Here's a thought. Saying that instancing in MMORPGs always breaks immersion and is therefore always bad is a lot like saying that flashbacks in movies/television always break immersion and are therefore always bad.
Stories should be told from beginning to end without having scenes inserted out of chronological order. If a character is remembering or describing something that happened in the past, just have them say it out loud rather than putting it on screen. (This is how people learn about previous events in real life: other people tell them.) Or if it needs to be shown rather than just described, show us that scene at the beginning of the movie so that everything isn't out of order! It totally breaks immersion to cut straight from what's happening in the present to what happened three days ago (or thirty years ago!), when you know that things are not actually happening in that order.
Now, that would be a fairly absurd standpoint to take, but it's one that would make perfect sense if you had only ever seen movies and books where events always go in order with no flashbacks. It is at least partially true that pulling a viewer out of the present time to watch what happened at another time can disrupt their immersion into the ongoing story. And it certainly can be lazy to show a flashback rather than coming up with a more innovative way to fill the viewer in on past events. But there are many stories that are completely untellable without the heavy use of flashbacks. (I'm thinking of Memento and The Usual Suspects, but I'm sure you could come up with many more examples.) And even in stories that don't absolutely need them, they're still a very useful device. When overused, flashbacks can mess up what would otherwise be a good story. And it's particularly offensive if you know that there's an ulterior reason for their use, such as animated shows that show a lot of flashbacks when their animation budget runs low (so they can reuse old scenes and don't have to draw as much).
Does this comparison make sense? A flashback is a narrative device that is used to interrupt the flow of an otherwise chronologically-consistent story for the purpose of drama or exposition. Instancing is a device that is used to break up the continuum of an otherwise persistant continuous world for similar purposes. Both have their uses and neither are bad in and of themselves, even if they are sometimes misused. The simple fact that overuse is the most common misuse does not mean that they should only ever be used sparingly, or that the less they are used, the better.
Imagine if Lord of the Rings took place in an non-instanced MMO:
"Sorry, Mr. Frodo, you can't throw the ring into the fires of Mount Doom yet! Another Ringbearer got here first, and now you have to wait 20 minutes for Gollum to respawn."
I think the issue here is that MMOs have taken up with the RPG storyline concept of the player being the main hero of the game. Why are there 150,000 Mister Frodos in the first place?
If MMOs were virtual worlds, which in most cases they are not, this wouldn't happen.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
The OP is entitled to his/her own opinion of course. However, in my opinion instancing is bad due to it equating to lazy, last century technology pure and simple.
It separates players from each other and is immersion-breaking. Why immersion-breaking important? Because you can ask any developer out there and the main thing they want is a player to be sucked into their game world and want to devote their time to it, hence, immersion. Instancing breaks immersion, therefore it is bad, simple.
Any current developer that relies on instancing for zones is lazy basically and falls back on catch phrases to try to excuse their laziness and lack of inovation(and lack of funding) in using modern technology.
If you think modern consumer pc technology is advanced enough to have thousands of players in a small area, you'll have to adjust your expectations.
Look at EVE-Online where it barely can have 500 v 500 fleet fights.
Unless your customer base all have 'Deep Blue', instancing is the way to go.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
I love instances but not to the degree of GW. In moderation it can be quite useful and solves lot of head aches that older MMOS suffered from when it comes to dungeons, camping, greifing, loot etc.
The OP is entitled to his/her own opinion of course. However, in my opinion instancing is bad due to it equating to lazy, last century technology pure and simple.
It separates players from each other and is immersion-breaking. Why immersion-breaking important? Because you can ask any developer out there and the main thing they want is a player to be sucked into their game world and want to devote their time to it, hence, immersion. Instancing breaks immersion, therefore it is bad, simple.
Any current developer that relies on instancing for zones is lazy basically and falls back on catch phrases to try to excuse their laziness and lack of inovation(and lack of funding) in using modern technology.
If you think modern consumer pc technology is advanced enough to have thousands of players in a small area, you'll have to adjust your expectations.
Look at EVE-Online where it barely can have 500 v 500 fleet fights.
