PANTHEON Brad's Answer to Instancing

delete5230

Yet another Nathan NAPALM video.  I like this guy and subscribed to his channel ever since I watched his story of being upsessive about getting Everquest working for the first time back in 1999. 

Anyway,

Here he describes Brads idea of using "phasing" of mobs for groups instead of instancing.  I couldn't follow it completely unless I watched it again, but I got the basic idea.

 

For me,

I'm not too sure I like it.  Being able to only see your fights against what others see is a recipe for disaster.  Or one group can't touch what your group is fighting.... I have to say I'm a little confused in the complexities.  

It sounds like an unneeded programming nightmare, confusing the player, and a huge chance for a buggy game overall.  Compound this with no individual servers and realms, but replicas of the same much like a mega server.  

It seems it will be a "some times it works some times it don't" kind of thing.  Or one group member doesn't see it all unless he logs out and back in.….. I'm afraid this entire system will have huge problems.

 

I'm ok with instanced or non-instance, even if you have a strong opinion one way or another people will get over it.  But I'm not a fan of playing around with such dynamics.  You can tell in his voice Nathan is concerned too.

Scot

It seems they are not going to use "dungeon" instancing, effectively the mobs are being instanced (by being tagged to a group) not the "dungeon zone"? I can't see any reason to do it this way, any benefits? Also it is more complicated and with complexity comes more bugs and issues. Finally has any other MMO done something like this, that's the only way you can be sure it won't cause huge issues?

delete5230

My heart skipped a beat with this un-needed and overly complicated system.

It's like Brad is torturing himself simply to see if he can pull off creativity, and were all involved with his experiments. 

As time goes by, it's turning more and more like a wait and see game.

etlar

ff14 does the same

delete5230

etlar said:

ff14 does the same

Maybe so I'm not sure, but Brad follows his own programming. He doesn't follow others criteria.

If I recall, FF14 is not the same, it has extremely small zones and you are instanced in them.... It's NOT the same !

However its been a long time...... doesn't matter anyway, Brad doesn't care what other do.

etlar

delete5230 said:

etlar said:

ff14 does the same

Maybe so I'm not sure, but Brad follows his own programming. He doesn't follow others criteria.

If I recall, FF14 is not the same, it has extremely small zones and you are instanced in them.... It's NOT the same !

However its been a long time...... doesn't matter anyway, Brad doesn't care what other do.

I meant it does the same with phasing in monsters, that only you can attack, but others see them as well, i was not talking about world size, i should have clarified that

Kyleran

I confess, in reading Brad's short description of how this sort of phasing works puzzled me as well.

I'm concerned how players both within the group and outside of it will be able to discern the difference between those they can hit vs those they can't if everyone can see everything.

I could see myself swinging wildly at phantoms...

  

Scot

etlar said:

delete5230 said:

etlar said:

ff14 does the same

Maybe so I'm not sure, but Brad follows his own programming. He doesn't follow others criteria.

If I recall, FF14 is not the same, it has extremely small zones and you are instanced in them.... It's NOT the same !

However its been a long time...... doesn't matter anyway, Brad doesn't care what other do.

I meant it does the same with phasing in monsters, that only you can attack, but others see them as well, i was not talking about world size, i should have clarified that

Well if it works in FFXIV not so bothered now, does it have any advantages to "phased for each group"?

gervaise1

So:

Group A walks into a dungeon and a pack of orcs say spawn that are tagged specifically to group A.

Group B follows group A into the same dungeon and another pack of orcs spawn that are tagged specifically to group B.

Will Group B be able to see Group A's mobs? Presumably yes? Otherwise group B will see group A swinging swords and casting spells at "nothing". 

Group Z walks into the dungeon, a pack of orcs spawn specifically for group Z. Will there be a Z on top of the orcs heads? Maybe all those "nothings" that the other groups are fighting will appear as ghostly images. If they can see anything at all if there are dozens of spell effects going off! Then you have the potential 10fps issue. 

This will be immersion breaking of course ....

This "outline" that appears to suggest "instancing" content - mobs but presumably treasure chests etc. but not instancing the setting could result in the worst of all worlds. 


Now if there is only ever a group A; or group B follows several minutes behind the whole question is moot. You don't need any instancing at all. Its only needed when you have multiple people wanting to do "the content" at - more or less - the same time.

Which was / has been tackled in multiple ways:
Additional servers - another server is, after all, just another instance of the game world;
Phases, dynamic layers etc. added a "large" instance withing a server
Individual encounters were the ultimate step.


In the early days instancing went way to far. PotBS being an example of a game that took it to far: enter a house - it was an instance; enter the back room of the house - another instance; go in a cupboard in the room - another instance.

