Maybe I'm just a masochist, but I actually miss trains and camp checks. I liked going to a dungeon zone and knowing there would be people there to possibly group with instead of spending 30 min LFG in the city, then spending the next hour waiting for everyone to get to the instance. And the trains just added more risk, which is a good thing in my opinion. Keeps you on your toes.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I think dev's could save players a lot of grief simply by separately categorizing heavily intanced vs open games. Perhaps a heavily instanced game could be classifed as an MSORPG (Massively Single Player Online Roleplaying Game). And more open games would be the standard MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game).
That would work for me and would help to narrow down choices when scoping out future games to play.
All this talk about instancing effecting immersion is interesting. Personally any world that requires heavy instancing to maintain immersion is poorly designed to begin with and is more of a theme park ride where youre being led by the nose everywhere, just like everyone before you and everyone after you. I wish more games would follow EVE's example and create a world where there is no single quest or item everyone "must" have or a single area path that your character must follow as they develop. To me immersion is being able to play a game the way a character I create and shape would do so. In a well designed game, using targeted small instances helps with this. If the game requires much more than that, its probably not a game Im going to play because i dont like its base design is simply not what im looking for in a game and therefore it doesnt effect me.
A little off topic but I've heard this said a number of times from EVE players and I don't understand it. I've tried EVE for months and what you could do in the game seemed to break down to this:
Combat
Mine
Fly from one station to another (courier)
Play the market
Craft ships and items
Run missions
PvP (more combat really)
Which is all well and good. But here's the thing, here's what I can do in LotRo or Wow:
Combat
Gather resources
Explore
Play the AH market
Craft
Do quests
PvP (few don't have it)
It seems pretty similar. The only difference is that the "theme park" games have a plot to entice should I wish (which is why most entertainment is popular; movies, books, plays, etc.) whereas the "sandbox" games leave me with no real suggestions for something entertaining. I guess that's why most of the popular sandbox games are PvP... because there really is nothing else engaging in them.
So it seems what many are really saying is "I want world PvP with nothing in the way."
Or, maybe I'm just not cut from that cloth and can't get it. Same way I don't quite understand girls and never will
You can't simply name dynamics and then say they're equal. The ocean and a pond both have 'water' but that doesn't mean they're equal. The things you compare tend to have much more depth in EvE than in LoTRO. As far as a having a storyline to entice, the primary singular characteristic of an MMO is the other players. EvE allows a much MUCH deeper experience than LoTRO because the players interact with each other, instead of all the players interacting against the game. Anyone one of those dynamics in EvE is deep enough to be the entirety of the game for a player, IF that player so wishes. Players are free to entice each other, develop their own storylines, plots, etc...
Thats what sandboxers look for as opposed to themeparkers, imo.
We're trying to create a persistent universe in Force of Arms, not only a world but multiple worlds in which things are going on simultaneously...a big feat to say the least.....we've been asked this same instancing or no instancing questions ourselves....
For the most part, instancing can have a purpose, but in our universe I believe that the case for use of one would be far and wide between...with enough content and outside influence to drive story I believe there should be no need for an particular instance to kill x boss...especially when in our world...if x boss is killed he is gone...gone for good...however that brings up a new set of circumstances for us...how is it persistent in how the next players would get to do content like that...in our case...they'll still be able to but not quite exactly the "same" content...their goal to kill x boss in dungeon or whatever would have a different tailored set of circumstances...we're looking at doing some things with AI which should remove static boss mobs as we know them today from the environment of mmo's...but still give the player a good content rich experience.
Now there are times when instanting would NEED to be in place...of the few quests that exist in the sandbox universe, certain things to help the player along with story and content will need to be provided. for and thats where instancing comes in for us...to warp you out of the world, to tailor a specific story or content piece to you (sometimes by GM sometimes through what we call 'real quests)..where you will need to go someplace, overcome obstacles (mobs or evnironment or both) and then reach your goal to further that content, story piece for you. For instance, you run across a small clump of stone and dirt debris randomly within the world...you decide to investigate it a little further (if you decide to totally up to you)...
While digging around you uncover a stone inscription buried deep in the ruins...you extract it and then take it to the local scientist for study..who may or may not be able to decipher the meaning of it...maybe need to take it to more then one guy to get a 2nd opinion on it...then you get information that tells you that something ancient was distrubed/buried to keep others from accessing to much power...this gives you a clue to another clue..another place to go find more information and so on...until you reach a point where You must enter a certain location that you've discovered personally and investigate what's there..ruins, outpost, archeological dig, mob hive etc...this location contains something of value that you have to search out...value could be knowledge, recipe, equipment who knows...what it is...this is tailored to your experience...and so on...
These are the types of things we're trying to start doing in while keeping the one single universe/world open to as much user created content (player cities/outposts/defense bases/mine facilities etc) as possible all the while encouraging faction against faction (corp against corp) pvp/pve as well as "end game" for all including crafter types...
It's a tough one..but instances can be used for good...i just think they're over used today, and especially in how they're implemented to provide quick content...
I think Dana raised an interesting issue and I have enjoyed reading people's opinions here pro and con instancing.
As developers continue to "blur" the lines in MMOs this way and that, it's going to be harder and harder to define what an MMORPG actually is. My own definition is quite broad: I see an "MMORPG" as an online RPG game that has a large simultaneous player base.
But I'd be happy to drop the first "M" altogether, as it is often confusing to people. Some say the "massive" applies to the game world (it does not, actually). The problem is that the "massively" applies to the number of players, and what people quibble about is whether those players all are really "sharing" the same (persistent) space or are in fact all split up into separate instances.
Guild Wars is certainly structured like that. I would still call it an MMORPG, but I can see why many would not.
I think new acronyms are needed, or else we just need to drop the first "M" since it's so highly debatable.
So, how about we just describe these games as "MORPGs" and add "highly persistent" or "extensively instanced" if a distinction needs to be made?
I did notice this on the Guild Wars 2 website FAQ:
"Will Guild Wars 2 be an MMO? Yes. Guild Wars 2 provides a massive, online persistent world."