Unless your customer base all have 'Deep Blue', instancing is the way to go.
A lot of computer can (assuming the game will not look like Skyrim, but maybe with the graphic like WoW, not cartoony, but the low demanding graphics), the problem is the network though. They in general can not yet support so many people in one area. Main problem of EvE is network lag, not computers crashing or stuttering.
To process 1000s of players for a server would a lot of work and sending out the data of 1000s of poeple to 1000s of people would be a strain to a network. Not sure how much KB this information would be, but my guess is a lot of information your computer needs to download per second and the server would need to download that amount + process it and send the information back to poeple every mili-second.
I believe with Fiber rolling out we might see more games with more players (like PS2).
Its a dirty word and so it should. Instances are detracting you from the game world, creating your own little world in a bigger world so yes, indeed an immersion breaker and a big one on top of that. I cant stand instances contrary to the actual believe WoW has not been the first game introducing this crap, it was Asherons Call (made by Funcom), then SoE copied this crapped and introduced it with LDoN (Lost Dungeons of Norrath).
Personally I am a big believer in a massive (oh the irony) open world, such as Vanguard offered it. Man this game would have been so much better under a different publisher its really a shame.
Something instances are doing is creating "farm runs" you have your little group world with an ID, so run it over and over and over again thats so boring. Rather have massive dungeons where you actually have to explore them and the deeper you dig in, the more dangerous it becomes.
Ya know risk versus reward. Farming instances is not a risk its a lazy gamedesign decision.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play." "Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
The OP is entitled to his/her own opinion of course. However, in my opinion instancing is bad due to it equating to lazy, last century technology pure and simple.
It separates players from each other and is immersion-breaking. Why immersion-breaking important? Because you can ask any developer out there and the main thing they want is a player to be sucked into their game world and want to devote their time to it, hence, immersion. Instancing breaks immersion, therefore it is bad, simple.
Any current developer that relies on instancing for zones is lazy basically and falls back on catch phrases to try to excuse their laziness and lack of inovation(and lack of funding) in using modern technology.
Your opinion is largely impacted by your lack of understanding of the technology. You think it should be thousands of players in the same small area but that is impossible. And the maximum numbers per area is directly impacted with how complicated the game is and how allergic it is to lag. MMORPGs usually stand some lag, FPSs do not.
For example, Eve is a simple game and has very little information being sent back and forth per player. It also has a high tolerance for lag meaning it doesn't become unplayable with just every small hickup. You can have space battles with hundreds of players on each side but it comes at a cost: no free flight, no direct control over your ship, no real physics, no hitboxes, no aiming, no abilities with instant effects, etc.
You cannot have it all. CCP has done a lot of compromises to do what they did.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
magic words flags and massive - problem of lags, overcrowded areas solved.
One thing nobody has brought up yet is playing together:
In Everquest you found some guys killing tough /con mobs you ask them if you could join and if they had a place, you were set sounds nice, doesnt it. Nowadays with instances..."oh sorry you cant join us cause we have a different ID" maybe try tomorrow. Difference one (guess which one) is encouraging group play the other one is encouraging dumb farming.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play." "Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
This is how I see instancing: it was a "solution" to several problems like mob camping and different kinds of griefing.
Of course, these problems popped up because, in my opinion, the design was horribly flawed from the beginning. Most MMOs are practically large scale multiplayer games packed with features and systems from singleplayer games, hence => problems.
The idea that everyone in a multiplayer game is "The Hero" and everyone is following the exact same scripted singleplayer story is entirely absurd to me. But to solve this they introduced instancing, which made the game even more singleplayer-like.
Take the example of the evil necromancer's castle earlier in the thread: why not solve it the way it is actually handled in books, like Lord of the Ring? Make the journey there hard and dangerous, and when you get to the castle, make the "powerful necromancer" actually powerful, instead of almost falling dead down if you stare hard at him (and dropping obligatory leet loot).
Make the castle dark, menacing and very hard, maybe scaling and becoming harder the more people there is, this would solve the problem of 20 bunnyhopping idiots ruining the atmosphere, instead most of them would be fertilizer on the gray soil and actually HELP building the atmosphere of the place.
