Simple example, but the basic point is instancing kills communities and social interdependence. The absolute reliance on other players in EQ is what made it addicting, memorable and magical. I understand not everyone wants that playstyle, but you can't make an argument that instancing didn't negatively affect EQ.
I cant speak for EQ specifically but this most definitely wasnt true for FFXI. FFXI had a healthy mix of instances and open world content. It had a very strong community and strong interdependence among the players. What is primarily killing these 2 things in any MMO is the ever increasing solo driven play along with community and guild killing ideas like LFG and the like. Maybe that was because of the mixed nature of the content in XI. Maybe it was because you couldnt just pop into an instanced dungeon 4 zones away and automatically be grouped with party members at the push of a button. Maybe it was because the content could be brutal. Maybe it was because the world was dangerous and made you fear the dreaded delevel. Or maybe it was because you couldnt do shit without the help of others. Whatever the case, instancing didnt kill XI's community or interdependence. So I at least have one example of a game where it isnt the case.
Now am I OK with instances? I can take or leave them but they shouldnt be the only thing in a game thats for damn sure. And I assume they would need to be in an environment similar to how XI was set up to be successful and not kill community or rob us of heavy interdependence. Because I dont know what caused it to be so divisive in EQ, but it was never an issue in XI. So EQ must have done something wrong in how they implemented them I guess? Anything you can name that was good in EQ due to interdependence and community I can probably give examples from XI too.
All this being said, I was just bringing up the point that I dont believe instancing being the reason why a lot of us think modern MMOs suck. Its because they are a solo players paradise in an empty feeling bankrupt community. A completely open world could be this way too, if the devs were stupid enough to make everyone 1 man army gods that could accomplish anything on their own.
Fighting over if there should be instances in Pantheon is futile. The Devs have said they will not have them other than the story line. So Im not going to bother to beg for them or advocate them be in Pantheon. And if the devs design the game well, most people that want them probably wont miss them all that much anyways. If you can name a problem you have with non-instanced content, Im sure the devs already have it in mind for when they design content. Its better to focus on what can be done to make content great in the open world. Like some of the things Sinist suggested.
We can argue what degree of a problem it is all day, but what Raiden said is irrefutable demonstrable evidence of the problem. Anyone who says they want to maintain player interactions and a truly massively multiplayer environment in an MMO while saying instancing is OK needs to reconsider whats been said here. Far too often I see people excusing something in the face of overwhelming evidence simply because it was part of a game they enjoyed. In such a case, you've forfeit your objectivity.
We can argue what degree of a problem it is all day, but what Raiden said is irrefutable demonstrable evidence of the problem. Anyone who says they want to maintain player interactions and a truly massively multiplayer environment in an MMO while saying instancing is OK needs to reconsider whats been said here. Far too often I see people excusing something in the face of overwhelming evidence simply because it was part of a game they enjoyed. In such a case, you've forfeit your objectivity.
Of course instancing may hurt such aspects of a game, yet the opposite hurts other aspects... especially in the realm of balance as well as intended mechanics. What's more important in the end? The integrity of content or the ability to see Joe everywhere he schmoes? It's not about what was a part of something one enjoys, it's a matter of what is more important overall. As well as what serves the intended purpose of the content.
My favorite MMO really didn't feature instancing outside of one or two specific encounters, which actually made those encounters worthwhile, as they couldn't be exploited in the manner everything else was being exploited in the open world (throwing more numbers at it than needed, in turn trivializing the content). Not to mention those who camped content AFK with macros... instancing prevents things like this... Sure with a hefty budget you can use other means (like content scalability across the board) will they have access to such options though?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
We can argue what degree of a problem it is all day, but what Raiden said is irrefutable demonstrable evidence of the problem. Anyone who says they want to maintain player interactions and a truly massively multiplayer environment in an MMO while saying instancing is OK needs to reconsider whats been said here. Far too often I see people excusing something in the face of overwhelming evidence simply because it was part of a game they enjoyed. In such a case, you've forfeit your objectivity.
Of course instancing may hurt such aspects of a game, yet the opposite hurts other aspects... especially in the realm of balance as well as intended mechanics. What's more important in the end? The integrity of content or the ability to see Joe everywhere he schmoes? It's not about what was a part of something one enjoys, it's a matter of what is more important overall. As well as what serves the intended purpose of the content.
My favorite MMO really didn't feature instancing outside of one or two specific encounters, which actually made those encounters worthwhile, as they couldn't be exploited in the manner everything else was being exploited in the open world (throwing more numbers at it than needed, in turn trivializing the content). Not to mention those who camped content AFK with macros... instancing prevents things like this... Sure with a hefty budget you can use other means (like content scalability across the board) will they have access to such options though?
This is a good point, but once again, we're talking about Pantheon here in this very forum, and since Pantheon's target audience are those of us who think seeing joe schmoe everywhere he schmoes is more important than balance or other aspects, then for Pantheon we would want no instances and they wont have them. For other games out there, this may not be the case, and they also wouldn't be the target audience's type of game either.
Instancing has other benefits that go beyond removing contested content drama from the game. It allowed EQ developers to reuse the zones for groupers.
You had Dreadspire Keep in the open world, for groupers. You had Dreadspire Keep in the instance, for raiders.
They couldn't do this without instances. They couldn't do this with Vex Thal because they didn't have instances yet.
Most casual players never saw Vex Thal, and never will.
Groupers and casual players didn't think that was fair. They paid for the content, they paid for the expansion, the zones were on their hard drive, but the only way to see the zones was to join a raid guild. It wasn't fair.
To put this into perspective, high-end raiding was for the few in EQ, very few people in EQ raided in guilds that saw the latest zones. It wasn't like WoW where everyone with a pulse can raid. SoE was building zones for the 1%., yet the other 99% was asked to help foot the bill.
This is another reason why players actively asked for instances. SoE was selling expansions promising 8 zones, but groupers and casual players could often only see 6, because whole zones were off limits and useless to groupers, people felt ripped off paying for an expansion and only having half the content available to them, unless they raided. Instances solved this problem, developers could now make zones that had a dual purpose, the open world for groupers and the instanced version populated with raid content for raiders.
We can argue what degree of a problem it is all day, but what Raiden said is irrefutable demonstrable evidence of the problem. Anyone who says they want to maintain player interactions and a truly massively multiplayer environment in an MMO while saying instancing is OK needs to reconsider whats been said here. Far too often I see people excusing something in the face of overwhelming evidence simply because it was part of a game they enjoyed. In such a case, you've forfeit your objectivity.
If you are referring to me, what overwhelming evidence. Its not just about the game I played because I liked it. I truly think what XI accomplished in terms of community and interdependence could happen in any game if it was designed correctly (that would be the key element though). I wish you could have been there in FFXI with me because then you would see what Im talking about. Maybe I just havent emphasized just how awesome the community and interdependence was in XI? Do you think Im exaggerating or making it up?
Besides I always see the EQ folks doing the same thing. So if my point is forfeit, then so is everyone elses. Sometimes I feel like Im being surrounded by EQ zealots. Im just thankful that they arent all that way. Particularly on the official forums I notice there are a lot of really nice EQ vets that are fairly open minded. Like Raiden for instance. I like and agree with most of his posts, most of the time. I wasnt trying to call him out. I tried to respectfully point out that what he suggested was not always the case. And what I think the true problems are. And I think I agree with you and Sinist on a lot more topics then you are probably aware of, but you guys make me want to pull my hair out sometimes.
As far as Im concerned I see blatant facts being ignored by you and others because of an obsessive hatred of all things instanced. Im not in love with instances, but I think its important to point out mistakes. And Im not "excusing" instances. I cant excuse something thats not the problem!
Now If you want to argue that Instances break your immersion, destroy your ability to RP, or remove the challenge that comes from contested content. Well then I cant argue against any of those, because the first 2 are personal preference. And the last 1 is just a fact. And I couldnt argue that a FULLY instanced game would not ruin community and do at least some damage to the interdependent nature of an mmo.
And for the record, I want to play on a PvP server with open world contested content. Because I want to experience meaningful PvEvP again. I just wanted to redirect people to the real problems.
Instancing has other benefits that go beyond removing contested content drama from the game. It allowed EQ developers to reuse the zones for groupers.
You had Dreadspire Keep in the open world, for groupers. You had Dreadspire Keep in the instance, for raiders.
Honestly, you don't think that is just lazy design? It isn't even the least bit unimmersive and annoying to you when you go to a place and its totally different depending on the number of people you go in with?
Most casual players never saw Vex Thal, and never will.
