Incoming necro to follow forum guidelines and keep relevant discussions within existing threads.
Fingurs said:
Dullahan said:
Fingurs said:
One thing I have to add: I don't understand the h8 for instance content. It helps so many things work/feel/perform better. You dont have to be bothered by outsiders, and (if you played EQ1 endgame) you dont get shafted on encounters for....MONTHS because you are on the wrong time zone.
( My guild in EQ1, blocked the ENTIRE server from Vulak'Aerr 58 out of a possible 59 times. Oh and yes, we were letting loot rot. How many people do you think we made quit? Guilds.)
If I didn't want to be bothered by outsiders, I would go play a single player game.
The negative ramifications to instancing far outweigh the positive for me, especially in the type of game Pantheon will be. I'm not sure how going to a completely unrealistic personal version of a dungeon can "feel" better in a virtual world. To me its nothing but a constant reminder that I'm playing a game.
I have to call you out on this one. Please list the negative ramifications of instancing. I listed mine about open world. Time zone spawning / Lag / newbies have to watch where their going (newbies = money too) / trolling from other guilds.
First and foremost, the genre is called MMORPG, with the MM standing for Massively Multiplayer. The principle behind instancing is antithetical to massively multiplayer gameplay. You are literally removing the massively multiplayer element for the sake of convenience.
Instancing breaks down the immersive qualities of a virtual world. I know convenience and accessibility is all the rage today, but its come at a very steep price for me, one which I've seldom been willing to pay. That price has been the elements of realism which make a virtual fantasy world believable. You have to wait for good things in life, so removing that principle from a virtual world will inevitably leave your accomplishments feeling hollow.
Instancing removes opportunities for socialization and variation in static content. Mechanics like instancing are the antithesis of emergent or dynamic gameplay.
Instancing removes the competitive aspect from content and progression.
Instancing hurts the economy by introducing an unlimited number of items and/or cash into the world. With an open world, the number of items that exist on any given server is limited by the number of players and the time it takes for both contested mobs to respawn, and by the amount of time and effort necessary to acquire said items. Those same constraints don't exist in instanced, cross server, globalized economy, lobby game mmos, so of course its necessary to add artificial restrictions for the sake of balance. Designers then must go through the trouble of balancing this influx by creating further unrealistic classifications for items like bind on equip and bind on pick up to prevent mudflation. If thats not enough, they then have to counter the gold generated by said uncontested items with other money sinks.
Instancing and convenience in general trivializes progression and creates a greater burden for developers to produce new content.
I think this covers at least the basic reasons why I believe instances have no place in an MMORPG.
Dullahan said:
Incoming necro to follow forum guidelines and keep relevant discussions within existing threads.
Fingurs said:
Dullahan said:
Fingurs said:
One thing I have to add: I don't understand the h8 for instance content. It helps so many things work/feel/perform better. You dont have to be bothered by outsiders, and (if you played EQ1 endgame) you dont get shafted on encounters for....MONTHS because you are on the wrong time zone.
( My guild in EQ1, blocked the ENTIRE server from Vulak'Aerr 58 out of a possible 59 times. Oh and yes, we were letting loot rot. How many people do you think we made quit? Guilds.)
If I didn't want to be bothered by outsiders, I would go play a single player game.
The negative ramifications to instancing far outweigh the positive for me, especially in the type of game Pantheon will be. I'm not sure how going to a completely unrealistic personal version of a dungeon can "feel" better in a virtual world. To me its nothing but a constant reminder that I'm playing a game.
I have to call you out on this one. Please list the negative ramifications of instancing. I listed mine about open world. Time zone spawning / Lag / newbies have to watch where their going (newbies = money too) / trolling from other guilds.
Check out Destiny some time. Destiny is all zones, but there is actually no loading. (well once in a great while) So you can make it open world, and you go into an area, that suddenly only your guild is in there :)
Trust me, there are ways to make instancing better, and I guarantee you this team knows about those. but to simply scoff at the idea with "ill go play a single player game". Trust me, more people who this game will never see the light of day without, will do the same at the idea of open competition for raid mobs. Its the most glamorized nightmare ever. I have to think most people who champion it, just simply did not live through it. All of us at some point or another (who had a soul, and were not 13) felt really bad at what we were doing, but we had no choice.
I mean certain servers, had SERVER RULES on EQ1 for Ragefire, because so many people called/emailed/wrote letters they couldn't finish their epic.