I guess it comes down to preferences: do you want a scripted story where you're the hero? Do you want a game composed of several different activities that you can pop into whenever you like? Do you want a relaxed and convenient Game and not a tedious "realistic" World? Then instances can be the awesomesauce and the solution. However, for a sort of "simulation" of a fantasy world, instances might not be the way to go most of the time.
In my opinion its the struggle between Game and the World all over again (or as some prefer it: the themepark and the sandbox).
I think if someone succeeded in making "seamless instancing", something that players hardly notice even if they tried, it would be a goldmine. Why should you care that you are in an instance if you didn't notice it?
Purists hate instances, but normal people have hardly any reason to hate them.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
The OP is entitled to his/her own opinion of course. However, in my opinion instancing is bad due to it equating to lazy, last century technology pure and simple.
It separates players from each other and is immersion-breaking. Why immersion-breaking important? Because you can ask any developer out there and the main thing they want is a player to be sucked into their game world and want to devote their time to it, hence, immersion. Instancing breaks immersion, therefore it is bad, simple.
Any current developer that relies on instancing for zones is lazy basically and falls back on catch phrases to try to excuse their laziness and lack of inovation(and lack of funding) in using modern technology.
Your opinion is largely impacted by your lack of understanding of the technology. You think it should be thousands of players in the same small area but that is impossible. And the maximum numbers per area is directly impacted with how complicated the game is and how allergic it is to lag. MMORPGs usually stand some lag, FPSs do not.
For example, Eve is a simple game and has very little information being sent back and forth per player. It also has a high tolerance for lag meaning it doesn't become unplayable with just every small hickup. You can have space battles with hundreds of players on each side but it comes at a cost: no free flight, no direct control over your ship, no real physics, no hitboxes, no aiming, no abilities with instant effects, etc.
You cannot have it all. CCP has done a lot of compromises to do what they did.
Sure you're right , but that does not mean that game developers shoud not try to improve amount of people that can be at one place in same time instead of using instancing as cheaper and simpler solution.
How many people can be at same time in one place is not simply dependant on complication of a game and graphics - it does matter but it is not only factor. There are many games that can sustain many placers in one place with servers beign stable and relatively small lag , and alot of games that have severre server stablity and lag problems with relatively small amount of people at one place.
Just compare Lotro (which cannot support much people in one area ) vs. Aion or Rift which can support much more people even though they have better graphics. (talking about quality of textures , number of polygons ,etc not about artistic value)
Alot is up to game design , technologies , game engine , game servers , etc
Instancing is just cheaper way.
While instancing won't go away as it is just needed in many/most mmorpg's , I believe that open non-instanced is better and should be pursued when it is viable. Bandwidtch gets cheaper, servers and PC's have more and more computing power and there is more and more engines with outstanding features out there so imho game developers should try to use this resources to create more massive worlds and don't try to instance games more instead.
Sure you're right , but that does not mean that game developers shoud not try to improve amount of people that can be at one place in same time instead of using instancing as cheaper and simpler solution.
How many people can be at same time in one place is not simply dependant on complication of a game and graphics - it does matter but it is not only factor. There are many games that can sustain many placers in one place with servers beign stable and relatively small lag , and alot of games that have severre server stablity and lag problems with relatively small amount of people at one place.
Just compare Lotro (which cannot support much people in one area ) vs. Aion or Rift which can support much more people even though they have better graphics. (talking about quality of textures , number of polygons ,etc not about artistic value)
Alot is up to game design , technologies , game engine , game servers , etc
Instancing is just cheaper way.
While instancing won't go away as it is just needed in many/most mmorpg's , I believe that open non-instanced is better and should be pursued when it is viable. Bandwidtch gets cheaper, servers and PC's have more and more computing power and there is more and more engines with outstanding features out there so imho game developers should try to use this resources to create more massive worlds and don't try to instance games more instead.
*facepalm* Graphics are something that your computer calculates locally i.e. no graphics data is transferred between the client and the server.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
*facepalm* Graphics are something that your computer calculates locally i.e. no graphics data is transferred between the client and the server.
