Howdy, Stranger!

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

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

I think instancing could really make a mmo awesome if done right.

SlheyasSlheyas St-Cyrille, QCPosts: 84Member

I'm thinking here of instances with a variable cap.

 

Cities would have no cap obviously, so all the people in them can actually interract with one another.

Areas close to cities would have a pretty high cap, say 100 so it's pretty lively but never crowded as hell.

Really remote areas in the middle of nowhere in a hostile environment would have a cap as slow as the maximum number of people in a party is with some flexibility, so if the max party size is 5 and the area cap is 5 the party could still enter if the number of player in the instance was 4, the absolute cap would be then 9, so it's possible for everybody to meet at least one other soul in an area.

 

Obviously you would share instances with people you don't know, unlike say, the original Guild Wars.

 

I really think it would help with immersion, and as far as I know it's possible to create instances without loading screens (SWTOR did it IIRC) so you wouldn't even have to deal with tons of loading screens.

 

Thoughts? I think this idea is never going to make it in any mmo ever (unless I get rich and decide to make one) but hey.

«134

Comments

  • VirusDancerVirusDancer Brandon, FLPosts: 3,649Member
    Er....several games already do this.

    I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?

    Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%

  • SlheyasSlheyas St-Cyrille, QCPosts: 84Member
    Really? I know of channels and layers but I'm pretty sure the caps on those is only dictated by the player capacity of the zone and not its features that make it hospitable or not.
  • TobiasGreyTobiasGrey Worcester, MAPosts: 166Member
    Originally posted by Slheyas

    I'm thinking here of instances with a variable cap.

     

    Cities would have no cap obviously, so all the people in them can actually interract with one another.

    Areas close to cities would have a pretty high cap, say 100 so it's pretty lively but never crowded as hell.

    Really remote areas in the middle of nowhere in a hostile environment would have a cap as slow as the maximum number of people in a party is with some flexibility, so if the max party size is 5 and the area cap is 5 the party could still enter if the number of player in the instance was 4, the absolute cap would be then 9, so it's possible for everybody to meet at least one other soul in an area.

     

    Obviously you would share instances with people you don't know, unlike say, the original Guild Wars.

     

    I really think it would help with immersion, and as far as I know it's possible to create instances without loading screens (SWTOR did it IIRC) so you wouldn't even have to deal with tons of loading screens.

     

    Thoughts? I think this idea is never going to make it in any mmo ever (unless I get rich and decide to make one) but hey.

    Or developers could just design a game well so that the population is spread out where it should be and instances are never needed.

    A lack of freedom is NEVER immersive. "Hey, I'm standing right next to you." "No you're not, I can't see you!"

    There are always better ways of doing things than using instancing. Instancing is the first resort of a lazy, hack job ofa developer.

  • SlheyasSlheyas St-Cyrille, QCPosts: 84Member

    I really don't see how it would be possible otherwise though, especially in the case of desolate areas that should be all but completely empty, how do you prevent people from going there en masse? Make it completely devoid of anything of interest? Make it unbelievable hard to get to (locking out contents because of player skill isn't a good idea)?

     

    I really don't see a solution.

  • SchattenphoenixSchattenphoenix BLNPosts: 3Member

    I liked Ragnarok Online...

    No instancing and you would always meet people around the world, even at places where you would think noone goes...

    People just explored!

  • SlheyasSlheyas St-Cyrille, QCPosts: 84Member

    I love Ragnarok Online to death too!

     

    In fact if I could take two existing mmos and blend them together I'd take everything from GW2 and mix it with the stat and gear system of RO.

  • SirBalinSirBalin Joppa, MDPosts: 1,150Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Slheyas

    I'm thinking here of instances with a variable cap.

     

    Cities would have no cap obviously, so all the people in them can actually interract with one another.

    Areas close to cities would have a pretty high cap, say 100 so it's pretty lively but never crowded as hell.

    Really remote areas in the middle of nowhere in a hostile environment would have a cap as slow as the maximum number of people in a party is with some flexibility, so if the max party size is 5 and the area cap is 5 the party could still enter if the number of player in the instance was 4, the absolute cap would be then 9, so it's possible for everybody to meet at least one other soul in an area.

     

    Obviously you would share instances with people you don't know, unlike say, the original Guild Wars.

