›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links

What ever happend to camping for xp?

1…1011131516…20

Comments

  • RobsolfRobsolf Member RarePosts: 4,607
    Originally posted by Flyte27
    Originally posted by Axehilt
    Originally posted by Flyte27

    As I mentioned before you can have grinding in game that is not mob killing related.  This equates to the different things quests sometimes give you to do, but often are far more involved in their mechanics.  For instance gathering ore and crafting were grinding activities in Ultima Online.  Two of many different possible grind activities you could do.  In SWG you could farm which was different kind of grind.  It was also more involved then anything you will see in a quest.

    If you're criticizing X and suggesting Y is better, you can't use features of X to prove why Y is better.  You need to find things exclusive to Y.  That means things which are only found in Y.

    You seem to be attempting to list features of WOW (and nearly every quest-based game) as reasons camp-based games are better than quest-based games.  Those things exist in quest-based games!

    Do you need to see it visually?

    • Camp-based games
      • Gathering
      • Crafting
      • Farming
      • Camping
        • Killing
    • WOW
      • Gathering
      • Crafting
      • Farming
      • Quests
        • Killing
        • Bombing runs
        • Farming
        • Plants vs. Zombies
        • Re-enacting Lich King or Talon King events
        • Siege Tank quests
        • Gathering
        • Fedex
        • Stealth
        • ...etc.
    So yeah, mentioning gathering and crafting isn't really moving the conversation along.

    I give up as it seems it does have more variety. 

    I will say that that variety is pretty horrible content that I wouldn't want to play through.  It sounds like some really terrible mini games.

    I could probably live with the quests if there was no GPS and the difficulty level was a lot greater then it is.

    I play a lot of modern single player games that have a lot less artificial progression and also far more immersing story.

    I do feel that while grinding may not have as much variety the old games still offered more to do through forced interaction.  There were many things outside of combat that people were forced to rely on each other for.

    Let me correct you here, in a way that you might actually agree with.  The point is that older games forced you to interact with people in order to advance, while newer games allow people to advance without having to interact with others.  Is that a fair statement?

    If so, that's a valid point.

    Here's the thing, though.  That does not mean that the old game offered more.  It just means that they limited content access to player interaction.  I'm not saying that that is or isn't a bad thing...

    ...what I guess I'm suggesting is that that the "camp for XP" idea is not really what you miss in games, it's the need to have to work with other players?

     

  • cmorris975cmorris975 Member UncommonPosts: 207

     

    What many want is to experience the content, not watch it being robbed from them by mechanics that have long since been fixed... What you said is not an accurate representation of what many players want, as well as it shows a failure to see that what you view as "quality" is not universal.

    I view any system that allows others to ruin your experience or screw up intended mechanics as bad design, and no where near quality. As did many in the past, that's why it was done away with..

     

     

    This is a perfect example of the obvious divide in the MMORPG player base.  Those that want a "world" and those that want a "game".  Those that want a "game" of course want instances, for the reasons you stated there.  It makes perfect sense.  But those like me, who want a "world", will gladly pay the price of not being able to do an encounter like it may have been intended on some design document, in order to have the emergent interactions that come from having other players around.

    I will pay the price of not being able to kill a certain boss at will in order to get the benefit of knowing that I am playing in the same virtual environment as everyone else.  I favor the interactions with other players, positive or negative, over interactions with NPCs.  It is more rewarding than the loot itself, and indeed even that shiny new sword may become more valuable to me because of the social interactions that were part of obtaining it.

    It is has not gone unnoticed by me that many of these players who want an uninterrupted "game" with instances cannot seem to comprehend my point of view here, while I can outline theirs and understand it rather easily.  Luckily, it doesn't really matter because the only real solution is to play different MMORPGs with different mechanics.

  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    Originally posted by cmorris975

    What many want is to experience the content, not watch it being robbed from them by mechanics that have long since been fixed... What you said is not an accurate representation of what many players want, as well as it shows a failure to see that what you view as "quality" is not universal.

    I view any system that allows others to ruin your experience or screw up intended mechanics as bad design, and no where near quality. As did many in the past, that's why it was done away with..

    This is a perfect example of the obvious divide in the MMORPG player base.  Those that want a "world" and those that want a "game".  Those that want a "game" of course want instances, for the reasons you stated there.  It makes perfect sense.  But those like me, who want a "world", will gladly pay the price of not being able to do an encounter like it may have been intended on some design document, in order to have the emergent interactions that come from having other players around.

    I will pay the price of not being able to kill a certain boss at will in order to get the benefit of knowing that I am playing in the same virtual environment as everyone else.  I favor the interactions with other players, positive or negative, over interactions with NPCs.  It is more rewarding than the loot itself, and indeed even that shiny new sword may become more valuable to me because of the social interactions that were part of obtaining it.

    It is has not gone unnoticed by me that many of these players who want an interrupted "game" with instances cannot seem to comprehend my point of view here, while I can outline theirs and understand it rather easily.  Luckily, it doesn't really matter because the only real solution is to play different MMORPGs with different mechanics.

    Wow just wow!  I wish I has said that half as well.

    Particularly: "It is more rewarding than the loot itself, and indeed even that shiny new sword may become more valuable to me because of the social interactions that were part of obtaining it."

    and

    "the only real solution is to play different MMORPGs with different mechanics."