Try facepaming less and think more.
I am aware of that.
Though amunt of grahic effects does have effect on server-client amount of information.
Grahically advanced game with alot of effects like explosions , bigger amounts of amnimations (like alot of idle aniamtion alot of emotes animations ,etc) , with alot of psychics (like if player can destroy f.e. bridge) ,etc then it can stress to server- client connection.
Actual graphics are not sent , but information what is happening on screen does.
I'm not entirely against its uses in MMO's, but one of the most personal, though largest, draws to me playing these games to begin with has mostly to do with the persistance of the world. If a particular game is so segregated, and so instanced that I may never in my time playing meet someone who technically shares the same spaces of the world as I do, then I think that's a problem. If it's not interfering with the world's persistance, though, I don't see the issue.
Let's break away from the typical WoW/EQ style dungeons for a minute.
In my opinion, instances shouldn't be used in a dungeon centric MMO. Why? Because it encourages lazy, steamlined one-path-only dungeon design. Instead, dungeons should be large enough to accomodate multiple raid partys, and should have multiple boss rooms which can each be accessed via multiple paths, making it more unlikely that you end up bumping into another group or killing the same boss at the same time.
Also, create dungeon /shout chat, so each party/raid can organise themselves so that they do not encounter a boss at the same time. Obviously, some guilds would rather show up as someone else is attacking a boss and try to PK for the taking in this environment.
In my opinion, instancing should be used purely to help newer, low-level players in a PvP-centric game. If instancing is the main ingrediant of a games "endgame" (read: like WoW), then it is more of an online RPG than an MMO.
An MMO should be built around the fact that is plays within a persistant world, afterall isn't this the point of the genre?
In my opinion you are 100% correct, WoW is in fact an online RPG now, and in the beginning only contained a few MMORPG concepts, not the least of which is the most important, persistence.
This is how I see instancing: it was a "solution" to several problems like mob camping and different kinds of griefing.
also allowed for much better detailed characters, worlds, and skills with minimal if any lag.
no current game would be able to sport the same graphics without instances, the moment you cram 200 people attacking X boss eveerybody´s rigs would be crawling to an halt.
and of course, if you make games with graphics bad enough to allow that, barely anyone is gonna play them, its 2011 and people dont want to play games that look straight from the 90s...
and well...instancing doesnt ruin communities, players ruin communities, and lets be honest here, most modern game communities are absolutly ruined from the ground up, instancing or not.
the vast majority of this current generation of gamers are all huge jerks, always, no ifs and buts.
instancing offers heaps of "pros", and the few "cons" will likely happen just the same without instancing...
This is how I see instancing: it was a "solution" to several problems like mob camping and different kinds of griefing.
also allowed for much better detailed characters, worlds, and skills with minimal if any lag.
no current game would be able to sport the same graphics without instances, the moment you cram 200 people attacking X boss eveerybody´s rigs would be crawling to an halt.
and of course, if you make games with graphics bad enough to allow that, barely anyone is gonna play them, its 2011 and people dont want to play games that look straight from the 90s...
and well...instancing doesnt ruin communities, players ruin communities, and lets be honest here, most modern game communities are absolutly ruined from the ground up, instancing or not.
the vast majority of this current generation of gamers are all huge jerks, always, no ifs and buts.
instancing offers heaps of "pros", and the few "cons" will likely happen just the same without instancing...
Instancing is definitely a double edged sword as is the alternative.
If I want to tell a story for a group of players, script events, make for a thrilling experience, instancing is the way to go.
If I want to provide a platform for people to create and forge thei own stories, you don't need instancing at all.
Instancing is a tool, and a valuable one at that. Imagine LotROs epic storyline without instancing? Even games like EVE Online feature randomly created mission pockets so not evey john doe can come there and farm your mobs (you're still in the same world so you still can with a bit of effort but well, you get the drift).
If I want to tell a story, instancing is the way to go.