Groupers and casual players didn't think that was fair. They paid for the content, they paid for the expansion, the zones were on their hard drive, but the only way to see the zones was to join a raid guild. It wasn't fair.
To put this into perspective, high-end raiding was for the few in EQ, very few people in EQ raided in guilds that saw the latest zones. It wasn't like WoW where everyone with a pulse can raid. SoE was building zones for the 1%., yet the other 99% was asked to help foot the bill.
That is part of the mystery of the game. The fact that there are places you won't see until you put forth the time, or possibly never at all. It totally added to my sense of wonder that I never saw Veeshan's Peak in EQ. Yet one day I was able to and it was awesome.
What you're really arguing for is equality within your game world. You are a fantasy social justice warrior.
Instancing has other benefits that go beyond removing contested content drama from the game. It allowed EQ developers to reuse the zones for groupers.
You had Dreadspire Keep in the open world, for groupers. You had Dreadspire Keep in the instance, for raiders.
They couldn't do this without instances. They couldn't do this with Vex Thal because they didn't have instances yet.
Most casual players never saw Vex Thal, and never will.
Groupers and casual players didn't think that was fair. They paid for the content, they paid for the expansion, the zones were on their hard drive, but the only way to see the zones was to join a raid guild. It wasn't fair.
To put this into perspective, high-end raiding was for the few in EQ, very few people in EQ raided in guilds that saw the latest zones. It wasn't like WoW where everyone with a pulse can raid. SoE was building zones for the 1%., yet the other 99% was asked to help foot the bill.
This is another reason why players actively asked for instances. SoE was selling expansions promising 6 zones, but groupers and casual players could often only see 3 or 4, because whole zones were off limits and useless to groupers, people felt ripped off paying for an expansion and only having half the content available to them, unless they raided. Instances solved this problem, developers could now make zones that had a dual purpose, the open world for groupers and the instanced version populated with raid content for raiders.
Instancing has benefits for live EQ right now, but we're not talking about live EQ, this is the MMORPG Pantheon forums... idk if you know where you're posting or if you're lost, but for the target audience of Pantheon, anything that happened in Everquest after Velious is considered irrelevant.
We can argue what degree of a problem it is all day, but what Raiden said is irrefutable demonstrable evidence of the problem. Anyone who says they want to maintain player interactions and a truly massively multiplayer environment in an MMO while saying instancing is OK needs to reconsider whats been said here. Far too often I see people excusing something in the face of overwhelming evidence simply because it was part of a game they enjoyed. In such a case, you've forfeit your objectivity.
If you are referring to me, what overwhelming evidence. Its not just about the game I played because I liked it. I truly think what XI accomplished in terms of community and interdependence could happen in any game if it was designed correctly (that would be the key element though). I wish you could have been there in FFXI with me because then you would see what Im talking about. Maybe I just havent emphasized just how awesome the community and interdependence was in XI? Do you think Im exaggerating or making it up?
Besides I always see the EQ folks doing the same thing. So if my point is forfeit, then so is everyone elses. Sometimes I feel like Im being surrounded by EQ zealots. Im just thankful that they arent all that way. Particularly on the official forums I notice there are a lot of really nice EQ vets that are fairly open minded. Like Raiden for instance. I like and agree with most of his posts, most of the time. I wasnt trying to call him out. I tried to respectfully point out that what he suggested was not always the case. And what I think the true problems are. And I think I agree with you and Sinist on a lot more topics then you are probably aware of, but you guys make me want to pull my hair out sometimes.
As far as Im concerned I see blatant facts being ignored by you and others because of an obsessive hatred of all things instanced. Im not in love with instances, but I think its important to point out mistakes. And Im not "excusing" instances. I cant excuse something thats not the problem!
Now If you want to argue that Instances break your immersion, destroy your ability to RP, or remove the challenge that comes from contested content. Well then I cant argue against any of those, because the first 2 are personal preference. And the last 1 is just a fact. And I couldnt argue that a FULLY instanced game would not ruin community and do at least some damage to the interdependent nature of an mmo.
And for the record, I want to play on a PvP server with open world contested content. Because I want to experience meaningful PvEvP again. I just wanted to redirect people to the real problems.
If you could just stop and acknowledge the validity of Raiden's statement, there wouldn't be an issue. Instead, you are still writing off a problem as some sort of hang up (which I find offensive) because of your fondness for a game that had it. What you mean is that there was a good community despite the use of instancing; but what you said is that because a good community existed, instancing must therefore be a non-issue despite the evidence to the contrary.
I find that kind of backwards logic equally frustrating.
Look, I always try to be nice and add a disclaimer to my posts that says something like, hey, if you liked such and such mechanic, or such and such game, there is nothing wrong with that. And I definitely don't think any one topic that I argue about is going to bring the world toppling down if it doesn't go my way (so please... don't compare me to Sinist). Yes, FFXI DID show that a game could maintain a social nature AND have some instancing, but that doesn't absolve instancing of the problems associated with it, as you are surmising.
The issue is that things like easy death penalties, soloing, instancing, quest progression, fast travel, or dungeon finders - NONE of them are "the problem", but they are all collectively responsible for the changes that have taken place in the genre and they are all part of the real underlying problem, which is compromising on what made games great, massively multiplayer and challenging in the name of making them more accessible to the casual player. So while it may look like I'm being hardline for no reason and blowing up every little issue as if its "the problem", its just that I don't want to compromise a little because I know where that road leads.
We can argue what degree of a problem it is all day, but what Raiden said is irrefutable demonstrable evidence of the problem. Anyone who says they want to maintain player interactions and a truly massively multiplayer environment in an MMO while saying instancing is OK needs to reconsider whats been said here. Far too often I see people excusing something in the face of overwhelming evidence simply because it was part of a game they enjoyed. In such a case, you've forfeit your objectivity.
Of course instancing may hurt such aspects of a game, yet the opposite hurts other aspects... especially in the realm of balance as well as intended mechanics. What's more important in the end? The integrity of content or the ability to see Joe everywhere he schmoes? It's not about what was a part of something one enjoys, it's a matter of what is more important overall. As well as what serves the intended purpose of the content.
My favorite MMO really didn't feature instancing outside of one or two specific encounters, which actually made those encounters worthwhile, as they couldn't be exploited in the manner everything else was being exploited in the open world (throwing more numbers at it than needed, in turn trivializing the content). Not to mention those who camped content AFK with macros... instancing prevents things like this... Sure with a hefty budget you can use other means (like content scalability across the board) will they have access to such options though?
This is a good point, but once again, we're talking about Pantheon here in this very forum, and since Pantheon's target audience are those of us who think seeing joe schmoe everywhere he schmoes is more important than balance or other aspects, then for Pantheon we would want no instances and they wont have them. For other games out there, this may not be the case, and they also wouldn't be the target audience's type of game either.
Of course, I'm not arguing for instances to be put into pantheon, just pointing out some of the main reasons instancing is used.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Simple example, but the basic point is instancing kills communities and social interdependence. The absolute reliance on other players in EQ is what made it addicting, memorable and magical. I understand not everyone wants that playstyle, but you can't make an argument that instancing didn't negatively affect EQ.
I cant speak for EQ specifically but this most definitely wasnt true for FFXI. FFXI had a healthy mix of instances and open world content. It had a very strong community and strong interdependence among the players. What is primarily killing these 2 things in any MMO is the ever increasing solo driven play along with community and guild killing ideas like LFG and the like. Maybe that was because of the mixed nature of the content in XI. Maybe it was because you couldnt just pop into an instanced dungeon 4 zones away and automatically be grouped with party members at the push of a button. Maybe it was because the content could be brutal. Maybe it was because the world was dangerous and made you fear the dreaded delevel. Or maybe it was because you couldnt do shit without the help of others. Whatever the case, instancing didnt kill XI's community or interdependence. So I at least have one example of a game where it isnt the case.
Now am I OK with instances? I can take or leave them but they shouldnt be the only thing in a game thats for damn sure. And I assume they would need to be in an environment similar to how XI was set up to be successful and not kill community or rob us of heavy interdependence. Because I dont know what caused it to be so divisive in EQ, but it was never an issue in XI. So EQ must have done something wrong in how they implemented them I guess? Anything you can name that was good in EQ due to interdependence and community I can probably give examples from XI too.
All this being said, I was just bringing up the point that I dont believe instancing being the reason why a lot of us think modern MMOs suck. Its because they are a solo players paradise in an empty feeling bankrupt community. A completely open world could be this way too, if the devs were stupid enough to make everyone 1 man army gods that could accomplish anything on their own.