Maybe we can just relax and agree that the "massive" has to mean that an online RPG has a massive, online persistent world and just take a chill pill as to whether the MMO also uses a lot of instancing or not?
If we use this definition, of course, then DDO, Guild Wars 1, and a number of other online games can no longer be considered "true" MMORPGs, and I'm fine with that.
Instancing of "dungeons" is a very different thing then sharding a world. All mmos use some form of sharding with the partial exception of EVE (but see Jita for where reality collides with this). The general division is between those games that divide up people into servers and those that divide peoiple into instances. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage of shard based games is that on the meta level all the players are in the same world.
Server based sharding advantages:
Can be more realistic and immersive since the poulation distribution is generally stable (i.e. you tend to play with the same players) and unevenly distributed.
The player base is small enough for a individualor group to become famous and/or influental.
Easier to support large player gatherings or various kinds (in theory up to the whole serer)
Exploits and bugs that break the economy etc. can often be isolated
Disadvantages:
Server populations can be plagued with a number of problems including time zone issues, too many players in one area, level range, or two few, etc, etc, All of these can lead a less enjoyable experience.
Small population means that sophisticated economies don't work.
Playing with friends requres you all to be on the same server
Groups can dominate servers, imposing a "Pax" or doing other things that can adversly effect the game experience
Shard based instancing advantages:
pop base is large enough to support a sophisticated economy
Social base is also more sophisticated. You can play with anyone else who plays the game, not just those on your server.
population density is managed dynamicly and with adjustable granularity. For instance in CO small shards like the tutorial or the level up areas are set to 30 people. Thats enough to fill the space and because these areas are allocated dynamicaly they will always be 80-100% fulled.
Disadvantages:
Problems with large player gatherings: since the shards are generally balanced getting a large noumber of players onto the same shard is problematic.
less "significance" in the world. Its harder to be a top player in an entire player base then in a single server.
Which way you go depends on your design goals. I don't understand players having such a strong feeling about an underlying structure like this though, the actual game experience is what really matters.
I think Dana raised an interesting issue and I have enjoyed reading people's opinions here pro and con instancing. As developers continue to "blur" the lines in MMOs this way and that, it's going to be harder and harder to define what an MMORPG actually is. My own definition is quite broad: I see an "MMORPG" as an online RPG game that has a large simultaneous player base. But I'd be happy to drop the first "M" altogether, as it is often confusing to people. Some say the "massive" applies to the game world (it does not, actually). The problem is that the "massively" applies to the number of players, and what people quibble about is whether those players all are really "sharing" the same (persistent) space or are in fact all split up into separate instances. Guild Wars is certainly structured like that. I would still call it an MMORPG, but I can see why many would not. I think new acronyms are needed, or else we just need to drop the first "M" since it's so highly debatable. So, how about we just describe these games as "MORPGs" and add "highly persistent" or "extensively instanced" if a distinction needs to be made? I did notice this on the Guild Wars 2 website FAQ: "Will Guild Wars 2 be an MMO?
Yes. Guild Wars 2 provides a massive, online persistent world." Maybe we can just relax and agree that the "massive" has to mean that an online RPG has a massive, online persistent world and just take a chill pill as to whether the MMO also uses a lot of instancing or not? If we use this definition, of course, then DDO, Guild Wars 1, and a number of other online games can no longer be considered "true" MMORPGs, and I'm fine with that.
Ultimately, who cares. To be blunt here, what's it matter what we really call these games. An MMO built upon instancing everything and an MMO with absolutely NO instances are both trying to accomplish the same goals here. This is why games have different names, we shouldn't have to release a new name for every different feature utilized in all sorts of MMORPG's. To take a different example, Left4Dead and Team Fortress are both shooters, but two very different kinds of shooters but we still genre both of them into FPS. This whole genre naming thing is fairly redundant, not on topic with this thread and probably as bad as arguing the definition of marriage in the government. Ultimately, who cares what we call it, it can be called Gigantic RPG with Many Players if thats what you want to call it, the games under the MMO genre have the same overall goals they are shooting for and the argument with names is fairly ridiculous. We do not need to depend on the name of the genre of a particular MMO to provide just a little bit more information but many times more complexity, do your research, it takes 5 minutes to get the jist of a game, hence renaming the genre is unnecessary and counterintuitive.
In regards to instancing (the topic of this thread), I think someone above posted in regards to EQ and providing enough content to keep everybody occupied. There are many players that are playing this game and most likely will shoot for the same content, is it fair for everyone to wait 30-60 minutes to get access to a particular busy area? This will appear to be at a disadvantage to the more casual players that log on for lets say only 30-60 minutes at a time. They'll sit there, maybe or maybe not get access to that one thing for a total of 0-30 minutes and then log off for other reasons (maybe a busy guy). I would say thats unfair from a character development perspective and instancing is rather convenient in sharing the content with many. Now, I wouldn't say its impossible to share the content in a world without instances, but its safe to say there will be difficulty in sharing the same content if there was no instances. People will shoot for the same content given enough players and it would take too much time from a company/investor perspective to create enough content to spread a large amount of people out enough at once (depending on game design). The only other solution behind this I can see is creating many services with smaller populations but then again, its a matter of resources to create so many small worlds to fit the large amount of players overall. There's a reason many games utilize instancing and I think it goes beyond being "lazy" (it does not mean that is the case), but we are looking at a handful of people trying to provide content to tens and hundreds of thousands (in WoW's case millions).
Instancing isn't the answer. Anything that takes the user out of the experience isn't the answer. Phasing is the best device I've seen so far that allows players to be in the same area doing different things.
Instancing has its place. I liked instancing in Anarchy Online with the random missions. It made sense in that case. You left the main game world and entered an instance for a mission. I despise instancing in WoW and CoX. Why? Because of the nature of it. How many people are fragging the exact same boss or running the same exact mission as you? It leaves it all feeling pointless. It is even worse in WoW in general (CoX with AE) with you farming the same dungeon/mission over and over.
