Krixus said:disposalist said:Krixus said:disposalist said:It's not fun to beg for scraps in a full zone. It's not fun to hunt for hours or days on end only to have your target steamrollered by an uberguild or picked off by a random visitor. It's not fun to force confrontations. [Blah blah]
Instancing has no place in a game like this, it destroys the integrity of the world and the items we're all after...
Wow you seem pretty dang intractable there...
With server control, those other people are still doing the same thing at the same time on a different server aren't they?...
Exactly, on a different server, which is a different world. You will never see that person, speak to them, be impacted by them or their economy. A server is completely different in its application and impact than an instance. Servers are alternate dimensions. Surely you understand that?
What's the difference if a zone is instanced? I just explained it in detail, but I'll repeat myself. It devalues EVERYTHING. If there are 2 instances of a zone up 50% of the time, guess what, every single encounter, every single item in that zone is now devalued proportionally.
And again, stop with the logical fallacies. "trampling other players underfoot" is not in any way correlated to status or achievement.
It's not about "bragging rights". It's about having what you do in the game matter. When you don't get something, it sucks. And because it sucks, when you DO get it, it matters even more. Instancing removes extremes, good and bad. Those extremes are part of what made EQ absolute freaking MAGIC.
Hehe Krixus you've got passion, I see that, but you just won't let someone have a contrary opinion will ya?
Yes, I see that a different server is different to briefly popping a new zone. BUT I do not agree (I do understand, but do not AGREE) that the impact of zone instances to avoid momentary crowding will cause economic chaos or make my epic camp worth any less. I do not agree that to solve periodic issues of conflict a whole new server is necessary.
The "trampling players underfoot" comment is not a logical fallacy. You are saying that without the permanent possibility of contention (competition against other players) everything becomes less worthwhile. Guess what? I don't agree :) I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree.
If you feel you have to constantly be beating other players to the punch to be accomplishing anything then that's your bag and I don't know any of my RPGing friends that feel that way. We are all in it to adventure together - to overcome what the devs place before us. Sure, contention *can* lead to interesting situations and resultant tactics, but in my experience it *much* more often leads to bad feelings. To unnecessary rushing of content. To griefing other players to make them go away. To various forms of conflict in RL terms that are not fun. Call me a Carebear if you like. *shrug* Don't care.
Look, I'm not really disagreeing with you. I understand all you say and I hope the devs take it all into account. You, however, appear to wish the devs would disregard everyone else views hehe "Please, Brad, don't listen to these idiots! Make the game just how I want it!" I think you are a tad extreme in your view and need not be so disparaging of everyone elses, but I get it, dude.
Re-reading that bit I really hope you don't take offence - I'm just trying to explain how you are coming off to me anyway. I'm guilting of wanting my opinion to be considered by the devs - that why I'm posting here and responding to your responses. I should perhaps just let it go too.
There are a lot of divisive issues coming up to do with bringing back the "good old days". We all know that a lot of development over the years has degraded the game we loved. We also know that a lot of the game we loved was really unnecessarily awful and can be 'solved' especially with some modern tech.
(And I just know even the hint of a "mod con" makes some people start to gibber hehe)
Let's not argue eh? It's not really necessary - we can have opposing views without bashing down the other.
The problem with non-instanced content is, it does not scale with the population. On a low population server it might work very well but on a high pop server you will hardly see a bigger named mob because it is already killed when you come back from work etc. I know that from World of Warcraft. There were also non instanced raid mobs. But if you have dozens of raid guilds and only a few raid mobs ... it does not really fit. In such cases you need basically dozens/hundreds mobs or a kind of (immersion breaking) lockout or (immersion breaking) instancing/sharding.
Greetings
Krixus said:Exactly, on a different server, which is a different world. You will never see that person, speak to them, be impacted by them or their economy. A server is completely different in its application and impact than an instance. Servers are alternate dimensions. Surely you understand that?
What's the difference if a zone is instanced? I just explained it in detail, but I'll repeat myself. It devalues EVERYTHING. If there are 2 instances of a zone up 50% of the time, guess what, every single encounter, every single item in that zone is now devalued proportionally.
And again, stop with the logical fallacies. "trampling other players underfoot" is not in any way correlated to status or achievement.
It's not about "bragging rights". It's about having what you do in the game matter. When you don't get something, it sucks. And because it sucks, when you DO get it, it matters even more. Instancing removes extremes, good and bad. Those extremes are part of what made EQ absolute freaking MAGIC.