And both concepts (story driven and player driven) are MMORPG, both have a decade-long history (classic campaign pen and paper is all about 'instancing' a dungeon for a group of 5) and both can be fun or no fun.
One thing I find funny is that the OP is all about "Right time, Right Place", and most of the arguments against instancing is using the afore mentioned "Cup of salt" concept of "But breaking people apart in cities is asinine, therefore instancing is bad".
Some times I have to wonder if many of these arguments are pre-planned knee jerk reactions for whenever certain key words come up.
I belived for a long while instance was an issue till rage of fire.then i see the new open ended instance and i am like now that is an instance i can live with.i just couldnt stand closed ended instance.
*facepalm* Graphics are something that your computer calculates locally i.e. no graphics data is transferred between the client and the server.
Try facepaming less and think more.
I am aware of that.
Though amunt of grahic effects does have effect on server-client amount of information.
Grahically advanced game with alot of effects like explosions , bigger amounts of amnimations (like alot of idle aniamtion alot of emotes animations ,etc) , with alot of psychics (like if player can destroy f.e. bridge) ,etc then it can stress to server- client connection.
Actual graphics are not sent , but information what is happening on screen does.
It is not "graphically advanced" it simply has advanced physics. Physics actually affect server-side while graphics doesn't. It adds complexity.
Physics, graphics... those two are two different things. You can have explosions without physics. Very few games use a physics engine to, for example destroy a bridge (Half-life 2 and few others comes to mind). Usually games just use premade animations to do this (the destruction is identical every time). Therefore, no objects need to be tracked.
But back to the topic. Instancing is not just a "cheaper way". It is a design decision. It has cons and pros just like persistent world does. Those include price, gameplay and performance.
I think insancing should be used as much as possible. Devs should use it everytime they can get away with it. Maybe not to an extent that GW1 did it but GW1 certainly wasn't a bad game because of it. It was just different.
With instances, you can make a more complicated game, you can make more profound changes to the gameworld without negatively impacting someone else's playing experience. Performance is better, it is cheaper and easier to manage and design.
Nothing wrong with instancing.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Originally posted by ActionMMORPG Originally posted by Vryheid Imagine if Lord of the Rings took place in an non-instanced MMO: "Sorry, Mr. Frodo, you can't throw the ring into the fires of Mount Doom yet! Another Ringbearer got here first, and now you have to wait 20 minutes for Gollum to respawn."
I think the issue here is that MMOs have taken up with the RPG storyline concept of the player being the main hero of the game. Why are there 150,000 Mister Frodos in the first place?
If MMOs were virtual worlds, which in most cases they are not, this wouldn't happen. I don't think many people would pay to play as peasant victim # 3.
But back to the topic. Instancing is not just a "cheaper way". It is a design decision. It has cons and pros just like persistent world does. Those include price, gameplay and performance.
I think insancing should be used as much as possible. Devs should use it everytime they can get away with it. Maybe not to an extent that GW1 did it but GW1 certainly wasn't a bad game because of it. It was just different.
With instances, you can make a more complicated game, you can make more profound changes to the gameworld without negatively impacting someone else's playing experience. Performance is better, it is cheaper and easier to manage and design.
Nothing wrong with instancing.
Well here we don't agree. While I see instancing is in some cases helpful , I am of oinion that devvelopers should avoid instnacing when possible. Permanent world provide more immersion , more players interaction and does not separate players but instead place them in in one world where one's action affect other actions more often which is a good thing.
Imagine if Lord of the Rings took place in an non-instanced MMO:
"Sorry, Mr. Frodo, you can't throw the ring into the fires of Mount Doom yet! Another Ringbearer got here first, and now you have to wait 20 minutes for Gollum to respawn."
I think the issue here is that MMOs have taken up with the RPG storyline concept of the player being the main hero of the game. Why are there 150,000 Mister Frodos in the first place?
If MMOs were virtual worlds, which in most cases they are not, this wouldn't happen.
I don't think many people would pay to play as peasant victim # 3.
There is alot of space between peasant and "Frodo". Soldiers, mercenaries , mages , blacksmiths ,nobles , knights , priests, etc - but not necessarily a world wide hero.
