Dullahan said: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.
I am not redefining anything, we aren't talking about an economy we are talking about how people feel about a thing which is not defined in the say way you look at a market. I am also not redefining artificial. The availability of content in a virtual setting has NO innate 'supply' and therefore any limits placed upon a supply are artificial.
I am against competition as a core design intent, I am not at all against an open world. I am also not against the tenants of pantheon, https://www.pantheonmmo.com/game/game_tenets/ .... nowhere in those tenants does it say the game is founded on competition. I think you know better than this dullahan. I know you and many relish the competition that was prominent in these envirionments but that such competition may or may not have been part of what any number of players who enjoyed that era of MMOs liked about it. There are other aspects about it that I admire and there is litterally nothing closer to what I desire than pantheon or a classic server at this moment.
Mephiles said:
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...
Good grief dude. This is first day of class stuff. It's really genuinely simple supply and demand. The more dolla dolla bills we print, the less every one of them is worth. This is not an "idea", it is reality. I'm sure you understand it perfectly, so why do you say the complete opposite? If you don't care about the value of items in a PVE game then I'm at a complete loss.
Mephiles said:Dullahan said: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.
I am not redefining anything, we aren't talking about an economy we are talking about how people feel about a thing which is not defined in the say way you look at a market. I am also not redefining artificial. The availability of content in a virtual setting has NO innate 'supply' and therefore any limits placed upon a supply are artificial.
I am against competition as a core design intent, I am not at all against an open world. I am also not against the tenants of pantheon, https://www.pantheonmmo.com/game/game_tenets/ .... nowhere in those tenants does it say the game is founded on competition. I think you know better than this dullahan. I know you and many relish the competition that was prominent in these envirionments but that such competition may or may not have been part of what any number of players who enjoyed that era of MMOs liked about it. There are other aspects about it that I admire and there is litterally nothing closer to what I desire than pantheon or a classic server at this moment.
It's founded on the integrity of the world. Instancing destroys that for multiple reasons that have been expressed perfectly ad nauseum. I DO NOT LIKE COMPETITION. What I do like is a virtual world where things matter.
And how in the world can you say we're not talking about economy? That is EXACTLY what this is. Very basic supply and demand. If you aren't redefining it then you straight up don't understand it. I'm shocked that you don't get it. Genuinely.
I will speak for myself only. The things in life which are more difficult to achieve are almost always the ones which are the most satisfying from a personal level, and most important from a professional/financial level. If it is EASY, it is worth less. That is almost universally true. That same very basic principle is at the heart of this matter.
You may disagree with me about what is important, I cannot argue with your opinion, but to suggest that instancing does not devalue content is blowing my mind. The more of something that there is, the more readily available something is, the less it is worth. I want what I do in the game to have worth. And if I can't do something, then so be it. When I get my haste item, I wan't people to be like 'dayum that guy's badass, I hope I can get that some day!'. And if it's not in my cards to be king loot, then I want to be the other guy, the one looking up with awe.
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...
Guessing this was aimed at me since everyone else on this page has a lot more posts. /shrug. Paradoxical to suggest I should have more post count before my opinion is worth posting haha. I wouldn't have even chimed in if Dullahan was not being so rude and dismissive, which is why I replied in the same tone then went back and editted it to tone it down some.
Anyway, as was previously said we are just expressing our opinion so that the developers can hear it. In the end they will decide.
And I did go back and read all 10 pages before my first post. And there was nothing in it that "logically" addressed any of the concerns on this page. It is 10 pages of people talking about the problems that caused other games to use instancing and a handful of people replying that instancing is evil and that it ruins mmo's without trying to address the concerns. The closest anyone has come is "those problems won't happen here" without trying to justify why that is true.
Even Kilsin posted in favor of using sharding to solve overcrowding if it occurs and the same handful of people argued with him over it lol.
Instancing removes all competition, and is contrary to the way a virtual world should exist.
First off, "should exist" is your opinion and I respect that. My opinion is that I prefer to not have much instancing but that is it far less of an evil than allowing content-blocking or over-crowding to make the game unplayable. That said, it is definitely not the only way to prevent it and I am fine with whatever method the devs choose as long as they address the problem if it occurs.
But it clearly does NOT remove all competition. In fact, without instancing there cannot be any meaningful guild ranking style competition because it is more about locking bosses down and preventing others progression than about being being better at killing them. If by competition you mean spawn-racing then I agree, instancing does prevent that, which is kindof the point. And I can see how if you want spawn racing to be the only style of content in the game how instancing would seem so evil in even the most limited of uses.