Pretty much /end thread. Nailed it.
This is nuts. I think people are using modern MMO's as their measuring stick for this topic.
When you're thinking in terms of Wow, FF14, etc, you were funnelled into 1 dungeon at any given level range. These dungeons were small, linear, and your only option. Maybe, MAYBE you had two options for that lvl range. Another linear, small dungeon. In those cases, yes, absolutely, instancing is your best bet. It makes no sense to have multiple groups in dungeons of that size and scope when every single player in your level ranged is forced into that dungeon.
But we're not talking about that kind of MMO. We're talking about Vanguard and Everquest, where the options for hunting are damn near endless. If Upper Guk was packed, you rounded up your team and went to Najena. Or Runnyeye. Or you hunted wisps in NK for lightstones. Or Unrest. Or. Or. Or.
I mean, when I think about the sheer amount of dungeons in Vanguard, I'm blown away. Some of them were small, easily done in 30 minutes. Some of them were HUGE. (What was the name of that dungeon in Thestra? Was like the first big dungeon you went to in your teens. Underground. Bugbears. Spiders. Dwarves. A lift that was always broken. That place was humungous!)
We don't need instances, and shards, when there are other options for that level range. We don't need instances and shards when you could create multiple alts that could each level up completely differently in completely different areas and dungeons. All we need are options.
-Tralyan
I'm in the camp who opposes instances. I'm not against how VG handled it though with APW and it's shards. These were pseudo instanced areas where content could still be contested but have enough room that any player could get stuff done.
I'm starting to realize that a lot of these discussions are debated because some people want more of a theme park game compared to others who want more of a sandboxy virtual world environment. At least it seems like that because some of the features people are asking for are STAPLES of those two entirely different MMOs.
Instanced areas are a staple of theme parks. And Pantheon will not be a theme park MMO. So can instanced areas exist in a non theme park MMO? Possibly, if done tastefully but I doubt it. APW is most likely the closest we will get to an instanced area. Though they have discussed using instanced areas in very specific ways such as progressing a storyline. So who knows, but I don't believe we will have static instanced zones.
I don't care for instanced dungeons either because they remove that randomness that players outside of your group create. When you're in an instanced dungeon in WoW or Rift, the zone imo is flat and/or dead. There's no life to it because your group is the only people there. And that's boring to me. Sure, an instanced dungeon removes the possibility of trains and griefers but as I stated in another thread those create unscripted random events that devs should hunger for. Any time a dev can create the possibility for unscripted events within their game (especially ones trying to create a sandboxy MMO/virtual world) I'd think they'd jump at it within a heartbeat.
NoobieDoo said:
I'm starting to realize that a lot of these discussions are debated because some people want more of a theme park game compared to others who want more of a sandboxy virtual world environment. At least it seems like that because some of the features people are asking for are STAPLES of those two entirely different MMOs.
Instanced areas are a staple of theme parks. And Pantheon will not be a theme park MMO.
How is instancing a staple of theme parks? Theme parks are games that guide the player through it. Going from quest hub to quest hub or following a linear story line is what makes a theme park. It has zero to do with instancing.
Instancing can work in a sandbox game. It just has to be done right. You can't use instancing in the sense like wow does for dungeons and raids but you can use it for story. You can also use it like EQ recently did on the TLP's when zones get overcrowded to alleviate some of the pressure. That wouldn't change it from a sandbox to a theme park in any way
Dullahan said:Krixus said:Exactly, on a different server, which is a different world. You will never see that person, speak to them, be impacted by them or their economy. A server is completely different in its application and impact than an instance. Servers are alternate dimensions. Surely you understand that?
What's the difference if a zone is instanced? I just explained it in detail, but I'll repeat myself. It devalues EVERYTHING. If there are 2 instances of a zone up 50% of the time, guess what, every single encounter, every single item in that zone is now devalued proportionally.
And again, stop with the logical fallacies. "trampling other players underfoot" is not in any way correlated to status or achievement.
It's not about "bragging rights". It's about having what you do in the game matter. When you don't get something, it sucks. And because it sucks, when you DO get it, it matters even more. Instancing removes extremes, good and bad. Those extremes are part of what made EQ absolute freaking MAGIC.
Pretty much /end thread. Nailed it.
That's what made EQ magic? Right ...
