Originally posted by lornphoenix

Where WoW Gets it wrong is in PvP.
Battlegrounds and Arenas has killed any kinda of real World PvP.

 

Not seeing the problem, frankly. Open World PvP is only fun when the numbers and levels are close to even. WoW's open PvP is a gank-fest.

Originally posted by Yamota

Originally posted by BioNut

Originally posted by Abrahmm

Instancing destroys the feeling of a virtual world. I don't like instancing, but I will put up with it in the case of an excellent game(ala Guild Wars), but it just adds to the shit list in crappy games(ala AoC).

I am curious how it destroys the virtual world because I have had a different experience in AoC.

 

I guess I need to explain. When I think of fantasy (and I am an avid reader of it) I never think of large amounts of people doing medial tasks together. In good fantasy books the lead character may have to go kill some rabbits for food but I'll be damned if he is doing that with 100 other people. When I play MMOs I play to get immersed in my own book so to speak. If there are a lot of people around waking at boars with me it just reminds me that I am not special in any way and brings me out of the story.

Now when I meet 5-10 people out in the world it feels more real to me. After all, lead characters in books usually run into a lot of people.

Now in PvP areas I expect the population to be very high because that is supposed to simulate war.  Also markets and large cities should be very populated areas.

 

To me the virtual world is more the environmental surroundings and not the player characters in it.

 

 

 

Imagining reading that book and it says that in instance #1 of SarumansTower he is battling the Ents but at the same time in instance #2 of Sarumans tower he is battling Frodo and the hobbits and then in instance #3 of Sarumans Tower he is happily building an army and noone is attacking it.

What you are talking about "being immeresed in your OWN book" is a single player game or a multiplayer game. Massive multiplayer games are different in the sense that there is not one book for you and another book for some other person. It is the same book for the both of you and what one does can affect the other. That is anyway how MMORPGs used to be but that has sadly changed to the "one book per person" as you describe it.

Some people call it evolution but I call it devolution. I.e. turning a massive multiplayer experience into a multiplayer, or even singleplayer, experience.

I understand that argument but unfortunately there is another side to that coin.

Imagine reading that same book and it saying that the ents had to wait 30mins to attack for suraman's tower to respawn lol. Which is worse?

Originally posted by lornphoenix

WoW is a good example of how to do instancing both right and wrong.

Where WoW gets it right is in PvE.
Dungeons and Raids, You don't have to fight over Boss Mobs.
 

Where WoW Gets it wrong is in PvP.
Battlegrounds and Arenas has killed any kinda of real World PvP.

 

Actually the reason WoW's world PvP is so lackluster is because Blizzard is not willing to put any serious world objectives in the open world that would seriously skew the power balance between the factions.  There is still plenty of opportunity for casual world PvP but most people do not bother since they see no point to it.  So in order for Blizzard to foster World PvP they would have to push the game in a direction that they do not want.  Instancing PvP objectives allows them to put in serious incentives for participating because it does not destroy the overal gameplay.

Originally posted by arenasb

 

---

Originally posted by BioNut
I would have loved guild wars if all of the classes didn't feel the same :(.
 

---

 

 ? that's a new one, never heard of that complaint about GW classes.

I don't have a problem with instancing depending on what game it is. In Guild Wars it works great. In AoC and Warhammer I feel constrained by it. Still I don't think it's as bad in those games as everyone says it is, it just makes the worlds feel a little smaller than what they are.

I think I need to clarify. They didn't play the same. They just felt the same. Idk I just couldn't enjoy it for some reason.