HelzBelz said:
I this is why I brought up having instances only because other people like Mephiles knows that the General MMO population is completely changed and that change has led to very bad behavoir that it’s unacceptable.
Well guess what, I heard about this game that isn't being made for the general mmo population...
I can't help but wonder if you're looking at this through having played on P99 and assuming that is what is going to unfold on Pantheon if they don't have instances... which would be a colossal failure if they allowed such an easily fixable problem to be replicated in Pantheon, or used instances as an easy-out. Using phrases like "spawn-racing" and "content-blocking" and "preventing others progression"... these are things that never happened on live EQ from 1999-2001, you know, the era that matters. P99 and any live EQ servers are prime examples of what can go wrong, do you really think they're going to make those same mistakes? How little faith in VR do you have?
Instancing is a solution, yes, but the negatives FAR outweigh the positives, and there are just better ways to go about preventing content bottlenecks than duplication. If you had no way of knowing whether a raid target was up, without being there on its spawn point with a raid force, this ALONE would solve most of the issues with P99 and live EQ progression server competition. We've had several discussions on the topic over on MMORPG.com Pantheon boards about how to handle this issue without using instances, and we came up with some pretty good ideas. Either way, instances are pandora's box to virtual worlds, once you open it, its all over.
flec said:
And I can see how if you want spawn racing to be the only style of content in the game how instancing would seem so evil in even the most limited of uses.
It sounds like more like you can't see any style of content that has neither instances nor "spawn racing". If you guys don't want your posts torn to shreds, try to cool it with the absurd logical fallacies.
Krixus said:HelzBelz said:
I this is why I brought up having instances only because other people like Mephiles knows that the General MMO population is completely changed and that change has led to very bad behavoir that it’s unacceptable.
Well guess what, I heard about this game that isn't being made for the general mmo population...
Yes, it is being made in large part for the old EQ1 veterans. And some of those veterans remember how toxic the raiding environemnt got in early EQ and want the dev to know that we would prefer if they tried to prevent that particular situation from happening again.
Constant trains when your guild tried to kill a new mob.
Other guilds sending a few groups in to chain cast spells around the healers in hopes of lagging then out and breaking the CHeal chain.
The top guilds on the server farming old raids and letting the loot rot just so that lower guilds would not be able to catch up in gear/flags.
Rallyd, this is exactly what happened in original EQ. Until they added the banish over lvl 52 mechanic, no guilds could hope to get Naggy/Vox kills because the top guild/s kept them on lockdown.
The planes were worse. On some servers you had to use anon before going in to Fear or Hate to farm trash because the top guild would send someone to train you. Even later when the trash was not a concern they would keep the epic quest droppers dead so your only choice to work on that was to quit your guild and try to join the top one.
I understand youre opinion that the negatives of instancing outweigh the negatives I mentioned above. But having lived though it back then I personally disagree. I am not saying they should design the game with instancing in mind. And if they manage to prevent those problems with other mechanics or design then great. But if it comes down to "these problems exists, is it worse to add limited instancing or leave the chaos as it is" then I personally hope they choose the instancing/sharding/etc.
But my opinion is that ignoring the problem like they did in EQ1 would be the worst decision.
Krixus said:It sounds like more like you can't see any style of content that has neither instances nor "spawn racing". If you guys don't want your posts torn to shreds, try to cool it with the absurd logical fallacies.
Mephiles said:I am against competition as a core design intent, I am not at all against an open world. I am also not against the tenants of pantheon, https://www.pantheonmmo.com/game/game_tenets/ .... nowhere in those tenants does it say the game is founded on competition. I think you know better than this dullahan.
"Founded on"? Who said Pantheon was "founded on competition"?
Dullahan said:There are some elements of competition in the game being proposed.
Dullahan said: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...
Thanks for proving my point.
Dullahan said:I can agree to disagree when there is honesty and when my opinion isn't being misrepresented.
flec said:Krixus said:HelzBelz said:
I this is why I brought up having instances only because other people like Mephiles knows that the General MMO population is completely changed and that change has led to very bad behavoir that it’s unacceptable.
Well guess what, I heard about this game that isn't being made for the general mmo population...
