Don't care what the pros of instancing are. As far as I'm concerned, there aren't any. The second I enter an instance is the second I'm no longer immersed in a massive virtual world.
because a general chat going on about last American Idol's winner while queing for a boss is REAL IMMERSION
Instancing is a... Mixed bag. It's nice to always have your own personl copy of a hard dungeon, to have no distractions with a group, but when instances make half the game (say, any Cryptic game) it's kinda hard to "immerse" yourself.
I'm going to step on my own throat and say, that EQII and Vanilla WoW did it best - most of the world (even some dungeons) is open, while few selected zones are instanced. It makes sense and doesn't distract from the game.
I hate WoW because it made my plush hamster kill himself, created twin clones of Hitler, punched Superboy Prime in reality, stared my dog down, spoiled my grandmother, assimilated me into the Borg, then made me into a real boy, just to make me a woman again.
In my opinion instancing is MMORPG AIDS, it kills the community and therefore the game turning it into a lack lustre single player with a chat box.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
Obsession over world gameplay is the primary reason for MMORPGs having such low quality content compared to other genres. Instancing (or hybrid-instancing like Phasing) is the way to get a nearly-equivalent quality experience to what you'd find in a singleplayer game (it's the closest you're going to get, at least.) Personally I mostly look for games with interesting teamplay. If there's a persistent world on top of that interesting teamplay, so much the better. But neither teamplay nor persistence means "non-instanced". I'm not against non-instanced worlds, but every single one of them I've seen has had worse gameplay as a result of the enhanced world.
I agree completely.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Obsession over world gameplay is the primary reason for MMORPGs having such low quality content compared to other genres. I'm not against non-instanced worlds, but every single one of them I've seen has had worse gameplay as a result of the enhanced world.
Worldy games tend to be more grindy games.
I guess people here just like grind.
I don't, which is why i prefer the game have instances.
I'll be on record too as saying .. Instances are fine for Boss dungeon runs, or epic quest goals.. Other then that, I'm a huge fan that wants a open world that forces people to socialize a bit and work together if all possible..
the way instances is used now is horrid to me so if it were a poll Id have to say hate (even if strong word )
instances should ONLY be for quest updates, used to love instances in EQ2 since they were rather rare and always had a purpose, the rareity made them the more special and not something you d do every day....and certainly not the same every day.
raid encounters in instances in eq2 I like too since open world raiding doesnt mix in that game...and well do like a challanging fight for the better gear in games....and as others stated it can be quite nasty if you sit camp a named to spawn then someone come by snag it infront of you (which in eq2 would mean about 20 min longer wait)
full instanced crap for gear just aint fun.....initial gained gear should mainly be from quests, with the rare piece off open world nameds.
buttom line...can a MMO please make this silly instance grinding stop please ?!? preferable a carebear game (no PvP) ?!?
even as a non PvPer really enjoy Darkfall over all the recent MMOs Ive played.
Obsession over world gameplay is the primary reason for MMORPGs having such low quality content compared to other genres. I'm not against non-instanced worlds, but every single one of them I've seen has had worse gameplay as a result of the enhanced world.
Worldy games tend to be more grindy games.
I guess people here just like grind.
I don't, which is why i prefer the game have instances.
to me instanced is alot more grindy....forced to do same limited number of instances a million time aint grindy to you ???
I don't care whether the games I play are instanced or not. As long as I am having fun, I love the game, the storylines and quests are interesting, I will enjoy the game. Though for some reason, it seems that the more instanced a game is, the more emphasis is placed on the storyline, and that is what I love most about instanced games. Though I do have to admit that there are open world games as well that I enjoy, mainly because of the community interaction and the chances for grouping and random conversations.
So yes, as long as I enjoy the game, I wouldn't care about the genre. Though I do admit that I would definitely not pay a monthly fee for a game that is mainly instanced.
Obsession over world gameplay is the primary reason for MMORPGs having such low quality content compared to other genres. Instancing (or hybrid-instancing like Phasing) is the way to get a nearly-equivalent quality experience to what you'd find in a singleplayer game (it's the closest you're going to get, at least.) Personally I mostly look for games with interesting teamplay. If there's a persistent world on top of that interesting teamplay, so much the better. But neither teamplay nor persistence means "non-instanced". I'm not against non-instanced worlds, but every single one of them I've seen has had worse gameplay as a result of the enhanced world.
