The instancing Poll on this site scares me.

Distortion0 · June 2006

I'm not sure wether this poll is new or old, I'm ussually not loged in to vote and see the results but I was reading one and I was wondering if other people felt the way I did about the results.

"What balence would you like to see betwen instanced and non-instanced content do you want to see?

No instancing: 13.5%

50/50 42.6%

Completely Instanced: 1.9%

Mostly Instanced: 9.6%

Little Instancing: 32.5%"

Most people want 50/50? Are you out of your minds? Does anyone else feel that half instanced is enough to ruin the feeling that you are in a huge world with thousands of other players when playing an MMO?

Tithrielle · June 2006

Originally posted by Distortion0

Most people want 50/50? Are you out of your minds? Does anyone else feel that half instanced is enough to ruin the feeling that you are in a huge world with thousands of other players when playing an MMO?

Yes... WoW was bad enough and I'm sure its' instanced content is less than 50%. However people probably see the 50/50 option and think 'hmm, WoW' and vote. I find it hard to imagine most MMORPGers would actually like to see 50% instanced.

baff · June 2006

I like 50% instanced. Sounds good to me.

It worked well for me in City of Heroes.

I felt Wow was not instanced enough. Too many times I would be in missions in areas that would have worked better if instanced (temples castles etc), but instead had to deal with kill stealing and camping and respawning enemies materialising in the middle of the fight for no reason at all.

Tithrielle · June 2006

Originally posted by baff

Too many times I would be in missions in areas that would have worked better if instanced (temples castles etc), but instead had to deal with kill stealing and camping and respawning enemies materialising in the middle of the fight for no reason at all.

So essentially you wanted to play on your own? Third party involvement and respawning enemies are staple factors of MMORPGs.

anarchyart · June 2006

Originally posted by baff

I like 50% instanced. Sounds good to me.
It worked well for me in City of Heroes.

I felt Wow was not instanced enough. Too many times I would be in missions in areas that would have worked better if instanced (temples castles etc), but instead had to deal with kill stealing and camping and respawning enemies materialising in the middle of the fight for no reason at all.

UGH! Well I guess we all have different opinions. I just hate instancing, period. It was kind of cozy in WoW at first, until you realize that's all there is. Instances! I hate them! Can't wait for Vanguard. NO INSTANCING because, for me,

Instancing Sucks™

brostyn · June 2006

EQ has great instancing. You get an adventure you go, and viola its perfect. EQ has more instancing than WoW. EQ2 instancing is fine by me, also. DAoC has instancing. In fact, DAoC leveling is almost purely instance lvling now, and their latest expansion is almost solely instanced zones. All 3 of these games are rated 8.0 and up, and all 3 have more instances than WoW.

nomadian · June 2006

Hmm that is a surprise, I thought instancing of EQ2, and DDO was rubbish. But as to WoW, I'm not a fan of instancing, but what would WoW be like without it? Can you imagine there just being one dungeon?

Samuraisword · June 2006

Instancing destroys immersion in a MMOG, might as well play single box.

Salvatoris · June 2006

To each his own I guess. I usually play with a small group of friends. I don't really care to group with strangers much. I have a lot of odd hours free time and I solo quite a bit. I still prefer MMOs to single player RPG games. I like a persistent world with perpetual updates.

Just because I generally choose not to do combat quests with random groups of strangers doesn't mean i don't like to interact with other people in game. I was a long time Armorsmith in SWG, and I enjoyed meeting other people through the economy of the game. I didn't enjoy waiting for days on end for my group to get a chance to fight the GDK, or other static boss spawns for the loot drops I needed for armor. And I certainly didn't enjoy fighting all the way through a quest just to be denied the end content by some punks that were camping the boss spawn all day.

People play games differently. Thinking everyone should either play the same as you or play single player games is pretty silly.

TeeBeeNZ · June 2006

100% instanced, or 0%, all the same for me. Makes no difference to how I play.

Samuraisword · June 2006

If you are addressing my post, then you should agree with me based on what you just described.

