Originally posted by Stevesan Instancing has nothing to do with the original princip of an MMORPG. WoW for example is not a true MMORPG it is more an advanced Diablo. So to say, yes a true MMORPG is defintily damaged by using instances, cause as soon as instances are used the true concept of MMORPGs is negated
You say "true concept" and "original principles" of MMORPGs are being negated...
Tell me how instancing does this? Most types of instancing change absolutely nothing in a MMORPG other than effectively reserve mobs for certain groups to kill undisturbed...
So...unless a person is PLANNING to DISTURB those killing mobs...it shouldn't matter at all right?
I mean you can still easily find groups to XP with, you can still easily talk to others, you can still get the feeling of being in a massive multiplayer world (even GW gives you that feeling to some extent, and it's basically entirely instanced...and WoW and EQ2 CERTAINLY give you that feeling...so you can't call either Diablo, I'm sorry!) in fact you can do basically everything that EVERY mmorpg has whether instanced or not...So the ONLY POSSIBLE thing you could plan to do that instancing STOPS you from doing is DISTURB another players game, well, the other thing it stops is randomly helping someone too. So, unless you tell me you want to get rid of instancing so you can randomly HEAL someone or save from death...then I'm going to have to disagree with you.
Thats it - Hadz you have summed it up and hit the nail right on the head with the first swing.
Originally posted by fjorn How I see it from my perspective. I have only played MMORPG's that offer PvP. When the group of people that I hung with would decide to quest, the BEST part of it (even more than the loot the quest gave) would be playing with the "fear" that we might get jumped before completing it. I found myself actually hoping for a little excitement like this more and more b/c questing is semi boring. If we ran into a particularly hard guy or group of dudes trying to kill us and couldn't make it past them, we could put a call out to some other guys to come help take them out. This many times ended up with us forgetting about the quest and chasing / being chased by people for hours. IMO a lot more fun than going into a "safe" monotinous dungeon to do a quest. Fjorn o.0 to the max! 8p
And why would someone who plays a game; No! PAYS to play a game to relax or socialize want to play a game with someone who wishes to instill fear in them?
Sure it might be your play style but fear is not fun. Most mmorpgs have some type of penalty for death even if it is just having to run back to the spot you were just at. Others you could actually loose everything!
Your excitement you talk about was more than likely another person's pain, but I'm willing to bet you didnt care as long as you got a rush out of it.
So in effect your one of the fathers of the instanced zones.
Originally posted by pmcubed I think the reason such a highly rated game as WoW implimented instancing is due to the fact that in the long run camping popular areas of the map for the same items would in effect decrease the longivity of the game for everyone. Sure after its birth WoW is slowing down and high level guilds aren't recruiting, but if you were to take away these instances these same guilds would be able to achieve this status even faster. You could just out number the others trying to defeat raid bosses. It was a problem in SWG and EQ as well. Those guilds who were the quickest to exploit the best areas in the map would be able to excel far above others, effectively producing a huge gap in overall power and income. Eventually even SWG implimented a very basic form of instancing with RoTW expansion. It decreases overpopulation and gives a more casual gamer a better chance to compete with those hardcore gamers. What becomes the problem with WoW is not it's dungeon instances, but how items make or break your PvP and PvE effectiveness. Normally those with better gear are going to win. Those with better gear are going to get recruited. All forms of RPG's have some incentive to get that upgraded item. People strive and play long hours to get better items. MMORPG's are hard to balance. Not just the classes and skills, but economic factors and items. The problem is balancing these factors so that the casual gamer will have a chance to keep up with the people who devote years and countless hours to the game. I beleive that instancing is a decent way to try to balance this issue. In the end you cant really expect the people who dont play along time to be better, but there has to be an effort to at least give them a chance. Now to comment on completely instanced RPG's like GW and DDO. To add to the realism why wouldn't one who leaves a city, not grouped, leaving at the same time as another be in the same world? MM is massive and multiplayer. If you want a more real experience with more diversity and interaction, 100% instanced games are not going to satisfy your interests. They can be fun, just look at the Diablo series. But I would never pay to play such a game. GW didn't have a monthly fee and that is what made it a decent game; an MMORPG by no means however. Concluding, I dont try to side with hardcore WoW players. I too quit WoW because it was really taking too much of my time to compete with others, but instancing was not the problem. If implimented correctly and liberally, I beleive it really helps the game last longer.
I disagree. WoW actually saw the way of the future, saw a way to increase server population and with over 1 million active accounts I think the proof is in the pudding. Blizzard is no fool company and I'm sure alot of research came from Everquest players who had the primary gripes of needing groups to pee and having to do camp checks and griefers. I think had they of not went with instances WoW would not be what it is today.
Off topis: Don't know what server your on but I see alot of the top 10 guilds looking for more people - even looking for hunters!!
Instanced content means I don't have to deal with flaccid, ill-mannered, abusive, morally bereft idiots who use a computer game to validate their existence by way of avaricious, unsportsmanlike, underhanded game mechanics exploitation.
If I walk up to a video game at the mall, I put in a quarter to play, then I get to play against the computer. If I have enough game, then I could play to the end and will likely attract a crowd of onlookers who encourage me and make comments. Some limp noodle comes up and puts in their quarter and they get to play against me. Cool. The game costs 25 cents to play, but ass-whoopin's are free. The difference between that and MMOGs? It's a fair fight.
To carry the analogy further, playing an MMOG with no instancing, no anti-cheating measures, and no trivial loot code is like having that noodle pay some goon to punch you in the eye, get their character to the end of the game, then step aside while the noodle puts up their initials.
Another analogy is the kid whose parents give him a 1200 dollar per month allowance to go stay at the local arcade all day and night. The kid gets good. Incredibly good. Unbelievably good. You will kick that kid's ass someday. Someday... but not unless you find another machine at some other arcade. This kid's never playing anything else and he's kicking the ass of anyone and everyone who dares touch his machine. He begins referring to himself as the game's final boss. He dares anyone to challenge him, yet they all get spanked because there are no other machines. When you do find another machine one day, guess what: some OTHER kid pwnz this machine 24/7/365.
You know why home game consoles and computers are so prevalent? Everyone can spend as much or as little time as they like playing the game that they pay to play - without having to answer to punk kids. MMOGs make you answer to punk kids either through camping, pharming, twinking, or an obliterated economy. BTW - punk kids can be 13 or 30 or 50. I've run across all kinds of children, men and women who absolutely, vehemently, refuse to see anything but their own interests.
As funny as it may sound, instancing introduces fair competition versus other people's SKILL - as it should be. If Kalel Thelastson (actual name I've seen in use on a Roleplaying server) can't complete instance XX at the appropriate level, without cheating - GOOD! If that same player can't use the twenty+ levels they need in order to "camp" the desired loot for their "game" challenged alt, then GOOD! Even better if that player is likewise unable to cheat by buying pharmed items, levels, and gold.
Instancing may divide the players, yet without a better solution, that's how it has to be. What stops people from committing crimes in real life? Some would say ethics. Others would say fear of retribution/punishment. A minority would likely say that they don't get enough out of it. Since there are no laws in MMOGs, people do whatever in the hell the game mechanics let them do. That includes pooping on your gameplay experience.
Player segregation is a crappy solution, but it is more cost-effective than a 24/7/365 gaming police squad and CSR team to enforce fair play. In the end, I'd prefer screening players somehow, then placing them on servers where they'd be happiest. Take a 300 question survey in order to play a game? Make it voluntary. People who choose not to do the survey can be thrown to "melting pot" servers.
Originally posted by Arislan Originally posted by hadz Let me throw something extra into the ring here... This is what Brad McQuaid said about instancing (which he obviously hates with a passion) in the recent MMORPG.com interview about his new game Vanguard: "The way to get around the need for instancing is simply to have enough content."
/signed
I fully agree with that.
Especially to: "...whether the "feel" of a massive-multiplayer ..." It feeld more like a LAN-RPG if they are too many instancing.
EQ1 had HUGE amounts of content. The problem was that the content was scattered all over the place. So for convenience, you only found people in 3 or maybe 4 places at each level. Now part of the problem was that EQ1 FORCED five to six man groups to do any significant amount of content. But the bottom line was that there were hundreds of places I couldnt go because I needed other people to come with me. Also, given that two of Brad's contributions to EQ was half hour to an hour boat time sinks and corpse recover runs, his opinions hold little weight with me.
