Replacing content with instances isn't something I agree with, but if both types of content are there, what's the big deal?
The core of the question to me is that using or not the instancing in the main objectives is leading to a two very different kind of play experience because they will promote a very different kinds of community interaction.
I'm not going to say here that one is better than the other because its just a question of what do you would prefere, or in other words what do you ask to a MMO to have to give you fun.
May be if i come with two examples i experienced it will be more clear (i have to apologise but my english i know is not enough when it comes to talk about feelings and perceptions).
In LotRO or WoW to use this model as the first example. Instancing is used as the main (really the only one) method to get in the so called "end game" where are the best rewards and going further where is the unique possibility to advance. Instances are the main field PvE side (WoW and LotRO have more than one game in their whole packages. Btw a thing that is not of my taste). There is no comunity contest in this field other than who is the first to kill "The Big One" there is no place to create hate, love, friends and enemies. PvP point of view its something similar, being instanced and limited in numbers there is no place for alliances, betrayals, and all this kind of drama. In consequence the community interaction there is in a different step than in a non instanced game (main goals instanced).
I'll use LIneage II as my second and opposite example because is a "linear" game too. There is no instancing you have to fight for all the resources available Bosses, Castles and so. There is a lot of drama coming from the competition. You can try as individual or as a small clan to avoid the drama, but you will fail, sooner or later if you play enough long you will be forced to go in. And in consequence the level of the comunity interaction (for the good or for the bad) its way more intensive than in the instanced model.
This is the big deal to me .
I can guess uses of instancing that aren't going to interfere in the model of the game and can help to add fun to any kind of game. Story related, individual achievements, like skill exams,...
I loved the way LotRO used the instancing in the Epic Book quests.
Does everyone remember what a huge step forward instancing was when it was introduced? There are just some places that need to be instanced.
What how is Instancing a step foward? IMO it should only be used for something like a "destiny quest" or if a main story line is present can be used for that in some parts. Major content should never, I repeat never have instances.
First:
Zerging. Zerging renders encounters into nonsense. Remember "Oh we can't kill the dragon because we could only muster 120 people?" Yeah, that's bull.
Second, actual dungeon content. Remember how immersive the dungeon of 1800 people grinding various mobs and sitting around waiting to kill a boss was? Yeah, right.
Third, you can balance an encounter. Five, 6, 8, 10 people whatever. You can actually get it so it's a challenge, without it being stupid. Challenge with 5? Bring 8!
So overall, dungeon-style instances make PvE encounters much more epic and interesting. I don't particularly think it helps for PvP, but if you want 100% PvP all the goddamn time, go play Darkfall or some other game like that.
IMO end game content is classified as major content.
Yeah, it's also pretty much where instancing is at its best.
Now I have a question for you: Do you seriously not remember how most everyone thought instancing was cool and awesome when it was introduced?
That's so much bullshit I can actually smell it through the screen. Instancing is NOT an improvement, it's a shortcut for developers who can't create an environment where such bottlenecks don't exist. It's a cheap/lazy way to handle problems and only shows lack of professionalism. It breaks the immersion and takes the MMO part out of MMORPG.
I'm sure everyone would loved to see how a game you created turns out. You copping out with your argument.
Originally posted by Sharajat What I think people don't see is the vast amounts of advantages instances can give. LotRO really took them somewhere different, turning them into a semi-cinematic adventure that you have to overcome. WoW, despite the hatred, created some very tuned, interesting, difficult encounters (and despite the whining from people so anti-social they couldn't find 4 others who could stomach them, nevermind 24 or 39, they were difficult). Would Asheron's Call been a worse game if it had those TOO? Replacing content with instances isn't something I agree with, but if both types of content are there, what's the big deal?
The problem is that you can't have everything. Games are developed in the real world using real time and real money. Every feature or bit of content that you do add means that you are not going to add some other feature or bit of content due to a lack of resources. This leads us to the situation we are in today...
You can make an MMO that uses a lot of instances and tries to focus a lot on storyline, quests and specific game content or you can make an MMO that is more open and free and is more of a sandbox environment.
Recently a lot of MMO games have been trying the first option and recently a lot of MMO games have been failing because of it. People are quickly blowing through the carefully crafted storyline quests and then realizing that their is either no end-game content or that the end-game content doesn't work because the developers chose to take the easy route of using instances instead of putting resources into making a game world and rule set that "works" in different situations and with the randomness of other players.
Other MMO games, such as Asherons Call 1 or Eve Online go for the sandbox approach. They use an open and free world where they focus on a game world and rule set that (for the most part) works for everyone in all situations. The storyline and quests usually aren't as good because the content is more generalized but because the world "works" the players become much more involved in the game and stay for years and years. In the case of Asherons Call 1 they even had monthly updates to progress the storyline and maintain the interest of everyone and it worked very well.
In the end, instances are something of a short cut. It is the cheap and easy route for developers. It can make a great game but the game ends up not having the same long-lasting appeal that a non-instanced sandbox style game has.
Originally posted by Sharajat What I think people don't see is the vast amounts of advantages instances can give. LotRO really took them somewhere different, turning them into a semi-cinematic adventure that you have to overcome. WoW, despite the hatred, created some very tuned, interesting, difficult encounters (and despite the whining from people so anti-social they couldn't find 4 others who could stomach them, nevermind 24 or 39, they were difficult). Would Asheron's Call been a worse game if it had those TOO? Replacing content with instances isn't something I agree with, but if both types of content are there, what's the big deal?
The problem is that you can't have everything. Games are developed in the real world using real time and real money. Every feature or bit of content that you do add means that you are not going to add some other feature or bit of content due to a lack of resources. This leads us to the situation we are in today...
