Can you use "shared" and "instance" in the same sentence? I am confused...
Yes.. example... Antonica in EQ2. Antonica is a massive continent - it has quests, trees, dungeons, NPCs, you know.. all those thing you can find out in the open world. When the population of Antonica gets above a certain level, a second instance of Antonica spawns so that the the place isn't overrun and becomes ... well.. whatever the opposite of "immersive" is.
The same technology can (and has been) used on a single dungeon or an a single room. It can be used to limit the the number of people in the zone to a single group or a single person or fifty total. Whatever is appropriate.
If developers ONLY design dungeons to be limited to 6 people, they can use instancing to accomplish that or they can do it in the open world. If what you want is shared dungeons, what you should be worried about is developers making the choice to only make their dungeons 6 person. Not what technology they use to accomplish it.
This is what i'm trying to get through to all the people on this "instancing is evil" train, who don't even understand what instancing does or how it can be used.
You can have an instance for a thousand people. Or ten thousand. All instancing does it allow to limit it to whatever number you decided is appropriate and then create a new copy once the population demand exceeds the limit.
I wasnt goin to respond to your post but its so absurd i felt i just needed to address some things.
1. Having a ton of people in one place isn't the opposite of immersion.
2. Instancing is the byproduct of bad design. It was a solution to problems the devs didn't know how to fix. ( right )
3. I think we all know what instancing is and those of us that do not like it will never like it. Bad design is bad design.
4. A instance that can have a thousand to ten thousand people in it is called a sever. Or how the young folks say a "shard"
For every every positive that comes with instancing there are 2 negatives. They are no longer needed. Wanted by some, but no longer needed.
Instances completly ruins immersion if u ask me being able to stand in the exact same spot as other people and not see them just sucks not to mention having a whoile dunguen to urself and not seeing anyone else is rubbish if u ask me.
INSTANCING removes a large chunk of the social value of the game..
I can not begin to count how many new friends I met in gaming because we were not instanced.. We all know that in the original EQ, you were limited to 6 person groups.. Obviously this means we have choices to make who all is in that group.. There were times our group did not have an enchanter, or anyone that did CC, other then me because I was a druid, so I did the "park and root" trick... At the same time the group next to us that did have an Enchanter lacked a class we had.. So many times we shared buffs and favors between groups in the same dungeon.. It was VERY VERY rare that people encroached and ninja anyone.. First the GM's in the game would not tolerate that conduct..
A number of times I remember doing favors for a group such as porting, and they would do favors for us in return.. THIS can NOT happen if you instance every bloody thing in the game.. As much as people learn to work together in a group, groups in turn learn to work together in the zone.. YES, I acknowledge that some fixed loot drops were camped and this caused some issues, but you don't fix it by breaking something else.. In today technology and coding, ALL those problems the pro-instanced players are crying about can be resolved without the need of ONE instance.. Instancing is an outdated anti-social mechanic and should be abolished.. IMO
Servers are great. I prefer multiple servers over single servers. People want single server and then complain that their are too many players in one spot and then ask for instancing to solve that problem. Why do I want multiple servers. For one, it's easier to make a community. If the playerbase is 1M+, I wouldn't know 1% of the community and feel like I'm not part of the community. If there were less people, I'd be able to interact with a bigger portion, create my own community and feel more at home.
Open dungeons need boss camping. I think EQ's bad design needed boss camping and spawn camping, not open dungeons. You could make enough content, random spawns and other triggered events to keep players moving.
Griefers exist everywhere. Communities kill griefers. No need for instancing. They still exist, they just hit need on everything in modern MMO's, but people forget that to make a point.
Another big disadvantage of instancing, even classic wow instances, you are on a mission to clear the whole dungeon and get out. What's the fun in that. A dungeon is somewhere you can live in, you can just go around and explore. Not find everything, go back and find more, go back and do again and get a completely different experience. Dungeons need to be open, so that it's not a mission to complete it, but a mission to explore it.
And devs need to make enough content. Some of the problems described are, if devs only make 5 dungeons, we are going to have to fight over 20 spawn points. That's just stupid. There need to be enough content so people can do what they want. If one dungeon is full, go to the next. If that's full, go to the next. Yes travel may take 10-50 minutes to go from one to the other, deal with it. You might not level today, oh boy, that's not that bad. Means you get to enjoy the content another day. I wish back the days of seeing everything because your first time through one zone wouldn't overlevel you.
I played EQ since closed beta until late 2004. With due respect to DAOC, it was the best MMO I ever played, hands down. My favorite expansion is tough to call as they had many great ones that were content-heavy: Ruins of Kunark, Scars of Velious, even Planes of Power (in its own right). But my favorite would have to be Lost Dungeons of Norrath (LDoN). It was great to be able to log in & actually feel productive with just 1 hour worth of play time. If I wanted to just go exploring or just log in to buff newbies, I could do that to with the vast world at your disposal. LDoN didn't oversimplify my game play, it added to the hardcore sandboxiness that EQ inherently was. It gave me a way to meet new folks & group up w/them & kill them. Cuz remember, raiding in EQ back then was comprised of 48, then 64-person raids where you'd hang out w/your guildies or alliance members. That was the crux of end-game back in those days & it was LOADS of fun- nothing like stepping into Plane of Time for the first time after working so hard to be able to enter. Instances just gave us another way to play the game, it didn't detract from our core game experience.
I started getting into PvP during vanilla WoW during the Tarren Mill days of fluid, unorganized mayhem. It was SO fun! They later released PvP instances but while I played them I never really liked them in WoW. In the Summer of 2008, I got into the Warhammer Online closed beta & immediately fell in love with the game's potential. It launched in September & while they made a lot of mistakes (& continue to do so by not making the game F2P already & saving it from itself) they did a lot of things right. I'd played & loved DAOC for a long time but once friends & guildies started dropping out like flies the luster faded. It's why I loved Warhammer, it reminded me a lot of DAOC (not completely but somewhat). I really dug the open world pvp feel of the pvp lakes. But I found that something I enjoyed immensely about Warhammer were the PvP instances. For lots of reasons really, namely that they were "fair" fights, numbers-wise. I also loved that in Warhammer, I could get into a PvP instance as soon as my character had entered the world for the first time- not needing to go find some npc or waiting to level 10 to initiate the process, etc. I could level from 1-40 without ever doing a single quest! The sheer amount & variety in instances was awesome (for the record, my favorite pvp instance in Warhammer was Tor An'Roc- cuz knocking ppl off the bridge & into the lava was oh so awesomely funny haha).
