How instancing ruins MMORPGs

Ginkeq

You don't get to know anyone on your own server.  In games with instancing, there is no real community.  Most people don't know anyone else on their server.  They can't even remember most of the people they grouped with, because you're constantly in different groups in different instances.

An instance generally has 5 people in it, so you spend levels 1-80 with 4 other people at a time, max.  So when you are not soloing for exp you are grouping with 4 other people. 

Contrast instancing to games without instancing.  In EQ, zones could support up to 50 players at a time.  You aren't isolated from people who are on your own server, in the same zone.

They've eliminated mob contention to some degree, but they've also eliminated the communities that develop in MMORPGs with instancing as well.  And it's not like they can't fix World PvE (increase the number of camps in a zone, or make larger zones, faster spawning NPCs, etc.)

I'm just wondering, what happened to zones that are complicated to navigate, have a lot of depth.  You don't see zones with depth anymore, like they were in Everquest.  Trying to get to certain camps in EQ could be challenging and was a fun part of MMORPGs.  The instances have made it linear, you start at a point A and end at a point B.  In Everquest, you go to the camp you want..  You don't have to start where they want you to start.

Anyway, they really need to bring World PVE/Camps back to MMORPGs.  There is just no community anymore, these games are hollow and cold and not worth playing.  Try having a community in a game similar to Diablo 2, it'll never work.  

Axehilt

Non-instancing may create a better social atmosphere (by a little; I mean do you really want to talk to the guy who camped the boss you want to kill?) but instancing creates a better game.  Instancing lets me log in, play the game, and have fun.  Non-instanced games invariably involve a ton of wasted time spent doing nothing (either traveling or waiting on spawns or avoiding huge zerg PK packs...or corpse-running back from aforementioned packs.)  I'd rather spend my time playing the game than wasting time with non-gameplay.

This is without touching upon the myriad of reasons instanced content ends up being richer than non-instanced content.

Ginkeq

Originally posted by Axehilt


Non-instancing may create a better social atmosphere (by a little; I mean do you really want to talk to the guy who camped the boss you want to kill?) but instancing creates a better game.  Instancing lets me log in, play the game, and have fun.  Non-instanced games invariably involve a ton of wasted time spent doing nothing (either traveling or waiting on spawns or avoiding huge zerg PK packs...or corpse-running back from aforementioned packs.)  I'd rather spend my time playing the game than wasting time with non-gameplay.
This is without touching upon the myriad of reasons instanced content ends up being richer than non-instanced content.

 

I don't know how you compare a game without instancing, and one world, to a game where every zone is instanced.  Do you really think the community in Diablo 2 is going to be the same as a community developed in a game like Everquest?  

Non-instanced games don't have any more wasted time than instanced games. They just need enough content so you aren't "wasting" your time.

And you say it May Create a better social atmosphere?  Players in WoW can act like total asses, because they never have to interact with other players, because they can solo the game and not interact with people by running instances all of the time.  They never interact with the people on their own server.

As if the community of an MMORPG is not part of an MMORPG.  That is why you aren't playing an MMORPG, you're playing a Massive Single Player RPG.  Communities are one of the most important part of an MMORPG, and games with instancing have no communities at all.  

 

 

Lexiscat

I hated the spawn camping, mob training, and ganking that occurred in Everquests non instanced dungeons.

One of the most exciting things about World of Warcraft when i first picked it up was the possibility of having all those spawns to my group without having to wait or fight for them.

I cannot describe how annoying it was to sit and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait, ooh a pop! *kill mob* BAh! It didn't drop. Sit and wait, and wait, and wait...

There maybe a better option then this, that is not instancing, but I know of no game that has it.

Amaranthar

Originally posted by Axehilt


Non-instancing may create a better social atmosphere (by a little; I mean do you really want to talk to the guy who camped the boss you want to kill?) but instancing creates a better game.  Instancing lets me log in, play the game, and have fun.  Non-instanced games invariably involve a ton of wasted time spent doing nothing (either traveling or waiting on spawns or avoiding huge zerg PK packs...or corpse-running back from aforementioned packs.)  I'd rather spend my time playing the game than wasting time with non-gameplay.
This is without touching upon the myriad of reasons instanced content ends up being richer than non-instanced content.

 

You're right. The thing is, some players want a game, and some want a world.

There can certainly be both, just not very well in the same MMO.