Yes, it is being made in large part for the old EQ1 veterans. And some of those veterans remember how toxic the raiding environemnt got in early EQ and want the dev to know that we would prefer if they tried to prevent that particular situation from happening again.
Constant trains when your guild tried to kill a new mob.
Other guilds sending a few groups in to chain cast spells around the healers in hopes of lagging then out and breaking the CHeal chain.
The top guilds on the server farming old raids and letting the loot rot just so that lower guilds would not be able to catch up in gear/flags.
Rallyd, this is exactly what happened in original EQ. Until they added the banish over lvl 52 mechanic, no guilds could hope to get Naggy/Vox kills because the top guild/s kept them on lockdown.
The planes were worse. On some servers you had to use anon before going in to Fear or Hate to farm trash because the top guild would send someone to train you. Even later when the trash was not a concern they would keep the epic quest droppers dead so your only choice to work on that was to quit your guild and try to join the top one.
I understand youre opinion that the negatives of instancing outweigh the negatives I mentioned above. But having lived though it back then I personally disagree. I am not saying they should design the game with instancing in mind. And if they manage to prevent those problems with other mechanics or design then great. But if it comes down to "these problems exists, is it worse to add limited instancing or leave the chaos as it is" then I personally hope they choose the instancing/sharding/etc.But my opinion is that ignoring the problem like they did in EQ1 would be the worst decision.
Krixus said:It sounds like more like you can't see any style of content that has neither instances nor "spawn racing". If you guys don't want your posts torn to shreds, try to cool it with the absurd logical fallacies.
You mean logical fallacies like "Instancing removes all competition" or your implication that instancing prevents "a virtual world where things matter"? I get that that is your opinion, but it is completely subjective. And why the need to throw the word absurd in there? In every post I have tried to say I am all for whatever mechanic they use as long as they address the problem. Sorry, I really do not feel that the arguments that are being made are the least bit absurd.
I'm not sure you know what a logical fallacy is. Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it a logical fallacy. Me saying that instancing prevents the world from mattering to me is not a logical fallacy. However, you pretending there is no alternative when you say "I can see how if you want spawn racing to be the only style of content in the game how instancing would seem so evil in even the most limited of uses." is directly a "black or white" logical fallacy and a straw man. Like Dullahan keeps saying, keep it intellectually honest.
btw Dull, your straw man in this particular post is that instancing and competition are mutually excluisive ;-)
I think everyone in this thread is coming to the "agree to disagree" point. We know eachothers opinions and have made our cases so all we can do is wait and see what the devs come up with. That and be happy that some people here are not developers haha.
flec said:btw Dull, your straw man in this particular post is that instancing and competition are mutually excluisive ;-)
I think everyone in this thread is coming to the "agree to disagree" point. We know eachothers opinions and have made our cases so all we can do is wait and see what the devs come up with. That and be happy that some people here are not developers haha.
Even if that were incorrect, it wouldn't be a straw man.
I admit, I am glad that the posts that I've disagreed with here aren't dev posts. However, I've also read what they have to say on these matters, so I don't have to play wait and see.
I'm here because of the Pantheon's tenets, while other seem to be here in spite of them.
Krixus said:Mephiles said:
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...
Good grief dude. This is first day of class stuff. It's really genuinely simple supply and demand. The more dolla dolla bills we print, the less every one of them is worth. This is not an "idea", it is reality. I'm sure you understand it perfectly, so why do you say the complete opposite? If you don't care about the value of items in a PVE game then I'm at a complete loss.
And how in the world can you say we're not talking about economy? That is EXACTLY what this is. Very basic supply and demand. If you aren't redefining it then you straight up don't understand it. I'm shocked that you don't get it. Genuinely.
I will speak for myself only. The things in life which are more difficult to achieve are almost always the ones which are the most satisfying from a personal level, and most important from a professional/financial level. If it is EASY, it is worth less. That is almost universally true. That same very basic principle is at the heart of this matter.
You may disagree with me about what is important, I cannot argue with your opinion, but to suggest that instancing does not devalue content is blowing my mind. The more of something that there is, the more readily available something is, the less it is worth. I want what I do in the game to have worth. And if I can't do something, then so be it. When I get my haste item, I wan't people to be like 'dayum that guy's badass, I hope I can get that some day!'. And if it's not in my cards to be king loot, then I want to be the other guy, the one looking up with awe.
This is not economics, it is a feeling we are talking about. Do you VALUE a type of music? Is that based on supply and demand or the qualities of that type of music? Do you value any films? Is that due to suppy and demand or the qualities of that film?