My perfect MMO, & what I hope EQ: Next to be, is a solid combination of open world sandbox with some instances (dungeons, pvp, etc.). Have it be well written & story-driven & what you'll have is a game that anyone can jump into & play the game they want to play. I don't need to be told where to go, what I want is to be given options. Just like IRL, gaming is all about options.
1. Having a ton of people in one place isn't the opposite of immersion.
Having "a ton" isn't the opposite of immersion. Having "more than is realistic to be there" is. There is nothing worse than working hard to gain an secret audience with the Queen and finding a hundred people in the Queen's chamber jumping up and down on her bed. Many other examples have been given in this thread. It was completely moronic in SWTOR when every second NPC said "it's been many years since i've seen a Jedi in these parts" right after you passed 30-40 Jedi just to get to this NPC and there happened to be 10 of you standing talking to him. (TOR was terrible for many reasons, but my example is more about places where in order to achieve proper immersion, you need to have less people).
2. Instancing is the byproduct of bad design. It was a solution to problems the devs didn't know how to fix. ( right )
Solutions to the problems solved by instancing have always existed. Otherwise, you would have never seen games without it. Instead of creating multiple instances of the same house, you can always add 1000 houses. YOu don't even need space for it. For example, instead of EQ2 housing that is accessed via the same door and instanced, they could have just added 200 more doors in the hotel and made each one a unique and permanent space. If you think the developers "didn't know how to do it", you're delusional. It just wasn't the right solution for them.
3. I think we all know what instancing is and those of us that do not like it will never like it. Bad design is bad design.
I disagree. I think the majority of people making the argument, just don't like certain types of gameplay and blame technology for it existing. Whereas the blame should be on the developers that chose to implement this type of gameplay. i.e. 6 person non-shared dungeons - these can be just as easily be implemented in a non-instanced fashion - still private, still limited to only 6 people. I don't think the people that hate instancing will start to enjoy these private dungeons just because they're no longer instanced. I could be wrong, but i don't think i am.
4. A instance that can have a thousand to ten thousand people in it is called a sever. Or how the young folks say a "shard"
You are right in that a "server" or "shard" do exactly the same thing as instancing does. They separate the population by creating an additional copy of the world (or part of the world). They, however, are not the exact same thing. Instances tend to appear and disappear automatically based on preset criteria and during their existence they become a proper extension of the world - you can travel to them, join others in them, talk to others in them, group with others in them. Servers, tend to be permanently in place and completely cut off from your world - you (usually) can't chat with the people on another server, can't travel to them, can't group with them, etc. In terms of numbers - yes, you can have a server of 1000-10000 people ,but you can also have an instance - my Antonica example from EQ2 works here. (I don't think it held 1000, but the number can be set to anything).
They are no longer needed.
It's true there are other technologies in existence now that allow to accomplish largely the same thing. In EQ2 recently, they've been using a different technology where two people can be at the exact same place, standing next to each and seeing completely different things on the screen. For example, if i am on a quest, i would see an NPC to talk too or some kind of conversation taking place that i need to watch (in-game cinematic), you not being on a quest would see absolutely nothing in the same place. This type of thing removes much of the need to place people into instances for the purpose of creating custom interactions for them with the world.
What hasn't changed though is that there are no virtual worlds in existence that can IMMERSIVELY accomodate a 500,000 person population in the same shared world. If you've never actually seen this problem in action, it's because it was being served by using the tools we've discussed - instances, servers, shards, phases, etc. The largest MMO world I know is EVE, they have approx 500k people, though concurrently it tends to be between 30 and 100k. Do you know how EVE manages to have those (let's say 100k) people sharing the same world? Easy, they have 8000 systems, most with multiple stations (let's say 3 per system) which brings the number of zones in the game to around 30,000. This is very rough math, but basically, in order to be large enough to accomodate the 100k concurrent population, the has a unique zone for 1 out of every 3 people. This is possible for EVE because it's in space and all it takes to create a zone is some stars and a copy of a space station graphic. To create 30,000 zones of similar size in an overland Fantasy MMO is unthinkable (i mean, yes, theoretically it's doable, years ago, Dark & Light was going to have a dynamic overland zone generator that created endless number of overland zones).
So, you're right - is it's possible to create a completely non-instanced world, it's possible to create all those individual and single-group catered experiences out in that world. Pretty much anything doable with an instance can be done out in the open. It's just staggeringly more difficult and in MY OPINION - mostly unnecessary. If i want to go to a shared dungeon with other people, I can do that just the same in a world that has some instanced 6-person dungeons. And if i want to go to a private 6-person dungeon, i can have one in an open world. You can have pretty much the same exact experiences regardless of whether the game has instancing or not.
Now if a game choose to NOT have certain experiences - like shared dungeons - now THAT, is a bad thing. For example, EQ2 in the last two expansions has stopped making open-world heroic (group) content. Previously, the open world had all kinds of encounters - solo, group, multi-group. As of recently, there is no more group content out in the open world. This is bad. The still have shared dungeons with group content (although they've been getting worse), but no new group content in the world. Does this have anything to do with instancing? EQ2 has always had instanced group content, but it also had open-world. Now, no more open-world. Is it because of instancing? No, it's because too many people whined that they need to solo everything out in the world. bleh... anyhow this is a bit of a tangent now.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
What people msot likely want is when you used to have to keep timers on individual bosses so your guild would be first to take them down....LDoN, a heavily instanced expansion, was one of my favorites in EQ, but I can see why alot of people dont like them......It devalues alot of the loot when bosses are easy to come by via instances.
