Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Peoples thoughts on instancing

paranoidpvpparanoidpvp Member Posts: 539

Some people love the fact that GW is instanced and others absolutely despise it. Personally I love it as it allows for alot of annoying farmers/bots/hackers to be eliminated from your personal gaming experience, even if they still exist. This is just one reason for the fact that I like it and I am just wondering what everyone else thinks?

image

Comments

  • necrofanaticnecrofanatic Member Posts: 45
    Instancing is great I dont see why so many ppl hate it. It keeps costs down so you dont pay monthly fee and it expands story a lot more than any other mmo since you could have a lot of cool things to do and it's much easier to expand.So what if you dont see other ppl running around I dont see how that immerses you further since they wont really help you (in my experience) and just be away.

  • AseenusAseenus Member UncommonPosts: 1,844
    instances make guild wars much better!

    reason: purely less lag... i love it :)


  • MylonMylon Member Posts: 975
    One of the best features about Guild Wars is a non-sharded game.  Anyone I meet outside of the game I can definitely play with.  Nothing like WoW where there's a 0.5% or worse that I can play with someone I meet outside of the game, even if half of the game is instanced and could theoretically draw players from other servers.


    Instancing in GW allows this to happen and keeps the world from being split.  I prefer it that way.

    image

  • VGJusticeVGJustice Member Posts: 640
    I've played a few other MMO's, and they're all the same. You have mobs of monsters that give good experience, but there's 200 people already xp farming, so you'll never get in there. You get twinkers following you around either trying to kill you or steal your hard earned loot, and then you've got the pk'ers that have no other purpose in the game beyond killing your character for the fun of it. None of these make for an interesting game, and discourage new players from doing anything. I mean, why would you work for an hour to get some super powerful artifact or beat some major boss if some jerk is just gonna ruin it for you. And, sure, you could get some powerful friends that have been playing for a while already, but how many people actually get that? How many groups of high level players are going to be willing to so much as look at a low level newbie, let alone protect them so they can keep what they've worked for?

    I vastly prefer full instancing for exactly these reason. The only people in my instance are the ones I trust, not the asshats that I don't want to deal with.


    --~~--
    Play Guild Wars? Go here - http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Main_Page
    And go here for the new official Guild Wars Wiki! http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Main_Page

  • SerlingSerling Member Posts: 662

    I don't mind the instancing. What I do mind is that once in a mission, there is no clearly defined "leader" who has the power to kick leeches and disruptors. It's not uncommon - especially in Ring of Fire missions, to start with 8 man team then see 2 or 3 go afk for rest of mission while 5 people pull the entire load. So even instanced missions have problems with immature, uncooperative people. Trouble is that once they're on your team, there's nothing you can do about them except quit and look for a new team.

    I'd like to see the "kick" feature extended to the leader of a team even while in mission.

  • Mikes123Mikes123 Member Posts: 114


    Originally posted by Serling


    I'd like to see the "kick" feature extended to the leader of a team even while in mission.


    kick feature would have the problem that it s open to abuse.

    i.e. imagine right before the mission end : "Gimme 5k or i ll kick you"
    i.e. imagine gold weapon or ecto drops "gimme that or i ll kick you"

    the potential drawbacks would outweight the benefits imho.
  • SerlingSerling Member Posts: 662


    kick feature would have the problem that it s open to abuse.

    i.e. imagine right before the mission end : "Gimme 5k or i ll kick you"
    i.e. imagine gold weapon or ecto drops "gimme that or i ll kick you"

    the potential drawbacks would outweight the benefits imho.


    I suppose this would be the case in PuGs, where most people don't know each other from Adam, but I don't see it happening where Guildmates are teaming together. Of course, where you have guildies teaming up, leeching and abuse shouldn't be an issue.

    Your scenarios - unfortunately - say alot about the relative character of the GW playerbase which isn't the most mature around. Example, I took my lvl 8 Necro into random arena and was being chased around by a level 10 warrior who PM'd me and wrote, "keep running, you pussy." My team went on to win PRECISELY because I was able to draw him into a fight with another warrior, and we kicked his a$$.

    The random PvP in GW pretty much sucks, because you have a lot of immature players calling names and demonstrating little in the way of sportsmanship. In that regard, given the immature leaders that would try forming teams, I suppose a kick feature wouldn't work. But there's got to be some way to dump leeches and scammers.

    I was in the Riverside Province mission with my ranger and a monk on the team kept dying. While in a tower fight, he died while I killed the tower guards. A couple of minutes later when I res'd him, he went straight for the gold item that had been dropped for me. When the rest of the team told him he stole my drop, he said "too bad" then went afk for rest of mission and bonus, which I finished with another warrior and ritualist. In other words, the a$$hole was nothing but a leech, and got all the reward for everyone else's hard work and offered nothing to the team. Everyone else on the team wanted to kick him, too.

    So how about this idea: everyone has a kick button that they can use to vote a guy off. A unanimous vote gets a leech or scammer booted. It's done with the ability to skip movies, why couldn't something like this be done with leeching, scamming teammates?

    BTW, I think a GM was watching our mission, because after the idiot monk died again (we left him dead) I got another gold and a purple drop with the next group we killed. So it wasn't a total loss, but it wasn't a pleasant experience, either.

  • monk3yftwmonk3yftw Member Posts: 1
    I love it because it gets rid of lag, but at the same time i kinda dont like it because i want to see other players in places outside of the city and join parties outside of the city. but if iw ould have to chose i would perfer the instances over no instances.

  • ElnatorElnator Member Posts: 6,077


    Originally posted by monk3yftw
    I love it because it gets rid of lag, but at the same time i kinda dont like it because i want to see other players in places outside of the city and join parties outside of the city. but if iw ould have to chose i would perfer the instances over no instances.



    Agree, though I do wish they hadn't instanced the outside world.  The storyline missions are awesome that they're instanced, and the mini-missions could trigger instances as well, but it'd be nice to occasionally run into other players on the outdoor map.  Even if it were population instanced like the city zones are.

    But I don't mind the instancing.  It's kind of nice.  I do miss running into people out in the wilderness from time to time though.

    Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
    Sig image Pending
    Still in: A couple Betas

  • BentBent Member CommonPosts: 581
    Yeah guild wars would never make it if they had presistant shards.

    Release day all the servers would be capped out and 1 month later pop numbers would be <1k until the next release.  Having a shared world will let guild wars last as long as about 5000 people are playing anywhere in the worlds... instead of needing 1.5 on Your server to fill busy.

    Heck look at Diablo 2 it is still going.  If it was sharded it would have been dead years ago.


  • jimmyman99jimmyman99 Member UncommonPosts: 3,221
    I do wish GW would be non-instanced to some degree, but I realize that the whole concept of no-subscription depends entirely on instanced world, so its impossible for GW to ever become non-instanced (other then towns). Id say instanced to non-instanced ratio for my liking is about 25% to 75%. I just like the idea of traveling through forest and stumbling on a group of lower level group desperately trying to survive vs a ultra tough mob and helping them to overcome this challenge and survive a certain death situation. Thats what I miss the most.

    It is true that each way has its own problems, instance saves from farmers but removes much of a social and roleplaying aspect of the game, while non-instanced world has a big social and roleplaying side but often promotes farming/kill stealing and in general can be a big annoyance for overpopulated areas.


    I am the type of player where I like to do everything and anything from time to time.
    image
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor - pre-WW2 genocide.
    imageimage

Sign In or Register to comment.