the starter area Tortage will make an exact copy of itself when too many ppl get in, theres no menu to choose a zone, the game does everything the dungeons will use this system too the border kingdoms WONT use this system if u call this too many instancing u havent played many mmos
Your the one with the clear lack of MMO experience.
Ive played just about every MMO on mmorpg.com 's list. None of the 1st generation MMO's did any instancing (except AO, Funcom game)
The second generation games did a little instancing but only for dungeons (and even then it was rare). The one exception was EQ2 that did those mirror - instance zones if they had too many players in one zone.
The few 3rd generation MMO's out do more instancing but again none that extensive. LOTR being a prime example, instancing for dungeons but zones all have everyone in the same world. Some like Vanguard and Dark and Light made the return to 1st gen MMO playstyle where the whole world was seamless and had zero instances.
Age of Conan has taken the instance concept from EQ2 and injected it with steroids. It has joined a select list of MMO's that your average MMO vet doesnt really consider an MMO at all. Games like D&D, Guildwars, to name a few where the world really isnt "MASSIVE" at all.
Those games have their fanbase but they arent MMO's really. Theyre multiplayer games with a subscription fee (except guildwars)
you can;t even put AoC in the same class as GW and DDO, there nothing alike.
You've been proven wrong over and again in this thread, and come the 20th, you'll be laughed off the forum.
The proof will be known to the community at large in just a few days, and your doomsaying isn't going to amount to shit.
Some of us know from EXPERIENCE that your speculation is flat-out false. Yet you repeatedly deny the reality of the situation with your instancing rant, trying to make the game sound like Guild Wars2.
Get a grip.
where exactly am I wrong ? Does Age of Conan have mirrored instances for zone or not ?
The answer is apparently yes, therefore what Ive stated is factual. Mirrored zones = multiplayer game
Yeah that was a interesting way of doing things. Not sure if its limited to 100 people though. OB I was seeing upward of 200-300 people in cities but no idea if they implemented that instancing system.
That is indeed Huge. World of Warcraft the maximum I have experienced is about 150 people in Orgrimmar. And that was in a very crowded day.
People complaining about instancing need to realize that even if Funcom decided to remove it. Some zones would be incredibly crowded. It need to be done for a better experience.
I've been to Disney Land in Paris a few months ago. And the waiting times literally killed it for me. Crowded area's don't necessarily make for a better experience.
Thats about right. Tortage WILL be instanced so EVERYONE can have enjoyable time and after that I think the limit gets moved up. 200 people in Tarantia was awesome and moving into the real zones I was seeing about 100 people. Me and my old WoW guild made characters on the same server and all (90~) of us had a blast rampaging and doing leveling all in 1 zone (Something Valley? Cimmerian place. Might I add that group questing is NOTHING like WoW in AoC, its actually worth grouping to quest and grind because no XP loss!
...from the dev point of view instancing is tool to solve numerous problems especialy if you are faced with lack of time. For most problems it is the easisest way, meaning less time and money.
the starter area Tortage will make an exact copy of itself when too many ppl get in, theres no menu to choose a zone, the game does everything the dungeons will use this system too the border kingdoms WONT use this system if u call this too many instancing u havent played many mmos
Your the one with the clear lack of MMO experience.
Ive played just about every MMO on mmorpg.com 's list. None of the 1st generation MMO's did any instancing (except AO, Funcom game)
The second generation games did a little instancing but only for dungeons (and even then it was rare). The one exception was EQ2 that did those mirror - instance zones if they had too many players in one zone.
The few 3rd generation MMO's out do more instancing but again none that extensive. LOTR being a prime example, instancing for dungeons but zones all have everyone in the same world. Some like Vanguard and Dark and Light made the return to 1st gen MMO playstyle where the whole world was seamless and had zero instances.
Age of Conan has taken the instance concept from EQ2 and injected it with steroids. It has joined a select list of MMO's that your average MMO vet doesnt really consider an MMO at all. Games like D&D, Guildwars, to name a few where the world really isnt "MASSIVE" at all.
Those games have their fanbase but they arent MMO's really. Theyre multiplayer games with a subscription fee (except guildwars)
you can;t even put AoC in the same class as GW and DDO, there nothing alike.
You've been proven wrong over and again in this thread, and come the 20th, you'll be laughed off the forum.
The proof will be known to the community at large in just a few days, and your doomsaying isn't going to amount to shit.