Comments
Here's a thought. Saying that instancing in MMORPGs always breaks immersion and is therefore always bad is a lot like saying that flashbacks in movies/television always break immersion and are therefore always bad.
Stories should be told from beginning to end without having scenes inserted out of chronological order. If a character is remembering or describing something that happened in the past, just have them say it out loud rather than putting it on screen. (This is how people learn about previous events in real life: other people tell them.) Or if it needs to be shown rather than just described, show us that scene at the beginning of the movie so that everything isn't out of order! It totally breaks immersion to cut straight from what's happening in the present to what happened three days ago (or thirty years ago!), when you know that things are not actually happening in that order.
Now, that would be a fairly absurd standpoint to take, but it's one that would make perfect sense if you had only ever seen movies and books where events always go in order with no flashbacks. It is at least partially true that pulling a viewer out of the present time to watch what happened at another time can disrupt their immersion into the ongoing story. And it certainly can be lazy to show a flashback rather than coming up with a more innovative way to fill the viewer in on past events. But there are many stories that are completely untellable without the heavy use of flashbacks. (I'm thinking of Memento and The Usual Suspects, but I'm sure you could come up with many more examples.) And even in stories that don't absolutely need them, they're still a very useful device. When overused, flashbacks can mess up what would otherwise be a good story. And it's particularly offensive if you know that there's an ulterior reason for their use, such as animated shows that show a lot of flashbacks when their animation budget runs low (so they can reuse old scenes and don't have to draw as much).
Does this comparison make sense? A flashback is a narrative device that is used to interrupt the flow of an otherwise chronologically-consistent story for the purpose of drama or exposition. Instancing is a device that is used to break up the continuum of an otherwise persistant continuous world for similar purposes. Both have their uses and neither are bad in and of themselves, even if they are sometimes misused. The simple fact that overuse is the most common misuse does not mean that they should only ever be used sparingly, or that the less they are used, the better.
I think the issue here is that MMOs have taken up with the RPG storyline concept of the player being the main hero of the game. Why are there 150,000 Mister Frodos in the first place?
If MMOs were virtual worlds, which in most cases they are not, this wouldn't happen.
If you think modern consumer pc technology is advanced enough to have thousands of players in a small area, you'll have to adjust your expectations.
Look at EVE-Online where it barely can have 500 v 500 fleet fights.
Unless your customer base all have 'Deep Blue', instancing is the way to go.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
I love instances but not to the degree of GW. In moderation it can be quite useful and solves lot of head aches that older MMOS suffered from when it comes to dungeons, camping, greifing, loot etc.
A lot of computer can (assuming the game will not look like Skyrim, but maybe with the graphic like WoW, not cartoony, but the low demanding graphics), the problem is the network though. They in general can not yet support so many people in one area. Main problem of EvE is network lag, not computers crashing or stuttering.
To process 1000s of players for a server would a lot of work and sending out the data of 1000s of poeple to 1000s of people would be a strain to a network. Not sure how much KB this information would be, but my guess is a lot of information your computer needs to download per second and the server would need to download that amount + process it and send the information back to poeple every mili-second.
I believe with Fiber rolling out we might see more games with more players (like PS2).
Its a dirty word and so it should. Instances are detracting you from the game world, creating your own little world in a bigger world so yes, indeed an immersion breaker and a big one on top of that. I cant stand instances contrary to the actual believe WoW has not been the first game introducing this crap, it was Asherons Call (made by Funcom), then SoE copied this crapped and introduced it with LDoN (Lost Dungeons of Norrath).
Personally I am a big believer in a massive (oh the irony) open world, such as Vanguard offered it. Man this game would have been so much better under a different publisher its really a shame.
Something instances are doing is creating "farm runs" you have your little group world with an ID, so run it over and over and over again thats so boring. Rather have massive dungeons where you actually have to explore them and the deeper you dig in, the more dangerous it becomes.