I am sure you understand this perfectly so why do you say the complete oppoisite?
I also already addressed difficulty. I agree that difficult things feel like a greater accomplishment but where I do NOT agreee is that content availability is or should be difficulty. I want things to have worth just as much as you do, where we disagree is in WHERE the worth is coming from. I also do not agree that when used properly that it breaks world feel (key word, properly).
Dullahan said:"Founded on"? Who said Pantheon was "founded on competition"?
You didn't, you said "You are against any competition, thus you disagree with an open world as a rule. Your ideals and those of Pantheon are at odds." which I quoted. Not sure how you failled to connect that but ok. Being that you were talking about competition and then directly after suggest that my ideals conflict with those of pantheon is suggesting that competition is an ideal of pantheon. This happens a lot with you, you say some VERY suggestive things and then later on berate people for actually reading what you say. You should spend some more time considering how you phrase things if that is TRULY not what you meant with your statement (which I actually doubt is the case).
Dullahan said:Even if that were incorrect, it wouldn't be a straw man.
I admit, I am glad that the posts that I've disagreed with here aren't dev posts. However, I've also read what they have to say on these matters, so I don't have to play wait and see.
I'm here because of the Pantheon's tenets, while other seem to be here in spite of them.
No, instead you just use a lot of black and white logical fallacies.
Mephiles said:Krixus said:Mephiles said:
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...
Good grief dude. This is first day of class stuff. It's really genuinely simple supply and demand. The more dolla dolla bills we print, the less every one of them is worth. This is not an "idea", it is reality. I'm sure you understand it perfectly, so why do you say the complete opposite? If you don't care about the value of items in a PVE game then I'm at a complete loss.
And how in the world can you say we're not talking about economy? That is EXACTLY what this is. Very basic supply and demand. If you aren't redefining it then you straight up don't understand it. I'm shocked that you don't get it. Genuinely.
I will speak for myself only. The things in life which are more difficult to achieve are almost always the ones which are the most satisfying from a personal level, and most important from a professional/financial level. If it is EASY, it is worth less. That is almost universally true. That same very basic principle is at the heart of this matter.
You may disagree with me about what is important, I cannot argue with your opinion, but to suggest that instancing does not devalue content is blowing my mind. The more of something that there is, the more readily available something is, the less it is worth. I want what I do in the game to have worth. And if I can't do something, then so be it. When I get my haste item, I wan't people to be like 'dayum that guy's badass, I hope I can get that some day!'. And if it's not in my cards to be king loot, then I want to be the other guy, the one looking up with awe.
This is not economics, it is a feeling we are talking about. Do you VALUE a type of music? Is that based on supply and demand or the qualities of that type of music? Do you value any films? Is that due to suppy and demand or the qualities of that film?
I am sure you understand this perfectly so why do you say the complete oppoisite?
I also already addressed difficulty. I agree that difficult things feel like a greater accomplishment but where I do NOT agreee is that content availability is or should be difficulty. I want things to have worth just as much as you do, where we disagree is in WHERE the worth is coming from. I also do not agree that when used properly that it breaks world feel (key word, properly).
X % more of a given number of items entering into the world is not a feeling. Again, I'm at a loss for words.
Krixus said:Mephiles said:Krixus said:Mephiles said:
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...
Good grief dude. This is first day of class stuff. It's really genuinely simple supply and demand. The more dolla dolla bills we print, the less every one of them is worth. This is not an "idea", it is reality. I'm sure you understand it perfectly, so why do you say the complete opposite? If you don't care about the value of items in a PVE game then I'm at a complete loss.
And how in the world can you say we're not talking about economy? That is EXACTLY what this is. Very basic supply and demand. If you aren't redefining it then you straight up don't understand it. I'm shocked that you don't get it. Genuinely.
I will speak for myself only. The things in life which are more difficult to achieve are almost always the ones which are the most satisfying from a personal level, and most important from a professional/financial level. If it is EASY, it is worth less. That is almost universally true. That same very basic principle is at the heart of this matter.
You may disagree with me about what is important, I cannot argue with your opinion, but to suggest that instancing does not devalue content is blowing my mind. The more of something that there is, the more readily available something is, the less it is worth. I want what I do in the game to have worth. And if I can't do something, then so be it. When I get my haste item, I wan't people to be like 'dayum that guy's badass, I hope I can get that some day!'. And if it's not in my cards to be king loot, then I want to be the other guy, the one looking up with awe.