Alot of MMOs out today are a combination of PvE and PvP. Instancing in a PvP atmosphere is pretty weak, as it limits the amount of players available to play against. So, the only acceptable means of instancing would be PvE.
So, when would PvE environment instancing be acceptable? In my opinion, the only time a game developer should consider using instancing would be to allow every player the opportunity to bypass dungeon congestion due to an over abundance of players in that particular area. Also, some games have Housing. I also like the ability to Instance a complete Housing district, where, in that Housing district each house is non-instanced)versus a non-instanced area where each house IS Instanced.
What areas shouldnt be instanced? Cities and the countryside, and if the game has Zones, these Zones do not need to be instanced. The last game that I played that was heavily instanced was AOC. It had zones which would have different instances created when the original zone reached a certain number of players. When I play a MMO, I want to see everyone who is in my area, not just a percentage of them. Flipping through zone instances is like flipping through the channels of my television. Any game that has zone instancing is a poorly developed game or they are using a poor game engine. A MMO shouldnt have to instance a complete zone kust to make it run smoother.

In my perfect MMO, I would like to see a mostly seamless world with some dungeon instancing. Actually, I like how Vanguard used "Shards" instead of Instancing.

First off, the OP needs to understand two things: First is that liking instancing or not is a simply a preference - much like graphics style - there is no absolute *right* answer either way. Secondly, it is a sliding scale from a "pure" sandbox world where nothing is instanced all the way to something where there is a log in lobby followed by nothing but instances, most games fall someplace in the middle.

There are different uses of instancing. I don't really like any of them, however the ones I tolerate are instances used to show storyline changes, instances for specific quests to prevent spawn camping/farming issues. I really hate them when they are overused in outdoor zones and dungeons/adventure areas.

Why? I hate loading screens. I hate the artificiality of zone lines. I want to run into random other players adventuring and going about their business, not travel through a ghost town because there are 20 other instances of the zone.

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by lornphoenix

Where WoW Gets it wrong is in PvP.
Battlegrounds and Arenas has killed any kinda of real World PvP.

 

Not seeing the problem, frankly. Open World PvP is only fun when the numbers and levels are close to even. WoW's open PvP is a gank-fest.

Open PvP in EVERY MMO is a gank fest.  Don't single out WOW=)  Nailing someone when they're not ready or outnumbering them is what open PvP is all about.   Thats the whole point.   Finding a fair fight in WOW to UO to EVE is completely contrary to whole point of being able to attack people whenever you want.  The easiest way to win is to make that possibility a certainty.  SO you attack them when they're about dead, crossing a gate or whenever it makes winning the easiest.   If anyone says Open world PvP is about fair fights, they're living in fantasy land.  Thats what battlegrounds, arenas and instancing is for...to balance the encounter.  Open PvP is NEVER about even numbers if people have control.  Its about easily winning and ganking or zerging is the easiest way to win.  Thats why instanced PvP is more fair, more balanced and promotes BETTER competition and a major reason newer MMOs are offering that sort of play.

I enjoy open PvP.  I actually do wait to have fair fights if I can, because if I already know the outcome, its just not fun.  I hate gankers, but thats what you get;)

Originally posted by Josher

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by lornphoenix

Where WoW Gets it wrong is in PvP.
Battlegrounds and Arenas has killed any kinda of real World PvP.

 

Not seeing the problem, frankly. Open World PvP is only fun when the numbers and levels are close to even. WoW's open PvP is a gank-fest.

 

Open PvP in EVERY MMO is a gank fest.  Don't single out WOW=)  Nailing someone when they're not ready or outnumbering them is what open PvP is all about.   Thats the whole point.   Finding a fair fight in WOW to UO to EVE is completely contrary to whole point of being able to attack people whenever you want.  The easiest way to win is to make that possibility a certainty.  SO you attack them when they're about dead, crossing a gate or whenever it makes winning the easiest.   If anyone says Open world PvP is about fair fights, they're living in fantasy land.  Thats what battlegrounds, arenas and instancing is for...to balance the encounter.  Open PvP is NEVER about even numbers if people have control.  Its about easily winning and ganking or zerging is the easiest way to win.  Thats why instanced PvP is more fair, more balanced and promotes BETTER competition and a major reason newer MMOs are offering that sort of play.