     

    I really think it would help with immersion, and as far as I know it's possible to create instances without loading screens (SWTOR did it IIRC) so you wouldn't even have to deal with tons of loading screens.

     

    Thoughts? I think this idea is never going to make it in any mmo ever (unless I get rich and decide to make one) but hey.

    Instancing is fine for pve games if they are meant to be rpg's not mmorpgs....def not for pvp

     

    Incognito
    www.incognito-gaming.us
    "You're either with us or against us"

  • SaintPhilipSaintPhilip Bree, MIPosts: 713Member
    Originally posted by TobiasGrey
    Originally posted by Slheyas

    I'm thinking here of instances with a variable cap.

     

    Cities would have no cap obviously, so all the people in them can actually interract with one another.

    Areas close to cities would have a pretty high cap, say 100 so it's pretty lively but never crowded as hell.

    Really remote areas in the middle of nowhere in a hostile environment would have a cap as slow as the maximum number of people in a party is with some flexibility, so if the max party size is 5 and the area cap is 5 the party could still enter if the number of player in the instance was 4, the absolute cap would be then 9, so it's possible for everybody to meet at least one other soul in an area.

     

    Obviously you would share instances with people you don't know, unlike say, the original Guild Wars.

     

    I really think it would help with immersion, and as far as I know it's possible to create instances without loading screens (SWTOR did it IIRC) so you wouldn't even have to deal with tons of loading screens.

     

    Thoughts? I think this idea is never going to make it in any mmo ever (unless I get rich and decide to make one) but hey.

    Or developers could just design a game well so that the population is spread out where it should be and instances are never needed.

    A lack of freedom is NEVER immersive. "Hey, I'm standing right next to you." "No you're not, I can't see you!"

    There are always better ways of doing things than using instancing. Instancing is the first resort of a lazy, hack job ofa developer.

    I disagree. Although I am not keen on the Ops suggestion.

    Instancing has its place- And can add to a game. I am not a fan of "private" or "overflow" instances but rather more innovative ways to use instances. 

    One cool idea (at least I like it) is to use instancing to add a bit of variety. A developer could make 20-30  variations of 1 area and based on things done in the game (or randomness if desired) these could "switch"- These would not be private instances but changes in the world for everyone but done via instancing. 

    Another example would be a dungeon comprised of several "instances" which randomy change- This would make "memorizing" the dungeon and zerging through it far less problamitic than it currently is- And these wouldnt be "randomly" generated but handcrafted areas with randomly appearing traps in an everchanging and dynamic area.

    This would allow far more complexity in games while using less resourses to achive this.

     

  • gigatgigat Minneapolis, MNPosts: 604Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Slheyas

    I really don't see how it would be possible otherwise though, especially in the case of desolate areas that should be all but completely empty, how do you prevent people from going there en masse? Make it completely devoid of anything of interest? Make it unbelievable hard to get to (locking out contents because of player skill isn't a good idea)?

     

    I really don't see a solution.

    I am perplexed..  I'm confused by the part in green.  What do you mean?  Can you explain this better, or provide an example of how this has or has not impacted current MMOs?

    "Lose the helmet sis, we can't prove that you're retarded." - Dennis Reynolds

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    I would like a new mmo with no instancing at all.
  • SlheyasSlheyas St-Cyrille, QCPosts: 84Member
    Originally posted by gigat
    Originally posted by Slheyas

    I really don't see how it would be possible otherwise though, especially in the case of desolate areas that should be all but completely empty, how do you prevent people from going there en masse? Make it completely devoid of anything of interest? Make it unbelievable hard to get to (locking out contents because of player skill isn't a good idea)?

     

    I really don't see a solution.

    I am perplexed..  I'm confused by the part in green.  What do you mean?  Can you explain this better, or provide an example of how this has or has not impacted current MMOs?

     

    Okay, imagine an mmo with an area that is a huge desert, think of it like Death Valley in California, nothing but barren wasteland for as far as the eye can see, a story quest though happens to send you in this area, as well as some other generic quests. What happens then is that tons of players go in that desert devoid of human life to accomplish their quests. The area then becomes extremely lively even though everything about it screams death and inhospitable.

     

    And well, it doesn't make sense.