If you like being in a persistent world with other players but not to necessarily adventure with them, then instancing would turn you off because instancing removes the reality of a persistent world since you don't see anyone else. If you just want to play with the same small group of friends, then a single box with online or Lan capabilities will suit your needs. MMOGs are for players who want to see other players and feel like they are part of a seemless world, not have private copies of content set up for them.

Gameloading · June 2006

Originally posted by Distortion0

I'm not sure wether this poll is new or old, I'm ussually not loged in to vote and see the results but I was reading one and I was wondering if other people felt the way I did about the results.
"What balence would you like to see betwen instanced and non-instanced content do you want to see?
No instancing: 13.5%
50/50 42.6%
Completely Instanced: 1.9%
Mostly Instanced: 9.6%
Little Instancing: 32.5%"
Most people want 50/50? Are you out of your minds? Does anyone else feel that half instanced is enough to ruin the feeling that you are in a huge world with thousands of other players when playing an MMO?

so because people have another opinnion then you do, they are out of their minds?

I personally like little Instancing. you simply won't get the feeling your working trough a dungeon without instancing, period. without instancing, a dungeon or ruins will feel like just another spot to grind.

so for me: the entire world without instancing, except for a few dungeons would be perfect.

DamonVile · June 2006

Originally posted by Tithrielle

Yes... WoW was bad enough and I'm sure its' instanced content is less than 50%. However people probably see the 50/50 option and think 'hmm, WoW' and vote. I find it hard to imagine most MMORPGers would actually like to see 50% instanced.

You forget that wow has a population that probably comes close to 30 or 40% of all MMORPG players. With numbers like that it's no wonder "most" people want a game like it. Dont be fooled by what you read on the forums here. WoW isn't anywhere near as hated as this place would have people think.

MW2K · June 2006

Scared by a poll. That's a new one.

Kormac · June 2006

Instanced areas are good for telling predefined stories.

The kill stealing, ninjaing and camping isn't realistic, just the natural effect of a less than perfect world design. The big problem being that as long as you pile on with static quests that everybody can do, everybody will be there doing it.

The static quests need instancing.

What I do not want is STATIC QUESTS. (And with them gone, instancing would just be another pain - I don't want instancing either). The big quests are better off being secret at first, and completed forever once they're done. More work, less adventure, but no instancing needed, cause it won't become a tourist spot.

The other "quests" should be generated by giving the players needs that must be satisfied. If your house and equipment requires maintenance, your belly requires food and your wounds require medical attention and herbal treatment, then everybody's got real-time generated quests to produce / find / use these.

You give the medic the "Heal me" quest. The medic gives somebody else the "Get me these herbs" quest. Winter comes, and you offer good money for a wolfskin coat - I'm not joking!

The great dragon roams the lands, and most people have to flee. The dragon is almost dead, and it has to flee. At some point, somebody successfully slays the dragon - and it IS NO MORE! By the way: The dragon isn't dumb, the lair is hidden and trapped, and it doesn't show you the way if it knows you're following. It doesn't just lie there waiting for you either. It actually comes out to raid and ravage, and if the Mayor (another player) lost his sceptre to it, then it might be in the dragon's hoard.

That's dynamic quests. (Kill dragon / recover sceptre could be done separately, by the way)

The common quests shouldn't be more than pure game mechanics. This isn't the gospel of truth, it is my personal preference.

Umbrood · June 2006

I do not mind instancing, if done rigth, DDO or GW may be a bit over the top but still.

I play with the same people, mostly RL friends, and allthough we do not mind socializing often it is very nice to have your own place.

The "go play a SP game", is just not dumb but also ignorant, if someone were to point out games that can offer what most MMO's can, in a lan environment then please post that list?

Even if you only solo the MMO's out there now offer the most entertainment per $ however you view it, unless of course your view is filtered by a life of very little experience.

baff · June 2006

Originally posted by Tithrielle

Originally posted by baff

Too many times I would be in missions in areas that would have worked better if instanced (temples castles etc), but instead had to deal with kill stealing and camping and respawning enemies materialising in the middle of the fight for no reason at all.

So essentially you wanted to play on your own? Third party involvement and respawning enemies are staple factors of MMORPGs.

I liked the City of Heroes way. 50% communal areas, 50% instances.

In instances most people don't play alone. They have something called a "team".