I enjoy open PvP.  I actually do wait to have fair fights if I can, because if I already know the outcome, its just not fun.  I hate gankers, but thats what you get;)

World pvp is not about being fair, its using the lay of the land, your skills scouting out a situation and attacking at the best possible moment. World pvp could be massive 1000 v 1000 or just a small skirmish. Do people get ganked? yes

As they said in UO and now In Eve if your fighting a fair fight you did something wrong.

While instanced pvp is "fair" numbers wise its totally unrealistic and takes alot of pvp players immersion away.

Do I enjoy a game or two of king of the hill in a instance? sure. Do I prefer survival of the fittest and using my head out in the open more? fuck yeah!!! be smarter and you wont get ganked.

I don't think much can be done about numbers, but Warhammer did a decent of handling level imbalance by limiting what levels could fight in open PvP areas.

In the lower two tiers, at least, open world PvP is quite fun.

Originally posted by BioNut

I don't really understand why so many people seem to avoid games with instances or hate on new games they think will be instanced.

First off the word instance in the MMO space seems to mean different things. In LoTRO an instance is either a small private or public dungion like area that is kept seperate from the game world. This needs to be done to show varied scenery, contain story quests and for technological reasons. So what is the problem with this form of instancing? Virtually every MMO out there uses it.

The second form of instancing is were a new zone (very large instance) gets created when the old zone reaches a certain population. AoC uses this method as well as the upcoming Champions Online. This is done for technological reasons as our current internet structure cannot handle 7000 people fighting in one area at the same time. Honestly I have been playing AoC and I don't even notice it in effect. I always see other players and have ample opportunity to PvP. It is also handy to switch instances if I am getting griefed.

 

I assume people don't like instancing because it divides the player base but is having 7000 nubs fighting over the same sewer rats an immersive experience? Honestly, I wish we could split the population up more so my friends and I could get more immersed in the world and not have it ruined by ass hats and spawn camping.

 

But then again I am still wishing for a MORPG along the lines of a 6 player fallout 3/oblivion or a co-op mass effect.  I wonder if I will ever get one of those? SW:TOR seems like the closest thing for the next few years.

  Well written post as you state your point without taking obvious shots at those who don't agree with you which is something far too many of us mmo players are guilty of.  I fall into the category of being a person who "avoids" instanced games and you basically hit the nail on the head in that it takes away from the immersion and "sandbox" feel of the game.  You mentioned the two types of instances used in games as well and I think there definitely does need to be a seperation of the two in that "dungeon" instancing is a good idea that I can't think of a single mmo that hasn't used this idea if I'm in a dungeon I don't really want to have to wait in line while the group in front of me slowly prods along and I think it even helps you feel your avatar is playing a bigger role in that particular storyline since you will not see any other players during your entire time in that dungeon.

  Now onto "world" instancing which really gives the whole idea of "instancing" a bad name.  First implimentation makes a difference inthat a game like AOC came out with world instancing and originally screwed thepooch there as well since there were groups not even being allowed into the same instance without having to figure out tricks to get the group in together (which is pretty idiotic to have happen considering games like Guild Wars, and COH handled this pretty well from the start so the precident had already been set.  MMO's by nature are games that you will invest huge amounts of time to and therefore it is an expectation that exploration will or atleast can play a large role in that and instancing I think we can all agree to date has not played a strong role in that no game with instanced worlds has ever been praised as having huge zones and great exploration experience.  Now dealing with the time elements I played COH for quite some time and found nothing worse than moving along at a brisk pace only to have to travel through two or three different zones for the next part of my mission and having to wait for two or three load screens to get there and again 2-3 load screens to get back to turn in and start the next part that translates into 4-6 load screens for one mission (too much for me and most) and that's considering by this point I have a pc that isn't too bad with load times I've seen some horribly slow loading pcs and that makes it much much worse.