You can make an MMO that uses a lot of instances and tries to focus a lot on storyline, quests and specific game content or you can make an MMO that is more open and free and is more of a sandbox environment.
Seriously, repeat this until it sinks in - Economics is not a zero sum game. Neither are MMOs. If you attract 300,000 subscribers by having one set of features, and 200,000 subscribers with another set of features, you have income from 500,000 subscribers. You can then spend that on developing content for the 300,000 and the 200,000. The 200 aren't stealing the 300's money, that money WOULD NOT BE THERE if they weren't there. Period. The 300 would get no more content, and would actually LOSE FEATURES if it wasn't for the other features that they "Don't care about much" being added to the game.
You are using lousy math to justify your opinion.
Recently a lot of MMO games have been trying the first option and recently a lot of MMO games have been failing because of it. People are quickly blowing through the carefully crafted storyline quests and then realizing that their is either no end-game content or that the end-game content doesn't work because the developers chose to take the easy route of using instances instead of putting resources into making a game world and rule set that "works" in different situations and with the randomness of other players.
Other MMO games, such as Asherons Call 1 or Eve Online go for the sandbox approach. They use an open and free world where they focus on a game world and rule set that (for the most part) works for everyone in all situations. The storyline and quests usually aren't as good because the content is more generalized but because the world "works" the players become much more involved in the game and stay for years and years. In the case of Asherons Call 1 they even had monthly updates to progress the storyline and maintain the interest of everyone and it worked very well.
In the end, instances are something of a short cut. It is the cheap and easy route for developers. It can make a great game but the game ends up not having the same long-lasting appeal that a non-instanced sandbox style game has.
The problem is, even ignoring WoW, we don't see any particular success of the 'sandbox' genre. SWG was losing players even before they gutted their own game. Ryzom is dead. Shadowbane? Dark and Light?
Considering the successful non-WoW games on the market, we have:
Lineage - semisandboxish, old
LotRO - Non-sandbox
Eve - Sandbox
Warhammer - PvP game
Guild Wars - Non-sandbox, non-subscription
That's it. Those are the only games I'd seriously look at if I was listing successful MMOs currently on the market (besides the 800 pound gorilla in the room). And of them, we have one sandbox. One.
In this case your idea of sacrificing all your other content (which as I pointed out does not detract from money focused at other concerns) to throw everything into making a 100% sandbox MMO looks less insightful and more, well... insane.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
All instancing sucks and most of the ills that instancing supposedly solves, can be fixed thru creative mechanics and coding but it requires more work and developers are lazy. Instancing also adds new problems such as the ability for farmers to farm non stop without competition which leads to a damaged economy. Just say not to games with instancing.
Instancing also adds new problems such as the ability for farmers to farm non stop without competition which leads to a damaged economy. Just say not to games with instancing.
And the opposite is true. This problem has nothing to do with instancing.
Originally posted by Sharajat What I think people don't see is the vast amounts of advantages instances can give. LotRO really took them somewhere different, turning them into a semi-cinematic adventure that you have to overcome. WoW, despite the hatred, created some very tuned, interesting, difficult encounters (and despite the whining from people so anti-social they couldn't find 4 others who could stomach them, nevermind 24 or 39, they were difficult). Would Asheron's Call been a worse game if it had those TOO? Replacing content with instances isn't something I agree with, but if both types of content are there, what's the big deal?
The problem is that you can't have everything. Games are developed in the real world using real time and real money. Every feature or bit of content that you do add means that you are not going to add some other feature or bit of content due to a lack of resources. This leads us to the situation we are in today...
You can make an MMO that uses a lot of instances and tries to focus a lot on storyline, quests and specific game content or you can make an MMO that is more open and free and is more of a sandbox environment.
Seriously, repeat this until it sinks in - Economics is not a zero sum game. Neither are MMOs. If you attract 300,000 subscribers by having one set of features, and 200,000 subscribers with another set of features, you have income from 500,000 subscribers. You can then spend that on developing content for the 300,000 and the 200,000. The 200 aren't stealing the 300's money, that money WOULD NOT BE THERE if they weren't there. Period. The 300 would get no more content, and would actually LOSE FEATURES if it wasn't for the other features that they "Don't care about much" being added to the game.
You are using lousy math to justify your opinion.
Recently a lot of MMO games have been trying the first option and recently a lot of MMO games have been failing because of it. People are quickly blowing through the carefully crafted storyline quests and then realizing that their is either no end-game content or that the end-game content doesn't work because the developers chose to take the easy route of using instances instead of putting resources into making a game world and rule set that "works" in different situations and with the randomness of other players.
Other MMO games, such as Asherons Call 1 or Eve Online go for the sandbox approach. They use an open and free world where they focus on a game world and rule set that (for the most part) works for everyone in all situations. The storyline and quests usually aren't as good because the content is more generalized but because the world "works" the players become much more involved in the game and stay for years and years. In the case of Asherons Call 1 they even had monthly updates to progress the storyline and maintain the interest of everyone and it worked very well.
In the end, instances are something of a short cut. It is the cheap and easy route for developers. It can make a great game but the game ends up not having the same long-lasting appeal that a non-instanced sandbox style game has.
Actually, your math is the one that ends up looking inaccurate. Before a game can have subscribers it has to be DEVELOPED. And development has limit of time, resources and money. You can only do so much and if you haven't grabbed that extra 200,000 at launch because the feature they like doesn't exist, good luck using the 300's money to create that content AND more for the existing players so they are satisfied and don't leave. MMO's don't start out getting profits, they run into debt first and then hopefully break even after launch. There is a reason why games will somtimes die before even being released.