1. Having a ton of people in one place isn't the opposite of immersion.
Having "a ton" isn't the opposite of immersion. Having "more than is realistic to be there" is. There is nothing worse than working hard to gain an secret audience with the Queen and finding a hundred people in the Queen's chamber jumping up and down on her bed. Many other examples have been given in this thread. It was completely moronic in SWTOR when every second NPC said "it's been many years since i've seen a Jedi in these parts" right after you passed 30-40 Jedi just to get to this NPC and there happened to be 10 of you standing talking to him. (TOR was terrible for many reasons, but my example is more about places where in order to achieve proper immersion, you need to have less people).
2. Instancing is the byproduct of bad design. It was a solution to problems the devs didn't know how to fix. ( right )
Solutions to the problems solved by instancing have always existed. Otherwise, you would have never seen games without it. Instead of creating multiple instances of the same house, you can always add 1000 houses. YOu don't even need space for it. For example, instead of EQ2 housing that is accessed via the same door and instanced, they could have just added 200 more doors in the hotel and made each one a unique and permanent space. If you think the developers "didn't know how to do it", you're delusional. It just wasn't the right solution for them.
3. I think we all know what instancing is and those of us that do not like it will never like it. Bad design is bad design.
I disagree. I think the majority of people making the argument, just don't like certain types of gameplay and blame technology for it existing. Whereas the blame should be on the developers that chose to implement this type of gameplay. i.e. 6 person non-shared dungeons - these can be just as easily be implemented in a non-instanced fashion - still private, still limited to only 6 people. I don't think the people that hate instancing will start to enjoy these private dungeons just because they're no longer instanced. I could be wrong, but i don't think i am.
4. A instance that can have a thousand to ten thousand people in it is called a sever. Or how the young folks say a "shard"
You are right in that a "server" or "shard" do exactly the same thing as instancing does. They separate the population by creating an additional copy of the world (or part of the world). They, however, are not the exact same thing. Instances tend to appear and disappear automatically based on preset criteria and during their existence they become a proper extension of the world - you can travel to them, join others in them, talk to others in them, group with others in them. Servers, tend to be permanently in place and completely cut off from your world - you (usually) can't chat with the people on another server, can't travel to them, can't group with them, etc. In terms of numbers - yes, you can have a server of 1000-10000 people ,but you can also have an instance - my Antonica example from EQ2 works here. (I don't think it held 1000, but the number can be set to anything).
They are no longer needed.
It's true there are other technologies in existence now that allow to accomplish largely the same thing. In EQ2 recently, they've been using a different technology where two people can be at the exact same place, standing next to each and seeing completely different things on the screen. For example, if i am on a quest, i would see an NPC to talk too or some kind of conversation taking place that i need to watch (in-game cinematic), you not being on a quest would see absolutely nothing in the same place. This type of thing removes much of the need to place people into instances for the purpose of creating custom interactions for them with the world.
What hasn't changed though is that there are no virtual worlds in existence that can IMMERSIVELY accomodate a 500,000 person population in the same shared world. If you've never actually seen this problem in action, it's because it was being served by using the tools we've discussed - instances, servers, shards, phases, etc. The largest MMO world I know is EVE, they have approx 500k people, though concurrently it tends to be between 30 and 100k. Do you know how EVE manages to have those (let's say 100k) people sharing the same world? Easy, they have 8000 systems, most with multiple stations (let's say 3 per system) which brings the number of zones in the game to around 30,000. This is very rough math, but basically, in order to be large enough to accomodate the 100k concurrent population, the has a unique zone for 1 out of every 3 people. This is possible for EVE because it's in space and all it takes to create a zone is some stars and a copy of a space station graphic. To create 30,000 zones of similar size in an overland Fantasy MMO is unthinkable (i mean, yes, theoretically it's doable, years ago, Dark & Light was going to have a dynamic overland zone generator that created endless number of overland zones).
So, you're right - is it's possible to create a completely non-instanced world, it's possible to create all those individual and single-group catered experiences out in that world. Pretty much anything doable with an instance can be done out in the open. It's just staggeringly more difficult and in MY OPINION - mostly unnecessary. If i want to go to a shared dungeon with other people, I can do that just the same in a world that has some instanced 6-person dungeons. And if i want to go to a private 6-person dungeon, i can have one in an open world. You can have pretty much the same exact experiences regardless of whether the game has instancing or not.
Now if a game choose to NOT have certain experiences - like shared dungeons - now THAT, is a bad thing. For example, EQ2 in the last two expansions has stopped making open-world heroic (group) content. Previously, the open world had all kinds of encounters - solo, group, multi-group. As of recently, there is no more group content out in the open world. This is bad. The still have shared dungeons with group content (although they've been getting worse), but no new group content in the world. Does this have anything to do with instancing? EQ2 has always had instanced group content, but it also had open-world. Now, no more open-world. Is it because of instancing? No, it's because too many people whined that they need to solo everything out in the world. bleh... anyhow this is a bit of a tangent now.
There is allot of typing going on by you with very little to say. So much so, its hard for me to pin down some key talking points.
It seems like you want to use the term instancing as a blanket term to describe anything that places people into a section of the game that players cant participate with others. ie anything from zones to dungeons to severs.You cant put severs into the same conversation when talking about instancing. Instancing for purposes of pre made groups to zone overflow is a solution to bad game design.
And to you point on immersion. You want to separate others so your game play suits your idea of what immersion is. Well i think your confusing a single player game with an MMO. As i read your posts it dawns on me that you like a "safe" gaming environment to play in. you points have nothing to do with immersion and everything to do about safety and story.
Ill refer to your privet audience with the queen analogy. While is would work fine in a single player rpg experience, it does'nt work in an MMO. you talking about 30 40 jedis around an nps that says " i haven't seen a jedi in these parts in years" I take you back to bad game design. Don't have the nps make a stupid statement like that for "stories" sake.
As we have all seen. having the single player console rpg experience does not mesh well with the MMORPG. Everyone whats everything all the time and it just does not work that way. Might be why the tone of gamers has changed so much over the years.
Edit: Made correction to severs and dungeons. removed dungeons from 2ed paragraph.
