Liav said:Hieromonk said:Assuming that dungeon only exist for raids, and for guilds.
But doesn't work as a whole or for all. Much better solutions out there, than holding on to a cheap mechanic such as zone instancing, or lockout timer.
I didn't say anything about dungeons. If you're going to refute my argument, offer a counter argument.
I was not refuting anything.
I was elaborating on said mechanic of "lock out timer"... of a ZONE. That zone doesn't have to be a dungeon, for my point to be made. There are much better solutions.
Additionally, a "lock out timer" is not even consistant with Brad's idea of open-ended gameplay. "Instancing" and "locking out" are bandaids to short-sighted development, they are not solutions. Many solutions have already been discussed.. it is amazing that people still think they know where all mobs will be... as if they don't get it already and that mobs are not always going to be where you find them, even in dungeons. (Mobs today can roam the gameworld, if the developer watns/has use of that mechanic.
In Pantheon (64bit gameworld), mobs can migrate to different zones... or even move to a different dungeon, or even dig new ones...! Yet, there are poeple here that still thinking in terms of a 16 year old MMORPG and think their raids are going to unfold just like the last one did. In Pantheon, perhaps Your guild might want a slew of really good trackers... and have them out in many zones, so if the MOB you are looking for spawns, you can assemble YOUR guild for a raid, before another guild's tracker finds that mob...
Rallyd said:"Shards" is instancing, by definition. If someone were to play politics and claim that Pantheon will have no instancing and then slip in "shards"... well we will hope that won't happen cuz I doubt we wanna go down that road.
It wasn't explained that way by the VG devs mate.
A Shard was basically a chunk and 6 of them were mirrored to form the 6 shards, each one almost identical apart from a few glitches/AI behaviour which proves they are actual standalone chunks.
An Instance is basically a closed off clone that locks that particular instance to a certain amount of players, usually a group or raid and is usually entered by a portal etc.
With VG's Shards, anyone could enter any shard at any time and see others in the same shard, there used to be huge PvP battles on the PvP servers to try and wipe other guilds and even entire guilds would enter a shard and /shout to check if anyone else was there so they could form up and start a raid to claim that shard as their own, you cannot do this in Instances, they are locked instances of a section of the game and very different to shards man, the way the VG devs explained it was quite interesting but my memory is fading since the conversation was many years ago now!
Kilsin said:Rallyd said:"Shards" is instancing, by definition. If someone were to play politics and claim that Pantheon will have no instancing and then slip in "shards"... well we will hope that won't happen cuz I doubt we wanna go down that road.
It wasn't explained that way by the VG devs mate.
A Shard was basically a chunk and 6 of them were mirrored to form the 6 shards, each one almost identical apart from a few glitches/AI behaviour which proves they are actual standalone chunks.An Instance is basically a closed off clone that locks that particular instance to a certain amount of players, usually a group or raid and is usually entered by a portal etc.
With VG's Shards, anyone could enter any shard at any time and see others in the same shard, there used to be huge PvP battles on the PvP servers to try and wipe other guilds and even entire guilds would enter a shard and /shout to check if anyone else was there so they could form up and start a raid to claim that shard as their own, you cannot do this in Instances, they are locked instances of a section of the game and very different to shards man, the way the VG devs explained it was quite interesting but my memory is fading since the conversation was many years ago now!
I think by today's MMO's..what you described would be best described as Channels. Blade and Soul does this and you can freely change channels to a less crowded channel. PvP also occurs in certain channels in BnS. The dungeons are all Instanced in that once you go in...its yours and nobody else goes into YOUR dungeon.
Hieromonk said:Liav said:Hieromonk said:Assuming that dungeon only exist for raids, and for guilds.
But doesn't work as a whole or for all. Much better solutions out there, than holding on to a cheap mechanic such as zone instancing, or lockout timer.
I didn't say anything about dungeons. If you're going to refute my argument, offer a counter argument.
I was not refuting anything.
I was elaborating on said mechanic of "lock out timer"... of a ZONE. That zone doesn't have to be a dungeon, for my point to be made. There are much better solutions.
Additionally, a "lock out timer" is not even consistant with Brad's idea of open-ended gameplay. "Instancing" and "locking out" are bandaids to short-sighted development, they are not solutions. Many solutions have already been discussed.. it is amazing that people still think they know where all mobs will be... as if they don't get it already and that mobs are not always going to be where you find them, even in dungeons. (Mobs today can roam the gameworld, if the developer watns/has use of that mechanic.