P.S. Vanguard did something fairly decent (still prefer instancing) where, if you killed the mob within the last 7 days, it was simply hollow to you (you could not attack it, and it could not attack you. Therefor you couldnt troll/etc.. But of course you know what happened right? People got on their alts, and began to troll :)
First and foremost, the genre is called MMORPG, with the MM standing for Massively Multiplayer. The principle behind instancing is antithetical to massively multiplayer gameplay. You are literally removing the massively multiplayer element for the sake of convenience.
Instancing breaks down the immersive qualities of a virtual world. I know convenience and accessibility is all the rage today, but its come at a very steep price for me, one which I've seldom been willing to pay. That price has been the elements of realism which make a virtual fantasy world believable. You have to wait for good things in life, so removing that principle from a virtual world will inevitably leave your accomplishments feeling hollow.
Instancing removes opportunities for socialization and variation in static content. Mechanics like instancing are the antithesis of emergent or dynamic gameplay.
Instancing removes the competitive aspect from content and progression.
Instancing hurts the economy by introducing an unlimited number of items and/or cash into the world. With an open world, the number of items that exist on any given server is limited by the number of players and the time it takes for both contested mobs to respawn, and by the amount of time and effort necessary to acquire said items. Those same constraints don't exist in instanced, cross server, globalized economy, lobby game mmos, so of course its necessary to add artificial restrictions for the sake of balance. Designers then must go through the trouble of balancing this influx by creating further unrealistic classifications for items like bind on equip and bind on pick up to prevent mudflation. If thats not enough, they then have to counter the gold generated by said uncontested items with other money sinks.
Instancing and convenience in general trivializes progression and creates a greater burden for developers to produce new content.
I think this covers at least the basic reasons why I believe instances have no place in an MMORPG.
All good points - but extremely subjective. Although reading this thread at least 8 other people agree with you. So we'll see what the Devs have to say about it eventually, and ultimately whoever writes the check to Visionary Realms to bring the Gigabytes to your PC.
Its subjective in that my opinions are subject to what the genre was founded on, and aren't subject to change based on the opinions of the masses who want something different.
Pantheon will be an MMORPG, not just an MMO like modern games that loosely fit into this genre. VRI's policy on instancing has already been established, and I can tell you that changing that policy will pretty much cost them a large portion of their current followers.
Sure, if they want to appeal to more people, they can make the change but you have to understand it fundamentally alters the underlying philosophy upon which this game is based. Once convenience becomes the highest priority, very few things we liked about EverQuest will remain compatible.
Dullahan said:
Its subjective in that my opinions are subject to what the genre was founded on, and aren't subject to change based on the opinions of the masses who want something different.
Pantheon will be an MMORPG, not just an MMO like modern games that loosely fit into this genre. VRI's policy on instancing has already been established, and I can tell you that changing that policy will pretty much cost them a large portion of their current followers.
Sure, if they want to appeal to more people, they can make the change but you have to understand it fundamentally alters the underlying philosophy upon which this game is based. Once convenience becomes the highest priority, very few things we liked about EverQuest will remain compatible.
Well can't say you are not committed to your cause, and arguing any further without Joppa/Brad weighing in is just... frankly useless.
Love the passion. Lets see what happens.
I read the other thread, and just wanted to comment here as well and say that it would be hard to say that it would be a deal breaker in respects to us playing once released, however we would definitely stop our monthly subs if instances for dungeons and the like were put in. I'm of the mindset that for this game to capture people and create a strong community like it did with EverQuest, it needs to stay closely tied to it. I understand that WoW had many more subs, though I feel one game was created to get as many people playing as possible and creating the biggest revenue. The other was created maybe by accident or maybe on purpose, though it did create a much stronger community than another other mmo we have played in the last 10 years or more. I actually can't name a big one that my wife and I haven't tried except for Archage. So like many others here we have been around the block and that's a huge reason why we are here and giving what we can like everyone else, we need a damn throw back Thursday from 1999 lol...
Another thing to think about here is setting expectations. If VR is looking for the next big cash cow... then doing whatever they can to appeal to more people is the way to go. However if they truly are trying to rekindle the long lost community of MMO-RPGs, then they need to stick to what has been proven to create solid communities. I could only imagine the kind of discussions/flamming we would see if even some these topics were brought up on another mmo's forums. It already shows the like mindedness of this community and we aren't even gaming yet. Just the idea is bringing us here and we are already creating bonds and friendships that will most likely carry into the game and even in some cases for years to come.