If you took something like AO's missions (to be honest, I have no idea what they are like now not having played in years) - added in some sort of factional element to work them into the story - then you would have the sense of story progression that is not as linear and certainly not as repetitive as we get in most games.
Sure, there is the desire to be part of the big picture - the big story - but at the end of the day, when you have raided the same dungeon for weeks (while others are doing the same) - what is the point to it?
With the combination of random instanced missions for character growth, live events for the progression of the big story, and a little tweaking here and there - there might be a game that does not leave you feeling like a hamster running on a wheel looking out at a fish swimming in circles in its tank.
One solution is to drastically increase the respawn rate. This means one mistake by anyone in the area has everyone sprinting for the exit like in EQ's BlackBurrow (TRAIN!!!!!!!). whee. This leads to having to use pulling techniques to separate groups of mobs. Doesn't really cure the problem, just treats a symptom.
I agree (as you can see by my earlier post) that most dungeons should be instanced. But I would like to say that not only were the trains in BlackBurrow about the only thing I found fun and exciting in EQ (trying to hold off as many of them as you could so weaker players could get out, or to try and be the hero of killing them off) but it was one of the few times in MMOs that I actually felt danger. I can't think of a modern MMO where I ever was nervous in a dungeon that everything could go wrong and I could die. That is in part due to instancing, part due to modern day easy mode MMOs, and in part due to nothing happening when you die now.
For those that prefer a unified world where people are running into each other all the time, I have to wonder why, exactly. I mean, sure, if the population was comprised of mainly decent people who would go out of their way to help one another, sure, but more often than not you find people who jump in and just start blasting whatever is in front of them, with little regard to who is fighting what, and with no sense of what the proper way to behave is when interacting with others, either in or out of combat. In a game world, there are far too few repercussions for people who behave poorly, so there is no reason for these people to behave otherwise. The people who end up having the "best" time are those who basically play like other people aren't even there. They do whatever they want and most of the time aren't even called on it, because as long as they don't go out of their way to piss someone off, most people won't bother to report it because it just eats into time they could otherwise spend playing the game they paid the same amount for as the asshat who doesn't give a damn about anyone else. It won't matter if the person is banned or not, because the customer service reps never discuss the actions taken against griefers, so you never feel truly vindicated, even if you are. I am sure I wouldn't mind a seamless world without instancing if people behaved better, if it didn't feel like I was being led by the nose from one plot point to the next, and if I didn't have to sit around so long waiting for that special spawn or glowie to refresh. Instancing happens on MY time, and that's why I enjoy it. I'm not messing up someone else's agenda, and they aren't messing up mine. I do a few instanced missions, and sure, others do the same ones, but so what? If I take down a named mob in the game, some other group is going to do the same damned thing in however many minutes it takes for him to respawn. What's the difference? Nobody affects the WoW environment in a meaningful way any more than the CoX environment. I much prefer opting into random zone raids that are epic and huge once in awhile at MY option than being led to a huge battle by a string of missions that I pretty much MUST do to level up in a reasonable time period. Also, one thing I REALLY enjoy is that in instanced games, I can opt to solo any time and make good progress. With non-instanced games, I might be stuck waiting for a mob to respawn, or for a team to let me in so I can take down this huge plot point mob that I need to advance to the next story line or area.
Again, I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that I've given both a fair shake and find that I'd rather be able to remove the human element entirely at my discretion via instancing than be locked into a world where I'm at the mercy of the young, the socially-maladjusted, and the cruel.
Everquest's problem wasn't the open content it was rare mobs dropping rare loot - the combination of which created bottlenecks. If you have a dungeon where one mob drops three items, a common, uncommon and rare drop and that mob is itself a rare spawn with place holders then you do get a lot of the problems people mention. However if...
1) Those three items were split up between three named mobs who always dropped their particular item.
2) The named mobs were flagged and only dropped their special items once per player.
3) The special items were no-drop.
Then there'd be no incentive for players to kill them more than once and no incentive for farmers.
I'd also say situations where players are fighting over mobs just for levelling is bad world design. Either there's not enough dungeons for the level range or more likely there are more dungeons but for some reason people all congregate in just one. In EQ terms i think that latter case was mostly due to things like the ease of travel, access and binding.
When it comes to things like trains and bad behaviour it's definitely true those big open dungeons make griefing easier and i think that's a fair reason for liking instances but personally i used to love the sense of danger you got from having to dodge trains now and then so the occasional griefing was worth it to me. But that's obviously a personal thing.
I think instancing can really enhance or destroy a game depending on how it is implemented. There are ways it can be done that can make an MMO much much better. Instances must make the existing world MORE fun. They should NEVER make a player feel as though they are forcefully separated from their fellow players. Obviously when you go into a dungeon with your friends, you don't feel separated because they are with you. The worst thing ever is when you feel you are separated from your friends IN THE SAME ZONE as them... It doesn't make any sense and it completely destroys the immersion.
In my opinion it SHOULD be done this way:
1. Instanced dungeons as seen in WoW. However, I feel that SOME dungeons should not be instanced. There needs to be both in my opinion.
2. Instanced raids. Again, I think SOME of the raids should be open-world content.
3. Instanced solo-content. This hasn't really been done yet and I think it could really enhance some class-specific content. Imagine difficult epic instanced areas where your character is the sole hero and the objective must be completed just to advance your character.
4. Developers should do their very best to make instancing as invisible as possible. WoW's new phasing technology is a perfect example of this. You can enter instanced areas in that game and never even realize you left the main open world.
Instancing should NEVER be done this way:
1. Instanced cities.
2. Instance open world zones.
Any game that instances world zones or cities instantly kills my feeling of immersion. No matter what they do at that point, its gone... I've lost interest in the game. As in Age of Conan...
For those that prefer a unified world where people are running into each other all the time, I have to wonder why, exactly... The people who end up having the "best" time are those who basically play like other people aren't even there... Instancing happens on MY time, and that's why I enjoy it. I'm not messing up someone else's agenda, and they aren't messing up mine... Also, one thing I REALLY enjoy is that in instanced games, I can opt to solo any time and make good progress... I'd rather be able to remove the human element entirely at my discretion via instancing than be locked into a world where I'm at the mercy of the young, the socially-maladjusted, and the cruel.