If you would like, I'll quote you "You are using lousy math to justify your opinion." Don't become acidic unless the person deserves it, please.
Does everyone remember what a huge step forward instancing was when it was introduced? There are just some places that need to be instanced.
What how is Instancing a step foward? IMO it should only be used for something like a "destiny quest" or if a main story line is present can be used for that in some parts. Major content should never, I repeat never have instances.
First:
Zerging. Zerging renders encounters into nonsense. Remember "Oh we can't kill the dragon because we could only muster 120 people?" Yeah, that's bull.
Second, actual dungeon content. Remember how immersive the dungeon of 1800 people grinding various mobs and sitting around waiting to kill a boss was? Yeah, right.
Third, you can balance an encounter. Five, 6, 8, 10 people whatever. You can actually get it so it's a challenge, without it being stupid. Challenge with 5? Bring 8!
So overall, dungeon-style instances make PvE encounters much more epic and interesting. I don't particularly think it helps for PvP, but if you want 100% PvP all the goddamn time, go play Darkfall or some other game like that.
IMO end game content is classified as major content.
Yeah, it's also pretty much where instancing is at its best.
Now I have a question for you: Do you seriously not remember how most everyone thought instancing was cool and awesome when it was introduced?
That's so much bullshit I can actually smell it through the screen. Instancing is NOT an improvement, it's a shortcut for developers who can't create an environment where such bottlenecks don't exist. It's a cheap/lazy way to handle problems and only shows lack of professionalism. It breaks the immersion and takes the MMO part out of MMORPG.
I'm sure everyone would loved to see how a game you created turns out. You copping out with your argument.
I stand by my statement. Instances are not for major content or for the weak gamer. If you want the "Easy button" stick with WOW or all the WoW clones coming out. But Im tired of all these new MMO's where there is no sense of accomplishment or sense of being part of an MMO world not a game where everything is instanced, and spoon feed to you.
Thankfully Aions only instances will be the personal quest of the character. which is the way it should be. The main world and content is NOT instanced so if you dont like that idea go cry else where because theres no easy button here.
Side notes:
First: I hate zerg guilds with a passion. Instances or not, if a game supports zerging then there will be zerg guilds. The game structure can kill zeging if they want to.
Second: If the game has enough content and enough stuff to do there wont be 1800 ppl in a zone. Thats a perfect example on how the devs cut corners for lack of content by just instancing the zone. Thats exactly what instances do: cheapin the game.
Third: thats goes back to the zerging point. Atleast I think thats what you were refering to, making a fight more chalenging. Kill the zergs then you can have your challenge.
Overall: Instancing doesnt make PvE more interesting/ epic. It makes it easy. 10 groups killing the same boss each in an instance, ya thats about as epic as a trip to Wal-Mart. 10 groups camping for 1 boss, now thats epic. 1 winner 9 losers, but if the game has content 10 groups shouldnt be camping 1 boss.
To answer your question I thought instancing was cool when I could do my personal quest in it and not have to worry about others ruining my story. Or having to wait on my personal story boss to respawn because I just saw a guy kill it.
Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore) Now Playing: N/A Worst MMO: FFXIV Favorite MMO: FFXI
Originally posted by Arataki Actually, your math is the one that ends up looking inaccurate. Before a game can have subscribers it has to be DEVELOPED. And development has limit of time, resources and money. You can only do so much and if you haven't grabbed that extra 200,000 at launch because the feature they like doesn't exist, good luck using the 300's money to create that content AND more for the existing players so they are satisfied and don't leave. MMO's don't start out getting profits, they run into debt first and then hopefully break even after launch. There is a reason why games will somtimes die before even being released. If you would like, I'll quote you "You are using lousy math to justify your opinion." Don't become acidic unless the person deserves it, please.
If I become acidic, you'll know it.
And once again, you are using bad logic. We can develop a decent picture of what gamers like through various surveys. That lets developers paint a good picture of what the game will cater to, and budget accordingly. Warhammer, for instance, was developed with a single objective, and a more limited budget than something like Aion, which seems to be aiming for elements of PvP and PvE as well as questing, group, and solo content. Did they project less subscribers and therefore less revenue and budget accordingly?
I would say yes. Most developers do this. Yes, we've had a number of high-profile failures where the devs were totally defocused, but we're not talking about modeling failures. We're talking about modeling successes.
By the way, MMOs are an evolving world. If they gain good content of certain sorts, people will join. Battlegrounds were added to WoW - they subsequently became popular and WoW gained a following with some PvP players. EVE has added a lot of features over the years, growing in popularity all the way.
I think that sometimes people view MMOs as static because of the number of high profile disasters people have inflicted - destroying content by attacking the core gameplay. They forget that new content can be added and a new audience gained. Good MMOs have all been significantly larger two years after launch than they were one year after.
Instance development is not robbing the world of questing development. The devs will project their income and budget accordingly. Yes, by becoming hyper focused some developers are hoping to beat the trend of failure against the monolith, but they're deliberately scaling down your budgets. Do you really think Warhammer had the same budget as WoW?
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Originally posted by Arataki Actually, your math is the one that ends up looking inaccurate. Before a game can have subscribers it has to be DEVELOPED. And development has limit of time, resources and money. You can only do so much and if you haven't grabbed that extra 200,000 at launch because the feature they like doesn't exist, good luck using the 300's money to create that content AND more for the existing players so they are satisfied and don't leave. MMO's don't start out getting profits, they run into debt first and then hopefully break even after launch. There is a reason why games will somtimes die before even being released. If you would like, I'll quote you "You are using lousy math to justify your opinion." Don't become acidic unless the person deserves it, please.
If I become acidic, you'll know it.