To me the modern, casual, instanced mmorpg is fast food gaming. I understand why its there. The same reason the drive through in McDonalds is there - convenience. Its much harder to orchestrate the huge open world and spread and balanced all the content in such a way that there is competition, but no so much that the player feels stifled.
The truth is, casual mmos aren't created to promote immersion or to simulate a virtual society. They are there for quick and easy fun. I'm not knocking that, I'm just disappointed in the decision so many studios have made to abandon the mmoRPG and the depth that goes with it, especially in light of the fact that casual mmos haven't been particularly profitable for anyone outside of Blizzard.
I'm looking forward to a restaurant quality game in Pantheon and all the ambience that goes with it!
Dullahan said:
To me the modern, casual, instanced mmorpg is fast food gaming. I understand why its there. The same reason the drive through in McDonalds is there - convenience. Its much harder to orchestrate the huge open world and spread and balanced all the content in such a way that there is competition, but no so much that the player feels stifled.
The truth is, casual mmos aren't created to promote immersion or to simulate a virtual society. They are there for quick and easy fun. I'm not knocking that, I'm just disappointed in the decision so many studios have made to abandon the mmoRPG and the depth that goes with it, especially in light of the fact that casual mmos haven't been particularly profitable for anyone outside of Blizzard.
I'm looking forward to a restaurant quality game in Pantheon and all the ambience that goes with it!
I like this metaphor , No one wants that flash fried MMO!
Nightkiss said:
Sevens said:
I HATE and am firmly against instances with the exception of housing
I dont want lock out timers or any of that crap
The race fro the mobs was part of the fun!
thats what we want back.
I agree with you totally on this. The race is part of the fun, but you also have to think of the average player whose only chance at getting some form of gear to compete with the rest of the world is from instances. If you work 9 to 5 and some group / guild has a named (let’s say span timer is 13 hours) locked down you have really no chance to get that drop.
There has to be some degree of randomness to spawn timers.
I don't think it is instancing that is bad, but how it is used. If it is widely used to avoid desirable encounters from being contested I'd ask what is wrong with people learning to cooperate with other people in a game designed for a massive number of players. If it is used to avoid players having progress be blocked in quests, I'd say I don't like the idea of quests that are critical to progress. The thing is, if players don't agree that contested mobs can be good, or that quests that lead you around by the nose are generally bad, then they obviously won't agree on instancing.
A little instance here or there is not terrible, however putting them all over the place is just wretched, and leaves me feeling completely detached from a virtual world. It's kind of weird how that happens, but I notice those against instance know what I am talking about. So I think if at all possible try to avoid most of it if not all.
under normal circumstances i dont like instancing, but I did like the LDON and DON expansions in EQ1 but loot did not come from the instances really, since anything good was from the vendors. and there was a lore reason for why your group was the only group in there.
used sparingly i think instancing can be fun, just dont DDO the world up.
as for raids i really hope that those are handled just like VG
Curlok said:
I'm fine with instanced housing.
I prefer everything else to be open world, but...with the increase in popularity of the genre over the years I think its unavoidable that instancing will play a part.
The populations are higher and all those 'bots. Look at what was happening in ESO. The bosses and mobs were permacamped in the dungeons (I only played in beta) You could pick up a quest, go to the dungeon and walk though to the boss spawn point without seeing a mob because of the number of players there killing the mobs. Not that you'd get a look in with the boss as the sawn point would be surrounded buy players waiting to try and get a hit in and register the kill.
I dont see how this can be avoided without instancing, maybe absolutely huge zones. The intial impression is all important to keep the revenue and player base up and waiting for mobs to spawn with hundreds of other players will have people quitting and giving negative views on the game.
I guess that some of it depends if the game is only seen as 'niche' or not. I have no problem with a small playerbase and niche crowd, but the game will still need funding and revenue.
In short, I prefer open world with no instances, but I can see why they might be needed
It's quite simple really, you limit the amount of players allowed on a server to a number that coincides with the target population that the content can handle. 1 giant server is just not a smart move.
Curlok said:
The populations are higher and all those 'bots. Look at what was happening in ESO. The bosses and mobs were permacamped in the dungeons (I only played in beta) You could pick up a quest, go to the dungeon and walk though to the boss spawn point without seeing a mob because of the number of players there killing the mobs. Not that you'd get a look in with the boss as the sawn point would be surrounded buy players waiting to try and get a hit in and register the kill.
I dont see how this can be avoided without instancing, maybe absolutely huge zones. The intial impression is all important to keep the revenue and player base up and waiting for mobs to spawn with hundreds of other players will have people quitting and giving negative views on the game.
