Howdy, Stranger!

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

The instancing Poll on this site scares me.

24

Comments

  • lomillerlomiller Member Posts: 1,810

    Hmmm  I think some defining of terms is in order before I start.  First of all, zoned games where you can have multiple instances of a zone for population control isn’t the same thing as instancing.  I know this should be obvious, but I have seen people who miss the distinction.  Next, when I look at this question I think of dungeons and the like, not normal overland zones which should not be instanced.  

    IMO 50% of dungeons being instanced seems pretty close.  Instancing has a lot of advantages in that type of a setting.  First of all they are more immersive, you can’t get the feeling of a dark foreboding dungeon if there are adventurers running past you every few min.  Imagine if the Mines of Moria were populated with dozens of adventurers running every which way, would they have seemed as dark and scary?  Of course not, there are places where you need to feel you are the only ones there.  Instancing dungeons or special overland areas also allows for different types of storylines and adventures that can add a lot to a game.

    The flip side is that there should also be places where you have a chance to bump into someone else in a dungeon, but the real advantage to shared dungeons is loot tables and lockouts.  In an instanced dungeon you either need severe lockouts, poor loot tables or both in order to keep loot from flooding into the game because there is no real control over how many drops can occur.  In a shared dungeon you can very precisely control the number of items that drop via spawn rates and drop rates, in an instanced dungeon however multiple instances put a kink in this so you need to find a way to control loot drops.

    So, with the assumption that all the basic overland areas are shared 50% instacing of dundeons and special outdoor areas seems reasonable IMO, perhaps a little high but still reasonabe.  A game like CoH where all the lairs are instanced goes well beyond this, and of course DDO and Guild Wars are almost another genre.

  • Distortion0Distortion0 Member Posts: 668


    Originally posted by baff

    I like 50% instanced. Sounds good to me.
    It worked well for me in City of Heroes.

    I felt Wow was not instanced enough. Too many times I would be in missions in areas that would have worked better if instanced (temples castles etc), but instead had to deal with kill stealing and camping and respawning enemies materialising in the middle of the fight for no reason at all.



    And as an avid fan of City of Heroes, the bigest problem I had with the game was the fact I never saw another hero! Wandering through the streets of Paragon, I was surrounded by crime, never seeing another hero fighting it. It was depressing. I think the game's strengths are it's story and it's combat, not it's instancing. By the way, CoH falls under 'mostly instanced', it's way over 50%



    Originally posted by DamonVile
    Well I don't agree with that at all.
    I like to see and talk with other plays. I don't however want to see the big bad monster being camped by 50 people waiting for it to respawn and then having it die in 5 seconds. That isn't imersive, realistic or anything else people call it.

    Instancing allows MMORPGs to have that deep dark cave where the dragon waits. It lets the story happen for everyone not just the loot whores.

    Yes instances can be camped by players who only want loot but, they can do that all they want and it doesn't affect my and my groups game.

    Wow still gave you the chance to run into people in some caves by making the instance gate deep inside, but I don't remember seeing too many people meet up there and go on to finish the instance together. People tend to show up with a group already formed.

    TBH I'm surprised people would rather have the camped boss situation over the instance, myself.


    Damon Vile just stated the reason why I voted 'little instancing.' I want to fight in the dungeon with other players and get to meet people, but if there's a one room instance with the boss in it then that's probably for the better.

    Personaly, as far as camping goes, WoW's low levels had uninstanced dungeons. I enjoyed meeting people and didn't mind the camping. For dugeons with better rewards for defeating the Bosses, little instancing does just fine. There's no need for 50/50. I hope someone starts making LAN games rather bringing LAN gamers into MMOs.

  • Jerek_Jerek_ Member Posts: 409

    reading some of these responses makes me laugh... not that there's anything wrong with what was said, just realizing how differently people approach the same topic.  I would never have considered the effects of instancing on the amount of loot in a game, or the difference between a zone and an instance, which to me is any time two people are in the same spot in a city or dungeon on the same server, but.. aren't 

  • TymoraTymora Member UncommonPosts: 1,295

    I agree that a mmorpg with 50/50 instancing would probably make me feel a little like the walls are closing in on me . . .