Some of us know from EXPERIENCE that your speculation is flat-out false. Yet you repeatedly deny the reality of the situation with your instancing rant, trying to make the game sound like Guild Wars2.
Get a grip.
where exactly am I wrong ? Does Age of Conan have mirrored instances for zone or not ?
The answer is apparently yes, therefore what Ive stated is factual. Mirrored zones = multiplayer game
Mirrored zones allow for a bigger server. What do you prefer? A small server but no mirrored zones. Or a crowded server population wise, but with mirrored zones.
Now, I haven't played the game. (except the Gamespot PvP event) So I cannot judge if its designed right. On launch day Tortage will obviously be very crowded. So some zones will required to be mirrored. You can't expect a thousand elephants to fit in a small elevator.
You might want to try find another game that furfills your needs. Because I personally don't want AoC to end up like a crowded Tokyo city filled with parasites.
Lets take Orgrimmar or Ironforge for example. (assuming you have played WoW) 100 players is considered crowded in full day in Orgrimmar.
If AoC can at least compare with these numbers then it shouldn't be a problem at all. Isn't that ''Massive'' enough for you?
Just to quote SGoodyer again:
''OB I was seeing upward of 200-300 people in cities but no idea if they implemented that instancing system.''
Now I don't know if he is correct. But that seems huge for my standards. A crowded day in some of the most poplair zones in Outlands have about 60-120 players in it.
You know what's funny is that whole time playing the beta, I didn't even realize the game had population instances until I read about it on the forums lol
So.. I really don't see the problem if it's there to make the game run better.
You know what's funny is that whole time playing the beta, I didn't even realize the game had population instances until I read about it on the forums lol So.. I really don't see the problem if it's there to make the game run better.
You know what's funny is that whole time playing the beta, I didn't even realize the game had population instances until I read about it on the forums lol So.. I really don't see the problem if it's there to make the game run better.
Because the game is advertised as an MMO. That first m stands for Massive. I paid $50, I expected an MMO, not a multiplayer game.
I guess I just expect more for my money. If Star Wars Galaxies can make a seamless no-instance world at launch (and their game world was massive, probably much bigger than conan) then Funcom could do it as well.
Im not even going to bother with this game. My copy is going on ebay
EQ2 had what youre saying, multiples of the same zone and you could pick which you wanted to go to.
In FFXI, there was one West Ronafure. If you wanted to go there, you were there with everybody else. Its simply just its own zone, you zone in from adjacent territory.
You know what's funny is that whole time playing the beta, I didn't even realize the game had population instances until I read about it on the forums lol So.. I really don't see the problem if it's there to make the game run better.
Because the game is advertised as an MMO. That first m stands for Massive. I paid $50, I expected an MMO, not a multiplayer game.
I guess I just expect more for my money. If Star Wars Galaxies can make a seamless no-instance world at launch (and their game world was massive, probably much bigger than conan) then Funcom could do it as well.
Im not even going to bother with this game. My copy is going on ebay
Umm.. okay. Good luck finding whatever you're looking for.
if this is true,then it really sux,and its kinda weird that this board aint thread spammed with cons of aoc
it is simply not possible to have an open, zone-free world with the level of graphics that AoC has. Impossible.
Anyone with a realistic understanding of PC limitations knows this.
The graphic quality of AoC has to be seen to be believed....it's beyond amazing. You can't have 2000+ people in one starting area and have it be playable. It's just not realistically feasable.
I think thats a copout excuse to save funcom some money. I bet it could be done.
Star Wars Galaxies when it launched had state of the art graphics. Definitely it was the best for its time 5 years ago. And we didnt have to settle for loading screens when we entered someone's house or a cantina. And we certainly didnt have to choose a zone when entering a dungeon / cave area.
If a game 5 years ago could do it with the best graphics back then, surely funcom can do it now.
When SWG came out it ran for shit, People crashed when nearing towns, and there were not even houses yet. Fixes were made over time even as it became more processor intensive. And it possibly could be done but not without alienating over 60% of the potential player base with older/ slower computers.
They made a choice, and that choice was for the game to be pretty, cause that is what almost everyone talks about, the graphics. Often mentioned even before gameplay, because apparently most folks would rather stare at virtual rivers and vistas than do just about anything else.
edit. Also SWG was massive, massively empty. Tons of playable are with very little variation in landscape, and almost no foliage. If AoC's zone were as barren as SWG's there would be NO problem. Things like dynamic lighting effects, shadows, and realistic water effects are graphics and processors hogs, way more so than any effects used for SWG. They are different beasts entirely.
if this is true,then it really sux,and its kinda weird that this board aint thread spammed with cons of aoc
it is simply not possible to have an open, zone-free world with the level of graphics that AoC has. Impossible.