    Now if we can only convince the developers to produce games for people like us.

     

     

  • BossalinieBossalinie Member UncommonPosts: 724
    Originally posted by cmorris975

     

    What many want is to experience the content, not watch it being robbed from them by mechanics that have long since been fixed... What you said is not an accurate representation of what many players want, as well as it shows a failure to see that what you view as "quality" is not universal.

    I view any system that allows others to ruin your experience or screw up intended mechanics as bad design, and no where near quality. As did many in the past, that's why it was done away with..

     

     

    This is a perfect example of the obvious divide in the MMORPG player base.  Those that want a "world" and those that want a "game".  Those that want a "game" of course want instances, for the reasons you stated there.  It makes perfect sense.  But those like me, who want a "world", will gladly pay the price of not being able to do an encounter like it may have been intended on some design document, in order to have the emergent interactions that come from having other players around.

    I will pay the price of not being able to kill a certain boss at will in order to get the benefit of knowing that I am playing in the same virtual environment as everyone else.  I favor the interactions with other players, positive or negative, over interactions with NPCs.  It is more rewarding than the loot itself, and indeed even that shiny new sword may become more valuable to me because of the social interactions that were part of obtaining it.

    It is has not gone unnoticed by me that many of these players who want an uninterrupted "game" with instances cannot seem to comprehend my point of view here, while I can outline theirs and understand it rather easily.  Luckily, it doesn't really matter because the only real solution is to play different MMORPGs with different mechanics.

    Lack of agreement and lack of comprehension are not mutually inclusive. People can also see clear as day the way you read others the yearn for the play style you want, and simply don't want any part of it.

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Instancing came to be to ensure the mechanics of an encounter played as intended, this was one of the biggest issues in open dungeons, environments that were meant to be dark and foreboding often turned into what looked like a hub of tourism. The silly naked guy running around or an army of them, the lack of enemies to fight because everything is constantly dead, the large group taking everyone's kills... etc..

    You're also forgetting that scope for a game can only be so wide. Creating the size of world you're talking about is a monumental task, when you also have to flesh it out with mechanics as well as content. As well as offer a robust class/skill system, etc.etc.etc...So you have to think whether what you're saying would fit into any studios scope for a game...When considering modern development practices as well as general expectation of production value.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What many want is to experience the content, not watch it being robbed from them by mechanics that have long since been fixed... What you said is not an accurate representation of what many players want, as well as it shows a failure to see that what you view as "quality" is not universal.

    I view any system that allows others to ruin your experience or screw up intended mechanics as bad design, and no where near quality. As did many in the past, that's why it was done away with..

     

     

    Come now, it was done away with because people are chasing WoW money, emulating WoW mechanics.  Its back in several titles as we speak and going to be in more to come.  There will be no "doing away" with mechanics that facilitate immersion like contested, open world content.  That problem that they fixed done got unfixed.

    I didn't claim to be "representing" what the majority wants.

    Its not as massive of an undertaking as you believe or would like others to believe.  Like I said, its just a matter of creating enough dungeon content and then incentivizing players to spread through it.  When that isn't an option, spreading them to more servers.  Theres a reason that classic Everquest constantly opened new servers.  Theres also a reason Vanguard had over 100 dungeons and crypts, all open world.  This isn't some theory, this is based on what I've witnessed in a number of games with open world dungeons.

     


  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by Dullahan
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Instancing came to be to ensure the mechanics of an encounter played as intended, this was one of the biggest issues in open dungeons, environments that were meant to be dark and foreboding often turned into what looked like a hub of tourism. The silly naked guy running around or an army of them, the lack of enemies to fight because everything is constantly dead, the large group taking everyone's kills... etc..

    You're also forgetting that scope for a game can only be so wide. Creating the size of world you're talking about is a monumental task, when you also have to flesh it out with mechanics as well as content. As well as offer a robust class/skill system, etc.etc.etc...So you have to think whether what you're saying would fit into any studios scope for a game...When considering modern development practices as well as general expectation of production value.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What many want is to experience the content, not watch it being robbed from them by mechanics that have long since been fixed... What you said is not an accurate representation of what many players want, as well as it shows a failure to see that what you view as "quality" is not universal.

    I view any system that allows others to ruin your experience or screw up intended mechanics as bad design, and no where near quality. As did many in the past, that's why it was done away with..

     

     

    Come now, it was done away with because people are chasing WoW money, emulating WoW mechanics.  Its back in several titles as we speak and going to be in more to come.  There will be no "doing away" with mechanics that facilitate immersion like contested, open world content.  That problem that they fixed done got unfixed.

    I didn't claim to be "representing" what the majority wants.

    Its not as massive of an undertaking as you believe or would like others to believe.  Like I said, its just a matter of creating enough dungeon content and then incentivizing players to spread through it.  When that isn't an option, spreading them to more servers.  Theres a reason that classic Everquest constantly opened new servers.  Theres also a reason Vanguard had over 100 dungeons and crypts, all open world.  This isn't some theory, this is based on what I've witnessed in a number of games with open world dungeons.

    No. Instances have qualities which are more appealing to the larger market. You're just burying your head in the sand if you think its only because WoW did it and "people are chasing WoW money".