Originally posted by Samuraisword

If you like being in a persistent world with other players but not to necessarily adventure with them, then instancing would turn you off because instancing removes the reality of a persistent world since you don't see anyone else. If you just want to play with the same small group of friends, then a single box with online or Lan capabilities will suit your needs. MMOGs are for players who want to see other players and feel like they are part of a seemless world, not have private copies of content set up for them.

I'm not looking for "reality" in my fantasy games. It's a game. Gameplay comes first.

I like offline and LAN games every bit as much as I like MMO's. It's not an "either, or" scenario. I do both.

DamonVile · June 2006

Originally posted by Samuraisword

If you are addressing my post, then you should agree with me based on what you just described.
If you like being in a persistent world with other players but not to necessarily adventure with them, then instancing would turn you off because instancing removes the reality of a persistent world since you don't see anyone else. If you just want to play with the same small group of friends, then a single box with online or Lan capabilities will suit your needs. MMOGs are for players who want to see other players and feel like they are part of a seemless world, not have private copies of content set up for them.

Well I don't agree with that at all.
I like to see and talk with other plays. I don't however want to see the big bad monster being camped by 50 people waiting for it to respawn and then having it die in 5 seconds. That isn't imersive, realistic or anything else people call it.

Instancing allows MMORPGs to have that deep dark cave where the dragon waits. It lets the story happen for everyone not just the loot whores.

Yes instances can be camped by players who only want loot but, they can do that all they want and it doesn't affect my and my groups game.

Wow still gave you the chance to run into people in some caves by making the instance gate deep inside, but I don't remember seeing too many people meet up there and go on to finish the instance together. People tend to show up with a group already formed.

TBH I'm surprised people would rather have the camped boss situation over the instance, myself.

Darraess · June 2006

a game should have all, some questlines should take you through instanced content especially if this content help promote your character to the end of its progression, or if it is a part of the game that needs alot of cooperation and alot of head planning. the majority of content should be shared world content even dungeons, and there must allways be imo highly contested content, as if everything in life proper balance is allways the best, but 50/50 is not proper, imo it should be something like 20/70/10, for Insta/Open/Contested

Jenuviel · June 2006

I'd like 50% instancing if those instances were purely optional, and by "purely," I mean you'd do equally well in terms of experience and equipment if you never left common zones. I didn't always feel this way, but time after time, I've found two statements to be absolute truths in MMOs:

The greatest strength of every MMO is its community.

The greatest weakness of every MMO is its community.

People are unpredictable, and lots of people like that unpredictability. Lots of people don't. If you're a socializer, it might be fun to run into someone out in the open who waves and stops to talk for a bit. If you're a pvper, perhaps it's fun to run into someone out in the middle of nowhere and thwack them in the head with a club. If you're out in the woods and you wave happily to someone who then thwacks in you in the head with a club, it might wreck your game. Different people play MMOs for different reasons, as can be seen from the neverending "Solo versus Group" and "PvE versus PvP" arguments. Having the ability to choose the way you play the game, and the way the game plays you, seems to be ideal for everyone other than people who want to impose the way they play the game on others.

I don't think people would constantly pick instances over common areas or common areas over instances if both were equally rewarding and engaging. The option to choose whichever you preferred at any given time based on your mood, your available time, whatever, seems like a benefit rather than a punishment to me. As with everything, though, it all comes down to implementation.

Jorev · June 2006

Actually instancing does negatively effect all players, because it allows farmers to ply their trade without competition which creates inflation and ruins the game's economy.

A good game does not force linear play where you have to camp a certain boss mob to get a specific drop. It is more sound to have high end loot tradeable first of all, so some can trade for the item, thus earn it, without camping the source. Then, you spread the drops amongst many high end mobs so they all share the same loot table thus removing the need to camp specific mobs and create bottlenecks. That is just plain dumb.

You can still try and spread the player population throughout the game world, by increasing/decreasing the percentage of a certain drop by boss mob, but still allowing the possibility to get that drop from a number of high end mobs, and not just static mobs but random roamers as well.

Actually WoW created meeting stones, specifically in response to the reality that most players showed up at a dungeon without a group. I am a soloer primarily but I grouped more in WoW than any other game by picking up groups at dungeon locations, not by forming them in town ahead of time.