In Pantheon (64bit gameworld), mobs can migrate to different zones... or even move to a different dungeon, or even dig new ones...! Yet, there are poeple here that still thinking in terms of a 16 year old MMORPG and think their raids are going to unfold just like the last one did. In Pantheon, perhaps Your guild might want a slew of really good trackers... and have them out in many zones, so if the MOB you are looking for spawns, you can assemble YOUR guild for a raid, before another guild's tracker finds that mob...
So all you want to see is open world contested mobs, that is great Hieromonk, but many want static zones with set raid times not random 2am calls to kill X boss...
Kilsin said:Rallyd said:"Shards" is instancing, by definition. If someone were to play politics and claim that Pantheon will have no instancing and then slip in "shards"... well we will hope that won't happen cuz I doubt we wanna go down that road.
It wasn't explained that way by the VG devs mate.
A Shard was basically a chunk and 6 of them were mirrored to form the 6 shards, each one almost identical apart from a few glitches/AI behaviour which proves they are actual standalone chunks.An Instance is basically a closed off clone that locks that particular instance to a certain amount of players, usually a group or raid and is usually entered by a portal etc.
With VG's Shards, anyone could enter any shard at any time and see others in the same shard, there used to be huge PvP battles on the PvP servers to try and wipe other guilds and even entire guilds would enter a shard and /shout to check if anyone else was there so they could form up and start a raid to claim that shard as their own, you cannot do this in Instances, they are locked instances of a section of the game and very different to shards man, the way the VG devs explained it was quite interesting but my memory is fading since the conversation was many years ago now!
Some effective differences but it's semantic for most of us. Shards vs instances, the result is the same, you're destroying the integrity of the world by duplicating content.
Krixus said:Kilsin said:Rallyd said:"Shards" is instancing, by definition. If someone were to play politics and claim that Pantheon will have no instancing and then slip in "shards"... well we will hope that won't happen cuz I doubt we wanna go down that road.
It wasn't explained that way by the VG devs mate.
A Shard was basically a chunk and 6 of them were mirrored to form the 6 shards, each one almost identical apart from a few glitches/AI behaviour which proves they are actual standalone chunks.An Instance is basically a closed off clone that locks that particular instance to a certain amount of players, usually a group or raid and is usually entered by a portal etc.
With VG's Shards, anyone could enter any shard at any time and see others in the same shard, there used to be huge PvP battles on the PvP servers to try and wipe other guilds and even entire guilds would enter a shard and /shout to check if anyone else was there so they could form up and start a raid to claim that shard as their own, you cannot do this in Instances, they are locked instances of a section of the game and very different to shards man, the way the VG devs explained it was quite interesting but my memory is fading since the conversation was many years ago now!
Some effective differences but it's semantic for most of us. Shards vs instances, the result is the same, you're destroying the integrity of the world by duplicating content.
^ this x100. Duplication of content is what the big negative of instancing is for me, so as far as my concerns go, shards, channels, instances, they are all the same to me in their negative impact.
The reason the majority of content in Everquest felt rewarding was because there was only 1 ghoul lord, 1 myconid spore king. If you were killing it then you were the only group who was doing it, not 6 other groups in 6 other channels. Exclusivity is extremely important, and it is something that VG did away with, and I feel was a mistake.
Yeah, it's super rewarding to sit at your PC for 6 hours and **** in a sock because the game mechanics demand that you have to sacrifice the basic tenets of human function in order to experience all of the game content.
Maybe I'm being disingenuous, but if you think the game won't end up this way by having super-exclusive 100% contested content, you're probably being naive.
Rallyd said:Krixus said:Kilsin said:Rallyd said:"Shards" is instancing, by definition. If someone were to play politics and claim that Pantheon will have no instancing and then slip in "shards"... well we will hope that won't happen cuz I doubt we wanna go down that road.
It wasn't explained that way by the VG devs mate.
A Shard was basically a chunk and 6 of them were mirrored to form the 6 shards, each one almost identical apart from a few glitches/AI behaviour which proves they are actual standalone chunks.An Instance is basically a closed off clone that locks that particular instance to a certain amount of players, usually a group or raid and is usually entered by a portal etc.
With VG's Shards, anyone could enter any shard at any time and see others in the same shard, there used to be huge PvP battles on the PvP servers to try and wipe other guilds and even entire guilds would enter a shard and /shout to check if anyone else was there so they could form up and start a raid to claim that shard as their own, you cannot do this in Instances, they are locked instances of a section of the game and very different to shards man, the way the VG devs explained it was quite interesting but my memory is fading since the conversation was many years ago now!