GeekDadMan

Originally posted by Axehilt


Non-instancing may create a better social atmosphere (by a little; I mean do you really want to talk to the guy who camped the boss you want to kill?) but instancing creates a better game.  Instancing lets me log in, play the game, and have fun.  Non-instanced games invariably involve a ton of wasted time spent doing nothing (either traveling or waiting on spawns or avoiding huge zerg PK packs...or corpse-running back from aforementioned packs.)  I'd rather spend my time playing the game than wasting time with non-gameplay.
This is without touching upon the myriad of reasons instanced content ends up being richer than non-instanced content.

 

 While I agree with what you're saying, I do so hesitantly. Within your post I see something that presents a problem, and that is that goal of playing anMMORPG for instancing. In my opinion, by instancing, you lose the critical purpose of playing a game of this genre. You say that non-instanced games waste time. Does instancing solve this? No; instead it takes the essence and purpose of the game world out of the picture completely*.

I support the idea that instancing damages an MMORPG, but does not necessarily destroy it. The focus of an MMORPG, I think, is to make the world the focus, with instancing (properly tailored) as a secondary feature. WoW has taken a different route in that instancing has become the main attraction of the game, with cross-server dungeon finder tools to help it along. After a long time of playing the game, and stepping back to take an outside perspective, this no longer appeals to me.

In summary, I think an MMORPG should not focus on presenting nice little contained packages in instance format to create attraction for their game. Instead, the game world should be the focus, and more should be attention paid to all those things that "waste time" for the player. I think instancing has a place in MMOs, but a secondary one.

*By "completely," I mean the concept of the game world's design and intention. It's still there to use, but the need for it is severely reduced.

Axehilt

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by Axehilt


Non-instancing may create a better social atmosphere (by a little; I mean do you really want to talk to the guy who camped the boss you want to kill?) but instancing creates a better game.  Instancing lets me log in, play the game, and have fun.  Non-instanced games invariably involve a ton of wasted time spent doing nothing (either traveling or waiting on spawns or avoiding huge zerg PK packs...or corpse-running back from aforementioned packs.)  I'd rather spend my time playing the game than wasting time with non-gameplay.
This is without touching upon the myriad of reasons instanced content ends up being richer than non-instanced content.

 You're right. The thing is, some players want a game, and some want a world.

There can certainly be both, just not very well in the same MMO.

 

Totally agree, and I feel that's the natural logical arc which ends the discussion basically.  Some want a game, some want a world.  Anyone inferring one method or the other is better for all players is wrong (although the majority of gamers do seem to prefer games.)

GTwander

Totally agree with Axehilt and the guy replying to him.

The only reason instancing is popular for interiors is because it allows uninterrupted and less-buggy scripted events (DDO-quality event scripts could never be done in public sectors, at least not as well). How is walking into a trigger volume going to spawn the boss, as he jumps from his coffin with gusto, if it happens every time a person enters the room regardless of who he is? Also the matter of who get to bosses first - then again, that is where the instancing *could* start - as you enter the boss' room. The only real idea as to why uninstanced dungeons should exist is what possible trap-play could be put in. The only logical reason I could see for strangers wandering a place is if it's *meant* to have that "beaten to death by strangers" feeling that a tomb popular with the tourists would be - or if the presence of strangers was an advantage or hindrance based on how they deal with you and the various traps.

Lexiscat

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by Axehilt


Non-instancing may create a better social atmosphere (by a little; I mean do you really want to talk to the guy who camped the boss you want to kill?) but instancing creates a better game.  Instancing lets me log in, play the game, and have fun.  Non-instanced games invariably involve a ton of wasted time spent doing nothing (either traveling or waiting on spawns or avoiding huge zerg PK packs...or corpse-running back from aforementioned packs.)  I'd rather spend my time playing the game than wasting time with non-gameplay.
This is without touching upon the myriad of reasons instanced content ends up being richer than non-instanced content.

 You're right. The thing is, some players want a game, and some want a world.

There can certainly be both, just not very well in the same MMO.

 

Totally agree, and I feel that's the natural logical arc which ends the discussion basically.  Some want a game, some want a world.  Anyone inferring one method or the other is better for all players is wrong (although the majority of gamers do seem to prefer games.)

 

Here is the problem with Worlds though. Worlds are filled with people. People are territorial. You protect a players experience in your World with instancing.

Its not the best solution i'm sure, but it is a solution for a very real problem. That problem being the majority of anonymous online people being very rude, selfish, clique oriented individuals who are very territorial, and these people effecting others experiences negatively.