I think it is avoidable in many ways, but first and foremost by not having story arch quests that walk you through areas in a zone, and from zone to zone. ESO is very much a story, not a sandbox world. People crowd into dungeons because the game told them "go do this dungeon next." So all the players wishing to complete an accomplishment, or finish the current quest so they can get to the next one or complete a story arc, crowd into the areas that provide the content needed to complete what the game told them to complete. EQ was exceedingly crowded at open, as was Vanguard and there was a lot of competition in starter zones, but the kind of thing you describe didn't really exist because they just were not that kind of game.
Kaydis said:
Curlok said:
The populations are higher and all those 'bots. Look at what was happening in ESO. The bosses and mobs were permacamped in the dungeons (I only played in beta) You could pick up a quest, go to the dungeon and walk though to the boss spawn point without seeing a mob because of the number of players there killing the mobs. Not that you'd get a look in with the boss as the sawn point would be surrounded buy players waiting to try and get a hit in and register the kill.
I dont see how this can be avoided without instancing, maybe absolutely huge zones. The intial impression is all important to keep the revenue and player base up and waiting for mobs to spawn with hundreds of other players will have people quitting and giving negative views on the game.
I think it is avoidable in many ways, but first and foremost by not having story arch quests that walk you through areas in a zone, and from zone to zone. ESO is very much a story, not a sandbox world. People crowd into dungeons because the game told them "go do this dungeon next." So all the players wishing to complete an accomplishment, or finish the current quest so they can get to the next one or complete a story arc, crowd into the areas that provide the content needed to complete what the game told them to complete. EQ was exceedingly crowded at open, as was Vanguard and there was a lot of competition in starter zones, but the kind of thing you describe didn't really exist because they just were not that kind of game.
Agreed Kaydis. I've played on the EQ1 progression servers the two times they've launched. And the high population and lack of instances made the game all the more fun imo. Sure it may suck to have to wait for a camp to open up, but it's not THAT bad. Instances have so many more negatives than overcrowding imo.
Age of Conan and GW2 with their instanced zones and overflow servers... it was a completely different experience than Vanguard and EverQuest. I couldn't tell you a single person's name from my time in Age of Conan other than my guild mates, with whom I originally joined up with while playing Vanguard. And GW2 I couldn't even tell you a single person's name on my server, guilded or unguilded. Heck, I can't even remember a single guild name from my time in GW2. EQ and Vanguard on the other hand, I can still remember tons of players names whom I played with years and years ago.
Point is, instances, despite their benefits, do much more harm than good. Especially to the game's community.
EQ1 progression isn't exactly a perfect scenario though. Like Rallyd said, the world has to supply the content for a certain number of players. When designing that world, you have a few options like adding more content, spreading the content out, or creating more servers. On the progression servers (at least originally) there was often more people playing than what the content was designed to accommodate.
The biggest problems (and need for instancing) arise in an mmorpg when you try to fuse elements from other settings into a massively multiplayer setting.
Things like personalized storylines are really problematic, mainly because everyone knows its not at all personalized, but also because it introduces the kind of linear gameplay that doesn't mesh in an open fantasy world. Linear gameplay results in very specific things becoming heavily contested. Everyone enjoys this in an rpg, because it fits. To me, it just doesn't work right or feel at all believable in an mmorpg.
Another example is creating tiny, linear dungeons that are reminiscent of "levels" from other genres. Of course WoW had to instance that, if you lead your players down 1 path and only offer 1 or 2 dungeons every 10 levels, theres no way to accommodate the number of players that existed in any given world (server). Of course it doesn't help when progression is trivial and everyone speeds through all the content at roughly the same rate give or take a week. Welcome to Bottleneck city.
Again, when you hit a place where you think you need to instance, I think a designer should rethink whether that content even belongs in a massively multiplayer world to begin with.
Dullahan said:
EQ1 progression isn't exactly a perfect scenario though. Like Rallyd said, the world has to supply the content for a certain number of players. When designing that world, you have a few options like adding more content, spreading the content out, or creating more servers. On the progression servers (at least originally) there was often more people playing than what the content was designed to accommodate.
This was true of EQ from day one. Not to knock Brad or his team, but starter areas were overcrowded in EQ1 at open. You spent a lot more time just looking for mobs for the first few weeks the servers were open than you would have a year later starting in the same area. They knew overcrowding was a problem and attempted to address it in updates and the Kunark expansion. The Iksar starting area seemed much better.
