Mercurial Thoughts: The Architecture of A World

By Mercurie

In MMORPGs one of the most important elements is the simulation of a fantasy world. It seems to me that most players do not necessarily need a game to be hyper-realistic. Even the original EverQuest, as revolutionary as it was for its time, hardly looked like a fantasy duplicate of the real world.

Of course, part of the problem with MMORPG worlds is the simple fact that a single server cannot handle everything necessary to create even a partially realistic simulation of a world. EverQuest overcame this with what is known as “zoned architecture”. In the early days, with zoned architecture, each zone ran on its own server. Later it was changed so that all zones could be managed on one server, although the zones were kept independent through various processes. Zones have a limit on how many players can virtually exist in a zone at any one time. When a particular zone reaches its limit, no more players will be allowed in that zone. SOE solved this problem with the idea of shards. Shards are basically duplicates of the entire EverQuest world. In theory, this allows for an unlimited number of players to play in various zones. Unfortunately, it also limited the amount of interaction between players in different shards. At the same time, there is also still the possibility of zone servers being overloaded with players.

While EverQuest is still reliant on zoned architecture, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes will utilize what is called “seamless architecture”. With seamless architecture, a player can interact with things that may exist on entirely different servers without even realizing it. The world appears almost entirely uninterrupted and characters can travel anywhere that they can see. This is accomplished through the collaboration of game servers in the process of the various events that make up the world. The end result is that seamless architecture allows for a larger, more continuous world throughout which your characters can adventure. A major disadvantage in seamless architecture is that data must be decompressed in bits and pieces as a player travels about the world. This can be time consuming, and can even sometimes result in ones computer lagging or even locking up momentarily. Another disadvantage with seamless architecture is that if a server crashes, then the entire game can become inaccessible for all of its players. This is not the case with zoned architecture, in which only one or two zones might be affected.

Of course, some games actually use a combination of both zoned and seamless architecture. I don’t know if this is still the case, but the World of Warcraft was an example of this. For the most part, the world was seamless: characters could simply walk to wherever they wished to go. In a few cases, however, characters would be required to reach an area through some sort of portal. Quite simply, World of Warcraft utilized zones much larger than most other MMORPGs, allowing for it to appear seamless while still having zones.

Is a zoned environment better than a seamless one? I would suppose that, ultimately, the answer to this question depends entirely on what individual players prefer. I have read complaints from players on various boards and lists that, in EverQuest, monsters cannot follow a character from one zone to the next. I must admit, that while the zone line could be advantageous if a character has suffered a serious damage, it certainly detracts from the realism of EverQuest. Let’s face it, in the real world, if someone is chasing me, he or she is going to be able to follow me nearly anywhere. He or she is not going to be stopped because I enter a different “zone.”

Speaking from my own admittedly limited experience, I must also say that I don’t care too much for traveling from zone to zone. In Dark Age of Camelot, going to different zones often means one’s character will have to make use of a portal. One enters the portal and suddenly one is in an entirely different region of the world. I’ve always found this a bit disconcerting myself, as I always experience a bit of bewilderment as to where I am and what is going on. I suppose, to a degree, when it comes to using portals to travel to a different zone, I am like Dr. McCoy and his distrust of the transporter on Star Trek.

Of course, as I pointed out above, seamless worlds also have their disadvantages. While I have never played in a seamless environment, I could see how the time it takes to decompress data and the resultant slow down in one’s computer, or even the momentary lock ups one might experience, could be unnerving. Indeed, for me it would seem to defeat he entire purpose of a seamless world. The whole point for me is for a seamless world to simulate reality. Let’s face it, if I am walking from my home to downtown, the world does not suddenly slow down or lock up as I travel.

That having been said, I must admit that I think I would prefer a seamless world. As I pointed out above, a seamless world would seem more realistic. In the real world, one can travel without having to use portals and, unlike the mobs in some games, people are not confined to one individual “zone.” I rather think that with advances in software and hardware, eventually the problems that seamless architecture could present (the slow-down in computers, and so on) will be overcome. I have to wonder, then, if we will no longer see games using zoned architecture.