Originally posted by LizardEgypt
Anyone disagreeing with Tasos is lying to themselves. Whether you liked Darkfall or are interested in Darkfall UW, he is right. The games everyone is drooling over are no MMO diablo games. I see arguments that instancing is good on an MMO website. Go play GW2, SWTOR, or any of the other fake teleporting around the map RPGs for the shallow 2 weeks it'll last you and tell me again how much you support instancing. No player interaction, no risk/reward, just boring contrived repeatable gameplay.

Yup, the games of today basically hand you everything. You could argue that having to fight over a resources makes the game more interesting.  Rewards have more meaning when you have to work for them. 

I'm sorry, but GW2 was a badly designed game. It offered no challenge and was full on easy mode. The game was very hollow and empty. [mod edit]

Many of us are simply tired of having to put up with the instanced crap because others say its needed. If there is one thing that kills 'immersion', its instancing!

Originally posted by DavisFlight

Originally posted by kartool

Originally posted by Arglebargle

Yeah, a lot of back-patting in this thread.   'Someone agreed with me!  It must be true for all!'

 

Instances are easier on developers,  because they solve certain problems.   Denying the problems exist does not solve them.  

Adventurine hasn't even had to deal with a high population so dude's opinion on instancing is kind of moot. It's like the guy who walks to work everyday bitching about the train he doesn't have to take...

If I recall correctly they were so inept at launch that it was basically a lottery to buy the game because they couldn't handle the population. 

 

You remember incorrectly. The server was full at launch, so yes, they had to deal with a high population. The server could handle about 11k people logged in at the same time, with no instancing.

The problems that instancing solves are derived from bad game design. A good developer will properly balance their game so that they never need instancing. A bad developer will slap instancing over the problem and then walk away.

So yes, the problems exist, but instancing is the worst way to fix them.

So, what you're saying is Adventurine is a bad developer because they weren't able to balance their game, and they refused to use instancing which made it so people who wanted to buy the game couldn't. That's my take away from your comments anyway.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Yamota

No, bad design is bad because the worlds are too small and do not properly handle mob spawns, hence instancing for this poor design.

 

A world which is huge, and varied in mob spawns will not need instancing because people would be spread out. Eve is an example of this.

---

 

There is no proper handling, it is a choice. You either do it with instancing or without.

Neither is better than the other. Both have their pros and cons.

I dont see any advantage for instances in an MMO. It is simpy there because some devs. cannot design the world to handle 1000+ people on the same server.

It is also a cheaper solution than to have a large varied world. It is much easier to create an identical clone of the same zone than to create a new unique one.

Originally posted by kartool

Originally posted by DavisFlight

Originally posted by kartool

Originally posted by Arglebargle

Yeah, a lot of back-patting in this thread.   'Someone agreed with me!  It must be true for all!'

 

Instances are easier on developers,  because they solve certain problems.   Denying the problems exist does not solve them.  

Adventurine hasn't even had to deal with a high population so dude's opinion on instancing is kind of moot. It's like the guy who walks to work everyday bitching about the train he doesn't have to take...

If I recall correctly they were so inept at launch that it was basically a lottery to buy the game because they couldn't handle the population. 

 

You remember incorrectly. The server was full at launch, so yes, they had to deal with a high population. The server could handle about 11k people logged in at the same time, with no instancing.

The problems that instancing solves are derived from bad game design. A good developer will properly balance their game so that they never need instancing. A bad developer will slap instancing over the problem and then walk away.

So yes, the problems exist, but instancing is the worst way to fix them.

 

So, what you're saying is Adventurine is a bad developer because they weren't able to balance their game, and they refused to use instancing which made it so people who wanted to buy the game couldn't. That's my take away from your comments anyway.

....uh... what?

did you like... read...a single thing in this thread?

Darkfall works fine without instances. Instances wouldn't have suddenly enabled the server to hold more people. I don't think you understand what you're talking about.

I did not mind instancing early on in MMO history, I actually liked it in EQ after many guilds would fight over end game raid content and KSing would take place etc.

However, overtime I have slowly began to hate instancing.  I felt like instancing at first was more of an addition to grouping, but has made its way to introducing players to new and easier ways to solo game content, and never have to communicate on the MMO.

It is nice to see instancing will not be implemented.

---

Originally posted by DavisFlight
Today Tasos echoed something I have been saying for years. Something that always brings out the screaming themepark fans who just cannot see how games function without them.

Instances are there to help the developers, not the players.