  • TobiasGreyTobiasGrey Worcester, MAPosts: 166Member
    Originally posted by Slheyas
    Originally posted by gigat
    Originally posted by Slheyas

    I really don't see how it would be possible otherwise though, especially in the case of desolate areas that should be all but completely empty, how do you prevent people from going there en masse? Make it completely devoid of anything of interest? Make it unbelievable hard to get to (locking out contents because of player skill isn't a good idea)?

     

    I really don't see a solution.

    I am perplexed..  I'm confused by the part in green.  What do you mean?  Can you explain this better, or provide an example of how this has or has not impacted current MMOs?

     

    Okay, imagine an mmo with an area that is a huge desert, think of it like Death Valley in California, nothing but barren wasteland for as far as the eye can see, a story quest though happens to send you in this area, as well as some other generic quests. What happens then is that tons of players go in that desert devoid of human life to accomplish their quests. The area then becomes extremely lively even though everything about it screams death and inhospitable.

     

    And well, it doesn't make sense.

    Very easy. Make those areas really hard to be in. Like a real dessert. Virtual worlds are relfections of real worlds. It goes to show how shallow themeparks are and how poor writing is in most MMOs... if you want an area to be desolate don't SAY its desolate, MAKE it desolate. Make it hard to get to, make it empty, make it harsh once you're there. "But then why go there" you say? Well, areas are usually desolate because people don't WANT to go there. Maybe only the best of the best go there. Maybe only bored explorers go there.

    There are far better more interesting ways to do this than instancing, always the tool of the lazy developer.

  • TobiasGreyTobiasGrey Worcester, MAPosts: 166Member
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    I would like a new mmo with no instancing at all.

    Planetside 2 and Darkfall 2.0 bud! Vanguard just went FTP too, not a loading screen at ALL.

  • SlheyasSlheyas St-Cyrille, QCPosts: 84Member
    Originally posted by TobiasGrey
    Originally posted by Slheyas
    Originally posted by gigat
    Originally posted by Slheyas

    I really don't see how it would be possible otherwise though, especially in the case of desolate areas that should be all but completely empty, how do you prevent people from going there en masse? Make it completely devoid of anything of interest? Make it unbelievable hard to get to (locking out contents because of player skill isn't a good idea)?

     

    I really don't see a solution.

    I am perplexed..  I'm confused by the part in green.  What do you mean?  Can you explain this better, or provide an example of how this has or has not impacted current MMOs?

     

    Okay, imagine an mmo with an area that is a huge desert, think of it like Death Valley in California, nothing but barren wasteland for as far as the eye can see, a story quest though happens to send you in this area, as well as some other generic quests. What happens then is that tons of players go in that desert devoid of human life to accomplish their quests. The area then becomes extremely lively even though everything about it screams death and inhospitable.

     

    And well, it doesn't make sense.

    Very easy. Make those areas really hard to be in. Like a real dessert. Virtual worlds are relfections of real worlds. It goes to show how shallow themeparks are and how poor writing is in most MMOs... if you want an area to be desolate don't SAY its desolate, MAKE it desolate. Make it hard to get to, make it empty, make it harsh once you're there. "But then why go there" you say? Well, areas are usually desolate because people don't WANT to go there. Maybe only the best of the best go there. Maybe only bored explorers go there.

    There are far better more interesting ways to do this than instancing, always the tool of the lazy developer.

    While I absolutely love this idea it would probably be hated by players. Nobody likes having content unaccessible to them because they're too unskilled.

     

    If the complaints about explorable mode dungeons in GW2 are an indication making whole areas too hard to bad players would be met with a massive amount of whining, unless those areas have nothing worthwhile in them.

  • TobiasGreyTobiasGrey Worcester, MAPosts: 166Member
    Originally posted by SaintPhilip
    Originally posted by TobiasGrey
    Originally posted by Slheyas

    I'm thinking here of instances with a variable cap.

     

    Cities would have no cap obviously, so all the people in them can actually interract with one another.

    Areas close to cities would have a pretty high cap, say 100 so it's pretty lively but never crowded as hell.

    Really remote areas in the middle of nowhere in a hostile environment would have a cap as slow as the maximum number of people in a party is with some flexibility, so if the max party size is 5 and the area cap is 5 the party could still enter if the number of player in the instance was 4, the absolute cap would be then 9, so it's possible for everybody to meet at least one other soul in an area.

     

    Obviously you would share instances with people you don't know, unlike say, the original Guild Wars.

