I started playing MMOs back durring EQ1 before they put in expansions. I really dislike the new trend of instancing in MMOs. Back in EQ I use to love just wandering around and running into new people and start talking to them or helping them out if they needed it, or getting help if I needed it. But now with the large ammount of instancing in games, it just feels like im playing a single player game online now.
This is really bad in DDO (im in the closed beta). In DDO you never see anyone other then your group members inside the dungeons, and with the none dungeons also having instances if theres too many people, you will rarely see more then 20 people in an area. The taverns in DDO are just places to rest up so you can go into another instance, there is just no interactions between the players, or at least not like there use to be.
heres the thing. the main reason wow is sucessful with the instances is because of the mass popularity of the game. a lot of people who play wow have little concern for story, and community based stuff. a lot of the people who play wow came from diablo2. was there much of a sense of community there? in other games where the players on a whole are more serious about the story and the overall community aspect, then less instances is a good thing. the one thing i do like about instances is it gives everyone a chance to get the better items. like take this example, back when i played swg(big mistake) my friend found a eldar kryat dragon. so he called the people he knew and they all came to help him kill it. sure a couple of random people showed up in the 30 minutes it took them to kill it, but the guy who got the loot was someone who showed up within the last 2 mins of the fight that no body knew and he just took off without saying a word. i mean i would never want to get ripped off like that. i mean lets say me and 40 friends are killing onyxia, then some jerk off comes in and gets the last hack in and takes the loot. there are good and bad reasons for instancing it really just depends on the game
EDIT: Everything gets repetitive if done long enough. What MMMORPG's need to provide players with are alternatives to combat. Combat is only one aspect. People can easily get bored of it. Thats why games have things like Crafting and other Professions. These need to be worked on more now.
These are not alternatives to combat. These all become lumped in to "grinding" game-play. The games have to provide an alternative to grinding is what they need to provide. The world has to be persistent and the player's have to be able to shape it. Otherwise its just meaningless grinding play which has no effect on anything.
Yes, the problem with instacing is that you cant interact with outside enviroment.
But it has more advantages. Noone is going to PK you. So low level players don't have a headache of being killed by high level. (i.e. in Lineage 2 when you enter a high level area you will most likely to get into words like "Leave or I PK".) And the only way to dela with such words is to join a guild and team play. But this actually stinks (IMHO). Guild should be formed to GvG, PvP or other activity, not just holding a zone out of certain other players.
And why hurts the communty? (ie. GW). You can meet anyone you want in town. Why mess up with ppl in wide open area. Or do you think PK is a nice thing ? Yes, actually it's a possibility of a game, but as a player I get tired of games supporting it. Instancing in that way saves a lot of nerves.
And as was said before. You hunt 3 hours to get to a certain boss, and after you kill it, the noob, who sticked to you at the beginning, steals the major item/relic? You think this is fair. IMHO It's not.
GW has a nice instance system, but I think it should be revised a little.
Instances are for carebears. The point of playing online is to interact, to face other people. If you are not up to the task, then why do you play? Go play Diablo 2, Morrowind if you can't handle the challenges. I play Eve Online. I enjoy the excitement that at any time, some mother trucker could come in and I could be facing 1 or more people to a duel to the death. That is a wonderful part of the MMO experience. I highly recommend people not play games that do instances, or get the gaming industry away from it.
I am not the best person when it comes to PvP, and I will admit, but I however, love a challenge. Games are suppose to be a challenge. Strategy, intellegence, and timing are key, and PvE does not utilize these key's properly.
"Playing on a PvP server in WoW you do have the world to fight in, but why bother when instances give such a huge bonus to PvP honor?"
I think that quote is probably one of the biggest things that stood out in the article because it's just so true. Also while I feel instancing hurts the community overall I do believe it has purpose and in some manners servers it well. Instances main purpose I feel is and should be to provide equal oppertunities to guilds to try and kill end game bosses for loot upgrades obviously. However I feel the way things have been implimented weren't thought out enough, but you should probably cut them a little slack since it's a relatively new feature to mmorpgs.
I think in the future instance of instancing entire dungeons developers should instead instance focal points of dungeons such as a room right before a boss encounter. That allows dungeons to be explored by all and gives the a community a better since of unity but also allows each guild or group there own private VIP section to tackle on there own with out the fear of another guild beating you to the punch and having wasted the last serveral hours dungeon crawling for nothing.
I also think for certain objectives in pvp they do and can make sense, but I don't believe there should be any form of a honor bonus from it. Rather just reaching a certain point of faction to achieve said goal the developers have set forth. Instances seem like a great idea for pvp for the BG's in the sense that they can offer intricate little mini games such as CTF or Seidgewarfare. Guilds Wars is a nice example of how instances can work for pvp effectively.
The biggest gripe I have with instances in WoW and the way it was implemented is that it demotes from pvp outside of the BG's since there isn't a honor bonus and thus your force to wait in a que for a BG because you get bonus honor out of it. Just get rid of the bonus honor for bg's and raise the overall honor per kill to compensate for it and suddenly the world would come much more alive. Right now I feel World of Warcraft is a very misleading title for the game because frankly it's more like Instances of Nadacraft since well 90% or more of the end game content revolves around instances and crafting is simply obsolete for the most part.