Some effective differences but it's semantic for most of us. Shards vs instances, the result is the same, you're destroying the integrity of the world by duplicating content.
^ this x100. Duplication of content is what the big negative of instancing is for me, so as far as my concerns go, shards, channels, instances, they are all the same to me in their negative impact.
The reason the majority of content in Everquest felt rewarding was because there was only 1 ghoul lord, 1 myconid spore king. If you were killing it then you were the only group who was doing it, not 6 other groups in 6 other channels. Exclusivity is extremely important, and it is something that VG did away with, and I feel was a mistake.
Shards were added to help with the bottleneck and over population of APW since it was the new and only premium raiding dungeon at the time and most of the player base was already at level cap (50), so it worked for VG and helped fix that overpopulation problem, if it happens in Pantheon it could also be an option and in my opinion, is better than Instancing which totally isolates players from each other, at least with shards, you can enter one and see other players and still feel part of a living world with consequences, you can still socialise and interact in positive or negative ways (trade someone for food, gear, potions or be trained by someone intentionally or accidently)
If there is only one dungeon at end game and let's say 5-10 thousand players guilded that are all trying to progress, it isn't going to end well for anyone! People are not going to wait weeks or months to enter a dungeon that they should have access to in any given play session, that would be the fastest way to push our players away!
I don't like instancing but I can handle shards if they are required to help with overpopulation or bottlenecking at certain points of the game in regards to dungeons and raiding.
The most important thing here is the 'people' factor.
I remember what it meant to camp in EQ. I am almost certain that if this is to be what "non-instanced" group content means for Pantheon, i will be one of those "nice guys" you pass on your way somewhere, say hello and keep walking :)
And that's assuming it is like that. While not invested in a any a one, i have tried out most AAA titles that have come out since. The behavioural types you get to notice, the attitudes they entail? Inserting them in a open, camping-based game? A clusterfeff just waiting to happen. I sincerely hope there isn't a single dev involved delluding themselves into thinking subscriptions will solve this... Subscription does not equate mentality. This is no longer the realm of the few and socially shy. Period.
I understand i sound overly pessimistic, but that is where i stand. You factor the theory, sure, but you also factor practice. Got two decades and change of it.
(and mind you, this, with all the dangers it involves, is about the "best" case scenario, ie emulating the early EQ situation. Assuming one was fine with that in the first place; because i can remember [takes rose-tinted eyewear off] some very not pretty situations. Too many 'boys' playing together + zero actual consequences + pixel fever. I remember the camping attitudes, the guild crap, the people asking what about 'us'. The waits in vain, the hours lost. The 'steals'. The bitterness of the many and the cock-bragging rights of the few. The people having jobs wondering what's the point, we ain't got all day, never will. Even if you're about to reply "i liked that, don't care", you're still in danger of all the above)
Until the Pantheon blogs start going into the specific, i will stick to the general. One needs be fair. And in general? :)
I see already the same pitfalls, the same threats. When your i) starting point is not zero [we know what Brad "wants" in general, and that's good] but ii) you have yet to show HOW you will overcome the problems you had, they all had, back then? Can't say.. Hence my awaiting for specifics.
The Reason something can feel rewarding to me is if its not handed to you on a silver platter. If you just can go to instance no 5 and kill your named there and that named drops his loot everytime and is up all 5 mins anyway the item he drops will be in posession of every player around for sure. But if everyone has said item its basically just as if it is normal starter gear and its kind of a given you need it if everyone else has it. And that when said item is not worth much i even consider said item as a bothersom thing i need to get since everyone has it and in order to be on the same strenght lvl as everyone.
If everyone is Superman in a MMorpg then noone will have fun. Cause its kinda like Cheating once you cheat in a game you surely loose interest fast.
Some ppls start to moan if not everything is handed to them instantly in a Game since Games are just timesinks and grinding and blaa .. my Advice for thoose ppls is... dont play Games. Games will always be timesinks but if you get lvl 60 and the best Gear right at start theres no reason to even play the Game. And i hear them say .....But but i dont want to wait 6 hours thats a timesink .... okay then do something else but dont make my Game uninteresting by demanding everything instant yes its not real life, yes its really stupid to wait 6 hours for a Pixel Reward but thats something that makes this Pixel Reward so awesome, not everyone got that pixel reward. Or show me some other way to make a reward feel thruly rewarding in a Mmorpg if its a riddle it will be posted on the forums like instantly if its a hard fight it belongs to the raid stuff.
