Kalgore said: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.
I'm really sorry you played with lousy people on a lousy server, but using your own personal experience as the gospel holds no water. I never experieced anything near the degree of severity that you did, and I was a high end raider for a long time on multiple servers.
Instancing is a problem at EVERY LEVEL of the content, not just end game.
Instancing has always left a bad taste in my mouth. Not just "I ate a raw onion" sort of taste, but more like "someone took a giant dump in my mouth" kind of taste. Ok perhaps a bit extreme but this is my opionion on the matter.
I mean what is with this, "I want to do what I want, when I want, how I want, where I want" mentality. If you have an open ended game, with lots of great content, and most all of it takes time and effort to accomplish; than who really cares if the content that I originally logged in to do is contested? If I planned on camping something one night and upon getting there found it was already taken by someone else, oh well, I go find something else on my laundry list of things that I want to achieve in the game. Eventually, I will get to other objectives, and just maybe I will succeed at what I was going for.
It's in the journey man. I remember my father telling me growing up that I had to work for something to appreciate it. And I learned that this is totally true. If I am just given something (and in this case you can say given the content or the outcome) then you just appreciate it less, it is valued less; or at least many do. However, if it was a journey for you, if you walk away with a story, well then you have something of value.
You can say that you can have instancing and make it difficult to achieve too but the journey was given to me. I was given the car, and whether or not I crashed the car, it matters not, cause it was given to me.
Perhaps some poor analogies thrown in here, and Im sure there are better ones that could be used, but this is how I feel anway. Don't give me anything. I dont' just want to do the content, I want to WANT to do the content.
If everything is always available to everyone all the time, than I guess it's like going through the drive threw at Burger King instead of needing a reservation at a fine dining establishment.
You are neglecting that the ability to do the content can be a journey itself. For example unlocking the content (If I understand correctly the EQ equivalent of this is keying or something), having to fight through a dangerous area to get to it, the content itself could be highly challenging to complete, the cost of failure could be high. That is a journey in and of itself, it is not merely "given" to you just because it is available.
Our ideal goal, as I've posted before, is to have *some* competition for resources but not too many. If it becomes too much then that is either a general indication that there are too many people playing on that shard (in which case we need to launch more shards and spread people out). But it could also mean that we've not done a good job spreading out compelling loot and boss encounters and quests... if everyone is spending their time in just a few dungeons with much of the other content and regions underpopulated or empty then we've screwed up. If we effectively spread out compelling content and rewards than players should be more spread out and less over crowding and competition should happen. Sometimes it will be totally different rewards/items, but other times we may need to create similar yet different items and put them in different parts of the world.
In any case, while it's easier to just resort to instancing, we feel instancing brings more negative than positives. We do realize that many of our design decisions and tenets require more work, more care, more monitoring, etc. But we think it's worth it. Resorting to 'quick fixes' to address deeper design issues is something we want to avoid.
Aradune said:In any case, while it's easier to just resort to instancing, we feel instancing brings more negative than positives. We do realize that many of our design decisions and tenets require more work, more care, more monitoring, etc. But we think it's worth it
We think so as well, thank you very much! :)
edit: Aradune posted while I was writing this and pretty much resolved all my issues with his 1st sentence, so /cheer haha.
Aradune said:In any case, while it's easier to just resort to instancing, we feel instancing brings more negative than positives. We do realize that many of our design decisions and tenets require more work, more care, more monitoring, etc. But we think it's worth it. Resorting to 'quick fixes' to address deeper design issues is something we want to avoid.
And this is why you are the man!
Aenra said:Aradune said:In any case, while it's easier to just resort to instancing, we feel instancing brings more negative than positives. We do realize that many of our design decisions and tenets require more work, more care, more monitoring, etc. But we think it's worth it
We think so as well, thank you very much! :)
Right on.