    A main feature that I always loved about mmorpgs is the vast, seamless gameworlds.  Not all of them have seamless gameworlds, but most older ones had very little, if no instancing at all, and they are the ones I am looking back at and realizing that they were the most fun.

    Yes, there were many other factors that led to the mmorpgs being fun, the a large gameworld where the population does not get lost in their own secret places is a fundamental aspect of mmos, and I look for mmorpgs with limtied instancing.

  • nomadiannomadian Member Posts: 3,490



    EQ's LDoN was the best expansion EQ ever had, and it was 100% instancing
    It was?? ::::03::

    I agree with you to an extent about its implementation especially if you take WoW, instancing works quite well, however, it should be noted instancing does change the experience of a game.

  • JorevJorev Member Posts: 1,500


    Originally posted by nomadian



    EQ's LDoN was the best expansion EQ ever had, and it was 100% instancing
    It was?? ::::03::

    I agree with you to an extent about its implementation especially if you take WoW, instancing works quite well, however, it should be noted instancing does change the experience of a game.


    LDON was a forced grouping expansion, one of the worst.

    image
    "We feel gold selling and websites that promote it damage games like Vanguard and will do everything possible to combat it."
    Brad McQuaid
    Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc.
    Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
    www.vanguardsoh

  • busdriverbusdriver Member Posts: 859

    Instances are used because most game developers lack the ability to make game mechanics that themselves solve the issue of griefing, ninjaing and the like and because they can't make a code that enables them to handle large number of concurrent players in the same area.

    Developer that uses instances = inept

    Gamer that actually wants instances = idiot



    Thank you and have a nice day.



  • APE_28APE_28 Member Posts: 45
    just say no to instancing
  • SamuraiswordSamuraisword Member Posts: 2,111


    Originally posted by busdriver
    Instances are used because most game developers lack the ability to make game mechanics that themselves solve the issue of griefing, ninjaing and the like and because they can't make a code that enables them to handle large number of concurrent players in the same area.

    Developer that uses instances = inept

    Gamer that actually wants instances = idiot



    Thank you and have a nice day.


    You are correct sir.

    Instancing is the lazy way.

    image

  • DamonVileDamonVile Member UncommonPosts: 4,818


    Originally posted by busdriver

    Instances are used because most game developers lack the ability to make game mechanics that themselves solve the issue of griefing, ninjaing and the like and because they can't make a code that enables them to handle large number of concurrent players in the same area.

    Developer that uses instances = inept

    Gamer that actually wants instances = idiot



    Thank you and have a nice day.





    lol

    Ok how do you have a few hundred people go through the same cave per hour and give each of them the feel like they're in some remote dungeon that hasn't seen another person in years ?

    You call me an idiot because I want to have PnP style adventure with a group of people without feeling like I'm standing in line to kill the bad guy but you didn't offer any alternitive to it. Is that because you don't have one ?

    People who look to the internet for the attention they're not getting at home = sad
  • slapme7timesslapme7times Member Posts: 436
    it worried me too...


    instancing feels like a cheap ass replacement for a good game.

    fail to develop a cooperative game?  just cut it out and make it singleplayer.




    instancing is absolutely retarded in every single way.


    --people who believe in abstinence are unsurprisingly also some of the ugliest most sexually undesired people in the world.--

  • SamuraiswordSamuraisword Member Posts: 2,111

    MMOGs aren't computer versions of PnP style paper games.

    What you seek is a single box with Lan or online grouping abilities like Guild Wars which is not a MMOG.

    A true MMOG does not pop up private content for each group, that is unrealistic and destroys immersion of a seemless world. You can't be the first to explore a cave if you were not the first. Other people exist in a real MMOG and you may encounter them anywhere at anytime.

    image

  • DamonVileDamonVile Member UncommonPosts: 4,818


    Originally posted by Samuraisword

    MMOGs aren't computer versions of PnP style paper games.
    What you seek is a single box with Lan or online grouping abilities like Guild Wars which is not a MMOG.
    A true MMOG does not pop up private content for each group, that is unrealistic and destroys immersion of a seemless world. You can't be the first to explore a cave if you were not the first. Other people exist in a real MMOG and you may encounter them anywhere at anytime.


    That's your deffinition of an MMO not everyones. Camping a boss is unrealistic and I don't really see what's so immersive about standing in line to kill one.