EQ in it's prime held what 2k players on a server? I honestly have no idea but I do know it wasn't much. And this was in a time where not many new about MMOs in general. If EQ was launched today with the playerbase having the knowledge it does now it would have been an utter nightmare. Still have no idea why people choose to remain with the rose colored glasses looking back nostalgically and fail to see things that have changed and would simply not work. Even the TLPs are using instancing to balance the loads because it is simply not possible to have 5k+ players all fighting for the same few camps in a zone.
I'm not an advocate for instancing. But the value of them in some situations out weighs the negatives. Price drops in items is not a downside but subscription loss would be. As in people quitting because of never being able to do what they want to do.
Idk how many times this thread keeps coming up, with more people posting about how good instances are, the argument has been had 5-6 times in a row in this thread it's as if nobody reads the first 8 pages. Non-instancing always wins the argument, it doesn't matter how many times this has been had out, instancing is a shortcut for developers to accomodate more players with less content, and it devalues nearly every single thing you could or would accomplish in a game.
I can't stress this enough, if Pantheon instances raid content, or group content, I will not play it, and a lot of people I know won't as well. This includes sharding and lockouts, because they are siblings to instancing.
Rallyd said:Idk how many times this thread keeps coming up, with more people posting about how good instances are, the argument has been had 5-6 times in a row in this thread it's as if nobody reads the first 8 pages. Non-instancing always wins the argument, it doesn't matter how many times this has been had out, instancing is a shortcut for developers to accomodate more players with less content, and it devalues nearly every single thing you could or would accomplish in a game.
I can't stress this enough, if Pantheon instances raid content, or group content, I will not play it, and a lot of people I know won't as well. This includes sharding and lockouts, because they are siblings to instancing.
Oh it wins because you said so. Case closed.
People are going to be so pissed when they cant raid or kill good names because they are on lockdown to the best guilds on each server. Im not worried because I will have a spot in one of those guilds like I always have but some others NO COOL GEAR FOR YOU...
Instancing done right and balancing with contested content can make the game better for more then just 2 guilds per server.
Kalgore said:Rallyd said:Idk how many times this thread keeps coming up, with more people posting about how good instances are, the argument has been had 5-6 times in a row in this thread it's as if nobody reads the first 8 pages. Non-instancing always wins the argument, it doesn't matter how many times this has been had out, instancing is a shortcut for developers to accomodate more players with less content, and it devalues nearly every single thing you could or would accomplish in a game.
I can't stress this enough, if Pantheon instances raid content, or group content, I will not play it, and a lot of people I know won't as well. This includes sharding and lockouts, because they are siblings to instancing.
Oh it wins because you said so. Case closed.
People are going to be so pissed when they cant raid or kill good names because they are on lockdown to the best guilds on each server. Im not worried because I will have a spot in one of those guilds like I always have but some others NO COOL GEAR FOR YOU...
Instancing done right and balancing with contested content can make the game better for more then just 2 guilds per server.
It wins because of the obvious logic. You can know, soon as people start throwing out "nostalgia" and "rose-tinted glasses" they lack any further meaningful arguments.
Honestly, people should read the WHOLE thread, before responding. Doing so is simply being respectful to the community here, so we don't have to spend our time re-hashing people's illogical scenarios.
There is no reason for instancing, other than story telling.
Guilds won't be locking down mobs... in which they have no idea where these boss mobs will be spawning, when these boss mobs will be spawning, or what even triggers them. There will be nothing to lock down, you will have to hunt down.. (understand?)
Consequently, "instancing" is a crutch used by cheap/poor developers, who have limited in-game content or outdated game mechanics, & need an artificail way to deal with their own limitations.
Pantheon won't have these limitations, so there is no reason to use a crutch.
What I'm reading is some saying "No. Just no. Instancing ruins MMOs" and some saying "Instancing is needed to address certain problems" and VR saying (not in this thread, but referenced here) "We can solve any contention-related problem by server population control" (para-phrasing from the FAQ). Some are suggesting (with no evidence, but with admirable hope) that Pantheon simply won't suffer contention issues. Yay!
There's perhaps not much point in debating it until we get more info from VR, but I guess I'm still worried that what they are saying is exactly what every MMO developer says and simply controlling server populations doesn't seem to work (historically). I've got faith on most issues, but this one is quite fundamental and worries me. If they are suggesting that for Pantheon server pop control is all that's needed because other contention issues just won't be an issue then: Yay! Party! Woohoo! I'd love to hear more on that.