Fighting over if there should be instances in Pantheon is futile. The Devs have said they will not have them other than the story line. So Im not going to bother to beg for them or advocate them be in Pantheon. And if the devs design the game well, most people that want them probably wont miss them all that much anyways. If you can name a problem you have with non-instanced content, Im sure the devs already have it in mind for when they design content. Its better to focus on what can be done to make content great in the open world. Like some of the things Sinist suggested.
Amsai,
I agree that arguing over whether instancing is better or not when Pantheon's team has claimed instancing won't be in pay is futile, but... squeeky wheels and all. And, as of now, we all are just discussing our wishlists at this point until more features are released.
And, I should have clarified more that instancing was one of many things that led to the downfall of social MMOs in general, and specifically EQ; however, I was replying specifically to Kyloris's point regarding instancing and already off-topic in a thread that has gone further off-topic.
For me, as Dullahan had pointed out, much like many arguments/points I make on the official forums, it wasn't any "one" thing that could be pinpointed on what made EQ great, but a compilation of things. And, the more you remove of them for the sake of convenience, fairness, time constraints, etc. the less of the magic that is recaptured.
But, that's not to say as I've stated other times that EQ wasn't without fault. Warriors/Rogues needed more skills, all classes having resource management (endurance) is a good thing, EQ's damage caps to restrict twinking need to be modified further, some truly barbaric aspects such as medding and staring into the spellbook I would be ok with comprosing and removing, etc.
But, back on point, I know many who enjoyed FFXI, and it did have many good elements that promoted interdependence (I didn't play it much admittedly as I will still full EQ in its heydey). But, I'd argue that you still had similar feelings/attachments because of what did exist that was present in the game, not due FFXI being successful despite it having a healthy mix of both instancing/open world.
I'll even admit I enjoyed WoW on release and it was one of my many breaks from EQ. The first dungeon I tried there was the Deadmines. And, I ran it with a group, then ran it again, and again, and again, until we all had all the drops without ever interacting with anyone outside of the 6 people in our group. I thought, what a difference from EQ, but also remembered thinking the Deadmines didn't feel like the Estate of Unrest to me - something didn't feel right. I still played WoW till shortly after the Burning Crusade because I enjoyed it, but all the while it didn't feel the same. It wasn't until quitting it and returning to EQ and reflecting that I realized the damages that instancing (even before groupfinders) causes (amongst other aspects like you suggested such as soloing). The game world wasn't alive - I was catered to and enjoyed the instant gratification of having my own playground.
Again, there's nothing wrong with instances, it's just not the type of MMO world I want to play in, and, if Pantheon is trying to recapture EQ's magic and expand on it - not in line with that style of social MMO either.
Instances DO have reasons and DO work well for those particular use cases. For example: Everyone can do everything whenever they want, without having to talk to other humans.
That being said, they also start new problems. They screw up building of communities outsite of guilds most importanly.
Since Pantheon wants a strong focus on community and less on "everyone being able to do everything, everytime" it is an easy choice to NOT implement instances. And that is what is going to happen according to the Devteam.
No reason to argue and bitch at each other over that. Pantheon is not targeting people that are concerned by the issues that ARE solved with instances. Pantheon is targeting people that are concerned by issues that ARISE from instances.
We can all agree that neither is all bad or all good, but if we consider the goal Pantheon tries to reach, then it is a clear choice.
Regarding wether or not EQ dropped subs due to instancing... i don't know. And i am sure noone else does. All we can do is guess. Some facts tho: EQ dropped subs when EQ2 and WOW started. This was the same time as that "bad" expansion. So... was it bad? Did EQ drop due to the expantion? Or was it WOW and EQ2, the new stuff? I don't know, but it is a huge possibility that the lackluster EQ expansion wasn't as bad as it may look if you just go for sub numbers.
Also, personally i stopped EQ for the first time when instancing screwed over my guild. Having to leave out people, while still having to always take all the clerics simply ruined the fun. Actually my guild stopped raiding shortly after since a lot of people quit over that. So did EQ fail due to instancing? I also don't know that. It failed FOR ME and for MY GUILD back then. But extrapolating that for the whole game would be silly.
After all is said and done, leaving out all the guess work and history lessons, only two facts remain: Pantheon is targeting a community focus. Instances are bad for community. I started to drift away from EQ due to instances and started to really hate them a few years later. So i am happy to see Pantheon is targeting ME. :-)
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
@ Dullahan I am sorry. I for sure didnt mean offense. However, I find being told that because Im fond of XI, or that because I played it that my input is invalid a bit offensive too. I can understand how you might think that the case. But as I said, I think ANY MMO could have a great community and interdependence if designed correctly, even with instances. Now I do admit XI is the only example I can name. And you might have more of a point if it was a very limited thing like say only 1 instance, or only 1 expansion. But I played the game for about 10 years and it was fairly consistantly 50/50 with open world and instanced endgame and storyline during that time. I also admitted that I couldnt defend against every argument against instances and showed examples of those I couldnt.
Would it help if I rephrased it somehow? FFXI was an example of a game with strong community and interdependence that had open world and instanced content in equal measure, but doesnt represent the norm.
I think I get you a bit more after that last paragraph. You are afraid of the "slipery slope" scenario. And Im not. I take what a Dev says at face value til I have reason to believe otherwise. Just like Pantheon is saying it will have no instancing other than story. I have no choice but to believe that til proven otherwise. I take that stance on most things in life. As for all the other things you list as problems, I cound not agree more.
@Raidan_EQ Thanks for the response man. I like the way you spelled out your point, and I get it. I also have no argument against what made the "magic" of EQ. That is personal preference, and not having any experience in EQ, I have no say in it. And I fully admit that there are other elements in XI that I loved, but please believe me that Im not allowing it to cloud my judgement on the issue of instancing. Maybe we are miscommunicating some how? Terminology? Lack of understanding (EQ in my Case)(XI in yours)? Or maybe Im missing a crucial understanding of what your problem with instancing is? Like I keep seeing that instancing helped to kill community and interdependence in EQ. Could you give me an example? Im more of a visual person so maybe that would help me understand it better.
I know people like contested content and think instancing causes problems like not being able bring everyone you want in and such. However, having everything contested content In a nothing but PVE game causes many more problems. I think there should be a healthy amount of contested and non-contested content. That being said I realize we can do this with out instancing.
There is that side of the coin of social interaction that people argue, but I think the biggest problem of instancing is accessibility to gear and consumption of content rate. If everyone can camp the same named group or raid boss at the same time then that dramatically increases the flow of items into the game, defeating the "uniqueness" aspect of of a given item and allowing everyone to complete the content at the same time.
In EQ, you first had to get time to camp the mob, find the camp open, get the rare mob to pop and then get the rare item to drop. All of this takes a lot of time. It can be quick (ie you get lucky) or it can end up taking a while, but the fact the spawn and drop is the same rate of flow into the game world.
When you introduce instancing, that rate is amplified by the number of instances created by each group. Technically, you could have 100 groups camping the same named and getting the same item to drop. So lets say for the sake of discussion, the named only popped once every 24 hours. That means it is technically possible (regardless of how likely) that 100 rares could drop in a single night. With the contested content, only a single drop could occur, making obtaining that item mean quite a lot to the one who won it.
So, that rare in the world with instances isn't really "rare", because its acquisition is brute forced by shear numbers of players camping it at the same time increasing the odds of it dropping. Sure, you could make the item really, really, really rare to account for that fact, but you end up making it so rare that it becomes a prize only the gold farmers end up obtaining or those of just lotto like dumb luck, defeating the point again. A basic rare should be rare, not astronomical in odds (unless that is a type of rare drop sought).
Also think that now that everyone can defeat that content anytime they choose and they can increase the odds of them getting their drop and you end up with "locusts" style gaming where players consume content at a record rate then sit at the "end game" (which is why end game began to exist) complaining about nothing to do.
Instancing brings far more problems than it solves. Yes, contested content has its issues, but its had a large effect on the rest of the games play.