Originally posted by hadz Tell me how instancing does this? Most types of instancing change absolutely nothing in a MMORPG other than effectively reserve mobs for certain groups to kill undisturbed... So...unless a person is PLANNING to DISTURB those killing mobs...it shouldn't matter at all right? I mean you can still easily find groups to XP with, you can still easily talk to others, you can still get the feeling of being in a massive multiplayer world (even GW gives you that feeling to some extent, and it's basically entirely instanced...and WoW and EQ2 CERTAINLY give you that feeling...so you can't call either Diablo, I'm sorry!) in fact you can do basically everything that EVERY mmorpg has whether instanced or not...So the ONLY POSSIBLE thing you could plan to do that instancing STOPS you from doing is DISTURB another players game, well, the other thing it stops is randomly helping someone too. So, unless you tell me you want to get rid of instancing so you can randomly HEAL someone or save from death...then I'm going to have to disagree with you.
Brilliant. What do you lose by having me and my friends get a dungeon to ourselves? Nothing. We would have been down in a dungeon anyway. If it was a well designed game, we would have had the dungeon to ourselves or maybe another group in another part. If it was a shitty game, the dungeon would have already been cleared or camped, or somebody would sweep in and grief us while we waited.
The arguments "You cant invite new people" are not from WoW or CoH. The latter of which used heavy instancing.
Point me to a game that DOESNT use instancing and is a fun game to play with two or three people, and I'll check it out. Particularly if it has a free trial period.
Originally posted by MisterJaw Instancing may divide the players, yet without a better solution, that's how it has to be.
Bingo! Here be the problem my good fellow. Instancing is being used as the be end all solution for this problem and very little is being done to FIND a better solution. It divides players, and by doing so seperates the community. The topic is discussing whether or not instancing hurts mmo communities, and i can't see how anyone could think that it doesn't, as segregation is NEVER condusive to a good community.
Most of you have good points why instancing is good, but all of you are simply pointing out the problems it solves without considering the possibility that other solutions may exist in the future. Think about it. As game tech advances we can expect to see more complex dynamics at work in the underbelly of virtual worlds, and with that comes far greater possibilities. What are they? Who Knows, that's for creative devs to think up. The issue is that very few devs are even trying to think up new solutions, and instead are just giving up and going instanced.
Instances do not solve the issue of jerks, they only allow them to be ignored for a little bit. It's like sweeping the problem under the carpet, it's still there you just can't see it. Multi-player games are about dealing with people, the good and the bad, so i don't understand why someone would want to play an online game like a single player game. I think they are missing out on a lot of cool stuff this genre has to offer. There are RPG's the you can play single player and then NO-ONE EVER can interupt you, except maybe your mother/wife/girlfriend (no one has a solution for that i'm afraid).
Instancing is not the way of the future, it's a bandaid solution to a problem while we wait for game tech to catch up with our desires and imagination.
Originally posted by Pell1979 EvE doesn't need Instances for one simple reason that all other MMORPGs don't have, near unlimited empty 3D space. Player interaction is also vastly reduced due to warping. You cannot randomly come across somebody in space, it will always be a station, gate, field, or they are specifically hunting you in a Safespot. Because of this it makes it very easy for them to have quests that nobody else will ever come across except you... they just place it in some random spot in space that only you have the co-ords to warp to. It is entirely impracticle for other MMORPGs to have anything even approaching this because you CAN have random encounters running across the country-side, and therefore could quite easily have somebody stumble across you, and your quest, and gack you just because they were bored. Also to even come close to a comparison with EvE, all quests would be randomly located in a huge desert, and quest monsters only pop up when you get close. EvE by its very nature of being in space makes Instancing unneeded. Spawn camping (except for their complexes) is impossible.I totally disagree with you statement that Instances dramatically reduce the number of people available to interact with. You're assuming that each Instance is simultaneously hosting hundreds of players. For one, in WoW, each Instance isn't playing host to innumerous people. Stand near an Instance sometime and watch how many parties go by in an hour. Then take into account how long it takes them to finish and come back out again. Granted once multiplied across all Instances is a sizable figure, but still barely a drop in the ocean when compared to the total number of players online at any one time.Your argument is akin to saying I walk into a nightclub of a mythical figure of 300. Because they have private booths, 20 people are in their own little world apart from everyone else. All of a sudden I can only interact with 280 people if I wished to... does this really detract from the social element of the nightclub or the enjoyment I could have? Would it really make a difference if there were no private booths and those 20 people were socialising as well? Hell no. It only takes away their right to seek temporary solitude in an enjoyable atmosphere if they so wish it with their friends.Instances have a place in MMORPGs and I believe will be here to stay, whether you agree with them or not.
I wasn't using EVE as an example of not using instances (your point is most true and i agree with you), i was merely pointing out that EVE Online's community is an example of a company that isn't trying to force anything and is something that is run, driven and generally policed by the players.
nightclub? What the? Everyone is doing an instance or wanting to do an instance cause there's nothing else but instances. It's more like walking into that nightclub and having Everyone either in private booths (which would also be rooms that you can't see or hear anything from) or asking to go into a private booth. Some private booths are uber elite and you can only go in there if you happen to know 39 other nubs in the club. Many people who attend the club NEVER spend any time outside of the booths, as this is all they feel they really can or want to do. If i was standing in that club and not going into booths, i would not meet people to anywhere near the same degree as no one is STAYING outside of the booths for any length of time. I think there must be better beer and dancing girls in those freaking booths!
It's not just one instance, if your game (like WoW) predominately has instances at the end-game then people don't meet and socialise much outside of them. PVP was one area that really had guilds and others socialising with each other in WoW, then they all made preformed groups and fek'd it. Instances have their place, but personally i think your blind if you can't see the negative impact that they have. It's natural and its logical to think that if people don't want to be in an area then they'll be somewhere else, and in the case of instances it is there getting their phat lewt.
Brad is saying, I think, that he believes you can also solve the problem of spawn camping and overcrowding by having a large enough game world with enough interesting content.
I agree that this is probably the point he is trying to make. But it doesn't address the issue of instancing in the slightest. Because no matter how much content you jam into the game people will still head for the areas that give them the best "value for time" spent. So, as soon as everyone finds out that BOSS MOB X gives the best loot and is fairly easy to take down with a group of N players then hundreds of groups of N players will be waiting there for BOSS X to spawn...PROBLEM UNSOLVED!!
the process of of playing a game where you know a certain time and location for a boss spawn with loot and strategie on a webpage has absolutely nothing to do with playing adventures in a fantasy world.
thats more like a resource management system thats like conan camping the elefan tower all his live because he knows monsters spawn there and hes concerned about his xp/h
in the right game you would travel the world and have a mix of preset orders like "kill the beast in darkforest", where the beast moves around and it really feels like a hunt and real adventures that you pick up a conversation of a random stranger in a tavern or falling into a hole on your travels.
people will not go to the place "best value for time" if the adventures are hidden and in some issues come up at random or are introduced over time (instead of just all adventures popping up at fixed locations in a release/ expansion)
if you find a treasure map to a hidden temple and you tell it the whole town why would you be suprised that that temple is overrun by all kinds of people
even the d&d modules (in contrast to ddo) had a feeling of adventure where you dont know where the storie leads you. it starts with a caravan from a to b and ends up in the lair of the dragon. ddo starts in front of a hole in the ground that tells you what level you must be to jump in and prolly after 3 weeks you find all adventures in a webpage together with walkthrous and ideal leveling/skill choices to make your uber-charakter.
yes you need a big world and lots of content yes you need a system that either creates content in a kind of random pattern or in a constant stream daily/weekly/monthly... it also may be better to have smaller servers (maybe 100 servers for 1000 people each) some server should have pvp and some of them should definitly come with a limited game time (20,30,40,60h/ week) wich imho solves the farmer and the "im so much better then u cause i play all day" problems
if your bored, visit my blog at: http://craylon.wordpress.com/ dealing with the look of mmos with the nvidia 3d vision glasses
Well, I'm still playing Guild Wars - and enjoying it. "Community" in a game is not necessary for my playstyle. I ususlly play solo unless forced to group - and I detest forced grouping. I am still in Guild Wars because of the great job they do with instances.