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • SavageHorizonSavageHorizon Member EpicPosts: 3,480
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    Originally posted by Dullahan
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Instancing came to be to ensure the mechanics of an encounter played as intended, this was one of the biggest issues in open dungeons, environments that were meant to be dark and foreboding often turned into what looked like a hub of tourism. The silly naked guy running around or an army of them, the lack of enemies to fight because everything is constantly dead, the large group taking everyone's kills... etc..

    You're also forgetting that scope for a game can only be so wide. Creating the size of world you're talking about is a monumental task, when you also have to flesh it out with mechanics as well as content. As well as offer a robust class/skill system, etc.etc.etc...So you have to think whether what you're saying would fit into any studios scope for a game...When considering modern development practices as well as general expectation of production value.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What many want is to experience the content, not watch it being robbed from them by mechanics that have long since been fixed... What you said is not an accurate representation of what many players want, as well as it shows a failure to see that what you view as "quality" is not universal.

    I view any system that allows others to ruin your experience or screw up intended mechanics as bad design, and no where near quality. As did many in the past, that's why it was done away with..

     

     

    Come now, it was done away with because people are chasing WoW money, emulating WoW mechanics.  Its back in several titles as we speak and going to be in more to come.  There will be no "doing away" with mechanics that facilitate immersion like contested, open world content.  That problem that they fixed done got unfixed.

    I didn't claim to be "representing" what the majority wants.

    Its not as massive of an undertaking as you believe or would like others to believe.  Like I said, its just a matter of creating enough dungeon content and then incentivizing players to spread through it.  When that isn't an option, spreading them to more servers.  Theres a reason that classic Everquest constantly opened new servers.  Theres also a reason Vanguard had over 100 dungeons and crypts, all open world.  This isn't some theory, this is based on what I've witnessed in a number of games with open world dungeons.

    No. Instances have qualities which are more appealing to the larger market. You're just burying your head in the sand if you think its only because WoW did it and "people are chasing WoW money".

     

    God you talk some rubbish, anyway thank god Pantheon will have open dungeons just like Vanguard had. Some dungeons in Vanguard took days to complete not a couple of hours like some of these crappy instance dungeons you find in today's mmo. They spanned many levels, dungeons within dungeons.




  • RydesonRydeson Member UncommonPosts: 3,852
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Dullahan
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Instancing came to be to ensure the mechanics of an encounter played as intended, this was one of the biggest issues in open dungeons, environments that were meant to be dark and foreboding often turned into what looked like a hub of tourism. The silly naked guy running around or an army of them, the lack of enemies to fight because everything is constantly dead, the large group taking everyone's kills... etc..

    You're also forgetting that scope for a game can only be so wide. Creating the size of world you're talking about is a monumental task, when you also have to flesh it out with mechanics as well as content. As well as offer a robust class/skill system, etc.etc.etc...So you have to think whether what you're saying would fit into any studios scope for a game...When considering modern development practices as well as general expectation of production value.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What many want is to experience the content, not watch it being robbed from them by mechanics that have long since been fixed... What you said is not an accurate representation of what many players want, as well as it shows a failure to see that what you view as "quality" is not universal.

    I view any system that allows others to ruin your experience or screw up intended mechanics as bad design, and no where near quality. As did many in the past, that's why it was done away with..

     

     

    Come now, it was done away with because people are chasing WoW money, emulating WoW mechanics.  Its back in several titles as we speak and going to be in more to come.  There will be no "doing away" with mechanics that facilitate immersion like contested, open world content.  That problem that they fixed done got unfixed.

    I didn't claim to be "representing" what the majority wants.

    Its not as massive of an undertaking as you believe or would like others to believe.  Like I said, its just a matter of creating enough dungeon content and then incentivizing players to spread through it.  When that isn't an option, spreading them to more servers.  Theres a reason that classic Everquest constantly opened new servers.  Theres also a reason Vanguard had over 100 dungeons and crypts, all open world.  This isn't some theory, this is based on what I've witnessed in a number of games with open world dungeons.

    No. Instances have qualities which are more appealing to the larger market. You're just burying your head in the sand if you think its only because WoW did it and "people are chasing WoW money".

    Strawman..  Dull and others are 100% right on the money..  BTW.. reread what you typed..  You started by admitting instances was to target the "larger" market, but then ended your post sorta denying "chasing WoW money"...... You do understand economics right..   Market = Money?    Pretty simple..  lol 

    Further, no one is advocating that your WoW type quest grind games shouldn't be made.. Obviously there is a large market for fast food gaming..  Some of us, as small as we might be, still like home cooked food (even if we have to wait for it)..  Those cafes are still profitable..  My first dungeon crawl in EQ was Blackburrow and it was large enough to entertain more then one group easily..  All that needs to be done is make the content large enough to satisfy the demand..  It's not rocket science.. 

  • SavageHorizonSavageHorizon Member EpicPosts: 3,480
    Originally posted by Rydeson

    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Dullahan
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Instancing came to be to ensure the mechanics of an encounter played as intended, this was one of the biggest issues in open dungeons, environments that were meant to be dark and foreboding often turned into what looked like a hub of tourism. The silly naked guy running around or an army of them, the lack of enemies to fight because everything is constantly dead, the large group taking everyone's kills... etc..