     

    I really think it would help with immersion, and as far as I know it's possible to create instances without loading screens (SWTOR did it IIRC) so you wouldn't even have to deal with tons of loading screens.

     

    Thoughts? I think this idea is never going to make it in any mmo ever (unless I get rich and decide to make one) but hey.

    Or developers could just design a game well so that the population is spread out where it should be and instances are never needed.

    A lack of freedom is NEVER immersive. "Hey, I'm standing right next to you." "No you're not, I can't see you!"

    There are always better ways of doing things than using instancing. Instancing is the first resort of a lazy, hack job ofa developer.

    I disagree. Although I am not keen on the Ops suggestion.

    Instancing has its place- And can add to a game I keep hearing this "if done right instancing is great" I then ask... well which game did instancing right. The response is always "well, this game almost did it right but uh... went too far." And that's the point, instancing always goes too far, because its a crutch. . I am not a fan of "private" or "overflow" instances but rather more innovative ways to use instances. 

    One cool idea (at least I like it) is to use instancing to add a bit of variety. A developer could make 20-30  variations of 1 area and based on things done in the game (or randomness if desired) these could "switch"- These would not be private instances but changes in the world for everyone but done via instancing.  GW2 does this without instancing.

    Another example would be a dungeon comprised of several "instances" which randomy change- This would make "memorizing" the dungeon and zerging through it far less problamitic than it currently is That doesn't make any sense in a virtual world unless you created a core lore mechanic about some sort of chaos portal, and you can do that without instancing, just randomize the public dungeon.- And these wouldnt be "randomly" generated but handcrafted areas with randomly appearing traps in an everchanging and dynamic area.

    This would allow far more complexity in games while using less resourses to achive this.

     

    Not following you.

  • SaintPhilipSaintPhilip Bree, MIPosts: 713Member
    Originally posted by TobiasGrey
    Originally posted by SaintPhilip
    Originally posted by TobiasGrey
    Originally posted by Slheyas

    I'm thinking here of instances with a variable cap.

     

    Cities would have no cap obviously, so all the people in them can actually interract with one another.

    Areas close to cities would have a pretty high cap, say 100 so it's pretty lively but never crowded as hell.

    Really remote areas in the middle of nowhere in a hostile environment would have a cap as slow as the maximum number of people in a party is with some flexibility, so if the max party size is 5 and the area cap is 5 the party could still enter if the number of player in the instance was 4, the absolute cap would be then 9, so it's possible for everybody to meet at least one other soul in an area.

     

    Obviously you would share instances with people you don't know, unlike say, the original Guild Wars.

     

    I really think it would help with immersion, and as far as I know it's possible to create instances without loading screens (SWTOR did it IIRC) so you wouldn't even have to deal with tons of loading screens.

     

    Thoughts? I think this idea is never going to make it in any mmo ever (unless I get rich and decide to make one) but hey.

    Or developers could just design a game well so that the population is spread out where it should be and instances are never needed.

    A lack of freedom is NEVER immersive. "Hey, I'm standing right next to you." "No you're not, I can't see you!"

    There are always better ways of doing things than using instancing. Instancing is the first resort of a lazy, hack job ofa developer.

    I disagree. Although I am not keen on the Ops suggestion.

    Instancing has its place- And can add to a game I keep hearing this "if done right instancing is great" I then ask... well which game did instancing right. The response is always "well, this game almost did it right but uh... went too far." And that's the point, instancing always goes too far, because its a crutch. . I am not a fan of "private" or "overflow" instances but rather more innovative ways to use instances. 

    One cool idea (at least I like it) is to use instancing to add a bit of variety. A developer could make 20-30  variations of 1 area and based on things done in the game (or randomness if desired) these could "switch"- These would not be private instances but changes in the world for everyone but done via instancing.  GW2 does this without instancing.

    Another example would be a dungeon comprised of several "instances" which randomy change- This would make "memorizing" the dungeon and zerging through it far less problamitic than it currently is That doesn't make any sense in a virtual world unless you created a core lore mechanic about some sort of chaos portal, and you can do that without instancing, just randomize the public dungeon.- And these wouldnt be "randomly" generated but handcrafted areas with randomly appearing traps in an everchanging and dynamic area.

    This would allow far more complexity in games while using less resourses to achive this.

     

    Not following you.

    I understand- Trying to simplify something while multi-tasking does not make for a coherent post =P

    First, I have never seen this done right- At all. I am being purely theoretical.