Anyone with a realistic understanding of PC limitations knows this.
The graphic quality of AoC has to be seen to be believed....it's beyond amazing. You can't have 2000+ people in one starting area and have it be playable. It's just not realistically feasable.
I think thats a copout excuse to save funcom some money. I bet it could be done.
Star Wars Galaxies when it launched had state of the art graphics. Definitely it was the best for its time 5 years ago. And we didnt have to settle for loading screens when we entered someone's house or a cantina. And we certainly didnt have to choose a zone when entering a dungeon / cave area.
If a game 5 years ago could do it with the best graphics back then, surely funcom can do it now.
When SWG came out it ran for shit, People crashed when nearing towns, and there were not even houses yet. Fixes were made over time even as it became more processor intensive. And it possibly could be done but not without alienating over 60% of the potential player base with older/ slower computers.
They made a choice, and that choice was for the game to be pretty, cause that is what almost everyone talks about, the graphics. Often mentioned even before gameplay, because apparently most folks would rather stare at virtual rivers and vistas than do just about anything else.
Actualy I seem to hear more of the game play, (story aspects, combat {hear this oen a lot}, hear a good bit about PvP) and have even heard people try to nock the looks. . . though persoanly I think it looks great and cant say on the game play <-- pore me didn't get into beta.
As a note I do think that graphics just as much as sound and game play are part of the game, if you have 9 bit graphics and poly sounds even if its the best gameplay mech the world hase evver seen its going to be passed up for a game thats more complet.
Am I say AoC is more complet . . . read above I cant say yet as I have not played yet. . . . what I am getting at is the fact that some see sharp graphics and think the game is gona suck fact of the matter is that the perfect game has sharp graphics, solid sound and perfect game play mech. . . does it exist yet. . . I have played a lot that are close but they always get better so I would say no.
Back to the main topic though; instancing I do think is a good idea assuming its done inteligantly (did I say they did again I have yet to play so no openion here) If done well it would mean that they could put more detail into the game while not overly rasing its requierments, if you go seemless you will fill the pipe so to speak, i.e. an incressingly small group will be able to run it others will get substandard performance due to the incressed load.
In short in the software world the lighter you can make the load the more you can carry; instancing lets you make the load lighter so to speek by keeping the population in a given area with in a given limit or by keeping the area in a give confined (you dont have to load the whole world just a zone of it thus giving you more room for other goodies i.e. mobs, NPCs, the enviroment some of you complain to much effort was given to.
Saying that I will aslo admit that instancing can vary easily be done wrong and badly hurt the game especialy a MMO, even in a supposedly seemless world the use of instanced dungons I think can hurt the game. . . instancing can be a good thing if done right. . . did they do it right? hope so
Its instanced like ffxi, not instanced like EQ2. EQ2 had what youre saying, multiples of the same zone and you could pick which you wanted to go to. In FFXI, there was one West Ronafure. If you wanted to go there, you were there with everybody else. Its simply just its own zone, you zone in from adjacent territory.
I think that as well, from the sounds of it you're absoulotly right about it being like FFXI. But we will see.
Its instanced like ffxi, not instanced like EQ2. EQ2 had what youre saying, multiples of the same zone and you could pick which you wanted to go to. In FFXI, there was one West Ronafure. If you wanted to go there, you were there with everybody else. Its simply just its own zone, you zone in from adjacent territory.
Actually no, it's instanced as in EQ2, where if there are too many people it will spawn a new instance of the same zone. The only difference is that the game will drop you in one of the instances and you have to manually select one if you want to go to a different one, whereas in EQ2 you have to select the instance before zoning.
Its instanced like ffxi, not instanced like EQ2. EQ2 had what youre saying, multiples of the same zone and you could pick which you wanted to go to. In FFXI, there was one West Ronafure. If you wanted to go there, you were there with everybody else. Its simply just its own zone, you zone in from adjacent territory.
Actually no, it's instanced as in EQ2, where if there are too many people it will spawn a new instance of the same zone. The only difference is that the game will drop you in one of the instances and you have to manually select one if you want to go to a different one, whereas in EQ2 you have to select the instance before zoning.