Ya know risk versus reward. Farming instances is not a risk its a lazy gamedesign decision.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
Your opinion is largely impacted by your lack of understanding of the technology. You think it should be thousands of players in the same small area but that is impossible. And the maximum numbers per area is directly impacted with how complicated the game is and how allergic it is to lag. MMORPGs usually stand some lag, FPSs do not.
For example, Eve is a simple game and has very little information being sent back and forth per player. It also has a high tolerance for lag meaning it doesn't become unplayable with just every small hickup. You can have space battles with hundreds of players on each side but it comes at a cost: no free flight, no direct control over your ship, no real physics, no hitboxes, no aiming, no abilities with instant effects, etc.
You cannot have it all. CCP has done a lot of compromises to do what they did.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
magic words flags and massive - problem of lags, overcrowded areas solved.
One thing nobody has brought up yet is playing together:
In Everquest you found some guys killing tough /con mobs you ask them if you could join and if they had a place, you were set sounds nice, doesnt it. Nowadays with instances..."oh sorry you cant join us cause we have a different ID" maybe try tomorrow. Difference one (guess which one) is encouraging group play the other one is encouraging dumb farming.
We need a MMORPG Cataclysm asap, finish the dark age of MMORPGS now!
"Everything you're bitching about is wrong. People don't have the time to invest in corpse runs, impossible zones, or long winded quests. Sometimes, they just want to pop on and play."
"Then maybe MMORPGs aren't for you."
This is how I see instancing: it was a "solution" to several problems like mob camping and different kinds of griefing.
Of course, these problems popped up because, in my opinion, the design was horribly flawed from the beginning. Most MMOs are practically large scale multiplayer games packed with features and systems from singleplayer games, hence => problems.
The idea that everyone in a multiplayer game is "The Hero" and everyone is following the exact same scripted singleplayer story is entirely absurd to me. But to solve this they introduced instancing, which made the game even more singleplayer-like.
Take the example of the evil necromancer's castle earlier in the thread: why not solve it the way it is actually handled in books, like Lord of the Ring? Make the journey there hard and dangerous, and when you get to the castle, make the "powerful necromancer" actually powerful, instead of almost falling dead down if you stare hard at him (and dropping obligatory leet loot).
Make the castle dark, menacing and very hard, maybe scaling and becoming harder the more people there is, this would solve the problem of 20 bunnyhopping idiots ruining the atmosphere, instead most of them would be fertilizer on the gray soil and actually HELP building the atmosphere of the place.
I guess it comes down to preferences: do you want a scripted story where you're the hero? Do you want a game composed of several different activities that you can pop into whenever you like? Do you want a relaxed and convenient Game and not a tedious "realistic" World? Then instances can be the awesomesauce and the solution. However, for a sort of "simulation" of a fantasy world, instances might not be the way to go most of the time.
In my opinion its the struggle between Game and the World all over again (or as some prefer it: the themepark and the sandbox).
I think if someone succeeded in making "seamless instancing", something that players hardly notice even if they tried, it would be a goldmine. Why should you care that you are in an instance if you didn't notice it?
Purists hate instances, but normal people have hardly any reason to hate them.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Sure you're right , but that does not mean that game developers shoud not try to improve amount of people that can be at one place in same time instead of using instancing as cheaper and simpler solution.
How many people can be at same time in one place is not simply dependant on complication of a game and graphics - it does matter but it is not only factor. There are many games that can sustain many placers in one place with servers beign stable and relatively small lag , and alot of games that have severre server stablity and lag problems with relatively small amount of people at one place.
Just compare Lotro (which cannot support much people in one area ) vs. Aion or Rift which can support much more people even though they have better graphics. (talking about quality of textures , number of polygons ,etc not about artistic value)
Alot is up to game design , technologies , game engine , game servers , etc
Instancing is just cheaper way.
While instancing won't go away as it is just needed in many/most mmorpg's , I believe that open non-instanced is better and should be pursued when it is viable. Bandwidtch gets cheaper, servers and PC's have more and more computing power and there is more and more engines with outstanding features out there so imho game developers should try to use this resources to create more massive worlds and don't try to instance games more instead.
*facepalm* Graphics are something that your computer calculates locally i.e. no graphics data is transferred between the client and the server.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Try facepaming less and think more.