    Secondly I am not at all speaking of the "changing world" in GW2 but something far greater in scope .

    Last, it would be similar to randomizing the public dungeon (the lore issue aside as the same boss is killed a million times anyhow) but done in hand crafted blocks. Something about "Randomly made dungeons" make for poor dungeons. My idea is to handcraft a dungeon in "blocks" which could change. Like 10 - 20 possible tilesets (or whatever) per area, each with random trap and treasure and mob placement. This would allow for the variety of "randomness" but still have a changing but handcrafted dungeon. Could this be done without instancing?

  • gigatgigat Minneapolis, MNPosts: 604Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Slheyas
    Originally posted by gigat
    Originally posted by Slheyas

    I really don't see how it would be possible otherwise though, especially in the case of desolate areas that should be all but completely empty, how do you prevent people from going there en masse? Make it completely devoid of anything of interest? Make it unbelievable hard to get to (locking out contents because of player skill isn't a good idea)?

     

    I really don't see a solution.

    I am perplexed..  I'm confused by the part in green.  What do you mean?  Can you explain this better, or provide an example of how this has or has not impacted current MMOs?

     

    Okay, imagine an mmo with an area that is a huge desert, think of it like Death Valley in California, nothing but barren wasteland for as far as the eye can see, a story quest though happens to send you in this area, as well as some other generic quests. What happens then is that tons of players go in that desert devoid of human life to accomplish their quests. The area then becomes extremely lively even though everything about it screams death and inhospitable.

     

    And well, it doesn't make sense.

    Ok, I see now.  You're more concerned about immersion in regards to lore or story.

     

    For me, instancing breaks immersion.  I've always thought of instancing as a method developers use in order to reduce performance issues.  When you have too many people in a single region, then framerates drop and the servers might get bogged down.

     

    I can understand why you would use instancing in the scenario you described (like in SWTOR).  Lately, instancing has been a great method for allowing the player to experience their own story.  If this is what you want out of an online RPG, then I can see it working.

     

    I prefer a large, seamless world, where I can see and interact with everyone in the game at any time.  Instancing separates the players, and -- in most cases -- forces them to play alone.  This takes the MM out of MMORPG.

    "Lose the helmet sis, we can't prove that you're retarded." - Dennis Reynolds

  • aRtFuLThinGaRtFuLThinG MelbournePosts: 1,133Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Slheyas

    While I absolutely love this idea it would probably be hated by players. Nobody likes having content unaccessible to them because they're too unskilled.

     

    If the complaints about explorable mode dungeons in GW2 are an indication making whole areas too hard to bad players would be met with a massive amount of whining, unless those areas have nothing worthwhile in them.

    A well designed game should require no instancing at all.

    Also I think that those areas that are inaccessible to them NOT because they are unskilled per se, but because it was meant to be hard and need to be approached with a group. Many games has areas like this, and it doesn't make the areas unapproachable, it was just meant to be played with other people, which is fine, as mmos are meant to be played with other people.

    I mean, even in real-life you won't explore Antarctica by yourself without absolutely any support from anyone (in terms of rations or sponsorship or emergency assistance if solo exploring) would you? That would be suicide.

    Hard areas are meant to be hard. Instancing it in a game is not going to improve that at all (I think rather it makes it less attractive).

  • TobiasGreyTobiasGrey Worcester, MAPosts: 166Member
    Originally posted by gigat

      Lately, instancing has been a great method for allowing the player to experience their own story.  If this is what you want out of an online RPG, then I can see it working.

     

    Except this is not what MMOs are good at doing, and they will never be better at telling a personal story than a singleplayer RPG. Every MMO that has tried has failed at making a good instanced storyline, because the second you leave the instance, not a single bit of it matters, and all the material gets padded out, and the combat is limited/bad because of the online restriction.

     

    The best storyline in MMOs are the ones the players help create like in UO, Darkfall, and AC. That system is the one that needs to be embraced. Turbine does monthly updates that change the game world for everyone, not advance the personal story of one player and add "content"(fetch quests). The Turbine updates allow the players of the game world to make an impact on a living space.

    I have yet to see a single application of instancing that has worked well in an MMORPG.

  • VirusDancerVirusDancer Brandon, FLPosts: 3,649Member
    Originally posted by Slheyas
    Really? I know of channels and layers but I'm pretty sure the caps on those is only dictated by the player capacity of the zone and not its features that make it hospitable or not.