Same problem with quests. If a quests rewards a superb item and is just a timesink but otherwise easy to do. Said item is a must have in order to be on equal therms with other players. Means u must do that quest which u know is just a timesink.
Instances and anything alike are the Devil. :)
Kilsin said:Rallyd said:Krixus said:Kilsin said:Rallyd said:"Shards" is instancing, by definition. If someone were to play politics and claim that Pantheon will have no instancing and then slip in "shards"... well we will hope that won't happen cuz I doubt we wanna go down that road.
It wasn't explained that way by the VG devs mate.
A Shard was basically a chunk and 6 of them were mirrored to form the 6 shards, each one almost identical apart from a few glitches/AI behaviour which proves they are actual standalone chunks.An Instance is basically a closed off clone that locks that particular instance to a certain amount of players, usually a group or raid and is usually entered by a portal etc.
With VG's Shards, anyone could enter any shard at any time and see others in the same shard, there used to be huge PvP battles on the PvP servers to try and wipe other guilds and even entire guilds would enter a shard and /shout to check if anyone else was there so they could form up and start a raid to claim that shard as their own, you cannot do this in Instances, they are locked instances of a section of the game and very different to shards man, the way the VG devs explained it was quite interesting but my memory is fading since the conversation was many years ago now!
Some effective differences but it's semantic for most of us. Shards vs instances, the result is the same, you're destroying the integrity of the world by duplicating content.
^ this x100. Duplication of content is what the big negative of instancing is for me, so as far as my concerns go, shards, channels, instances, they are all the same to me in their negative impact.
The reason the majority of content in Everquest felt rewarding was because there was only 1 ghoul lord, 1 myconid spore king. If you were killing it then you were the only group who was doing it, not 6 other groups in 6 other channels. Exclusivity is extremely important, and it is something that VG did away with, and I feel was a mistake.
Shards were added to help with the bottleneck and over population of APW since it was the new and only premium raiding dungeon at the time and most of the player base was already at level cap (50), so it worked for VG and helped fix that overpopulation problem, if it happens in Pantheon it could also be an option and in my opinion, is better than Instancing which totally isolates players from each other, at least with shards, you can enter one and see other players and still feel part of a living world with consequences, you can still socialise and interact in positive or negative ways (trade someone for food, gear, potions or be trained by someone intentionally or accidently)
If there is only one dungeon at end game and let's say 5-10 thousand players guilded that are all trying to progress, it isn't going to end well for anyone! People are not going to wait weeks or months to enter a dungeon that they should have access to in any given play session, that would be the fastest way to push our players away!I don't like instancing but I can handle shards if they are required to help with overpopulation or bottlenecking at certain points of the game in regards to dungeons and raiding.
Totally agree, however there should never be 5-10 thousand players all doing the same dungeon, if that happens, the game has been poorly designed, or too many players have been allowed to play on the same server. While I will agree shards are marginally less detrimental than instances, they are still dirty relatives.
Aenra said:The most important thing here is the 'people' factor.
I remember what it meant to camp in EQ. I am almost certain that if this is to be what "non-instanced" group content means for Pantheon, i will be one of those "nice guys" you pass on your way somewhere, say hello and keep walking :)
And that's assuming it is like that. While not invested in a any a one, i have tried out most AAA titles that have come out since. The behavioural types you get to notice, the attitudes they entail? Inserting them in a open, camping-based game? A clusterfeff just waiting to happen. I sincerely hope there isn't a single dev involved delluding themselves into thinking subscriptions will solve this... Subscription does not equate mentality. This is no longer the realm of the few and socially shy. Period.
I understand i sound overly pessimistic, but that is where i stand. You factor the theory, sure, but you also factor practice. Got two decades and change of it.
(and mind you, this, with all the dangers it involves, is about the "best" case scenario, ie emulating the early EQ situation. Assuming one was fine with that in the first place; because i can remember [takes rose-tinted eyewear off] some very not pretty situations. Too many 'boys' playing together + zero actual consequences + pixel fever. I remember the camping attitudes, the guild crap, the people asking what about 'us'. The waits in vain, the hours lost. The 'steals'. The bitterness of the many and the cock-bragging rights of the few. The people having jobs wondering what's the point, we ain't got all day, never will. Even if you're about to reply "i liked that, don't care", you're still in danger of all the above)
Until the Pantheon blogs start going into the specific, i will stick to the general. One needs be fair. And in general? :)
I see already the same pitfalls, the same threats. When your i) starting point is not zero [we know what Brad "wants" in general, and that's good] but ii) you have yet to show HOW you will overcome the problems you had, they all had, back then? Can't say.. Hence my awaiting for specifics.