    I'll agree that DnD and guild wars take instancing too far, but imo wow style instances where a few spread out around the world is a good thing.

    So I guess as long as 5 or 10 million people are willing to pay for that it doesn't matter what either of us think. There's going to be instancing untill someone comes up with a better way to give people that type of content. So far I haven't seen it.
  • BuZZKilgoreBuZZKilgore Member Posts: 525


    Originally posted by Distortion0

    I'm not sure wether this poll is new or old, I'm ussually not loged in to vote and see the results but I was reading one and I was wondering if other people felt the way I did about the results.
    "What balence would you like to see betwen instanced and non-instanced content do you want to see?
    No instancing: 13.5%
    50/50 42.6%
    Completely Instanced: 1.9%
    Mostly Instanced: 9.6%
    Little Instancing: 32.5%"
    Most people want 50/50? Are you out of your minds? Does anyone else feel that half instanced is enough to ruin the feeling that you are in a huge world with thousands of other players when playing an MMO?


    Don't be scared, they are only games... nerd. lol
  • UmbroodUmbrood Member UncommonPosts: 1,809


    Originally posted by busdriver
    Instances are used because most game developers lack the ability to make game mechanics that themselves solve the issue of griefing, ninjaing and the like and because they can't make a code that enables them to handle large number of concurrent players in the same area.

    Developer that uses instances = inept

    Gamer that actually wants instances = idiot



    Thank you and have a nice day.


    People that judge others by their views on videogames = sadly failed human beings

    Get a grip mate, or a life.

    Both if you are able ( doubtful, but still ).


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally posted by Jerek_

    I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  • DarktongueDarktongue Member Posts: 276

    Instancing was and is caused by greedy and selfish players.

    Old EQ was built with zones to handle like 10 people at a time since the only thought about groups of 5 at a time. Then when they managed to get zones to handle more people they realised people were greedy shits. Kill stealing became normal, people trying to grind exp on a "camp" were KS'd and harrassed rightly or wrongly.

     Then when technology advanced and enabled developers to do  private  zones where only the group or individual would be allowed in, they realised it ment less hassle and less GM man power. How many hours were wasted with Gms sorting out  ninja looting in the likes of Hate or Fear in EQ?

     So we ended up with the likes of WoW using instancing gamewide and it worked, no more forum rants about some idiot who stole xxx from xxx mob...in general..it doesnt totally stop it since humans are...well, greedy shits and will even resort to stealing pixels and binary code and will always find ways round systems.

    So we end up that we hate instancing but love the benefits. We want tons of people all around us with no lag, with no ksing  but able to get help from others.Of course some games go too far ,like D&D. 

    We as players only have ourselves to blame tbh. :(

  • TeeBeeNZTeeBeeNZ Member Posts: 259
    Ive tried them all and while I dont mind them I prefer 100% since I dont need to worry bout spawn camping, being ganked while Im doing something or simply just the crazy spam in the chat channels.  And with the benefit of the areas being taylored to my quests and place in the game, its all down to more play less waiting.

  • GreyfaceGreyface Member Posts: 390

    Too much instancing raises other issues for me.... After playing CoV for about three months, I began to wonder why I was paying $15 a month.  Even grouped, it felt like the multiplayer in Diablo 2 or Neverwinter Nights.  Even WoW, which I think uses instances well in the first 59 levels, starts to feel like a LAN game at max level.  And then there's DDO... don't get me started on DDO.

    As gamers, I think we have to ask ourselves why we feel that this sort of gameplay is worth a recurring subscription fee.  It seems that every other genre of games - FPS, RTS etc - offers free multiplayer options.  But somehow the game companies have convinced us RPG fans to pay for what we used to get for free in games like Baldur's Gate.   

    Instancing, when done well, can be a way to better immerse players and prevent annoying problems like kill-stealing and spawn camping.  But it can also be used to shoehorn a single-player game design into a subscription MMO.  This is what I think Turbine did with DDO, and what I think NCSoft did with CoV.  As thinking consumers who presumably work for our money, we should not reward this sort of cynicism.

       

  • WoodenDummyWoodenDummy Member Posts: 208


    Originally posted by Samuraisword
    Instancing destroys immersion in a MMOG, might as well play single box.