Some of us have to other stuff to do, and sitting around waiting in line for a mob to re-spawn is incredibly boring and aggravating. People talk about "immersion issues", but how exactly is waiting for a mob to suddenly reappear after you just saw someone else kill it "immersive"?
I think a good game should have both environments because this just makes the game more interesting, and I actually think EQ2 did a great job balancing instances with zones.
Originally posted by jesteralways Most of these people who don't like instances are simply "grievers". they gank lowbies wherever they find them, gank players when they are fighting a world boss, kill stealing and getting the last hit on mob for xp and loot etc. the reason why instancing came into mmo was to counter these kind of grievers. so now these grievers who have no value or whatsoever in life and decided to annoy people in game; have no value in game too. thus this massive hate on instance. you will see they will give lots of reason like "instancing takes away social feature" or "it doesn't feel like mmo because instancing removes lots of players" etc but in their heart all they want is to grief others. is to waste precious time of people who came into game to have some fun and to forget the grief of real life. but these grievers have to ruin others fun time because their life is totally messed up. it is their way of saying "i exist even though i am worthless piece of garbage". i will take instancing like WoW or Rift or any other mmo that feature story based light instancing these days over these piece of trash.
Thanks for explaining it to me, I knew there was an ulterior motive why some hate instances. Griefers, I should have known, those people were the reason behind instances in Everquest in the first place.
I think this is a big part of it also.
There are folks who prefer to solo, so they'll hang around specific zone areas waiting to pick up a quick group to kill a mob, then drop group and move on. Instances don't work for these folks.
And there are the "griefers" - Those people who just get kick out of being an all around pain in the ass to others.
You cant put severs and dungeons into the same conversation when talking about instancing.
Why not? That's what instances are. Areas created for a limited amount of people in order to split the population.
And to you point on immersion. You want to separate others so your game play suits your idea of what immersion is.
Not correct, it's not about what MY idea of immersion is. It's about what the designer's idea of immersion is. Let's say I build a romantic restaurant that sits 20 people so as to create an intimate atmosphere. If 100 people show up and i fit them all into the 20 seat restaurant, it will not only be overcrowded and confomortable, but it will destroy the very purpose of the restaurant - the intimate atmosphere. So, what do I do? I sit 20 people, i tell the others to come back later. Or to go to a different restaurant. If i had the power to do it, i would create a second copy of my restaurant where another 20 people can have the same intimate and romantic experience.
It's the same with any experience that's included in an MMO - some experiences are best experienced alone, others with 6 people, others with 50 people, others with 200 people. Instancing is one of the ways to ensure that if a dungeon is best experienced with 100 people, you don't let 200 into the dungeon and ruin the experience.
Well i think your confusing a single player game with an MMO.
I am not. In a single-player game this is non-issue. Every experience in a single-player game is designed to be experienced by a single person. This is only an issue in MMOs, where there are different experiences designed to be had by different numbers of players.
As i read your posts it dawns on me that you like a "safe" gaming environment to play in. you points have nothing to do with immersion and everything to do about safety and story.
Well, your choice of words. The reason I want my contested dungeons to be limited to a certain number of players is not so i can be safe. In my experience with dungeons, if you have too many groups in the same constested dungeon, it just stops being fun. A few groups roaming around a big dungeon is great. Having multiple groups at every single NPC is just a big crowd. It stops feeling like a dungeon and starts feeling like a town - or rather, it starts feelling like just a game - which is the very opposite of immersion. The "Story" of a dungeon is that it IS a dungeon. Having too many people in it destroys that story. So yes, story and immersion are important to me.
Ill refer to your privet audience with the queen analogy. While is would work fine in a single player rpg experience, it does'nt work in an MMO.
Why wouldn't it work in an MMO? MMOs have cities, those cities are ruled by kings and queens. It makes perfect sense that one can potentially get an audience with the said monarch. And it makes perfect sense that such an audience would be private. Now, you CAN implement it without instancing, just by making an appointment and waiting several days for your appointment window to come up. At that point, you - and only you - are let into the queen's non-instanced area. So there you are, having a private audience with the Queen, with no one interfering. Same exact experience as with an instance. The only difference is that you have to wait in line with the other 500,000 people. Does spending many days waiting in line add much to the game? In my opinion, it doesn't. But i suppose can see how it could.
p.s. And yeah, i agree with you on the TOR example. It's stupid to have the NPC say that and is terrible design. But once again, that terrible design has nothing to do with instancing.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
Originally posted by Rydeson It is very easy.. INSTANCING removes a large chunk of the social value of the game.. I can not begin to count how many new friends I met in gaming because we were not instanced.. We all know that in the original EQ, you were limited to 6 person groups.. Obviously this means we have choices to make who all is in that group.. There were times our group did not have an enchanter, or anyone that did CC, other then me because I was a druid, so I did the "park and root" trick... At the same time the group next to us that did have an Enchanter lacked a class we had.. So many times we shared buffs and favors between groups in the same dungeon.. It was VERY VERY rare that people encroached and ninja anyone.. First the GM's in the game would not tolerate that conduct.. A number of times I remember doing favors for a group such as porting, and they would do favors for us in return.. THIS can NOT happen if you instance every bloody thing in the game.. As much as people learn to work together in a group, groups in turn learn to work together in the zone.. YES, I acknowledge that some fixed loot drops were camped and this caused some issues, but you don't fix it by breaking something else.. In today technology and coding, ALL those problems the pro-instanced players are crying about can be resolved without the need of ONE instance.. Instancing is an outdated anti-social mechanic and should be abolished.. IMO
If instancing destroyed social interactions, nobody would meet anybody in WoW, Rift or The Secret World. Especially The Secret World. Yet people meet and greet all the time. Very large guilds form because people meet and greet out in the world, or in instances. It's just what people do. Therefore Instancing can't be a destroyer of social interaction in MMORPGs.