Tell me something: WHY ARE YOU PLAYING MMO GAMES ??????????????????????
Originally posted by alecbr Tell me something: WHY ARE YOU PLAYING MMO GAMES ??????????????????????
Tell me something: Why are you screaming at me for articulately explaining what I dislike about MMOs? I don't think it would take you or anyone else of average intelligence any great amount of time to figure out there are far more things offered by MMOs than the things I dislike. I think I'd focus more on why you feel it's appropriate to scream at people who don't share your ideas than for me to explain what I enjoy about the MMOs I play.
Originally posted by delateur Tell me something: Why are you screaming at me for articulately explaining what I dislike about MMOs? I don't think it would take you or anyone else of average intelligence any great amount of time to figure out there are far more things offered by MMOs than the things I dislike. I think I'd focus more on why you feel it's appropriate to scream at people who don't share your ideas than for me to explain what I enjoy about the MMOs I play.
Let me explain it this way. I love Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. But what I dislike about the game is that it is a war game and a FPS. I don't think it would take anyone of average intelligence any great amount of time to figure out there are far more things offered by COD 4 than the things I dislike. So Infinity Ward please let COD 5 be not a war game and not a FPS but put some elves, magic and sword fighting into the game.
For those that prefer a unified world where people are running into each other all the time, I have to wonder why, exactly... The people who end up having the "best" time are those who basically play like other people aren't even there... Instancing happens on MY time, and that's why I enjoy it. I'm not messing up someone else's agenda, and they aren't messing up mine... Also, one thing I REALLY enjoy is that in instanced games, I can opt to solo any time and make good progress... I'd rather be able to remove the human element entirely at my discretion via instancing than be locked into a world where I'm at the mercy of the young, the socially-maladjusted, and the cruel.
Tell me something: WHY ARE YOU PLAYING MMO GAMES ??????????????????????
You do know that its traditional to mix /'s in with that many ?'s?
Perhaps, as several have said, there are *aspects* of MMO's(of what ever definition) that don't exist in single player games? People do add to games. But they also tend to bring negative elements to them as well. In the old days one had to simply deal with that. Games as well as their audiences have moved on since then. I personally would not wish to return to that past.
Funcom solved the problem in an interesting way: They made the game fail so that there weren't enough players around to trigger the instancing. I understand due to the low populations, its not much of an issue anymore.
Haha. That made my day.
Good article Massey. When used correctly, I think we'd all look forward to some of the epic story-lines and "power" instancing could place into the hands of the individual or small group of adventurers. Developers just need to realize when they should use it. IMO, it's used best if no one ever even notices it because it flows so well.
One thing that Blizzard did with Classic WoW was put in pre-instance areas. Like deadmines. It added to the immersion of the area and gave an introduction to what the actual deadmines instance was. You could pickup groups there to do the quests and actual instance or run just around the pre-instance.
Instances are here to stay now because the MMO game, now has a huge following (compartiavly speaking from back in the M59/UO/NWN days)
Those "old" games we remember fondly, EQ / UO / ETC, had small populations, hence REPUTATION actually mattered. Sure there was kill stealing and queue jumping etc. All of these things had repucussions, your name was known for doing such, as was your guilds.
It was also pretty unheard of to get a name change or server transfer. So your rep stuck with you. Heck I had to jump through hoops (including an in-game chat with a GM) to get a transfer in EQ. These days you can just pay a few bucks and bam transfer to a new server. Reputation just does not seem to matter as much in the "modorn" age of MMO's.
Do I miss the old yells of "camp check"? Sure on some days .. but seeing the way that gaming is going (more mainstream and more-so with alot of games aiming at the consol market) I am glad for instances and not having to deal with certian personality types.
To me, as an "older" gamer, it seems manner's are lacking in alot of the newer players. I dont blame them really, I blame the way games have evolved to make reputations worthless. Most people will point to WoW and say that this is the root of poor game-play. WoW being "main-stream" and focusing heavy on instances and worst still the easy ability to name change / server transfer is a factor for sure, its a trend with society as a whole though and MMO's are just reflecting that. We could get into a debate about how society is falling .. but thats not a topic for MMO forums really
Bottom line, Instancing is here to stay. People are, a general rule, are not very nice. The anonimity of the internet brings out the worst in people as there are no repucussions for thier actions and modorn gaming just relects that. Rather than try to change people, the industry just trys to limit how much people can irritate each other. Smart move if you want to keep making money.
That said, all of your arguments are silly and invalid, because most of you are probably not very nice, and your opinions are therefore hard to gauge on a level of how much you actually care, or how much you're trying to troll the forums.
Instancing is just a technique, a way of doing something, you could have an "instance" in a dungeon where the 'name variable' changes on some monster to reflect a choice you made in a quest chain four levels ago, some guy you betrayed to the council (the other option being to tell them you did something bad yourself), who has now joined the rebels that you are killing right now in a dungeon. See? Bam! Storyline, choices, actions being reflected in future gameplay!
The "instancing" would allow this player, or this group of players (multiple enemy NPC characters?) to reflect on their previous gaming experience and go "yeah right, so he joined up with these rebels, huh?" or something along those lines, without affecting other players or their particular "enemy NPC" names.
There are little things you can do with instancing, not just lock out a group into a zone, but customise it to suit their game or story, not that we've really seen any of it yet, but I imagine that's the sort of thing we may be seeing in SWTOR.
Blah! I just wanted to give a small joke about how people suck, but you guys made me rant! Gah!
I am playing EVE and it's alright... level V skills are a bit much.
Instancing sucks. It takes more from the table than it gives back. Basically, instances guarantees uninterrupted access to content at a tremendous sacrifice to immersion.
Making a case for instancing is like making a case for permadeath; it just begs "Why?"
And don't get me started on phasing....
This so totally made me laugh. "Instancing sacrifices immersion." What? Are you kidding?