I don't know about you, but I've always felt bad things as you listed, are actually an important part of player/human interactions. If everything was always roses and daffedils things would get boring fast.
The night is darkest just before the dawn, all the bad things that can/do/will happen only serve to enrich the good things IMO.
Pedantic and patronising, while caressed so lovingly under a mantle of sophism. My my, such replies :)
Of course dear, i will not argue further. If i may however, in like spirit and form, ask my rhetorical question. Rhetorical; you need not reply.
Are you selective in which flawed concepts (flawed in their implementation mind) you excuse and then proceed to defend, or is it a practice you apply to them all unexceptionally?
(you see the thing is, when we do that, we bar progress. If we accept the problematic.. then why improve?)
Rallyd said:Kilsin said:Rallyd said:Krixus said:Kilsin said:Rallyd said:"Shards" is instancing, by definition. If someone were to play politics and claim that Pantheon will have no instancing and then slip in "shards"... well we will hope that won't happen cuz I doubt we wanna go down that road.
It wasn't explained that way by the VG devs mate.
A Shard was basically a chunk and 6 of them were mirrored to form the 6 shards, each one almost identical apart from a few glitches/AI behaviour which proves they are actual standalone chunks.An Instance is basically a closed off clone that locks that particular instance to a certain amount of players, usually a group or raid and is usually entered by a portal etc.
With VG's Shards, anyone could enter any shard at any time and see others in the same shard, there used to be huge PvP battles on the PvP servers to try and wipe other guilds and even entire guilds would enter a shard and /shout to check if anyone else was there so they could form up and start a raid to claim that shard as their own, you cannot do this in Instances, they are locked instances of a section of the game and very different to shards man, the way the VG devs explained it was quite interesting but my memory is fading since the conversation was many years ago now!
Some effective differences but it's semantic for most of us. Shards vs instances, the result is the same, you're destroying the integrity of the world by duplicating content.
^ this x100. Duplication of content is what the big negative of instancing is for me, so as far as my concerns go, shards, channels, instances, they are all the same to me in their negative impact.
The reason the majority of content in Everquest felt rewarding was because there was only 1 ghoul lord, 1 myconid spore king. If you were killing it then you were the only group who was doing it, not 6 other groups in 6 other channels. Exclusivity is extremely important, and it is something that VG did away with, and I feel was a mistake.
Shards were added to help with the bottleneck and over population of APW since it was the new and only premium raiding dungeon at the time and most of the player base was already at level cap (50), so it worked for VG and helped fix that overpopulation problem, if it happens in Pantheon it could also be an option and in my opinion, is better than Instancing which totally isolates players from each other, at least with shards, you can enter one and see other players and still feel part of a living world with consequences, you can still socialise and interact in positive or negative ways (trade someone for food, gear, potions or be trained by someone intentionally or accidently)
If there is only one dungeon at end game and let's say 5-10 thousand players guilded that are all trying to progress, it isn't going to end well for anyone! People are not going to wait weeks or months to enter a dungeon that they should have access to in any given play session, that would be the fastest way to push our players away!I don't like instancing but I can handle shards if they are required to help with overpopulation or bottlenecking at certain points of the game in regards to dungeons and raiding.
Totally agree, however there should never be 5-10 thousand players all doing the same dungeon, if that happens, the game has been poorly designed, or too many players have been allowed to play on the same server. While I will agree shards are marginally less detrimental than instances, they are still dirty relatives.
Oh absolutely, they would be spread over many servers but that would be cool to see that many people on 1 server without instancing! Can you imagine the lag! lol
Aenra said:Pedantic and patronising, while caressed so lovingly under a mantle of sophism. My my, such replies :)
Of course dear, i will not argue further. If i may however, in like spirit and form, ask my rhetorical question. Rhetorical; you need not reply.
Are you selective in which flawed concepts (flawed in their implementation mind) you excuse and then proceed to defend, or is it a practice you apply to them all unexceptionally?
(you see the thing is, when we do that, we bar progress. If we accept the problematic.. then why improve?)
Well since you say its progressing, I guess we're just wrong to feel the way we do. Thanks for pointing that out.
In the name of progress!