I agree completely.
^ problem MMO´s cant ever compete wih single player games, when it come to gameplay, they have to focus on what makes them fun...singleplayer games have for the most parts online multiplayer part to them as well you know.
Obsession over world gameplay is the primary reason for MMORPGs having such low quality content compared to other genres. I'm not against non-instanced worlds, but every single one of them I've seen has had worse gameplay as a result of the enhanced world.
Worldy games tend to be more grindy games.
I guess people here just like grind.
I don't, which is why i prefer the game have instances.
its all about striking a balance !all phaze is bad all dungeon is bad etc
why vanilla wow was so successfull back then was the fact there was open world stuff happening AND there was instanced stuff happening too!so in concrete if y you raided for world raid dragon (5 world dragon )but the area was crowded you could go do aq40 instead and try that world dragon next week
now at lvl 80 they got rid of that because of possible lag issue
since world raid can generate very big crowd very fast .it was one facet of wow that made it what player loved
same for world fight like in eastern plagueland i bet million faught in those area and loved
wow did make sure it auto died how?by giving nice reward that werent avail in world bg
that stopped player going to wolrd bg fast and player started going to instanced
im not saying one is better then the other they are both needed and have to have some kind of reward
open world event of various king is nice
instanced event are also nice ,but just one OR the other is not nice at all!
My first mmo did not have any instances. I can still remember the many fights players would have over who had earned the right to be in a certain location, who had established a "camp", or who had arrived first (or sufficiently ready) to engage a rare boss spawn. Those are not fond memories. Many of those fights got pretty ugly. I did, however, enjoy there being a "one world" quality to my game experience, which made it more realistic. Later, when instances became more common I initially thought they were a good idea. Now my group or my guild could enjoy an encounter without having to quarrel over it, or have it ruined, by someone else. Then along comes developers such as Cryptic, which typically turns practically the entire game into a series of instanced encounters. The same is true for Guild Wars, with the added "feature" of no assigned servers. To me, a line had been crossed. I no longer felt like I was in a world at all, and the community of players suffered because they were so easily separated from each other. Lately some games have gone retro and tried to return to a complete lack of instancing. What do you think? Are instances good, evil, or does it depend on implementation and moderation?
Personally, I like instances. They cut ganking and griefing entirely out of the experience. I remember all too many times having rare spawns and/or drops KS'ed by some clown who either just happened to be there, or was lurking near by. As for the community angle, it can evolve around shared experiences. If one wants more than that try Face Book or some such.
as a pvper i like both instances and an open world
instances gives you competitive yet balanced matches.they are also nice for those times where you just have 30 minutes spare, cant devote hours looking for a fight that might or might not appear, or get hot just when you HAVE to leave. open world is for the epic large scale wars and the adrenaline fix of roaming around expecting to gank or be ganked
I dont like all instances, nor all open world, because then im missing one of the two options, and my game sessions are never the same. I like having the freedom to choose what to do , depending on the time i have.
I'm going to assume you mean battlegrounds? If not, disregard
I understand your point about quick fun, in and out when you don't have a lot of time, though the yet balanced part of your statement makes me scratch my head.
I have only played BGs in WAR, and WoW, and I have been on both ends of the pre-made, and pug groups in them. I have to be honest, I would hardly call them balanced from either viewpoint. Do you sometimes get pre-made vs. pre-made, sure, and pug vs.pug.. of course.. I don't know what the ratio is, but it seemed pretty close to 50/50 (during primetime play).. As a pug, i wouldn't consider 50/50 balance.. Do Pugs beat pre-mades? Of course they do, its just not very common.
I don't understand why they don't have a premade vs premade queue. Perhaps they don't want the (at all) wait times extended, or, as some say, they think a pre-made should have a competative edge, I'm not really sure.
As for jumping into a game when you only have 30 minutes to play, one of the things WAR did very well, was allow access to open RvR very quickly, so it can be done.
Losing in a 15v50 fight isn't enjoyable (and to me, even winning isn't enjoyable.) This is because population isn't directly tied to the player's decisions -- it's outside your control, which cheapens the value of your decisions; of your interaction with the game. Since the entire point of games is interactive entertainment, cheapening the value of those interactions shouldn't be done lightly.