Tech moved on though. And game design became more selective as a result with more recent games adopting a two-tier approach: instances and public dungeons. Which I think is a good solution.

I think Pantheon getting hung up on "no instances" is a mistake and could be a waste of resources that may never be required. More content will spread the population out for example. And I assume they are planning on more than one server so its not a rigid adherence to the "no instances" rule - or are they going full Eve? 

delete5230

gervaise1 said:

So:

Group A walks into a dungeon and a pack of orcs say spawn that are tagged specifically to group A.

Group B follows group A into the same dungeon and another pack of orcs spawn that are tagged specifically to group B.

Will Group B be able to see Group A's mobs? Presumably yes? Otherwise group B will see group A swinging swords and casting spells at "nothing". 

Group Z walks into the dungeon, a pack of orcs spawn specifically for group Z. Will there be a Z on top of the orcs heads? Maybe all those "nothings" that the other groups are fighting will appear as ghostly images. If they can see anything at all if there are dozens of spell effects going off! Then you have the potential 10fps issue. 

This will be immersion breaking of course ....

This "outline" that appears to suggest "instancing" content - mobs but presumably treasure chests etc. but not instancing the setting could result in the worst of all worlds. 


Now if there is only ever a group A; or group B follows several minutes behind the whole question is moot. You don't need any instancing at all. Its only needed when you have multiple people wanting to do "the content" at - more or less - the same time.

Which was / has been tackled in multiple ways:
Additional servers - another server is, after all, just another instance of the game world;
Phases, dynamic layers etc. added a "large" instance withing a server
Individual encounters were the ultimate step.


In the early days instancing went way to far. PotBS being an example of a game that took it to far: enter a house - it was an instance; enter the back room of the house - another instance; go in a cupboard in the room - another instance.

Tech moved on though. And game design became more selective as a result with more recent games adopting a two-tier approach: instances and public dungeons. Which I think is a good solution.

I think Pantheon getting hung up on "no instances" is a mistake and could be a waste of resources that may never be required. More content will spread the population out for example. And I assume they are planning on more than one server so its not a rigid adherence to the "no instances" rule - or are they going full Eve? 

Exactly this,
The situations and encounters are endless.... Is it really worth it ?


And the bigger questions:
Is it fun ?
Is it better ?

Wizardry

Hmm  it is an immersion ruining idea.

Yet again,FFXI proved you do NOT need to instance a dungeon.Even FFXI's event besieged was similar to an instance but we could see help each other at will.
I understand the part about being a quest mob so then the experience of the encounter might be dumbed down.

There is something brad and team seem to miss here and that is how XP works.There is nothing wrong allowing a 100 level to help but not to attack.The reason is attacking would dumb down all content,as well players could attack to not help but to be a nuisance,like trying to steal hate away from the actual tank/group then kite your mob into other links/danger.

However even if the player wanted to help,attacking as a level that is too high would simply kill all the exp anyhow,so serves no purpose.My first biggest peeve with GW2 was phasing in mobs,it really does ruin immersion in a big way,similar to when people complain when they  see fauna and graphics phasing in while they move,it just looks bad.

For me it is easy to understand what works because i saw it all in FFXI,a game made for a ps2 console.There is no need for instancing or phasing unless your doing a story line.If it is a simple dungeon or for that matter WHY a dungeon,why can't we keep this in the open world and why phasing?

Mendel

gervaise1 said:

So:

Group A walks into a dungeon and a pack of orcs say spawn that are tagged specifically to group A.

Group B follows group A into the same dungeon and another pack of orcs spawn that are tagged specifically to group B.

Will Group B be able to see Group A's mobs? Presumably yes? Otherwise group B will see group A swinging swords and casting spells at "nothing". 

Group Z walks into the dungeon, a pack of orcs spawn specifically for group Z. Will there be a Z on top of the orcs heads? Maybe all those "nothings" that the other groups are fighting will appear as ghostly images. If they can see anything at all if there are dozens of spell effects going off! Then you have the potential 10fps issue. 

This will be immersion breaking of course ....

This "outline" that appears to suggest "instancing" content - mobs but presumably treasure chests etc. but not instancing the setting could result in the worst of all worlds. 


Now if there is only ever a group A; or group B follows several minutes behind the whole question is moot. You don't need any instancing at all. Its only needed when you have multiple people wanting to do "the content" at - more or less - the same time.

Which was / has been tackled in multiple ways:
Additional servers - another server is, after all, just another instance of the game world;
Phases, dynamic layers etc. added a "large" instance withing a server
Individual encounters were the ultimate step.