    You're also forgetting that scope for a game can only be so wide. Creating the size of world you're talking about is a monumental task, when you also have to flesh it out with mechanics as well as content. As well as offer a robust class/skill system, etc.etc.etc...So you have to think whether what you're saying would fit into any studios scope for a game...When considering modern development practices as well as general expectation of production value.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What many want is to experience the content, not watch it being robbed from them by mechanics that have long since been fixed... What you said is not an accurate representation of what many players want, as well as it shows a failure to see that what you view as "quality" is not universal.

    I view any system that allows others to ruin your experience or screw up intended mechanics as bad design, and no where near quality. As did many in the past, that's why it was done away with..

     

     

    Come now, it was done away with because people are chasing WoW money, emulating WoW mechanics.  Its back in several titles as we speak and going to be in more to come.  There will be no "doing away" with mechanics that facilitate immersion like contested, open world content.  That problem that they fixed done got unfixed.

    I didn't claim to be "representing" what the majority wants.

    Its not as massive of an undertaking as you believe or would like others to believe.  Like I said, its just a matter of creating enough dungeon content and then incentivizing players to spread through it.  When that isn't an option, spreading them to more servers.  Theres a reason that classic Everquest constantly opened new servers.  Theres also a reason Vanguard had over 100 dungeons and crypts, all open world.  This isn't some theory, this is based on what I've witnessed in a number of games with open world dungeons.

    No. Instances have qualities which are more appealing to the larger market. You're just burying your head in the sand if you think its only because WoW did it and "people are chasing WoW money".

    Strawman..  Dull and others are 100% right on the money..  BTW.. reread what you typed..  You started by admitting instances was to target the "larger" market, but then ended your post sorta denying "chasing WoW money"...... You do understand economics right..   Market = Money?    Pretty simple..  lol 

    Further, no one is advocating that your WoW type quest grind games shouldn't be made.. Obviously there is a large market for fast food gaming..  Some of us, as small as we might be, still like home cooked food (even if we have to wait for it)..  Those cafes are still profitable..  My first dungeon crawl in EQ was Blackburrow and it was large enough to entertain more then one group easily..  All that needs to be done is make the content large enough to satisfy the demand..  It's not rocket science.. 

     

    Exactly, don't think he understands how it works lol. EQ and Vanguard had some vast dungeons especially Vanguard. Take the outside dungeon in Vanguard called Razz Incur a desert open air dungeon. You could have 4 full groups in there and everyone would have something to do. Content is key




  • fivorothfivoroth Member UncommonPosts: 3,916
    Originally posted by Rydeson
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Dullahan
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Instancing came to be to ensure the mechanics of an encounter played as intended, this was one of the biggest issues in open dungeons, environments that were meant to be dark and foreboding often turned into what looked like a hub of tourism. The silly naked guy running around or an army of them, the lack of enemies to fight because everything is constantly dead, the large group taking everyone's kills... etc..

    You're also forgetting that scope for a game can only be so wide. Creating the size of world you're talking about is a monumental task, when you also have to flesh it out with mechanics as well as content. As well as offer a robust class/skill system, etc.etc.etc...So you have to think whether what you're saying would fit into any studios scope for a game...When considering modern development practices as well as general expectation of production value.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What many want is to experience the content, not watch it being robbed from them by mechanics that have long since been fixed... What you said is not an accurate representation of what many players want, as well as it shows a failure to see that what you view as "quality" is not universal.

    I view any system that allows others to ruin your experience or screw up intended mechanics as bad design, and no where near quality. As did many in the past, that's why it was done away with..

     

     

    Come now, it was done away with because people are chasing WoW money, emulating WoW mechanics.  Its back in several titles as we speak and going to be in more to come.  There will be no "doing away" with mechanics that facilitate immersion like contested, open world content.  That problem that they fixed done got unfixed.

    I didn't claim to be "representing" what the majority wants.

    Its not as massive of an undertaking as you believe or would like others to believe.  Like I said, its just a matter of creating enough dungeon content and then incentivizing players to spread through it.  When that isn't an option, spreading them to more servers.  Theres a reason that classic Everquest constantly opened new servers.  Theres also a reason Vanguard had over 100 dungeons and crypts, all open world.  This isn't some theory, this is based on what I've witnessed in a number of games with open world dungeons.

    No. Instances have qualities which are more appealing to the larger market. You're just burying your head in the sand if you think its only because WoW did it and "people are chasing WoW money".

    Strawman..  Dull and others are 100% right on the money..  BTW.. reread what you typed..  You started by admitting instances was to target the "larger" market, but then ended your post sorta denying "chasing WoW money"...... You do understand economics right..   Market = Money?    Pretty simple..  lol 

    Further, no one is advocating that your WoW type quest grind games shouldn't be made.. Obviously there is a large market for fast food gaming..  Some of us, as small as we might be, still like home cooked food (even if we have to wait for it)..  Those cafes are still profitable..  My first dungeon crawl in EQ was Blackburrow and it was large enough to entertain more then one group easily..  All that needs to be done is make the content large enough to satisfy the demand..  It's not rocket science.. 