Instancing doesn't limit players' ability to learn to work together in a group either. That's mostly what the instances are for in WoW, working together in a group. If instancing limited or stopped players from working together in groups, nobody would be able to complete any of the Dungeons or Raids in WoW, Rift or The Secret World. Therefore Instancing can't be a destroyer of group interaction in MMORPGs.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Some of us have to other stuff to do, and sitting around waiting in line for a mob to re-spawn is incredibly boring and aggravating. People talk about "immersion issues", but how exactly is waiting for a mob to suddenly reappear after you just saw someone else kill it "immersive"?
I think a good game should have both environments because this just makes the game more interesting, and I actually think EQ2 did a great job balancing instances with zones.
Really? and you think queuing up while sitting in town and then magically teleport to a dungeon miles away is immersive? I call that selective viewing.. From where I sit.. can you tell me one game (other then GW2) recently allows for more then 6 people to actively come together in defeating an open world mob? I have yet to read any good discussion FOR instancing other then "my story" .. WHICH is NOT what mmorpg's were design to accomodate..
Originally posted by jesteralways Most of these people who don't like instances are simply "grievers". they gank lowbies wherever they find them, gank players when they are fighting a world boss, kill stealing and getting the last hit on mob for xp and loot etc. the reason why instancing came into mmo was to counter these kind of grievers. so now these grievers who have no value or whatsoever in life and decided to annoy people in game; have no value in game too. thus this massive hate on instance. you will see they will give lots of reason like "instancing takes away social feature" or "it doesn't feel like mmo because instancing removes lots of players" etc but in their heart all they want is to grief others. is to waste precious time of people who came into game to have some fun and to forget the grief of real life. but these grievers have to ruin others fun time because their life is totally messed up. it is their way of saying "i exist even though i am worthless piece of garbage". i will take instancing like WoW or Rift or any other mmo that feature story based light instancing these days over these piece of trash.
Thanks for explaining it to me, I knew there was an ulterior motive why some hate instances. Griefers, I should have known, those people were the reason behind instances in Everquest in the first place.
I think this is a big part of it also.
There are folks who prefer to solo, so they'll hang around specific zone areas waiting to pick up a quick group to kill a mob, then drop group and move on. Instances don't work for these folks.
And there are the "griefers" - Those people who just get kick out of being an all around pain in the ass to others.
WOWWW.. just simply WOW.. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.. I think I'll just roll my eyes and say, "Alrighty then"..
INSTANCING removes a large chunk of the social value of the game..
I can not begin to count how many new friends I met in gaming because we were not instanced.. We all know that in the original EQ, you were limited to 6 person groups.. Obviously this means we have choices to make who all is in that group.. There were times our group did not have an enchanter, or anyone that did CC, other then me because I was a druid, so I did the "park and root" trick... At the same time the group next to us that did have an Enchanter lacked a class we had.. So many times we shared buffs and favors between groups in the same dungeon.. It was VERY VERY rare that people encroached and ninja anyone.. First the GM's in the game would not tolerate that conduct..
A number of times I remember doing favors for a group such as porting, and they would do favors for us in return.. THIS can NOT happen if you instance every bloody thing in the game.. As much as people learn to work together in a group, groups in turn learn to work together in the zone.. YES, I acknowledge that some fixed loot drops were camped and this caused some issues, but you don't fix it by breaking something else.. In today technology and coding, ALL those problems the pro-instanced players are crying about can be resolved without the need of ONE instance.. Instancing is an outdated anti-social mechanic and should be abolished.. IMO
If instancing destroyed social interactions, nobody would meet anybody in WoW, Rift or The Secret World. Especially The Secret World. Yet people meet and greet all the time. Very large guilds form because people meet and greet out in the world, or in instances. It's just what people do. Therefore Instancing can't be a destroyer of social interaction in MMORPGs.
Instancing doesn't limit players' ability to learn to work together in a group either. That's mostly what the instances are for in WoW, working together in a group. If instancing limited or stopped players from working together in groups, nobody would be able to complete any of the Dungeons or Raids in WoW, Rift or The Secret World. Therefore Instancing can't be a destroyer of group interaction in MMORPGs.
Thou should do a better job at reading.. Please reread the RED text again.. I did not say instancing keeps people from not working together in a group.. but GROUPS need to learn to work together in a zone..... Tell me how group 1 and group 2 and group 3 are going to interact with each other if they are ALL STUCK in an instance.. Do you understand now?
The main problems I have with instancing, are loading screens (times) and how it can take away immersion. It can become annoying if you have to go through it often enough.
Now, this doesn't mean I am completely against instancing. There are benefits to it I think. For example, if some encounter with mobs is designed for one group only, several groups can make the encounter silly or just frustrating if one group decided to camp the place. There are more situations where I think instancing could prevent some design problems.
I also have seen instances being used in a way where I didn't feel it was disruptive at all and just had the benefits of instancing. In Fallen Earth for example, they had instances without loading screens. If two groups would follow each other inside some instance, they would see no loading screen, but still end up in their own instance. It could be just some building in the world, where the moment you crossed the doorstep, you were in your own instance. In this game I loved instances because of that.
Some of us have to other stuff to do, and sitting around waiting in line for a mob to re-spawn is incredibly boring and aggravating. People talk about "immersion issues", but how exactly is waiting for a mob to suddenly reappear after you just saw someone else kill it "immersive"?
I think a good game should have both environments because this just makes the game more interesting, and I actually think EQ2 did a great job balancing instances with zones.
Really? and you think queuing up while sitting in town and then magically teleport to a dungeon miles away is immersive? I call that selective viewing.. From where I sit.. can you tell me one game (other then GW2) recently allows for more then 6 people to actively come together in defeating an open world mob? I have yet to read any good discussion FOR instancing other then "my story" .. WHICH is NOT what mmorpg's were design to accomodate..
I'm looking for where I mentioned anything about travel. Nope don't see it.
What I said was three things:
(1) Some of us don't have time to camp a zone for hours. We have other things to do, so instances can be a fun way to enjoy the game.
(2) I was commenting on the criticisms of instances involving "game immersion". Waiting for respawns, is not in my opinion, an immersive experience. If anything, it has the opposite effect (for me at least).
(3) Your response implies I am against open zones. I am not not, and said so in my comment.