    ...and sitting and camping a re-spawn spot with 4 other people leet speaking how cool they are while we all wait to kill a generic monster running a generic quest to find 6 rat tails adds to the immersion?

    When a instance is done right with the right group it can be a detailed immersing adventure not a boring generic quest.

    I don't ever remember reading a Robert Howard book that had the hero grinding Gnolls for 3 hours.

    Personally some of the best fun in a MMORPG I've ever had, has been roleplaying in a DDO (a game people love to hate but never play) instance where leet speakering campers can't ruin the groups idea of immersion.

    image

    image

  • WoodenDummyWoodenDummy Member Posts: 208


    Originally posted by Tithrielle

    Originally posted by baff

    Too many times I would be in missions in areas that would have worked better if instanced (temples castles etc), but instead had to deal with kill stealing and camping and respawning enemies materialising in the middle of the fight for no reason at all.

    So essentially you wanted to play on your own? Third party involvement and respawning enemies are staple factors of MMORPGs.


    Why do people make random untrue comments like this?  Why would a instance player want to play an instance alone?  A instance is desgined to be a epic adventure that can't be done alone in the larger open world, the only people who run instances solo are grinders WoW makes you become if you want a mount at the same time as everyone else.

    Some of the best time I've spent in MMOs has been in instances, a instance can be the saver of a roleplay group who just wanna be left alone.

    image

    image

  • PantasticPantastic Member Posts: 1,204


    Originally posted by Distortion0
    Most people want 50/50? Are you out of your minds? Does anyone else feel that half instanced is enough to ruin the feeling that you are in a huge world with thousands of other players when playing an MMO?

    Are you out of your mind? Does anyone else feel that coming up to a line of people camping a particular boss mob is enough to ruin the feeling that you're in a world at all? When I'm storming that stronghold were the dark lord is holed up, or exploring the ancient caverns no one has been in, I don't want to go for a while, then stop and wait in line at the camp for the boss that drops the cool loot. Also, while I don't mind fighting other people directly in PVP, if I'm in a game that's non-PVP, consentual PVP, or faction PVP for combat, I don't want to get into a competition with other players that involves trying to be the first to tag a mob, first to loot it, or group to do most damage to it before it disappears, it's just stupid and irritating.

    That's what I really don't get about the 'OMG instance suxors' crowd; you don't seem to even acknowledge that spawn-camping even exists. The whole concept of waiting in line to kill a boss when it magically reappears is just stupid, I'd rather have a 100% instanced game than run into even one spawn camp. Just hearing about the lameness of people forming lines at bosses was enough to kill my interest in even trying EQ.

    Instancing properly used has other nice features, like being able to control how many players and even what levels/gear go into a particular fight. It's easy to just zerg a non-instanced boss, and protections designed to keep people from zerging have a nasty tendancy to turn into easy griefing tools. Same thing for instanced PVP, you can control things to give people a roughly equal fight (or modify the instance to help balance the sides), an area where WOW's instances fail miserably.

  • PantasticPantastic Member Posts: 1,204


    Originally posted by WoodenDummy
    Why do people make random untrue comments like this? Why would a instance player want to play an instance alone?

    It's because some MMOers have severe brain damage and believe that it's only possible to have either single player games or their exactly playstyle in a game. I'm always amazed that anyone can actually defend something as silly as spawn camping, but it's pretty much inevitable that if they do they'll insist that if you don't want spawn camping then you may as well play a single player game. It's a lot like discussions on raiding where you'll see people seriously assert that you either want to play in a gigantic mob of 40/70/whatever people or want to solo, the idea that someome might want to play in a group of 4-7 other people just blows their mind even if that content with that size group comprises the bulk of their playtime.

  • ElnatorElnator Member Posts: 6,077
    I can sum this up quite nicely:
    True Pen and Paper Roleplayers enjoy limited instancing because:
    It feels a lot more like a session around the table with your group.  Period.  End of story.

    While I enjoy non-instanced open areas I DETEST non-instanced adventures.  I don't ever recall playing Dungeons and Dragons, Vampire, Rolemaster, Gamma World, Amber or any number of other Roleplaying Games as a kid / young adult where our GM suddenly said: "Ok you've reached the lair of the high lord muckety muck!  But you will now have to wait 2 or 3 hours while the group ahead of you waits for him to spawn".