This is why I liked FFXIs 2 big endgame zones. They were open world, so there was competition. And it was limited by both rare item pops and rare gear drops. I think it took me about 2 years to get everything i needed from 1 zone. Ive heard of it taking some people 3 years. But because the zones were large there was enough space for multiple Linkshells (Guilds) to be in the same area. And there was still direct competition. If a Guild was one pop item away from summoning a god, they werent gonna just move on because others were already there. It was first claim goes the spoils. So you camped sub bosses for a chance at drop items, then when you had the right ones (2 specific to each god) you used them to summon a god (which could drop loot...... or not), and then you could use the 4 pop items from the 4 gods to summon the king of gods (which could drop loot or not). So the sub bosses were straight up contested, the pop items made things auto claim to the group that popped it. That being said. If a group wiped, then it was fair game for another Guild to steal claim (and this happened). It still maintains a large degree of the contested nature while limiting access (no instances) and still giving fairly low drop rates because in a lot of cases you got nothing or some wortless vendor trash. There were 2 Zones like this: Sky and Sea. Why there werent more Ill never know.
It is easier to point out how instances affected the social aspects of gameplay by discussing why they were designed in the first place.
1. Contested Camps 2. Griefing in dungeons such as kill stealing, intentional/unintentional trains, ninja looting, spawn camping, etc.
So, instances were created as a direct result to allow everyone to have their gear/quest (insert toy) immediately (instant gratification) rather than having to wait.
Now, how does that negatively effect social dynamics?
Well you and a few other posters are correct that you still would have the risk of going to the dungeon and trying to find a group without groupfinders (especially those that port you to the dungeon), but I'd argue you're missing some key points.
So, first, I'll address point #1:
EQ's slow progression was due to the social dynamics in the game as much as it was the slow leveling curve. If I wanted to camp the FBSS (haste item) and it was already camped - I had to wait, or try to join the group, or join a list, etc. I couldn't run an instance of the dungeon and immediately get the reward of my item - or at least the chance of it. I had to interact with others by either trying join the existing group, or discuss with them how long they're going to be there. I would often form my group and take another camp and ask to be contacted once they were about the leave. Sounds simplistic, but those simple interactions and the gameplay that was impacted due to the contested camps impacted the game as a whole largely.
Another example: I often camped an item for a few hours and group members had to leave, and with instances, it would be no problem as the spot wasn't contested. I could simply leave, find more group members and run the instance again. However, since EQ wasn't instanced, and if I wanted to stay, I would have to look for replacements in advance. Again, another social dynamic that caused me either to have to delay my gratification of obtaining an item by having to leave the camp and open it up to others in the zone, or, hopefully, I've formed my friends list large enough (promoted me to want to meet new people) at that point that I could have invited a couple replacements and be able to stay there prior to the people leaving.
A third reason contested camps added to social dynamics because they emphasize the element of "time." You have to put in the investment in order to obtain your item. And, the more invested you become, the more the game world feels real and alive. And, if you have to spend more time in a dungeon to obtain the item you want, it will promote grouping as you'll consistently have people in the dungeon trying to gear themselves (or obtain exp). And, once you do obtain that item, you have that feeling that you truly earned the item, and often, that experience is shared by your group members. The shared experiences both positive and negative add to the lasting friendships. That experience is lost in instancing.
And, again, I know the argument of time will come with a large backlash of "I don't want to have a 2nd job" like EQ was, and I get it, I don't either. But, the expectations of what you want to accomplish in the game and how quickly that can occur has to change. If the game is built around 2-3 hour play windows to accomplish something and camping items/long travel is a thing - then, a player would have to accept they may not be able to be a server first and, one of their 2 hour play sessions may include 1 hour of travel, and they need to enjoy the slow progression and the journey rather than rush to endgame.
On point #2:
I get it - those are all negative aspects of player behavior that was removed by instancing. However, in order to appreciate more of the good, you have to have the bad as well. Like I had said in earlier posts, I remember the ninja looters, kill stealers, and players with a negative reputation as much as I remember the great players. And, if players can hide behind an instance wall, that level of server reputation, drama, etc. doesn't exist. Again, it's another wall that is removed that makes the game feel more like a living, breathing world.
As I had said though, instancing isn't in and of itself bad, and I get why they were implemented, but, you can't recapture all the social dynamics if they are implemented.
*Edit
And, a final thought, and this is more subjective I'll agree - having a zone of 6, just didn't feel "real" compared to a lively zone like Gukbottom at 60+ players in the zone. So, I may not have interacted with the 54 other players in the zone in EQ, I knew they were there, and other players existed. Something doesn't feel right about having my own magical zone to play in. You also lost the interactions of the "good" players who helped out as well, such as the ressers, random buffers and not only the griefers.
@Raidan_EQ Very well explained. I cant disagree with most anything you say. I can still say that its possible to have great community and interdependence. But it seems you major point might be the list of specific social interactions that would be missing due to an instance. And those I cant argue against. So I think I see what you guys are saying. You arent saying that a game with instancing cant have it. You are saying that there are specific interactions that wouldnt exist with instancing. And If Im reading you right then I fully agree to that.
The only other point of clarification I might add is the frequency of instances in XI. I dont know how it was done in EQ. But in FFXI there were lockouts and other barriers. You couldnt just repeatedly enter over and over. So there were social, man power, difficulty, time, and rarity issues to overcome.
Some Instances like Limbus were restricted to entrance through a key item you could purchase (game money not real) only every 72 hours (back in the day), an even still you had limited access both by time (30-60 mins depending), and areas of Limbus (14) that have a progression order as well.
There were also some instances that I could only do once every 2 weeks, or once every month. Now for the sake of honesty I will say these could be done back to back if you saved up the items required. But it still limited access overall.
So I think I see what you guys are saying. You arent saying that a game with instancing cant have it. You are saying that there are specific interactions that wouldnt exist with instancing. And If Im reading you right then I fully agree to that.
Pretty much it. Like I had mentioned, I had heard XI shared many of the same elements that made EQ a social MMO, I'd argue that instancing just created the opportunity for fewer chances for those to occur. Definitely not saying they couldn't have, or they didn't. But, one point that can't be argued is specific social interactions that can be seen in an open world dungeon versus an instance will never be observed. And, in a game that is basically designed around social interactions - I want it to be as social as possible.
And, good point on the lockout timers - I forgot to mention them. They definitely assist in keeping items more rare if implemented correctly (the timers are sufficiently long enough to account for every possible group/guild that has access to it to make it comparable to if camp/mob was truly contested), but, my points regarding instances in this thread was more the social elements of open world dungeons. And, as a result, they helped keep items more rare which promoted further grouping, etc. Basically, it was one piece of the puzzle that helped EQ have the ever dangling carrot.
And, I played EQ for many years after it had instancing implemented, and it was a mix of open world/instancing as other posters had mentioned. I still enjoyed it, mainly due to the content still being more difficult than the average game and some of the lasting friendships I had created from long ago. But, I'd go back to Launch-Velious experience (prior to instances) any day + a few features from Luclin like AA's.
You had guilds staying up all night..................and I mean all night, from dusk till dawn...........to get some spawns. I don't think anyone still wishes to do that.
Ok, I like some difficulty in MMO, but I have a life too.
there were no old people back then and there are no teenagers now or...is there no dusk/dawn now and there was then or...maybe...
LIFE was much quicker back then so you had more time to play games but with today's slowdown in daily life it takes increasingly longer to achieve the same goals in the time you were able to back then, leaving less time to dedicate to gaming.
95% of EQ's raids are in instances
"back then", the overwhelming majority of raids guild supported instancing raids
in FACT, it was implemented ON REQUEST of raiders
Instances increase the gear drops too much, making the rarity of item drops meaningless.
The only compensation would be to make items extremely rare off the raid bosses, meaning you might kill a boss multiple times and get nothing to balance the influx of items into the game world.
Instances will bring far more problems than they solve.
Eh, as long as the raid drops aren't tradeable, then i don't really care. IMO rarity should only be a factor in a tradeable item that can be bought or gotten by not "completing" said content.
As long as they make the raids difficult enough, then the loot from the raids is your reward for getting however many people together that worked in concert to down this raid boss.
Make the super badass raid items rare by virtue of it being really freaking hard to kill the boss. If we had faceroll raids like later WoW expansions then yes it becomes welfare epics. However if you look at a lot of dragons in places like North Temple of Veeshan in velious, or in Veeshan's Peak in Kunark, even 6 months to a year later some of the more casual guilds couldn't complete the content, they just didn't have enough players with the skillset.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
If you're meaning the exclusive content in an Open World that is triggered through quests, etc. I would be for it, as long as they are epic sprawling quests that are difficult to find, complete, etc. I know you haven't played EQ, but similar to the Coldain Prayer Shawl or Coldain Ring Quest. Where, even once a Wiki is released, since the quests are so challenging in and of themselves, just knowing "how" to do them doesn't trivialize the experience.
