Login | Register  
Latest 20 PostsMinimize
09 Mar 2010 06:23 AM
09 Mar 2010 01:29 AM
08 Mar 2010 09:25 AM
08 Mar 2010 09:16 AM
08 Mar 2010 08:46 AM
08 Mar 2010 08:38 AM
07 Mar 2010 10:57 PM
07 Mar 2010 10:51 PM
07 Mar 2010 06:37 PM
07 Mar 2010 06:05 PM
07 Mar 2010 06:01 PM
07 Mar 2010 05:38 PM
07 Mar 2010 10:57 AM
07 Mar 2010 10:40 AM
07 Mar 2010 10:12 AM
07 Mar 2010 09:56 AM
07 Mar 2010 09:39 AM
07 Mar 2010 06:28 AM
07 Mar 2010 01:17 AM
06 Mar 2010 11:37 PM
ForumsMinimize
Instancing
Last Post 05 Jun 2009 07:52 PM byTaliesen. 3 Replies.
Printer Friendly
Sort:
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
AuthorMessages
KarakUser is Offline
Locutus of WheelMUD
Basic Member
Basic Member
Send Private Message
Posts:320
Avatar

--
01 Jun 2009 01:28 AM  

Alincor brought up the idea of instancing in MUDs.  While instancing works well for a very popular MMO like WoW, I'm not sold on the idea for even the most popular of MUDs.  At worst, instancing can mask the presence of bots, since players can essentially hide from the general population during their botting.  At best, for large-party RAIDs and whatnot, there generally aren't enough people online at the same time to necessitate instances for more than one party.

Should a new MUD manage to attain 1000+ concurrent players, and doesn't have a big enough world to spread them out, then ya maybe instancing is the solution.  Maybe instancing allows the game to have fewer but more interesting, deep, party-interactive areas while solving problems of multiple groups fighting over the content.

Either way, I don't think we have any hard limitations in the platform that would prevent area-instancing with a bit of extra work;  For instance, if say, a room instance is what determines how/when a mob spawns in that room, then we don't have to make the spawning code track down all instances of the mobile's target room while trying to determine if it shoudl spawn, etc.  I think slating the idea of area instancing to v1.1+ would be a good idea though.

FastalanasaUser is Offline
Grumpy Half-Elf
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Send Private Message
Posts:555
Avatar

--
01 Jun 2009 01:36 AM  
I believe this is also known as Server Shards. The reasons you listed are bang on for holding off on something like this.
KarakUser is Offline
Locutus of WheelMUD
Basic Member
Basic Member
Send Private Message
Posts:320
Avatar

--
01 Jun 2009 02:23 AM  
I thought Shards usually refers to whole-world-instances? IE if a MUD had to split to 2 servers so one group would connect to port 4000 while others connected to port 4001 (resolved to another server) then you would have "shards"?

Here's the first hit I got on live search:
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2006/09/13/eve-online-30000-users-on-one-server-shard/
TaliesenUser is Offline
New Member
New Member
Send Private Message
Posts:21
Avatar

--
05 Jun 2009 07:52 PM  
Instancing is different from server shards in that instancing is area specific. You instance a dungeon so that multiple parties can do the same dungeon at a time without running into each other. Server shards are having multiple copies of the server on different servers to facilitate more users overall. Neither of them would ever, except in very extreme circumstances, be needed in a mud.

Taliesen
You are not authorized to post a reply.

Active Forums 4.1
Copyright 2007-2009 by WheelMUD  | Terms Of Use | Privacy Statement
Google Analytics Alternative