    Please

    Yes, out in the wilderness I am 100% for un-instanced adventure areas where you can run across other players.  But once you go into an 'adventure' or 'quest' or even after a 'boss mob' in a dungeon it should be instanced.  Instancing PRESERVES the immersion in the story.  Yes, DDO and Guild Wars are a little over-instanced.  EQ2 and WoW do it BADLY.  But while I think DDO is 'over' instanced at least it got 1 thing very very right: When you go on an adventure it's just your group.  Nobody else.  And you feel like you're in an epic adventure.  DDO's problem is there isn't much to do BESIDES questing so the 'adventure' becomes 'ok I've done this one 10 times can we do something else?'.   

    But the overall idea behind how DDO does instancing is very good and it's one of the few things I actually enjoy about the title.  Guild Wars group adventures are great as are the quests within the game.  However, the entire world is instanced which means you can't run into other players anywhere but in town.  That's kinda a downer.  But, again, for the ADVENTURES it's very well done (The storyline quests). 

    Instancing isn't evil.  Instancing isn't bad.  Properly done instancing is a VERY good thing.  Problem is most MMO's have gotten carried away with instancing.


    Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
    Sig image Pending
    Still in: A couple Betas

  • JorevJorev Member Posts: 1,500

    I find it amazing that the single most popular defense of instancing is to remove spawn camping.

    That just proves that instancing is a developer's lazy way of dealing with the issue and that players who prefer instancing really don't like MMOGs. That's fine, but just admit that games that are heavily instanced are not true MMOGs. If you don't want to share the game world with other people, which realistically will include some competition for resources and rewards, as it should be, then games like GW, CoV-CoH, DDO etc are what you want, but please don't suggest these games represent true MMOGs or that instancing has a valid place in all MMOGs.

    The intelligent way to avoid spawn camping is by removing predictable drops and by not limiting them to a specific mob. How hard is that? If high end loot has the possibility of dropping from many higher end mobs, you shouldn't constantly see lines for specific mobs. You can still increase/decrease the drop ratios for certain items by mob type or boss mob in order to influence traffic into a certain dungeon or zone, but by sharing the loot table with other high end spawns, you remove the linear bottlenecks of early MMOGs which are retarded.

    You will never see killstealing if the person who makes first contact has looting rights. This is a no-brainer. If your arguement is that you came upon a spawn first but hesitated in order to prep or plan or call your friends over an unrealistic chat channel or worse, a live communication system, to come join you because uber mob has spawned, then too bad, deal with it.

    Instancing does more damage to a game's fun and economy by promoting relentless farming.

    image
    "We feel gold selling and websites that promote it damage games like Vanguard and will do everything possible to combat it."
    Brad McQuaid
    Chairman & CEO, Sigil Games Online, Inc.
    Executive Producer, Vanguard: Saga of Heroes
    www.vanguardsoh

  • busdriverbusdriver Member Posts: 859


    Originally posted by DamonVile

    Originally posted by busdriver

    Instances are used because most game developers lack the ability to make game mechanics that themselves solve the issue of griefing, ninjaing and the like and because they can't make a code that enables them to handle large number of concurrent players in the same area.

    Developer that uses instances = inept

    Gamer that actually wants instances = idiot



    Thank you and have a nice day.




    lol

    Ok how do you have a few hundred people go through the same cave per hour and give each of them the feel like they're in some remote dungeon that hasn't seen another person in years ?

    You call me an idiot because I want to have PnP style adventure with a group of people without feeling like I'm standing in line to kill the bad guy but you didn't offer any alternitive to it. Is that because you don't have one ?

    People who look to the internet for the attention they're not getting at home = sad


    Your response just shows how poor the design of nowadays MMOs really is. I called people who want instances idiots because they don't demand game developers come up with something that keeps the immersion in game while negates the 'camping in line' out of the game.

    Want alternative?
    I'm not a game developer so I don't get paid to think these sort of things, so I just use another game in development as an example here. Darkfall has moving mobs, when you kill all mobs from one area to extinction, they move to another area. So there you have a simple solution that kills campers in their current form yet keeps the world instance-free.

    It IS allowed to demand more from game developers. You're the one buying their products after all. Don't let them get away with half-assed solutions goddamnit.
Sign In or Register to comment.