I'll include a link to the quests to give you a reference:
The quests basically started as a single player quest and ended in a raid group force. And, the shawl quest needed to have a ton of tradeskill items as well.
I would not be for an abundance of these types though, but enough sprinkled in to add something to do - especially if you may not want to raid at end-game. One of my favorite things about EQ is you had options at end-game even if you never chose to raid (especially with AA's - basically another form of progression based experience).
And, as far as the pop-up items, I also wouldn't be against chests or drops from mobs that triggered a quest if you found the right NPC after obtaining the drop (perhaps through a perception skill/identify spell), but I wouldn't want them to feel "forced." And, I wouldn't want them to become mandatory to gear your character, etc.
Yes that was what I was talking about in part. And Driven gave good examples of how quests could be done.
The other part was what I said about Endgame Zones. You did have to complete some difficult quests one time to gain access to the zones. But once in the zones it was just open world content. There was no quest to turn in, only the series of progressive mobs to camp for pop items against others or once said pop items were aquired you used at a designated place to pop. But still could wipe, could get your claim stolen or could win and get jack. These zones were pretty big too. It didnt feel forced to me but ymmv on that.
The biggest point about the 2 Zones I mentioned was this: It still maintains a large degree of the contested nature while limiting
access (no instances) and still giving fairly low drop rates because in
a lot of cases you got nothing or some worthless vendor trash. Things that I gather most of us want.
Also thanks for the links. I like how intricate and involves such quests as these are. Reminds me of a few quests of this type in XI. Great read!
Here is a link to some Sky info with a flow chart as well if you are interested:
The bottom row of the flow chart are all the contested mobs, and sometimes the competition could be brutal lol.
Lastly I too hope for a plethora of varied Endgame activities!
EDIT: Forgot to mention not all drops were gear drops. Some were rare crafting mats for crafting rare gear, and some were used to purify high end crafted gear that couldnt be used without the appropriate purification scroll to lift the curse.
EQ had many areas that were progression based as well where you needed to be "keyed" to advance. I enjoyed it and I would be ok with that as well in moderation, but, I wouldn't want all zones to be that way. Pretty much like all end-game content, I like the variety, but if everything feels like a treadmill or on repeat - it becomes a chore and feels forced.
Now, to your second point on the spawns popping up in an open world raid zone after turning in an item to spawn them, I'd need more clarification as I'm not 100% sure on FFXI's mechanics even after reading the wiki (although it reads similar to EQ's zones). I've heard you state before about FFXI that if a group wiped, mobs were fair game, but that's not always what happened in EQ. Many people respected camps even though a group may have wiped (not all), but that was another reason where server reputation mattered and non-instanced dungeons came into effect.
And, for clarification on FFXI mechanics I get that you needed to be keyed to enter the zone, but on mob that was spawned/activated, if you didn't wipe, I'm assuming group two could come up and activate the spawn right after you killed it? Or was the spawn timer locked out for X number of hours?
If they could activate it immediately after (a second iteration of the raid mob), I wouldn't be a huge fan of it as it would still decrease the rarity of items, but it wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me either as the group at least would have had to do ABCD before even entering the zone. I'd still definitely prefer it over simply everyone having their own raid (or group) instance.
But, if the spawn was truly contested, and if group 1 killed it, group 2 would be SOL for X number of days, I would be more ok with it. It would help with locking down content if ABCD was needed to activate a spawn, but it wouldn't trivialize the content either.
At a basic level though I'm for as many sandbox elements as possible, so, typically, I'm against most artificial restrictions in game. I realize for the sake of balancing, interdependence, etc. in an MMO that some themepark elements need to exist like defined classes (at least in the MMO that I would want to play).
1. I think its just a different culture that developed in XI vs EQ. There were things you could do to sully your reputation. Botting, Monster Player Killing, Ninja Looting, Betraying your LS was especially bad. But stealing claim after a group wiped was natural in XI. In fact you could get a bad reputation if you complained about it, because it was considered rude/dishonorable to be upset that another LS came along and finished what you started but couldnt finish. It did happen every once in a while to up and coming LSs, but after community backlash it didnt happen again. Tough love I know, yet there it is. But again I think this is a game culture thing and some what influenced by the Japanese population. Does that sort of answer it?
2. It was a few mins on the lockout (maybe 15?). That being said if the competition for the Bosses that held the pop items was heavy enough. My LS might not be able to get the required items to pop any one God more than twice a week. So either the zone would need to remain relevant to encourage competition. Or I wouldnt be against a Group or Guild specific Lockout (i.e. anyone involved in the spawn cant be involved in a new spawn for XX hours (72 sounds right).
3. Keep in mind the areas were huge and very dangerous even for max level players. It wasnt uncommon for me to be making my way with my LS through the interior palace (almost a maze really lol) and round a corner to find a full alliance of dead people (18 people).
4. I too long for endgame variety just as XI had and from what I gather EQ as well.
You had guilds staying up all night..................and I mean all night, from dusk till dawn...........to get some spawns. I don't think anyone still wishes to do that.
Ok, I like some difficulty in MMO, but I have a life too.
there were no old people back then and there are no teenagers now or...is there no dusk/dawn now and there was then or...maybe...
LIFE was much quicker back then so you had more time to play games but with today's slowdown in daily life it takes increasingly longer to achieve the same goals in the time you were able to back then, leaving less time to dedicate to gaming.
95% of EQ's raids are in instances
"back then", the overwhelming majority of raids guild supported instancing raids
in FACT, it was implemented ON REQUEST of raiders
Instances increase the gear drops too much, making the rarity of item drops meaningless.
The only compensation would be to make items extremely rare off the raid bosses, meaning you might kill a boss multiple times and get nothing to balance the influx of items into the game world.
Instances will bring far more problems than they solve.
Eh, as long as the raid drops aren't tradeable, then i don't really care. IMO rarity should only be a factor in a tradeable item that can be bought or gotten by not "completing" said content.
As long as they make the raids difficult enough, then the loot from the raids is your reward for getting however many people together that worked in concert to down this raid boss.
Make the super badass raid items rare by virtue of it being really freaking hard to kill the boss. If we had faceroll raids like later WoW expansions then yes it becomes welfare epics. However if you look at a lot of dragons in places like North Temple of Veeshan in velious, or in Veeshan's Peak in Kunark, even 6 months to a year later some of the more casual guilds couldn't complete the content, they just didn't have enough players with the skillset.
Difficulty isn't enough to slow people down. As soon as one beats the event, the strategy will be passed around and others will be beating it in short time. Also, once you have a boss down, it isn't that much of an issue after as putting it on farm is very quick after that. Loot rarity is a part of EQ, it is why only the top guilds who were cock blocking people actually had similar looking geared players and it made winning an item on a raid mean a heck of a lot because not every person on the server had one. Compare that to WoW where every guild who could beat the content had players with those items.
That said, I don't see why raid items should be treated as special and group items not. You can make group content just as challenging as raid content outside of the large number of people to manage. If they are only making 24 man raid content, then even people management isn't even an issue as 24 people is easy to organize (compared to 50-70).
They said that raids would only be 15-20% of the content and not the main focus of the game, so raids should not be a source to easily obtain gear. If they make it with instancing, or where every guild can take on the same content at the same time, they essentially are giving raiders preferential treatment and faster gear acquisition.
Raiders should not have an increased drop rate (ie their own special boss per guild) just because they are raid.
Also, why should raid items not be traded? What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. You can't say raiding items should be special and not traded, but it is ok to do that with group items. Either trading is wrong, or it is not. This approach of "raiders are special and group players can piss off" is already heading us back to what started to run off a lot of EQ players and why WoW instance dungeons became popular.
If you look at EQ, they started to cater to the raiders and many of the group dungeons became solo/duo spots for the raid guilds because they were ridiculously geared up. The group players were treated as if they were second rate players. If Pantheon is not heading down that route (ie being a massive raid game), then raiding should not be given special privilege.
Comments
Now am I OK with instances? I can take or leave them but they shouldnt be the only thing in a game thats for damn sure. And I assume they would need to be in an environment similar to how XI was set up to be successful and not kill community or rob us of heavy interdependence. Because I dont know what caused it to be so divisive in EQ, but it was never an issue in XI. So EQ must have done something wrong in how they implemented them I guess? Anything you can name that was good in EQ due to interdependence and community I can probably give examples from XI too.
All this being said, I was just bringing up the point that I dont believe instancing being the reason why a lot of us think modern MMOs suck. Its because they are a solo players paradise in an empty feeling bankrupt community. A completely open world could be this way too, if the devs were stupid enough to make everyone 1 man army gods that could accomplish anything on their own.