And once again, you are using bad logic. We can develop a decent picture of what gamers like through various surveys. That lets developers paint a good picture of what the game will cater to, and budget accordingly. Warhammer, for instance, was developed with a single objective, and a more limited budget than something like Aion, which seems to be aiming for elements of PvP and PvE as well as questing, group, and solo content. Did they project less subscribers and therefore less revenue and budget accordingly?
I would say yes. Most developers do this. Yes, we've had a number of high-profile failures where the devs were totally defocused, but we're not talking about modeling failures. We're talking about modeling successes.
By the way, MMOs are an evolving world. If they gain good content of certain sorts, people will join. Battlegrounds were added to WoW - they subsequently became popular and WoW gained a following with some PvP players. EVE has added a lot of features over the years, growing in popularity all the way.
I think that sometimes people view MMOs as static because of the number of high profile disasters people have inflicted - destroying content by attacking the core gameplay. They forget that new content can be added and a new audience gained. Good MMOs have all been significantly larger two years after launch than they were one year after.
Instance development is not robbing the world of questing development. The devs will project their income and budget accordingly. Yes, by becoming hyper focused some developers are hoping to beat the trend of failure against the monolith, but they're deliberately scaling down your budgets. Do you really think Warhammer had the same budget as WoW?
I have no idea what they're budgets were and I did not mention them (and I don't think we know what the budget for something like Aion vs Warhammer is anyway). I know very well that MMO's are not static, as worlds they do adapt, evolve as well as degenerate and decay. This one needs no education on what MMO's are XD but it is a good point. The thing is, the MMO "successes" are rather far and few in between and the ratios will vary depending on what someone thinks to be a "failed" game. My criteria might be different, but in my mind there are a lot of "failed" games that have and have not shut their doors yet.
You say developers usually project their income and budget accordingly, but as long as they are focused all is good? If it isn't the gist of that section, disregard this but if it is, many "niche" and focused games failed as well. I'm thinking Fury, Hellgate: London, Tabula Rasa, etc. Were they unfocused? No, but what happened there? (I don't know, so I'm asking.)
Neither of our logics is bad, I think we are actually agreeing in some weird way as I didn't say that developers *couldn't* use subscriber money to add content, it's just that if extra content is *needed* because numbers aren't holding up then good luck. You are arguing as if I said that, but since I didn't and don't think it, it makes a weird situation.
I do not think Warhammer had the same budget as WoW. Did not imply it, and as stated before, did not mention it. What it is doing there in your post, I don't know. I have never played either.
I was also not arguing for or against instancing but since I am now: Instancing is bad. Great when technology couldn't go beyond it, now a days it needs to go PROVIDED that they had the budget to do so. I wouldn't expect Joe-who-the-hell-are-you to get rid of instancing, but SOE, Blizzard, NCSoft, etc should.
EDIT: English is not my best language, be warned some things might not make sense XD
Originally posted by Arataki I have no idea what they're budgets were and I did not mention them (and I don't think we know what the budget for something like Aion vs Warhammer is anyway). I know very well that MMO's are not static, as worlds they do adapt, evolve as well as degenerate and decay. This one needs no education on what MMO's are XD but it is a good point. The thing is, the MMO "successes" are rather far and few in between and the ratios will vary depending on what someone thinks to be a "failed" game. My criteria might be different, but in my mind there are a lot of "failed" games that have and have not shut their doors yet. I define an MMO success as one that has a healthy population, stable community, and remains vibrant and active. There are a few border line cases (LOTRO was deemed a failure by many, but has actually been the dark horse success story of 2007) but for example it doesn't take a genius to figure out Tabula Rasa is never making back what they sunk in. You say developers usually project their income and budget accordingly, but as long as they are focused all is good? If it isn't the gist of that section, disregard this but if it is, many "niche" and focused games failed as well. I'm thinking Fury, Hellgate: London, Tabula Rasa, etc. Were they unfocused? No, but what happened there? (I don't know, so I'm asking.) They failed. I'm not interested in failed games here. Frankly, instancing did not make any of those games fail. Lack of instancing would not have made them succeed. Their flaws were too deep, too dark, too painful. Neither of our logics is bad, I think we are actually agreeing in some weird way as I didn't say that developers *couldn't* use subscriber money to add content, it's just that if extra content is *needed* because numbers aren't holding up then good luck. You are arguing as if I said that, but since I didn't and don't think it, it makes a weird situation. Extra content MUST be added to keep the MMO alive, IMHO. Every MMO maker has realized this. I do not think Warhammer had the same budget as WoW. Did not imply it, and as stated before, did not mention it. What it is doing there in your post, I don't know. I have never played either. I was also not arguing for or against instancing but since I am now: Instancing is bad. Great when technology couldn't go beyond it, now a days it needs to go PROVIDED that they had the budget to do so. I wouldn't expect Joe-who-the-hell-are-you to get rid of instancing, but SOE, Blizzard, NCSoft, etc should. But why? How does technology solve any of the problems I listed? What technology could possibly stop all of that? Instances are a good solution to a real problem. And yes, I am fine with saying "if you do not like them, do not go inside them" without feeling you are deprived of content. If you only roll five classes in Warhammer, did Mythic deprive you of content by making all those other classes? If you never play on a PvP server, did Blizzard deprive you of content by making PvP servers? And if you never set foot in an instance, does NCSoft deprive you of content by making instances? EDIT: English is not my best language, be warned some things might not make sense XD Understood