  You mention that instancing is good because you don't want to have 7k noobs fighting over the same mobs but I think this is a bad assessment as most games (well produced) don't run into this problem with enough game space add the correct amount of mobs needed and this is not a problem when there are enough mobs around I have never seen anyone waiting around for someone to get through with a spawn they just move on until they find another I look at this basically as the devs saying it is more important for them to avoid having to do all the extra work it takes to accomodate the player base if they can just copy the same zone with the same two to three spawns over and over again as opposed to actually putting in the work to fill the world with enough mobs to satisfy them all and wow the largest game in mmo history has not had this problem so I don't see how anyone else would have this problem..

  In all I don't "hate" the idea of instancing I just think when trying to balance your game it is certainly going to be a negative so certain other considerations need to be made if you plan to design your game this way, in the case of AOC it turned into "a million little things" and this just happened to be one of them as COH didn't have the amount of bitching and moaning about it that AOC did all in all it is certainly a negative but it really doesn't have to be.

Originally posted by Torik 

Actually the reason WoW's world PvP is so lackluster is because Blizzard is not willing to put any serious world objectives in the open world that would seriously skew the power balance between the factions.  There is still plenty of opportunity for casual world PvP but most people do not bother since they see no point to it.  So in order for Blizzard to foster World PvP they would have to push the game in a direction that they do not want.  Instancing PvP objectives allows them to put in serious incentives for participating because it does not destroy the overal gameplay.

It is mainly because Blizzard's engine cannot handle it currently and will crash servers. You are partly right about the population - while I have no statistics - WoW mainly gathers to players who could be identified as carebears. I use the term very losely here to describe people who...

1. ...do not like competition (anti-thesis for dynamic world)

2. ...do not like to be be inconvinienced (anti-thesis for open world)

3. ...want consensual gameplay (anti-thesis for open world PvP)

4. ...dislike taking risks (anti-thesis for meaningful PvP)

And so on.

There is nothing wrong with that. It just limits the scope from the get go.

People like games without instancing because it's more realistic, it's also more like an actual MMO. The hallmark of MMO's was supposed to be an open persistent world, but people including the people who make them, seem to think it just takes persistent gear. It's so bad now that even games that are a 3rd person shooter/action game where you join a server with other people to fight (like any counterstrike type game) are called MMOs just because you can dress your character up. Joining a server in that way is just like joining an instance in an actual MMO.

Most people who don't like instances don't like it because it hurts pvp. At least I can't think of a reason to care about it from a PvE standpoint, unless you're lonely and want people around to talk to. If you've never played a game without it and full pvp, or you don't like pvp, or you're a wuss so you died once and still cry about it, you wouldn't get it. Sure I bet some players just like killing lower level ones, so what? Is that supposed to be worse than enjoying killing the same weak AI monsters over and over until you get something shiny? And they are weak. The best games like this aren't heavily gear or level based anyway.

It's about freedom, and that obviously comes with risk, if you're scared of risk in a game there's plenty of other games for you to pick without any freedom or risk.

Originally posted by jaxsundane

Originally posted by BioNut

I don't really understand why so many people seem to avoid games with instances or hate on new games they think will be instanced.

First off the word instance in the MMO space seems to mean different things. In LoTRO an instance is either a small private or public dungion like area that is kept seperate from the game world. This needs to be done to show varied scenery, contain story quests and for technological reasons. So what is the problem with this form of instancing? Virtually every MMO out there uses it.

The second form of instancing is were a new zone (very large instance) gets created when the old zone reaches a certain population. AoC uses this method as well as the upcoming Champions Online. This is done for technological reasons as our current internet structure cannot handle 7000 people fighting in one area at the same time. Honestly I have been playing AoC and I don't even notice it in effect. I always see other players and have ample opportunity to PvP. It is also handy to switch instances if I am getting griefed.

 

I assume people don't like instancing because it divides the player base but is having 7000 nubs fighting over the same sewer rats an immersive experience? Honestly, I wish we could split the population up more so my friends and I could get more immersed in the world and not have it ruined by ass hats and spawn camping.