To me the "massively multiplayer" description has less to do with socializing and more to do with marketing strategy. I would frankly prefer a single player version of MMORPGs but, until those come to be (which will probably never happen), I will pay and play and enjoy the instances.
As long as developers offer games with a high percentage of instances, they will have a customer in me.
Well it's not like anyone is going to read this far, but I will add my opinion anyway.
The bottom line is that those who ask for "open worlds" are not doing it for anything as noble as "the community", all they want is more opportunities to gank people. For them "community" equals "more opportunities to pray on others". Sadly, the fact still remains that the more PvP there is, the less of a community there is. This has proven absolutely true in every online game ever made.
Originally posted by Jade6 Well it's not like anyone is going to read this far, but I will add my opinion anyway. The bottom line is that those who ask for "open worlds" are not doing it for anything as noble as "the community", all they want is more opportunities to gank people. For them "community" equals "more opportunities to pray on others". Sadly, the fact still remains that the more PvP there is, the less of a community there is. This has proven absolutely true in every online game ever made.
I wouldn't assume so much if i were you, as wanting 'open worlds' doesn't have to have anything to do with PVP or the competitve styled community that it brings. It is also your opinion that there is less of a community with PVP, while I would say that there is a different style of community, one that perhaps you don't particularly like (I myself am not hugely fussed with it) but is still definately there. Absolutely true? hmph, don't like absolutes, they very rarely work due to lack of 'absolute' knowledge.
Stop thinking about what online games HAVE been and start thinking about what they COULD be damn it! Everyone gets so bloody caught up on 'this game' or 'that game' that they forget that when we talk about the genre it is something that is growing and developing as the tech grows. Soon devs will have the tech to develop more and more dynamic content, making it all the less predictable (and with less spawn camping - can't camp if you don't know where it'll be ^_^). Advances in AI will also allow for mobs to be smarter, perhaps even with the capabilities to learn things from the players, making fights a hell of a lot more interesting and challenging in some ways.
I want to have a character IN a virtual world, not a ken doll in an arcade machine. A world that lives and breathes with its own heart beat, one that players can beat along with or alter over time. A truly dynamic world, that puts the adventure back into fantasy MMOs is what i'd love to see sometime in my life. I just don't see instances taking us towards that direction, if anything i see them as a potential hinderance.
Different strokes for different fokes though, and as such you may not care for this type of game, but the point still remains that instances hurt this type of community building, and make these games more single player orientated. I do hope single player games take wind of this and start pushing into this obviously enjoyed sphere of gameplay so that people have something to enjoy. MMOs though are capable of much much more, you may not care for it and that is fine, but I hope that players that want to experience what more the genre can offer also get something to play that isn't another single/lan player online game.
Just because an online game hasn't achieved this yet, doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't try. Past is the past, things that weren't possible or aren't possible may yet become possible. Those of you who want more should push for more, those of you don't - please don't be against us as we hope that there ends up being something for both of us.
And why would someone who plays a game; No! PAYS to play a game to relax or socialize want to play a game with someone who wishes to instill fear in them?
Sure it might be your play style but fear is not fun. Most mmorpgs have some type of penalty for death even if it is just having to run back to the spot you were just at. Others you could actually loose everything!
Your excitement you talk about was more than likely another person's pain, but I'm willing to bet you didnt care as long as you got a rush out of it.
So in effect your one of the fathers of the instanced zones.
As I put "fear" in "quotes", I would have thought most people would understand the adrenaline rush that you get playing in a PvP environment. My example was a little light, but as I said, I only play in PvP worlds as they can only give you this excitement.
Playing in a world where all you have to worry about is killing or being killed by a MOB is kind of boring in and of itself and you can do that w/o paying a monthly fee. Add to this playing against several dozen/hundred people adds a hell of a lot to the game. Taking away that excitement kind of ruins the game for me.
And, btw I didn't say I camped and waited for people questing. I said it was more fun when others did that, and the group I am with, or if I am playing solo got ambushed. I had MORE FUN trying to stay alive, and chasing them off than doing the quest itself. I have no problem with people doing that, and feel that it adds to the game instead of taking away from it.
Instancing my have it's place, but as a rule of thumb it shouldn't be in any world that offers PvP. I would suggest putting it only in carebare worlds.
However, keep in mind, that I dislike massive instancing, like in D&D or WOW.
What I would LIKE to see is this : Dungeons, world, whatever. You fight your way tooth and nail to the end, to finally fight the boss, and when you enter the boss room, you go into your own, instanced boss room. Or treasure room, or what not. That way, you can still have those random encounters with other players, grow as a community, and not have to waiti n line for your boss or treasure. Simple.
The doll would surely say, "I do not want to be human!" although her master wants her to be even more.
Originally posted by quix0te Originally posted by Arislan Originally posted by hadz Let me throw something extra into the ring here... This is what Brad McQuaid said about instancing (which he obviously hates with a passion) in the recent MMORPG.com interview about his new game Vanguard: "The way to get around the need for “instancing” is simply to have enough content."
/signed
I fully agree with that.
Especially to: "...whether the "feel" of a massive-multiplayer ..." It feeld more like a LAN-RPG if they are too many instancing.
EQ1 had HUGE amounts of content. The problem was that the content was scattered all over the place. So for convenience, you only found people in 3 or maybe 4 places at each level. Now part of the problem was that EQ1 FORCED five to six man groups to do any significant amount of content. But the bottom line was that there were hundreds of places I couldnt go because I needed other people to come with me. Also, given that two of Brad's contributions to EQ was half hour to an hour boat time sinks and corpse recover runs, his opinions hold little weight with me.
This is what a lot of people forget. You can have all the content in the world but it doesn't mean a damn thing if you aren't able to reach it or take part in it due to the forced requirement of a full party to simply just reach it or to take advantage of it. Content is fine but it's how you allow a player to get to that content is what is important. That's the major problem with a lot of mmorpgs. The constant need for time sinks to keep players playing longer instead of actually pulling in a player through fun or interesting gameplay and events is where the problem is I feel.
Seriously, Brad McQuaid's word carries little weight for me. Like it really matters in the end though. He seems to love the time sink and the computer dependency classes have with other classes. Those two things make me not to want to touch Vanguard in any way. Not even with a pole or a stick. At least he's honest about where his opinion is though and people can judge if they want to play Vanguard or not. He and the creators of Final Fantasy XI might get along real well. They all seem to greatly enjoy the forced grouping. Sometimes makes me wonder if they even play their own games while trying to work and have a social life or if they even care (doubt they do very much).
For those who PvP that is what they like. The excitment of not knowing when they will be attack along the way. For those that PvE then it is their choice if they go into PvP mode. Thus there are servers for PvE and PvP. I suppose in PvP instances would not be desired. No excitement in instances or not the kind they want. The whole thing behind instances is to balance the game for those who don't like long camps, being ks'd or having to wait for a mob that is being farmed. There is no fun in that and it should be fun to play a game. It should not be like a job.
Originally posted by Jade6 Well it's not like anyone is going to read this far, but I will add my opinion anyway. The bottom line is that those who ask for "open worlds" are not doing it for anything as noble as "the community", all they want is more opportunities to gank people. For them "community" equals "more opportunities to pray on others". Sadly, the fact still remains that the more PvP there is, the less of a community there is. This has proven absolutely true in every online game ever made.
Wrong. The DAOC server I played on had the best community of any server in any game I've ever played. PvP made that community great, the competition that sprang from the PvP made it great. The problem with the newer generation of games is that it doesn't let community spring from direct competition -- because it stifles it.
This is what a lot of people forget. You can have all the content in the world but it doesn't mean a damn thing if you aren't able to reach it or take part in it due to the forced requirement of a full party to simply just reach it or to take advantage of it. Content is fine but it's how you allow a player to get to that content is what is important. That's the major problem with a lot of mmorpgs. The constant need for time sinks to keep players playing longer instead of actually pulling in a player through fun or interesting gameplay and events is where the problem is I feel.
True.
Actually I try to find out what instancing has to do with an RPG. I mean how do you RPing in an instancing, especially when you are there for 100s time? Are games with a lot instances still RPG?