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Originally posted by Arataki I have no idea what they're budgets were and I did not mention them (and I don't think we know what the budget for something like Aion vs Warhammer is anyway). I know very well that MMO's are not static, as worlds they do adapt, evolve as well as degenerate and decay. This one needs no education on what MMO's are XD but it is a good point. The thing is, the MMO "successes" are rather far and few in between and the ratios will vary depending on what someone thinks to be a "failed" game. My criteria might be different, but in my mind there are a lot of "failed" games that have and have not shut their doors yet. I define an MMO success as one that has a healthy population, stable community, and remains vibrant and active. There are a few border line cases (LOTRO was deemed a failure by many, but has actually been the dark horse success story of 2007) but for example it doesn't take a genius to figure out Tabula Rasa is never making back what they sunk in. You say developers usually project their income and budget accordingly, but as long as they are focused all is good? If it isn't the gist of that section, disregard this but if it is, many "niche" and focused games failed as well. I'm thinking Fury, Hellgate: London, Tabula Rasa, etc. Were they unfocused? No, but what happened there? (I don't know, so I'm asking.) They failed. I'm not interested in failed games here. Frankly, instancing did not make any of those games fail. Lack of instancing would not have made them succeed. Their flaws were too deep, too dark, too painful. Neither of our logics is bad, I think we are actually agreeing in some weird way as I didn't say that developers *couldn't* use subscriber money to add content, it's just that if extra content is *needed* because numbers aren't holding up then good luck. You are arguing as if I said that, but since I didn't and don't think it, it makes a weird situation. Extra content MUST be added to keep the MMO alive, IMHO. Every MMO maker has realized this. I do not think Warhammer had the same budget as WoW. Did not imply it, and as stated before, did not mention it. What it is doing there in your post, I don't know. I have never played either. I was also not arguing for or against instancing but since I am now: Instancing is bad. Great when technology couldn't go beyond it, now a days it needs to go PROVIDED that they had the budget to do so. I wouldn't expect Joe-who-the-hell-are-you to get rid of instancing, but SOE, Blizzard, NCSoft, etc should. But why? How does technology solve any of the problems I listed? What technology could possibly stop all of that? Instances are a good solution to a real problem. And yes, I am fine with saying "if you do not like them, do not go inside them" without feeling you are deprived of content. If you only roll five classes in Warhammer, did Mythic deprive you of content by making all those other classes? If you never play on a PvP server, did Blizzard deprive you of content by making PvP servers? And if you never set foot in an instance, does NCSoft deprive you of content by making instances? EDIT: English is not my best language, be warned some things might not make sense XD Understood
You do know, that I never implied that instancing caused any games to fail or otherwise. There was only one point that I was "arguing" against, nothing else, so please don't try to rebutt by using red herrings. I did not say instances deprived me of anything, as for the other examples, don't know what you are trying to get at. I hope you aren't confusing me with someone else.
As for technology, we have the ability to make zones and content much faster and more diverse than before. As someone said, if there is enough content so people don't *have* to create bottlenecks then the problem that instances fix won't be there. I'm not completely against having some instances where it makes sense, but relying on them is bad, imo.
Originally posted by Arataki You do know, that I never implied that instancing caused any games to fail or otherwise. There was only one point that I was "arguing" against, nothing else, so please don't try to rebutt by using red herrings. I did not say instances deprived me of anything, as for the other examples, don't know what you are trying to get at. I hope you aren't confusing me with someone else. As for technology, we have the ability to make zones and content much faster and more diverse than before. As someone said, if there is enough content so people don't *have* to create bottlenecks then the problem that instances fix won't be there. I'm not completely against having some instances where it makes sense, but relying on them is bad, imo.
But how? You keep saying this, but you haven't stated a single way to solve the problems instancing solves without instancing. Much less WHY this solution would be so superior to instancing. This really seems more like an article of faith to you than anything else.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Ah, I thought I was alluding to it but I can be more specific. Sandboxes. Instead of using instances to make sure that one lvl 40 - 50 isn't over run, why can't there be 10+ dungeons for that level? What we have now seems to be an industry standard of having four or five dungeons for a level when it could be much more, which would reduce that bottle neck problem.
Does every class available have to travel into these dungeons? If we take pre-NGE SWG, many didn't. What about over world content so if they don't want to, they don't have to? And etc. If there are a lot of players, it wouldn't eliminate all bottlenecks, but chances are (hopefully) you'll have enough revenue to continue expanding outwards and up. I currently am working on an MMO design document that will encorporate this, with any luck perhaps it could be developed.
Perhaps, what I'm advocating is too much like an actual virtual world than a game but this is just my opinion.
Comments
The core of the question to me is that using or not the instancing in the main objectives is leading to a two very different kind of play experience because they will promote a very different kinds of community interaction.
I'm not going to say here that one is better than the other because its just a question of what do you would prefere, or in other words what do you ask to a MMO to have to give you fun.
May be if i come with two examples i experienced it will be more clear (i have to apologise but my english i know is not enough when it comes to talk about feelings and perceptions).
In LotRO or WoW to use this model as the first example. Instancing is used as the main (really the only one) method to get in the so called "end game" where are the best rewards and going further where is the unique possibility to advance. Instances are the main field PvE side (WoW and LotRO have more than one game in their whole packages. Btw a thing that is not of my taste). There is no comunity contest in this field other than who is the first to kill "The Big One" there is no place to create hate, love, friends and enemies. PvP point of view its something similar, being instanced and limited in numbers there is no place for alliances, betrayals, and all this kind of drama. In consequence the community interaction there is in a different step than in a non instanced game (main goals instanced).
I'll use LIneage II as my second and opposite example because is a "linear" game too. There is no instancing you have to fight for all the resources available Bosses, Castles and so. There is a lot of drama coming from the competition. You can try as individual or as a small clan to avoid the drama, but you will fail, sooner or later if you play enough long you will be forced to go in. And in consequence the level of the comunity interaction (for the good or for the bad) its way more intensive than in the instanced model.