 

But then again I am still wishing for a MORPG along the lines of a 6 player fallout 3/oblivion or a co-op mass effect.  I wonder if I will ever get one of those? SW:TOR seems like the closest thing for the next few years.

 

  Well written post as you state your point without taking obvious shots at those who don't agree with you which is something far too many of us mmo players are guilty of.  I fall into the category of being a person who "avoids" instanced games and you basically hit the nail on the head in that it takes away from the immersion and "sandbox" feel of the game.  You mentioned the two types of instances used in games as well and I think there definitely does need to be a seperation of the two in that "dungeon" instancing is a good idea that I can't think of a single mmo that hasn't used this idea if I'm in a dungeon I don't really want to have to wait in line while the group in front of me slowly prods along and I think it even helps you feel your avatar is playing a bigger role in that particular storyline since you will not see any other players during your entire time in that dungeon.

  Now onto "world" instancing which really gives the whole idea of "instancing" a bad name.  First implimentation makes a difference inthat a game like AOC came out with world instancing and originally screwed thepooch there as well since there were groups not even being allowed into the same instance without having to figure out tricks to get the group in together (which is pretty idiotic to have happen considering games like Guild Wars, and COH handled this pretty well from the start so the precident had already been set.  MMO's by nature are games that you will invest huge amounts of time to and therefore it is an expectation that exploration will or atleast can play a large role in that and instancing I think we can all agree to date has not played a strong role in that no game with instanced worlds has ever been praised as having huge zones and great exploration experience.  Now dealing with the time elements I played COH for quite some time and found nothing worse than moving along at a brisk pace only to have to travel through two or three different zones for the next part of my mission and having to wait for two or three load screens to get there and again 2-3 load screens to get back to turn in and start the next part that translates into 4-6 load screens for one mission (too much for me and most) and that's considering by this point I have a pc that isn't too bad with load times I've seen some horribly slow loading pcs and that makes it much much worse.

  You mention that instancing is good because you don't want to have 7k noobs fighting over the same mobs but I think this is a bad assessment as most games (well produced) don't run into this problem with enough game space add the correct amount of mobs needed and this is not a problem when there are enough mobs around I have never seen anyone waiting around for someone to get through with a spawn they just move on until they find another I look at this basically as the devs saying it is more important for them to avoid having to do all the extra work it takes to accomodate the player base if they can just copy the same zone with the same two to three spawns over and over again as opposed to actually putting in the work to fill the world with enough mobs to satisfy them all and wow the largest game in mmo history has not had this problem so I don't see how anyone else would have this problem..

  In all I don't "hate" the idea of instancing I just think when trying to balance your game it is certainly going to be a negative so certain other considerations need to be made if you plan to design your game this way, in the case of AOC it turned into "a million little things" and this just happened to be one of them as COH didn't have the amount of bitching and moaning about it that AOC did all in all it is certainly a negative but it really doesn't have to be.

Very good post and I agree for the most part. I too really love the seamlessness of a game Like LoTRO. I love that I could run from the shire to Rivendale and not see a single loading screen. But with that said I really don't notice the instances in AOC. I do notice that the overall zone size is smaller than LoTROs but I guess I am just used to playing single player games so loading screens dont bother me at all (I used fast travel as much as possible in LoTRO).

The problem with seamlessness is it's really going to present a technological hurdle for the evolution of the genre. Our current internet can only send so much information at its current speed. I am not sure that a game that looks and plays like AoC could be anything but instanced. MMORPGs are going to be stuck in a rut until the supposed Internet 2 comes out. I think only with the rediculous internet speeds predicted with that will we see any real innovation in the way MMOs are played.

Originally posted by JGMIII

Originally posted by lornphoenix

WoW is a good example of how to do instancing both right and wrong.