Until there's more detail, I'm airing my concern and I'm sorry, No-Instances-Ever crowd, but I'm not convinced that temporarily popping a copy zone if it's over-crowded will ruin the game. I don't think instancing is an ideal mechanic for an MMO, but I believe used sparingly and correctly the positives may outweigh the negatives and I want VR to know my opinion. There.
I would love someone to come forward with an explanation that convinces me, but I believe this problem, like most, is a matter of degree not of absolutes. I don't think there's been a point made that I could refute, but I can always disagree with the degree to which I'm being told it applies.
I'm not going to pick any examples - it just leads to a pointless to-and-fro. I need to hear more from VR before I'm convinced server population control avoids all the contention problems that concern me and that instances could easily address with minimal impact if done right.
Instancing ruins virtual MMORPG worlds. There is no debating it at this point, there is enough reasoning here to write a doctoral thesis on the subject. Those still not convinced should read any of the various work by Richard Bartle or Wolfshead.
Instancing works for MMO games, but that is because they have different objectives - namely, for everyone to get everything they want with very little struggle. The introduction of that philosophy to a virtual world destroys the very fabric of what makes that world compelling.
Dullahan said:There is no debating it at this point, there is enough reasoning here to write a doctoral thesis on the subject. Those still not convinced should read any of the various work by Richard Bartle or Wolfshead.
I'm having a read, but there's a lot. If you're familiar with the various works I'd really appreciate a pointer to which parts of those relate to instancing.
I'm seeing reference to modern instanced dungeons being bad (and I agree) but nothing about zone over-population so far and the two are utterly different. Temporarily cloning a zone is more akin to flexible server population control than private instanced dungeons.
Dullahan said:Instancing ruins virtual MMORPG worlds. There is no debating it at this point, there is enough reasoning here to write a doctoral thesis on the subject. Those still not convinced should read any of the various work by Richard Bartle or Wolfshead.
Instancing works for MMO games, but that is because they have different objectives - namely, for everyone to get everything they want with very little struggle. The introduction of that philosophy to a virtual world destroys the very fabric of what makes that world compelling.
This is flat out false. It ultimately comes down to what a person wants and there are at least two sides in that situation.
I have already suppoted the idea of minimal instancing here because I have a different opinion of what matters in these games than you and some of the others. I want it to be minimal because I feel that over-use of it causes a disconnect with the world. I however do not agree with pretty much any other point made about the issue. I don't give a crap about contested content and the idea that having availability of endgame content devalues said content is baffeling to me. That, is artificial value... its funny how on so many subjects here players seem to be entirely against game restrictions for what players are able to do but when it comes to content availablity it should be restricted. The value of content should be the difficulty in obtaining it, not by being locked out by other players but by the innate difficulty of the content. Just because in theory every group could participate in a raid doesn't mean that anywhere near every group could clear the content, THAT is what should give it meaning as far as I am concerned. I do not play these games to compete with players, I play them to play WITH and ALONGSIDE other players to tackle a challenging and beautiful virtual world. Litterally not one of the arguments made in this thread thus far has changed that, it ultimately is entirely about where you believe the value comes from and what you expect the game to be about. For you, competition may have been what made you feel a sense of community and importance. For me, what difficult tasks we work together for means infinitely more and the qualities that limited instancing can bring are not worth sacrificing for the sake of being able to with-hold content from another. Again, I don't want a lot of instancing but when used properly it only enhances what I love about classic mmos.
Mephiles said:Dullahan said:Instancing ruins virtual MMORPG worlds. There is no debating it at this point, there is enough reasoning here to write a doctoral thesis on the subject. Those still not convinced should read any of the various work by Richard Bartle or Wolfshead.
Instancing works for MMO games, but that is because they have different objectives - namely, for everyone to get everything they want with very little struggle. The introduction of that philosophy to a virtual world destroys the very fabric of what makes that world compelling.
This is flat out false. It ultimately comes down to what a person wants and there are at least two sides in that situation.