This is the big deal to me
.
I can guess uses of instancing that aren't going to interfere in the model of the game and can help to add fun to any kind of game. Story related, individual achievements, like skill exams,...
I loved the way LotRO used the instancing in the Epic Book quests.
What how is Instancing a step foward? IMO it should only be used for something like a "destiny quest" or if a main story line is present can be used for that in some parts. Major content should never, I repeat never have instances.
First:
Zerging. Zerging renders encounters into nonsense. Remember "Oh we can't kill the dragon because we could only muster 120 people?" Yeah, that's bull.
Second, actual dungeon content. Remember how immersive the dungeon of 1800 people grinding various mobs and sitting around waiting to kill a boss was? Yeah, right.
Third, you can balance an encounter. Five, 6, 8, 10 people whatever. You can actually get it so it's a challenge, without it being stupid. Challenge with 5? Bring 8!
So overall, dungeon-style instances make PvE encounters much more epic and interesting. I don't particularly think it helps for PvP, but if you want 100% PvP all the goddamn time, go play Darkfall or some other game like that.
IMO end game content is classified as major content.
Yeah, it's also pretty much where instancing is at its best.
Now I have a question for you: Do you seriously not remember how most everyone thought instancing was cool and awesome when it was introduced?
That's so much bullshit I can actually smell it through the screen. Instancing is NOT an improvement, it's a shortcut for developers who can't create an environment where such bottlenecks don't exist. It's a cheap/lazy way to handle problems and only shows lack of professionalism. It breaks the immersion and takes the MMO part out of MMORPG.
I'm sure everyone would loved to see how a game you created turns out. You copping out with your argument.
The problem is that you can't have everything. Games are developed in the real world using real time and real money. Every feature or bit of content that you do add means that you are not going to add some other feature or bit of content due to a lack of resources. This leads us to the situation we are in today...
You can make an MMO that uses a lot of instances and tries to focus a lot on storyline, quests and specific game content or you can make an MMO that is more open and free and is more of a sandbox environment.
Recently a lot of MMO games have been trying the first option and recently a lot of MMO games have been failing because of it. People are quickly blowing through the carefully crafted storyline quests and then realizing that their is either no end-game content or that the end-game content doesn't work because the developers chose to take the easy route of using instances instead of putting resources into making a game world and rule set that "works" in different situations and with the randomness of other players.
Other MMO games, such as Asherons Call 1 or Eve Online go for the sandbox approach. They use an open and free world where they focus on a game world and rule set that (for the most part) works for everyone in all situations. The storyline and quests usually aren't as good because the content is more generalized but because the world "works" the players become much more involved in the game and stay for years and years. In the case of Asherons Call 1 they even had monthly updates to progress the storyline and maintain the interest of everyone and it worked very well.
In the end, instances are something of a short cut. It is the cheap and easy route for developers. It can make a great game but the game ends up not having the same long-lasting appeal that a non-instanced sandbox style game has.
The problem is that you can't have everything. Games are developed in the real world using real time and real money. Every feature or bit of content that you do add means that you are not going to add some other feature or bit of content due to a lack of resources. This leads us to the situation we are in today...
You can make an MMO that uses a lot of instances and tries to focus a lot on storyline, quests and specific game content or you can make an MMO that is more open and free and is more of a sandbox environment.
Seriously, repeat this until it sinks in - Economics is not a zero sum game. Neither are MMOs. If you attract 300,000 subscribers by having one set of features, and 200,000 subscribers with another set of features, you have income from 500,000 subscribers. You can then spend that on developing content for the 300,000 and the 200,000. The 200 aren't stealing the 300's money, that money WOULD NOT BE THERE if they weren't there. Period. The 300 would get no more content, and would actually LOSE FEATURES if it wasn't for the other features that they "Don't care about much" being added to the game.
You are using lousy math to justify your opinion.
Recently a lot of MMO games have been trying the first option and recently a lot of MMO games have been failing because of it. People are quickly blowing through the carefully crafted storyline quests and then realizing that their is either no end-game content or that the end-game content doesn't work because the developers chose to take the easy route of using instances instead of putting resources into making a game world and rule set that "works" in different situations and with the randomness of other players.
Other MMO games, such as Asherons Call 1 or Eve Online go for the sandbox approach. They use an open and free world where they focus on a game world and rule set that (for the most part) works for everyone in all situations. The storyline and quests usually aren't as good because the content is more generalized but because the world "works" the players become much more involved in the game and stay for years and years. In the case of Asherons Call 1 they even had monthly updates to progress the storyline and maintain the interest of everyone and it worked very well.
In the end, instances are something of a short cut. It is the cheap and easy route for developers. It can make a great game but the game ends up not having the same long-lasting appeal that a non-instanced sandbox style game has.
The problem is, even ignoring WoW, we don't see any particular success of the 'sandbox' genre. SWG was losing players even before they gutted their own game. Ryzom is dead. Shadowbane? Dark and Light?
Considering the successful non-WoW games on the market, we have:
Lineage - semisandboxish, old
LotRO - Non-sandbox
Eve - Sandbox
Warhammer - PvP game
Guild Wars - Non-sandbox, non-subscription
That's it. Those are the only games I'd seriously look at if I was listing successful MMOs currently on the market (besides the 800 pound gorilla in the room). And of them, we have one sandbox. One.
In this case your idea of sacrificing all your other content (which as I pointed out does not detract from money focused at other concerns) to throw everything into making a 100% sandbox MMO looks less insightful and more, well... insane.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
All instancing sucks and most of the ills that instancing supposedly solves, can be fixed thru creative mechanics and coding but it requires more work and developers are lazy. Instancing also adds new problems such as the ability for farmers to farm non stop without competition which leads to a damaged economy. Just say not to games with instancing.