Fighting over if there should be instances in Pantheon is futile. The Devs have said they will not have them other than the story line. So Im not going to bother to beg for them or advocate them be in Pantheon. And if the devs design the game well, most people that want them probably wont miss them all that much anyways. If you can name a problem you have with non-instanced content, Im sure the devs already have it in mind for when they design content. Its better to focus on what can be done to make content great in the open world. Like some of the things Sinist suggested.
My favorite MMO really didn't feature instancing outside of one or two specific encounters, which actually made those encounters worthwhile, as they couldn't be exploited in the manner everything else was being exploited in the open world (throwing more numbers at it than needed, in turn trivializing the content). Not to mention those who camped content AFK with macros... instancing prevents things like this... Sure with a hefty budget you can use other means (like content scalability across the board) will they have access to such options though?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
You had Dreadspire Keep in the open world, for groupers.
You had Dreadspire Keep in the instance, for raiders.
They couldn't do this without instances. They couldn't do this with Vex Thal because they didn't have instances yet.
Most casual players never saw Vex Thal, and never will.
Groupers and casual players didn't think that was fair. They paid for the content, they paid for the expansion, the zones were on their hard drive, but the only way to see the zones was to join a raid guild. It wasn't fair.
To put this into perspective, high-end raiding was for the few in EQ, very few people in EQ raided in guilds that saw the latest zones. It wasn't like WoW where everyone with a pulse can raid. SoE was building zones for the 1%., yet the other 99% was asked to help foot the bill.
This is another reason why players actively asked for instances. SoE was selling expansions promising 8 zones, but groupers and casual players could often only see 6, because whole zones were off limits and useless to groupers, people felt ripped off paying for an expansion and only having half the content available to them, unless they raided. Instances solved this problem, developers could now make zones that had a dual purpose, the open world for groupers and the instanced version populated with raid content for raiders.
Besides I always see the EQ folks doing the same thing. So if my point is forfeit, then so is everyone elses. Sometimes I feel like Im being surrounded by EQ zealots. Im just thankful that they arent all that way. Particularly on the official forums I notice there are a lot of really nice EQ vets that are fairly open minded. Like Raiden for instance. I like and agree with most of his posts, most of the time. I wasnt trying to call him out. I tried to respectfully point out that what he suggested was not always the case. And what I think the true problems are. And I think I agree with you and Sinist on a lot more topics then you are probably aware of, but you guys make me want to pull my hair out sometimes.
As far as Im concerned I see blatant facts being ignored by you and others because of an obsessive hatred of all things instanced. Im not in love with instances, but I think its important to point out mistakes. And Im not "excusing" instances. I cant excuse something thats not the problem!
Now If you want to argue that Instances break your immersion, destroy your ability to RP, or remove the challenge that comes from contested content. Well then I cant argue against any of those, because the first 2 are personal preference. And the last 1 is just a fact. And I couldnt argue that a FULLY instanced game would not ruin community and do at least some damage to the interdependent nature of an mmo.
And for the record, I want to play on a PvP server with open world contested content. Because I want to experience meaningful PvEvP again. I just wanted to redirect people to the real problems.
What you're really arguing for is equality within your game world. You are a fantasy social justice warrior.
I find that kind of backwards logic equally frustrating.
Look, I always try to be nice and add a disclaimer to my posts that says something like, hey, if you liked such and such mechanic, or such and such game, there is nothing wrong with that. And I definitely don't think any one topic that I argue about is going to bring the world toppling down if it doesn't go my way (so please... don't compare me to Sinist). Yes, FFXI DID show that a game could maintain a social nature AND have some instancing, but that doesn't absolve instancing of the problems associated with it, as you are surmising.
The issue is that things like easy death penalties, soloing, instancing, quest progression, fast travel, or dungeon finders - NONE of them are "the problem", but they are all collectively responsible for the changes that have taken place in the genre and they are all part of the real underlying problem, which is compromising on what made games great, massively multiplayer and challenging in the name of making them more accessible to the casual player. So while it may look like I'm being hardline for no reason and blowing up every little issue as if its "the problem", its just that I don't want to compromise a little because I know where that road leads.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Amsai,
I agree that arguing over whether instancing is better or not when Pantheon's team has claimed instancing won't be in pay is futile, but... squeeky wheels and all. And, as of now, we all are just discussing our wishlists at this point until more features are released.
And, I should have clarified more that instancing was one of many things that led to the downfall of social MMOs in general, and specifically EQ; however, I was replying specifically to Kyloris's point regarding instancing and already off-topic in a thread that has gone further off-topic.
For me, as Dullahan had pointed out, much like many arguments/points I make on the official forums, it wasn't any "one" thing that could be pinpointed on what made EQ great, but a compilation of things. And, the more you remove of them for the sake of convenience, fairness, time constraints, etc. the less of the magic that is recaptured.
But, that's not to say as I've stated other times that EQ wasn't without fault. Warriors/Rogues needed more skills, all classes having resource management (endurance) is a good thing, EQ's damage caps to restrict twinking need to be modified further, some truly barbaric aspects such as medding and staring into the spellbook I would be ok with comprosing and removing, etc.
But, back on point, I know many who enjoyed FFXI, and it did have many good elements that promoted interdependence (I didn't play it much admittedly as I will still full EQ in its heydey). But, I'd argue that you still had similar feelings/attachments because of what did exist that was present in the game, not due FFXI being successful despite it having a healthy mix of both instancing/open world.
I'll even admit I enjoyed WoW on release and it was one of my many breaks from EQ. The first dungeon I tried there was the Deadmines. And, I ran it with a group, then ran it again, and again, and again, until we all had all the drops without ever interacting with anyone outside of the 6 people in our group. I thought, what a difference from EQ, but also remembered thinking the Deadmines didn't feel like the Estate of Unrest to me - something didn't feel right. I still played WoW till shortly after the Burning Crusade because I enjoyed it, but all the while it didn't feel the same. It wasn't until quitting it and returning to EQ and reflecting that I realized the damages that instancing (even before groupfinders) causes (amongst other aspects like you suggested such as soloing). The game world wasn't alive - I was catered to and enjoyed the instant gratification of having my own playground.
Again, there's nothing wrong with instances, it's just not the type of MMO world I want to play in, and, if Pantheon is trying to recapture EQ's magic and expand on it - not in line with that style of social MMO either.
That being said, they also start new problems. They screw up building of communities outsite of guilds most importanly.
Since Pantheon wants a strong focus on community and less on "everyone being able to do everything, everytime" it is an easy choice to NOT implement instances. And that is what is going to happen according to the Devteam.
No reason to argue and bitch at each other over that. Pantheon is not targeting people that are concerned by the issues that ARE solved with instances. Pantheon is targeting people that are concerned by issues that ARISE from instances.
We can all agree that neither is all bad or all good, but if we consider the goal Pantheon tries to reach, then it is a clear choice.
Regarding wether or not EQ dropped subs due to instancing... i don't know. And i am sure noone else does. All we can do is guess. Some facts tho: EQ dropped subs when EQ2 and WOW started. This was the same time as that "bad" expansion. So... was it bad? Did EQ drop due to the expantion? Or was it WOW and EQ2, the new stuff? I don't know, but it is a huge possibility that the lackluster EQ expansion wasn't as bad as it may look if you just go for sub numbers.
Also, personally i stopped EQ for the first time when instancing screwed over my guild. Having to leave out people, while still having to always take all the clerics simply ruined the fun. Actually my guild stopped raiding shortly after since a lot of people quit over that. So did EQ fail due to instancing? I also don't know that. It failed FOR ME and for MY GUILD back then. But extrapolating that for the whole game would be silly.
After all is said and done, leaving out all the guess work and history lessons, only two facts remain:
Pantheon is targeting a community focus. Instances are bad for community.
I started to drift away from EQ due to instances and started to really hate them a few years later. So i am happy to see Pantheon is targeting ME. :-)
MMOs finally replaced social interaction, forced grouping and standing in a line while talking to eachother.
Now we have forced soloing, forced questing and everyone is the hero, without ever having to talk to anyone else. The evolution of multiplayer is here! We won,... right?
I am sorry. I for sure didnt mean offense. However, I find being told that because Im fond of XI, or that because I played it that my input is invalid a bit offensive too. I can understand how you might think that the case. But as I said, I think ANY MMO could have a great community and interdependence if designed correctly, even with instances. Now I do admit XI is the only example I can name. And you might have more of a point if it was a very limited thing like say only 1 instance, or only 1 expansion. But I played the game for about 10 years and it was fairly consistantly 50/50 with open world and instanced endgame and storyline during that time. I also admitted that I couldnt defend against every argument against instances and showed examples of those I couldnt.