How immersive is it if another group of players rumbles up and kills that epic villain you have so painstakingly worked your way up to? So, you then have to wait for him to "respawn"? Puh-lease!
Instancing is vital to immersion, in my opinion. More than that, the option to solo content in an instance is crucial to immersion. Ever make your way through some epic dungeon only to have a complete jerk in your party turn the entire experience into a miserable experience for one and all?
I love grouping and persistence; don't get me wrong. But I wish more MMOs would offer SP-RPG instance options for players who like me, actually care about the story. The STORY.
As a general rule I prefer (i) playing solo + AI + instances for story and (ii) playing in a group + instances and/or persistent environments when I just want to goof around and have fun or tackle something I cannot accomplish on my own.
Nothing destroys -- DESTROYS -- immersion and story-telling for me faster than some idiot in my party (or even some idiot just running by in a persistent world) with a "Noobs-R-Us" moron avatar name and a stupid, jerkface attitude to match.
What I'd like to see MMOs offer is "Player Modes". Enter a special instanced area (like, for example, player housing) and select your preferred mode that particular day:
--Mode 1: Persistent world/Dungeons & Instances scaled for player groups of 5
--Mode 2: Persistent world/Dungeons & Instances scaled for a group of 5 players and/or AI/henchmen (as in Guild Wars)
--Mode 3: Persistent world/Dungeons & Instances scaled for 1 player
If LotRO or WoW were set up this way, I would go back to either of those games. This is roughly how DDO is structured. The problem with DDO is that there is no real persistence, which is a bad thing, imo, and also the game is just not that great. But the concept of offering players OPTIONS for completing instanced content -- solo, solo plus AI, or group -- in DDO is really excellent.
Totally agree and this is why I stayed with CoX for so long. I'd love to see them increase the number of instance maps and add some new, non-city, zones but being able to progress through a mission at my own pace was very far from counter immersive. It also worked just as well with groups.
I suspect it's why CoX generally had such a pleasant community, so much less of the jerkish kill stealing anger!
Tell me something: WHY ARE YOU PLAYING MMO GAMES ??????????????????????
Tell me something: Why are you screaming at me for articulately explaining what I dislike about MMOs? I don't think it would take you or anyone else of average intelligence any great amount of time to figure out there are far more things offered by MMOs than the things I dislike. I think I'd focus more on why you feel it's appropriate to scream at people who don't share your ideas than for me to explain what I enjoy about the MMOs I play.
Careful it's strapping a bomb to itself as you type and seeking out your place of work, in order to kill the largest amount of unbelievers, who shall burn in hell !
'Hell is other people' not entirely true just the loony, uncompromising ones.
After seeing the SWTOR private demo on Gamescom, I'd say it's gonna be heavily instanced in order to tell the story they want, ate least for the first levels.
Comments
Maybe I'm just a masochist, but I actually miss trains and camp checks. I liked going to a dungeon zone and knowing there would be people there to possibly group with instead of spending 30 min LFG in the city, then spending the next hour waiting for everyone to get to the instance. And the trains just added more risk, which is a good thing in my opinion. Keeps you on your toes.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I think dev's could save players a lot of grief simply by separately categorizing heavily intanced vs open games. Perhaps a heavily instanced game could be classifed as an MSORPG (Massively Single Player Online Roleplaying Game). And more open games would be the standard MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game).
That would work for me and would help to narrow down choices when scoping out future games to play.
A little off topic but I've heard this said a number of times from EVE players and I don't understand it. I've tried EVE for months and what you could do in the game seemed to break down to this:
Which is all well and good. But here's the thing, here's what I can do in LotRo or Wow:
It seems pretty similar. The only difference is that the "theme park" games have a plot to entice should I wish (which is why most entertainment is popular; movies, books, plays, etc.) whereas the "sandbox" games leave me with no real suggestions for something entertaining. I guess that's why most of the popular sandbox games are PvP... because there really is nothing else engaging in them.
So it seems what many are really saying is "I want world PvP with nothing in the way."
Or, maybe I'm just not cut from that cloth and can't get it. Same way I don't quite understand girls and never will
You can't simply name dynamics and then say they're equal. The ocean and a pond both have 'water' but that doesn't mean they're equal. The things you compare tend to have much more depth in EvE than in LoTRO. As far as a having a storyline to entice, the primary singular characteristic of an MMO is the other players. EvE allows a much MUCH deeper experience than LoTRO because the players interact with each other, instead of all the players interacting against the game. Anyone one of those dynamics in EvE is deep enough to be the entirety of the game for a player, IF that player so wishes. Players are free to entice each other, develop their own storylines, plots, etc...
Thats what sandboxers look for as opposed to themeparkers, imo.
We're trying to create a persistent universe in Force of Arms, not only a world but multiple worlds in which things are going on simultaneously...a big feat to say the least.....we've been asked this same instancing or no instancing questions ourselves....
For the most part, instancing can have a purpose, but in our universe I believe that the case for use of one would be far and wide between...with enough content and outside influence to drive story I believe there should be no need for an particular instance to kill x boss...especially when in our world...if x boss is killed he is gone...gone for good...however that brings up a new set of circumstances for us...how is it persistent in how the next players would get to do content like that...in our case...they'll still be able to but not quite exactly the "same" content...their goal to kill x boss in dungeon or whatever would have a different tailored set of circumstances...we're looking at doing some things with AI which should remove static boss mobs as we know them today from the environment of mmo's...but still give the player a good content rich experience.
Now there are times when instanting would NEED to be in place...of the few quests that exist in the sandbox universe, certain things to help the player along with story and content will need to be provided. for and thats where instancing comes in for us...to warp you out of the world, to tailor a specific story or content piece to you (sometimes by GM sometimes through what we call 'real quests)..where you will need to go someplace, overcome obstacles (mobs or evnironment or both) and then reach your goal to further that content, story piece for you. For instance, you run across a small clump of stone and dirt debris randomly within the world...you decide to investigate it a little further (if you decide to totally up to you)...