This is not economics, it is a feeling we are talking about. Do you VALUE a type of music? Is that based on supply and demand or the qualities of that type of music? Do you value any films? Is that due to suppy and demand or the qualities of that film?
I am sure you understand this perfectly so why do you say the complete oppoisite?
I also already addressed difficulty. I agree that difficult things feel like a greater accomplishment but where I do NOT agreee is that content availability is or should be difficulty. I want things to have worth just as much as you do, where we disagree is in WHERE the worth is coming from. I also do not agree that when used properly that it breaks world feel (key word, properly).
X % more of a given number of items entering into the world is not a feeling. Again, I'm at a loss for words.
Geeze dude.... Quoted right from a dictionary on value :
a principle or quality that is valuable or desirable
^ Value is NOT EXCLUSIVELY RELATED TO ECONOMICS.
People VALUE qualities of a thing REGARDLESS of its ECONOMIC VALUE. Is there a person in your life you value? Do you value some traits of people over others? Do you value one color over another? All of those are VALUES and are what is VALUABLE to the individual and have NOTHING TO DO WITH SUPPLY AND DEMAND. Further the rate of items entering a world shouldn't be limited by exclusion for the SAKE of exclusion but by the requirements needed to obtain said item. For example, in FFXI there were only ever a handfull of relic weapons around in 75 era servers. Not because people could prevent others from trying to get them, but because it took a massive amount of time effort and knowledge to obtain them. You DO NOT NEED to lock people out of things to have rare items. I don't know about you but I wan't my items to be valuable because of the skill, knowledge and investment required to obtain it from the content itself (as well as the interesting features of the item itself), not because I was able to prevent other players from getting it.
Enitzu said: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
Rallyd said: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 first point with crutch for lack of content i tend to agree. But i do not believe that VR will be able to generate much more content than other MMORPG providers. And then you have to deal with it. Either with waiting for respawn or or extremly fast respawn or things like lockouts or server queues. I doubt that this are much better solutions than instancing/phasing.
The second point with delivering things to all people and rendering all things irrelevant i strongly disagree. This might be the case in the most MMOs today but it has more to do with the lack of difficulty and not whether the content is instanced or not. In vanilla World of Warcraft only 0,1% of the playerbase has cleared the instance Naxxramas before the next expansion. And sorry, 0,1% is not delivering all things to the people. :)
Greetings.
Time to bring this back on topic folks, please don't make me go through and delete a bunch of personal attacks over personal opinions, it is literally the most juvenile way to argue and I know this community is better than that.
The Topic is "Instance vs non-Instanced" and with little developer information on this, there is not much to debate other than opinions, so please by all means offer your opinion but then be respectful of others' and refrain from the personal attacks.
Mephiles said:People VALUE qualities of a thing REGARDLESS of its ECONOMIC VALUE.
Ya, but do they devalue those qualities? Because that was the original usage. No one says they devalue a person, or a trait or a color. Just saying.
Semantics aside, anything that you can value, you value for a reason. When the things you value it for are no longer good, important, rare or desireable, they lose their luster.
That is what instancing stands to do. Maybe not for you, but I'd bet for most people, especially people whose favorite games didn't involve instancing. Kind of like EQ, the game Pantheon is using as "the foundation."
Krixus said:You may disagree with me about what is important, I cannot argue with your opinion, but to suggest that instancing does not devalue content is blowing my mind. The more of something that there is, the more readily available something is, the less it is worth. I want what I do in the game to have worth. And if I can't do something, then so be it. When I get my haste item, I wan't people to be like 'dayum that guy's badass, I hope I can get that some day!'. And if it's not in my cards to be king loot, then I want to be the other guy, the one looking up with awe.
This right here says what I want to say.
I feel like there's this belief that those of us who do not like instances are trying to steamroll the other guys. Like we're going to be the ones tearing down these contested zones. That's just not always the case. I care equally about having my gear worth more as I do about looking in awe at those that DO have that time. This isn't a selfish desire on our part because we feel like we're gonna be the ones walking around with "The Sword of McQuaid" while you're walking around with the "Sword of Smedley" like a shmuck. I'll probably be using a friggin' Blackjack til lvl 30. I don't care. I just want to NOTICE THINGS AGAIN. In MMO's these days you don't noticed things, because there is nothing worth noticing. There's nothing worth striving for.