I say UO was heaven. It was my first MMO and that may be why I still look back at it with a warm feeling inside, but UO was just real. If you went into a dungeon in UO, you'd either go alone and meet others there that you could help, save or damn, if you and they wanted it. Nothing like "You go into the same cave you just saw 40 people go into. You are alone. It is dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue (oh wait, wrong game)." Sure, being hit by PKers, anywhere, hurts. But This brings me back to the previous debate too. It has a meaning. Death in UO was something to avoid cause you lost EVERYTHING you had. No half-assed ways of punishment (ooh, I need to walk back to where I was fighting before and... go on?) But death, standing over your corpse as a ghost, running back to a healer, making ghostly sounds at passers-by and running back to your corpse hoping it's still all there. That was brilliance, and I loved it. I lost my stuff often, but still I loved my character. Sorry, I'm ranting. Back to instances. I hate them with a distinct violence. Being able to meet anyone, anywhere, is much better. Now I'd better stop before I go off-topic again.
Seriously, Brad McQuaid's word carries little weight for me. Like it really matters in the end though. He seems to love the time sink and the computer dependency classes have with other classes. Those two things make me not to want to touch Vanguard in any way. Not even with a pole or a stick. At least he's honest about where his opinion is though and people can judge if they want to play Vanguard or not. He and the creators of Final Fantasy XI might get along real well. They all seem to greatly enjoy the forced grouping. Sometimes makes me wonder if they even play their own games while trying to work and have a social life or if they even care (doubt they do very much).
This kind of thinking is really the downfall of future MMOs IMHO. In case we gamers forget, MMOrpg stands for Massive Multiplayer Online RPG. Specifically multiplayer, meaning more then one. These games are not MSO massive soloplayers online. This means community, it means socializing, it means grouping. Argue that logic all day if you want, the facts won't change.
Community is what makes a game a fad or a truly revolutionary game. I know people who play an mmo called Blademistress, granted it doesn't have great graphics. Its a very simple game, but they all socialize, they know each other and they have played it consistently for years.
You can have the most state of the art game, with the greatest life like graphics. Hell throw in a virtual reality world if you want, but if it has no community, if it has no following, it will FAIL.
'The constant need for time sinks to keep players playing longer instead of actually pulling in a player through fun or interesting gameplay and events is where the problem is I feel.' This is the mindset of a solo player, these kinds of quests are easy if you are part of a community. For years I heard people complaining about not being able to get a group in everquest, and yet no matter what class I played, I never had a problem, because I interacted with people. No matter the quest I had fun socializing and getting it done. While I agree interesting gameplay and fun innovative ideas greatly enhance the fun factor, I disagree with the it being the main problem.
Instancing isn't a bad thing, personally I like it, but I also feel cheated when in them. It took no effort at all to get that item or gear, no sense of accomplishment, no showing off because everyone else has it. If used properly though, instancing can be fun. For instance, lets say an instance only appears on a solstice, or a full moon. Once the portal closes, its closed for good till the next solstice or full moon. So there would be very limited instancing. If people have a problem with content or camping, maybe they should push for more servers, to have less population on each one.
I personally can't wait for Vanguard, its not going to be an easy game to master, and for those afraid of a challenge, well thats why they have wow and eq2 and all the other so called mmo's that are starting to cater to the soloist. Keep up the good work mcquaid.
Originally posted by yoyoyyoyo Wrong. The DAOC server I played on had the best community of any server in any game I've ever played. PvP made that community great, the competition that sprang from the PvP made it great. The problem with the newer generation of games is that it doesn't let community spring from direct competition -- because it stifles it.
I'd just like to second that. I'd agree, DAOC had the best community of any MMO I've ever played, as well. I'd also like to add that, imho, Catacombs (the instancing expansion) changed that for the worse, for new players, or old players on new servers.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
I post my opinion here as a devoted gamer, husband, and father of three kids. I also consider myself a "mature" gamer, not in the sense that I'm "old" but that I don't participate in some of the inappropriate behavior many players do that lead to issues like having to have a game instanced.
One of the main reasons for instancing is because of issues that arose from the original Everquest (other games as well, but mainly EQ because of it's popularity at the time). I played EQ off and on for a few years and I can't remember the number of times I ran into griefers in the game. Countless times I someone KS me (kill steal), steal my camp, fear the mob I was fighting because they came to a camp I was at and wanted it, got trained, yada yada...
Reasons like this are why instancing has been implemented into MMO's. Some people feel like there shouldn't be instancing to add realism to the game, but let's face it, if it was going to be truly realistic, the same named mob wouldn't respawn in the same place so people could camp him. This being the case, it makes questing difficult if it's a quest mob, or if someone is camping the mob so they can get the loot for one of their other toons, or are farming for guildmates. Instancing is needed in MMO's for one reason, those players who aren't considerate of their fellow gamers, plain and simple. If you take a game like WoW, imagine trying to get into a dungeon when the game has 5 million (and climbing) subscribers, you'd be waiting forever to get the quest mobs you needed or trying to camp the mobs you needed for the loot you want.
As far as D&D goes, no one should be critical of the game being entirely instanced. D&D is spawned from it's original PnP design and it is not at all in the spirit of the game if you have to worry about being KS'd, worry about someone camping your mob, or the like. In D&D you began what was basically a story that turned into your quest and pursued that quest with a small group of friends. You might have aquired that quest in a town and if you had no friends with you, you could find some at the local tavern or the like. You and your group could then begin your quest. If you read any D&D books or play any of the camppaigns, there is nothing about stumbling into two or three groups of other adventures who are waiting for such and such named creature to show up so they can kill him, then the next group is inline for him to respawn. Instancing in DDO is intended to give the game more of a feel for the true D&D fans so that they have the small groups they are accustomed too and don't have to worry about wading through other players, or dealing with the griefers in the game (at least not to the same extent as others). If you don't like that, the solution is simple, don't play it, play something else. D&D isn't going to be a game designed for grinders, power levelers, or the like. DDO is going to be what D&D fans have wanted for quite sometime, an online persitant world where they can get together with their friends and play something that's at least close to the PnP version.
Currently I'm playing WoW and I have been very happy with it. Is the game perfect? Not at all, but the best way I can describe it is "accomodating". WoW let's me hop in and play for 30 min or 6 hours, not many other games let you hop in for a short period of time and actually get something done. The instanced dungeons I think are wonderful because you go through with your friends, get nice loot, get good quest stories, and great XP. At least it's not like some of the huge dungeons in other games (like Lower Seb in EQ) where any time of day you came in if you wanted a quest mob or a loot drop you had no choice but to wait. Blizzard I must say has tried to accomodate as many play styles as they could and they've done a great job, but the simple fact of the matter is that no game is going to be perfect because someone is always going to complain about it.
Today there are countless MMO's out there that offer so many varieties of playstyle that anyone who wants to play a MMO who can't find one probably never will. If you wont like the major players here in the US, start looking at the games in Korea, China, or Japan, nearly all of them support English.
Guild Wars is another good example of how instancing has been implemented. Guild Wars being a game largely based around PvP play doesn't always attact players who are primarily PvE, that being the case, if the game weren't instanced based, casual or even hardcore PvE players would constantly have to contend with those who strive to be elite and uber, who camp drops for hours on end, and many who simply have no regard for others. AreaNet I think realized this and knew they wouldn't be able to keep many of their players if this persisted. And to their credit, when I've actively played GW, when a problem arises, the fix it...fast. They've taken care to not only to fix problems, but prevent them from happening again. They not only remove things or add things that need to be addressed, but they also give players other reasons to cease behaviors they shouldn't. Even through all of that though people were still exploiting the game even though it was instanced.
Instancing is a good thing, and players truly should get used to it because while it's not going to be in every MMO from here on out, it's going to be there. With the grief many players have felt from others, it's the only way they feel like they can get things accomplished sometimes.
Originally posted by dshadow07 Instancing is a good thing, and players truly should get used to it because while it's not going to be in every MMO from here on out, it's going to be there. With the grief many players have felt from others, it's the only way they feel like they can get things accomplished sometimes.
While I agree with you that instancing will cut down on the player to player griefing, it creates more problems. Farming being a big one, which I hate more then the player griefing. Instancing is a lazy solution to the problem imo, there are some instanced things I like though, like the arenas in wow. Its fun to just join up and kill people and escape from the xp grind for awhile.