I had an idea for a solution to this problem. That being some kind of Facebook registration that linked to your account so people weren't as anonymous anymore. Maybe this would increase the overall maturity of an online game community.

I know for a fact this phenomenon works in guilds.  Guilds with this kind of trust are much more tolerant of one another.

Some people believe being anonymous is like a license to act however they want.  Which it can, but man what is the point...

 

Edited for another possible solution: Limit how many people can play in your world. If its not popular, there will be less fighting, and less bad people playing. So just limit how many people can play on any one server.

Axehilt

Originally posted by TJKazmark

Originally posted by Axehilt


Non-instancing may create a better social atmosphere (by a little; I mean do you really want to talk to the guy who camped the boss you want to kill?) but instancing creates a better game.  Instancing lets me log in, play the game, and have fun.  Non-instanced games invariably involve a ton of wasted time spent doing nothing (either traveling or waiting on spawns or avoiding huge zerg PK packs...or corpse-running back from aforementioned packs.)  I'd rather spend my time playing the game than wasting time with non-gameplay.
This is without touching upon the myriad of reasons instanced content ends up being richer than non-instanced content.

 

 While I agree with what you're saying, I do so hesitantly. Within your post I see something that presents a problem, and that is that goal of playing anMMORPG for instancing. In my opinion, by instancing, you lose the critical purpose of playing a game of this genre. You say that non-instanced games waste time. Does instancing solve this? No; instead it takes the essence and purpose of the game world out of the picture completely*.

I support the idea that instancing damages an MMORPG, but does not necessarily destroy it. The focus of an MMORPG, I think, is to make the world the focus, with instancing (properly tailored) as a secondary feature. WoW has taken a different route in that instancing has become the main attraction of the game, with cross-server dungeon finder tools to help it along. After a long time of playing the game, and stepping back to take an outside perspective, this no longer appeals to me.

In summary, I think an MMORPG should not focus on presenting nice little contained packages in instance format to create attraction for their game. Instead, the game world should be the focus, and more should be attention paid to all those things that "waste time" for the player. I think instancing has a place in MMOs, but a secondary one.

*By "completely," I mean the concept of the game world's design and intention. It's still there to use, but the need for it is severely reduced.

 

I suppose it did come off like I was talking about a Diablo 2-style game (pure 8-man-max instancing with no world outside of instances) when in fact I prefer a more WOW-style game, where a world acts as the gateway to the fun instances.

But the core of my instance love comes from the innate (and severe) limitations of world content.  Which is why I support Phased zones, since they take gameplay which still feels like world content, but has some of the strengths of instanced content.  It's a good hybrid.

SuperXero89

Originally posted by Ginkeq


You don't get to know anyone on your own server.  In games with instancing, there is no real community.  Most people don't know anyone else on their server.  They can't even remember most of the people they grouped with, because you're constantly in different groups in different instances.
 
Can't help but think a lot of that is nothing more than blanket generalizations, but for a moment, lets assume everything you say is 100% true.  Well, I would counter this argument by saying to you that I don't feel like a lack of instancing helps communities any more than heavy instancing hurts it.  
Whether players join groups to run Scarlet Monestary in WoW (instance) or takeover the R1 camp in Dreadlands in EQ (non-instance), the same sort of player interaction occurs.  The tank tanks, the healer heals, and the DPS brings the damage.  Your chances of seeing random players running around during your camp is slim, and the chance of meaningful interaction with those random players is even slimmer.  At best, the only interaction groups will have with other players in an area is competition for spawn points.  If the group needs a replacement, usually the LFG list is consulted not the player standing 10 feet away from you takin gyour kills.
Players who group together in non-instanced areas are just as likely to not remember their group mates as players who group with individuals in instances.  It's simply the nature of the pick-up-group.  PUGs are established at the spur of the moment soley to progress the needs of the individual.  Because players did not know each other prior to the group, there is no feeling of mutual concern.  Relationships which form out of PUGs usual do so for several reasons including repeat grouping, likeable personalities, and whatever else have you.  None of that requires a non-instanced area.
 
An instance generally has 5 people in it, so you spend levels 1-80 with 4 other people at a time, max.  So when you are not soloing for exp you are grouping with 4 other people.
Contrast instancing to games without instancing.  In EQ, zones could support up to 50 players at a time.  You aren't isolated from people who are on your own server, in the same zone.
 