Anyways good article and I hope to see more discussions like this in the future. Now if developers actually read and care what the players think about these games. These discussions are a great way to find out just what players like and dislike about them and things you can do in the future to improve upon them.
It is like taking all that MMORPG development created until now and throw it back to network multiplayer.
Because, lets be honest - Instancing is just a fancy word for network multiplayer game.
We all realise that CAMPING is a problem in MMO games. But who ever thought a solution to CAMPING will be outright MURDER OF MMO should be awarded the butcher of the decade award
But well , what once was Ultima Online evolved to be Gauntlet Online. If instancing trend continue it will be the death of MMORPG -
At least have some respect dear game companies , and like NC soft dont monthly charge your instanced rpg's
"Before this battle is over all the world will know that few...stood against many." - King Leonidas
The problem with a lot of the opinions I'm hearing (both on this thread and in conversations with other MMO players) is that they're either all for instancing, or want no instancing. I believe instancing can be good, if used in moderation. To point out the MXO reference made in the original debate page, it was extremely frustrating being in line to kill the end boss. Doubly frustrating if my group is the first in. I've seen people wait for me and my group to enter, knowing that they can follow right behind my group and not fight anything but the end boss. I've had a group fight tooth and nail to get to the bottom of the Creston Heights exile hangout, only to have an opposing faction steamroll over us and take the boss. It's even more frustrating since we have to start all over again.
In this case, instancing is fine. However, there is cases where instancing makes no sense.
Big events, world-changing events, such as an epic boss, should not be instanced. World of Warcraft is a good example. If you're not in a guild, it's extremely difficult to get invited into a raid instance. There is the occasional PUG (Pick Up Group) but most of the time it's a guild run, and very little are non-guildees invited. Even if they are, they are on the lowest rung on the loot ladder. All that time fighting your way down to Ragnaros in Molten Core means nothing when 39 other people get higher priority than you on the loot, just because they have a guild tag. Face it, some of us dont like making obligations to guilds. Reasons for this could be anything, from not agreeing with guild rules, to just not liking the guilds that are at raid status. Also, there are times when groups just fall apart. People go to bed, have to go to work, have to eat dinner, or just want to leave. It happens. In an instance, this usually means either having to start over, or have to take the painstaking process of summoning people in one by one, all the while hoping none of the trash mobs respawn. In a non-instance, two undermanned groups could easily join forces and continue.
Face it, with MMOs gaining in popularity as well as in numbers of subscribers, there's just not enough of the world to share all the time.
However, a good compromise I've seen is what Guild Wars have done. Rather than true instancing, where each group gets it's own instance of the area, instead set aside a set amount of instances that anybody can join. If Instance 1 is full, move to Instance 2. This cuts down on traffic in areas, but allows people to still interact with each other in a non-instanced way.
Originally posted by stryker31 a lot of people who play wow have little concern for story, and community based stuff. a lot of the people who play wow came from diablo2. was there much of a sense of community there?
very true, and unless a game is solo oriented like diablo or wow this is not good for a mmorpg. the whole point of mmorpg's is to interact with alot of players online in one game world, and if you instance alot or all of the content, it just makes it pointless and damages the community.
if you don't mind that, well then more power to ya! but personally i think a good community is one of the most important aspect's of a mmorpg, so i do not like instancing unless it is used very little.
I understand both sides of the argument, but from personal perspective and experience I prefer the concept and idea behind instancing in MMORPGs.
The primary reason for me is due to the fact that I do not have more than 3 or 4 hours (tops) to spend on games in any single gaming session, especially on weekdays. If, every time I log on, I have to wait hours before I get to do something I want, then I would never actually get to enjoy the game content. Instancing therefore gives me and my friends/guild the opportunity to plan events ahead of time, knowing that the moment we all log on, we would be able to get right into the game without having to worry about interference from other players.
As for the MMO aspect, for me, having 39 other people working with me to achieve a common objective is already "massive" enough for me. And having previously being part of guilds with filled with hundreds of active people that I often interact with (either in-game or via guild chat), I considered myself to be part of a large community. Besides, I found trying to co-ordinate gameplay efforts and communicate with 39 others to be strenuous enough - I cannot imagine how much more difficult it would be to organise the said hundreds or even thousands of players.
I note the argument that I could achieve the same instance-gameplay in single player games with multiplayer features (for example NWN). While this is undeniably true, I also point out that I was able to meet strangers and build relationships in the main gameworld in games such as WoW (although I found Guild Wars to be too restrictive as interaction only occurs in town, and I really wanted to be out there in the action instead of sticking around in towns).