EQ up to the end of SoV I think of as it glory days, SoL was the kinda begining of the end for me with the death of EC trading and Wizard spires. In every online game it has its own share of drama, instances or not, I prefer open world raids and dungeons with the adrenaline of racing for a mob to get setup and take it down....Lets look at the the Cleric epic, most clerics on their server had lists setup off their own backs for certain steps of it. I think of Tarew Marr was one guild can't remember the name the GL was ogre war called Mack, they generally ignored rules and try to KS other guilds, but in return if you had that tag then you were alot less likely to recieve help. The community helps police itself against anti social players, just make sure no name changing etc...and people will finally care about their reputations again.
Really? and you think queuing up while sitting in town and then magically teleport to a dungeon miles away is immersive?
No, i am not a fan of the automatic queing and instantly being teleported to instances. I am very much pro-instancing (when it's well used, not for everything), but i hate those dungeon finder things. I much prefer to actually meet up with people and have to go to the dungeon.
(Of course the game has to be designed for that, for example, Neverwinter was designed for the dungeon finder thing, all their dungeons are at the very end of an overland zone, so you'd need to run - and fight - your way through the entire zone just to zone in, which i find rather terrible in design, but in most games, where you can actually travel through zones properly, you should be able to make your way to the dungeon with basic effort).
can you tell me one game (other then GW2) recently allows for more then 6 people to actively come together in defeating an open world mob?
sure.. Rift, EQ2, Defiance, AION... just off the top of my head, i'm sure i can come up with more if i start looking stuff up.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
people will finally care about their reputations again.
Open world all the way
In my experience in EQ2 - douchebags tend to make their reputations pretty quickly and never get invited again. It doesn't really matter if you were grouping for instanced or open-world content, an ass is an ass.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
Some of us have to other stuff to do, and sitting around waiting in line for a mob to re-spawn is incredibly boring and aggravating. People talk about "immersion issues", but how exactly is waiting for a mob to suddenly reappear after you just saw someone else kill it "immersive"?
I think a good game should have both environments because this just makes the game more interesting, and I actually think EQ2 did a great job balancing instances with zones.
Really? and you think queuing up while sitting in town and then magically teleport to a dungeon miles away is immersive? I call that selective viewing.. From where I sit.. can you tell me one game (other then GW2) recently allows for more then 6 people to actively come together in defeating an open world mob? I have yet to read any good discussion FOR instancing other then "my story" .. WHICH is NOT what mmorpg's were design to accomodate..
I'm looking for where I mentioned anything about travel. Nope don't see it.
What I said was three things:
(1) Some of us don't have time to camp a zone for hours. We have other things to do, so instances can be a fun way to enjoy the game. Queue up as dps in the morning and tell me how LONG you wait.. been there, done that and it's NOT fun.. Either way, YOU WAIT.. one form or another.. unless you can solo
(2) I was commenting on the criticisms of instances involving "game immersion". Waiting for respawns, is not in my opinion, an immersive experience. If anything, it has the opposite effect (for me at least). exactly.. you don't think respawns are immersive, but have no issue doing the magical instant dungeon thing? Please explain.. ty
(3) Your response implies I am against open zones. I am not not, and said so in my comment.
Naaa you implied you can handle LIMITED open zone, but your heart is in instancing as if it's a single player game.. correct?
Some of us have to other stuff to do, and sitting around waiting in line for a mob to re-spawn is incredibly boring and aggravating. People talk about "immersion issues", but how exactly is waiting for a mob to suddenly reappear after you just saw someone else kill it "immersive"?
I think a good game should have both environments because this just makes the game more interesting, and I actually think EQ2 did a great job balancing instances with zones.
Really? and you think queuing up while sitting in town and then magically teleport to a dungeon miles away is immersive? I call that selective viewing.. From where I sit.. can you tell me one game (other then GW2) recently allows for more then 6 people to actively come together in defeating an open world mob? I have yet to read any good discussion FOR instancing other then "my story" .. WHICH is NOT what mmorpg's were design to accomodate..
I'm looking for where I mentioned anything about travel. Nope don't see it.
What I said was three things:
(1) Some of us don't have time to camp a zone for hours. We have other things to do, so instances can be a fun way to enjoy the game. Queue up as dps in the morning and tell me how LONG you wait.. been there, done that and it's NOT fun.. Either way, YOU WAIT.. one form or another.. unless you can solo
(2) I was commenting on the criticisms of instances involving "game immersion". Waiting for respawns, is not in my opinion, an immersive experience. If anything, it has the opposite effect (for me at least). exactly.. you don't think respawns are immersive, but have no issue doing the magical instant dungeon thing? Please explain.. ty
(3) Your response implies I am against open zones. I am not not, and said so in my comment.
Naaa you implied you can handle LIMITED open zone, but your heart is in instancing as if it's a single player game.. correct?
It may be that you can save yourself confusion about what I said by simply accepting what I said instead of trying to imagine what you think I mean.
(1) Don't understand your response to #1 at all. I have never known queing issues to be a problem for accessing instances. Not saying it doesn't happen, just hasn't been an issue for me.
(2) Don't understand the logic of your second question at all.
(3) This is what I said: "I think a good game should have both environments because this just makes the game more interesting, and I actually think EQ2 did a great job balancing instances with zones."
This is getting really tiresome .. Please read carefully.. With today's technology and coding, it is IMPOSSIBLE to kill steal anything.. it is IMPOSSIBLE to ninja loot anything.. it is impossible to trivialize boss encounters simply by zerging with more people.. I'm sensing many of you have not played games like GW2.. Instancing is simply anti social and serves NO PURPOSE whatsoever that can't be done in the open world.. People keep talking about, someone camping a location.. GUESS what.. With the programing today, if more people join you, the mobs and camp just get harder..... WOW amazing.. a game that knows how to adjust on the fly for the number of people in a given area.....
So again, give me a good SOCIAL reason why people should instance other then for SINGLE player experience or private group limitations..
Comments
A big point everyone is missing....instance dungeons create an infinite supply of rare gear.
The reason why so many of us remember items like Fungi Tunic and FBSS is because they were ACUTALLY RARE.