And the opposite is true. This problem has nothing to do with instancing.
(,,,)=^__^=(,,,)
The problem is that you can't have everything. Games are developed in the real world using real time and real money. Every feature or bit of content that you do add means that you are not going to add some other feature or bit of content due to a lack of resources. This leads us to the situation we are in today...
You can make an MMO that uses a lot of instances and tries to focus a lot on storyline, quests and specific game content or you can make an MMO that is more open and free and is more of a sandbox environment.
Seriously, repeat this until it sinks in - Economics is not a zero sum game. Neither are MMOs. If you attract 300,000 subscribers by having one set of features, and 200,000 subscribers with another set of features, you have income from 500,000 subscribers. You can then spend that on developing content for the 300,000 and the 200,000. The 200 aren't stealing the 300's money, that money WOULD NOT BE THERE if they weren't there. Period. The 300 would get no more content, and would actually LOSE FEATURES if it wasn't for the other features that they "Don't care about much" being added to the game.
You are using lousy math to justify your opinion.
Recently a lot of MMO games have been trying the first option and recently a lot of MMO games have been failing because of it. People are quickly blowing through the carefully crafted storyline quests and then realizing that their is either no end-game content or that the end-game content doesn't work because the developers chose to take the easy route of using instances instead of putting resources into making a game world and rule set that "works" in different situations and with the randomness of other players.
Other MMO games, such as Asherons Call 1 or Eve Online go for the sandbox approach. They use an open and free world where they focus on a game world and rule set that (for the most part) works for everyone in all situations. The storyline and quests usually aren't as good because the content is more generalized but because the world "works" the players become much more involved in the game and stay for years and years. In the case of Asherons Call 1 they even had monthly updates to progress the storyline and maintain the interest of everyone and it worked very well.
In the end, instances are something of a short cut. It is the cheap and easy route for developers. It can make a great game but the game ends up not having the same long-lasting appeal that a non-instanced sandbox style game has.
Actually, your math is the one that ends up looking inaccurate. Before a game can have subscribers it has to be DEVELOPED. And development has limit of time, resources and money. You can only do so much and if you haven't grabbed that extra 200,000 at launch because the feature they like doesn't exist, good luck using the 300's money to create that content AND more for the existing players so they are satisfied and don't leave. MMO's don't start out getting profits, they run into debt first and then hopefully break even after launch. There is a reason why games will somtimes die before even being released.
If you would like, I'll quote you "You are using lousy math to justify your opinion." Don't become acidic unless the person deserves it, please.
What how is Instancing a step foward? IMO it should only be used for something like a "destiny quest" or if a main story line is present can be used for that in some parts. Major content should never, I repeat never have instances.
First:
Zerging. Zerging renders encounters into nonsense. Remember "Oh we can't kill the dragon because we could only muster 120 people?" Yeah, that's bull.
Second, actual dungeon content. Remember how immersive the dungeon of 1800 people grinding various mobs and sitting around waiting to kill a boss was? Yeah, right.
Third, you can balance an encounter. Five, 6, 8, 10 people whatever. You can actually get it so it's a challenge, without it being stupid. Challenge with 5? Bring 8!
So overall, dungeon-style instances make PvE encounters much more epic and interesting. I don't particularly think it helps for PvP, but if you want 100% PvP all the goddamn time, go play Darkfall or some other game like that.
IMO end game content is classified as major content.
Yeah, it's also pretty much where instancing is at its best.
Now I have a question for you: Do you seriously not remember how most everyone thought instancing was cool and awesome when it was introduced?
That's so much bullshit I can actually smell it through the screen. Instancing is NOT an improvement, it's a shortcut for developers who can't create an environment where such bottlenecks don't exist. It's a cheap/lazy way to handle problems and only shows lack of professionalism. It breaks the immersion and takes the MMO part out of MMORPG.
I'm sure everyone would loved to see how a game you created turns out. You copping out with your argument.
I stand by my statement. Instances are not for major content or for the weak gamer. If you want the "Easy button" stick with WOW or all the WoW clones coming out. But Im tired of all these new MMO's where there is no sense of accomplishment or sense of being part of an MMO world not a game where everything is instanced, and spoon feed to you.
Thankfully Aions only instances will be the personal quest of the character. which is the way it should be. The main world and content is NOT instanced so if you dont like that idea go cry else where because theres no easy button here.
Side notes:
First: I hate zerg guilds with a passion. Instances or not, if a game supports zerging then there will be zerg guilds. The game structure can kill zeging if they want to.
Second: If the game has enough content and enough stuff to do there wont be 1800 ppl in a zone. Thats a perfect example on how the devs cut corners for lack of content by just instancing the zone. Thats exactly what instances do: cheapin the game.
Third: thats goes back to the zerging point. Atleast I think thats what you were refering to, making a fight more chalenging. Kill the zergs then you can have your challenge.
Overall: Instancing doesnt make PvE more interesting/ epic. It makes it easy. 10 groups killing the same boss each in an instance, ya thats about as epic as a trip to Wal-Mart. 10 groups camping for 1 boss, now thats epic. 1 winner 9 losers, but if the game has content 10 groups shouldnt be camping 1 boss.
To answer your question I thought instancing was cool when I could do my personal quest in it and not have to worry about others ruining my story. Or having to wait on my personal story boss to respawn because I just saw a guy kill it.
Waiting for:EQ-Next, ArcheAge (not so much anymore)
Now Playing: N/A
Worst MMO: FFXIV
Favorite MMO: FFXI
If I become acidic, you'll know it.