Aradune said:Our ideal goal, as I've posted before, is to have *some* competition for resources but not too many. If it becomes too much then that is either a general indication that there are too many people playing on that shard (in which case we need to launch more shards and spread people out). But it could also mean that we've not done a good job spreading out compelling loot and boss encounters and quests... if everyone is spending their time in just a few dungeons with much of the other content and regions underpopulated or empty then we've screwed up. If we effectively spread out compelling content and rewards than players should be more spread out and less over crowding and competition should happen. Sometimes it will be totally different rewards/items, but other times we may need to create similar yet different items and put them in different parts of the world.
In any case, while it's easier to just resort to instancing, we feel instancing brings more negative than positives. We do realize that many of our design decisions and tenets require more work, more care, more monitoring, etc. But we think it's worth it. Resorting to 'quick fixes' to address deeper design issues is something we want to avoid.
Right on!
Enitzu said: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: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.
I know this is an old Post but you could easily counter like everything you said by simple making it to where mobs in raid Content dont drop money, there not people trying to kill raid level mobs for quick cash doesnt exsist, don't drop tradeskill mats and if they do make them no drop, or no trade that way you only loot it if you can use it, which stops another form on money making. And there should be Instanced raids, with a player cap id say honestly around 40ish people, mainly becuase thats gives room for each class to be there and they are all nesscary and not just to have one of them. It might stop the competiviness of the content but the last thing i want is for like 2 guilds killing everything and making it to where no one else can progress because they cant compete int he kill and know they will lose the dps race just becuase they have all the gear and the smaller guild doesn't, which in turn will cuase a lot of people in said guild to probably join the bigger guild and than cuase that smaller guild to no longer exsist in extreme measures. This is why Instancing is needed, believe me the Positives on Instancing outweighs the Negatives, as For Non- Instanced Raids do the exact opposite, i know if i were in the bigger guild and choked out the competition of the smaller guilds and saw i killed the server due to everyone leaving it and joining others or simply just joining my guild to stay on the server, i wouldn't really enjoy the game for very long. Instancing might kill the Economy but Non Instancing would kill your server
Riahuf22 said:I know this is an old Post but you could easily counter like everything you said by simple making it to where mobs in raid Content dont drop money, there not people trying to kill raid level mobs for quick cash doesnt exsist, don't drop tradeskill mats and if they do make them no drop, or no trade that way you only loot it if you can use it, which stops another form on money making. And there should be Instanced raids, with a player cap id say honestly around 40ish people, mainly becuase thats gives room for each class to be there and they are all nesscary and not just to have one of them. It might stop the competiviness of the content but the last thing i want is for like 2 guilds killing everything and making it to where no one else can progress because they cant compete int he kill and know they will lose the dps race just becuase they have all the gear and the smaller guild doesn't, which in turn will cuase a lot of people in said guild to probably join the bigger guild and than cuase that smaller guild to no longer exsist in extreme measures. This is why Instancing is needed, believe me the Positives on Instancing outweighs the Negatives, as For Non- Instanced Raids do the exact opposite, i know if i were in the bigger guild and choked out the competition of the smaller guilds and saw i killed the server due to everyone leaving it and joining others or simply just joining my guild to stay on the server, i wouldn't really enjoy the game for very long. Instancing might kill the Economy but Non Instancing would kill your server
Removing coin doesn't even come close to "countering like everything" that I said, and as such the negatives of instancing do not outweigh the positives.
You also admit that it stops competitiveness which is a big part of online gaming. Then there is resorting to nodrop or BoP items which is a detriment to a player driven economy. Not to mention the biggest issue I have with it personally which is that it allows far too many rare and powerful items into the world and thereby detracts from the sense of accomplishment, something MMOs have sorely lacked since EverQuest.