-Tralyan
flec said:Krixus said:HelzBelz said:
I this is why I brought up having instances only because other people like Mephiles knows that the General MMO population is completely changed and that change has led to very bad behavoir that it’s unacceptable.
Well guess what, I heard about this game that isn't being made for the general mmo population...
Yes, it is being made in large part for the old EQ1 veterans. And some of those veterans remember how toxic the raiding environemnt got in early EQ and want the dev to know that we would prefer if they tried to prevent that particular situation from happening again.
Constant trains when your guild tried to kill a new mob.
Other guilds sending a few groups in to chain cast spells around the healers in hopes of lagging then out and breaking the CHeal chain.
The top guilds on the server farming old raids and letting the loot rot just so that lower guilds would not be able to catch up in gear/flags.
Rallyd, this is exactly what happened in original EQ. Until they added the banish over lvl 52 mechanic, no guilds could hope to get Naggy/Vox kills because the top guild/s kept them on lockdown.
The planes were worse. On some servers you had to use anon before going in to Fear or Hate to farm trash because the top guild would send someone to train you. Even later when the trash was not a concern they would keep the epic quest droppers dead so your only choice to work on that was to quit your guild and try to join the top one.
I understand youre opinion that the negatives of instancing outweigh the negatives I mentioned above. But having lived though it back then I personally disagree. I am not saying they should design the game with instancing in mind. And if they manage to prevent those problems with other mechanics or design then great. But if it comes down to "these problems exists, is it worse to add limited instancing or leave the chaos as it is" then I personally hope they choose the instancing/sharding/etc.But my opinion is that ignoring the problem like they did in EQ1 would be the worst decision.
Krixus said:It sounds like more like you can't see any style of content that has neither instances nor "spawn racing". If you guys don't want your posts torn to shreds, try to cool it with the absurd logical fallacies.
You mean logical fallacies like "Instancing removes all competition" or your implication that instancing prevents "a virtual world where things matter"? I get that that is your opinion, but it is completely subjective. And why the need to throw the word absurd in there? In every post I have tried to say I am all for whatever mechanic they use as long as they address the problem. Sorry, I really do not feel that the arguments that are being made are the least bit absurd.
Haha popping spells to lagging out healers. The good old raid days that no one remembers. Or training some epic trash on anothe raid force hahahahahaha. So few people remember orginal EQ1 raiding. Where only 1 or 2 guilds got the mob and everyone else was griefed when they tried to pull if they even did
Instancing isnt a problem until it rewards players with End game raid content loot. it is another avenue which people with less time can still enjoy a game. This crap about lowering value is crap. Unless you plan on selling your raid loot then value isnt relevent. Again as long as the very best loot comes from hard contested mobs it shouldnt be a big deal.
PS instances need to be a super hard group zone so it isnt easy farm status.
NoobieDoo said:Enitzu said: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
You cherry picked statements from my post and for whatever your reason it's beyond me. The very next sentence following what you quoted of my post addresses the fact that instances could be found in non theme park MMOs. Maybe you work for the tabloids and think I'm some big time celebrity. That's very kind of you but I asure you I'm not. If you're going to quote me might as well quote my entire train of thought and not just pick and choose what's best for your argument. Now that we got that out of the way.
I had a very long-winded response because your know-it-all response rubbed me the wrong way especially after only quoting a portion of my statement. But I'm just going to keep this short and sweet.
You're wrong.
"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." This is very wrong. Theme park MMOs aren't just about leading you from hub to hub to fulfill quests. There is a philosophy behind both 'theme park' MMOs and 'sandbox' MMOs.
Theme park MMOs are about giving the player a 'tailored experience' as well as giving the player an atmosphere similar to a theme park where there are many activities to do similar to 'rides and attractions'. Think of big blinking, flashing lights (quest NPCs). Games, prizes, and concession stands (dailies for coins/tokens, PvP/arenas, etc ). And finally but not least, the rides (instanced dungeons, crafting, etc). Think of a tilt-a-whirl where multiple groups of people can all ride the ride at the same time. Now think of how an instanced dungeon allows multiple groups of people to run the dungeon at the same time. It's litterally a 1:1 correlation.
Instanced dungeons ARE a staple of theme park MMOs whether you agree with it or not. They create a VERY tailored experience for the player by removing any outside interference. Just like a theme park ride you can usually run them over and over if you want, just like you can ride the ride as many times as you'd like.