On the plus side, newbie camps were often shared by players and I grew to know many of the people who started in Erudin at the same time. I knew them because we all camped the same knoll camps and helped each other. I'd get help locating a lost corpse, or we would group to try the Kerra Island. When we spread out I'd encounter them in Blackburrow or Karana, or High Pass. Had the starter areas been instanced that community would never have formed.
A mix of both is ideal, in my opinion. I don't think saying "If this game has any instancing I won't play it" is a very healthy attitude to have in 2015. It's the reality we live in. I recently started playing EQ2 again with a couple of friends with fresh levels 1's. It's been a lot of fun playing in open world dungeons, but we also run some private instances from time to time.
There isn't any rule that says you have to use instances if they're available. The game can offer both and you use the ones you see fit to use.
Kaydis said:
Dullahan said:
EQ1 progression isn't exactly a perfect scenario though. Like Rallyd said, the world has to supply the content for a certain number of players. When designing that world, you have a few options like adding more content, spreading the content out, or creating more servers. On the progression servers (at least originally) there was often more people playing than what the content was designed to accommodate.
This was true of EQ from day one. Not to knock Brad or his team, but starter areas were overcrowded in EQ1 at open. You spent a lot more time just looking for mobs for the first few weeks the servers were open than you would have a year later starting in the same area. They knew overcrowding was a problem and attempted to address it in updates and the Kunark expansion. The Iksar starting area seemed much better.
On the plus side, newbie camps were often shared by players and I grew to know many of the people who started in Erudin at the same time. I knew them because we all camped the same knoll camps and helped each other. I'd get help locating a lost corpse, or we would group to try the Kerra Island. When we spread out I'd encounter them in Blackburrow or Karana, or High Pass. Had the starter areas been instanced that community would never have formed.
It was definitely a problem early on because like I said, you gotta add content, spread players out or add servers. These were concepts unknown to them, but it didn't take long before they started pumping out more servers and more content.
Thakorr said:
A mix of both is ideal, in my opinion. I don't think saying "If this game has any instancing I won't play it" is a very healthy attitude to have in 2015. It's the reality we live in. I recently started playing EQ2 again with a couple of friends with fresh levels 1's. It's been a lot of fun playing in open world dungeons, but we also run some private instances from time to time.
There isn't any rule that says you have to use instances if they're available. The game can offer both and you use the ones you see fit to use.
I often see the suggestion to "not use" said feature discussed on mmorpg, but its simply not a legitimate one. A game is either created for convenience or it isn't. You can't merge two different game philosophies together and tell people to use one or don't. No one will intentionally put themselves at a disadvantage if there is a single competitive bone in their body. Thus, the game will be ruined for anyone who likes immersion over convenience.
Thakorr said:
A mix of both is ideal, in my opinion. I don't think saying "If this game has any instancing I won't play it" is a very healthy attitude to have in 2015. It's the reality we live in. I recently started playing EQ2 again with a couple of friends with fresh levels 1's. It's been a lot of fun playing in open world dungeons, but we also run some private instances from time to time.
There isn't any rule that says you have to use instances if they're available. The game can offer both and you use the ones you see fit to use.
Sorry friend, though our attitude and are wallets will dictate what is and isn't reality, so to speak. If you accept a reality that you don't like by voting with your wallet and continue to fund such realities, then that's exactly what you will get. If you vote with your wallet to show developers what you do and don't want, then you will get what you want and not what they are giving you. It's entirely up to each individual to say what they are and aren't willing to pay. I believe we would all agree that we are all different in a lot of respects and like and dislike different aspects of each game.
If you go car shopping and they try to sell you the extended warranty... you have every right to say no, the same with almost every other product we buy as consumers.
Just because you choose not to buy something doesn't mean it still isn't the current reality. You can take a hard line approach to instanced content all day long, but at the end of the day it's still what people are making and buying right now.
Obviously we don't know entirely what direction the game is going to go yet but it is entirely possible that they try and find a happy medium between the two.
Thakorr said:
Just because you choose not to buy something doesn't mean it still isn't the current reality. You can take a hard line approach to instanced content all day long, but at the end of the day it's still what people are making and buying right now.
Obviously we don't know entirely what direction the game is going to go yet but it is entirely possible that they try and find a happy medium between the two.
Most of Pantheon's target audience are players who do not like the "current reality" in MMOs. Otherwise, they wouldn't be here, but instead happily playing one of the games already released. The reason to support Pantheon is because it is game that is bringing back the MMORPG roots which helped make the genre great.
Just because developers are using instances and players are buying their games, does not a good feature make.