I am aware of that.
Though amunt of grahic effects does have effect on server-client amount of information.
Grahically advanced game with alot of effects like explosions , bigger amounts of amnimations (like alot of idle aniamtion alot of emotes animations ,etc) , with alot of psychics (like if player can destroy f.e. bridge) ,etc then it can stress to server- client connection.
Actual graphics are not sent , but information what is happening on screen does.
I agree with much that was said in the first post.
Also, with a right engine, you might not even have to zone into an instance anymore, like in SW:TOR. This is also a good thing for the immersion.
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
I agree completely
In my opinion you are 100% correct, WoW is in fact an online RPG now, and in the beginning only contained a few MMORPG concepts, not the least of which is the most important, persistence.
also allowed for much better detailed characters, worlds, and skills with minimal if any lag.
no current game would be able to sport the same graphics without instances, the moment you cram 200 people attacking X boss eveerybody´s rigs would be crawling to an halt.
and of course, if you make games with graphics bad enough to allow that, barely anyone is gonna play them, its 2011 and people dont want to play games that look straight from the 90s...
and well...instancing doesnt ruin communities, players ruin communities, and lets be honest here, most modern game communities are absolutly ruined from the ground up, instancing or not.
the vast majority of this current generation of gamers are all huge jerks, always, no ifs and buts.
instancing offers heaps of "pros", and the few "cons" will likely happen just the same without instancing...
Instancing is definitely a double edged sword as is the alternative.
Well, when used correctly it has its place.
If I want to tell a story for a group of players, script events, make for a thrilling experience, instancing is the way to go.
If I want to provide a platform for people to create and forge thei own stories, you don't need instancing at all.
Instancing is a tool, and a valuable one at that. Imagine LotROs epic storyline without instancing? Even games like EVE Online feature randomly created mission pockets so not evey john doe can come there and farm your mobs (you're still in the same world so you still can with a bit of effort but well, you get the drift).
If I want to tell a story, instancing is the way to go.
And both concepts (story driven and player driven) are MMORPG, both have a decade-long history (classic campaign pen and paper is all about 'instancing' a dungeon for a group of 5) and both can be fun or no fun.
M
One thing I find funny is that the OP is all about "Right time, Right Place", and most of the arguments against instancing is using the afore mentioned "Cup of salt" concept of "But breaking people apart in cities is asinine, therefore instancing is bad".
Some times I have to wonder if many of these arguments are pre-planned knee jerk reactions for whenever certain key words come up.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
It is not "graphically advanced" it simply has advanced physics. Physics actually affect server-side while graphics doesn't. It adds complexity.
Physics, graphics... those two are two different things. You can have explosions without physics. Very few games use a physics engine to, for example destroy a bridge (Half-life 2 and few others comes to mind). Usually games just use premade animations to do this (the destruction is identical every time). Therefore, no objects need to be tracked.
But back to the topic. Instancing is not just a "cheaper way". It is a design decision. It has cons and pros just like persistent world does. Those include price, gameplay and performance.
I think insancing should be used as much as possible. Devs should use it everytime they can get away with it. Maybe not to an extent that GW1 did it but GW1 certainly wasn't a bad game because of it. It was just different.
With instances, you can make a more complicated game, you can make more profound changes to the gameworld without negatively impacting someone else's playing experience. Performance is better, it is cheaper and easier to manage and design.
Nothing wrong with instancing.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
If MMOs were virtual worlds, which in most cases they are not, this wouldn't happen.
I don't think many people would pay to play as peasant victim # 3.
Well here we don't agree. While I see instancing is in some cases helpful , I am of oinion that devvelopers should avoid instnacing when possible. Permanent world provide more immersion , more players interaction and does not separate players but instead place them in in one world where one's action affect other actions more often which is a good thing.
(I guess here we don't agree).
Instancing overuse (which is frequent ) is bad.
There is alot of space between peasant and "Frodo". Soldiers, mercenaries , mages , blacksmiths ,nobles , knights , priests, etc - but not necessarily a world wide hero.