Unless you're raiding, you simply aren't normally interacting with the plethora of other players in the zone.  If 5 players is all it takes to progres through an area, the four other players you're grouped with will be your only concern.  The fact that there might be 20 other players in the zone is highly irrelevant unless you just enjoy seeing people running around.
 
They've eliminated mob contention to some degree, but they've also eliminated the communities that develop in MMORPGs with instancing as well.  And it's not like they can't fix World PvE (increase the number of camps in a zone, or make larger zones, faster spawning NPCs, etc.)
 
I would counter this by stating that I , in no way, shape, form, or fashion, believe that "communities" develop simply out of non instanced XP areas.  In my view, communities are formed through guild interaction, guild rivalry, player co-operation, and communication within various chat channels.  The random PUG serves to introduce players to individuals outside of their own guild (which I think is a good thing), but as a whole, it's a relatively minor aspect of community building which doesn't have much at all to do with whether or not an area is instanced or not.  
Any MMORPG currently out there sans Guild Wars (which is questionable as an MMO) has a plethora of non-instanced areas where player interaction occurs.  All towns are non-instanced -- all overland areas.  You still see players of all shapes, sizes, and nationalities roaming around the game world every second that you play.  The only difference is that when it counts --when the XP starts rolling -- you aren't forced to compete with those players for spawn points.
 
I'm just wondering, what happened to zones that are complicated to navigate, have a lot of depth.  You don't see zones with depth anymore, like they were in Everquest.  Trying to get to certain camps in EQ could be challenging and was a fun part of MMORPGs.  The instances have made it linear, you start at a point A and end at a point B.  In Everquest, you go to the camp you want..  You don't have to start where they want you to start.
 
Zones with complexity and depth can be instanced areas just as easily as they can be non-instanced areas.  The fact that many instanced areas tend to be mere tank and spank affairs speaks more for the design of the area itself then whether or not instanced areas themselves are bad for the game.  That said, many MMO instances are challenging.  The goal of the instance may not revolve around trying to reach a certain area, but many MMORPG players seem to prefer it that way.  The current trend is to give players more of a dungeon crawl type experience like in Diablo or Dungeons & Dragons where the player fights through the dungeon instead of finding a wall to sit on, pulling the same mobs for hours.  Each style of play appeals to a specific gamer and each can be difficult in their own way.


Anyway, they really need to bring World PVE/Camps back to MMORPGs.  There is just no community anymore, these games are hollow and cold and not worth playing.  Try having a community in a game similar to Diablo 2, it'll never work.  
 
Again, I fail to see how you can legitimately consider instances to be harmful to the community of MMORPGs, as there's numerous other aspects that go towards community building than simply interacting with others outside your group inside of dungeons.  If a game is designed in a way that discourages player interaction or makes it meaningless then it does so by lacking many aspects that more social MMORPGs have.  At the very least instances encourage player interaction by forcing them to work together towards a common goal.  Many modern MMORPGs don't even have that much at least not until the level cap.

 

Ginkeq

Fail to see how instancing harms MMORPGS?  Lol

Take WoW for example, where is the World PvP in that game? There is none.  Know why? Instancing.  No one wants to PvP, because World Content is instanced.  It would be meaningless to engage in PvP with other guilds on your server.  There is no rivalry, there is no contention over raid content, because all of the raid content is instanced.

I guess if you enjoy meaningless PvP, fighting against random people, in random arenas, for things that have no effect on your own server, then you might be fine with instancing.

But I come from a game where your whole server is at war with each other.  Teams fight each other constantly over raid content.  I do not see how you can make PvP fun or interesting when PvP is staged, like it is in WoW and other games.  Go to this special zone, and fight, for reasons that the game developer decides.  Go fight people over and over, for useless honor or arena points.  They turned PvP into meaningless farming, and masses of newbies are now self proclaimed PvPers because they had to be given rewards, and because PvP was dumbed down so much so that every player does it now, just for gear rewards.  

 

Instancing ruined any chance of that MMORPG having a real PvP system in place.  If guilds do not compete with each other, they aren't going to fight each other anymore.  Everquest had no instancing, and the PvP servers were all very healthy.  It wasn't the kind of PvP that WoW had before they had battlegrounds either.  WoW PvP pre BG's was 50 vs 50 that never ends in Tarren Mills.  They never lose exp, always come back.  They aren't fighting over anything either, so the battles lasted forever.   

Contrast this with an MMORPG without instancing.  Guild A would beat Guild B, and Guild A controls the zone, takes the PvE content, and wins the PvP encounter. 