    If only you would stop throwing the fast food bullshit in there that would be great. That analogy is complet wrong. Fast food is unhealthy, whereas those MMOs you are criticising are not. If anything your oldshool MMOs are the fast food as playing tons of hours a day is definitely unhealthy for you. I really don't miss having MMOs cater to no lifers who can play 5-6+ hours a day.

    Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.

  • RydesonRydeson Member UncommonPosts: 3,852
    Originally posted by fivoroth
     

    If only you would stop throwing the fast food bullshit in there that would be great. That analogy is complet wrong. Fast food is unhealthy, whereas those MMOs you are criticising are not. If anything your oldshool MMOs are the fast food as playing tons of hours a day is definitely unhealthy for you. I really don't miss having MMOs cater to no lifers who can play 5-6+ hours a day.

    TY for your opinion.. 

         Just to let you know, since obviously you never played EQ.. I played a half elf druid, and hardly ever payed that amount of hours..  I had no difficulty finding a group for an hour or two, or just solo kite mobs for 30 minutes..  And furthermore, you do realize that WoW has a ton of players that play for 4-6 hours a day..  SHIT.. I remember the day that raid lockouts reset and guilds would summon their primary raid team and start that raid grind shit all over again..  I did a few Kara runs back in my day, and that took hours..  And yes, games today I view as fast food content.. Quickly made, Quickly consumed and little to show for it..  But that is my opinion as well..  :)

  • cribettcribett Member UncommonPosts: 135

    Ahh the good old days where it wasn't a race to max level and games had strong social communities , i miss farming mobs for friends for hours gaining a fragment of a level but still having fun  . 

    These days the leveling process is just a path to max level nothing more 

  • MalaboogaMalabooga Member UncommonPosts: 2,977
    Originally posted by Rydeson
    Originally posted by fivoroth
     

    If only you would stop throwing the fast food bullshit in there that would be great. That analogy is complet wrong. Fast food is unhealthy, whereas those MMOs you are criticising are not. If anything your oldshool MMOs are the fast food as playing tons of hours a day is definitely unhealthy for you. I really don't miss having MMOs cater to no lifers who can play 5-6+ hours a day.

    TY for your opinion.. 

         Just to let you know, since obviously you never played EQ.. I played a half elf druid, and hardly ever payed that amount of hours..  I had no difficulty finding a group for an hour or two, or just solo kite mobs for 30 minutes..  And furthermore, you do realize that WoW has a ton of players that play for 4-6 hours a day..  SHIT.. I remember the day that raid lockouts reset and guilds would summon their primary raid team and start that raid grind shit all over again..  I did a few Kara runs back in my day, and that took hours..  And yes, games today I view as fast food content.. Quickly made, Quickly consumed and little to show for it..  But that is my opinion as well..  :)

    Quickly made and forced slow consumation doesnt make it better. And you still dont have anything to show for it.

    And where is that Kara now? Do you know who designed WoW vanilla endgame and that Blizzard admitted that they consider it a failure because pretty much noone played it?

    Funny that you bring things up that are complete opposite to what you supposedly claim lol

    And if i want to wait in line i can do that plenty in RL, waiting in lines is not what 99,99999999999999999999 people want out of their games (especially if you charge reccuring 15$ just to wait in line rofl)

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by SavageHorizon
    Originally posted by Rydeson
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Dullahan
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Instancing came to be to ensure the mechanics of an encounter played as intended, this was one of the biggest issues in open dungeons, environments that were meant to be dark and foreboding often turned into what looked like a hub of tourism. The silly naked guy running around or an army of them, the lack of enemies to fight because everything is constantly dead, the large group taking everyone's kills... etc..

    You're also forgetting that scope for a game can only be so wide. Creating the size of world you're talking about is a monumental task, when you also have to flesh it out with mechanics as well as content. As well as offer a robust class/skill system, etc.etc.etc...So you have to think whether what you're saying would fit into any studios scope for a game...When considering modern development practices as well as general expectation of production value.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What many want is to experience the content, not watch it being robbed from them by mechanics that have long since been fixed... What you said is not an accurate representation of what many players want, as well as it shows a failure to see that what you view as "quality" is not universal.

    I view any system that allows others to ruin your experience or screw up intended mechanics as bad design, and no where near quality. As did many in the past, that's why it was done away with..

     

     

    Come now, it was done away with because people are chasing WoW money, emulating WoW mechanics.  Its back in several titles as we speak and going to be in more to come.  There will be no "doing away" with mechanics that facilitate immersion like contested, open world content.  That problem that they fixed done got unfixed.

    I didn't claim to be "representing" what the majority wants.

    Its not as massive of an undertaking as you believe or would like others to believe.  Like I said, its just a matter of creating enough dungeon content and then incentivizing players to spread through it.  When that isn't an option, spreading them to more servers.  Theres a reason that classic Everquest constantly opened new servers.  Theres also a reason Vanguard had over 100 dungeons and crypts, all open world.  This isn't some theory, this is based on what I've witnessed in a number of games with open world dungeons.

    No. Instances have qualities which are more appealing to the larger market. You're just burying your head in the sand if you think its only because WoW did it and "people are chasing WoW money".