I have already suppoted the idea of minimal instancing here because I have a different opinion of what matters in these games than you and some of the others. I want it to be minimal because I feel that over-use of it causes a disconnect with the world. I however do not agree with pretty much any other point made about the issue. I don't give a crap about contested content and the idea that having availability of endgame content devalues said content is baffeling to me. That, is artificial value... its funny how on so many subjects here players seem to be entirely against game restrictions for what players are able to do but when it comes to content availablity it should be restricted. The value of content should be the difficulty in obtaining it, not by being locked out by other players but by the innate difficulty of the content. Just because in theory every group could participate in a raid doesn't mean that anywhere near every group could clear the content, THAT is what should give it meaning as far as I am concerned. I do not play these games to compete with players, I play them to play WITH and ALONGSIDE other players to tackle a challenging and beautiful virtual world. Litterally not one of the arguments made in this thread thus far has changed that, it ultimately is entirely about where you believe the value comes from and what you expect the game to be about. For you, competition may have been what made you feel a sense of community and importance. For me, what difficult tasks we work together for means infinitely more and the qualities that limited instancing can bring are not worth sacrificing for the sake of being able to with-hold content from another. Again, I don't want a lot of instancing but when used properly it only enhances what I love about classic mmos.
To come to your conclusions, you have to literally redefine the meaning of words. By arguing outside of reality, you make it hard to have a real discussion.
First you redefined simple economic principles like value which is derived from supply and demand. You are also redefining artificial. Something that has no developer restrictions is not artificial, its a natural limitation that comes from a resource (content) being exhausted or consumed. The need and availability of something is much of what gives it value.
There are some elements of competition in the game being proposed. You are against any competition, thus you disagree with an open world as a rule. Your ideals and those of Pantheon are at odds.
He did not redefine "value" or "artificial" any more than you are redefining "supply". Everything in the game has developer restrictions. (and technically, EVEYTHING in the game is artificial lol).
There are many "artificial developer restrictions" that affect the supply. To name a few,
What you are saying is that the only thing that that should affect supply is availability, and that should be the key factor in an items value. If that is the case why even have an encounter, just make everything ground spawns and the first person to loot it has earned it. Then that person can control the "supply" and thus give his item more value by keeping another character parked on top of the spawn point so it could not be looted until the character was moved. Sounds fun, huh.
Anyway, if we go back to the economics 101 definition of game mechanics, then what Mephiles was talking about was ways to prevent a monopoly. A monopoly is "artificially" increasing the value of an item by "artificially" limiting its supply. In the real world, there are authorities (which equates to developers for us) putting "restrictions" in place to prevent that.
Lockouts, Debuffs, limited instancing, etc, etc. The specifics don't matter much if they achieve the goal.
You are saying that if there is even 1 instance in the game, then competition is dead. Plane of Time was an instance and if anything, competition increased after it was added. Or at least it changed, from being attendance-based to skill/strategy-based.
Ideally the content would come fast enough that basically no guild (except maybe the very top end) could ever run out of raids to work on. EQ most guilds never finished all the raids in an expansion before the next expansion was released. So if there is always something for you to work on, why are you so concerned with being able to block the guilds below your level?
Oh, and btw. The "tenets of the game" thread says:
Terminus is a world where instancing is the exception not the rule.
Which implies that there will be some instancing. So technically, it is the refusal to accept ANY instancing regardless of reasoning that is at odds with the ideals of Pantheon. :-)
@Dullahan
I so do not want to get into an argument - I believe pointless two-and-fro is against the forum posting policies for one thing - I'm hoping it's not pointless and you might be willing to quit the forum warrior stance and at least agree to disagree if not understand, but I'll give up if this post has no effect.
Mephiles is not arguing outside reality. I understand what he's saying - you appear to be being deliberately obtuse. Pretending you don't understand what he's getting at and logically pulling apart his grammar or vocabulary choices doesn't make his opinion invalid.
You appear utterly convinced that having any instance instantly devalues the content within it. Mephiles (and I and others) are not. At least nowhere near to the degree you suggest as hard fact. I'm going to try again with examples to attempt to come to an understanding, though I'm fully prepared to have my examples called "straw men" and discounted out-of-hand like you don't get the point *sigh*
If one Dragon breastplate is worth 500 gold then if there are two at the same time they are worth 250 gold each? Sure that's the mathematical truth. Except, not if they are no-drop. Not if they aren't being farmed. Not unless something is constantly repeatedly 'camped' (and if it is the devaluing of the content will be the least of Pantheons problems)
If you beat another character/group/guild to get to the Golden Dragon then that's a more worthy 'achievement'? Not to Mephiles and not to me. I don't need to race or leap-frog or grief away someone else to get to the Golden Dragon to feel good. I don't give a crap who else can do it, has done it or is doing it in another instance or server at the same time. It does not take away from my experience in any way I care about.