You people that want intances so you can avoid competition should really stick to single player games and Im not trying to be rude.
I wasnt goin to respond to your post but its so absurd i felt i just needed to address some things.
1. Having a ton of people in one place isn't the opposite of immersion.
2. Instancing is the byproduct of bad design. It was a solution to problems the devs didn't know how to fix. ( right )
3. I think we all know what instancing is and those of us that do not like it will never like it. Bad design is bad design.
4. A instance that can have a thousand to ten thousand people in it is called a sever. Or how the young folks say a "shard"
For every every positive that comes with instancing there are 2 negatives. They are no longer needed. Wanted by some, but no longer needed.
It is very easy..
INSTANCING removes a large chunk of the social value of the game..
I can not begin to count how many new friends I met in gaming because we were not instanced.. We all know that in the original EQ, you were limited to 6 person groups.. Obviously this means we have choices to make who all is in that group.. There were times our group did not have an enchanter, or anyone that did CC, other then me because I was a druid, so I did the "park and root" trick... At the same time the group next to us that did have an Enchanter lacked a class we had.. So many times we shared buffs and favors between groups in the same dungeon.. It was VERY VERY rare that people encroached and ninja anyone.. First the GM's in the game would not tolerate that conduct..
A number of times I remember doing favors for a group such as porting, and they would do favors for us in return.. THIS can NOT happen if you instance every bloody thing in the game.. As much as people learn to work together in a group, groups in turn learn to work together in the zone.. YES, I acknowledge that some fixed loot drops were camped and this caused some issues, but you don't fix it by breaking something else.. In today technology and coding, ALL those problems the pro-instanced players are crying about can be resolved without the need of ONE instance.. Instancing is an outdated anti-social mechanic and should be abolished..
IMO
Servers are great. I prefer multiple servers over single servers. People want single server and then complain that their are too many players in one spot and then ask for instancing to solve that problem. Why do I want multiple servers. For one, it's easier to make a community. If the playerbase is 1M+, I wouldn't know 1% of the community and feel like I'm not part of the community. If there were less people, I'd be able to interact with a bigger portion, create my own community and feel more at home.
Open dungeons need boss camping. I think EQ's bad design needed boss camping and spawn camping, not open dungeons. You could make enough content, random spawns and other triggered events to keep players moving.
Griefers exist everywhere. Communities kill griefers. No need for instancing. They still exist, they just hit need on everything in modern MMO's, but people forget that to make a point.
Another big disadvantage of instancing, even classic wow instances, you are on a mission to clear the whole dungeon and get out. What's the fun in that. A dungeon is somewhere you can live in, you can just go around and explore. Not find everything, go back and find more, go back and do again and get a completely different experience. Dungeons need to be open, so that it's not a mission to complete it, but a mission to explore it.
And devs need to make enough content. Some of the problems described are, if devs only make 5 dungeons, we are going to have to fight over 20 spawn points. That's just stupid. There need to be enough content so people can do what they want. If one dungeon is full, go to the next. If that's full, go to the next. Yes travel may take 10-50 minutes to go from one to the other, deal with it. You might not level today, oh boy, that's not that bad. Means you get to enjoy the content another day. I wish back the days of seeing everything because your first time through one zone wouldn't overlevel you.
The OP is right!
I played EQ since closed beta until late 2004. With due respect to DAOC, it was the best MMO I ever played, hands down. My favorite expansion is tough to call as they had many great ones that were content-heavy: Ruins of Kunark, Scars of Velious, even Planes of Power (in its own right). But my favorite would have to be Lost Dungeons of Norrath (LDoN). It was great to be able to log in & actually feel productive with just 1 hour worth of play time. If I wanted to just go exploring or just log in to buff newbies, I could do that to with the vast world at your disposal. LDoN didn't oversimplify my game play, it added to the hardcore sandboxiness that EQ inherently was. It gave me a way to meet new folks & group up w/them & kill them. Cuz remember, raiding in EQ back then was comprised of 48, then 64-person raids where you'd hang out w/your guildies or alliance members. That was the crux of end-game back in those days & it was LOADS of fun- nothing like stepping into Plane of Time for the first time after working so hard to be able to enter. Instances just gave us another way to play the game, it didn't detract from our core game experience.
I started getting into PvP during vanilla WoW during the Tarren Mill days of fluid, unorganized mayhem. It was SO fun! They later released PvP instances but while I played them I never really liked them in WoW. In the Summer of 2008, I got into the Warhammer Online closed beta & immediately fell in love with the game's potential. It launched in September & while they made a lot of mistakes (& continue to do so by not making the game F2P already & saving it from itself) they did a lot of things right. I'd played & loved DAOC for a long time but once friends & guildies started dropping out like flies the luster faded. It's why I loved Warhammer, it reminded me a lot of DAOC (not completely but somewhat). I really dug the open world pvp feel of the pvp lakes. But I found that something I enjoyed immensely about Warhammer were the PvP instances. For lots of reasons really, namely that they were "fair" fights, numbers-wise. I also loved that in Warhammer, I could get into a PvP instance as soon as my character had entered the world for the first time- not needing to go find some npc or waiting to level 10 to initiate the process, etc. I could level from 1-40 without ever doing a single quest! The sheer amount & variety in instances was awesome (for the record, my favorite pvp instance in Warhammer was Tor An'Roc- cuz knocking ppl off the bridge & into the lava was oh so awesomely funny haha).
My perfect MMO, & what I hope EQ: Next to be, is a solid combination of open world sandbox with some instances (dungeons, pvp, etc.). Have it be well written & story-driven & what you'll have is a game that anyone can jump into & play the game they want to play. I don't need to be told where to go, what I want is to be given options. Just like IRL, gaming is all about options.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
There is allot of typing going on by you with very little to say. So much so, its hard for me to pin down some key talking points.
It seems like you want to use the term instancing as a blanket term to describe anything that places people into a section of the game that players cant participate with others. ie anything from zones to dungeons to severs.You cant put severs into the same conversation when talking about instancing. Instancing for purposes of pre made groups to zone overflow is a solution to bad game design.