Kilsin said:Rallyd said:Kilsin said:Rallyd said:Krixus said:Kilsin said:Rallyd said:"Shards" is instancing, by definition. If someone were to play politics and claim that Pantheon will have no instancing and then slip in "shards"... well we will hope that won't happen cuz I doubt we wanna go down that road.
It wasn't explained that way by the VG devs mate.
A Shard was basically a chunk and 6 of them were mirrored to form the 6 shards, each one almost identical apart from a few glitches/AI behaviour which proves they are actual standalone chunks.An Instance is basically a closed off clone that locks that particular instance to a certain amount of players, usually a group or raid and is usually entered by a portal etc.
With VG's Shards, anyone could enter any shard at any time and see others in the same shard, there used to be huge PvP battles on the PvP servers to try and wipe other guilds and even entire guilds would enter a shard and /shout to check if anyone else was there so they could form up and start a raid to claim that shard as their own, you cannot do this in Instances, they are locked instances of a section of the game and very different to shards man, the way the VG devs explained it was quite interesting but my memory is fading since the conversation was many years ago now!
Some effective differences but it's semantic for most of us. Shards vs instances, the result is the same, you're destroying the integrity of the world by duplicating content.
^ this x100. Duplication of content is what the big negative of instancing is for me, so as far as my concerns go, shards, channels, instances, they are all the same to me in their negative impact.
The reason the majority of content in Everquest felt rewarding was because there was only 1 ghoul lord, 1 myconid spore king. If you were killing it then you were the only group who was doing it, not 6 other groups in 6 other channels. Exclusivity is extremely important, and it is something that VG did away with, and I feel was a mistake.
Shards were added to help with the bottleneck and over population of APW since it was the new and only premium raiding dungeon at the time and most of the player base was already at level cap (50), so it worked for VG and helped fix that overpopulation problem, if it happens in Pantheon it could also be an option and in my opinion, is better than Instancing which totally isolates players from each other, at least with shards, you can enter one and see other players and still feel part of a living world with consequences, you can still socialise and interact in positive or negative ways (trade someone for food, gear, potions or be trained by someone intentionally or accidently)
If there is only one dungeon at end game and let's say 5-10 thousand players guilded that are all trying to progress, it isn't going to end well for anyone! People are not going to wait weeks or months to enter a dungeon that they should have access to in any given play session, that would be the fastest way to push our players away!I don't like instancing but I can handle shards if they are required to help with overpopulation or bottlenecking at certain points of the game in regards to dungeons and raiding.
Totally agree, however there should never be 5-10 thousand players all doing the same dungeon, if that happens, the game has been poorly designed, or too many players have been allowed to play on the same server. While I will agree shards are marginally less detrimental than instances, they are still dirty relatives.
Oh absolutely, they would be spread over many servers but that would be cool to see that many people on 1 server without instancing! Can you imagine the lag! lol
This reminds me of the massive EVE fights with thousands of ships fighting in one sector. EVE was one world and auto shifted resources as needed to reduce lag. I think the max was something like 5 or 6k people all battleing out for hours in one small sector. AH the days of Spies and traitors leading fleets into ambushes
Aenra said:The most important thing here is the 'people' factor.
I remember what it meant to camp in EQ. I am almost certain that if this is to be what "non-instanced" group content means for Pantheon, i will be one of those "nice guys" you pass on your way somewhere, say hello and keep walking :)
And that's assuming it is like that. While not invested in a any a one, i have tried out most AAA titles that have come out since. The behavioural types you get to notice, the attitudes they entail? Inserting them in a open, camping-based game? A clusterfeff just waiting to happen. I sincerely hope there isn't a single dev involved delluding themselves into thinking subscriptions will solve this... Subscription does not equate mentality. This is no longer the realm of the few and socially shy. Period.
I understand i sound overly pessimistic, but that is where i stand. You factor the theory, sure, but you also factor practice. Got two decades and change of it.
(and mind you, this, with all the dangers it involves, is about the "best" case scenario, ie emulating the early EQ situation. Assuming one was fine with that in the first place; because i can remember [takes rose-tinted eyewear off] some very not pretty situations. Too many 'boys' playing together + zero actual consequences + pixel fever. I remember the camping attitudes, the guild crap, the people asking what about 'us'. The waits in vain, the hours lost. The 'steals'. The bitterness of the many and the cock-bragging rights of the few. The people having jobs wondering what's the point, we ain't got all day, never will. Even if you're about to reply "i liked that, don't care", you're still in danger of all the above)
Until the Pantheon blogs start going into the specific, i will stick to the general. One needs be fair. And in general? :)
I see already the same pitfalls, the same threats. When your i) starting point is not zero [we know what Brad "wants" in general, and that's good] but ii) you have yet to show HOW you will overcome the problems you had, they all had, back then? Can't say.. Hence my awaiting for specifics.