Would it help if I rephrased it somehow? FFXI was an example of a game with strong community and interdependence that had open world and instanced content in equal measure, but doesnt represent the norm.
I think I get you a bit more after that last paragraph. You are afraid of the "slipery slope" scenario. And Im not. I take what a Dev says at face value til I have reason to believe otherwise. Just like Pantheon is saying it will have no instancing other than story. I have no choice but to believe that til proven otherwise. I take that stance on most things in life. As for all the other things you list as problems, I cound not agree more.
@Raidan_EQ
Thanks for the response man. I like the way you spelled out your point, and I get it. I also have no argument against what made the "magic" of EQ. That is personal preference, and not having any experience in EQ, I have no say in it. And I fully admit that there are other elements in XI that I loved, but please believe me that Im not allowing it to cloud my judgement on the issue of instancing. Maybe we are miscommunicating some how? Terminology? Lack of understanding (EQ in my Case)(XI in yours)? Or maybe Im missing a crucial understanding of what your problem with instancing is? Like I keep seeing that instancing helped to kill community and interdependence in EQ. Could you give me an example? Im more of a visual person so maybe that would help me understand it better.
In EQ, you first had to get time to camp the mob, find the camp open, get the rare mob to pop and then get the rare item to drop. All of this takes a lot of time. It can be quick (ie you get lucky) or it can end up taking a while, but the fact the spawn and drop is the same rate of flow into the game world.
When you introduce instancing, that rate is amplified by the number of instances created by each group. Technically, you could have 100 groups camping the same named and getting the same item to drop. So lets say for the sake of discussion, the named only popped once every 24 hours. That means it is technically possible (regardless of how likely) that 100 rares could drop in a single night. With the contested content, only a single drop could occur, making obtaining that item mean quite a lot to the one who won it.
So, that rare in the world with instances isn't really "rare", because its acquisition is brute forced by shear numbers of players camping it at the same time increasing the odds of it dropping. Sure, you could make the item really, really, really rare to account for that fact, but you end up making it so rare that it becomes a prize only the gold farmers end up obtaining or those of just lotto like dumb luck, defeating the point again. A basic rare should be rare, not astronomical in odds (unless that is a type of rare drop sought).
Also think that now that everyone can defeat that content anytime they choose and they can increase the odds of them getting their drop and you end up with "locusts" style gaming where players consume content at a record rate then sit at the "end game" (which is why end game began to exist) complaining about nothing to do.
Instancing brings far more problems than it solves. Yes, contested content has its issues, but its had a large effect on the rest of the games play.
This is why I liked FFXIs 2 big endgame zones. They were open world, so there was competition. And it was limited by both rare item pops and rare gear drops. I think it took me about 2 years to get everything i needed from 1 zone. Ive heard of it taking some people 3 years. But because the zones were large there was enough space for multiple Linkshells (Guilds) to be in the same area. And there was still direct competition. If a Guild was one pop item away from summoning a god, they werent gonna just move on because others were already there. It was first claim goes the spoils. So you camped sub bosses for a chance at drop items, then when you had the right ones (2 specific to each god) you used them to summon a god (which could drop loot...... or not), and then you could use the 4 pop items from the 4 gods to summon the king of gods (which could drop loot or not). So the sub bosses were straight up contested, the pop items made things auto claim to the group that popped it. That being said. If a group wiped, then it was fair game for another Guild to steal claim (and this happened). It still maintains a large degree of the contested nature while limiting access (no instances) and still giving fairly low drop rates because in a lot of cases you got nothing or some wortless vendor trash. There were 2 Zones like this: Sky and Sea. Why there werent more Ill never know.
It is easier to point out how instances affected the social aspects of gameplay by discussing why they were designed in the first place.
1. Contested Camps
2. Griefing in dungeons such as kill stealing, intentional/unintentional trains, ninja looting, spawn camping, etc.
So, instances were created as a direct result to allow everyone to have their gear/quest (insert toy) immediately (instant gratification) rather than having to wait.
Now, how does that negatively effect social dynamics?
Well you and a few other posters are correct that you still would have the risk of going to the dungeon and trying to find a group without groupfinders (especially those that port you to the dungeon), but I'd argue you're missing some key points.
So, first, I'll address point #1:
EQ's slow progression was due to the social dynamics in the game as much as it was the slow leveling curve. If I wanted to camp the FBSS (haste item) and it was already camped - I had to wait, or try to join the group, or join a list, etc. I couldn't run an instance of the dungeon and immediately get the reward of my item - or at least the chance of it. I had to interact with others by either trying join the existing group, or discuss with them how long they're going to be there. I would often form my group and take another camp and ask to be contacted once they were about the leave. Sounds simplistic, but those simple interactions and the gameplay that was impacted due to the contested camps impacted the game as a whole largely.
Another example: I often camped an item for a few hours and group members had to leave, and with instances, it would be no problem as the spot wasn't contested. I could simply leave, find more group members and run the instance again. However, since EQ wasn't instanced, and if I wanted to stay, I would have to look for replacements in advance. Again, another social dynamic that caused me either to have to delay my gratification of obtaining an item by having to leave the camp and open it up to others in the zone, or, hopefully, I've formed my friends list large enough (promoted me to want to meet new people) at that point that I could have invited a couple replacements and be able to stay there prior to the people leaving.
A third reason contested camps added to social dynamics because they emphasize the element of "time." You have to put in the investment in order to obtain your item. And, the more invested you become, the more the game world feels real and alive. And, if you have to spend more time in a dungeon to obtain the item you want, it will promote grouping as you'll consistently have people in the dungeon trying to gear themselves (or obtain exp). And, once you do obtain that item, you have that feeling that you truly earned the item, and often, that experience is shared by your group members. The shared experiences both positive and negative add to the lasting friendships. That experience is lost in instancing.
And, again, I know the argument of time will come with a large backlash of "I don't want to have a 2nd job" like EQ was, and I get it, I don't either. But, the expectations of what you want to accomplish in the game and how quickly that can occur has to change. If the game is built around 2-3 hour play windows to accomplish something and camping items/long travel is a thing - then, a player would have to accept they may not be able to be a server first and, one of their 2 hour play sessions may include 1 hour of travel, and they need to enjoy the slow progression and the journey rather than rush to endgame.
On point #2:
I get it - those are all negative aspects of player behavior that was removed by instancing. However, in order to appreciate more of the good, you have to have the bad as well. Like I had said in earlier posts, I remember the ninja looters, kill stealers, and players with a negative reputation as much as I remember the great players. And, if players can hide behind an instance wall, that level of server reputation, drama, etc. doesn't exist. Again, it's another wall that is removed that makes the game feel more like a living, breathing world.
As I had said though, instancing isn't in and of itself bad, and I get why they were implemented, but, you can't recapture all the social dynamics if they are implemented.
*Edit
And, a final thought, and this is more subjective I'll agree - having a zone of 6, just didn't feel "real" compared to a lively zone like Gukbottom at 60+ players in the zone. So, I may not have interacted with the 54 other players in the zone in EQ, I knew they were there, and other players existed. Something doesn't feel right about having my own magical zone to play in. You also lost the interactions of the "good" players who helped out as well, such as the ressers, random buffers and not only the griefers.
Very well explained. I cant disagree with most anything you say. I can still say that its possible to have great community and interdependence. But it seems you major point might be the list of specific social interactions that would be missing due to an instance. And those I cant argue against. So I think I see what you guys are saying. You arent saying that a game with instancing cant have it. You are saying that there are specific interactions that wouldnt exist with instancing. And If Im reading you right then I fully agree to that.
The only other point of clarification I might add is the frequency of instances in XI. I dont know how it was done in EQ. But in FFXI there were lockouts and other barriers. You couldnt just repeatedly enter over and over. So there were social, man power, difficulty, time, and rarity issues to overcome.
Some Instances like Limbus were restricted to entrance through a key item you could purchase (game money not real) only every 72 hours (back in the day), an even still you had limited access both by time (30-60 mins depending), and areas of Limbus (14) that have a progression order as well.
There were also some instances that I could only do once every 2 weeks, or once every month. Now for the sake of honesty I will say these could be done back to back if you saved up the items required. But it still limited access overall.