Dullahan said:Riahuf22 said:I know this is an old Post but you could easily counter like everything you said by simple making it to where mobs in raid Content dont drop money, there not people trying to kill raid level mobs for quick cash doesnt exsist, don't drop tradeskill mats and if they do make them no drop, or no trade that way you only loot it if you can use it, which stops another form on money making. And there should be Instanced raids, with a player cap id say honestly around 40ish people, mainly becuase thats gives room for each class to be there and they are all nesscary and not just to have one of them. It might stop the competiviness of the content but the last thing i want is for like 2 guilds killing everything and making it to where no one else can progress because they cant compete int he kill and know they will lose the dps race just becuase they have all the gear and the smaller guild doesn't, which in turn will cuase a lot of people in said guild to probably join the bigger guild and than cuase that smaller guild to no longer exsist in extreme measures. This is why Instancing is needed, believe me the Positives on Instancing outweighs the Negatives, as For Non- Instanced Raids do the exact opposite, i know if i were in the bigger guild and choked out the competition of the smaller guilds and saw i killed the server due to everyone leaving it and joining others or simply just joining my guild to stay on the server, i wouldn't really enjoy the game for very long. Instancing might kill the Economy but Non Instancing would kill your server
Removing coin doesn't even come close to "countering like everything" that I said, and as such the negatives of instancing do not outweigh the positives.
You also admit that it stops competitiveness which is a big part of online gaming. Then there is resorting to nodrop or BoP items which is a detriment to a player driven economy. Not to mention the biggest issue I have with it personally which is that it allows far too many rare and powerful items into the world and thereby detracts from the sense of accomplishment, something MMOs have sorely lacked since EverQuest.
You can also counter that with them having huge loo tables and making the okay items very common the better the piece the harder it become to get like if you kill a raid mob but he drops lets say 50 items and 30 of them are common and has a chance to drop a max of 5 items with 3 being common, 4 being rare, and 5 being ultra rare, a kill and the cmmons have a 80% drop rate, than there uncommon has 15 drops at 15% drop rate than there rare has 4 at 4.5% and than ultra rare has 1 at .5% meaning you could kill this guy literally 100 times and never see the ultra rare item or maybe even a rare. but see the cmmon drops and uncommon items everytime or maybe not who knows, and even if he dropped all common gear and there was a piece in that loot table you wanted you still had a 80-90% chance of not getting it on very kill, which still makes it very unique and also that just the common drops let alone the better drops that he could give you
Dullahan said:Riahuf22 said:
You also admit that it stops competitiveness which is a big part of online gaming. Then there is resorting to nodrop or BoP items which is a detriment to a player driven economy.
People shouldn't be raiding to collect items to sell to line there own pockets, but to raid to gear up yourself and your guild to watch your guild as a whole improve, and like i said before i don't want to see only 2 powerhouse guilds on a server and choking out everyone else and making them leave to another server or join one of the 2 guilds just so they can enjoy the content at hand, that also isn't what MMO's are about. Plus if you don't make the raid drops No drop, or BoP it will used brand new characters they just made steamroll all the early levels due to having raid level gear, which is also what MMo's are not all about cuase than people would be like oh yeah he got all that stuff lets get him instead of this guy who just started and has a wooden shield and a rusty sword.
Not only that but to be honest the main form of the Economy should come from Tradeskills, and the materials that the tradeskillers need to make their items, and maybe a few items here and there, but i dont see how making raid items BoP, or no drop is a bad tings just sounds like someone trying to make a lot of money for something it took 40 people to kill which doesn't sound right at all unless you split it with all 40 of them than maybe but even than we know this isn't going to happen. so how bout we do your tradeskills, gather our materials and make our coin a little bit at a time nstead of trying to make the raid items sellable so you can skip tradeskilling and make insane amount of money at once.
Kalgore said:Im mixed on this. I feel having some instances is great for the players that do not have a ton of time to sink playing and camping mobs. In both EQ1 and EQ2 my guild had the best non instanced mobs on lockdown. No one killed them unless we felt lazy. I do feel EQ2 had to many instances but the gear reflected that. yah you could get some nice loot from instances but the best of the best was contested mob drops.
If you have never been on a server that 1 or 2 guilds had the content on lockdown you wouldnt really know the frustration of having all open world content because you will never get good gear or become good enough to join those guilds because you cant farm the gear because they are farming it for alts of alts. Having most loot tradable and sellable will make the lockdown even worse. Instances do need lockout timers though so they arent perma farmed it also hewlps force players into the contested world while lockout timers cool down.