In the early days instancing went way to far. PotBS being an example of a game that took it to far: enter a house - it was an instance; enter the back room of the house - another instance; go in a cupboard in the room - another instance.

Tech moved on though. And game design became more selective as a result with more recent games adopting a two-tier approach: instances and public dungeons. Which I think is a good solution.

I think Pantheon getting hung up on "no instances" is a mistake and could be a waste of resources that may never be required. More content will spread the population out for example. And I assume they are planning on more than one server so its not a rigid adherence to the "no instances" rule - or are they going full Eve? 

I *expect* that additional groups would see another group fighting nothing.  Those mobs simply wouldn't be visible to the second group.  To me, this can easily prompt some very bad behavior.  For instance, 'see a fight versus invisible opponents, train the group' or 'see a fight versus invisible opponents, AOE nuke everything in hopes to kill-steal the invisible mobs'.  (The second idea probably wouldn't work, but AOE damage against a "private" mob seems prone to mass abuses, including an easy way for power leveling).  This partial phasing seems to be a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist, and could cause more of the same issues.  It seems to be far simpler to go with total instancing across the whole dungeon.

TEKK3N

It’s basically phasing.
If you want to know how it works play WOW retail, they do it for certain quests.
Basically once a player or group enters a certain area, every other player disappear and you and your group are alone with your mobs.

Not sure I like it.
I prefer a system like EQ2 which uses contested dungeons, which are instanced and can contain a set amount of players.
Once the maximum number of players allocated is reached, another instance is created to accommodate the extra players.

Phasing is quite immersion breaking IMO, not sure that’s what I want in a Social MMO.

delete5230

Mendel said:

gervaise1 said:

So:

Group A walks into a dungeon and a pack of orcs say spawn that are tagged specifically to group A.

Group B follows group A into the same dungeon and another pack of orcs spawn that are tagged specifically to group B.

Will Group B be able to see Group A's mobs? Presumably yes? Otherwise group B will see group A swinging swords and casting spells at "nothing". 

Group Z walks into the dungeon, a pack of orcs spawn specifically for group Z. Will there be a Z on top of the orcs heads? Maybe all those "nothings" that the other groups are fighting will appear as ghostly images. If they can see anything at all if there are dozens of spell effects going off! Then you have the potential 10fps issue. 

This will be immersion breaking of course ....

This "outline" that appears to suggest "instancing" content - mobs but presumably treasure chests etc. but not instancing the setting could result in the worst of all worlds. 


Now if there is only ever a group A; or group B follows several minutes behind the whole question is moot. You don't need any instancing at all. Its only needed when you have multiple people wanting to do "the content" at - more or less - the same time.

Which was / has been tackled in multiple ways:
Additional servers - another server is, after all, just another instance of the game world;
Phases, dynamic layers etc. added a "large" instance withing a server
Individual encounters were the ultimate step.


In the early days instancing went way to far. PotBS being an example of a game that took it to far: enter a house - it was an instance; enter the back room of the house - another instance; go in a cupboard in the room - another instance.

Tech moved on though. And game design became more selective as a result with more recent games adopting a two-tier approach: instances and public dungeons. Which I think is a good solution.

I think Pantheon getting hung up on "no instances" is a mistake and could be a waste of resources that may never be required. More content will spread the population out for example. And I assume they are planning on more than one server so its not a rigid adherence to the "no instances" rule - or are they going full Eve? 

I *expect* that additional groups would see another group fighting nothing.  Those mobs simply wouldn't be visible to the second group.  To me, this can easily prompt some very bad behavior.  For instance, 'see a fight versus invisible opponents, train the group' or 'see a fight versus invisible opponents, AOE nuke everything in hopes to kill-steal the invisible mobs'.  (The second idea probably wouldn't work, but AOE damage against a "private" mob seems prone to mass abuses, including an easy way for power leveling).  This partial phasing seems to be a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist, and could cause more of the same issues.  It seems to be far simpler to go with total instancing across the whole dungeon.

If their's any room for one group to screw with other groups, it will happen and often !

I hope their not expecting everyone to play "nice" like a controlled environment like Visionary Realm studio. 

goldwheat

It's definitely phasing, and phasing is definitely instancing, regardless of size/scope.  It's used in exactly this way in many past and current MMO's, WoW included.

However, Chris "Joppa" Perkins disagreed with Brad's opinion on this solution on October 5, shortly after Brad's October 4th dev blog.

Here's part of his response from the official forums:

... Brad's ideas on Advanced Threat Assessment, mob-locking and instancing are not ideas I fundamentally agree with. I certainly believe they have merit and are worth consideration, but I don't personally believe they are the best solutions for the issues they seek to address. I have a different approach to handling contested content within an open world game like this that does not involve mob locking that I feel strongly we need to explore.