While digging around you uncover a stone inscription buried deep in the ruins...you extract it and then take it to the local scientist for study..who may or may not be able to decipher the meaning of it...maybe need to take it to more then one guy to get a 2nd opinion on it...then you get information that tells you that something ancient was distrubed/buried to keep others from accessing to much power...this gives you a clue to another clue..another place to go find more information and so on...until you reach a point where You must enter a certain location that you've discovered personally and investigate what's there..ruins, outpost, archeological dig, mob hive etc...this location contains something of value that you have to search out...value could be knowledge, recipe, equipment who knows...what it is...this is tailored to your experience...and so on...
These are the types of things we're trying to start doing in while keeping the one single universe/world open to as much user created content (player cities/outposts/defense bases/mine facilities etc) as possible all the while encouraging faction against faction (corp against corp) pvp/pve as well as "end game" for all including crafter types...
It's a tough one..but instances can be used for good...i just think they're over used today, and especially in how they're implemented to provide quick content...
http://www.forceofarms.com/index.php
I think Dana raised an interesting issue and I have enjoyed reading people's opinions here pro and con instancing.
As developers continue to "blur" the lines in MMOs this way and that, it's going to be harder and harder to define what an MMORPG actually is. My own definition is quite broad: I see an "MMORPG" as an online RPG game that has a large simultaneous player base.
But I'd be happy to drop the first "M" altogether, as it is often confusing to people. Some say the "massive" applies to the game world (it does not, actually). The problem is that the "massively" applies to the number of players, and what people quibble about is whether those players all are really "sharing" the same (persistent) space or are in fact all split up into separate instances.
Guild Wars is certainly structured like that. I would still call it an MMORPG, but I can see why many would not.
I think new acronyms are needed, or else we just need to drop the first "M" since it's so highly debatable.
So, how about we just describe these games as "MORPGs" and add "highly persistent" or "extensively instanced" if a distinction needs to be made?
I did notice this on the Guild Wars 2 website FAQ:
"Will Guild Wars 2 be an MMO?
Yes. Guild Wars 2 provides a massive, online persistent world."
Maybe we can just relax and agree that the "massive" has to mean that an online RPG has a massive, online persistent world and just take a chill pill as to whether the MMO also uses a lot of instancing or not?
If we use this definition, of course, then DDO, Guild Wars 1, and a number of other online games can no longer be considered "true" MMORPGs, and I'm fine with that.
Instancing of "dungeons" is a very different thing then sharding a world. All mmos use some form of sharding with the partial exception of EVE (but see Jita for where reality collides with this). The general division is between those games that divide up people into servers and those that divide peoiple into instances. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage of shard based games is that on the meta level all the players are in the same world.
Server based sharding advantages:
Disadvantages:
Shard based instancing advantages:
Disadvantages:
Which way you go depends on your design goals. I don't understand players having such a strong feeling about an underlying structure like this though, the actual game experience is what really matters.
Ultimately, who cares. To be blunt here, what's it matter what we really call these games. An MMO built upon instancing everything and an MMO with absolutely NO instances are both trying to accomplish the same goals here. This is why games have different names, we shouldn't have to release a new name for every different feature utilized in all sorts of MMORPG's. To take a different example, Left4Dead and Team Fortress are both shooters, but two very different kinds of shooters but we still genre both of them into FPS. This whole genre naming thing is fairly redundant, not on topic with this thread and probably as bad as arguing the definition of marriage in the government. Ultimately, who cares what we call it, it can be called Gigantic RPG with Many Players if thats what you want to call it, the games under the MMO genre have the same overall goals they are shooting for and the argument with names is fairly ridiculous. We do not need to depend on the name of the genre of a particular MMO to provide just a little bit more information but many times more complexity, do your research, it takes 5 minutes to get the jist of a game, hence renaming the genre is unnecessary and counterintuitive.
In regards to instancing (the topic of this thread), I think someone above posted in regards to EQ and providing enough content to keep everybody occupied. There are many players that are playing this game and most likely will shoot for the same content, is it fair for everyone to wait 30-60 minutes to get access to a particular busy area? This will appear to be at a disadvantage to the more casual players that log on for lets say only 30-60 minutes at a time. They'll sit there, maybe or maybe not get access to that one thing for a total of 0-30 minutes and then log off for other reasons (maybe a busy guy). I would say thats unfair from a character development perspective and instancing is rather convenient in sharing the content with many. Now, I wouldn't say its impossible to share the content in a world without instances, but its safe to say there will be difficulty in sharing the same content if there was no instances. People will shoot for the same content given enough players and it would take too much time from a company/investor perspective to create enough content to spread a large amount of people out enough at once (depending on game design). The only other solution behind this I can see is creating many services with smaller populations but then again, its a matter of resources to create so many small worlds to fit the large amount of players overall. There's a reason many games utilize instancing and I think it goes beyond being "lazy" (it does not mean that is the case), but we are looking at a handful of people trying to provide content to tens and hundreds of thousands (in WoW's case millions).
Instancing isn't the answer. Anything that takes the user out of the experience isn't the answer. Phasing is the best device I've seen so far that allows players to be in the same area doing different things.
Instancing has its place. I liked instancing in Anarchy Online with the random missions. It made sense in that case. You left the main game world and entered an instance for a mission. I despise instancing in WoW and CoX. Why? Because of the nature of it. How many people are fragging the exact same boss or running the same exact mission as you? It leaves it all feeling pointless. It is even worse in WoW in general (CoX with AE) with you farming the same dungeon/mission over and over.
If you took something like AO's missions (to be honest, I have no idea what they are like now not having played in years) - added in some sort of factional element to work them into the story - then you would have the sense of story progression that is not as linear and certainly not as repetitive as we get in most games.
Sure, there is the desire to be part of the big picture - the big story - but at the end of the day, when you have raided the same dungeon for weeks (while others are doing the same) - what is the point to it?
With the combination of random instanced missions for character growth, live events for the progression of the big story, and a little tweaking here and there - there might be a game that does not leave you feeling like a hamster running on a wheel looking out at a fish swimming in circles in its tank.
Maybe...