Everquest, originally anyway, changed alot from player input. I know over the years I suggested several ideas, that were later implemented. That is not to say that others didn't suggest the same thing that I did, but just that I know imput was heard. The proactive solution to your mob stealing and griefing could be a simple solution. An example, a warrant system. A named can't be engaged unless somone picks up a warrant from town, he/she then hands it to named mob and they are promptly engaged with the mob. Make it repeatable if you want, but make it a 3 day refresh rate. Not only do you get your mob, you stop farmers as well. If you have the warrant or item or whatever that allows you to engage the dungeon bosses, then you will be able to engage him.
Oh, for the record Guildwars isn't considered an mmo, they consider it a co. D&D: stormreach sort of falls under the same category. I'm not knocking D&D, I've been in the beta for months and I actually like the game, it feels very much like a D&D game, and they have worked hard to follow the rule sets and it shows. But its like guildwars in the fact that its all instances, even the town has several instances, so to me it falls under the CORPG as well.
I like the idea of the warrant system, I think that's a nice idea...just so long as it's not the primary means of going after named mobs. I think any quest mob that is given should be for that group, and the loot should be based on different factors (method of death, character levels, etc). I've always thought what would be a good idea if a game had the resources to do it and track it would be if they added timers to mobs and the longer they stayed out, players they defeated, or other factors, would allow them to get stronger and possibly level up to the point where they would become named and would be harder to take down and give better loot.
As far as the community in these games go, (one thing i meant to mention earlier) is that it largely depends on the game. GW's community was pretty poor imho when I first started playing. No one wanted to help you unless you were willing to do a quest with them or if you happened to get put on the same PvP team with them. If I wasnt sure of something and asked a question in the town chat, I might get the question answered 1/10 times (on average, normally didn't ask questions that much). There were other factors in this assesment as well, but that's just an example. EQ2's community right now I would say is one of the best because it's primarily more mature gamers who are willing to help out others with questions, quests, general info, etc. I played EQ2 for a while (and still would be if not for SOE and my anger with them at the moment) until I went to WoW, and really enjoyed the game, and the community was one of the reasons for that. Instances don't make communities, non-instancing doesn't make communities, it's simply the players. If you take instancing out of games that really need it then the community wouldnt be the same and the community would end up being one in which many players would not enjoy (I'm saying all of this in a general perspective and as unbiased as I can be). I realize that there are players out there who enjoy PK'ing, mischief and mayhem, dueling, PvP, some who just enjoy casual PvE, questing, tradeskills, on and on. If you take away instancing in some of these games it throws off the balance for those who enjoy the more subtle aspects of the game.
I agree that Guild Wars isn't what's considered a traditional MMO (in the same sense as EQ, DAoC, WoW, etc), but it is an MMO (Massive MultiPlayer Online, has a large world, it's multiplayer, and it's an RPG), but with the advent of new concepts and technologies I think we are going to start seeing more classification diversification. Take EVE Online for instance, that's truly an MMO having 19,000 people all on the same world server, whereas most other MMO's typially support only a few thousand. But that really gets down to being picky about how we think games should be classified. Games like Diablo II, PSO, Dungeon Siege, those had massive amounts of players, but the worlds were small and you normally could only have 1-8 players (depending on the game) on the same room with you at once, so they aren't MMO's. Guild Wars and several others I think fall somewhere in between even though they might technically fit the description of what an MMO would be.
I don't disagree that 'technically' guildwars is an mmo, mmo is kind of broad in general. My idea of mmo would maybe qualify more as a mmosw Massive Multiplayer Online Seamless World or something similiar. More like how you percieve EVE to be.
When i think mmo i am not really seeing guildwars, although I own the game and play it occasionally, there really is no immersion that I associate with an mmo, and I suppose ddo doesn't really fall under co. I don't know why I compared them, their only simliarities are that every area is instanced and not persistent.
Like I said previously, i'm not adamantly against instancing, if its utilized well it can be a great tool. An example that comes to mind would be a randomized maze type dungeon. Everytime you enter, the way to the end is different. If a maze has been opened by somone though, people can choose to enter it, or to generate a new one. Thereby not blocking people out of an instance, most likely people will choose their own dungeon.
Comments
You say "true concept" and "original principles" of MMORPGs are being negated...
Tell me how instancing does this? Most types of instancing change absolutely nothing in a MMORPG other than effectively reserve mobs for certain groups to kill undisturbed...
So...unless a person is PLANNING to DISTURB those killing mobs...it shouldn't matter at all right?
I mean you can still easily find groups to XP with, you can still easily talk to others, you can still get the feeling of being in a massive multiplayer world (even GW gives you that feeling to some extent, and it's basically entirely instanced...and WoW and EQ2 CERTAINLY give you that feeling...so you can't call either Diablo, I'm sorry!) in fact you can do basically everything that EVERY mmorpg has whether instanced or not...So the ONLY POSSIBLE thing you could plan to do that instancing STOPS you from doing is DISTURB another players game, well, the other thing it stops is randomly helping someone too. So, unless you tell me you want to get rid of instancing so you can randomly HEAL someone or save from death...then I'm going to have to disagree with you.
Thats it - Hadz you have summed it up and hit the nail right on the head with the first swing.
Well said
And why would someone who plays a game; No! PAYS to play a game to relax or socialize want to play a game with someone who wishes to instill fear in them?
Sure it might be your play style but fear is not fun. Most mmorpgs have some type of penalty for death even if it is just having to run back to the spot you were just at. Others you could actually loose everything!
Your excitement you talk about was more than likely another person's pain, but I'm willing to bet you didnt care as long as you got a rush out
of it.
So in effect your one of the fathers of the instanced zones.
I disagree. WoW actually saw the way of the future, saw a way to increase server population and with over 1 million active accounts I think the proof is in the pudding. Blizzard is no fool company and I'm sure alot of research came from Everquest players who had the primary gripes of needing groups to pee and having to do camp checks and griefers. I think had they of not went with instances WoW would not be what it is today.
Off topis: Don't know what server your on but I see alot of the top 10 guilds looking for more people - even looking for hunters!!
Instanced content means I don't have to deal with flaccid, ill-mannered, abusive, morally bereft idiots who use a computer game to validate their existence by way of avaricious, unsportsmanlike, underhanded game mechanics exploitation.
If I walk up to a video game at the mall, I put in a quarter to play, then I get to play against the computer. If I have enough game, then I could play to the end and will likely attract a crowd of onlookers who encourage me and make comments. Some limp noodle comes up and puts in their quarter and they get to play against me. Cool. The game costs 25 cents to play, but ass-whoopin's are free. The difference between that and MMOGs? It's a fair fight.
To carry the analogy further, playing an MMOG with no instancing, no anti-cheating measures, and no trivial loot code is like having that noodle pay some goon to punch you in the eye, get their character to the end of the game, then step aside while the noodle puts up their initials.
Another analogy is the kid whose parents give him a 1200 dollar per month allowance to go stay at the local arcade all day and night. The kid gets good. Incredibly good. Unbelievably good. You will kick that kid's ass someday. Someday... but not unless you find another machine at some other arcade. This kid's never playing anything else and he's kicking the ass of anyone and everyone who dares touch his machine. He begins referring to himself as the game's final boss. He dares anyone to challenge him, yet they all get spanked because there are no other machines. When you do find another machine one day, guess what: some OTHER kid pwnz this machine 24/7/365.
You know why home game consoles and computers are so prevalent? Everyone can spend as much or as little time as they like playing the game that they pay to play - without having to answer to punk kids. MMOGs make you answer to punk kids either through camping, pharming, twinking, or an obliterated economy. BTW - punk kids can be 13 or 30 or 50. I've run across all kinds of children, men and women who absolutely, vehemently, refuse to see anything but their own interests.
As funny as it may sound, instancing introduces fair competition versus other people's SKILL - as it should be. If Kalel Thelastson (actual name I've seen in use on a Roleplaying server) can't complete instance XX at the appropriate level, without cheating - GOOD! If that same player can't use the twenty+ levels they need in order to "camp" the desired loot for their "game" challenged alt, then GOOD! Even better if that player is likewise unable to cheat by buying pharmed items, levels, and gold.