And once again, you are using bad logic. We can develop a decent picture of what gamers like through various surveys. That lets developers paint a good picture of what the game will cater to, and budget accordingly. Warhammer, for instance, was developed with a single objective, and a more limited budget than something like Aion, which seems to be aiming for elements of PvP and PvE as well as questing, group, and solo content. Did they project less subscribers and therefore less revenue and budget accordingly?
I would say yes. Most developers do this. Yes, we've had a number of high-profile failures where the devs were totally defocused, but we're not talking about modeling failures. We're talking about modeling successes.
By the way, MMOs are an evolving world. If they gain good content of certain sorts, people will join. Battlegrounds were added to WoW - they subsequently became popular and WoW gained a following with some PvP players. EVE has added a lot of features over the years, growing in popularity all the way.
I think that sometimes people view MMOs as static because of the number of high profile disasters people have inflicted - destroying content by attacking the core gameplay. They forget that new content can be added and a new audience gained. Good MMOs have all been significantly larger two years after launch than they were one year after.
Instance development is not robbing the world of questing development. The devs will project their income and budget accordingly. Yes, by becoming hyper focused some developers are hoping to beat the trend of failure against the monolith, but they're deliberately scaling down your budgets. Do you really think Warhammer had the same budget as WoW?
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
If I become acidic, you'll know it.
And once again, you are using bad logic. We can develop a decent picture of what gamers like through various surveys. That lets developers paint a good picture of what the game will cater to, and budget accordingly. Warhammer, for instance, was developed with a single objective, and a more limited budget than something like Aion, which seems to be aiming for elements of PvP and PvE as well as questing, group, and solo content. Did they project less subscribers and therefore less revenue and budget accordingly?
I would say yes. Most developers do this. Yes, we've had a number of high-profile failures where the devs were totally defocused, but we're not talking about modeling failures. We're talking about modeling successes.
By the way, MMOs are an evolving world. If they gain good content of certain sorts, people will join. Battlegrounds were added to WoW - they subsequently became popular and WoW gained a following with some PvP players. EVE has added a lot of features over the years, growing in popularity all the way.
I think that sometimes people view MMOs as static because of the number of high profile disasters people have inflicted - destroying content by attacking the core gameplay. They forget that new content can be added and a new audience gained. Good MMOs have all been significantly larger two years after launch than they were one year after.
Instance development is not robbing the world of questing development. The devs will project their income and budget accordingly. Yes, by becoming hyper focused some developers are hoping to beat the trend of failure against the monolith, but they're deliberately scaling down your budgets. Do you really think Warhammer had the same budget as WoW?
I have no idea what they're budgets were and I did not mention them (and I don't think we know what the budget for something like Aion vs Warhammer is anyway). I know very well that MMO's are not static, as worlds they do adapt, evolve as well as degenerate and decay. This one needs no education on what MMO's are XD but it is a good point. The thing is, the MMO "successes" are rather far and few in between and the ratios will vary depending on what someone thinks to be a "failed" game. My criteria might be different, but in my mind there are a lot of "failed" games that have and have not shut their doors yet.
You say developers usually project their income and budget accordingly, but as long as they are focused all is good? If it isn't the gist of that section, disregard this but if it is, many "niche" and focused games failed as well. I'm thinking Fury, Hellgate: London, Tabula Rasa, etc. Were they unfocused? No, but what happened there? (I don't know, so I'm asking.)
Neither of our logics is bad, I think we are actually agreeing in some weird way as I didn't say that developers *couldn't* use subscriber money to add content, it's just that if extra content is *needed* because numbers aren't holding up then good luck. You are arguing as if I said that, but since I didn't and don't think it, it makes a weird situation.
I do not think Warhammer had the same budget as WoW. Did not imply it, and as stated before, did not mention it. What it is doing there in your post, I don't know. I have never played either.
I was also not arguing for or against instancing but since I am now: Instancing is bad. Great when technology couldn't go beyond it, now a days it needs to go PROVIDED that they had the budget to do so. I wouldn't expect Joe-who-the-hell-are-you to get rid of instancing, but SOE, Blizzard, NCSoft, etc should.
EDIT: English is not my best language, be warned some things might not make sense XD
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
You do know, that I never implied that instancing caused any games to fail or otherwise. There was only one point that I was "arguing" against, nothing else, so please don't try to rebutt by using red herrings. I did not say instances deprived me of anything, as for the other examples, don't know what you are trying to get at. I hope you aren't confusing me with someone else.
As for technology, we have the ability to make zones and content much faster and more diverse than before. As someone said, if there is enough content so people don't *have* to create bottlenecks then the problem that instances fix won't be there. I'm not completely against having some instances where it makes sense, but relying on them is bad, imo.
But how? You keep saying this, but you haven't stated a single way to solve the problems instancing solves without instancing. Much less WHY this solution would be so superior to instancing. This really seems more like an article of faith to you than anything else.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
Ah, I thought I was alluding to it but I can be more specific. Sandboxes. Instead of using instances to make sure that one lvl 40 - 50 isn't over run, why can't there be 10+ dungeons for that level? What we have now seems to be an industry standard of having four or five dungeons for a level when it could be much more, which would reduce that bottle neck problem.
Does every class available have to travel into these dungeons? If we take pre-NGE SWG, many didn't. What about over world content so if they don't want to, they don't have to? And etc. If there are a lot of players, it wouldn't eliminate all bottlenecks, but chances are (hopefully) you'll have enough revenue to continue expanding outwards and up. I currently am working on an MMO design document that will encorporate this, with any luck perhaps it could be developed.
Perhaps, what I'm advocating is too much like an actual virtual world than a game but this is just my opinion.