They are rarely used in sandbox MMOs because they shun emergent gameplay. The philosophy behind 'sandbox' MMOs is 'emergent gameplay'. Where the theme park MMO has devs giving the player a very tailored experience, a sandbox MMO wants the players to create their own experience. This goes far above and beyond linear quest design and non linear quest design as you simply claimed. A sandbox MMO wants players to interact with other players so unique experiences happen and you can't have this inside an instanced dungeon where the only people inside is your group.
Now I'm going to do something you may not have expected, I'm going to agree with you. :D
You're right, in a way, instancing CAN work in a sandbox MMO. But the type of instancing we're talking about here imo isn't really true instancing. In Vanguard APW used something called 'sharding' which is something I'd welcome whole-heartedly for raiding. But it can't be TRUE instancing like how WoW uses it for their dungeons where only ONE group of people can exist in your zone. For very tight story telling maybe instancing can work. But the type of instancing that you stated that EQ does now to alleviate zone population isn't necessarily TRUE instancing. I'm fine with sharding which is I guess pseudo-instancing. Just as long as the 'instance' can hold multiple groups of people where content can still be contested and where different groups can still interact with each other.
Since you want to make a comment about me 'cherry picking' your statements i'll leave it all in there. I did so last time for space, not for context.
"
You're right, in a way, instancing CAN work in a sandbox MMO. But the type of instancing we're talking about here imo isn't really true instancing. In Vanguard APW used something called 'sharding' which is something I'd welcome whole-heartedly for raiding. But it can't be TRUE instancing like how WoW uses it for their dungeons where only ONE group of people can exist in your zone. For very tight story telling maybe instancing can work. But the type of instancing that you stated that EQ does now to alleviate zone population isn't necessarily TRUE instancing. I'm fine with sharding which is I guess pseudo-instancing. Just as long as the 'instance' can hold multiple groups of people where content can still be contested and where different groups can still interact with each other."
All of that post to agree with exactly what I said? Lol. WoW type instancing will not work in a sandbox game. The instancing I would be ok with is what I am assuming you are calling sharding, idk since I didn't play VG. Cloning a zone once it becomes over populated can help alleviate some camps and allow more people into a zone without causing major harrassment of other players. Alot of games have done this. Aion, Blade and Soul, EQ, BDO. They have all done it a bit differently but ultimately its all the same
Dullahan said:Mephiles said:People VALUE qualities of a thing REGARDLESS of its ECONOMIC VALUE.
Ya, but do they devalue those qualities? Because that was the original usage. No one says they devalue a person, or a trait or a color. Just saying.
Semantics aside, anything that you can value, you value for a reason. When the things you value it for are no longer good, important, rare or desireable, they lose their luster.
That is what instancing stands to do. Maybe not for you, but I'd bet for most people, especially people whose favorite games didn't involve instancing. Kind of like EQ, the game Pantheon is using as "the foundation."
To an extent I am arguing that it does not (under certain circumstances) devalue as a result of availability. As I stated several times, I think that rarity of items can be obtained by skill and effort barriers which in theory still accpompishes what you want without making it so that content is just inaccessable.
Besides this, part of what I am saying is an items value (to an individual) is not exclusively tied to rarity of that item. For example there was a piece of armor that I got in my early days of mmoing that I kept for a very long time and had special meaning to me. This armor was useful despite having been outgrown for my main class, I had to work very hard to obtain it despite it not being particularly rare or valuable relative to many things that I had obtained by that time or after, and it had a look that I like. The item was not rare or expensive by endgame standards but it was a milestone and an item that had meaning anyway.
As I am sure you know (because it is often my example), FFXI is my MMO of choice. FFXI had very little instancing, especially not for the first two expansions of the game (which almost exclusively used instances for story bosses which were often at the end of an open non-instanced dungeon) so pretty much all of the content was contested and in terms of gameplay is most similar to EQ out of all MMOs. So while it did have instancing, I feel quite confident that I have the perspecive of someone who's favorite game did not really involve them (note my original argument only calls for some minimal instancing, it seems like many here look at that and feel like I am advocating instances all over the place).
Ultimately my bottom line and why I chimed in here is this: I believe that there are benefits to some minimal use of instancing and none of the arguments to this point have changed that. That is a subjective matter and I accept that other people may be against instancing in all cases (also for subjective reasons). The idea of instancing being of benefit is a subjective, there is no dominating argument for or against.