragments thereof.
|
My question is what size of the fleet do you have in mind. I've heard that it's only when you have 500+ players or so in one area that it sees serious problems.
I try to think of any other game where in you can have 300 people fighting one another at the same spot.
You can learn more about how they put it together in the dev blogs: http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp
Sellers try to identify the location with the highest traffic, and place their goods for sale there to maximize their chances of a trade. As multiple sellers independently choose the same location, more shoppers realize that this location is where they can most quickly/easily find sellers of the goods they want and begin clustering there. And the more *that* happens, the more sellers realize that's where to go to find the largest cluster of potential buyers. As this cycle continues, eventually the majority of economic activity coalesces at only one or two locations in the entire gameworld.
In EVE this happened at Yulai, and later at Jita. In Star Wars Galaxies, players similarly selected Theed and Coronet starports as trade hubs. And both these games followed the lead of EverQuest, whose Bazaar on Luclin was always bustling. In EQ, the Bazaar was supported by code allowing players to occupy sales stalls, so it was natural for players to congregate there in large numbers (which they did). In the cases of SWG and EVE, the topology of the travel network seems to have led players to move to certain locations for buying and selling.
But in all these cases, the clustering of players over time for economic reasons winds up becoming a technical/performance issue. Just as Jita gets its own dedicated hardware in EVE, I understand that Theed and Coronet (and Mos Eisley) also were given servers of their own in SWG. Still, it's very interesting to see that EVE also relied on changing the game itself -- by altering the travel network -- to try to persuade players to establish alternate (preferably multiple) trade hubs.
Another possibility would be to allow players to purchase items from a particular location without needing to be present at that moment in that location, or a similar capability for sellers. In theory (assuming any fee for a "parcel delivery service" was considered nominal), this would eliminate the need for physical clustering. I suspect that in practice, however, sellers would still wind up placing their goods in only one or two locations in order to minimize the effort that potential buyers would need to expend. So there'd probably still be a fair amount of "physical" traffic on the server(s) supporting that in-game location.
It's an interesting problem to think about....
As a pilot in one of the larger alliances in Eve I can say that we expect and have had battles in excess of a 1000 ships. The problem is that the games fleet mechanics were working perfectly in a prior release ( Apocrypha I think it was ) however once the new expansion was released ( Dominion was the next I think ) fleet battles became the lag fest we all know at the moment. I remember a time when we fought 700 man strong in a system with minimal lag. Note I say minimal as the human interaction is quite large.
What Michael is referring too is called "module lag" or "jump lag", module lag is a norm during fleet battles although not seen as heavily now as before and jump lag is the big bug bear in Eve at the mo. I took part in trying to help solve the problem with the Mass testing that CCP organized to try and track down the issue and as far as I know, it's definitely code related. Basically we were about 500 strong testing on Sisi ( that is their test server ). Using the Apocalypse client we ran fine and well during battle, using the Dominion client we lagged badly as soon as more than a couple hundred ships jumped into a sys or fought around a gate.
But by and large Eve is still by far the best MMO I've ever played and even with a "broken" mechanic, it will remain so as it is the singular sandbox and the players that shape the universe that make it so attractive.
But I agree with Mario that EVE is the best MMO I have ever played.
Anyways I loved this article, both for the fascinating technical details, and CCP stating their MMO philosophy.
Players = Content is, in my opinion, the single most important part of an MMO, and one that so many new MMOs are missing as they attempt to copy WoW.
Personally, that's depressingly like real life.
While often - I imagine - a logistical nightmare for the fine folks at CCP, The Sandbox has given me more fun in an MMO setting than any game has before.
Between the staggering complexity of the gameplay, the ability to 'own' areas of the universe, and the sheer number of people you can have in single encounters, Tranquility never leaves me wanting. CCP also has some of the best fan service I have seen with complex player input methods(CSM, etc) and the yearly FanFest in Iceland. I hope to be able to attend sometime soon.
HTFU
For those not familiar with the game, Tarren Mill is a zone that has an Alliance and a Horde settlement in close proximity. During the introduction of the honor PVP system (a way to encourage players to engage in combat with the other faction), Tarren Mill became a battleground for players of any level, where epic battles took place and heroes and enemies became known across the server.
Problems like the lag experienced by PVPers or the inability to quest in the area, were later fixed by the introduction of Battlegrounds (PVP instances) that limit the number of players in a single battle.
Battlegrounds brought a new level of strategic PVP play but effectively killed Tarren Mill PVP.
I still miss those days when the social content emerged from the player actions and was not designer-imposed. Those days when you could listen people chatting in Ironforge, concerned over rumors that some feared undead rogue known for his Tarren Mill reputation was hidden somewhere inside the city.
What's funny is that Blizzard tried to bring outdoor PVP back with efforts such as Wintergrasp. But this zone seems like another Battleground, anyway.
If I understand what you're saying it's that the crux of EVE online is, as Johnathan pointed out, players = content or in a more specific case, PVP. This design philosophy (though probably not single sharded) existed in other games as well (Shadowbane and Asheron's Call comes to mind).
I think the problem with EVE (as I'm coming to understand) is that they have removed the need to constantly add new PvE content by putting the juicy content in PvP areas or put in enough flexibility to encourage subtle PvP in the rest. It's hard to get bored when you're under constant fear of either having items stolen or being ganked and losing months of effort in minutes.
I've actually started to question whether this is what I really want in my own EVE playing though I've put several years into this character. In many ways WoW already implements a lot of this without the hardcore PvP that comes from have contestable, player owned areas; I quote the Auction houses as an example of a player driven market that anyone can enter into to dictate prices.
Another question I've got though is how many people are on a given shard/server in WoW? EVE argues that it has 340,000 unique active accounts (which means there's probably closer to 200,000 unique actual people due to the game encouraging multiple accounts to a person) and a peak user limit of what? 50,000? 60,000?
From a design question, is it possible to have long term engaging player experiences with large single shards without encouraging strong PvP (killing, theft, etc.)?
From my experience no. because the backend code needed to not only provide such PVE content but also to balance inflow and outflow becomes exponentially harder to design for once you no longer have the luxury of instancing, approximated player progression/location balancing factors.
Not to say it's impossible but the ROI becomes unjustifiable in most cases.
There are "real estate"/simcity-esque MMO's emerging here in Korea which are in one large shard without "strong" violent PvP, however they do involve competitive PVP which can be just as heated.
So really you do need some for of intense PvP motivation and player created topography for a large scale single sharded MMO. Otherwise it becomes impossible to design, program and operate in terms of time and monetary cost.
Mabinogi has procedural, instanced dungeons which could provide constantly different PvE content but lacks the feeling of impacting the world. Guild Wars had instanced worlds, thus giving the feeling of uniqueness back to players. WoW has their technology, can't remember the name...
What's the name of the MMO?
I'm always amazed at what CCP managed to pull off with EVE's design. If I had more free time, I'd definally start up again...
So CCP Team has developed the MMO Utopia. Please.
I get that they're proud of their game but there's more than one way to skin a potato.
Of course, I'm also a programmer.
>John said, "Personally, that's depressingly like real life."
Refreshingly, that's nothing like a videogame.