 

Anyway, I fail to see how a game with instancing is going to have a real PvP system in place.  It's always going to be meaningless and fake like WoW's system is. 

uquipu

 Non-instance dungeons feel like Wal-Mart during the Christmas Season.  Everyone's in a rush to be the first totag that boss who just went on sale.

Instance dungeons let me pretend I'm the hero.  Me and the boss have an intimate experience.

 

 

Lexiscat

Originally posted by uquipu


 Non-instance dungeons feel like Wal-Mart during the Christmas Season.  Everyone's in a rush to be the first totag that boss who just went on sale.
Instance dungeons let me pretend I'm the hero.  Me and the boss have an intimate experience.
 
 

 

You and Ginkeg articulate it perfectly when you read your posts together.

Open World with no instancing turns into PvP even if you can't fight one another.

 

fyerwall

Originally posted by uquipu


 Non-instance dungeons feel like Wal-Mart during the Christmas Season.  Everyone's in a rush to be the first totag that boss who just went on sale.
Instance dungeons let me pretend I'm the hero.  Me and the boss have an intimate experience.
 
 

 

What MMOs need is a mix of both really. They can always have contested world bosses in dungeons as well as having all the instanced stuff. Let people have both.

People will talk about how games like Guild Wars are not true MMOs because of it being heavily instanced with say just a single hub being the common area where everyone can meet up. To me games like WoW are not really that different seeing as the world is pretty much the hub and instances are where people really play.

But yeah, Throwing in some contested world bosses (akin to EQ raid bosses) as well as doing the scripted instnaced stuff (WoW raids) would work out well for a game. Specially for those people who play on PvP servers and like the idea of ganking an opposing guild while they are in battle with a raid boss.

dreamscaper

I'm a bit confused as to why this thread talks as though it has to be one or the other? LotRO has both - you have you instances, but there are also lots and lots of places like Dol Dinen, the Old Forest/Barrow-Downs, Agamaur, Giant Valley, and others that are non-instanced outdoor content.

skarwolf

 How many times are you going to start this topic ?  Few months ago you were ranting about how instancing ruins pvp.

Zones in EQ didn't have depth.  They were vast wastes of space most of which were never used.

You're damn right instancing prevents contention over mobs and thats why instancing will stay.  Good riddance to the EQ days of calendars and schedules to raid stuff or lists to join groups in dungeons lol.  

Ginkeq

Originally posted by Lexiscat

Originally posted by uquipu


 Non-instance dungeons feel like Wal-Mart during the Christmas Season.  Everyone's in a rush to be the first totag that boss who just went on sale.
Instance dungeons let me pretend I'm the hero.  Me and the boss have an intimate experience.
 
 

 

You and Ginkeg articulate it perfectly when you read your posts together.

Open World with no instancing turns into PvP even if you can't fight one another.

 

 

Which is why PvP servers should not have instancing.  Look at WoWs dead PvP servers if you doubt that. No conflict, no PvP

Ginkeq

Originally posted by skarwolf


 How many times are you going to start this topic ?  Few months ago you were ranting about how instancing ruins pvp.
Zones in EQ didn't have depth.  They were vast wastes of space most of which were never used.
You're damn right instancing prevents contention over mobs and thats why instancing will stay.  Good riddance to the EQ days of calendars and schedules to raid stuff or lists to join groups in dungeons lol.  

 

Instancing will only be part of carebear MMORPGs.  Whether or not all future MMORPGs will be carebear, I don't know.  These games won't have good PvP systems with instances though, because it's always fake-type PvP like WoW.

SuperXero89

Originally posted by Ginkeq


Fail to see how instancing harms MMORPGS?  Lol
Take WoW for example, where is the World PvP in that game? There is none.  Know why? Instancing.  No one wants to PvP, because World Content is instanced.  It would be meaningless to engage in PvP with other guilds on your server.  There is no rivalry, there is no contention over raid content, because all of the raid content is instanced.
I guess if you enjoy meaningless PvP, fighting against random people, in random arenas, for things that have no effect on your own server, then you might be fine with instancing.
But I come from a game where your whole server is at war with each other.  Teams fight each other constantly over raid content.  I do not see how you can make PvP fun or interesting when PvP is staged, like it is in WoW and other games.  Go to this special zone, and fight, for reasons that the game developer decides.  Go fight people over and over, for useless honor or arena points.  They turned PvP into meaningless farming, and masses of newbies are now self proclaimed PvPers because they had to be given rewards, and because PvP was dumbed down so much so that every player does it now, just for gear rewards.  
 