 

Tasos says, roughly,

"On instances let me just say, we never had them, we don't have them, and we might never have them. They don't agree with our philosphy for a massively multiplayer game. ... We want player interaction to be at the major possible level and we don't want to limit it by instancing. Instancing is really not in our DNA...We don't want to take away from that. We don't like the instances, and if we ever do go to any form of instancing, it will be to improve our user experience, and not because they are more convenient to us. Because usually instance are used for technical reasons, for convenience of the developer."

 

I've always aid that instances are band aids for poor game design. Developers that rely on instancing do so because they can't figure out how to make a balanced MMO without it.

If you took instances out of WoW it would fall apart. EQ suffered without instances (in terms of camping rare spawns, not general leveling. General leveling flourished without instancing).

However, DAoC functioned perfectly without instances. I never waited in line for a mob spawn. Nobody ever stole my kills (which I always found to be a dumb objection anyway, because if someone were to go about stealing your kills, they could do it in the public zones just as easily)

 

If a dev adds instancing, it's because its sooo much easier to half ass a game and plop instances in, than think about an MMO as en entire ecosystem. Most MMOs are becoming a collection of side games all stapled together, seperated by instances. They are no longer big cohesive units.

 

I'm glad to see that Aventurine, one of the only companies that sees instances for what they are, a crutch, is also one of the ONLY MMO companies to GROW after launch in the last 8 years,

---

I agree and totally respect those guys. Theme-park MMOs are single-player games with chat.

Originally posted by zimike

 

I'm sorry, but GW2 was a badly designed game. It offered no challenge and was full on easy mode. The game was very hollow and empty. Once you get passed the graphics, you have a game that leaving you feeling like a rape victim.

Many of us are simply tired of having to put up with the instanced crap because others say its needed. If there is one thing that kills 'immersion', its instancing!

GW2 was easy mode and I am not a big fan of it myself - however consider the target audience - extreme casual gamer who plays an hour here and there over a course of a week, and then GW2 is perfect for them.

not every MMORPG gamer is a veteran who likes deep and complex world and gameplay, in fact majority of playerbase likes shallow and easy games.

us veteran gamers are a minority.

the future of MMORPGs are console players.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Yamota

No, bad design is bad because the worlds are too small and do not properly handle mob spawns, hence instancing for this poor design.

 

A world which is huge, and varied in mob spawns will not need instancing because people would be spread out. Eve is an example of this.

---

 

There is no proper handling, it is a choice. You either do it with instancing or without.

Neither is better than the other. Both have their pros and cons.

Incorrect.

For an MMORPG, going without instances is what should be strived for. A properly designed MMO has no need of isntances. They offer nothing beneficial game wise to a properly designed MMO. They'll save a poorly designed MMO, sure, but not a well designed one. The cons far outweight the pros with instancing. It really is a matter of making life easier for the game designers, rather than the players.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by DavisFlight
......

 

wow. You must be new to the MMO genre then?

If you have 50 people waiting in line for the same quest/boss mob, then you completely failed at designing your game. I never once did that in DAoC. Instances in this cause would be to make up for horrible game design.

 

PS, Darkfall was very successful.

---

 

Here we go again...

A fix to issue makes a "horrible design" because the design is horrible.

 

The issue wouldn't exist if the game was designed well. You seem to be having a severe issue with reading comprehension.

The problem that instancing solves, stems from bad game design. Using instances to fix it does not remove the fact that the game was designed poorly to begin with. Instancing is a band aid that sits over the bad game design.

A game designed properly will have no need of the band aid.

Originally posted by DMKano

Originally posted by zimike

 

I'm sorry, but GW2 was a badly designed game. It offered no challenge and was full on easy mode. The game was very hollow and empty. Once you get passed the graphics, you have a game that leaving you feeling like a rape victim.

Many of us are simply tired of having to put up with the instanced crap because others say its needed. If there is one thing that kills 'immersion', its instancing!

GW2 was easy mode and I am not a big fan of it myself - however consider the target audience - extreme casual gamer who plays an hour here and there over a course of a week, and then GW2 is perfect for them.

not every MMORPG gamer is a veteran who likes deep and complex world and gameplay, in fact majority of playerbase likes shallow and easy games.

us veteran gamers are a minority.

the future of MMORPGs are console players.

Your right.  Casual gamers do seem to be more abundant now than ever. My work buds talked me into buying GW2 and I fell for it like a sucker. After two weeks into the game, all my buds quit the game and most of them are casual. However, most wouldn't playe a hardcore MMO like Darkfall ether. 

I'm too not certain console games are going to take over yet. Just like instanced vs persistent worlds! The war is not over!

Originally posted by DMKano

Originally posted by zimike

 

I'm sorry, but GW2 was a badly designed game. It offered no challenge and was full on easy mode. The game was very hollow and empty. Once you get passed the graphics, you have a game that leaving you feeling like a rape victim.