Its instanced like ffxi, not instanced like EQ2. EQ2 had what youre saying, multiples of the same zone and you could pick which you wanted to go to. In FFXI, there was one West Ronafure. If you wanted to go there, you were there with everybody else. Its simply just its own zone, you zone in from adjacent territory.
Actually no, it's instanced as in EQ2, where if there are too many people it will spawn a new instance of the same zone. The only difference is that the game will drop you in one of the instances and you have to manually select one if you want to go to a different one, whereas in EQ2 you have to select the instance before zoning.
I saw none of this during my time in Beta.
Did you look? You won't notice it unless you try to change instance or know someone who is online but in a different instance. In OB it wasn't exactly rare for there to be over 10 instances of tortage, and at least 3 instances of the surrounding zones.
Because the game is advertised as an MMO. That first m stands for Massive. I paid $50, I expected an MMO, not a multiplayer game.
I guess I just expect more for my money. If Star Wars Galaxies can make a seamless no-instance world at launch (and their game world was massive, probably much bigger than conan) then Funcom could do it as well. Im not even going to bother with this game. My copy is going on ebay
LOL
Whatever man, I'll enjoy a game that is fun while you tell everyone that is is crap ... even though you havent played. That's the way things go I guess.
"I don't give a sh*t what other people say. I play what I like and I'll pay to do it too!" - SerialMMOist
good don't buy it and go play something else. That just means one less person complaining about silly shit on the forums all the time.
The Instancing worked quite well in open beta, I didn't feel like it wasn't massive at all its not like your restricted from playing with other people at all so it is indeed massive.
Comments
Your the one with the clear lack of MMO experience.
Ive played just about every MMO on mmorpg.com 's list. None of the 1st generation MMO's did any instancing (except AO, Funcom game)
The second generation games did a little instancing but only for dungeons (and even then it was rare). The one exception was EQ2 that did those mirror - instance zones if they had too many players in one zone.
The few 3rd generation MMO's out do more instancing but again none that extensive. LOTR being a prime example, instancing for dungeons but zones all have everyone in the same world. Some like Vanguard and Dark and Light made the return to 1st gen MMO playstyle where the whole world was seamless and had zero instances.
Age of Conan has taken the instance concept from EQ2 and injected it with steroids. It has joined a select list of MMO's that your average MMO vet doesnt really consider an MMO at all. Games like D&D, Guildwars, to name a few where the world really isnt "MASSIVE" at all.
Those games have their fanbase but they arent MMO's really. Theyre multiplayer games with a subscription fee (except guildwars)
you can;t even put AoC in the same class as GW and DDO, there nothing alike.You've been proven wrong over and again in this thread, and come the 20th, you'll be laughed off the forum.
The proof will be known to the community at large in just a few days, and your doomsaying isn't going to amount to shit.
Some of us know from EXPERIENCE that your speculation is flat-out false. Yet you repeatedly deny the reality of the situation with your instancing rant, trying to make the game sound like Guild Wars2.
Get a grip.
where exactly am I wrong ? Does Age of Conan have mirrored instances for zone or not ?
The answer is apparently yes, therefore what Ive stated is factual. Mirrored zones = multiplayer game
People complaining about instancing need to realize that even if Funcom decided to remove it. Some zones would be incredibly crowded. It need to be done for a better experience.
I've been to Disney Land in Paris a few months ago. And the waiting times literally killed it for me. Crowded area's don't necessarily make for a better experience.
Thats about right. Tortage WILL be instanced so EVERYONE can have enjoyable time and after that I think the limit gets moved up. 200 people in Tarantia was awesome and moving into the real zones I was seeing about 100 people. Me and my old WoW guild made characters on the same server and all (90~) of us had a blast rampaging and doing leveling all in 1 zone (Something Valley? Cimmerian place. Might I add that group questing is NOTHING like WoW in AoC, its actually worth grouping to quest and grind because no XP loss!
...from the dev point of view instancing is tool to solve numerous problems especialy if you are faced with lack of time. For most problems it is the easisest way, meaning less time and money.
SitH happens
Your the one with the clear lack of MMO experience.
Ive played just about every MMO on mmorpg.com 's list. None of the 1st generation MMO's did any instancing (except AO, Funcom game)
The second generation games did a little instancing but only for dungeons (and even then it was rare). The one exception was EQ2 that did those mirror - instance zones if they had too many players in one zone.
The few 3rd generation MMO's out do more instancing but again none that extensive. LOTR being a prime example, instancing for dungeons but zones all have everyone in the same world. Some like Vanguard and Dark and Light made the return to 1st gen MMO playstyle where the whole world was seamless and had zero instances.