Instancing may divide the players, yet without a better solution, that's how it has to be. What stops people from committing crimes in real life? Some would say ethics. Others would say fear of retribution/punishment. A minority would likely say that they don't get enough out of it. Since there are no laws in MMOGs, people do whatever in the hell the game mechanics let them do. That includes pooping on your gameplay experience.
Player segregation is a crappy solution, but it is more cost-effective than a 24/7/365 gaming police squad and CSR team to enforce fair play. In the end, I'd prefer screening players somehow, then placing them on servers where they'd be happiest. Take a 300 question survey in order to play a game? Make it voluntary. People who choose not to do the survey can be thrown to "melting pot" servers.
/signed
I fully agree with that.
Especially to:
if they are too many instancing.
"...whether the "feel" of a massive-multiplayer ..."
It feeld more like a LAN-RPG
EQ1 had HUGE amounts of content. The problem was that the content was scattered all over the place. So for convenience, you only found people in 3 or maybe 4 places at each level. Now part of the problem was that EQ1 FORCED five to six man groups to do any significant amount of content. But the bottom line was that there were hundreds of places I couldnt go because I needed other people to come with me.
Also, given that two of Brad's contributions to EQ was half hour to an hour boat time sinks and corpse recover runs, his opinions hold little weight with me.
What do you lose by having me and my friends get a dungeon to ourselves? Nothing. We would have been down in a dungeon anyway.
If it was a well designed game, we would have had the dungeon to ourselves or maybe another group in another part.
If it was a shitty game, the dungeon would have already been cleared or camped, or somebody would sweep in and grief us while we waited.
The arguments "You cant invite new people" are not from WoW or CoH. The latter of which used heavy instancing.
Point me to a game that DOESNT use instancing and is a fun game to play with two or three people, and I'll check it out. Particularly if it has a free trial period.
Bingo! Here be the problem my good fellow. Instancing is being used as the be end all solution for this problem and very little is being done to FIND a better solution. It divides players, and by doing so seperates the community. The topic is discussing whether or not instancing hurts mmo communities, and i can't see how anyone could think that it doesn't, as segregation is NEVER condusive to a good community.
Most of you have good points why instancing is good, but all of you are simply pointing out the problems it solves without considering the possibility that other solutions may exist in the future. Think about it. As game tech advances we can expect to see more complex dynamics at work in the underbelly of virtual worlds, and with that comes far greater possibilities. What are they? Who Knows, that's for creative devs to think up. The issue is that very few devs are even trying to think up new solutions, and instead are just giving up and going instanced.
Instances do not solve the issue of jerks, they only allow them to be ignored for a little bit. It's like sweeping the problem under the carpet, it's still there you just can't see it. Multi-player games are about dealing with people, the good and the bad, so i don't understand why someone would want to play an online game like a single player game. I think they are missing out on a lot of cool stuff this genre has to offer. There are RPG's the you can play single player and then NO-ONE EVER can interupt you, except maybe your mother/wife/girlfriend (no one has a solution for that i'm afraid).
Instancing is not the way of the future, it's a bandaid solution to a problem while we wait for game tech to catch up with our desires and imagination.
I wasn't using EVE as an example of not using instances (your point is most true and i agree with you), i was merely pointing out that EVE Online's community is an example of a company that isn't trying to force anything and is something that is run, driven and generally policed by the players.
nightclub? What the? Everyone is doing an instance or wanting to do an instance cause there's nothing else but instances. It's more like walking into that nightclub and having Everyone either in private booths (which would also be rooms that you can't see or hear anything from) or asking to go into a private booth. Some private booths are uber elite and you can only go in there if you happen to know 39 other nubs in the club. Many people who attend the club NEVER spend any time outside of the booths, as this is all they feel they really can or want to do. If i was standing in that club and not going into booths, i would not meet people to anywhere near the same degree as no one is STAYING outside of the booths for any length of time. I think there must be better beer and dancing girls in those freaking booths!
It's not just one instance, if your game (like WoW) predominately has instances at the end-game then people don't meet and socialise much outside of them. PVP was one area that really had guilds and others socialising with each other in WoW, then they all made preformed groups and fek'd it. Instances have their place, but personally i think your blind if you can't see the negative impact that they have. It's natural and its logical to think that if people don't want to be in an area then they'll be somewhere else, and in the case of instances it is there getting their phat lewt.
I agree that this is probably the point he is trying to make. But it doesn't address the issue of instancing in the slightest. Because no matter how much content you jam into the game people will still head for the areas that give them the best "value for time" spent. So, as soon as everyone finds out that BOSS MOB X gives the best loot and is fairly easy to take down with a group of N players then hundreds of groups of N players will be waiting there for BOSS X to spawn...PROBLEM UNSOLVED!!
the process of of playing a game where you know a certain time and location for a boss spawn with loot and strategie on a webpage has absolutely nothing to do with playing adventures in a fantasy world.
thats more like a resource management system
thats like conan camping the elefan tower all his live because he knows monsters spawn there and hes concerned about his xp/h
in the right game you would travel the world and have a mix of
preset orders like "kill the beast in darkforest", where the beast moves around and it really feels like a hunt and real adventures that you pick up a conversation of a random stranger in a tavern or falling into a hole on your travels.
people will not go to the place "best value for time" if the adventures are hidden and in some issues come up at random or are introduced over time (instead of just all adventures popping up at fixed locations in a release/ expansion)
if you find a treasure map to a hidden temple and you tell it the whole town why would you be suprised that that temple is overrun by all kinds of people
even the d&d modules (in contrast to ddo) had a feeling of adventure where you dont know where the storie leads you. it starts with a caravan from a to b and ends up in the lair of the dragon. ddo starts in front of a hole in the ground that tells you what level you must be to jump in and prolly after 3 weeks you find all adventures in a webpage together with walkthrous and ideal leveling/skill choices to make your uber-charakter.
yes you need a big world and lots of content
yes you need a system that either creates content in a kind of random pattern or in a constant stream daily/weekly/monthly...
it also may be better to have smaller servers (maybe 100 servers for 1000 people each)
some server should have pvp and some of them should definitly come with a limited game time (20,30,40,60h/ week) wich imho solves the farmer and the "im so much better then u cause i play all day" problems
if your bored, visit my blog at:
http://craylon.wordpress.com/ dealing with the look of mmos with the nvidia 3d vision glasses
Well, I'm still playing Guild Wars - and enjoying it. "Community" in a game is not necessary for my playstyle. I ususlly play solo unless forced to group - and I detest forced grouping. I am still in Guild Wars because of the great job they do with instances.
To me the "massively multiplayer" description has less to do with socializing and more to do with marketing strategy. I would frankly prefer a single player version of MMORPGs but, until those come to be (which will probably never happen), I will pay and play and enjoy the instances.
As long as developers offer games with a high percentage of instances, they will have a customer in me.
"Life is too short to play nerfed characters."
Well it's not like anyone is going to read this far, but I will add my opinion anyway.
The bottom line is that those who ask for "open worlds" are not doing it for anything as noble as "the community", all they want is more opportunities to gank people. For them "community" equals "more opportunities to pray on others". Sadly, the fact still remains that the more PvP there is, the less of a community there is. This has proven absolutely true in every online game ever made.
I wouldn't assume so much if i were you, as wanting 'open worlds' doesn't have to have anything to do with PVP or the competitve styled community that it brings. It is also your opinion that there is less of a community with PVP, while I would say that there is a different style of community, one that perhaps you don't particularly like (I myself am not hugely fussed with it) but is still definately there. Absolutely true? hmph, don't like absolutes, they very rarely work due to lack of 'absolute' knowledge.
Stop thinking about what online games HAVE been and start thinking about what they COULD be damn it! Everyone gets so bloody caught up on 'this game' or 'that game' that they forget that when we talk about the genre it is something that is growing and developing as the tech grows. Soon devs will have the tech to develop more and more dynamic content, making it all the less predictable (and with less spawn camping - can't camp if you don't know where it'll be ^_^). Advances in AI will also allow for mobs to be smarter, perhaps even with the capabilities to learn things from the players, making fights a hell of a lot more interesting and challenging in some ways.