If you deny another character/group/guild the Golden Dragon fight is the BP you get worth more? Assuming it's not no-drop... If there are 10 Dragon spawns per day and 10 groups get there uncontested there are 10 BPs in the AH. If 100 groups make a griefing nightmare of the zone all day there are still 10 BPs in the AH. Those 90 frustrated groups weren't just there for the BP though they wanted to do the Dragon fight. They will queue up again tomorrow, so actually the BPs are worth the same and all that's happening is people are getting frustrated every day.
(Yeah that scenario is more complex and I'm not intractably suggesting it's 'the truth' but it at least makes the point, I believe).
Moving on; by 'artificial' value, I believe Mephiles clearly means he finds the definition you hold dear (that of only contested content having any value) to be not naturally intrinsic as far as he is concerned. The idea is fabricated by you (not only you, I'm sure, but you're the one commenting). Invented for your purposes. 'Artificial' to him.
Once again I am not saying instancing is the ideal and nor is Mephiles. I understand that instancing can have detrimental effects and shouldn't be used willy-nilly and so does he. I believe that private instant dungeons are fricking awful. You, however, apparently will not move one jot from your stated opinion and repeatedly attempt to beat down any other.
Once again I am not saying I do not like any contested content. I accept an element of competition can add to some encounters and areas.
I accept that occasional griefing, racing, leap-frogging, over-crowding etc wouldn't be the end of the world. I do not accept that infrequent temporary use of zone instances to solve over-population or re-occurring griefing problems would be the end of the world.
You however seem to happy to assert that anyone who doesn't like griefing and conflict thus desires no competition whatsoever and won't enjoy Pantheon. You seem to think that anyone suggesting careful use of instancing doesn't understand the issues and perpetuates the death of MMOs. Also "open world" means more than just "contested content". Not enjoying all aspects of contested content does not mean you "disagree" with open world.
I hope that VR can find ways of delivering content that will both avoid the nasty side effects of contention and will avoid the need for instancing, but if there's a bit of grief occasionally *pfft* ok. If there's some instancing needed *pfft* ok. Neither are ideal but neither will destroy Pantheon.
In summary, VR have stated they will make use of instancing for some content so the mechanics will be there - Mephiles and I hope they don't simply discount use of instances where careful usage might solve more problems than are caused. You appear to want everyone who implies instancing might not be evil incarnate to stop discussing it and find another game to play.
@Everyone else
I think that's probably enough on this subject (from me! I hope others aren't scared to chime in). I hope I haven't upset anyone, including Dullahan, actually. I'm right behind him on lots of other points. I'm right behind him on supporting Pantheon. I'm right behind his right to explain his opinions. He's got some fine ones even when I don't agree with them... Perhaps we can just agree to disagree?
I see new people coming onto these forums with 5 posts walking in like they have had more discussions and knowledge on this subject than the people who have been having these discussions with VR since the kickstarter... and now we're beating a dead cat with a hammer. Instancing is not conducive to a virtual world. Period.
A lot of us have spent hours days and weeks having these conversations with people on both sides of the instancing fence, and every single time they come out the same way, instancing is simply a crutch for lack of content, and a method of delivering all things to all people, thus rendering all things irrelevant.
The best analogy is real life, if you gave every person in the world a million dollars, being a millionaire would then be irrelevant. Then someone comes back with "yeah but you don't give them a million dollars, you just give them the opportunity to make a million dollars if their skill is high enough". Then we follow up with... yeah sure, but you don't shut down the barber shop for an hour so his competitor next door can have a chance to cut some hair do you? Competition is at the heart of human nature, and it is what drives demand, and in turn value. Instancing removes all competition, and is contrary to the way a virtual world should exist.
I don't think anyone here is wanting a P99 situation where all raid mobs are locked down, there are other methods other than instancing to deal with this problem. Like Hieromonk said, if it is rendered impossible to know if a raid target is currently popped, without a raid force being present on its spawn point, then that will solve most of the issues. Want to sit there with your entire guild to camp 1 raid boss? Fine, but the rest of the game is available for everyone else. But you do not artificially create 100 copies of the same boss so everyone can fight him any time they want.
Rallyd said:I see new people coming onto these forums with 5 posts walking in like they have had more discussions and knowledge on this subject than the people who have been having these discussions with VR since the kickstarter... and now we're beating a dead cat with a hammer. Instancing is not conducive to a virtual world. Period.