Most movies go out of their way to be dramatic: to make it seem like the hero could possibly lose in the battle with the villain, whatever form the battle or the villain takes. This intrigues and entertains people -- and this intrigue is totally absent from the 15v50 fight, because the moment those 50 players march onto your screen you know exactly how it's going to turn out.
Really the only time a population-imbalanced fight becomes interesting if it's a smaller fight in a poulation-balanced war. There were many times in Planetside where 30 players tried to stall off a 150-man attacking force for as long as possible. But this was fun because somewhere else on the same continent you knew your remaining 170 players would make awesome progress against their 50 defenders (both factions have a 200 population cap.) If you stalled the enemy skillfully, it mattered!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
He meant more balanced. Losing in a 15v50 fight isn't enjoyable (and to me, even winning isn't enjoyable.) This is because population isn't directly tied to the player's decisions -- it's outside your control, which cheapens the value of your decisions; of your interaction with the game. Since the entire point of games is interactive entertainment, cheapening the value of those interactions shouldn't be done lightly. Most movies go out of their way to be dramatic: to make it seem like the hero could possibly lose in the battle with the villain, whatever form the battle or the villain takes. This intrigues and entertains people -- and this intrigue is totally absent from the 15v50 fight, because the moment those 50 players march onto your screen you know exactly how it's going to turn out. Really the only time a population-imbalanced fight becomes interesting if it's a smaller fight in a poulation-balanced war. There were many times in Planetside where 30 players tried to stall off a 150-man attacking force for as long as possible. But this was fun because somewhere else on the same continent you knew your remaining 170 players would make awesome progress against their 50 defenders (both factions have a 200 population cap.) If you stalled the enemy skillfully, it mattered!
He came off as saying balanced, what he said, and what you say he meant, are two different things.. As i said in my post, allow queuing for pre-made vs pre-made, and i agree with him completely, though i have yet to see a MMO do that, though as i also said, I have only played WOW and WAR in this aspect.
As a matter of opinion only, I'd rather be fighting 15v50, than 10vs10 against a premade vs my pug (as an example), that is camping my spawn point, and not even doing the BGs objectives. That is a whole lot more frusteratring to me.
While I dont have a whole lot of experiance with instances I did play guild wars the original. At the time I found the idea new and exciting. I was like kool I get this area to myself or a small party. But over time looking back I feel the game loses am important dynamic with instances. I mean how else am I gona know how many players find this area like me to be crucial to the experiance or char development. I lose a real sence of competition and acheivement.
I have played many games where an internet conection was enough or even a lan connect. Some were RTS some RPG some even FPS. Now having a game world that connects all the players who are interested in such a game is very kool I think the game rooms for the RTS genrea did it just fine. I mean if I wanted to play instanced RPG I dont really need a city. In fact the LFG(looking for group) menus typicaly ARE those very same rooms only with a minor upgrade called a city.
Now with guild wars there was no monthy fee but with a lot of these instanced type games there are and traditionally these "rooms" are provided for free. To me its only a minor upgrade to a grafical interface instead of a status checker and that just isnt worth a monthy.
I do not like instances, they seperate the people in the game from each other, now if you are risk averse in an mmorpg instances done a la WoW could be ok, but instancing done in the STO style just kills the game for me, i would be better off playing a single player game.
He meant more balanced. Losing in a 15v50 fight isn't enjoyable (and to me, even winning isn't enjoyable.) This is because population isn't directly tied to the player's decisions -- it's outside your control, which cheapens the value of your decisions; of your interaction with the game. Since the entire point of games is interactive entertainment, cheapening the value of those interactions shouldn't be done lightly. Most movies go out of their way to be dramatic: to make it seem like the hero could possibly lose in the battle with the villain, whatever form the battle or the villain takes. This intrigues and entertains people -- and this intrigue is totally absent from the 15v50 fight, because the moment those 50 players march onto your screen you know exactly how it's going to turn out. Really the only time a population-imbalanced fight becomes interesting if it's a smaller fight in a poulation-balanced war. There were many times in Planetside where 30 players tried to stall off a 150-man attacking force for as long as possible. But this was fun because somewhere else on the same continent you knew your remaining 170 players would make awesome progress against their 50 defenders (both factions have a 200 population cap.) If you stalled the enemy skillfully, it mattered!
He came off as saying balanced, what he said, and what you say he meant, are two different things.. As i said in my post, allow queuing for pre-made vs pre-made, and i agree with him completely, though i have yet to see a MMO do that, though as i also said, I have only played WOW and WAR in this aspect.