I agree (as you can see by my earlier post) that most dungeons should be instanced. But I would like to say that not only were the trains in BlackBurrow about the only thing I found fun and exciting in EQ (trying to hold off as many of them as you could so weaker players could get out, or to try and be the hero of killing them off) but it was one of the few times in MMOs that I actually felt danger. I can't think of a modern MMO where I ever was nervous in a dungeon that everything could go wrong and I could die. That is in part due to instancing, part due to modern day easy mode MMOs, and in part due to nothing happening when you die now.
I miss the days of danger.
For those that prefer a unified world where people are running into each other all the time, I have to wonder why, exactly. I mean, sure, if the population was comprised of mainly decent people who would go out of their way to help one another, sure, but more often than not you find people who jump in and just start blasting whatever is in front of them, with little regard to who is fighting what, and with no sense of what the proper way to behave is when interacting with others, either in or out of combat. In a game world, there are far too few repercussions for people who behave poorly, so there is no reason for these people to behave otherwise. The people who end up having the "best" time are those who basically play like other people aren't even there. They do whatever they want and most of the time aren't even called on it, because as long as they don't go out of their way to piss someone off, most people won't bother to report it because it just eats into time they could otherwise spend playing the game they paid the same amount for as the asshat who doesn't give a damn about anyone else. It won't matter if the person is banned or not, because the customer service reps never discuss the actions taken against griefers, so you never feel truly vindicated, even if you are. I am sure I wouldn't mind a seamless world without instancing if people behaved better, if it didn't feel like I was being led by the nose from one plot point to the next, and if I didn't have to sit around so long waiting for that special spawn or glowie to refresh. Instancing happens on MY time, and that's why I enjoy it. I'm not messing up someone else's agenda, and they aren't messing up mine. I do a few instanced missions, and sure, others do the same ones, but so what? If I take down a named mob in the game, some other group is going to do the same damned thing in however many minutes it takes for him to respawn. What's the difference? Nobody affects the WoW environment in a meaningful way any more than the CoX environment. I much prefer opting into random zone raids that are epic and huge once in awhile at MY option than being led to a huge battle by a string of missions that I pretty much MUST do to level up in a reasonable time period. Also, one thing I REALLY enjoy is that in instanced games, I can opt to solo any time and make good progress. With non-instanced games, I might be stuck waiting for a mob to respawn, or for a team to let me in so I can take down this huge plot point mob that I need to advance to the next story line or area.
Again, I'm not saying one is better than the other, just that I've given both a fair shake and find that I'd rather be able to remove the human element entirely at my discretion via instancing than be locked into a world where I'm at the mercy of the young, the socially-maladjusted, and the cruel.
Everquest's problem wasn't the open content it was rare mobs dropping rare loot - the combination of which created bottlenecks. If you have a dungeon where one mob drops three items, a common, uncommon and rare drop and that mob is itself a rare spawn with place holders then you do get a lot of the problems people mention. However if...
1) Those three items were split up between three named mobs who always dropped their particular item.
2) The named mobs were flagged and only dropped their special items once per player.
3) The special items were no-drop.
Then there'd be no incentive for players to kill them more than once and no incentive for farmers.
I'd also say situations where players are fighting over mobs just for levelling is bad world design. Either there's not enough dungeons for the level range or more likely there are more dungeons but for some reason people all congregate in just one. In EQ terms i think that latter case was mostly due to things like the ease of travel, access and binding.
When it comes to things like trains and bad behaviour it's definitely true those big open dungeons make griefing easier and i think that's a fair reason for liking instances but personally i used to love the sense of danger you got from having to dodge trains now and then so the occasional griefing was worth it to me. But that's obviously a personal thing.
I think instancing can really enhance or destroy a game depending on how it is implemented. There are ways it can be done that can make an MMO much much better. Instances must make the existing world MORE fun. They should NEVER make a player feel as though they are forcefully separated from their fellow players. Obviously when you go into a dungeon with your friends, you don't feel separated because they are with you. The worst thing ever is when you feel you are separated from your friends IN THE SAME ZONE as them... It doesn't make any sense and it completely destroys the immersion.
In my opinion it SHOULD be done this way:
1. Instanced dungeons as seen in WoW. However, I feel that SOME dungeons should not be instanced. There needs to be both in my opinion.
2. Instanced raids. Again, I think SOME of the raids should be open-world content.
3. Instanced solo-content. This hasn't really been done yet and I think it could really enhance some class-specific content. Imagine difficult epic instanced areas where your character is the sole hero and the objective must be completed just to advance your character.
4. Developers should do their very best to make instancing as invisible as possible. WoW's new phasing technology is a perfect example of this. You can enter instanced areas in that game and never even realize you left the main open world.
Instancing should NEVER be done this way:
1. Instanced cities.
2. Instance open world zones.
Any game that instances world zones or cities instantly kills my feeling of immersion. No matter what they do at that point, its gone... I've lost interest in the game. As in Age of Conan...
Tell me something: Why are you screaming at me for articulately explaining what I dislike about MMOs? I don't think it would take you or anyone else of average intelligence any great amount of time to figure out there are far more things offered by MMOs than the things I dislike. I think I'd focus more on why you feel it's appropriate to scream at people who don't share your ideas than for me to explain what I enjoy about the MMOs I play.
Let me explain it this way. I love Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. But what I dislike about the game is that it is a war game and a FPS. I don't think it would take anyone of average intelligence any great amount of time to figure out there are far more things offered by COD 4 than the things I dislike. So Infinity Ward please let COD 5 be not a war game and not a FPS but put some elves, magic and sword fighting into the game.
And sorry about screaming, I apologize
You do know that its traditional to mix /'s in with that many ?'s?
Perhaps, as several have said, there are *aspects* of MMO's(of what ever definition) that don't exist in single player games? People do add to games. But they also tend to bring negative elements to them as well. In the old days one had to simply deal with that. Games as well as their audiences have moved on since then. I personally would not wish to return to that past.
Haha. That made my day.
Good article Massey. When used correctly, I think we'd all look forward to some of the epic story-lines and "power" instancing could place into the hands of the individual or small group of adventurers. Developers just need to realize when they should use it. IMO, it's used best if no one ever even notices it because it flows so well.