Originally posted by Choja I understand both sides of the argument, but from personal perspective and experience I prefer the concept and idea behind instancing in MMORPGs.The primary reason for me is due to the fact that I do not have more than 3 or 4 hours (tops) to spend on games in any single gaming session, especially on weekdays. If, every time I log on, I have to wait hours before I get to do something I want, then I would never actually get to enjoy the game content. Instancing therefore gives me and my friends/guild the opportunity to plan events ahead of time, knowing that the moment we all log on, we would be able to get right into the game without having to worry about interference from other players.As for the MMO aspect, for me, having 39 other people working with me to achieve a common objective is already "massive" enough for me. And having previously being part of guilds with filled with hundreds of active people that I often interact with (either in-game or via guild chat), I considered myself to be part of a large community. Besides, I found trying to co-ordinate gameplay efforts and communicate with 39 others to be strenuous enough - I cannot imagine how much more difficult it would be to organise the said hundreds or even thousands of players.I note the argument that I could achieve the same instance-gameplay in single player games with multiplayer features (for example NWN). While this is undeniably true, I also point out that I was able to meet strangers and build relationships in the main gameworld in games such as WoW (although I found Guild Wars to be too restrictive as interaction only occurs in town, and I really wanted to be out there in the action instead of sticking around in towns).Just my 2 cents...
great point, alot of it does have to do with your style of gameplay or how much time you have to play. i would say if you are a casual or semi casual player instancing games are great for you. and while you do meet people and make friends in these games....instancing hinders this.
i think if games like wow made more open world battlegrounds and dungeons as well as made it more meaningful to have open world pvp like sieging mayor cities....it would make the game tons better.
but again this topic is about personal preference, some people are going to love instances and some will not, there is no right or wrong anwser.....you either like it or you don't.
I am of the opinion that it IS Multiplayer network gaming. At the very least it turns MMO into MO, and that, to me, is a stretch. I wonder if instancing is really about avoiding endless lines and camping of fellow players, and more about taking the easier road when it comes to game code and server loads.
Because instancing sure as sin doesn't advance the immersive qualities of any "MMORPG" game that has it.
If companies want to use it. Fine. I won't be buying those games. Ever.
Here is my contribution to this thread:
Because the genre has evolved (for better AND worse) and diversified, it would be great if those who run this site took the innovative first step to reclassify/classify with much greater distinction the games it promotes.
Doing so would also make good business sense because it would allow for selective marketing of products to those interested. Some simple examples that could be paired together to represent a code that you can recognize simply by clicking on a game list:
(L)evels vs. (S)kill-driven
(N)on-(P)ersistent vs. (P)ersistent
...and so on. Pve, PvP, RvR, Death Penalty y/n, PD y/n, subscription y/n....there are a whole SLEW of ways to categorize these games so that selective gamers can go find what they want and make this site more powerful.
I don't know how to get this suggestion to the higher ups at mmorpg.com so maybe someone could help or point the way. Just a thought.
Permadeath and environmental challenges are the next great step in the evolution of MMORPGs. Only through true adversity will one feel accomplished. Only in truly knowing you can die will true adversity present itself.
Instancing in MMO's seems to be the trend, but I can see how the possibility to disolve a community exists by instancing the majority of the world. City of Heroes seems to have blended instancing very well, as well as AO. But If a game uses it too much then it will no longer become an MMO as an Online version of a single player game.
Instancing should be used sparingly in an MMO if you want to keep the community together. I would prefer to have the quests/missions actually effect the world being played in. But I would also like to avoid camping spots for hours just to maybe have what I'm looking for show up.
I guess I am for instancing in moderation. It should be used sparingly and by the choice of the individual player, not as a game.
So happy that my mmorpg community is mostly in agreement with me: instancing is harmful to the feeling of community in MMO's.
I love wandering into a dungeon knowing that this is the only copy of that dungeon that exists, and when you talk everyone listens. People are forced to get along with each other and ne'erdowells that are antisocial and can't get along with others are quickly labeled and remembered as such and will have trouble getting groups.
I don't get why some people say that it takes the MM out of mmorpg. How these games are meant to be played only for their multiplayer content.
The real reason why they made those games was for the money
And about playing Diablo II and such, it's like comparing apples to oranges, their really not the same in their single player elements.
For one thing, I sometimes prefer to play in mmorpgs because of their huge content. I mean, can you really play Diablo II for more than a month and NOT get bored?
Second, their addictive value is incredible because it has not only content but diversity. You don't only fight, you can craft, trade, talk etc. I can play a mmo for 3-6 months in a row before I get tired of it.
I don't get why people like me can't be able to enjoy these games without being forced to interact with others all the time.
I like what someone said about defining games by type on this website.
Make some classifications
PVP, semi-PVP, no PVP Many instance, low, none
This would make choosing and knowing what games are for specific persons much easier.
Instancing is a very useful tool to cut down on the camping of specific mobs (that plagued EQ1).
However, overdoing it can kill the community quickly (like in Guild Wars).
Some of the comments about WoW aren't really correct. Yes lately they have added a lot of 20/40 man raid instances. The majority of the game however is 5/10 man and you can get decently equipped only going to these. No big Uber Guild is needed, as pick up groups with friends work fine most of the time.
I personally would get very bored with a mmog that was virtually all instancing. Get quest at town, zone into instance, wash rinse repeat. On the other side of the coin, a total lack of instancing would eventually lead to spawn camping and kill-stealing.
A balance of instances with the rest of the game world, like in City of Heroes, it what can make a game fun for the casual and powergamer alike.
Instancing in a limited role, is understandable. In my view a game that is all instanced is not really a MMORPG.
In the case of DDO, the notion of DnD being only a game where you and 4-5 friends get together and explore is really short sighted. I know when I was a tad playing DnD (back before MMO's) we would have thought it pretty cool to have our little world shared with more than one group, to be able to craft ect... To me it would have been infinitly more enjoyable to take the DnD realm a step further and have it open.... Sure make some areas instanced, but give people more options to play the game the way they want to and make it a living persistant world.