Where WoW gets it right is in PvE.
Dungeons and Raids, You don't have to fight over Boss Mobs.

Actually the push for every raid and dungeon being instanced has killed World boss encounters. In vanilla WoW we had 6 world bosses, it went down to two in Tbc and now zero in WotLK. Its sad tbh so imo its negatively affected pve in someway also.
 

 

Ok I give you that.

I had a blast when I got invited to goto Azshara and fight Azuregos.
Not only did we have to deal with him, but the Alliance as well.

The alliance wiped us about 5 times before finally downed the dragon.

Originally posted by UncertaintyP

People like games without instancing because it's more realistic, it's also more like an actual MMO. The hallmark of MMO's was supposed to be an open persistent world, but people including the people who make them, seem to think it just takes persistent gear. It's so bad now that even games that are a 3rd person shooter/action game where you join a server with other people to fight (like any counterstrike type game) are called MMOs just because you can dress your character up. Joining a server in that way is just like joining an instance in an actual MMO.

Most people who don't like instances don't like it because it hurts pvp. At least I can't think of a reason to care about it from a PvE standpoint, unless you're lonely and want people around to talk to. If you've never played a game without it and full pvp, or you don't like pvp, or you're a wuss so you died once and still cry about it, you wouldn't get it. Sure I bet some players just like killing lower level ones, so what? Is that supposed to be worse than enjoying killing the same weak AI monsters over and over until you get something shiny? And they are weak. The best games like this aren't heavily gear or level based anyway.

It's about freedom, and that obviously comes with risk, if you're scared of risk in a game there's plenty of other games for you to pick without any freedom or risk.

1. Can't see anyone you are not grouped with so it feels like a single box game

2. farmers can farm non stop and will deflate prices on drops found in instances as well as earn unlimited coin without being discovered or having to compete for those resources, and then will turn around and inflate prices on rare drops by  being able to bid more for rare drops thus pushing those rare items further out of reach from regular players grasp

3. breaks immersion because instances are a mechanic, not realistic

4. makes the virtual world smaller by isolating geographic areas into chunks

5. reduces interaction with other players so less likely to meet new people

Originally posted by Samuraisword

3. breaks immersion because instances are a mechanic, not realistic

Not instancing certain areas can be just as immersion breaking as instancing others.  Nothing breaks the immersion of a dark, dangerous dungeon more than having hundreds of players killing everything in it al the time.  Instancing those areas actually heightens the immersion.

Originally posted by Abrahmm

 

Because with instancing, there is no virtual world, there are many segregated copies of the world running at once. If I go to the saloon in some town, I should see everyone that is at that saloon, not everyone that is in my version of that saloon. If I tell someone to meet me at the saloon, we shouldn't have to figure out which version to go to.

Well, virtual world is not required for good games.

Originally posted by Samuraisword

1. Can't see anyone you are not grouped with so it feels like a single box game

2. farmers can farm non stop and will deflate prices on drops found in instances as well as earn unlimited coin without being discovered or having to compete for those resources, and then will turn around and inflate prices on rare drops by  being able to bid more for rare drops thus pushing those rare items further out of reach from regular players grasp

3. breaks immersion because instances are a mechanic, not realistic

4. makes the virtual world smaller by isolating geographic areas into chunks

5. reduces interaction with other players so less likely to meet new people

1) And what is wrong with that? There are plenty of GREAT single box MP games (Diablo comes to mind)

2) Uh? That is wrong economics. More instances -> more rare drops from bosses

3) I think "realistic" should not be used to justify anything in a VIDEO GAME. Tarens are realistic? Nope . but they are fun.

4) And the problem of that? Actualy it makes the world BIGGER since now you have 10 copies of the dungeon instead of one.

5) There are plenty places to meet people (like cities). I don't really need to do that in dungeons.

OMG

BioNut

You cutting and pasting your computer junk dosen't impress me or anyone else.