Elnator · June 2006

Originally posted by Samuraisword

If you are addressing my post, then you should agree with me based on what you just described.
If you like being in a persistent world with other players but not to necessarily adventure with them, then instancing would turn you off because instancing removes the reality of a persistent world since you don't see anyone else. If you just want to play with the same small group of friends, then a single box with online or Lan capabilities will suit your needs. MMOGs are for players who want to see other players and feel like they are part of a seemless world, not have private copies of content set up for them.

I dissagree.. I don't like 100% instancing at all. If that were the case I'd agree with you. But I do like 50/50 instancing where the world and cities aren't instanced but the adventure areas are. It's nice to get a group and head into an adventure together. One of the FEW things I like about DDO is that when you go into an adventure it's just you and your group. Very cool... The OTHER aspects of DDO make it not worth buying but that one thing is VERY well done indeed. Guild Wars, on the flip side, is a little bit TOO instanced but the group adventures are fun, much like DDO except that they're always on the damn surface... would love to see some dungeon adventures in guild wars. EQ2 does instancing as well but typically it's regional instancing where after a certain number of people in an open zone are there it kicks off another instance of the zone. There are some group/solo instances too but most of the game is only partially instanced.

My favorite instancing thus far is DDO... they really got it right with theirs. It's not PERFECT but it's the best implementation of instancing I've seen. Now if they'd just put the rest of the game in I would buy it

LOL

Tithrielle · June 2006

Originally posted by brostyn
EQ has great instancing. You get an adventure you go, and viola its perfect. EQ has more instancing than WoW. EQ2 instancing is fine by me, also. DAoC has instancing. In fact, DAoC leveling is almost purely instance lvling now, and their latest expansion is almost solely instanced zones. All 3 of these games are rated 8.0 and up, and all 3 have more instances than WoW.

Both EQ1 and DAoC were instance-free back in their hayday (and the best part of their lifetimes). They have only recently added instances to try and 'keep up' with newer user-friendly games. EQ1 still has far more uninstanced content than instanced.

Minsc · June 2006

Instancing is fine in PVE oriented games (i.e. DDO/WoW) and especially those that are heavy with static content, as you can't really change anything in the world no matter what you do, but in PVP oriented games instancing is a big NO-NO (i.e. EVE, Shadowbane, DAoC, although DAoC now uses some instancing).

Unfortunately far too many devs try to cater to the whole market rather than picking their niche and sticking with it, and that's why we get a whole flood of unimaginative, cookie-cutter games and only a few truly unique and innovative ones.

brostyn · June 2006

Originally posted by Tithrielle

Originally posted by brostyn
EQ has great instancing. You get an adventure you go, and viola its perfect. EQ has more instancing than WoW. EQ2 instancing is fine by me, also. DAoC has instancing. In fact, DAoC leveling is almost purely instance lvling now, and their latest expansion is almost solely instanced zones. All 3 of these games are rated 8.0 and up, and all 3 have more instances than WoW.

Both EQ1 and DAoC were instance-free back in their hayday (and the best part of their lifetimes). They have only recently added instances to try and 'keep up' with newer user-friendly games. EQ1 still has far more uninstanced content than instanced.

Your point?

EQ's LDoN was the best expansion EQ ever had, and it was 100% instancing. DAoC's best expansion was catacombs and the only part of catacombs that is used is instances. Instances don't ruin games. Its how they are implemented.

I'd also like to add that at least 5 of the top 7 rated games on mmorpg.com have either a fair amount of instances or a lot. I don't know if SoR has instances, but with the new expansion it sounds like it might.

Jerek_ · June 2006

I voted for no instancing, but thats just my opinion. It has its uses, like someone mentioned that they use MMO's basically to play with the same small group of people, IE lan groups just not in the same place, so yah good for them, just not my bag.

The upside to so many MMO's being on the market is that not every one has to be your thing... only 1 has to. So if instancing is really that popular, cool, it should be used. I wouldn't mind if 99% of them where 100% instanced, long as I can find 1 I like

Howdy, Stranger!

The instancing Poll on this site scares me.

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

The instancing Poll on this site scares me.

Comments