For me instancing is a rather lonely way to play a community based game, even if you have to deal with jerks from time to time. Especially if your paying a monthly charge for it
I think both sides of the debate bring a valid point. However the thought that Eliteism is ok because it brings in and of itself another sense of community to be self-defeating. Just because the game may not have anything to support, the community always does. Instead of sitting back mocking people they should help the community. Teach the rookies, not pretend they themselves were not at one time "green behind the ears." So arguing community then backing Eliteist guilds sounds rather hypocritical to me. But that's just me. If one is to say Eliteism is any part or result of Instancing, its more likely a community of bitter players because the Devs aren't delivering anything worthwhile. Which means that instancing has seperated players in a game.
As for the nature of instances. I feel its like anything else. Good in moderation. Use them to give a sense of accomplishment or forbodeing for extremely difficult enemies, but let them be few and far between. Just as epic fights should be. As for the farming Issue, I think instances can solve that completely. Let the rest of the dungeon be entirely open, but the boss be instanced. And the second you win or lose, it spits you out on the other side. So if you want to farm it, you have to fight all the way back in. It allows players to not have to wait in line as well as allowing you to find other players and share the experience along the way.
Instancing, like most things, is good in limited quantities.
It should be decided at the beginning of a game's development what the goal of it should be. There are more than enough games out there to tailor to every taste. Instancing should not be a quick fix for camp stealing, party ganking, etc. That should be the devs job to plan and foresee the potential problems when making the game and/or designing quests/mobs. Surely by now there should not still be issues with spawn rates, camp stealing, etc. ( I cant count the number of games I've played where I've run thru more empty waste lands with no mobs that could be resized or filled with something to do - I like running / riding my fancy mount but empty areas?? )
The concept behind DDO is party based with a group of friends. I think this works. For WoW, instancing works for guilds that just want to have high end raiding and contribute nothing to the story/game. For DaoC, rvr presents the whole world with no instancing and one's actions help unfold a story/game.
Anyways, instancing, in limited forms works to help flesh out the game, but for online gaming should not be used as the 'fix-all' for problems ( excepting for DDO - which I think is not really MMO ). Analyze 'your' game and make the changes, dont force players to choose once they have started playing. Make us choose b4 we invest time and money into a persistent world.
Instancing, like most things, is good in limited quantities.
It should be decided at the beginning of a game's development what the goal of it should be. There are more than enough games out there to tailor to every taste. Instancing should not be a quick fix for camp stealing, party ganking, etc. That should be the devs job to plan and foresee the potential problems when making the game and/or designing quests/mobs. Surely by now there should not still be issues with spawn rates, camp stealing, etc. ( I cant count the number of games I've played where I've run thru more empty waste lands with no mobs that could be resized or filled with something to do - I like running / riding my fancy mount but empty areas?? )
The concept behind DDO is party based with a group of friends. I think this works. For WoW, instancing works for guilds that just want to have high end raiding and contribute nothing to the story/game. For DaoC, rvr presents the whole world with no instancing and one's actions help unfold a story/game.
Anyways, instancing, in limited forms works to help flesh out the game, but for online gaming should not be used as the 'fix-all' for problems ( excepting for DDO - which I think is not really MMO ). Analyze 'your' game and make the changes, dont force players to choose once they have started playing. Make us choose b4 we invest time and money into a persistent world.
Originally posted by Yagzur Analyze 'your' game and make the changes, dont force players to choose once they have started playing. Make us choose b4 we invest time and money into a persistent world.
Originally posted by Paldarion Instances are great. I see no drawbacks - if you don't like instances then don't play them.
Wrong. If you have a game with instances...everyone will go to them..there is usually no other option besides them since basicaslly everyone goes to them if they are an option.
Personally, I like instances. I hate having to sit doing nothing waiting for spawns only to have somebody else steal it.
I really think WoW's biggest community killing flaw and weakness is the lack of any formal structure for alliances. I loved the alliance system in DAoC. It allowed for smaller guilds to accomplish big things and allowed for open communication with some control.
The current system pretty much forces guilds to be elitist. As far as I am concerned, its not the instances hurting the community.. its the lack of alliance chats. General chat does does not make up for it since there is no control over it and most of us eventually turn it off because of the childish behaviour.
I don't think most people even want a community of hundreds of thousands.. they can't cope with such numbers or diversity. Alliances that allow 20 or so guilds to work together and get to know each other is much more comfortable and promotes communication and teamwork.
I also agree that WoW could use some form of reward for the entire community to work for. I have been impressed with the pulling together I have seen for the war effort. I would like to see more of that kind of thing.
Instancing is here to stay. The question is for the game makers is how can it be done so that sense of a massive populated world is real emough for all. I have a slew of single player games. The bustling of activity from unscripted players keeps me online and puts the single player games on the shelf.
World events, pvp battlegrounds, starter areas/quests, cities whould never be instanced.
However, the instancing does give me a means to get into the storyline or gets me immersed in the quest. I left EQ because the sense of adventure fades when I see groups camping dungeons. To me adventuring is going to an area where pockets of other adventurers plot their space and grind through levels or wait for the rare spawn that drops the rare item that I read on Allakazam or some other spoiler site. When an NPC gives me a task to investigate why the mayors daughter is missing, i want to find out where she went, find her and bring her back. I don't want to pass five different groups also looking for her or staking out a part of the dungeon like hunters waiting for deer.
Vangard seems to be promising. If they make enough content to keep thousands of players adventuring and not levelling/camping. Im all for it.
I did stop playing Guild Wars. I found myself using henchmen too much. I was too impatient to repeat LFG a thousand times. Only time i could get in groups was when i played my healer. Also not much else to do besides instance adventuring and pvp.
Instances work best for us casual gamers/ family parents. I need it for short missions, crafting, and I'd love to be able to create my own instance ( perhaps a little dungeon crawl, or a house (not an apartment), I also like the Adventure Packs of EQ2. If a player wants to do a unique instance, let him pay a premium for it.
Comments
I started playing MMOs back durring EQ1 before they put in expansions. I really dislike the new trend of instancing in MMOs. Back in EQ I use to love just wandering around and running into new people and start talking to them or helping them out if they needed it, or getting help if I needed it. But now with the large ammount of instancing in games, it just feels like im playing a single player game online now.
This is really bad in DDO (im in the closed beta). In DDO you never see anyone other then your group members inside the dungeons, and with the none dungeons also having instances if theres too many people, you will rarely see more then 20 people in an area. The taverns in DDO are just places to rest up so you can go into another instance, there is just no interactions between the players, or at least not like there use to be.
heres the thing. the main reason wow is sucessful with the instances is because of the mass popularity of the game. a lot of people who play wow have little concern for story, and community based stuff. a lot of the people who play wow came from diablo2. was there much of a sense of community there? in other games where the players on a whole are more serious about the story and the overall community aspect, then less instances is a good thing. the one thing i do like about instances is it gives everyone a chance to get the better items. like take this example, back when i played swg(big mistake) my friend found a eldar kryat dragon. so he called the people he knew and they all came to help him kill it. sure a couple of random people showed up in the 30 minutes it took them to kill it, but the guy who got the loot was someone who showed up within the last 2 mins of the fight that no body knew and he just took off without saying a word. i mean i would never want to get ripped off like that. i mean lets say me and 40 friends are killing onyxia, then some jerk off comes in and gets the last hack in and takes the loot. there are good and bad reasons for instancing it really just depends on the game
These are not alternatives to combat. These all become lumped in to "grinding" game-play. The games have to provide an alternative to grinding is what they need to provide. The world has to be persistent and the player's have to be able to shape it. Otherwise its just meaningless grinding play which has no effect on anything.
Jeonsa - Korean video games for Foreigners
Yes, the problem with instacing is that you cant interact with outside enviroment.
But it has more advantages. Noone is going to PK you. So low level players don't have a headache of being killed by high level. (i.e. in Lineage 2 when you enter a high level area you will most likely to get into words like "Leave or I PK".) And the only way to dela with such words is to join a guild and team play. But this actually stinks (IMHO). Guild should be formed to GvG, PvP or other activity, not just holding a zone out of certain other players.
And why hurts the communty? (ie. GW). You can meet anyone you want in town. Why mess up with ppl in wide open area. Or do you think PK is a nice thing ? Yes, actually it's a possibility of a game, but as a player I get tired of games supporting it. Instancing in that way saves a lot of nerves.
And as was said before. You hunt 3 hours to get to a certain boss, and after you kill it, the noob, who sticked to you at the beginning, steals the major item/relic? You think this is fair. IMHO It's not.
GW has a nice instance system, but I think it should be revised a little.
Instances are for carebears. The point of playing online is to interact, to face other people. If you are not up to the task, then why do you play? Go play Diablo 2, Morrowind if you can't handle the challenges. I play Eve Online. I enjoy the excitement that at any time, some mother trucker could come in and I could be facing 1 or more people to a duel to the death. That is a wonderful part of the MMO experience. I highly recommend people not play games that do instances, or get the gaming industry away from it.
I am not the best person when it comes to PvP, and I will admit, but I however, love a challenge. Games are suppose to be a challenge. Strategy, intellegence, and timing are key, and PvE does not utilize these key's properly.
"Playing on a PvP server in WoW you do have the world to fight in, but why bother when instances give such a huge bonus to PvP honor?"
I think that quote is probably one of the biggest things that stood out in the article because it's just so true. Also while I feel instancing hurts the community overall I do believe it has purpose and in some manners servers it well. Instances main purpose I feel is and should be to provide equal oppertunities to guilds to try and kill end game bosses for loot upgrades obviously. However I feel the way things have been implimented weren't thought out enough, but you should probably cut them a little slack since it's a relatively new feature to mmorpgs.
I think in the future instance of instancing entire dungeons developers should instead instance focal points of dungeons such as a room right before a boss encounter. That allows dungeons to be explored by all and gives the a community a better since of unity but also allows each guild or group there own private VIP section to tackle on there own with out the fear of another guild beating you to the punch and having wasted the last serveral hours dungeon crawling for nothing.
I also think for certain objectives in pvp they do and can make sense, but I don't believe there should be any form of a honor bonus from it. Rather just reaching a certain point of faction to achieve said goal the developers have set forth. Instances seem like a great idea for pvp for the BG's in the sense that they can offer intricate little mini games such as CTF or Seidgewarfare. Guilds Wars is a nice example of how instances can work for pvp effectively.
The biggest gripe I have with instances in WoW and the way it was implemented is that it demotes from pvp outside of the BG's since there isn't a honor bonus and thus your force to wait in a que for a BG because you get bonus honor out of it. Just get rid of the bonus honor for bg's and raise the overall honor per kill to compensate for it and suddenly the world would come much more alive. Right now I feel World of Warcraft is a very misleading title for the game because frankly it's more like Instances of Nadacraft since well 90% or more of the end game content revolves around instances and crafting is simply obsolete for the most part.
Anyways good article and I hope to see more discussions like this in the future. Now if developers actually read and care what the players think about these games. These discussions are a great way to find out just what players like and dislike about them and things you can do in the future to improve upon them.
Instancing is a bane of modern MMORPG.
It is like taking all that MMORPG development created until now and throw it back to network multiplayer.
Because, lets be honest - Instancing is just a fancy word for network multiplayer game.
We all realise that CAMPING is a problem in MMO games.
But who ever thought a solution to CAMPING will be outright MURDER OF MMO should be awarded the butcher of the decade award
But well , what once was Ultima Online evolved to be Gauntlet Online. If instancing trend continue it will be the death of MMORPG -
At least have some respect dear game companies , and like NC soft dont monthly charge your instanced rpg's
"Before this battle is over all the world will know that few...stood against many." - King Leonidas
The problem with a lot of the opinions I'm hearing (both on this thread and in conversations with other MMO players) is that they're either all for instancing, or want no instancing. I believe instancing can be good, if used in moderation. To point out the MXO reference made in the original debate page, it was extremely frustrating being in line to kill the end boss. Doubly frustrating if my group is the first in. I've seen people wait for me and my group to enter, knowing that they can follow right behind my group and not fight anything but the end boss. I've had a group fight tooth and nail to get to the bottom of the Creston Heights exile hangout, only to have an opposing faction steamroll over us and take the boss. It's even more frustrating since we have to start all over again.
In this case, instancing is fine. However, there is cases where instancing makes no sense.
Big events, world-changing events, such as an epic boss, should not be instanced. World of Warcraft is a good example. If you're not in a guild, it's extremely difficult to get invited into a raid instance. There is the occasional PUG (Pick Up Group) but most of the time it's a guild run, and very little are non-guildees invited. Even if they are, they are on the lowest rung on the loot ladder. All that time fighting your way down to Ragnaros in Molten Core means nothing when 39 other people get higher priority than you on the loot, just because they have a guild tag. Face it, some of us dont like making obligations to guilds. Reasons for this could be anything, from not agreeing with guild rules, to just not liking the guilds that are at raid status. Also, there are times when groups just fall apart. People go to bed, have to go to work, have to eat dinner, or just want to leave. It happens. In an instance, this usually means either having to start over, or have to take the painstaking process of summoning people in one by one, all the while hoping none of the trash mobs respawn. In a non-instance, two undermanned groups could easily join forces and continue.
Face it, with MMOs gaining in popularity as well as in numbers of subscribers, there's just not enough of the world to share all the time.
However, a good compromise I've seen is what Guild Wars have done. Rather than true instancing, where each group gets it's own instance of the area, instead set aside a set amount of instances that anybody can join. If Instance 1 is full, move to Instance 2. This cuts down on traffic in areas, but allows people to still interact with each other in a non-instanced way.
very true, and unless a game is solo oriented like diablo or wow this is not good for a mmorpg. the whole point of mmorpg's is to interact with alot of players online in one game world, and if you instance alot or all of the content, it just makes it pointless and damages the community.
if you don't mind that, well then more power to ya! but personally i think a good community is one of the most important aspect's of a mmorpg, so i do not like instancing unless it is used very little.
read this http://www.vanguardsoh.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1044304#post1044304 then come back and talk to me about the vanguard/soe fiasco.....
I understand both sides of the argument, but from personal perspective and experience I prefer the concept and idea behind instancing in MMORPGs.
The primary reason for me is due to the fact that I do not have more than 3 or 4 hours (tops) to spend on games in any single gaming session, especially on weekdays. If, every time I log on, I have to wait hours before I get to do something I want, then I would never actually get to enjoy the game content. Instancing therefore gives me and my friends/guild the opportunity to plan events ahead of time, knowing that the moment we all log on, we would be able to get right into the game without having to worry about interference from other players.
As for the MMO aspect, for me, having 39 other people working with me to achieve a common objective is already "massive" enough for me. And having previously being part of guilds with filled with hundreds of active people that I often interact with (either in-game or via guild chat), I considered myself to be part of a large community. Besides, I found trying to co-ordinate gameplay efforts and communicate with 39 others to be strenuous enough - I cannot imagine how much more difficult it would be to organise the said hundreds or even thousands of players.
I note the argument that I could achieve the same instance-gameplay in single player games with multiplayer features (for example NWN). While this is undeniably true, I also point out that I was able to meet strangers and build relationships in the main gameworld in games such as WoW (although I found Guild Wars to be too restrictive as interaction only occurs in town, and I really wanted to be out there in the action instead of sticking around in towns).
Just my 2 cents...
great point, alot of it does have to do with your style of gameplay or how much time you have to play. i would say if you are a casual or semi casual player instancing games are great for you. and while you do meet people and make friends in these games....instancing hinders this.
i think if games like wow made more open world battlegrounds and dungeons as well as made it more meaningful to have open world pvp like sieging mayor cities....it would make the game tons better.
but again this topic is about personal preference, some people are going to love instances and some will not, there is no right or wrong anwser.....you either like it or you don't.
read this http://www.vanguardsoh.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1044304#post1044304 then come back and talk to me about the vanguard/soe fiasco.....
I am of the opinion that it IS Multiplayer network gaming. At the very least it turns MMO into MO, and that, to me, is a stretch. I wonder if instancing is really about avoiding endless lines and camping of fellow players, and more about taking the easier road when it comes to game code and server loads.
Because instancing sure as sin doesn't advance the immersive qualities of any "MMORPG" game that has it.
If companies want to use it. Fine. I won't be buying those games. Ever.
Here is my contribution to this thread:
Because the genre has evolved (for better AND worse) and diversified, it would be great if those who run this site took the innovative first step to reclassify/classify with much greater distinction the games it promotes.
Doing so would also make good business sense because it would allow for selective marketing of products to those interested. Some simple examples that could be paired together to represent a code that you can recognize simply by clicking on a game list:
(L)evels vs. (S)kill-driven
(N)on-(P)ersistent vs. (P)ersistent
...and so on. Pve, PvP, RvR, Death Penalty y/n, PD y/n, subscription y/n....there are a whole SLEW of ways to categorize these games so that selective gamers can go find what they want and make this site more powerful.
I don't know how to get this suggestion to the higher ups at mmorpg.com so maybe someone could help or point the way. Just a thought.
Permadeath and environmental challenges are the next great step in the evolution of MMORPGs. Only through true adversity will one feel accomplished. Only in truly knowing you can die will true adversity present itself.
Instancing in MMO's seems to be the trend, but I can see how the possibility to disolve a community exists by instancing the majority of the world. City of Heroes seems to have blended instancing very well, as well as AO. But If a game uses it too much then it will no longer become an MMO as an Online version of a single player game.
Instancing should be used sparingly in an MMO if you want to keep the community together. I would prefer to have the quests/missions actually effect the world being played in. But I would also like to avoid camping spots for hours just to maybe have what I'm looking for show up.
I guess I am for instancing in moderation. It should be used sparingly and by the choice of the individual player, not as a game.
So happy that my mmorpg community is mostly in agreement with me: instancing is harmful to the feeling of community in MMO's.
I love wandering into a dungeon knowing that this is the only copy of that dungeon that exists, and when you talk everyone listens. People are forced to get along with each other and ne'erdowells that are antisocial and can't get along with others are quickly labeled and remembered as such and will have trouble getting groups.
I don't get why some people say that it takes the MM out of mmorpg. How these games are meant to be played only for their multiplayer content.
The real reason why they made those games was for the money
And about playing Diablo II and such, it's like comparing apples to oranges, their really not the same in their single player elements.
For one thing, I sometimes prefer to play in mmorpgs because of their huge content. I mean, can you really play Diablo II for more than a month and NOT get bored?
Second, their addictive value is incredible because it has not only content but diversity. You don't only fight, you can craft, trade, talk etc. I can play a mmo for 3-6 months in a row before I get tired of it.
I don't get why people like me can't be able to enjoy these games without being forced to interact with others all the time.
I like what someone said about defining games by type on this website.
Make some classifications
PVP, semi-PVP, no PVP
Many instance, low, none
This would make choosing and knowing what games are for specific persons much easier.
"Life is too short to play nerfed characters."
Instancing is a very useful tool to cut down on the camping of specific mobs (that plagued EQ1).
However, overdoing it can kill the community quickly (like in Guild Wars).
Some of the comments about WoW aren't really correct. Yes lately they have added a lot of 20/40 man raid instances. The majority of the game however is 5/10 man and you can get decently equipped only going to these. No big Uber Guild is needed, as pick up groups with friends work fine most of the time.
I personally would get very bored with a mmog that was virtually all instancing. Get quest at town, zone into instance, wash rinse repeat. On the other side of the coin, a total lack of instancing would eventually lead to spawn camping and kill-stealing.
A balance of instances with the rest of the game world, like in City of Heroes, it what can make a game fun for the casual and powergamer alike.
Instancing in a limited role, is understandable. In my view a game that is all instanced is not really a MMORPG.
In the case of DDO, the notion of DnD being only a game where you and 4-5 friends get together and explore is really short sighted. I know when I was a tad playing DnD (back before MMO's) we would have thought it pretty cool to have our little world shared with more than one group, to be able to craft ect... To me it would have been infinitly more enjoyable to take the DnD realm a step further and have it open.... Sure make some areas instanced, but give people more options to play the game the way they want to and make it a living persistant world.
For me instancing is a rather lonely way to play a community based game, even if you have to deal with jerks from time to time. Especially if your paying a monthly charge for it
I think both sides of the debate bring a valid point. However the thought that Eliteism is ok because it brings in and of itself another sense of community to be self-defeating. Just because the game may not have anything to support, the community always does. Instead of sitting back mocking people they should help the community. Teach the rookies, not pretend they themselves were not at one time "green behind the ears." So arguing community then backing Eliteist guilds sounds rather hypocritical to me. But that's just me. If one is to say Eliteism is any part or result of Instancing, its more likely a community of bitter players because the Devs aren't delivering anything worthwhile. Which means that instancing has seperated players in a game.
As for the nature of instances. I feel its like anything else. Good in moderation. Use them to give a sense of accomplishment or forbodeing for extremely difficult enemies, but let them be few and far between. Just as epic fights should be. As for the farming Issue, I think instances can solve that completely. Let the rest of the dungeon be entirely open, but the boss be instanced. And the second you win or lose, it spits you out on the other side. So if you want to farm it, you have to fight all the way back in. It allows players to not have to wait in line as well as allowing you to find other players and share the experience along the way.
Instancing, like most things, is good in limited quantities.
It should be decided at the beginning of a game's development what the goal of it should be. There are more than enough games out there to tailor to every taste. Instancing should not be a quick fix for camp stealing, party ganking, etc. That should be the devs job to plan and foresee the potential problems when making the game and/or designing quests/mobs. Surely by now there should not still be issues with spawn rates, camp stealing, etc. ( I cant count the number of games I've played where I've run thru more empty waste lands with no mobs that could be resized or filled with something to do - I like running / riding my fancy mount but empty areas?? )
The concept behind DDO is party based with a group of friends. I think this works. For WoW, instancing works for guilds that just want to have high end raiding and contribute nothing to the story/game. For DaoC, rvr presents the whole world with no instancing and one's actions help unfold a story/game.
Anyways, instancing, in limited forms works to help flesh out the game, but for online gaming should not be used as the 'fix-all' for problems ( excepting for DDO - which I think is not really MMO ). Analyze 'your' game and make the changes, dont force players to choose once they have started playing. Make us choose b4 we invest time and money into a persistent world.
Instancing, like most things, is good in limited quantities.
It should be decided at the beginning of a game's development what the goal of it should be. There are more than enough games out there to tailor to every taste. Instancing should not be a quick fix for camp stealing, party ganking, etc. That should be the devs job to plan and foresee the potential problems when making the game and/or designing quests/mobs. Surely by now there should not still be issues with spawn rates, camp stealing, etc. ( I cant count the number of games I've played where I've run thru more empty waste lands with no mobs that could be resized or filled with something to do - I like running / riding my fancy mount but empty areas?? )
The concept behind DDO is party based with a group of friends. I think this works. For WoW, instancing works for guilds that just want to have high end raiding and contribute nothing to the story/game. For DaoC, rvr presents the whole world with no instancing and one's actions help unfold a story/game.
Anyways, instancing, in limited forms works to help flesh out the game, but for online gaming should not be used as the 'fix-all' for problems ( excepting for DDO - which I think is not really MMO ). Analyze 'your' game and make the changes, dont force players to choose once they have started playing. Make us choose b4 we invest time and money into a persistent world.
/clap
Well said.
Wrong. If you have a game with instances...everyone will go to them..there is usually no other option besides them since basicaslly everyone goes to them if they are an option.
Personally, I like instances. I hate having to sit doing nothing waiting for spawns only to have somebody else steal it.
I really think WoW's biggest community killing flaw and weakness is the lack of any formal structure for alliances. I loved the alliance system in DAoC. It allowed for smaller guilds to accomplish big things and allowed for open communication with some control.
The current system pretty much forces guilds to be elitist. As far as I am concerned, its not the instances hurting the community.. its the lack of alliance chats. General chat does does not make up for it since there is no control over it and most of us eventually turn it off because of the childish behaviour.
I don't think most people even want a community of hundreds of thousands.. they can't cope with such numbers or diversity. Alliances that allow 20 or so guilds to work together and get to know each other is much more comfortable and promotes communication and teamwork.
I also agree that WoW could use some form of reward for the entire community to work for. I have been impressed with the pulling together I have seen for the war effort. I would like to see more of that kind of thing.
Instancing is here to stay. The question is for the game makers is how can it be done so that sense of a massive populated world is real emough for all. I have a slew of single player games. The bustling of activity from unscripted players keeps me online and puts the single player games on the shelf.
World events, pvp battlegrounds, starter areas/quests, cities whould never be instanced.
However, the instancing does give me a means to get into the storyline or gets me immersed in the quest. I left EQ because the sense of adventure fades when I see groups camping dungeons. To me adventuring is going to an area where pockets of other adventurers plot their space and grind through levels or wait for the rare spawn that drops the rare item that I read on Allakazam or some other spoiler site. When an NPC gives me a task to investigate why the mayors daughter is missing, i want to find out where she went, find her and bring her back. I don't want to pass five different groups also looking for her or staking out a part of the dungeon like hunters waiting for deer.
Vangard seems to be promising. If they make enough content to keep thousands of players adventuring and not levelling/camping. Im all for it.
I did stop playing Guild Wars. I found myself using henchmen too much. I was too impatient to repeat LFG a thousand times. Only time i could get in groups was when i played my healer. Also not much else to do besides instance adventuring and pvp.
Instances work best for us casual gamers/ family parents. I need it for short missions, crafting, and I'd love to be able to create my own instance ( perhaps a little dungeon crawl, or a house (not an apartment), I also like the Adventure Packs of EQ2. If a player wants to do a unique instance, let him pay a premium for it.