Originally posted by BioNut

I don't really understand why so many people seem to avoid games with instances or hate on new games they think will be instanced.

Because there are people who want their cake and eat it too.

Meaning they want all the nice technological bells and whistles but don't accept that current online gaming technology can not provide that without instancing.

So a lot of these folks pin themselves into a no win situation by refusing to adapt to a games conventions and instead seem to feel that if they wish hard enough their sheer force of will will produce their epic holy grail of MMORPG's.

I would bet many of them are very inflexible and rigid thinkers who don't adapt to change very well...just mosey on over the SWG boards for lots of examples of that.

Originally posted by LordDmaster

OMG

BioNut

You cutting and pasting your computer junk dosen't impress me or anyone else.

???

It all depends.

If there's a lot of instancing because a game was designed with high end graphics that most players can't run unless the zones are chopped into little pieces then:

-- it doesn't matter to those people who value graphics over large zones

-- it does matter to those people who value large zones over high end graphics

There's other reasons for instancing of course.

I can see the genre splitting into segments. For example there might be single player "MMO" games where only the cities are open almost like a lobby and outside the city the rest of the world is a separate solo instance. Or, perhaps more likely, the same thing but designed for groups of friends so the whole world is instanced for one group. This system would be much better for "story" driven games where you want the player or small group to feel special.

Personally I prefer the original form of MMORPG because I am mostly looking for one game with serious long-term replayability and that requires dynamic content, and other players can potentially provide endless amounts of dynamic content - even if a lot of it might be annoying sometimes. For example you enter a zone and spill your coffee seeing another player running for zone with a hill giant chasing him. You might enter a zone 20 times and it's different each time because of what other players have been doing. You don't get that unless the game has open zones with lots of players and an environment that reacts dramatically to player actions.

The only instancing I'd like in my ideal game would be little solo instances for quests, especially if they were designed for particular classes e.g stealth-based instances for thief class solo quests built around the use of their non-combat skills. Also single group instances designed as old D&D style dungeon crawls are fun but I'd have big open dungeons as the main thing with the instanced dungeon crawl behind the toughest bit of the open dungeon as a kind of final act of your time in the dungeon.

As someone mentioned, its all how the instancing is done.

EVE is instanced, zoned, however you won't find mulitple copies of each zone. 

I didn't mind WOW's PVE instances, but in a more PVP oriented game dungeons should be fought over and therefore instancing doesn't work in that model.

AOC had some of the most annoying instances, as the OP said, he likes to change instances to escape PVP combat, that should never be permitted on a PVP server.

I recall fighting in some of  AOC's early dungeons, in Tortage, and you would enter an instance going in,and while inside you would change instances just moving through certain doorways.  You really could be fighting someone and they would jump through the door and flip instances, and when you came through, they'd be gone.  Total crap IMO.

And I find it annoying to put together a large group of people and have to tell everyone that I'm on channel 6 and make sure they all join me there.  (always some fool saying he's at the designated spot but he doesn't see anyone around)

Its a matter of preference of course, OP appears to like instances, in fact he wants them increased until he's playing with his own group being by themselves in the game.  Might as well stick to multi-player mode on stand alone RPG's (not sure if they do much of this anymore) if that's the case.

Originally posted by Torak

Originally posted by BioNut

I don't really understand why so many people seem to avoid games with instances or hate on new games they think will be instanced.

Because there are people who want their cake and eat it too.

Meaning they want all the nice technological bells and whistles but don't accept that current online gaming technology can not provide that without instancing.

So a lot of these folks pin themselves into a no win situation by refusing to adapt to a games conventions and instead seem to feel that if they wish hard enough their sheer force of will will produce their epic holy grail of MMORPG's.

I would bet many of them are very inflexible and rigid thinkers who don't adapt to change very well...just mosey on over the SWG boards for lots of examples of that.

Watch out, I think the guy above you is going to call you out by spreading your computer junk......since you mentioned the flaw in our current internet.