One thing that Blizzard did with Classic WoW was put in pre-instance areas. Like deadmines. It added to the immersion of the area and gave an introduction to what the actual deadmines instance was. You could pickup groups there to do the quests and actual instance or run just around the pre-instance.
Instances are here to stay now because the MMO game, now has a huge following (compartiavly speaking from back in the M59/UO/NWN days)
Those "old" games we remember fondly, EQ / UO / ETC, had small populations, hence REPUTATION actually mattered. Sure there was kill stealing and queue jumping etc. All of these things had repucussions, your name was known for doing such, as was your guilds.
It was also pretty unheard of to get a name change or server transfer. So your rep stuck with you. Heck I had to jump through hoops (including an in-game chat with a GM) to get a transfer in EQ. These days you can just pay a few bucks and bam transfer to a new server. Reputation just does not seem to matter as much in the "modorn" age of MMO's.
Do I miss the old yells of "camp check"? Sure on some days .. but seeing the way that gaming is going (more mainstream and more-so with alot of games aiming at the consol market) I am glad for instances and not having to deal with certian personality types.
To me, as an "older" gamer, it seems manner's are lacking in alot of the newer players. I dont blame them really, I blame the way games have evolved to make reputations worthless. Most people will point to WoW and say that this is the root of poor game-play. WoW being "main-stream" and focusing heavy on instances and worst still the easy ability to name change / server transfer is a factor for sure, its a trend with society as a whole though and MMO's are just reflecting that. We could get into a debate about how society is falling .. but thats not a topic for MMO forums really
Bottom line, Instancing is here to stay. People are, a general rule, are not very nice. The anonimity of the internet brings out the worst in people as there are no repucussions for thier actions and modorn gaming just relects that. Rather than try to change people, the industry just trys to limit how much people can irritate each other. Smart move if you want to keep making money.
That said, all of your arguments are silly and invalid, because most of you are probably not very nice, and your opinions are therefore hard to gauge on a level of how much you actually care, or how much you're trying to troll the forums.
Instancing is just a technique, a way of doing something, you could have an "instance" in a dungeon where the 'name variable' changes on some monster to reflect a choice you made in a quest chain four levels ago, some guy you betrayed to the council (the other option being to tell them you did something bad yourself), who has now joined the rebels that you are killing right now in a dungeon. See? Bam! Storyline, choices, actions being reflected in future gameplay!
The "instancing" would allow this player, or this group of players (multiple enemy NPC characters?) to reflect on their previous gaming experience and go "yeah right, so he joined up with these rebels, huh?" or something along those lines, without affecting other players or their particular "enemy NPC" names.
There are little things you can do with instancing, not just lock out a group into a zone, but customise it to suit their game or story, not that we've really seen any of it yet, but I imagine that's the sort of thing we may be seeing in SWTOR.
Blah! I just wanted to give a small joke about how people suck, but you guys made me rant! Gah!
I am playing EVE and it's alright... level V skills are a bit much.
You all need to learn to spell.
This so totally made me laugh. "Instancing sacrifices immersion." What? Are you kidding?
How immersive is it if another group of players rumbles up and kills that epic villain you have so painstakingly worked your way up to? So, you then have to wait for him to "respawn"? Puh-lease!
Instancing is vital to immersion, in my opinion. More than that, the option to solo content in an instance is crucial to immersion. Ever make your way through some epic dungeon only to have a complete jerk in your party turn the entire experience into a miserable experience for one and all?
I love grouping and persistence; don't get me wrong. But I wish more MMOs would offer SP-RPG instance options for players who like me, actually care about the story. The STORY.
As a general rule I prefer (i) playing solo + AI + instances for story and (ii) playing in a group + instances and/or persistent environments when I just want to goof around and have fun or tackle something I cannot accomplish on my own.
Nothing destroys -- DESTROYS -- immersion and story-telling for me faster than some idiot in my party (or even some idiot just running by in a persistent world) with a "Noobs-R-Us" moron avatar name and a stupid, jerkface attitude to match.
What I'd like to see MMOs offer is "Player Modes". Enter a special instanced area (like, for example, player housing) and select your preferred mode that particular day:
--Mode 1: Persistent world/Dungeons & Instances scaled for player groups of 5
--Mode 2: Persistent world/Dungeons & Instances scaled for a group of 5 players and/or AI/henchmen (as in Guild Wars)
--Mode 3: Persistent world/Dungeons & Instances scaled for 1 player
If LotRO or WoW were set up this way, I would go back to either of those games. This is roughly how DDO is structured. The problem with DDO is that there is no real persistence, which is a bad thing, imo, and also the game is just not that great. But the concept of offering players OPTIONS for completing instanced content -- solo, solo plus AI, or group -- in DDO is really excellent.
Totally agree and this is why I stayed with CoX for so long. I'd love to see them increase the number of instance maps and add some new, non-city, zones but being able to progress through a mission at my own pace was very far from counter immersive. It also worked just as well with groups.
I suspect it's why CoX generally had such a pleasant community, so much less of the jerkish kill stealing anger!
Tell me something: Why are you screaming at me for articulately explaining what I dislike about MMOs? I don't think it would take you or anyone else of average intelligence any great amount of time to figure out there are far more things offered by MMOs than the things I dislike. I think I'd focus more on why you feel it's appropriate to scream at people who don't share your ideas than for me to explain what I enjoy about the MMOs I play.
Careful it's strapping a bomb to itself as you type and seeking out your place of work, in order to kill the largest amount of unbelievers, who shall burn in hell !
'Hell is other people' not entirely true just the loony, uncompromising ones.
What a great article!
After seeing the SWTOR private demo on Gamescom, I'd say it's gonna be heavily instanced in order to tell the story they want, ate least for the first levels.
If Warhammer had instanced RVR lakes, it would have been a powerhouse. Now, it's just another 300k entry into a flooded market of near misses.
And by the by, the author sounds like he's describing the SWTOR that I seem to be imagining.
Stop crying in my beer.