Many of us are simply tired of having to put up with the instanced crap because others say its needed. If there is one thing that kills 'immersion', its instancing!

GW2 was easy mode and I am not a big fan of it myself - however consider the target audience - extreme casual gamer who plays an hour here and there over a course of a week, and then GW2 is perfect for them.

not every MMORPG gamer is a veteran who likes deep and complex world and gameplay, in fact majority of playerbase likes shallow and easy games.

us veteran gamers are a minority.

the futuI re of MMORPGs are console players.

I agree with what you say minus the red part. Many people feel themepark games are for casual players. Its actualy the opposite. Sandboxes are for casual gamers and themeparks are for more active gamers.

Reason being, in a themepark you must ride the roller coaster and follow a set path, meaning you have to do "this" in order to do "that".

In a sandbox you can take your time, go where you want, if things get hectic just stop and try an entirely different aspect of the mmo.

But yes, mmo's of today are what console games use to be of yesterday. Its sick.

Even newer console rpgs offer more content and features than your normal new age mmo :(

Originally posted by Badaboom
In terms of instancing AV gets it. I don't think they "get" the economy,crafting and restrictions to characters which adds diversity.

Parts of AV get it. It's been clear that the AV staff is divided on the issue. Many of them advocate local banking and heavier crafting, others push for faster PvP gameplay and see the rest as too slow/discouraging, and make people not want to dive into PVP.

Originally posted by DavisFlight

Originally posted by Badaboom
In terms of instancing AV gets it. I don't think they "get" the economy,crafting and restrictions to characters which adds diversity.

Parts of AV get it. It's been clear that the AV staff is divided on the issue. Many of them advocate local banking and heavier crafting, others push for faster PvP gameplay and see the rest as too slow/discouraging, and make people not want to dive into PVP.

Its a sandbox, it should have it all and be balanced. TO ignore one aspect for another just harms your game. You need pve, pvp, crafting, housing, exploration, large world, social aspects, and much more for a good sandbox. Seems dark fall is ignoring a few of these and will make another mistake.

Full loot pvp could be negotiated to a stiff death penalty and a reward for the victor to help promote the pvp aspect.

Pve should be a concern also to help get the population up. In most sandboxes pve is player created and should have the features and skills to make that happen. Personaly i hate all pvp or all pve games. Need a good balance.

Far too many games go one way or the other and suffer for it.

If darkfall had more pve and more crafting i would be more inclined to play a longer time. If its all about pvp and none of the above, its a bad sandbox.

---

Originally posted by DavisFlight

For an MMORPG, going without instances is what should be strived for.

---

So you make a set of axioms what MMOs should be or not and how they should be or not and then when something does not fit in, it is a bad design.

Fallacious logic is just that, fallacious.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by DavisFlight

For an MMORPG, going without instances is what should be strived for.

---

 

So you make a set of axioms what MMOs should be or not and how they should be or not and then when something does not fit in, it is a bad design.

Fallacious logic is just that, fallacious.

 Gdemami, remember what we talked about :) play nice!

 EQ suffered without instances (in terms of camping rare spawns, not general leveling.

Originally posted by Seronys

 EQ suffered without instances (in terms of camping rare spawns, not general leveling.

EQ flourished without instances, finding good gear was hard, and you had to be prepared to fight for it, everyone wasn't running around with the same easily obtained gear.

The leveling portion, as I said, was great without instances. But waiting in a virtual line for a spawn is not a game mechanic many people want to see return. Fighting the monsters should be enough challenge to get gear. There's no challenge to waiting in line, that's just "who has more time to waste"

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by DavisFlight

For an MMORPG, going without instances is what should be strived for.

---

 

So you make a set of axioms what MMOs should be or not and how they should be or not and then when something does not fit in, it is a bad design.

Fallacious logic is just that, fallacious.

Yeah because I'm sure a genre that is built around MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER should constantly be striving to cut off players from one another and put them in small non massively multiplayer dungeons?

If you're making an MMO, anything that gets rid of the MM should be avoided if possible. That's just simple logic.

Originally posted by DavisFlight

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by DavisFlight

For an MMORPG, going without instances is what should be strived for.

---

 

So you make a set of axioms what MMOs should be or not and how they should be or not and then when something does not fit in, it is a bad design.

Fallacious logic is just that, fallacious.

Yeah because I'm sure a genre that is built around MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER should constantly be striving to cut off players from one another and put them in small non massively multiplayer dungeons?

If you're making an MMO, anything that gets rid of the MM should be avoided if possible. That's just simple logic.

Exactly. Anyone trying to take the Massive out of MMO is in the wrong genre.