I want to have a character IN a virtual world, not a ken doll in an arcade machine. A world that lives and breathes with its own heart beat, one that players can beat along with or alter over time. A truly dynamic world, that puts the adventure back into fantasy MMOs is what i'd love to see sometime in my life. I just don't see instances taking us towards that direction, if anything i see them as a potential hinderance.
Different strokes for different fokes though, and as such you may not care for this type of game, but the point still remains that instances hurt this type of community building, and make these games more single player orientated. I do hope single player games take wind of this and start pushing into this obviously enjoyed sphere of gameplay so that people have something to enjoy. MMOs though are capable of much much more, you may not care for it and that is fine, but I hope that players that want to experience what more the genre can offer also get something to play that isn't another single/lan player online game.
Just because an online game hasn't achieved this yet, doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't try. Past is the past, things that weren't possible or aren't possible may yet become possible. Those of you who want more should push for more, those of you don't - please don't be against us as we hope that there ends up being something for both of us.
And why would someone who plays a game; No! PAYS to play a game to relax or socialize want to play a game with someone who wishes to instill fear in them?
Sure it might be your play style but fear is not fun. Most mmorpgs have some type of penalty for death even if it is just having to run back to the spot you were just at. Others you could actually loose everything!
Your excitement you talk about was more than likely another person's pain, but I'm willing to bet you didnt care as long as you got a rush out
of it.
So in effect your one of the fathers of the instanced zones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I put "fear" in "quotes", I would have thought most people would understand the adrenaline rush that you get playing in a PvP environment. My example was a little light, but as I said, I only play in PvP worlds as they can only give you this excitement.
Playing in a world where all you have to worry about is killing or being killed by a MOB is kind of boring in and of itself and you can do that w/o paying a monthly fee. Add to this playing against several dozen/hundred people adds a hell of a lot to the game. Taking away that excitement kind of ruins the game for me.
And, btw I didn't say I camped and waited for people questing. I said it was more fun when others did that, and the group I am with, or if I am playing solo got ambushed. I had MORE FUN trying to stay alive, and chasing them off than doing the quest itself. I have no problem with people doing that, and feel that it adds to the game instead of taking away from it.
Instancing my have it's place, but as a rule of thumb it shouldn't be in any world that offers PvP. I would suggest putting it only in carebare worlds.
Fjorn - no0b
I voted that instancing hurts.
However, keep in mind, that I dislike massive instancing, like in D&D or WOW.
What I would LIKE to see is this : Dungeons, world, whatever. You fight your way tooth and nail to the end, to finally fight the boss, and when you enter the boss room, you go into your own, instanced boss room. Or treasure room, or what not. That way, you can still have those random encounters with other players, grow as a community, and not have to waiti n line for your boss or treasure. Simple.
The doll would surely say, "I do not want to be human!" although her master wants her to be even more.
/signed
I fully agree with that.
Especially to:
if they are too many instancing.
"...whether the "feel" of a massive-multiplayer ..."
It feeld more like a LAN-RPG
EQ1 had HUGE amounts of content. The problem was that the content was scattered all over the place. So for convenience, you only found people in 3 or maybe 4 places at each level. Now part of the problem was that EQ1 FORCED five to six man groups to do any significant amount of content. But the bottom line was that there were hundreds of places I couldnt go because I needed other people to come with me.
Also, given that two of Brad's contributions to EQ was half hour to an hour boat time sinks and corpse recover runs, his opinions hold little weight with me.
This is what a lot of people forget. You can have all the content in the world but it doesn't mean a damn thing if you aren't able to reach it or take part in it due to the forced requirement of a full party to simply just reach it or to take advantage of it. Content is fine but it's how you allow a player to get to that content is what is important. That's the major problem with a lot of mmorpgs. The constant need for time sinks to keep players playing longer instead of actually pulling in a player through fun or interesting gameplay and events is where the problem is I feel.
Seriously, Brad McQuaid's word carries little weight for me. Like it really matters in the end though. He seems to love the time sink and the computer dependency classes have with other classes. Those two things make me not to want to touch Vanguard in any way. Not even with a pole or a stick. At least he's honest about where his opinion is though and people can judge if they want to play Vanguard or not. He and the creators of Final Fantasy XI might get along real well. They all seem to greatly enjoy the forced grouping. Sometimes makes me wonder if they even play their own games while trying to work and have a social life or if they even care (doubt they do very much).
For those who PvP that is what they like. The excitment of not knowing when they will be attack along the way. For those that PvE then it is their choice if they go into PvP mode. Thus there are servers for PvE and PvP. I suppose in PvP instances would not be desired. No excitement in instances or not the kind they want.
The whole thing behind instances is to balance the game for those who don't like long camps, being ks'd or having to wait for a mob that is being farmed. There is no fun in that and it should be fun to play a game. It should not be like a job.
Gikku
True.
Actually I try to find out what instancing has to do with an RPG.
I mean how do you RPing in an instancing, especially when you are there for 100s time?
Are games with a lot instances still RPG?
I say UO was heaven.
It was my first MMO and that may be why I still look back at it with a warm feeling inside, but UO was just real. If you went into a dungeon in UO, you'd either go alone and meet others there that you could help, save or damn, if you and they wanted it. Nothing like "You go into the same cave you just saw 40 people go into. You are alone. It is dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue (oh wait, wrong game)."
Sure, being hit by PKers, anywhere, hurts. But This brings me back to the previous debate too. It has a meaning. Death in UO was something to avoid cause you lost EVERYTHING you had. No half-assed ways of punishment (ooh, I need to walk back to where I was fighting before and... go on?) But death, standing over your corpse as a ghost, running back to a healer, making ghostly sounds at passers-by and running back to your corpse hoping it's still all there. That was brilliance, and I loved it. I lost my stuff often, but still I loved my character.
Sorry, I'm ranting. Back to instances. I hate them with a distinct violence. Being able to meet anyone, anywhere, is much better.
Now I'd better stop before I go off-topic again.
Regards,
Eryth.
This kind of thinking is really the downfall of future MMOs IMHO. In case we gamers forget, MMOrpg stands for Massive Multiplayer Online RPG. Specifically multiplayer, meaning more then one. These games are not MSO massive soloplayers online. This means community, it means socializing, it means grouping. Argue that logic all day if you want, the facts won't change.
Community is what makes a game a fad or a truly revolutionary game. I know people who play an mmo called Blademistress, granted it doesn't have great graphics. Its a very simple game, but they all socialize, they know each other and they have played it consistently for years.
You can have the most state of the art game, with the greatest life like graphics. Hell throw in a virtual reality world if you want, but if it has no community, if it has no following, it will FAIL.
'The constant need for time sinks to keep players playing longer instead of actually pulling in a player through fun or interesting gameplay and events is where the problem is I feel.' This is the mindset of a solo player, these kinds of quests are easy if you are part of a community. For years I heard people complaining about not being able to get a group in everquest, and yet no matter what class I played, I never had a problem, because I interacted with people. No matter the quest I had fun socializing and getting it done. While I agree interesting gameplay and fun innovative ideas greatly enhance the fun factor, I disagree with the it being the main problem.
Instancing isn't a bad thing, personally I like it, but I also feel cheated when in them. It took no effort at all to get that item or gear, no sense of accomplishment, no showing off because everyone else has it. If used properly though, instancing can be fun. For instance, lets say an instance only appears on a solstice, or a full moon. Once the portal closes, its closed for good till the next solstice or full moon. So there would be very limited instancing. If people have a problem with content or camping, maybe they should push for more servers, to have less population on each one.
I personally can't wait for Vanguard, its not going to be an easy game to master, and for those afraid of a challenge, well thats why they have wow and eq2 and all the other so called mmo's that are starting to cater to the soloist. Keep up the good work mcquaid.
I'd just like to second that. I'd agree, DAOC had the best community of any MMO I've ever played, as well. I'd also like to add that, imho, Catacombs (the instancing expansion) changed that for the worse, for new players, or old players on new servers.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
I post my opinion here as a devoted gamer, husband, and father of three kids. I also consider myself a "mature" gamer, not in the sense that I'm "old" but that I don't participate in some of the inappropriate behavior many players do that lead to issues like having to have a game instanced.