Age of Conan has taken the instance concept from EQ2 and injected it with steroids. It has joined a select list of MMO's that your average MMO vet doesnt really consider an MMO at all. Games like D&D, Guildwars, to name a few where the world really isnt "MASSIVE" at all.
Those games have their fanbase but they arent MMO's really. Theyre multiplayer games with a subscription fee (except guildwars)
you can;t even put AoC in the same class as GW and DDO, there nothing alike.You've been proven wrong over and again in this thread, and come the 20th, you'll be laughed off the forum.
The proof will be known to the community at large in just a few days, and your doomsaying isn't going to amount to shit.
Some of us know from EXPERIENCE that your speculation is flat-out false. Yet you repeatedly deny the reality of the situation with your instancing rant, trying to make the game sound like Guild Wars2.
Get a grip.
where exactly am I wrong ? Does Age of Conan have mirrored instances for zone or not ?
The answer is apparently yes, therefore what Ive stated is factual. Mirrored zones = multiplayer game
Mirrored zones allow for a bigger server. What do you prefer? A small server but no mirrored zones. Or a crowded server population wise, but with mirrored zones.
Now, I haven't played the game. (except the Gamespot PvP event) So I cannot judge if its designed right. On launch day Tortage will obviously be very crowded. So some zones will required to be mirrored. You can't expect a thousand elephants to fit in a small elevator.
You might want to try find another game that furfills your needs. Because I personally don't want AoC to end up like a crowded Tokyo city filled with parasites.
Lets take Orgrimmar or Ironforge for example. (assuming you have played WoW) 100 players is considered crowded in full day in Orgrimmar.
If AoC can at least compare with these numbers then it shouldn't be a problem at all. Isn't that ''Massive'' enough for you?
Just to quote SGoodyer again:
''OB I was seeing upward of 200-300 people in cities but no idea if they implemented that instancing system.''
Now I don't know if he is correct. But that seems huge for my standards. A crowded day in some of the most poplair zones in Outlands have about 60-120 players in it.
You know what's funny is that whole time playing the beta, I didn't even realize the game had population instances until I read about it on the forums lol
So.. I really don't see the problem if it's there to make the game run better.
*Twitches as he waits for 1pm est to roll around*
------------------------------
'Cry Havoc, and Let Loose the Dogs of WARRRRR!!!'
Indeed
I guess I just expect more for my money. If Star Wars Galaxies can make a seamless no-instance world at launch (and their game world was massive, probably much bigger than conan) then Funcom could do it as well.
Im not even going to bother with this game. My copy is going on ebay
Its instanced like ffxi, not instanced like EQ2.
EQ2 had what youre saying, multiples of the same zone and you could pick which you wanted to go to.
In FFXI, there was one West Ronafure. If you wanted to go there, you were there with everybody else. Its simply just its own zone, you zone in from adjacent territory.
I guess I just expect more for my money. If Star Wars Galaxies can make a seamless no-instance world at launch (and their game world was massive, probably much bigger than conan) then Funcom could do it as well.
Im not even going to bother with this game. My copy is going on ebay
Umm.. okay. Good luck finding whatever you're looking for.
it is simply not possible to have an open, zone-free world with the level of graphics that AoC has. Impossible.Anyone with a realistic understanding of PC limitations knows this.
The graphic quality of AoC has to be seen to be believed....it's beyond amazing. You can't have 2000+ people in one starting area and have it be playable. It's just not realistically feasable.
I think thats a copout excuse to save funcom some money. I bet it could be done.
Star Wars Galaxies when it launched had state of the art graphics. Definitely it was the best for its time 5 years ago. And we didnt have to settle for loading screens when we entered someone's house or a cantina. And we certainly didnt have to choose a zone when entering a dungeon / cave area.
If a game 5 years ago could do it with the best graphics back then, surely funcom can do it now.
When SWG came out it ran for shit, People crashed when nearing towns, and there were not even houses yet. Fixes were made over time even as it became more processor intensive. And it possibly could be done but not without alienating over 60% of the potential player base with older/ slower computers.
They made a choice, and that choice was for the game to be pretty, cause that is what almost everyone talks about, the graphics. Often mentioned even before gameplay, because apparently most folks would rather stare at virtual rivers and vistas than do just about anything else.
edit. Also SWG was massive, massively empty. Tons of playable are with very little variation in landscape, and almost no foliage. If AoC's zone were as barren as SWG's there would be NO problem. Things like dynamic lighting effects, shadows, and realistic water effects are graphics and processors hogs, way more so than any effects used for SWG. They are different beasts entirely.