This is supposed to be a real world. There will be jerks and there will be awesome people, and your interactions with the former will make your interactions with the latter even more rewarding and enjoyable, just like life. Catering away all the negative social dynamics will have a negative effect on the world. Nobody liked it when a guild would clear a really tough zone with hours of learning and strategy and dozens of deaths, only to have another guild zone in and start farming the respawn one at a time. But those moments are what helped create rivalries and other dynamic social experiences that would otherwise never have surfaced. Were they always positive experiences? No, but they highlighted how much everyone cared about the game. I really hope they don't lose that in the interest of not allowing people to step on each other's toes.
Krixus said:This is supposed to be a real world. There will be jerks and there will be awesome people, and your interactions with the former will make your interactions with the latter even more rewarding and enjoyable, just like life. Catering away all the negative social dynamics will have a negative effect on the world. Nobody liked it when a guild would clear a really tough zone with hours of learning and strategy and dozens of deaths, only to have another guild zone in and start farming the respawn one at a time. But those moments are what helped create rivalries and other dynamic social experiences that would otherwise never have surfaced. Were they always positive experiences? No, but they highlighted how much everyone cared about the game. I really hope they don't lose that in the interest of not allowing people to step on each other's toes.
I don't see how citing realism is supposed to make fostering hostility sound like a positive. Maybe I'm overly cynical but this is the internet.
Krixus said:Aenra said:The most important thing here is the 'people' factor.
I remember what it meant to camp in EQ. I am almost certain that if this is to be what "non-instanced" group content means for Pantheon, i will be one of those "nice guys" you pass on your way somewhere, say hello and keep walking :)
And that's assuming it is like that. While not invested in a any a one, i have tried out most AAA titles that have come out since. The behavioural types you get to notice, the attitudes they entail? Inserting them in a open, camping-based game? A clusterfeff just waiting to happen. I sincerely hope there isn't a single dev involved delluding themselves into thinking subscriptions will solve this... Subscription does not equate mentality. This is no longer the realm of the few and socially shy. Period.
I understand i sound overly pessimistic, but that is where i stand. You factor the theory, sure, but you also factor practice. Got two decades and change of it.
(and mind you, this, with all the dangers it involves, is about the "best" case scenario, ie emulating the early EQ situation. Assuming one was fine with that in the first place; because i can remember [takes rose-tinted eyewear off] some very not pretty situations. Too many 'boys' playing together + zero actual consequences + pixel fever. I remember the camping attitudes, the guild crap, the people asking what about 'us'. The waits in vain, the hours lost. The 'steals'. The bitterness of the many and the cock-bragging rights of the few. The people having jobs wondering what's the point, we ain't got all day, never will. Even if you're about to reply "i liked that, don't care", you're still in danger of all the above)
Until the Pantheon blogs start going into the specific, i will stick to the general. One needs be fair. And in general? :)
I see already the same pitfalls, the same threats. When your i) starting point is not zero [we know what Brad "wants" in general, and that's good] but ii) you have yet to show HOW you will overcome the problems you had, they all had, back then? Can't say.. Hence my awaiting for specifics.
This is supposed to be a real world. There will be jerks and there will be awesome people, and your interactions with the former will make your interactions with the latter even more rewarding and enjoyable, just like life. Catering away all the negative social dynamics will have a negative effect on the world. Nobody liked it when a guild would clear a really tough zone with hours of learning and strategy and dozens of deaths, only to have another guild zone in and start farming the respawn one at a time. But those moments are what helped create rivalries and other dynamic social experiences that would otherwise never have surfaced. Were they always positive experiences? No, but they highlighted how much everyone cared about the game. I really hope they don't lose that in the interest of not allowing people to step on each other's toes.
I think I would have said soemthing along the lines of... People will be people, there are good and bad extremes on both sides. We can't do anything to change that and sometimes we just have to deal with it the best we can. :)
Niien said:I think I would have said soemthing along the lines of... People will be people, there are good and bad extremes on both sides. We can't do anything to change that and sometimes we just have to deal with it the best we can. :)
I agree, although it is irrefutable that some game mechanics breed toxicity more than others. Just worth taking into consideration.