    Strawman..  Dull and others are 100% right on the money..  BTW.. reread what you typed..  You started by admitting instances was to target the "larger" market, but then ended your post sorta denying "chasing WoW money"...... You do understand economics right..   Market = Money?    Pretty simple..  lol 

    Further, no one is advocating that your WoW type quest grind games shouldn't be made.. Obviously there is a large market for fast food gaming..  Some of us, as small as we might be, still like home cooked food (even if we have to wait for it)..  Those cafes are still profitable..  My first dungeon crawl in EQ was Blackburrow and it was large enough to entertain more then one group easily..  All that needs to be done is make the content large enough to satisfy the demand..  It's not rocket science.. 

     

    Exactly, don't think he understands how it works lol. EQ and Vanguard had some vast dungeons especially Vanguard. Take the outside dungeon in Vanguard called Razz Incur a desert open air dungeon. You could have 4 full groups in there and everyone would have something to do. Content is key

    I played Vanguard. You are right: There were not many groups to be seen. In the whole game. Content really is the key.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by SavageHorizon
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Dullahan
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Instancing came to be to ensure the mechanics of an encounter played as intended, this was one of the biggest issues in open dungeons, environments that were meant to be dark and foreboding often turned into what looked like a hub of tourism. The silly naked guy running around or an army of them, the lack of enemies to fight because everything is constantly dead, the large group taking everyone's kills... etc..

    You're also forgetting that scope for a game can only be so wide. Creating the size of world you're talking about is a monumental task, when you also have to flesh it out with mechanics as well as content. As well as offer a robust class/skill system, etc.etc.etc...So you have to think whether what you're saying would fit into any studios scope for a game...When considering modern development practices as well as general expectation of production value.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What many want is to experience the content, not watch it being robbed from them by mechanics that have long since been fixed... What you said is not an accurate representation of what many players want, as well as it shows a failure to see that what you view as "quality" is not universal.

    I view any system that allows others to ruin your experience or screw up intended mechanics as bad design, and no where near quality. As did many in the past, that's why it was done away with..

     

     

    Come now, it was done away with because people are chasing WoW money, emulating WoW mechanics.  Its back in several titles as we speak and going to be in more to come.  There will be no "doing away" with mechanics that facilitate immersion like contested, open world content.  That problem that they fixed done got unfixed.

    I didn't claim to be "representing" what the majority wants.

    Its not as massive of an undertaking as you believe or would like others to believe.  Like I said, its just a matter of creating enough dungeon content and then incentivizing players to spread through it.  When that isn't an option, spreading them to more servers.  Theres a reason that classic Everquest constantly opened new servers.  Theres also a reason Vanguard had over 100 dungeons and crypts, all open world.  This isn't some theory, this is based on what I've witnessed in a number of games with open world dungeons.

    No. Instances have qualities which are more appealing to the larger market. You're just burying your head in the sand if you think its only because WoW did it and "people are chasing WoW money".

     

    God you talk some rubbish, anyway thank god Pantheon will have open dungeons just like Vanguard had. Some dungeons in Vanguard took days to complete not a couple of hours like some of these crappy instance dungeons you find in today's mmo. They spanned many levels, dungeons within dungeons.

    I am glad you have a game to look forward to.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by Rydeson
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Dullahan

    Come now, it was done away with because people are chasing WoW money, emulating WoW mechanics.  Its back in several titles as we speak and going to be in more to come.  There will be no "doing away" with mechanics that facilitate immersion like contested, open world content.  That problem that they fixed done got unfixed.

    I didn't claim to be "representing" what the majority wants.

    Its not as massive of an undertaking as you believe or would like others to believe.  Like I said, its just a matter of creating enough dungeon content and then incentivizing players to spread through it.  When that isn't an option, spreading them to more servers.  Theres a reason that classic Everquest constantly opened new servers.  Theres also a reason Vanguard had over 100 dungeons and crypts, all open world.  This isn't some theory, this is based on what I've witnessed in a number of games with open world dungeons.

    No. Instances have qualities which are more appealing to the larger market. You're just burying your head in the sand if you think its only because WoW did it and "people are chasing WoW money".

    Strawman..  Dull and others are 100% right on the money..  BTW.. reread what you typed..  You started by admitting instances was to target the "larger" market, but then ended your post sorta denying "chasing WoW money"...... You do understand economics right..   Market = Money?    Pretty simple..  lol 

    Further, no one is advocating that your WoW type quest grind games shouldn't be made.. Obviously there is a large market for fast food gaming..  Some of us, as small as we might be, still like home cooked food (even if we have to wait for it)..  Those cafes are still profitable..  My first dungeon crawl in EQ was Blackburrow and it was large enough to entertain more then one group easily..  All that needs to be done is make the content large enough to satisfy the demand..  It's not rocket science.. 

    I don't see any coherent point in amidst all that baiting... Maybe you misunderstood me.

    All I said was that instances have some good things going for them which makes them more popular. And if you disagree, you're in denial. Hows that?

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Rydeson
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Dullahan

    Come now, it was done away with because people are chasing WoW money, emulating WoW mechanics.  Its back in several titles as we speak and going to be in more to come.  There will be no "doing away" with mechanics that facilitate immersion like contested, open world content.  That problem that they fixed done got unfixed.

    I didn't claim to be "representing" what the majority wants.