The one area I feel different is raiding. I would rather have more ionstances raiding with a very long lockout and a hand ful of supe rhard contested raid mobs that were super tough but dropped the most gear.
It is a double edged sword and need to balance it correctly
This has been exactly my experience and agree with it completely.
Searril said:Kalgore said:Im mixed on this. I feel having some instances is great for the players that do not have a ton of time to sink playing and camping mobs. In both EQ1 and EQ2 my guild had the best non instanced mobs on lockdown. No one killed them unless we felt lazy. I do feel EQ2 had to many instances but the gear reflected that. yah you could get some nice loot from instances but the best of the best was contested mob drops.
If you have never been on a server that 1 or 2 guilds had the content on lockdown you wouldnt really know the frustration of having all open world content because you will never get good gear or become good enough to join those guilds because you cant farm the gear because they are farming it for alts of alts. Having most loot tradable and sellable will make the lockdown even worse. Instances do need lockout timers though so they arent perma farmed it also hewlps force players into the contested world while lockout timers cool down.
The one area I feel different is raiding. I would rather have more ionstances raiding with a very long lockout and a hand ful of supe rhard contested raid mobs that were super tough but dropped the most gear.
It is a double edged sword and need to balance it correctly
This has been exactly my experience and agree with it completely.
I could see a few but only a few mainy but have it to where they might have the biggest loot table but dont drop the best items as the instanced raids due to the fact im afraid of guild or multiple guilds zerging said targets and ignoring the mechanic of the fight due to pure numbers and than just spliting the loot. just a though but i think it is a valid one, i am against open world raid mobs becuase right now i am playing on Lockjaw in EQ1 and we are a non-instanced server like ragefire but Phingel is a instanced raid server for progression and they have us outnumbered id say 20 to 1 and i have to say the numbers dont lie my friend
There needs to be a balance between both. Instance content != lack of socialization, unless designed that way. Also, the poop socking of open world content does != socialization. In any situation where open world content is a hindrance on the majority of the playerbase, that should be instanced. That isn't to say the skill level of said content should be non-existant.
Riahuf22 said:Searril said:Kalgore said:Im mixed on this. I feel having some instances is great for the players that do not have a ton of time to sink playing and camping mobs. In both EQ1 and EQ2 my guild had the best non instanced mobs on lockdown. No one killed them unless we felt lazy. I do feel EQ2 had to many instances but the gear reflected that. yah you could get some nice loot from instances but the best of the best was contested mob drops.
If you have never been on a server that 1 or 2 guilds had the content on lockdown you wouldnt really know the frustration of having all open world content because you will never get good gear or become good enough to join those guilds because you cant farm the gear because they are farming it for alts of alts. Having most loot tradable and sellable will make the lockdown even worse. Instances do need lockout timers though so they arent perma farmed it also hewlps force players into the contested world while lockout timers cool down.
The one area I feel different is raiding. I would rather have more ionstances raiding with a very long lockout and a hand ful of supe rhard contested raid mobs that were super tough but dropped the most gear.
It is a double edged sword and need to balance it correctly
This has been exactly my experience and agree with it completely.
I could see a few but only a few mainy but have it to where they might have the biggest loot table but dont drop the best items as the instanced raids due to the fact im afraid of guild or multiple guilds zerging said targets and ignoring the mechanic of the fight due to pure numbers and than just spliting the loot. just a though but i think it is a valid one, i am against open world raid mobs becuase right now i am playing on Lockjaw in EQ1 and we are a non-instanced server like ragefire but Phingel is a instanced raid server for progression and they have us outnumbered id say 20 to 1 and i have to say the numbers dont lie my friend
I have already beaten this point to death, but I feel I need to say it again. Now, before all the people that think EQ style raids were the best thing since sliced bread come in here, please try and be open-minded. Basically, if you have guilds camping mobs, and locking people out of content, those people will quit. Period. And, if that happens, people will leave this game so fast to go to games that offer very challenging raid content that requires skill and not tedious amounts of camping.