It's also important to note that since March 2014, after the original Kickstarter failed, Visionary Realms has made several claims similar to "we have the solutions to these 20+ year old problems, but won't share them because of competition".  There is no current competition for a niche MMO that is the spiritual successor to EQ1, nor will there likely ever be, but they continue to use this illogical tired excuse and refuse to explain how they have solved these problems. 

It was pointed out in that official forum thread, but you can't claim your game permits players to attack everything (competitive open world), and still have protected mobs that can't be attacked (phasing).  They are, exactly like their funding/launch claims, mutually exclusive.

Thane

might be just me, but that combat looks quite boring.

Sovrath

Thane said:

might be just me, but that combat looks quite boring.

No more boring than vanguard or lord of the rings online or eq. It's a different way of thinking about combat. It's meant to be slower and more strategic and less action oriented. Which, has a broad set of examples as Mount and Blade has "action combat" as well as Tera or Black Desert and they all manifest differently.

TEKK3N

Thane said:

might be just me, but that combat looks quite boring.

It’s you...though you are not alone.

Good news is you have 100 of fast paced combat MMOs to choose from.

This is for people who prefer a more chilled approached to combat...they too exist.

WOW Classic seems to be doing pretty good, there are still queues at peak times.
So slower combat is definitely something some people don’t find boring.

Amathe

So I'm not going to have my very own instance. Instead I'm going to have my very own phased content group. /bronx cheer. 

And for some reason this will make the world more real to me and facilitate interaction with other players.  

Utinni

Sovrath said:

Thane said:

might be just me, but that combat looks quite boring.

No more boring than vanguard or lord of the rings online or eq. It's a different way of thinking about combat. It's meant to be slower and more strategic and less action oriented. Which, has a broad set of examples as Mount and Blade has "action combat" as well as Tera or Black Desert and they all manifest differently.

It's not strategic it's just slow. People seem to tag all the oldschool combats with "strategic" for some odd reason. That being said I prefer those slow combat systems.

Sovrath

Amathe said:

So I'm not going to have my very own instance. Instead I'm going to have my very own phased content group. /bronx cheer. 

And for some reason this will make the world more real to me and facilitate interaction with other players.  

I was thinking about this the other day and it's very much a "damned if you do/damned if you don't" problem.

Players make a world more alive. They can also ruin it.

Part of me was thinking that Elder Scrolls Online should have taken the Guild Wars approach with full cities but instanced world. When I play an Elder Scrolls game there is very much a sense of "world." At least within a certain context. Obviously there are limitations.

When I play an mmorpg there are players to keep the world alive but sometimes they are just marring the landscape. Especially if you are supposed to be in a remote area and it's just lousy with players trying to grab their quest mobs/items.

So having one's own phased content group could help. After all, if you enter a dungeon expecting a certain immersive experience, the last thing you want is to have players yelling "your mother/no your mother" in chat or doing ridiculous things in the middle of the room you are trying to access.

However, there is less of a chance for meaningful interaction or helping others because of this.

Amathe

Sovrath said:

Players make a world more alive. They can also ruin it.

Living players met in an open world are just another form of the RNG reward system. Just like sometimes you get a new sword, sometimes you get a 1cp beetle eye - sometimes you make a cool new friend, and sometimes you meet a douchebag. These games are all based on this principle. They are skinner boxes. 

Phasing removes this. You may as well have instancing. 

Sovrath

Utinni said:

Sovrath said:

Thane said:

might be just me, but that combat looks quite boring.

No more boring than vanguard or lord of the rings online or eq. It's a different way of thinking about combat. It's meant to be slower and more strategic and less action oriented. Which, has a broad set of examples as Mount and Blade has "action combat" as well as Tera or Black Desert and they all manifest differently.

It's not strategic it's just slow. People seem to tag all the oldschool combats with "strategic" for some odd reason. That being said I prefer those slow combat systems.

Well, you have more skills that you can use, some dependent on very specific things and more time to think about how you use those skills.

Amathe

I recall in EQ using autoattack a LOT, interspersed with special abilities. I don't recall skill selection being rocket science. But in fairness, I played a ranger, so, um, most of the time I was dead and couldn't use any abilities.

Sovrath

Amathe said:

I recall in EQ using autoattack a LOT, interspersed with special abilities. I don't recall skill selection being rocket science. But in fairness, I played a ranger, so, um, most of the time I was dead and couldn't use any abilities.

Well, in the end none of it is rocket science. None of these games are "that" hard. We're not playing Go or Chess after all.

NorseGod

I like the ideas, but what is proven to work?