    You basically outlined what takes place with the player caps in certain areas - certain areas will have larger player caps and smaller areas will have smaller caps.  Usually you can click on top of the minimap in those games to select which instance of that particular zone you wish to be in.  Smaller areas that have less room, will have more instances to avoid things being too crowded in a congested area.  In a sense, that's how part of the public instancing began - congested areas being instanced with a smaller player cap.  With server mergers, this also appeared for open areas to provide a cap.

    As for your smallest areas - well - those are pretty much your standard instances already.  Games have had public capped instances of that nature for a long time.  It was a way that some folks would grief - after they ganked somebody and got a copy of the key to the instance - they'd wait inside the instance for them.  Peekaboo!

    As many folks have said - there's a lot of backlash amongst part of the community against instancing.  At the same time of course, there's countless people that do not care either way as well as those that prefer it.

    Personally, it's an immersion killer for me.  You try to gather a party only to find that everybody's standing at the same spot in different instances...meh.  Loading screens...meh.  Etc, etc, etc...meh.

    "World" instancing has existed since back in UO... folks disappearing on the server borders, as there were different servers carrying the different instances of the regions.

    It's a tough one, since the term has a general meaning as well as several specific meanings...so it can be tough to discuss.

    I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?

    Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common

    Some people don't get the virtues of istances or sometimes the necessity to have them. They do the forum equivalent of plugging their ears and shouting "LALALALALA...". Often they don't care what is technically possible - or sensible. Making a game entirely without loading screens or instances is entirely possible.(*) But it takes effort, and that effort may not be worth it. And you would still have to enforce some population caps. Guards telling you can't enter the city? -Cue up. Is that preferable?

    Depending on the architecture of the city (or the terrain of an area), after a certain point the number of players in that area offer a diminishing return with regards to immersion. For example, a player is unlikely to notice the difference between 100 players and 150 players. It still feels the city is crowded. You might as well split the people into instances, have that same immersion and enjoy the higher performance.

    The people who abhor instances are not reasonable in this regard. They seemingly don't care if the servers get clogged or the game lags. Me? I would take instances over slideshows any day. Not to mention, PvE is better in instances. You can have profound effects taking place, elaborate scripts, etc. without them disrupting the open world content or the open world content disrupting them. Things you kill stay dead (satisfying for me atleast).

    (*I don't see a reason a seamless transision could be made between an instance and pesisten world and vice versa. If you could make that transition without the player noticing, it would be a concept worth some money, I think. Some algorithm which would make use of the Dunbar's number and network science.)

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • AdamantineAdamantine NowherePosts: 3,514Member
    Originally posted by TobiasGrey

    Or developers could just design a game well so that the population is spread out where it should be and instances are never needed.

    This would be best.

    I deeply oppose any instancing.

    If there is instancing, at very least make it explicit. Make people enter copy #1 to #10 as they see fit. Make it an effort to actually get to a different game copy.

    However, if instancing is implicit and you never see any person because of it the moment you enter a dungeon, you completely kill the sense of being in a world with thousands of other players.

     

  • strangewizardstrangewizard Anywhere, SCPosts: 42Member

    I disagree 100%.

    Instancing needs to die off again.

    Instancing just turns MMOs into any other multiplayer game.

    What I love about MMOs is the persistant world. It feels like you are actually in a virtual world. Instances just feel like I'm in an RTS game lobby waiting for a new game, or waiting for a new FPS server to load...

  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 19,995Member Uncommon

    I'm not totally against instances, I never minded how WOW's dungeons were instanced, but I felt that AOC's dungeons that had instances within the dungeons, was over the top.

    I understand that technical limitations make it impractical to not have instances at times, game launches particularly show the value of having multiple instances of the starting zones to make them more tractible.

    I think there is a balance somewhere in between "none at all" and "every 3 steps" an some games have come pretty close to getting it right.

     

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
    "I don't have one life, I have many lives" - Grunty
    Still currently "subscribed" to EVE, and only EVE!!!
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,666Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid

    I don't see a reason a seamless transision could be made between an instance and pesisten world and vice versa. If you could make that transition without the player noticing, it would be a concept worth some money, I think.

    SWTOR does it.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

«134
Sign In or Register to comment.