Again, I am sorry to have to be so honest. But, I feel that the Devs of this game are doomed to repeat past mistakes. Also, and I will repeat it again, instanced content is not less harcore. The fights can be extremely well done where it takes a ton of coordination. However, I feel this is impossible to do with open world raids. There is no way that you can have a heavy mechanic encounter in the open world. It will be a zerg fest or it will fail due to lack of communication. And, I also feel that open world raiding is lazy game design.
Riahuf22 said:People shouldn't be raiding to collect items to sell to line there own pockets, but to raid to gear up yourself and your guild to watch your guild as a whole improve, and like i said before i don't want to see only 2 powerhouse guilds on a server and choking out everyone else and making them leave to another server or join one of the 2 guilds just so they can enjoy the content at hand, that also isn't what MMO's are about. Plus if you don't make the raid drops No drop, or BoP it will used brand new characters they just made steamroll all the early levels due to having raid level gear, which is also what MMo's are not all about cuase than people would be like oh yeah he got all that stuff lets get him instead of this guy who just started and has a wooden shield and a rusty sword.
Guilds definitely shouldn't be raiding just to line their own pockets. If raids are designed properly and content created in a timely fashion, this will not happen. Instancing is not required to achieve this.
In fact, even in EQ back on both of the live servers I played on, by simply introducing new content, it freed up old content. I can think of a number of times where we found Talendor or Severilous or other raid mobs sitting up unmolested. Also, no one ever had so much raid loot that they could just sell it. You never saw cloaks of flames for sale during classic or kunark. You never saw trakanon breastplates for sale during kunark. People always had players in their guilds in need of these rare items. This is a total strawman argument. Its sounds like you spent too much time on Project1999.
I've described a number of design solutions that developers can utilize to avoid content monopoly.
https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/2943/my-only-raid-concern/view/post_id/43467
Dullahan said: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.
Sort of like when people throw out "go play WoW" or "instant gratification" you know they don't have much substance to their claims.
Searril said:Dullahan said: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.
Sort of like when people throw out "go play WoW" or "instant gratification" you know they don't have much substance to their claims.
"Go play WoW" I'll give ya, but instant gratification actually means something and describes a problem which has done great harm to MMORPGs.
Searril said:Sort of like when people throw out "go play WoW" or "instant gratification" you know they don't have much substance to their claims.
Actually, "instant gratification" is a demonstratable paradigm. And WoW is in many ways a perfect vehicle to do so. I have. Dullahan has. We've both used very specific examples, explained them in detail, and talked in depth about how we prefer Pantheon not be created with the same notions.
Yes, people always have a way of justifying their own behavior.
At any rate, thank you Brad for the post earlier on this page (I don't recall the date on the post). I understand you can only really speak in vague generalities at this point since so much of these things are nowhere even remotely close to being hammered out.
Unlike some, however, I very much hope you realize all the problems that plagued open world raiding in EQ and don't try to pretend like these things didn't exist.
Although I was a raider in EQ, I unfortunately didn't stay that long in Vanguard. The technical issues with the game were more than I was willing to put up with at the time. That is not meant as an insult of course since you have already discussed those things yourself. Rather it's to say I have no personal knowledge of what Vanguard raiding was like. From what I gather, it sounds like there would be multiple instances of a raid zone, but were not locked to a particular raid group so anyone could enter any of them and see if the area they wanted to work on was available or not. That gives me some faith that you won't ignore the huge problems that early EQ style all open world raiding causes. I did find it kind of funny that some people wanted to argue with Kilsin about it. lol. Some will never be happy.
Anyway, I look forward to seeing more info about how you intend to prevent guilds from blocking others from even attempting things. Let's be honest, from what we have seen in games up until this date, without instancing there is no value to a guild claiming to be the top on the server. All that means is that a particular guild got the timers down so they are always able to be online to prevent anyone else from even trying. So they are the "top" guild only because others are either at work or asleep when the mob pops, so they get to farm it and become powerful enough to easily grief others who would even attempt the encounter later on.
Look forward to finding out more as alpha comes and progresses into beta.