Pretty much it. Like I had mentioned, I had heard XI shared many of the same elements that made EQ a social MMO, I'd argue that instancing just created the opportunity for fewer chances for those to occur. Definitely not saying they couldn't have, or they didn't. But, one point that can't be argued is specific social interactions that can be seen in an open world dungeon versus an instance will never be observed. And, in a game that is basically designed around social interactions - I want it to be as social as possible.
And, good point on the lockout timers - I forgot to mention them. They definitely assist in keeping items more rare if implemented correctly (the timers are sufficiently long enough to account for every possible group/guild that has access to it to make it comparable to if camp/mob was truly contested), but, my points regarding instances in this thread was more the social elements of open world dungeons. And, as a result, they helped keep items more rare which promoted further grouping, etc. Basically, it was one piece of the puzzle that helped EQ have the ever dangling carrot.
And, I played EQ for many years after it had instancing implemented, and it was a mix of open world/instancing as other posters had mentioned. I still enjoyed it, mainly due to the content still being more difficult than the average game and some of the lasting friendships I had created from long ago. But, I'd go back to Launch-Velious experience (prior to instances) any day + a few features from Luclin like AA's.
What do you thing of Ideas like what me and Driven mentioned for open world content a couple of posts back? Id like your take on it if possible.
As long as they make the raids difficult enough, then the loot from the raids is your reward for getting however many people together that worked in concert to down this raid boss.
Make the super badass raid items rare by virtue of it being really freaking hard to kill the boss. If we had faceroll raids like later WoW expansions then yes it becomes welfare epics. However if you look at a lot of dragons in places like North Temple of Veeshan in velious, or in Veeshan's Peak in Kunark, even 6 months to a year later some of the more casual guilds couldn't complete the content, they just didn't have enough players with the skillset.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
@Amsai ;
If you're meaning the exclusive content in an Open World that is triggered through quests, etc. I would be for it, as long as they are epic sprawling quests that are difficult to find, complete, etc. I know you haven't played EQ, but similar to the Coldain Prayer Shawl or Coldain Ring Quest. Where, even once a Wiki is released, since the quests are so challenging in and of themselves, just knowing "how" to do them doesn't trivialize the experience.
I'll include a link to the quests to give you a reference:
http://wiki.project1999.com/Coldain_Prayer_Shawl_Quests
http://wiki.project1999.com/Coldain_Ring_Quests
The quests basically started as a single player quest and ended in a raid group force. And, the shawl quest needed to have a ton of tradeskill items as well.
I would not be for an abundance of these types though, but enough sprinkled in to add something to do - especially if you may not want to raid at end-game. One of my favorite things about EQ is you had options at end-game even if you never chose to raid (especially with AA's - basically another form of progression based experience).
And, as far as the pop-up items, I also wouldn't be against chests or drops from mobs that triggered a quest if you found the right NPC after obtaining the drop (perhaps through a perception skill/identify spell), but I wouldn't want them to feel "forced." And, I wouldn't want them to become mandatory to gear your character, etc.
The other part was what I said about Endgame Zones. You did have to complete some difficult quests one time to gain access to the zones. But once in the zones it was just open world content. There was no quest to turn in, only the series of progressive mobs to camp for pop items against others or once said pop items were aquired you used at a designated place to pop. But still could wipe, could get your claim stolen or could win and get jack. These zones were pretty big too. It didnt feel forced to me but ymmv on that.
The biggest point about the 2 Zones I mentioned was this:
It still maintains a large degree of the contested nature while limiting access (no instances) and still giving fairly low drop rates because in a lot of cases you got nothing or some worthless vendor trash. Things that I gather most of us want.
Also thanks for the links. I like how intricate and involves such quests as these are. Reminds me of a few quests of this type in XI. Great read!
Here is a link to some Sky info with a flow chart as well if you are interested:
http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/wiki/Sky_(FFXI)
The bottom row of the flow chart are all the contested mobs, and sometimes the competition could be brutal lol.
Lastly I too hope for a plethora of varied Endgame activities!
EDIT: Forgot to mention not all drops were gear drops. Some were rare crafting mats for crafting rare gear, and some were used to purify high end crafted gear that couldnt be used without the appropriate purification scroll to lift the curse.
@Amsai
EQ had many areas that were progression based as well where you needed to be "keyed" to advance. I enjoyed it and I would be ok with that as well in moderation, but, I wouldn't want all zones to be that way. Pretty much like all end-game content, I like the variety, but if everything feels like a treadmill or on repeat - it becomes a chore and feels forced.
Now, to your second point on the spawns popping up in an open world raid zone after turning in an item to spawn them, I'd need more clarification as I'm not 100% sure on FFXI's mechanics even after reading the wiki (although it reads similar to EQ's zones). I've heard you state before about FFXI that if a group wiped, mobs were fair game, but that's not always what happened in EQ. Many people respected camps even though a group may have wiped (not all), but that was another reason where server reputation mattered and non-instanced dungeons came into effect.
And, for clarification on FFXI mechanics I get that you needed to be keyed to enter the zone, but on mob that was spawned/activated, if you didn't wipe, I'm assuming group two could come up and activate the spawn right after you killed it? Or was the spawn timer locked out for X number of hours?
If they could activate it immediately after (a second iteration of the raid mob), I wouldn't be a huge fan of it as it would still decrease the rarity of items, but it wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me either as the group at least would have had to do ABCD before even entering the zone. I'd still definitely prefer it over simply everyone having their own raid (or group) instance.
But, if the spawn was truly contested, and if group 1 killed it, group 2 would be SOL for X number of days, I would be more ok with it. It would help with locking down content if ABCD was needed to activate a spawn, but it wouldn't trivialize the content either.
At a basic level though I'm for as many sandbox elements as possible, so, typically, I'm against most artificial restrictions in game. I realize for the sake of balancing, interdependence, etc. in an MMO that some themepark elements need to exist like defined classes (at least in the MMO that I would want to play).
1. I think its just a different culture that developed in XI vs EQ. There were things you could do to sully your reputation. Botting, Monster Player Killing, Ninja Looting, Betraying your LS was especially bad. But stealing claim after a group wiped was natural in XI. In fact you could get a bad reputation if you complained about it, because it was considered rude/dishonorable to be upset that another LS came along and finished what you started but couldnt finish. It did happen every once in a while to up and coming LSs, but after community backlash it didnt happen again. Tough love I know, yet there it is. But again I think this is a game culture thing and some what influenced by the Japanese population. Does that sort of answer it?
2. It was a few mins on the lockout (maybe 15?). That being said if the competition for the Bosses that held the pop items was heavy enough. My LS might not be able to get the required items to pop any one God more than twice a week. So either the zone would need to remain relevant to encourage competition. Or I wouldnt be against a Group or Guild specific Lockout (i.e. anyone involved in the spawn cant be involved in a new spawn for XX hours (72 sounds right).
3. Keep in mind the areas were huge and very dangerous even for max level players. It wasnt uncommon for me to be making my way with my LS through the interior palace (almost a maze really lol) and round a corner to find a full alliance of dead people (18 people).
4. I too long for endgame variety just as XI had and from what I gather EQ as well.
Difficulty isn't enough to slow people down. As soon as one beats the event, the strategy will be passed around and others will be beating it in short time. Also, once you have a boss down, it isn't that much of an issue after as putting it on farm is very quick after that. Loot rarity is a part of EQ, it is why only the top guilds who were cock blocking people actually had similar looking geared players and it made winning an item on a raid mean a heck of a lot because not every person on the server had one. Compare that to WoW where every guild who could beat the content had players with those items.
That said, I don't see why raid items should be treated as special and group items not. You can make group content just as challenging as raid content outside of the large number of people to manage. If they are only making 24 man raid content, then even people management isn't even an issue as 24 people is easy to organize (compared to 50-70).
They said that raids would only be 15-20% of the content and not the main focus of the game, so raids should not be a source to easily obtain gear. If they make it with instancing, or where every guild can take on the same content at the same time, they essentially are giving raiders preferential treatment and faster gear acquisition.
Raiders should not have an increased drop rate (ie their own special boss per guild) just because they are raid.
Also, why should raid items not be traded? What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. You can't say raiding items should be special and not traded, but it is ok to do that with group items. Either trading is wrong, or it is not. This approach of "raiders are special and group players can piss off" is already heading us back to what started to run off a lot of EQ players and why WoW instance dungeons became popular.
If you look at EQ, they started to cater to the raiders and many of the group dungeons became solo/duo spots for the raid guilds because they were ridiculously geared up. The group players were treated as if they were second rate players. If Pantheon is not heading down that route (ie being a massive raid game), then raiding should not be given special privilege.