As a matter of opinion only, I'd rather be fighting 15v50, than 10vs10 against a premade vs my pug (as an example), that is camping my spawn point, and not even doing the BGs objectives. That is a whole lot more frusteratring to me.
Well yeah, but it's all context and scale.
In the context of "is population balanced?" the answer is: yes, 100% balanced.
In the context of "is combat balanced?" the answer is: it's more balanced, because one of the many non-skill factors was removed.
So yeah, that's why he came off as saying it's balanced. Because population is balanced.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Instances are good. It makes dungeon runs fun. It also encourages grouping.
WOW's latest cross realm dungeon finder tool is a great way to improve instances. It makes grouping to level a superior choice once again. I used to level purely by questing and sometimes that gets lonely.
I leveled my pally from L73-ish to 79 all through instances and it was a great experience.
Sometimes open world just does not work. I was at a popular farming spot yesterday and you have like 5-6 people fighting for spawns. That is just no fun.
I think instances are good for a Boss Mob at the bottom of a dungeon, or the end of a long quest. Otherwise, no instances. They make the world feel small and cramped, and they are boring. It was one of my biggest dislkes of City of Heroes. All the dungeons were instances, and even worse, they scaled to your party. Very, very boring to have the instance scale so you knew you could beat it no matter what the size of the party.
This is exactly what Cryptic did with STO. absolutely no reason to group with anyone at all, missions scale to your level. I hate instancing. I hate being separated from the rest of the gameworld, and OMG I hate playing a game where my character has absolutely no impact on the gameworld itself. I guess I'm just spoiled from playing EVE..
There are good use to instances, ideally you want to have a bit of both instances & open world to cater to different playstyles.
Good use of instances:
-Instanced boss encounters inside a dungeon. You spend the time clearing, you get a shot at a boss and not have to worry about other people interfering with you, training you, or getting ahead of you.
-Instanced PvP can solve population imbalance problems on a server, population problems in general such as cross-server instances, lag issues, and it can create games that start & end with an objective.
-Instanced dungeons can be fun especially with the creative scripting made possible by having instances. Voice acting, cut scenes, different phases in bosses, etc.. don't really work if you don't instance the dungeons.
With that said, there's a lot of fun outside of instances. It's best when developers don't over-use instances. Having a bit of everything is the best way to make things fun. People give Blizzard a lot of crap for introducing BG's, cross-server LFG dungeon finders, and just instanced raids in general. But honestly they have just as many zones non-instanced as there are zones that are instanced. Currently it's the best game to find a bit of everything, both open world and instanced, in both PvP & PvE.
He meant more balanced. Losing in a 15v50 fight isn't enjoyable (and to me, even winning isn't enjoyable.) This is because population isn't directly tied to the player's decisions -- it's outside your control, which cheapens the value of your decisions; of your interaction with the game. Since the entire point of games is interactive entertainment, cheapening the value of those interactions shouldn't be done lightly. Most movies go out of their way to be dramatic: to make it seem like the hero could possibly lose in the battle with the villain, whatever form the battle or the villain takes. This intrigues and entertains people -- and this intrigue is totally absent from the 15v50 fight, because the moment those 50 players march onto your screen you know exactly how it's going to turn out. Really the only time a population-imbalanced fight becomes interesting if it's a smaller fight in a poulation-balanced war. There were many times in Planetside where 30 players tried to stall off a 150-man attacking force for as long as possible. But this was fun because somewhere else on the same continent you knew your remaining 170 players would make awesome progress against their 50 defenders (both factions have a 200 population cap.) If you stalled the enemy skillfully, it mattered!
He came off as saying balanced, what he said, and what you say he meant, are two different things.. As i said in my post, allow queuing for pre-made vs pre-made, and i agree with him completely, though i have yet to see a MMO do that, though as i also said, I have only played WOW and WAR in this aspect.
As a matter of opinion only, I'd rather be fighting 15v50, than 10vs10 against a premade vs my pug (as an example), that is camping my spawn point, and not even doing the BGs objectives. That is a whole lot more frusteratring to me.
Well yeah, but it's all context and scale.
In the context of "is population balanced?" the answer is: yes, 100% balanced.
In the context of "is combat balanced?" the answer is: it's more balanced, because one of the many non-skill factors was removed.