    Its not as massive of an undertaking as you believe or would like others to believe.  Like I said, its just a matter of creating enough dungeon content and then incentivizing players to spread through it.  When that isn't an option, spreading them to more servers.  Theres a reason that classic Everquest constantly opened new servers.  Theres also a reason Vanguard had over 100 dungeons and crypts, all open world.  This isn't some theory, this is based on what I've witnessed in a number of games with open world dungeons.

    No. Instances have qualities which are more appealing to the larger market. You're just burying your head in the sand if you think its only because WoW did it and "people are chasing WoW money".

    Strawman..  Dull and others are 100% right on the money..  BTW.. reread what you typed..  You started by admitting instances was to target the "larger" market, but then ended your post sorta denying "chasing WoW money"...... You do understand economics right..   Market = Money?    Pretty simple..  lol 

    Further, no one is advocating that your WoW type quest grind games shouldn't be made.. Obviously there is a large market for fast food gaming..  Some of us, as small as we might be, still like home cooked food (even if we have to wait for it)..  Those cafes are still profitable..  My first dungeon crawl in EQ was Blackburrow and it was large enough to entertain more then one group easily..  All that needs to be done is make the content large enough to satisfy the demand..  It's not rocket science.. 

    I don't see any coherent point in amidst all that baiting... Maybe you misunderstood me.

    All I said was that instances have some good things going for them which makes them more popular. And if you disagree, you're in denial. Hows that?

    No one said otherwise.  You just seem a little upset that people like something you don't.  Theres no denying the drawbacks of instancing in a fantasy world.  It just doesn't seem as exciting when you read a story about 500 Bilbo Baggins sneaking into Mt Doom at the same time does it.


  • AxehiltAxehilt Member RarePosts: 10,504
    Originally posted by Dullahan

    No one said otherwise.  You just seem a little upset that people like something you don't.  Theres no denying the drawbacks of instancing in a fantasy world.  It just doesn't seem as exciting when you read a story about 500 Bilbo Baggins sneaking into Mt Doom at the same time does it.

    Lord of the Rings is instanced content.

    • WHAT YOU THINK IT IS:  A continuous real-time event.  In 1954 a single reader started reading.  Anyone picking up the book while he read found that their story started in the middle.  When that reader finished, the story (the one, single story to rule them all) was over.  Which means nowadays if you pick it up to read it it's just a webcam of Frodo's kids at Bag End.
    • WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS:  An instanced storyline.  When a viewer  starts watching/reading, Frodo always starts at home, attends Bilbo's birthday, and reaches Mt Doom with the ring.
    Millions of Frodos have reached Mt Doom.  Each in a story custom-instanced for some new or repeat reader.
     
     

    "What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver

  • vandal5627vandal5627 Member UncommonPosts: 788
    Originally posted by Rydeson
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Dullahan
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Instancing came to be to ensure the mechanics of an encounter played as intended, this was one of the biggest issues in open dungeons, environments that were meant to be dark and foreboding often turned into what looked like a hub of tourism. The silly naked guy running around or an army of them, the lack of enemies to fight because everything is constantly dead, the large group taking everyone's kills... etc..

    You're also forgetting that scope for a game can only be so wide. Creating the size of world you're talking about is a monumental task, when you also have to flesh it out with mechanics as well as content. As well as offer a robust class/skill system, etc.etc.etc...So you have to think whether what you're saying would fit into any studios scope for a game...When considering modern development practices as well as general expectation of production value.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What many want is to experience the content, not watch it being robbed from them by mechanics that have long since been fixed... What you said is not an accurate representation of what many players want, as well as it shows a failure to see that what you view as "quality" is not universal.

    I view any system that allows others to ruin your experience or screw up intended mechanics as bad design, and no where near quality. As did many in the past, that's why it was done away with..

     

     

    Come now, it was done away with because people are chasing WoW money, emulating WoW mechanics.  Its back in several titles as we speak and going to be in more to come.  There will be no "doing away" with mechanics that facilitate immersion like contested, open world content.  That problem that they fixed done got unfixed.

    I didn't claim to be "representing" what the majority wants.

    Its not as massive of an undertaking as you believe or would like others to believe.  Like I said, its just a matter of creating enough dungeon content and then incentivizing players to spread through it.  When that isn't an option, spreading them to more servers.  Theres a reason that classic Everquest constantly opened new servers.  Theres also a reason Vanguard had over 100 dungeons and crypts, all open world.  This isn't some theory, this is based on what I've witnessed in a number of games with open world dungeons.

    No. Instances have qualities which are more appealing to the larger market. You're just burying your head in the sand if you think its only because WoW did it and "people are chasing WoW money".

    Further, no one is advocating that your WoW type quest grind games shouldn't be made.. Obviously there is a large market for fast food gaming..  Some of us, as small as we might be, still like home cooked food (even if we have to wait for it)..  Those cafes are still profitable.. 

    So every thread bitching about stop making "WOW clones" as you folks like to call but have no idea what a clone is are all fake eh?  And these jabs about fast food games.  It's fine that you don't like it.  Just say it's not for you and move on.  To many they are good and fun games.  Also, wait for it......NOONE is trying to deny you your games.  If it was so profitable IT WOULD BE MADE but we havent seen it yet do we?  You going tell us, a forum user, knows more than those financial analysts?  Get real.