With all due respect what I see is some of those already in the forums being sometimes less than welcoming and sometimes pretty unpleasant to those wishing to discuss opinions they don't agree with.
A) I'm beginning to appreciate there has perhaps been a forum wipe. Maybe if I'd read the previous threads I'd not want to comment. Maybe I still would. If you've discussed something before, then perhaps just say so and back away and let the noobs discuss if they wish?
A lot of us have spent hours days and weeks having these conversations with people on both sides of the instancing fence, and every single time they come out the same way, instancing is simply a crutch for lack of content, and a method of delivering all things to all people, thus rendering all things irrelevant.
B) Just because it's been discussed in the Pantheon kickstarter forum does that mean the issue of instancing in MMORPGs (or any other issue for that matter) is solved for the whole world once and for all? Noone could possibly come along with a better argument than you guys?
C) Discussing something often leads to other related but unexpected things being aired.
D) Discussion is more than a matter of working out what is 'correct'. Especially in a discussion of the value of contention I would have thought there would be more tolerance to contrary opinon, however many people have previously decided what there entrenched position is.
The best analogy is real life, if you gave every person in the world a million dollars, being a millionaire would then be irrelevant. Then someone comes back with "yeah but you don't give them a million dollars, you just give them the opportunity to make a million dollars if their skill is high enough". Then we follow up with... yeah sure, but you don't shut down the barber shop for an hour so his competitor next door can have a chance to cut some hair do you? Competition is at the heart of human nature, and it is what drives demand, and in turn value. Instancing removes all competition, and is contrary to the way a virtual world should exist.I don't think anyone here is wanting a P99 situation where all raid mobs are locked down, there are other methods other than instancing to deal with this problem. Like Hieromonk said, if it is rendered impossible to know if a raid target is currently popped, without a raid force being present on its spawn point, then that will solve most of the issues. Want to sit there with your entire guild to camp 1 raid boss? Fine, but the rest of the game is available for everyone else. But you do not artificially create 100 copies of the same boss so everyone can fight him any time they want.
Thanks for the examples, that's interesting. I could of course come up with counter examples (and I have).
Either way I've seen some reasoned arguments on both sides and I'm of course willing to trust that the devs will make a good choice. Thanks for the discussion... I'm off to bed now - this has given me a frickin headache. Really looking forward to reading more posts tomorrow... :/
disposalist said:@Dullahan
I so do not want to get into an argument - I believe pointless two-and-fro is against the forum posting policies for one thing - I'm hoping it's not pointless and you might be willing to quit the forum warrior stance and at least agree to disagree if not understand, but I'll give up if this post has no effect.
When people are intellectually honest, or up front about their difference of opinion, most of us have no problem with those posts. Its when people misrepresent the position of others or bring in various other fallacies to champion their thoughts on a matter, that I cannot help but respond.
Mephiles is not arguing outside reality. I understand what he's saying - you appear to be being deliberately obtuse. Pretending you don't understand what he's getting at and logically pulling apart his grammar or vocabulary choices doesn't make his opinion invalid.
I did not "pick apart" grammar or vocabulary. Words have meanings, and he was misusing them to confuse a simple issue and disprove something I said.
When you say creating more of an item does not devalue it, its simply wrong. Do I understand what he means? Yes, he means he doesn't care that something is worth less to others, its not important to him. But that isn't what he said. He made a blanket statement. Nevertheless, that does not change the fact that an items value both in game and intrinsically is affected by the introduction of more of that item into the world.
Claiming contested open world content gives "artificial value" is also wrong. You can say its a bad idea. That is a matter of opinion. You could say its a harsh mechanic. That is also subjective. What you cannot say is that limitations are artificial, because limitations are exactly what drives value in the real world. Artificial is creating alternate dimensions in an open world game to enable more players from the same shared world, to experience the same content, separately. Its really not that complicated.
Furthermore, I also understand the motives behind such statements. Its pretty clear, some people don't want competition. I don't feel like I'm misrepresenting Pantheon when I say, some competition will exist. Its been stated directly and can also be implied from the tenants, though they also plainly say that they intend to find ways to prevent "too much competition" without using instancing to do so.