Anyone with a realistic understanding of PC limitations knows this.
The graphic quality of AoC has to be seen to be believed....it's beyond amazing. You can't have 2000+ people in one starting area and have it be playable. It's just not realistically feasable.
I think thats a copout excuse to save funcom some money. I bet it could be done.
Star Wars Galaxies when it launched had state of the art graphics. Definitely it was the best for its time 5 years ago. And we didnt have to settle for loading screens when we entered someone's house or a cantina. And we certainly didnt have to choose a zone when entering a dungeon / cave area.
If a game 5 years ago could do it with the best graphics back then, surely funcom can do it now.
When SWG came out it ran for shit, People crashed when nearing towns, and there were not even houses yet. Fixes were made over time even as it became more processor intensive. And it possibly could be done but not without alienating over 60% of the potential player base with older/ slower computers.They made a choice, and that choice was for the game to be pretty, cause that is what almost everyone talks about, the graphics. Often mentioned even before gameplay, because apparently most folks would rather stare at virtual rivers and vistas than do just about anything else.
Actualy I seem to hear more of the game play, (story aspects, combat {hear this oen a lot}, hear a good bit about PvP) and have even heard people try to nock the looks. . . though persoanly I think it looks great and cant say on the game play <-- pore me didn't get into beta.
As a note I do think that graphics just as much as sound and game play are part of the game, if you have 9 bit graphics and poly sounds even if its the best gameplay mech the world hase evver seen its going to be passed up for a game thats more complet.
Am I say AoC is more complet . . . read above I cant say yet as I have not played yet. . . . what I am getting at is the fact that some see sharp graphics and think the game is gona suck fact of the matter is that the perfect game has sharp graphics, solid sound and perfect game play mech. . . does it exist yet. . . I have played a lot that are close but they always get better so I would say no.
Back to the main topic though; instancing I do think is a good idea assuming its done inteligantly (did I say they did again I have yet to play so no openion here) If done well it would mean that they could put more detail into the game while not overly rasing its requierments, if you go seemless you will fill the pipe so to speak, i.e. an incressingly small group will be able to run it others will get substandard performance due to the incressed load.
In short in the software world the lighter you can make the load the more you can carry; instancing lets you make the load lighter so to speek by keeping the population in a given area with in a given limit or by keeping the area in a give confined (you dont have to load the whole world just a zone of it thus giving you more room for other goodies i.e. mobs, NPCs, the enviroment some of you complain to much effort was given to.
Saying that I will aslo admit that instancing can vary easily be done wrong and badly hurt the game especialy a MMO, even in a supposedly seemless world the use of instanced dungons I think can hurt the game. . . instancing can be a good thing if done right. . . did they do it right? hope so
I think that as well, from the sounds of it you're absoulotly right about it being like FFXI. But we will see.
Actually no, it's instanced as in EQ2, where if there are too many people it will spawn a new instance of the same zone. The only difference is that the game will drop you in one of the instances and you have to manually select one if you want to go to a different one, whereas in EQ2 you have to select the instance before zoning.
Actually no, it's instanced as in EQ2, where if there are too many people it will spawn a new instance of the same zone. The only difference is that the game will drop you in one of the instances and you have to manually select one if you want to go to a different one, whereas in EQ2 you have to select the instance before zoning.
I saw none of this during my time in Beta.
Actually no, it's instanced as in EQ2, where if there are too many people it will spawn a new instance of the same zone. The only difference is that the game will drop you in one of the instances and you have to manually select one if you want to go to a different one, whereas in EQ2 you have to select the instance before zoning.
I saw none of this during my time in Beta.
Did you look? You won't notice it unless you try to change instance or know someone who is online but in a different instance. In OB it wasn't exactly rare for there to be over 10 instances of tortage, and at least 3 instances of the surrounding zones.
LOL
Whatever man, I'll enjoy a game that is fun while you tell everyone that is is crap ... even though you havent played. That's the way things go I guess.
"I don't give a sh*t what other people say. I play what I like and I'll pay to do it too!" - SerialMMOist
good don't buy it and go play something else. That just means one less person complaining about silly shit on the forums all the time.
The Instancing worked quite well in open beta, I didn't feel like it wasn't massive at all its not like your restricted from playing with other people at all so it is indeed massive.