One of the main reasons for instancing is because of issues that arose from the original Everquest (other games as well, but mainly EQ because of it's popularity at the time). I played EQ off and on for a few years and I can't remember the number of times I ran into griefers in the game. Countless times I someone KS me (kill steal), steal my camp, fear the mob I was fighting because they came to a camp I was at and wanted it, got trained, yada yada...
Reasons like this are why instancing has been implemented into MMO's. Some people feel like there shouldn't be instancing to add realism to the game, but let's face it, if it was going to be truly realistic, the same named mob wouldn't respawn in the same place so people could camp him. This being the case, it makes questing difficult if it's a quest mob, or if someone is camping the mob so they can get the loot for one of their other toons, or are farming for guildmates. Instancing is needed in MMO's for one reason, those players who aren't considerate of their fellow gamers, plain and simple. If you take a game like WoW, imagine trying to get into a dungeon when the game has 5 million (and climbing) subscribers, you'd be waiting forever to get the quest mobs you needed or trying to camp the mobs you needed for the loot you want.
As far as D&D goes, no one should be critical of the game being entirely instanced. D&D is spawned from it's original PnP design and it is not at all in the spirit of the game if you have to worry about being KS'd, worry about someone camping your mob, or the like. In D&D you began what was basically a story that turned into your quest and pursued that quest with a small group of friends. You might have aquired that quest in a town and if you had no friends with you, you could find some at the local tavern or the like. You and your group could then begin your quest. If you read any D&D books or play any of the camppaigns, there is nothing about stumbling into two or three groups of other adventures who are waiting for such and such named creature to show up so they can kill him, then the next group is inline for him to respawn. Instancing in DDO is intended to give the game more of a feel for the true D&D fans so that they have the small groups they are accustomed too and don't have to worry about wading through other players, or dealing with the griefers in the game (at least not to the same extent as others). If you don't like that, the solution is simple, don't play it, play something else. D&D isn't going to be a game designed for grinders, power levelers, or the like. DDO is going to be what D&D fans have wanted for quite sometime, an online persitant world where they can get together with their friends and play something that's at least close to the PnP version.
Currently I'm playing WoW and I have been very happy with it. Is the game perfect? Not at all, but the best way I can describe it is "accomodating". WoW let's me hop in and play for 30 min or 6 hours, not many other games let you hop in for a short period of time and actually get something done. The instanced dungeons I think are wonderful because you go through with your friends, get nice loot, get good quest stories, and great XP. At least it's not like some of the huge dungeons in other games (like Lower Seb in EQ) where any time of day you came in if you wanted a quest mob or a loot drop you had no choice but to wait. Blizzard I must say has tried to accomodate as many play styles as they could and they've done a great job, but the simple fact of the matter is that no game is going to be perfect because someone is always going to complain about it.
Today there are countless MMO's out there that offer so many varieties of playstyle that anyone who wants to play a MMO who can't find one probably never will. If you wont like the major players here in the US, start looking at the games in Korea, China, or Japan, nearly all of them support English.
Guild Wars is another good example of how instancing has been implemented. Guild Wars being a game largely based around PvP play doesn't always attact players who are primarily PvE, that being the case, if the game weren't instanced based, casual or even hardcore PvE players would constantly have to contend with those who strive to be elite and uber, who camp drops for hours on end, and many who simply have no regard for others. AreaNet I think realized this and knew they wouldn't be able to keep many of their players if this persisted. And to their credit, when I've actively played GW, when a problem arises, the fix it...fast. They've taken care to not only to fix problems, but prevent them from happening again. They not only remove things or add things that need to be addressed, but they also give players other reasons to cease behaviors they shouldn't. Even through all of that though people were still exploiting the game even though it was instanced.
Instancing is a good thing, and players truly should get used to it because while it's not going to be in every MMO from here on out, it's going to be there. With the grief many players have felt from others, it's the only way they feel like they can get things accomplished sometimes.
While I agree with you that instancing will cut down on the player to player griefing, it creates more problems. Farming being a big one, which I hate more then the player griefing. Instancing is a lazy solution to the problem imo, there are some instanced things I like though, like the arenas in wow. Its fun to just join up and kill people and escape from the xp grind for awhile.
Everquest, originally anyway, changed alot from player input. I know over the years I suggested several ideas, that were later implemented. That is not to say that others didn't suggest the same thing that I did, but just that I know imput was heard. The proactive solution to your mob stealing and griefing could be a simple solution. An example, a warrant system. A named can't be engaged unless somone picks up a warrant from town, he/she then hands it to named mob and they are promptly engaged with the mob. Make it repeatable if you want, but make it a 3 day refresh rate. Not only do you get your mob, you stop farmers as well. If you have the warrant or item or whatever that allows you to engage the dungeon bosses, then you will be able to engage him.
Oh, for the record Guildwars isn't considered an mmo, they consider it a co. D&D: stormreach sort of falls under the same category. I'm not knocking D&D, I've been in the beta for months and I actually like the game, it feels very much like a D&D game, and they have worked hard to follow the rule sets and it shows. But its like guildwars in the fact that its all instances, even the town has several instances, so to me it falls under the CORPG as well.
I like the idea of the warrant system, I think that's a nice idea...just so long as it's not the primary means of going after named mobs. I think any quest mob that is given should be for that group, and the loot should be based on different factors (method of death, character levels, etc). I've always thought what would be a good idea if a game had the resources to do it and track it would be if they added timers to mobs and the longer they stayed out, players they defeated, or other factors, would allow them to get stronger and possibly level up to the point where they would become named and would be harder to take down and give better loot.
As far as the community in these games go, (one thing i meant to mention earlier) is that it largely depends on the game. GW's community was pretty poor imho when I first started playing. No one wanted to help you unless you were willing to do a quest with them or if you happened to get put on the same PvP team with them. If I wasnt sure of something and asked a question in the town chat, I might get the question answered 1/10 times (on average, normally didn't ask questions that much). There were other factors in this assesment as well, but that's just an example. EQ2's community right now I would say is one of the best because it's primarily more mature gamers who are willing to help out others with questions, quests, general info, etc. I played EQ2 for a while (and still would be if not for SOE and my anger with them at the moment) until I went to WoW, and really enjoyed the game, and the community was one of the reasons for that. Instances don't make communities, non-instancing doesn't make communities, it's simply the players. If you take instancing out of games that really need it then the community wouldnt be the same and the community would end up being one in which many players would not enjoy (I'm saying all of this in a general perspective and as unbiased as I can be). I realize that there are players out there who enjoy PK'ing, mischief and mayhem, dueling, PvP, some who just enjoy casual PvE, questing, tradeskills, on and on. If you take away instancing in some of these games it throws off the balance for those who enjoy the more subtle aspects of the game.
I agree that Guild Wars isn't what's considered a traditional MMO (in the same sense as EQ, DAoC, WoW, etc), but it is an MMO (Massive MultiPlayer Online, has a large world, it's multiplayer, and it's an RPG), but with the advent of new concepts and technologies I think we are going to start seeing more classification diversification. Take EVE Online for instance, that's truly an MMO having 19,000 people all on the same world server, whereas most other MMO's typially support only a few thousand. But that really gets down to being picky about how we think games should be classified. Games like Diablo II, PSO, Dungeon Siege, those had massive amounts of players, but the worlds were small and you normally could only have 1-8 players (depending on the game) on the same room with you at once, so they aren't MMO's. Guild Wars and several others I think fall somewhere in between even though they might technically fit the description of what an MMO would be.
I don't disagree that 'technically' guildwars is an mmo, mmo is kind of broad in general. My idea of mmo would maybe qualify more as a mmosw Massive Multiplayer Online Seamless World or something similiar. More like how you percieve EVE to be.
When i think mmo i am not really seeing guildwars, although I own the game and play it occasionally, there really is no immersion that I associate with an mmo, and I suppose ddo doesn't really fall under co. I don't know why I compared them, their only simliarities are that every area is instanced and not persistent.
Like I said previously, i'm not adamantly against instancing, if its utilized well it can be a great tool. An example that comes to mind would be a randomized maze type dungeon. Everytime you enter, the way to the end is different. If a maze has been opened by somone though, people can choose to enter it, or to generate a new one. Thereby not blocking people out of an instance, most likely people will choose their own dungeon.