  • NilenyaNilenya Member UncommonPosts: 364
    Originally posted by fistorm

    What I miss the most in mmorpg's is the ability to sit for hours with three other people and camp xp mobs.   Where is the new games with this in it? 

     

    Is this a thing of the past and never to be found again?

    The fast paced way of running dungeons, and the way exp works outside of instances being very quest oriented and even sometimes punitative when grouping, its all but gone.

    There is also no game that employs a full AA system like EQ1 did, so there isnt any scenario where you sit in spot somewhere with a puller class and then just chat for hours while grinding together after hitting max level for exp purposes. Wildstar seemed to want to do this, but then applied an artificial limit for how much you could grind pr week, which sort of defeats the purpose.

    Its one of the many social aspects of social games that have gone bye bye. 

     

  • grimalgrimal Member UncommonPosts: 2,935

    Camping for XP?  As in grinding mobs for XP?

    No thanks.  Stale mechanic I was glad to see go away.

  • Ender4Ender4 Member UncommonPosts: 2,247

    Originally posted by Distopia
    Instancing came to be to ensure the mechanics of an encounter played as intended, this was one of the biggest issues in open dungeons, environments that were meant to be dark and foreboding often turned into what looked like a hub of tourism. The silly naked guy running around or an army of them, the lack of enemies to fight because everything is constantly dead, the large group taking everyone's kills... etc..

    You're also forgetting that scope for a game can only be so wide. Creating the size of world you're talking about is a monumental task, when you also have to flesh it out with mechanics as well as content. As well as offer a robust class/skill system, etc.etc.etc...So you have to think whether what you're saying would fit into any studios scope for a game...When considering modern development practices as well as general expectation of production value.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What many want is to experience the content, not watch it being robbed from them by mechanics that have long since been fixed... What you said is not an accurate representation of what many players want, as well as it shows a failure to see that what you view as "quality" is not universal.

    I view any system that allows others to ruin your experience or screw up intended mechanics as bad design, and no where near quality. As did many in the past, that's why it was done away with..

     

     

    Simply not true at all. Instances came around to cap the players in the content so it wasn't over farmed. They started with the very first MMORPGs because the servers couldn't handle more than a handful of players on screen. Later on they were added to games as overflow for popular zones. They then got added to games to allow the developers to create less content for more players. Instances are nothing but a bandaid to allow less content to be used by more players and nothing else.

    The use you suggest for them is part of why instances are so awful though. I don't want the developer controlling my content and making me play it as intended. I am the player, I should control how and what I do. Dungeons were so much more fun before they were all instanced and so much more fun when you could do them with less than an ideal group or heck even solo them at times. Instancing is taking the lazy way to content and nothing more and devs should be ashamed of themselves for flocking to it. These are multi player games and you should not cringe when another player gets in your path, you should embrace it as part of the genre. If someone else crossing your path in a dungeon ruins your day than go play a single player game and stopping ruining the MMORPGs.


    Sure people like instancing because they want an easy path through the game with no chance for conflict with other humans, that doesn't make it a good thing though. Instancing is a large part of why these games are so terrible nowadays. The only MMORPG really worth playing right now is Eve and that doesn't heavily use instancing. Instancing is a cop out to let devs create less content and to cater to the single player crowds who like to pretend they like mmorpgs.

  • YukmarcYukmarc Member UncommonPosts: 165

    I'm having flashbacks of grinding in Salisbury Plains.. <twitch, twitch>

    Some of my favorite times were grinding XP in DAOC in places like Salisbury Plains and Avalon City. Just grinding XP with the guild!

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 7,432

    Originally posted by vandal5627
    Also, wait for it......NOONE is trying to deny you your games.  If it was so profitable IT WOULD BE MADE but we havent seen it yet do we?  You going tell us, a forum user, knows more than those financial analysts?  Get real.
    How do we know, though? When was the last MMO made where this kind of mechanic was used?

    EQ, in it's time, was very profitable. DAoC also. Now, if you are separating "profitable" from "MOST profitable", I'll give you that. I do not think a game with these old school mechanics would make near as much as game with "more efficient" mechanics of the last 10+ years. But "not at all profitable?" I do not think (no proof) is true.

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


  • vandal5627vandal5627 Member UncommonPosts: 788
    Originally posted by AlBQuirky

     

    Originally posted by vandal5627
    Also, wait for it......NOONE is trying to deny you your games.  If it was so profitable IT WOULD BE MADE but we havent seen it yet do we?  You going tell us, a forum user, knows more than those financial analysts?  Get real.
    How do we know, though? When was the last MMO made where this kind of mechanic was used?

     

    EQ, in it's time, was very profitable. DAoC also. Now, if you are separating "profitable" from "MOST profitable", I'll give you that. I do not think a game with these old school mechanics would make near as much as game with "more efficient" mechanics of the last 10+ years. But "not at all profitable?" I do not think (no proof) is true.

    Dude, dud I say "not at all profitable."  I said, if it was profitable it  would be made but we haven't seen it.

    And you're right, When was the last MMO made where this kind of mechaninc was used?  I'm sure there's a reason (proof) in there somewhere.  I'm sure you can figure that one out.

This discussion has been closed.