So yeah, that's why he came off as saying it's balanced. Because population is balanced.
Yes, in BGs the population is balanced i understand that, and thought i said so in my last post.
But he said instances gives you competative yet balanced PvP, in my opinion, it doesn't, regardless of the context you put it in. I know in MMOs you will never find perfect balance, but I've seen some of the worst balance in scenerios.
Can it at times? Certainly..
Yet, I've been in a premade in WoW where we spent 3 hours on a Thurs night and just wiped the floor with PuGs. I'm sure they didn't feel it was very balanced. I've also been on the recieving end.
Since phasing was invented, instances are just lazy programming. STO really has led this to new heights with their "Age of Loadscreen". The less instances the better. With good programming you can make even bosses and stories phased without putting people via a loadscreen into another part of the game. Its possible, but its the lazy way just to make instances. I hate them.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Comments
because a general chat going on about last American Idol's winner while queing for a boss is REAL IMMERSION
also monday is the new tuesday
Instancing is a... Mixed bag. It's nice to always have your own personl copy of a hard dungeon, to have no distractions with a group, but when instances make half the game (say, any Cryptic game) it's kinda hard to "immerse" yourself.
I'm going to step on my own throat and say, that EQII and Vanilla WoW did it best - most of the world (even some dungeons) is open, while few selected zones are instanced. It makes sense and doesn't distract from the game.
I hate WoW because it made my plush hamster kill himself, created twin clones of Hitler, punched Superboy Prime in reality, stared my dog down, spoiled my grandmother, assimilated me into the Borg, then made me into a real boy, just to make me a woman again.
In my opinion instancing is MMORPG AIDS, it kills the community and therefore the game turning it into a lack lustre single player with a chat box.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
I agree completely.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Worldy games tend to be more grindy games.
I guess people here just like grind.
I don't, which is why i prefer the game have instances.
I'll be on record too as saying .. Instances are fine for Boss dungeon runs, or epic quest goals.. Other then that, I'm a huge fan that wants a open world that forces people to socialize a bit and work together if all possible..
the way instances is used now is horrid to me so if it were a poll Id have to say hate (even if strong word
)
instances should ONLY be for quest updates, used to love instances in EQ2 since they were rather rare and always had a purpose, the rareity made them the more special and not something you d do every day....and certainly not the same every day.
raid encounters in instances in eq2 I like too since open world raiding doesnt mix in that game...and well do like a challanging fight for the better gear in games....and as others stated it can be quite nasty if you sit camp a named to spawn then someone come by snag it infront of you (which in eq2 would mean about 20 min longer wait)
full instanced crap for gear just aint fun.....initial gained gear should mainly be from quests, with the rare piece off open world nameds.
buttom line...can a MMO please make this silly instance grinding stop please ?!? preferable a carebear game (no PvP) ?!?
even as a non PvPer really enjoy Darkfall over all the recent MMOs Ive played.
Worldy games tend to be more grindy games.
I guess people here just like grind.
I don't, which is why i prefer the game have instances.
to me instanced is alot more grindy....forced to do same limited number of instances a million time aint grindy to you ???
I don't care whether the games I play are instanced or not. As long as I am having fun, I love the game, the storylines and quests are interesting, I will enjoy the game. Though for some reason, it seems that the more instanced a game is, the more emphasis is placed on the storyline, and that is what I love most about instanced games. Though I do have to admit that there are open world games as well that I enjoy, mainly because of the community interaction and the chances for grouping and random conversations.
So yes, as long as I enjoy the game, I wouldn't care about the genre. Though I do admit that I would definitely not pay a monthly fee for a game that is mainly instanced.
Main characters:
Jinn Gone Quiet (Guild Wars)
Princess Pudding (Guild Wars)
I agree completely.
^ problem MMO´s cant ever compete wih single player games, when it come to gameplay, they have to focus on what makes them fun...singleplayer games have for the most parts online multiplayer part to them as well you know.
Worldy games tend to be more grindy games.
I guess people here just like grind.