Instancing ruined any chance of that MMORPG having a real PvP system in place.  If guilds do not compete with each other, they aren't going to fight each other anymore.  Everquest had no instancing, and the PvP servers were all very healthy.  It wasn't the kind of PvP that WoW had before they had battlegrounds either.  WoW PvP pre BG's was 50 vs 50 that never ends in Tarren Mills.  They never lose exp, always come back.  They aren't fighting over anything either, so the battles lasted forever.   
Contrast this with an MMORPG without instancing.  Guild A would beat Guild B, and Guild A controls the zone, takes the PvE content, and wins the PvP encounter. 
 
Anyway, I fail to see how a game with instancing is going to have a real PvP system in place.  It's always going to be meaningless and fake like WoW's system is. 

 

"I fail to see how you can legitimately consider instances to be harmful to the community of MMORPGs"

We're not even arguing about the same thing here.

skarwolf

 So what if they're carebear ?  You don't like it so everyone else should change to suit your playstyle... riiiiight.  Good luck on that one kid.

GTwander

How can it even be considered 'carebear'?

The fact is (and I'll say it *again*) is that instancing promotes scripted events. A boss fight cannot be more than tank-and-spank, as the phases in battle can be exploited by strangers. Any trigger volume that would normally be a one-time only thing that suits single-group and instance play would have to be on timer - then you see people hanging out in a doorway, hoping to spring it when it's ready (like an FFXI NM). Many things.

You *can't* expect mind-blowing quest content without the zone being tailored to a particular group's actions... and if having to deal with dozens of other clods is what makes it 'hardcore' then I will throw the word 'retro' your way. They did that back in the day because the tech didn't exist yet - now it does, but the sacrifice is public questing for intricate events. Personally, I never saw the big deal over mob theft and camping, so you can have all of it.

godseek3r

The OP has successfully confused me.

corpusc

they didn't have the tech to do small scale multiplayer games back then?  lol

Ginkeq

Originally posted by GTwander


How can it even be considered 'carebear'?
The fact is (and I'll say it *again*) is that instancing promotes scripted events. A boss fight cannot be more than tank-and-spank, as the phases in battle can be exploited by strangers. Any trigger volume that would normally be a one-time only thing that suits single-group and instance play would have to be on timer - then you see people hanging out in a doorway, hoping to spring it when it's ready (like an FFXI NM). Many things.
You *can't* expect mind-blowing quest content without the zone being tailored to a particular group's actions... and if having to deal with dozens of other clods is what makes it 'hardcore' then I will throw the word 'retro' your way. They did that back in the day because the tech didn't exist yet - now it does, but the sacrifice is public questing for intricate events. Personally, I never saw the big deal over mob theft and camping, so you can have all of it.

 

The PvP is carebear in these games.  If you play WoW, and think going into your town, clicking a guy, and going to an Arena is somehow some form of PvP, then you probably never played a game that has real PvP.

In WoW, there is no contention for anything on a specific server, every guild has their own instance.  There's no reason to engage in World PvP in WoW.  People just go back and forth into Arenas, from their safe towns.  They fight random people on random servers for a mintue or 2, then they re-queue to do it again.

In EQ, 2 guilds that want the same content end up getting in a fight, which could last really long.  The PvP there is real and influences the outcome of the server.

WoW PVP is carebear PvP, and is not real PvP.  Labeling their servers as PvP is outright lying.

EQ PVP is real PvP, PvP that is integrated with the server, that influences the server, where PvP occurs between people on the same server.

 

I don't know what WoW has going for it honestly.  Dumbed down PVE content, and a fake PvP system for carebears.

corpusc

my last response was to GTWander, but somebody else got a reply between us.    8)

 

 

anyways.....if instancing is so great for having "taylor made", "highly tuned" blah blah  experiences in dungeons, why isn't the WHOLE WORLD like that?  that's ONLY a good idea for dungeons?   not good for cities?  not good for overland?

 

to me the inconsistency of these hybrids like WoW is just ridiculous.  if i want a small scale multiplayer game i'm gonna want it small scale EVERYwhere.

 

just so happens i like the MMOness of MMOs and i want that EVERYwhere.  otherwise it feels like a lifeless world like non-MMO games do. 

 

why this magical dividing line that makes instancing supposedly great for dungeons but not everwhere?  why not just have games that are consistently one or the other?  the hybridization kills the world immersion for me.