Kalgore said:Kilsin said:Rallyd said:Kilsin said:Rallyd said:Krixus said:Kilsin said:Rallyd said:"Shards" is instancing, by definition. If someone were to play politics and claim that Pantheon will have no instancing and then slip in "shards"... well we will hope that won't happen cuz I doubt we wanna go down that road.
It wasn't explained that way by the VG devs mate.
A Shard was basically a chunk and 6 of them were mirrored to form the 6 shards, each one almost identical apart from a few glitches/AI behaviour which proves they are actual standalone chunks.An Instance is basically a closed off clone that locks that particular instance to a certain amount of players, usually a group or raid and is usually entered by a portal etc.
With VG's Shards, anyone could enter any shard at any time and see others in the same shard, there used to be huge PvP battles on the PvP servers to try and wipe other guilds and even entire guilds would enter a shard and /shout to check if anyone else was there so they could form up and start a raid to claim that shard as their own, you cannot do this in Instances, they are locked instances of a section of the game and very different to shards man, the way the VG devs explained it was quite interesting but my memory is fading since the conversation was many years ago now!
Some effective differences but it's semantic for most of us. Shards vs instances, the result is the same, you're destroying the integrity of the world by duplicating content.
^ this x100. Duplication of content is what the big negative of instancing is for me, so as far as my concerns go, shards, channels, instances, they are all the same to me in their negative impact.
The reason the majority of content in Everquest felt rewarding was because there was only 1 ghoul lord, 1 myconid spore king. If you were killing it then you were the only group who was doing it, not 6 other groups in 6 other channels. Exclusivity is extremely important, and it is something that VG did away with, and I feel was a mistake.
Shards were added to help with the bottleneck and over population of APW since it was the new and only premium raiding dungeon at the time and most of the player base was already at level cap (50), so it worked for VG and helped fix that overpopulation problem, if it happens in Pantheon it could also be an option and in my opinion, is better than Instancing which totally isolates players from each other, at least with shards, you can enter one and see other players and still feel part of a living world with consequences, you can still socialise and interact in positive or negative ways (trade someone for food, gear, potions or be trained by someone intentionally or accidently)
If there is only one dungeon at end game and let's say 5-10 thousand players guilded that are all trying to progress, it isn't going to end well for anyone! People are not going to wait weeks or months to enter a dungeon that they should have access to in any given play session, that would be the fastest way to push our players away!I don't like instancing but I can handle shards if they are required to help with overpopulation or bottlenecking at certain points of the game in regards to dungeons and raiding.
Totally agree, however there should never be 5-10 thousand players all doing the same dungeon, if that happens, the game has been poorly designed, or too many players have been allowed to play on the same server. While I will agree shards are marginally less detrimental than instances, they are still dirty relatives.
Oh absolutely, they would be spread over many servers but that would be cool to see that many people on 1 server without instancing! Can you imagine the lag! lol
This reminds me of the massive EVE fights with thousands of ships fighting in one sector. EVE was one world and auto shifted resources as needed to reduce lag. I think the max was something like 5 or 6k people all battleing out for hours in one small sector. AH the days of Spies and traitors leading fleets into ambushes
I have never got that far in Eve to witness one of those battles but that sounds Epic! :)
Dullahan said:Well since you say its progressing, I guess we're just wrong to feel the way we do. Thanks for pointing that out. In the name of progress!
Irony is fine, when you can make it work. Being sarcastic with nothing but baseless generalisations however does not quite live up to that term, so you might wish to reconsider if the above was a 'smart' reply or not;
I can help however; what i said was that:
i) i see the general direction (and i said that's good, i even bolded it) but at the same time
ii) i see no specifics denoting even a 1% of improvement/glossing over the problems its last iteration had. Problems which i outlined in that same post.
When the person in charge of this whole project makes it his business to go public and say "i've learned", "i've learned since" everywhere they will hear him, i am simply expecting to see just how, where, and in what way said "learning" shall be evident. Having had almost 20 years to "learn" and only after stating so himself, i fail to see why it would be unreasonable/unfair of me to wonder where that shows.. Or more to the point, worry when i do not see anything reflecting said 'learning'. YET. Worries Dullahan, just worries.
Now since i need spell out even the most evident.. Liking something is ok. Liking something even though admitting it had issues is also ok. Playing it smartass when someone goes out and says "what about improvements on said issues?" is NOT ok.
I did not say we should expect perfection, i did not say it's a bad system, i most certainly did not imply anything overall damning.
I just implied that we shouldn't say 'fine'/'i blindly trust you' sans justifications/specifics. Once again, reading comprehension is a must for forum participation.