I don't, which is why i prefer the game have instances.
its all about striking a balance !all phaze is bad all dungeon is bad etc
why vanilla wow was so successfull back then was the fact there was open world stuff happening AND there was instanced stuff happening too!so in concrete if y you raided for world raid dragon (5 world dragon )but the area was crowded you could go do aq40 instead and try that world dragon next week
now at lvl 80 they got rid of that because of possible lag issue
since world raid can generate very big crowd very fast .it was one facet of wow that made it what player loved
same for world fight like in eastern plagueland i bet million faught in those area and loved
wow did make sure it auto died how?by giving nice reward that werent avail in world bg
that stopped player going to wolrd bg fast and player started going to instanced
im not saying one is better then the other they are both needed and have to have some kind of reward
open world event of various king is nice
instanced event are also nice ,but just one OR the other is not nice at all!
Personally, I like instances. They cut ganking and griefing entirely out of the experience. I remember all too many times having rare spawns and/or drops KS'ed by some clown who either just happened to be there, or was lurking near by. As for the community angle, it can evolve around shared experiences. If one wants more than that try Face Book or some such.
I'm going to assume you mean battlegrounds? If not, disregard
I understand your point about quick fun, in and out when you don't have a lot of time, though the yet balanced part of your statement makes me scratch my head.
I have only played BGs in WAR, and WoW, and I have been on both ends of the pre-made, and pug groups in them. I have to be honest, I would hardly call them balanced from either viewpoint. Do you sometimes get pre-made vs. pre-made, sure, and pug vs.pug.. of course.. I don't know what the ratio is, but it seemed pretty close to 50/50 (during primetime play).. As a pug, i wouldn't consider 50/50 balance.. Do Pugs beat pre-mades? Of course they do, its just not very common.
I don't understand why they don't have a premade vs premade queue. Perhaps they don't want the (at all) wait times extended, or, as some say, they think a pre-made should have a competative edge, I'm not really sure.
As for jumping into a game when you only have 30 minutes to play, one of the things WAR did very well, was allow access to open RvR very quickly, so it can be done.
He meant more balanced.
Losing in a 15v50 fight isn't enjoyable (and to me, even winning isn't enjoyable.) This is because population isn't directly tied to the player's decisions -- it's outside your control, which cheapens the value of your decisions; of your interaction with the game. Since the entire point of games is interactive entertainment, cheapening the value of those interactions shouldn't be done lightly.
Most movies go out of their way to be dramatic: to make it seem like the hero could possibly lose in the battle with the villain, whatever form the battle or the villain takes. This intrigues and entertains people -- and this intrigue is totally absent from the 15v50 fight, because the moment those 50 players march onto your screen you know exactly how it's going to turn out.
Really the only time a population-imbalanced fight becomes interesting if it's a smaller fight in a poulation-balanced war. There were many times in Planetside where 30 players tried to stall off a 150-man attacking force for as long as possible. But this was fun because somewhere else on the same continent you knew your remaining 170 players would make awesome progress against their 50 defenders (both factions have a 200 population cap.) If you stalled the enemy skillfully, it mattered!
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
He came off as saying balanced, what he said, and what you say he meant, are two different things.. As i said in my post, allow queuing for pre-made vs pre-made, and i agree with him completely, though i have yet to see a MMO do that, though as i also said, I have only played WOW and WAR in this aspect.
As a matter of opinion only, I'd rather be fighting 15v50, than 10vs10 against a premade vs my pug (as an example), that is camping my spawn point, and not even doing the BGs objectives. That is a whole lot more frusteratring to me.
While I dont have a whole lot of experiance with instances I did play guild wars the original. At the time I found the idea new and exciting. I was like kool I get this area to myself or a small party. But over time looking back I feel the game loses am important dynamic with instances. I mean how else am I gona know how many players find this area like me to be crucial to the experiance or char development. I lose a real sence of competition and acheivement.
I have played many games where an internet conection was enough or even a lan connect. Some were RTS some RPG some even FPS. Now having a game world that connects all the players who are interested in such a game is very kool I think the game rooms for the RTS genrea did it just fine. I mean if I wanted to play instanced RPG I dont really need a city. In fact the LFG(looking for group) menus typicaly ARE those very same rooms only with a minor upgrade called a city.
Now with guild wars there was no monthy fee but with a lot of these instanced type games there are and traditionally these "rooms" are provided for free. To me its only a minor upgrade to a grafical interface instead of a status checker and that just isnt worth a monthy.
I'm not paying to play an instance or not-an-instance, I'm paying to play a game. If the game is fun, then I don't care if there's instances or not.