You appear utterly convinced that having any instance instantly devalues the content within it. Mephiles (and I and others) are not. At least nowhere near to the degree you suggest as hard fact. I'm going to try again with examples to attempt to come to an understanding, though I'm fully prepared to have my examples called "straw men" and discounted out-of-hand like you don't get the point *sigh*
If one Dragon breastplate is worth 500 gold then if there are two at the same time they are worth 250 gold each? Sure that's the mathematical truth. Except, not if they are no-drop. Not if they aren't being farmed. Not unless something is constantly repeatedly 'camped' (and if it is the devaluing of the content will be the least of Pantheons problems)
If you beat another character/group/guild to get to the Golden Dragon then that's a more worthy 'achievement'? Not to Mephiles and not to me. I don't need to race or leap-frog or grief away someone else to get to the Golden Dragon to feel good. I don't give a crap who else can do it, has done it or is doing it in another instance or server at the same time. It does not take away from my experience in any way I care about.
If you deny another character/group/guild the Golden Dragon fight is the BP you get worth more? Assuming it's not no-drop... If there are 10 Dragon spawns per day and 10 groups get there uncontested there are 10 BPs in the AH. If 100 groups make a griefing nightmare of the zone all day there are still 10 BPs in the AH. Those 90 frustrated groups weren't just there for the BP though they wanted to do the Dragon fight. They will queue up again tomorrow, so actually the BPs are worth the same and all that's happening is people are getting frustrated every day.
(Yeah that scenario is more complex and I'm not intractably suggesting it's 'the truth' but it at least makes the point, I believe).
Moving on; by 'artificial' value, I believe Mephiles clearly means he finds the definition you hold dear (that of only contested content having any value) to be not naturally intrinsic as far as he is concerned. The idea is fabricated by you (not only you, I'm sure, but you're the one commenting). Invented for your purposes. 'Artificial' to him.
Your examples were not without merit, but then you had to go and claim that I somehow fabricated the laws of supply and demand. Things have both monetary and intrinsic value. They always have, and always will. Claiming that somehow because I brought it up and applied it to a virtual world, that I "invented it", is utterly ridiculous.
Once again I am not saying instancing is the ideal and nor is Mephiles. I understand that instancing can have detrimental effects and shouldn't be used willy-nilly and so does he. I believe that private instant dungeons are fricking awful. You, however, apparently will not move one jot from your stated opinion and repeatedly attempt to beat down any other.
You can stop portraying me as the bad guy. When someone responds to something I said claiming its "flat out wrong", and then fills their counter-argument with half a dozen fallacies, that more than warrants a response.
Once again I am not saying I do not like any contested content. I accept an element of competition can add to some encounters and areas.
I accept that occasional griefing, racing, leap-frogging, over-crowding etc wouldn't be the end of the world. I do not accept that infrequent temporary use of zone instances to solve over-population or re-occurring griefing problems would be the end of the world.
I do. I believe there should be laws when creating a virtual world that you do not break. When you break those laws, its quite literally the end of the world. Replicating content and splintering the population of that world is breaking those laws. Call me a purist, I just don't like it. Its a shitty, short-term solution that results in long term problems.
You however seem to happy to assert that anyone who doesn't like griefing and conflict thus desires no competition whatsoever and won't enjoy Pantheon. You seem to think that anyone suggesting careful use of instancing doesn't understand the issues and perpetuates the death of MMOs. Also "open world" means more than just "contested content". Not enjoying all aspects of contested content does not mean you "disagree" with open world.
It does if you think creating an instance is a valid solution to the problem
I hope that VR can find ways of delivering content that will both avoid the nasty side effects of contention and will avoid the need for instancing, but if there's a bit of grief occasionally *pfft* ok. If there's some instancing needed *pfft* ok. Neither are ideal but neither will destroy Pantheon.
In summary, VR have stated they will make use of instancing for some content so the mechanics will be there - Mephiles and I hope they don't simply discount use of instances where careful usage might solve more problems than are caused. You appear to want everyone who implies instancing might not be evil incarnate to stop discussing it and find another game to play.
@Everyone else
I think that's probably enough on this subject (from me! I hope others aren't scared to chime in). I hope I haven't upset anyone, including Dullahan, actually. I'm right behind him on lots of other points. I'm right behind him on supporting Pantheon. I'm right behind his right to explain his opinions. He's got some fine ones even when I don't agree with them... Perhaps we can just agree to disagree?
I can agree to disagree when there is honesty and when my opinion isn't being misrepresented.