And to you point on immersion. You want to separate others so your game play suits your idea of what immersion is. Well i think your confusing a single player game with an MMO. As i read your posts it dawns on me that you like a "safe" gaming environment to play in. you points have nothing to do with immersion and everything to do about safety and story.
Ill refer to your privet audience with the queen analogy. While is would work fine in a single player rpg experience, it does'nt work in an MMO. you talking about 30 40 jedis around an nps that says " i haven't seen a jedi in these parts in years" I take you back to bad game design. Don't have the nps make a stupid statement like that for "stories" sake.
As we have all seen. having the single player console rpg experience does not mesh well with the MMORPG. Everyone whats everything all the time and it just does not work that way. Might be why the tone of gamers has changed so much over the years.
Edit: Made correction to severs and dungeons. removed dungeons from 2ed paragraph.
I don't understand the instance-hate either.
Some of us have to other stuff to do, and sitting around waiting in line for a mob to re-spawn is incredibly boring and aggravating. People talk about "immersion issues", but how exactly is waiting for a mob to suddenly reappear after you just saw someone else kill it "immersive"?
I think a good game should have both environments because this just makes the game more interesting, and I actually think EQ2 did a great job balancing instances with zones.
I think this is a big part of it also.
There are folks who prefer to solo, so they'll hang around specific zone areas waiting to pick up a quick group to kill a mob, then drop group and move on. Instances don't work for these folks.
And there are the "griefers" - Those people who just get kick out of being an all around pain in the ass to others.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
If instancing destroyed social interactions, nobody would meet anybody in WoW, Rift or The Secret World. Especially The Secret World. Yet people meet and greet all the time. Very large guilds form because people meet and greet out in the world, or in instances. It's just what people do. Therefore Instancing can't be a destroyer of social interaction in MMORPGs.
Instancing doesn't limit players' ability to learn to work together in a group either. That's mostly what the instances are for in WoW, working together in a group. If instancing limited or stopped players from working together in groups, nobody would be able to complete any of the Dungeons or Raids in WoW, Rift or The Secret World. Therefore Instancing can't be a destroyer of group interaction in MMORPGs.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Really? and you think queuing up while sitting in town and then magically teleport to a dungeon miles away is immersive? I call that selective viewing.. From where I sit.. can you tell me one game (other then GW2) recently allows for more then 6 people to actively come together in defeating an open world mob? I have yet to read any good discussion FOR instancing other then "my story" .. WHICH is NOT what mmorpg's were design to accomodate..
WOWWW.. just simply WOW.. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.. I think I'll just roll my eyes and say, "Alrighty then"..
Thou should do a better job at reading.. Please reread the RED text again.. I did not say instancing keeps people from not working together in a group.. but GROUPS need to learn to work together in a zone..... Tell me how group 1 and group 2 and group 3 are going to interact with each other if they are ALL STUCK in an instance.. Do you understand now?
The main problems I have with instancing, are loading screens (times) and how it can take away immersion. It can become annoying if you have to go through it often enough.
Now, this doesn't mean I am completely against instancing. There are benefits to it I think. For example, if some encounter with mobs is designed for one group only, several groups can make the encounter silly or just frustrating if one group decided to camp the place. There are more situations where I think instancing could prevent some design problems.
I also have seen instances being used in a way where I didn't feel it was disruptive at all and just had the benefits of instancing. In Fallen Earth for example, they had instances without loading screens. If two groups would follow each other inside some instance, they would see no loading screen, but still end up in their own instance. It could be just some building in the world, where the moment you crossed the doorstep, you were in your own instance. In this game I loved instances because of that.
I'm looking for where I mentioned anything about travel. Nope don't see it.
What I said was three things:
(1) Some of us don't have time to camp a zone for hours. We have other things to do, so instances can be a fun way to enjoy the game.
(2) I was commenting on the criticisms of instances involving "game immersion". Waiting for respawns, is not in my opinion, an immersive experience. If anything, it has the opposite effect (for me at least).
(3) Your response implies I am against open zones. I am not not, and said so in my comment.
EQ up to the end of SoV I think of as it glory days, SoL was the kinda begining of the end for me with the death of EC trading and Wizard spires. In every online game it has its own share of drama, instances or not, I prefer open world raids and dungeons with the adrenaline of racing for a mob to get setup and take it down....Lets look at the the Cleric epic, most clerics on their server had lists setup off their own backs for certain steps of it. I think of Tarew Marr was one guild can't remember the name the GL was ogre war called Mack, they generally ignored rules and try to KS other guilds, but in return if you had that tag then you were alot less likely to recieve help. The community helps police itself against anti social players, just make sure no name changing etc...and people will finally care about their reputations again.
Open world all the way
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
In my experience in EQ2 - douchebags tend to make their reputations pretty quickly and never get invited again. It doesn't really matter if you were grouping for instanced or open-world content, an ass is an ass.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
Naaa you implied you can handle LIMITED open zone, but your heart is in instancing as if it's a single player game.. correct?
It may be that you can save yourself confusion about what I said by simply accepting what I said instead of trying to imagine what you think I mean.
(1) Don't understand your response to #1 at all. I have never known queing issues to be a problem for accessing instances. Not saying it doesn't happen, just hasn't been an issue for me.
(2) Don't understand the logic of your second question at all.
(3) This is what I said: "I think a good game should have both environments because this just makes the game more interesting, and I actually think EQ2 did a great job balancing instances with zones."
This is getting really tiresome .. Please read carefully.. With today's technology and coding, it is IMPOSSIBLE to kill steal anything.. it is IMPOSSIBLE to ninja loot anything.. it is impossible to trivialize boss encounters simply by zerging with more people.. I'm sensing many of you have not played games like GW2.. Instancing is simply anti social and serves NO PURPOSE whatsoever that can't be done in the open world.. People keep talking about, someone camping a location.. GUESS what.. With the programing today, if more people join you, the mobs and camp just get harder..... WOW amazing.. a game that knows how to adjust on the fly for the number of people in a given area.....
So again, give me a good SOCIAL reason why people should instance other then for SINGLE player experience or private group limitations..