I do not like instances, they seperate the people in the game from each other, now if you are risk averse in an mmorpg instances done a la WoW could be ok, but instancing done in the STO style just kills the game for me, i would be better off playing a single player game.
F2P/P2P excellent thread.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/282517/F2P-An-Engineers-perspective.html
He came off as saying balanced, what he said, and what you say he meant, are two different things.. As i said in my post, allow queuing for pre-made vs pre-made, and i agree with him completely, though i have yet to see a MMO do that, though as i also said, I have only played WOW and WAR in this aspect.
As a matter of opinion only, I'd rather be fighting 15v50, than 10vs10 against a premade vs my pug (as an example), that is camping my spawn point, and not even doing the BGs objectives. That is a whole lot more frusteratring to me.
Well yeah, but it's all context and scale.
In the context of "is population balanced?" the answer is: yes, 100% balanced.
In the context of "is combat balanced?" the answer is: it's more balanced, because one of the many non-skill factors was removed.
So yeah, that's why he came off as saying it's balanced. Because population is balanced.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't like 40 people raids i don't like any instance over 15. If you ask me 6 is good . 6 men dungeons of warhammer like LV they were nice .
Instances are good. It makes dungeon runs fun. It also encourages grouping.
WOW's latest cross realm dungeon finder tool is a great way to improve instances. It makes grouping to level a superior choice once again. I used to level purely by questing and sometimes that gets lonely.
I leveled my pally from L73-ish to 79 all through instances and it was a great experience.
Sometimes open world just does not work. I was at a popular farming spot yesterday and you have like 5-6 people fighting for spawns. That is just no fun.
This is exactly what Cryptic did with STO. absolutely no reason to group with anyone at all, missions scale to your level. I hate instancing. I hate being separated from the rest of the gameworld, and OMG I hate playing a game where my character has absolutely no impact on the gameworld itself. I guess I'm just spoiled from playing EVE..
There are good use to instances, ideally you want to have a bit of both instances & open world to cater to different playstyles.
Good use of instances:
-Instanced boss encounters inside a dungeon. You spend the time clearing, you get a shot at a boss and not have to worry about other people interfering with you, training you, or getting ahead of you.
-Instanced PvP can solve population imbalance problems on a server, population problems in general such as cross-server instances, lag issues, and it can create games that start & end with an objective.
-Instanced dungeons can be fun especially with the creative scripting made possible by having instances. Voice acting, cut scenes, different phases in bosses, etc.. don't really work if you don't instance the dungeons.
With that said, there's a lot of fun outside of instances. It's best when developers don't over-use instances. Having a bit of everything is the best way to make things fun. People give Blizzard a lot of crap for introducing BG's, cross-server LFG dungeon finders, and just instanced raids in general. But honestly they have just as many zones non-instanced as there are zones that are instanced. Currently it's the best game to find a bit of everything, both open world and instanced, in both PvP & PvE.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
He came off as saying balanced, what he said, and what you say he meant, are two different things.. As i said in my post, allow queuing for pre-made vs pre-made, and i agree with him completely, though i have yet to see a MMO do that, though as i also said, I have only played WOW and WAR in this aspect.
As a matter of opinion only, I'd rather be fighting 15v50, than 10vs10 against a premade vs my pug (as an example), that is camping my spawn point, and not even doing the BGs objectives. That is a whole lot more frusteratring to me.
Well yeah, but it's all context and scale.
In the context of "is population balanced?" the answer is: yes, 100% balanced.
In the context of "is combat balanced?" the answer is: it's more balanced, because one of the many non-skill factors was removed.
So yeah, that's why he came off as saying it's balanced. Because population is balanced.
Yes, in BGs the population is balanced i understand that, and thought i said so in my last post.
But he said instances gives you competative yet balanced PvP, in my opinion, it doesn't, regardless of the context you put it in. I know in MMOs you will never find perfect balance, but I've seen some of the worst balance in scenerios.
Can it at times? Certainly..
Yet, I've been in a premade in WoW where we spent 3 hours on a Thurs night and just wiped the floor with PuGs. I'm sure they didn't feel it was very balanced. I've also been on the recieving end.
Thats all I'm saying.
Since phasing was invented, instances are just lazy programming. STO really has led this to new heights with their "Age of Loadscreen". The less instances the better. With good programming you can make even bosses and stories phased without putting people via a loadscreen into another part of the game. Its possible, but its the lazy way just to make instances. I hate them.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert