I played EQ for 5 years. When I began it was an open world. Then with Plans of Power came instance and more high end stuff. There was always a battle to get the named bosses when they spawned, a great deal of framing and such. With the instance zones at least it was just your group in that zone and you didn't have to worry about ksing and the like. There is no fun in going to get a mob and have high lvls farming that mob. There was long camps some days and weeks to finally get what you needed. The game became something more for the hard core player and less for the player who could not invest all that time. The only way to get you the really uber stuff was to be in a guild and raid alot. EQ continue on a line that was directed to high end and the casual player was stuck.
I tried EQ2 but with the trial you could only be on that one island and make lvl 6. For me that just wasn't enough to get a real feel for the game. AC2 had instances and they were great. You could even solo some of them if you didn't have time for a group. Maybe not get the boss without help. If memory serves me on their instances it was not what you would call and instance as others could come in where you were.
Instance zones keep the fight for the boss down and give you a private area for you and your group to get items and mobs for a quest without dealing with kser's and farmers. I really don't feel instance zones take away from a game they help with issues that were causing many peeps to quit games because they were forced to be in a guild after a certain lvl just to get things done and get better gear. The high end game is not for everyone some just want to relax and hide from the real world for a bit and meet new friends while they do so.
I am sure it is a hard task for game designers to come up with a game that works well for the most part to keep the majority happy. Lets face it they can't please everyone. Horde and Allicance can't group but now there are neutral auction houses so they can sell stuff that both can buy. I think instances are a good thing, it solved some issues that helped the whole of the world without taking away from it. I guess it hurts those who do all the farming but it helped the community as a whole.
I think the reason such a highly rated game as WoW implimented instancing is due to the fact that in the long run camping popular areas of the map for the same items would in effect decrease the longivity of the game for everyone. Sure after its birth WoW is slowing down and high level guilds aren't recruiting, but if you were to take away these instances these same guilds would be able to achieve this status even faster. You could just out number the others trying to defeat raid bosses. It was a problem in SWG and EQ as well. Those guilds who were the quickest to exploit the best areas in the map would be able to excel far above others, effectively producing a huge gap in overall power and income. Eventually even SWG implimented a very basic form of instancing with RoTW expansion. It decreases overpopulation and gives a more casual gamer a better chance to compete with those hardcore gamers. What becomes the problem with WoW is not it's dungeon instances, but how items make or break your PvP and PvE effectiveness. Normally those with better gear are going to win. Those with better gear are going to get recruited.
All forms of RPG's have some incentive to get that upgraded item. People strive and play long hours to get better items. MMORPG's are hard to balance. Not just the classes and skills, but economic factors and items. The problem is balancing these factors so that the casual gamer will have a chance to keep up with the people who devote years and countless hours to the game. I beleive that instancing is a decent way to try to balance this issue. In the end you cant really expect the people who dont play along time to be better, but there has to be an effort to at least give them a chance.
Now to comment on completely instanced RPG's like GW and DDO. To add to the realism why wouldn't one who leaves a city, not grouped, leaving at the same time as another be in the same world? MM is massive and multiplayer. If you want a more real experience with more diversity and interaction, 100% instanced games are not going to satisfy your interests. They can be fun, just look at the Diablo series. But I would never pay to play such a game. GW didn't have a monthly fee and that is what made it a decent game; an MMORPG by no means however.
Concluding, I dont try to side with hardcore WoW players. I too quit WoW because it was really taking too much of my time to compete with others, but instancing was not the problem. If implimented correctly and liberally, I beleive it really helps the game last longer.
Instancing is ok but only when its not the main focus of the game. think anatchy online, you can have randomly generated (instanced) dungeouns for missions, as well as have proper quests and raids.
if i had to chose between none or many, i would vote none, true kill stealers and stuff like that suck, but they are part of the game and thats what you get for playing an mmo, accept it!
i mean lets face it if you want instancing, play something like Diablo 2 online. not an mmo!
In the event of a specialized quest for adventurers with static content closely tweaked to challenge a set number of players in a given level range instancing is great, but I dont believe at all that instancing should be the end-all-be-all of an MMO especially. Take guildwars for example. Every single zone is instanced, a party member or two drops and you're just stuck, there is no possible way you're going to get reinforcements, only choice to to slug it out and hope you succeed or restart wasting all your time. My idea from a Design AND coding standpoint is to use virtual instancing where nothing is truely instanced but you have these virtual zones where set content is spawned, and based on the number of players/levels at any given time dynamic content can be spawned to match the challenge level, this gives the best option for those who love instanced zones and those who hate it. Now bosses are a different story, especially with people who love to camp, in those particular instances the content is going to be based mostly agains the player skill/level/numbers to provide challenging content, so having 250 people go after a boss designed for 10 just gets frustrating and unfufilling for all. In this scenario I think dynamic instanced zones similar to what was used in star wars galaxies online for the NK-Nekrosis is Ideal, a single zone your group (or a pre-determined number of adventurers of seperate groups) may enter to reach a goal but it is a very small part of the adventure. Anyway from someone who has played ALOT of different MMOs both instanced and non there are my opinions. Overall tho, Instanced zones are not my style, and for someone who loves the freedom that an MMORPG -CAN- offer it all feels very restrictive.
Instancing would be helpful if done correctly. It is not necessary to instance an entire dungeon. The only thing that needs instancing is the boss at the end. If you get to the "bottom" of the dungeon you deserve to have a crack at the boss instead of waiting in-line or having someone kill steal it. Everyone deserves that opportunity.
A problem would be having groups tag along behind another group as it paves the way to the bottom. Some soultions would be to require minimum kills in the dungeon before having access to the instance. Or maybe the solution is to have dungeons designed with mulitple "entrances" and then instance the dungeon and allow groups to randomly start at these "entrances." The dungeon will be populated by others but not swamped with people. Everyone will be fighting their way to the bottom from there own start point and it would allow for some conflict or cooperation between groups if they met up, especially in a PvP game. So if a dungeon is desigend with 6 entrances and each entrance can accomodate a group (defined as anything from"normal" group size to raid size) then 6 groups can be moving through that instance of the dungeon at any time. When full, a new instance is created and people are slotted in as they enter the dungeon into a new instance. I don't know if this is technically feasible but it would add a nice balance between adventuring alone through a dungeon and having the feel of others in the world.
A mix of instance/non-instance is what I prefer. EQ2 does it pretty well and a good mix. Using instances to avoid fighting over content is a good thing.
WoW's community is a mess because it's so big, not because of instancing. If WoW did not have instancing for its dungeons imagine all the fights over going to Molten Core or BWL. It's bad enough sometimes just trying to kill mobs for quest drops in the out door zones.
When i played Everquest i thoroughly enjoyed my gaming time, the game itself was fresh and innovative at the time and it offered players a chance to be part of an online community thru a 3d mmorpg.
Now i'm in favour of instancing becuase of my experiences with games such as EQ1, this came about due to the attitude of my fellow gamers who on many occasions where quite happy to either harrass or completely destroy the content that was available to me at the time be it coming across a rare spawn or finding a dragon patrolling a zone.
Individuals or entire guilds would lay claim to entire lvls of dungeons or spawn camps due to the lucrative money or loot drops, does anyone remember the trouble the priest epic would cause when your priest was at the ragefire point, guilds would setup camp in Skyfire for weeks on end to make sure they had a head start when the named popped and then the arguments would start which would end in a GM being called this is not bringing a community together, it only breeds contempt for your fellow players.
Even in WoW with the few overland and out of instance dragons that can pop there is always fierce and bitter arguments, which is compounded with the fact you will have opposing sides vying for the dragons loot, i have witnessed 5 guilds waiting to take down azuregos, 3 alliance and 2 horde, as soon as 1 faction attacked the opposing faction attacked that guild, this is not what i would call a fair fight but it goes to show that the communities in WoW will not and do not want to work together to further togetherness, they want the loot and thats that no matter what the cost.
Instancing cuts out the teduim of waiting in line, it ensures your grp/guild has a guaranteed interupt free adventure for their alloted time frame, a good chance of some loot and some laughs along the way. Does it really matter if your community only comprises of your own guild mates, becuase TBH as far as i am concerned they are the only ones that count when im playing the game, i've invested alot of time and effort in my guild.
I hear many times in my guild chat "I'm never doing another PUG (pick up group) so help me" this is your so called community, and it's not just confined to 1 game, i have heard it said in every mmo i have played and instancing has had no bearing on this, you only have to take a look at your only RL neighbourhood to understand that ppl wont get along with everyone and that coming to your own home each night is the only place that will ensure your own safety and personal enjoyment, not the local social club or bar.
I totally agree that it's time for a new categorization when it comes to MMORPGs which would clarify what kinda game we're talking about as some of the posters pointed out, something else which is related to the latter, the dev teams have to be clear to whom there game is targeted to, and here i'm talking mainly about the power gamers which got a lotta time on there hands and those of us that have gotten to a point in our lives where we have responsabilities and so on (that sounded sad ), i think that targeting both will never be an easy task, to say that instancing will make things fun for casual gamers is IMO choosing the easy way out, in a way i want what the powergamers experience but at a "slower"rythm which is why it is not easy and even near impossible to have PGs and CGs play together and be equally competitive in feature like PVP, so i hope that we're gonna see games which do stress the differences between these two kinda gamers instead of just ruining the gameplay experience for either side with some supposed solution updates. Again i think that we have come to a stage where an MMORPG has to show its colors from the beguining asside from the classic Sci Fi , Fantasy ...etc categories, i take DDO as an example( which doesn't appeal to me BTW but i understand the fact that it attracts a certain kind of players), the problem is labeling it as an MMORPG is a too broad definition nowadays. Maybe calling it an MORPG would have saved it from the bashing fest.
PS: I think that there had to be a 4th voting option for the people that are for a balance between instancing and no-istancing.
I completely understand the need for instancing. It mainly serves to protect the boss battles where the loot is handed out. I remember trying to camp a single mob with about 20 other players, for hours upon hours. That just isn't fun. I'd rather be out adventuring.
As for DDO. Instancing out the dungeon crawls, is essential for gathering the feeling of a D&D session. However, they should have created a fully realized outside environment. Without the outside environment that you can see other random players fighting in, or traveling through, it just doesn't seem as epic. DDO, has gone a bit instance crazy though. Instancing the Tavern is simply ridiculous. Resting should occur, when you are anywhere inside town. Yes, I know that's a deviation from D&D, but who cares! Some things need to be bent for a transition from PnP to PC.
Games like EQ1/2, DAoC, FFXI really feel like you're in the world. However, you get annoyed/pissed when you cannot obtain the items that you want/need because some other 20 people are camping the same mob. Or, if you have to wait in a line, that sucks too.
Games like WoW are a middle ground. You feel like you're in a real world and you have access to the loot that you may need/want. But, WoW has it's own problems that I simply do not enjoy. So far, WoW is the breath of fresh air that most MMO gamers have been waiting for. But, a few design mishaps ruined the game for a lot of us (myself included). End game looting could have been handled much better, instancing the PvP on a PvP server killed those servers, and whoever thought of reputation grinds should be shot.
Lastly, games like DDO and GW feel like you're simply logged into a virtual questing hub. The town only exists to instance you off on a quest. It doesn't feel like a huge world.
I love instancing because it cuts down on loot/mob camping, but I despise it because it takes out the world feel of a game. I hope that some middle ground is found that will guard against the spawn camping and still keep the epic feel of the game.
Edit: I've seen some posts about "there is only one dungeon of that type in this world". That is true, however you have to also take into account that on a 'normal' world, there aren't a countless number of different heros.
In a story book representation of the world that you are playing in, there is only a single group of heros sent off to conquer the dungeon and kill the bad guy. In MMOs there are obviously more than a few people trying to do the exact same quest. So, it ALSO doesn't make sense to have countless heros in a world. Instancing a dungeon crawl (for a quest), takes out all the other heros in the world (which is unrealistic in its own right) and puts you back into the story of the world.
This design aspect restores the intended purpose of the dungeon and its big bad. However, this should not, and let me repeat, SHOULD NOT apply to the world at large. You still should have to travel to the dungeon (via some type of fast travel system that you have earned) through a vast and open (ie. uninstanced) world.
Instancing clearly hurts an online community by isolating players away from the general player base. Don't get me wrong, instancing has a place and a role to play in gaming today. I enjoy a nice evening playing online with only a few select friends. Having the "whole place your ourselves" is a selfish need we all have from time to time.
However, mmorpg developers are deciding that more and more game content should be instanced. This gives the developer better control over performance, appearance and balance issues. They can now develop content for a set number of players instead of trying to plan for the unknown. Sure that makes their job a little easier, but at what cost?
Players, now encouraged to participate in instances, take little interest in what is going on outside of the instances. They barely meet or even know anyone outside of their own little guild or closed group of friends. People log on, look for group and poof, they are whisked away into their own little piece of the game away from bothers and distractions.
MMORPG games need to balance instance and world events. Instancing is fine and I am certainly not saying they should all be removed. But, developers need to add world content to a game to truly keep it an MMORPG. There needs to be battles, and struggles, and events that the online community can band together to participate in. This content should have an actual impact (better or worse) for all players on that particular server. An impact great enough to make people want to particpate.
Instancing? Sure I'm ok with it, but I will look to games similar to Baldur's, NWN, Diablo, and Guild Wars to fill that need. I really rather not pay a subscription for that type of game. But for an MMORPG, I am looking for world content and server-wide events. That is that game that will attact my money.
Originally posted by gnappa Instancing clearly hurts an online community by isolating players away from the general player base. Don't get me wrong, instancing has a place and a role to play in gaming today. I enjoy a nice evening playing online with only a few select friends. Having the "whole place your ourselves" is a selfish need we all have from time to time. However, mmorpg developers are deciding that more and more game content should be instanced. This gives the developer better control over performance, appearance and balance issues. They can now develop content for a set number of players instead of trying to plan for the unknown. Sure that makes their job a little easier, but at what cost? Players, now encouraged to participate in instances, take little interest in what is going on outside of the instances. They barely meet or even know anyone outside of their own little guild or closed group of friends. People log on, look for group and poof, they are whisked away into their own little piece of the game away from bothers and distractions. MMORPG games need to balance instance and world events. Instancing is fine and I am certainly not saying they should all be removed. But, developers need to add world content to a game to truly keep it an MMORPG. There needs to be battles, and struggles, and events that the online community can band together to participate in. This content should have an actual impact (better or worse) for all players on that particular server. An impact great enough to make people want to particpate. Instancing? Sure I'm ok with it, but I will look to games similar to Baldur's, NWN, Diablo, and Guild Wars to fill that need. I really rather not pay a subscription for that type of game. But for an MMORPG, I am looking for world content and server-wide events. That is that game that will attact my money.
Jane, you ignorant slut.
JK lol *Saturday night live reference lost on anyone younger than 30*
Very well written, almost couldn't have said it better my self.
Why not have both? Of course your game would have to have zones to log into for this to work, but...
Have one general population zone where anyone and everyone can go into. Raid Mobs would be here, and in general you would get slightly better loot hunting in this zone.
Then you offer the option of the instanced zone which is an exact copy of the "general" zone. Only difference would be perhaps to make the loot a little less desirable.
This way, you kind of force socializing if players want the better loot, but if a group of players want to kill Humungous the Dragon on Monday nite and 10:30, they can without having to worry about someone beating them to the punch.
In some regards, I guess you could pull this off with games without zones as well, by having a teleporter device take the group to a copy of the dungeon somewhere else where they have sole reign of the dungeon.
I think instancing certainly has it's place. Saying everything or nothing should be instanced is a little short sighted.
In my opinion, quest/storyline areas should be instanced. For example if you have to kill a dragon as part of a quest, you can have an item, or gain access to a cave that will be instanced just for your raid party so that people can complete quests or advance the storyline without running into a roadblock.
However "farmable" content, or anything you will likely be doing more than once just for items/exp etc. should be open to all.
What I personally would like to see is to have dungeons divided into camps. In the origional EQ, the player base established their own areas within dungeons, and generally groups would respect other people's areas, and not pull mobs from them.
What I think would be perfect, is to have uninstanced content, with predetermined camps, and when a group "claims" a camp (how they would do that is highly dependant on the game/UI itself) any mob killed in the area would grant exp to the party that claimed it.
Experience would decrease based on the amount of time the party had that camp claimed, encouraging people to move further into the dungeon in order to continue gaining exp at a decent rate.
Originally posted by boboslave Originally posted by quix0te And I have learned to be leery of games who try and force 'community' down my throat.
They shouldn't force community down your throat (agreed) but they also shouldn't limit or block it. Instances are a block/limit to community because they reduce drastically the number of people available for you to interact with, making the virutal world, and therefore the community within it, less alive and vibrant.
Devs do not and can not create community, players do that. The devs job is to give the players the tools to communicate with, and then let them do their thing. CCP and EVE Online are a good example of this type of community building.
Ummm. I think you have it BACKWARDS. If there are no instances then I have no CHOICE but to share my space with everybody else. If everybody else is a lot of fun, then thats great. If many of them are jackasses (yes, I know, its unlikely) then I'm going to want some alone time.
If there are both instanced and open zones then *I* have a choice and so do *you*. You can choose to adventure only in open zones (go you!) and I can choose to adventure in open zones or instanced zones as I choose (go me!).
I cant think of a clearer way of forcing community down my throat than TAKING AWAY choices so that I am FORCED to compete for mobs and drops and put up with arsehats interfering with the quest I"m trying to do.
Originally posted by Quethel Originally posted by craynlon instancing is like robbing a bank and bevore u enter it a copy of that bank is madeso more people can rob the same bank at the same time.
Which one is more immersive, that you get a group of people together and make a plan and rob a bank, or that you get a group of people together and make a plan and show up at a bank, the tellers are shot, the customers ran out screaming, and money is all gone?
Bang. Right on. Instances=good for telling stories and having adventures. Open zones= good for short grinding, soloing, and waiting to put together an instance group. And griefing other players. Most of the games with instancing I've played, they have REQUIRED groups for the instances (which I wasnt necessarily happy with). How does this REDUCE the community unless you are bringing enough friends for the instance?
Let me throw something extra into the ring here...
This is what Brad McQuaid said about instancing (which he obviously hates with a passion) in the recent MMORPG.com interview about his new game Vanguard: "The way to get around the need for instancing is simply to have enough content."
This comment really makes me wonder whether this guy knows what he's talking about at all??? If there's ONE thing that DOESN'T affect the instancing aspect of MMORPGs it's CONTENT!!! I can't believe people are trusting this guy to make a "next-gen" MMORPG with ideas like this.
Instancing's REAL key issues are, on the developer's side, performance and quest design (not size/amount); while the issues on the player's side are reserved-content, hassle-free non-time intensive questing (EDIT: and by this I mean not having any long downtimes waiting for named-mobs or cleared areas to respawn, avoiding campers, etc.), and whether the "feel" of a massive-multiplayer world can be maintained despite breaking it into smaller pieces. (IMHO this is done very well, but in a limited way, in EQII. There are "instanced" quests that take place in the overall world, without being diverted to a totally separated instance. Mobs will spawn for you when on a quest, and you can progress your quests without waiting, in many cases, but still have others running around you while you do it...and thus not lose ANY feel of MMO)
Well - I like instancing only, if they are limited, which are not ONLY for Endgame like in WoW. It should be more like the Doom in Ultima Online. In UO I could go to instancing whenever I wanted. And if I have been lucky enough I did got my Artifact. I always found there new friends and I always met other players. Sometimes all were helpfull and sometimes more egoistic. But at least everyone had his chance to get an item and the end-boss died anytime with any groups.
Second is that there should NOT be Instancing for >15 people.. Why? Because organizing it does take a lot of time and if somone fails all the group will fail. But the badest thing is you are NOT flexible, because you have to take part from the beginning til end. Those of players who got a busy RL wont be able to take part. And another argument is that those extrem Instances 20+ does take at least 3 hours, which is too much.
If they are too many instances in a mmorpg, the real world(playing ground) of a mmorpg will be forgotten very soon. For example at weekends nearly oll aff the players were instancing... the world was somtimes empty and boring. So you had nothing better to do than going to instance too or going out for farming. So the real interaction between many different players becomes lower.... which isnt that good. Also it is boring to see all the time the same chars who are always doing the same job in an instance wih. It becomes very repetetive and boring.
And all that just for the "best of" items (some people call it CONTENT rofl) and NOT for fun and almost NOT for any guildmembers or any players and also NOT beacue you are social. Those who say "I do just help my friend to get his item in an instant". And they do this for 2 hours and so many time till "the friend" gets his items will almost have expectations. Which is not a good starting of a good relationship....
Which I also dont like is that hierachie of "who gets the item which is dropped now" I did hate it in WoW. Those who got the most points will get the item.... That means in doesnt really matter who you are or how you did play or how kind you are, it just counts how often you did take part and how many points you did.... be repetetive and do all the weeks the same Instance for thousand times to get your points (also called CONTENT for some). THAT IS BORING AND BRAINWASHING
And having both only works for me if it is made or solved like in UO.
Originally posted by hadz Let me throw something extra into the ring here... This is what Brad McQuaid said about instancing (which he obviously hates with a passion) in the recent MMORPG.com interview about his new game Vanguard: "The way to get around the need for instancing is simply to have enough content." This comment really makes me wonder whether this guy knows what he's talking about at all??? If there's ONE thing that DOESN'T affect the instancing aspect of MMORPGs it's CONTENT!!! I can't believe people are trusting this guy to make a "next-gen" MMORPG with ideas like this. Instancing's REAL key issues are, on the developer's side, performance and quest design (not size/amount); while the issues on the player's side are reserved-content, hassle-free non-time intensive questing (EDIT: and by this I mean not having any long downtimes waiting for named-mobs or cleared areas to respawn, avoiding campers, etc.), and whether the "feel" of a massive-multiplayer world can be maintained despite breaking it into smaller pieces. (IMHO this is done very well, but in a limited way, in EQII. There are "instanced" quests that take place in the overall world, without being diverted to a totally separated instance. Mobs will spawn for you when on a quest, and you can progress your quests without waiting, in many cases, but still have others running around you while you do it...and thus not lose ANY feel of MMO)
/signed
I fully agree with that.
Especially to: "...whether the "feel" of a massive-multiplayer ..." It feeld more like a LAN-RPG if they are too many instancing.
Let me throw something extra into the ring here... This is what Brad McQuaid said about instancing (which he obviously hates with a passion) in the recent MMORPG.com interview about his new game Vanguard: "The way to get around the need for instancing is simply to have enough content." This comment really makes me wonder whether this guy knows what he's talking about at all???
I think Brad has a point. Instances are a way to get around the problem of spawn camping, and multiple player groups competing in a zone for the same content. Brad is saying, I think, that he believes you can also solve the problem of spawn camping and overcrowding by having a large enough game world with enough interesting content.
For instance (pun intended), I often find areas in EVE to mine for resources, and camp npc pirate spawns, where I am not bothered by other people, even though the game is not instanced. This is possible, because the game world itself is large enough to accomodate the number of people playing it.
Whether or not Sigil is able to pull off their vision in Vanguard, I think Brad's point that a larger game world and more content is another solution to spawn camping is something that should be taken into consideration.
"The way to get around 'instancing' is simply to have enough content".
This is a statement that makes me leary as well. MMORPG's in general, and especially in Brad's EQ had kind of a 'pyramid' loot scheme to the dungeons. A lot of crap. A little less vendor loot that brings decent platinum. Even fewer 'middle of the road' drops and a very very few uber items. Even with tons and tons of content, there were lines waiting at the top of the pyramid while most camps stayed relatively empty.
Remember Guk in EQ? The vast majority of the camps were empty, while a select few were always overcamped. If they keep the pyramid structure, it won't matter how much crap they put at the bottom, people will still wait in line at the top.
Personally, I hope that Vanguard thought of a different way to structure content, rather than just saying 'let's make the pyramid bigger to give it more content'. It will still have lines at the top and no one in the base.
Brad is saying, I think, that he believes you can also solve the problem of spawn camping and overcrowding by having a large enough game world with enough interesting content.
I agree that this is probably the point he is trying to make. But it doesn't address the issue of instancing in the slightest. Because no matter how much content you jam into the game people will still head for the areas that give them the best "value for time" spent. So, as soon as everyone finds out that BOSS MOB X gives the best loot and is fairly easy to take down with a group of N players then hundreds of groups of N players will be waiting there for BOSS X to spawn...PROBLEM UNSOLVED!!
Comments
I played EQ for 5 years. When I began it was an open world. Then with Plans of Power came instance and more high end stuff. There was always a battle to get the named bosses when they spawned, a great deal of framing and such. With the instance zones at least it was just your group in that zone and you didn't have to worry about ksing and the like. There is no fun in going to get a mob and have high lvls farming that mob. There was long camps some days and weeks to finally get what you needed. The game became something more for the hard core player and less for the player who could not invest all that time. The only way to get you the really uber stuff was to be in a guild and raid alot. EQ continue on a line that was directed to high end and the casual player was stuck.
I tried EQ2 but with the trial you could only be on that one island and make lvl 6. For me that just wasn't enough to get a real feel for the game. AC2 had instances and they were great. You could even solo some of them if you didn't have time for a group. Maybe not get the boss without help. If memory serves me on their instances it was not what you would call and instance as others could come in where you were.
Instance zones keep the fight for the boss down and give you a private area for you and your group to get items and mobs for a quest without dealing with kser's and farmers. I really don't feel instance zones take away from a game they help with issues that were causing many peeps to quit games because they were forced to be in a guild after a certain lvl just to get things done and get better gear. The high end game is not for everyone some just want to relax and hide from the real world for a bit and meet new friends while they do so.
I am sure it is a hard task for game designers to come up with a game that works well for the most part to keep the majority happy. Lets face it they can't please everyone. Horde and Allicance can't group but now there are neutral auction houses so they can sell stuff that both can buy. I think instances are a good thing, it solved some issues that helped the whole of the world without taking away from it. I guess it hurts those who do all the farming but it helped the community as a whole.
Gikku
I think the reason such a highly rated game as WoW implimented instancing is due to the fact that in the long run camping popular areas of the map for the same items would in effect decrease the longivity of the game for everyone. Sure after its birth WoW is slowing down and high level guilds aren't recruiting, but if you were to take away these instances these same guilds would be able to achieve this status even faster. You could just out number the others trying to defeat raid bosses. It was a problem in SWG and EQ as well. Those guilds who were the quickest to exploit the best areas in the map would be able to excel far above others, effectively producing a huge gap in overall power and income. Eventually even SWG implimented a very basic form of instancing with RoTW expansion. It decreases overpopulation and gives a more casual gamer a better chance to compete with those hardcore gamers. What becomes the problem with WoW is not it's dungeon instances, but how items make or break your PvP and PvE effectiveness. Normally those with better gear are going to win. Those with better gear are going to get recruited.
All forms of RPG's have some incentive to get that upgraded item. People strive and play long hours to get better items. MMORPG's are hard to balance. Not just the classes and skills, but economic factors and items. The problem is balancing these factors so that the casual gamer will have a chance to keep up with the people who devote years and countless hours to the game. I beleive that instancing is a decent way to try to balance this issue. In the end you cant really expect the people who dont play along time to be better, but there has to be an effort to at least give them a chance.
Now to comment on completely instanced RPG's like GW and DDO. To add to the realism why wouldn't one who leaves a city, not grouped, leaving at the same time as another be in the same world? MM is massive and multiplayer. If you want a more real experience with more diversity and interaction, 100% instanced games are not going to satisfy your interests. They can be fun, just look at the Diablo series. But I would never pay to play such a game. GW didn't have a monthly fee and that is what made it a decent game; an MMORPG by no means however.
Concluding, I dont try to side with hardcore WoW players. I too quit WoW because it was really taking too much of my time to compete with others, but instancing was not the problem. If implimented correctly and liberally, I beleive it really helps the game last longer.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
Instancing is ok but only when its not the main focus of the game. think anatchy online, you can have randomly generated (instanced) dungeouns for missions, as well as have proper quests and raids.
if i had to chose between none or many, i would vote none, true kill stealers and stuff like that suck, but they are part of the game and thats what you get for playing an mmo, accept it!
i mean lets face it if you want instancing, play something like Diablo 2 online. not an mmo!
In the event of a specialized quest for adventurers with static content closely tweaked to challenge a set number of players in a given level range instancing is great, but I dont believe at all that instancing should be the end-all-be-all of an MMO especially. Take guildwars for example. Every single zone is instanced, a party member or two drops and you're just stuck, there is no possible way you're going to get reinforcements, only choice to to slug it out and hope you succeed or restart wasting all your time. My idea from a Design AND coding standpoint is to use virtual instancing where nothing is truely instanced but you have these virtual zones where set content is spawned, and based on the number of players/levels at any given time dynamic content can be spawned to match the challenge level, this gives the best option for those who love instanced zones and those who hate it. Now bosses are a different story, especially with people who love to camp, in those particular instances the content is going to be based mostly agains the player skill/level/numbers to provide challenging content, so having 250 people go after a boss designed for 10 just gets frustrating and unfufilling for all. In this scenario I think dynamic instanced zones similar to what was used in star wars galaxies online for the NK-Nekrosis is Ideal, a single zone your group (or a pre-determined number of adventurers of seperate groups) may enter to reach a goal but it is a very small part of the adventure. Anyway from someone who has played ALOT of different MMOs both instanced and non there are my opinions. Overall tho, Instanced zones are not my style, and for someone who loves the freedom that an MMORPG -CAN- offer it all feels very restrictive.
Instancing would be helpful if done correctly. It is not necessary to instance an entire dungeon. The only thing that needs instancing is the boss at the end. If you get to the "bottom" of the dungeon you deserve to have a crack at the boss instead of waiting in-line or having someone kill steal it. Everyone deserves that opportunity.
A problem would be having groups tag along behind another group as it paves the way to the bottom. Some soultions would be to require minimum kills in the dungeon before having access to the instance. Or maybe the solution is to have dungeons designed with mulitple "entrances" and then instance the dungeon and allow groups to randomly start at these "entrances." The dungeon will be populated by others but not swamped with people. Everyone will be fighting their way to the bottom from there own start point and it would allow for some conflict or cooperation between groups if they met up, especially in a PvP game. So if a dungeon is desigend with 6 entrances and each entrance can accomodate a group (defined as anything from"normal" group size to raid size) then 6 groups can be moving through that instance of the dungeon at any time. When full, a new instance is created and people are slotted in as they enter the dungeon into a new instance. I don't know if this is technically feasible but it would add a nice balance between adventuring alone through a dungeon and having the feel of others in the world.
Instancing was simply a bandaid to quickly fix the problems associated with static content.
When processing power and bandwidth allow truly dynamic content, there will be no need to instance anything.
-In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on Aug/13/08-
|
RISING DRAGOON ~AION US ONLINE LEGION for Elyos
A mix of instance/non-instance is what I prefer. EQ2 does it pretty well and a good mix. Using instances to avoid fighting over content is a good thing.
WoW's community is a mess because it's so big, not because of instancing. If WoW did not have instancing for its dungeons imagine all the fights over going to Molten Core or BWL. It's bad enough sometimes just trying to kill mobs for quest drops in the out door zones.
http://www.greycouncil.org/
When i played Everquest i thoroughly enjoyed my gaming time, the game itself was fresh and innovative at the time and it offered players a chance to be part of an online community thru a 3d mmorpg.
Now i'm in favour of instancing becuase of my experiences with games such as EQ1, this came about due to the attitude of my fellow gamers who on many occasions where quite happy to either harrass or completely destroy the content that was available to me at the time be it coming across a rare spawn or finding a dragon patrolling a zone.
Individuals or entire guilds would lay claim to entire lvls of dungeons or spawn camps due to the lucrative money or loot drops, does anyone remember the trouble the priest epic would cause when your priest was at the ragefire point, guilds would setup camp in Skyfire for weeks on end to make sure they had a head start when the named popped and then the arguments would start which would end in a GM being called this is not bringing a community together, it only breeds contempt for your fellow players.
Even in WoW with the few overland and out of instance dragons that can pop there is always fierce and bitter arguments, which is compounded with the fact you will have opposing sides vying for the dragons loot, i have witnessed 5 guilds waiting to take down azuregos, 3 alliance and 2 horde, as soon as 1 faction attacked the opposing faction attacked that guild, this is not what i would call a fair fight but it goes to show that the communities in WoW will not and do not want to work together to further togetherness, they want the loot and thats that no matter what the cost.
Instancing cuts out the teduim of waiting in line, it ensures your grp/guild has a guaranteed interupt free adventure for their alloted time frame, a good chance of some loot and some laughs along the way. Does it really matter if your community only comprises of your own guild mates, becuase TBH as far as i am concerned they are the only ones that count when im playing the game, i've invested alot of time and effort in my guild.
I hear many times in my guild chat "I'm never doing another PUG (pick up group) so help me" this is your so called community, and it's not just confined to 1 game, i have heard it said in every mmo i have played and instancing has had no bearing on this, you only have to take a look at your only RL neighbourhood to understand that ppl wont get along with everyone and that coming to your own home each night is the only place that will ensure your own safety and personal enjoyment, not the local social club or bar.
I totally agree that it's time for a new categorization when it comes to MMORPGs which would clarify what kinda game we're talking about as some of the posters pointed out, something else which is related to the latter, the dev teams have to be clear to whom there game is targeted to, and here i'm talking mainly about the power gamers which got a lotta time on there hands and those of us that have gotten to a point in our lives where we have responsabilities and so on (that sounded sad
), i think that targeting both will never be an easy task, to say that instancing will make things fun for casual gamers is IMO choosing the easy way out, in a way i want what the powergamers experience but at a "slower"rythm which is why it is not easy and even near impossible to have PGs and CGs play together and be equally competitive in feature like PVP, so i hope that we're gonna see games which do stress the differences between these two kinda gamers instead of just ruining the gameplay experience for either side with some supposed solution updates. Again i think that we have come to a stage where an MMORPG has to show its colors from the beguining asside from the classic Sci Fi , Fantasy ...etc categories, i take DDO as an example( which doesn't appeal to me BTW but i understand the fact that it attracts a certain kind of players), the problem is labeling it as an MMORPG is a too broad definition nowadays. Maybe calling it an MORPG would have saved it from the bashing fest.
PS: I think that there had to be a 4th voting option for the people that are for a balance between instancing and no-istancing.
I completely understand the need for instancing. It mainly serves to protect the boss battles where the loot is handed out. I remember trying to camp a single mob with about 20 other players, for hours upon hours. That just isn't fun. I'd rather be out adventuring.
As for DDO. Instancing out the dungeon crawls, is essential for gathering the feeling of a D&D session. However, they should have created a fully realized outside environment. Without the outside environment that you can see other random players fighting in, or traveling through, it just doesn't seem as epic. DDO, has gone a bit instance crazy though. Instancing the Tavern is simply ridiculous. Resting should occur, when you are anywhere inside town. Yes, I know that's a deviation from D&D, but who cares! Some things need to be bent for a transition from PnP to PC.
Games like EQ1/2, DAoC, FFXI really feel like you're in the world. However, you get annoyed/pissed when you cannot obtain the items that you want/need because some other 20 people are camping the same mob. Or, if you have to wait in a line, that sucks too.
Games like WoW are a middle ground. You feel like you're in a real world and you have access to the loot that you may need/want. But, WoW has it's own problems that I simply do not enjoy. So far, WoW is the breath of fresh air that most MMO gamers have been waiting for. But, a few design mishaps ruined the game for a lot of us (myself included). End game looting could have been handled much better, instancing the PvP on a PvP server killed those servers, and whoever thought of reputation grinds should be shot.
Lastly, games like DDO and GW feel like you're simply logged into a virtual questing hub. The town only exists to instance you off on a quest. It doesn't feel like a huge world.
I love instancing because it cuts down on loot/mob camping, but I despise it because it takes out the world feel of a game. I hope that some middle ground is found that will guard against the spawn camping and still keep the epic feel of the game.
Edit: I've seen some posts about "there is only one dungeon of that type in this world". That is true, however you have to also take into account that on a 'normal' world, there aren't a countless number of different heros.
In a story book representation of the world that you are playing in, there is only a single group of heros sent off to conquer the dungeon and kill the bad guy. In MMOs there are obviously more than a few people trying to do the exact same quest. So, it ALSO doesn't make sense to have countless heros in a world. Instancing a dungeon crawl (for a quest), takes out all the other heros in the world (which is unrealistic in its own right) and puts you back into the story of the world.
This design aspect restores the intended purpose of the dungeon and its big bad. However, this should not, and let me repeat, SHOULD NOT apply to the world at large. You still should have to travel to the dungeon (via some type of fast travel system that you have earned) through a vast and open (ie. uninstanced) world.
Instancing clearly hurts an online community by isolating players away from the general player base. Don't get me wrong, instancing has a place and a role to play in gaming today. I enjoy a nice evening playing online with only a few select friends. Having the "whole place your ourselves" is a selfish need we all have from time to time.
However, mmorpg developers are deciding that more and more game content should be instanced. This gives the developer better control over performance, appearance and balance issues. They can now develop content for a set number of players instead of trying to plan for the unknown. Sure that makes their job a little easier, but at what cost?
Players, now encouraged to participate in instances, take little interest in what is going on outside of the instances. They barely meet or even know anyone outside of their own little guild or closed group of friends. People log on, look for group and poof, they are whisked away into their own little piece of the game away from bothers and distractions.
MMORPG games need to balance instance and world events. Instancing is fine and I am certainly not saying they should all be removed. But, developers need to add world content to a game to truly keep it an MMORPG. There needs to be battles, and struggles, and events that the online community can band together to participate in. This content should have an actual impact (better or worse) for all players on that particular server. An impact great enough to make people want to particpate.
Instancing? Sure I'm ok with it, but I will look to games similar to Baldur's, NWN, Diablo, and Guild Wars to fill that need. I really rather not pay a subscription for that type of game. But for an MMORPG, I am looking for world content and server-wide events. That is that game that will attact my money.
Jane, you ignorant slut.
JK lol *Saturday night live reference lost on anyone younger than 30*
Very well written, almost couldn't have said it better my self.
Why not have both? Of course your game would have to have zones to log into for this to work, but...
Have one general population zone where anyone and everyone can go into. Raid Mobs would be here, and in general you would get slightly better loot hunting in this zone.
Then you offer the option of the instanced zone which is an exact copy of the "general" zone. Only difference would be perhaps to make the loot a little less desirable.
This way, you kind of force socializing if players want the better loot, but if a group of players want to kill Humungous the Dragon on Monday nite and 10:30, they can without having to worry about someone beating them to the punch.
In some regards, I guess you could pull this off with games without zones as well, by having a teleporter device take the group to a copy of the dungeon somewhere else where they have sole reign of the dungeon.
I think instancing certainly has it's place. Saying everything or nothing should be instanced is a little short sighted.
In my opinion, quest/storyline areas should be instanced. For example if you have to kill a dragon as part of a quest, you can have an item, or gain access to a cave that will be instanced just for your raid party so that people can complete quests or advance the storyline without running into a roadblock.
However "farmable" content, or anything you will likely be doing more than once just for items/exp etc. should be open to all.
What I personally would like to see is to have dungeons divided into camps. In the origional EQ, the player base established their own areas within dungeons, and generally groups would respect other people's areas, and not pull mobs from them.
What I think would be perfect, is to have uninstanced content, with predetermined camps, and when a group "claims" a camp (how they would do that is highly dependant on the game/UI itself) any mob killed in the area would grant exp to the party that claimed it.
Experience would decrease based on the amount of time the party had that camp claimed, encouraging people to move further into the dungeon in order to continue gaining exp at a decent rate.
They shouldn't force community down your throat (agreed) but they also shouldn't limit or block it. Instances are a block/limit to community because they reduce drastically the number of people available for you to interact with, making the virutal world, and therefore the community within it, less alive and vibrant.
Devs do not and can not create community, players do that. The devs job is to give the players the tools to communicate with, and then let them do their thing. CCP and EVE Online are a good example of this type of community building.
Ummm. I think you have it BACKWARDS. If there are no instances then I have no CHOICE but to share my space with everybody else. If everybody else is a lot of fun, then thats great. If many of them are jackasses (yes, I know, its unlikely) then I'm going to want some alone time.
If there are both instanced and open zones then *I* have a choice and so do *you*. You can choose to adventure only in open zones (go you!) and I can choose to adventure in open zones or instanced zones as I choose (go me!).
I cant think of a clearer way of forcing community down my throat than TAKING AWAY choices so that I am FORCED to compete for mobs and drops and put up with arsehats interfering with the quest I"m trying to do.
Which one is more immersive, that you get a group of people together and make a plan and rob a bank, or that you get a group of people together and make a plan and show up at a bank, the tellers are shot, the customers ran out screaming, and money is all gone?
Bang. Right on.
Instances=good for telling stories and having adventures.
Open zones= good for short grinding, soloing, and waiting to put together an instance group. And griefing other players.
Most of the games with instancing I've played, they have REQUIRED groups for the instances (which I wasnt necessarily happy with).
How does this REDUCE the community unless you are bringing enough friends for the instance?
Let me throw something extra into the ring here...
This is what Brad McQuaid said about instancing (which he obviously hates with a passion) in the recent MMORPG.com interview about his new game Vanguard: "The way to get around the need for instancing is simply to have enough content."
This comment really makes me wonder whether this guy knows what he's talking about at all??? If there's ONE thing that DOESN'T affect the instancing aspect of MMORPGs it's CONTENT!!! I can't believe people are trusting this guy to make a "next-gen" MMORPG with ideas like this.
Instancing's REAL key issues are, on the developer's side, performance and quest design (not size/amount); while the issues on the player's side are reserved-content, hassle-free non-time intensive questing (EDIT: and by this I mean not having any long downtimes waiting for named-mobs or cleared areas to respawn, avoiding campers, etc.), and whether the "feel" of a massive-multiplayer world can be maintained despite breaking it into smaller pieces. (IMHO this is done very well, but in a limited way, in EQII. There are "instanced" quests that take place in the overall world, without being diverted to a totally separated instance. Mobs will spawn for you when on a quest, and you can progress your quests without waiting, in many cases, but still have others running around you while you do it...and thus not lose ANY feel of MMO)
Well - I like instancing only, if they are limited, which are not ONLY for Endgame like in WoW. It should be more like the Doom in Ultima Online. In UO I could go to instancing whenever I wanted. And if I have been lucky enough I did got my Artifact. I always found there new friends and I always met other players. Sometimes all were helpfull and sometimes more egoistic. But at least everyone had his chance to get an item and the end-boss died anytime with any groups.
Second is that there should NOT be Instancing for >15 people.. Why? Because organizing it does take a lot of time and if somone fails all the group will fail. But the badest thing is you are NOT flexible, because you have to take part from the beginning til end. Those of players who got a busy RL wont be able to take part. And another argument is that those extrem Instances 20+ does take at least 3 hours, which is too much.
If they are too many instances in a mmorpg, the real world(playing ground) of a mmorpg will be forgotten very soon. For example at weekends nearly oll aff the players were instancing... the world was somtimes empty and boring. So you had nothing better to do than going to instance too or going out for farming.
So the real interaction between many different players becomes lower.... which isnt that good. Also it is boring to see all the time the same chars who are always doing the same job in an instance wih. It becomes very repetetive and boring.
And all that just for the "best of" items (some people call it CONTENT rofl) and NOT for fun and almost NOT for any guildmembers or any players and also NOT beacue you are social.
Those who say "I do just help my friend to get his item in an instant". And they do this for 2 hours and so many time till "the friend" gets his items will almost have expectations. Which is not a good starting of a good relationship....
Which I also dont like is that hierachie of "who gets the item which is dropped now" I did hate it in WoW. Those who got the most points will get the item.... That means in doesnt really matter who you are or how you did play or how kind you are, it just counts how often you did take part and how many points you did.... be repetetive and do all the weeks the same Instance for thousand times to get your points (also called CONTENT for some). THAT IS BORING AND BRAINWASHING
And having both only works for me if it is made or solved like in UO.
Sorry for my bad "Genglish"
oops double post... lol
/signed
I fully agree with that.
Especially to:
if they are too many instancing.
"...whether the "feel" of a massive-multiplayer ..."
It feeld more like a LAN-RPG
I think Brad has a point. Instances are a way to get around the problem of spawn camping, and multiple player groups competing in a zone for the same content. Brad is saying, I think, that he believes you can also solve the problem of spawn camping and overcrowding by having a large enough game world with enough interesting content.
For instance (pun intended), I often find areas in EVE to mine for resources, and camp npc pirate spawns, where I am not bothered by other people, even though the game is not instanced. This is possible, because the game world itself is large enough to accomodate the number of people playing it.
Whether or not Sigil is able to pull off their vision in Vanguard, I think Brad's point that a larger game world and more content is another solution to spawn camping is something that should be taken into consideration.
You are all n00bs imo....
I agree that this is probably the point he is trying to make. But it doesn't address the issue of instancing in the slightest. Because no matter how much content you jam into the game people will still head for the areas that give them the best "value for time" spent. So, as soon as everyone finds out that BOSS MOB X gives the best loot and is fairly easy to take down with a group of N players then hundreds of groups of N players will be waiting there for BOSS X to spawn...PROBLEM UNSOLVED!!