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!

Aventurine "gets it". I wish all MMO devs did.

2456711

Comments

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,860Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by zimike

    You just don't get it ... sigh!

    Yep, because those who disagree with you don't get it because you are right...right?

  • SnoepieSnoepie RotterdamPosts: 470Member

    hello noobies..

     

    Cya ingame.. when i slice you with my sword...

     

     

  • NiburuNiburu BerlinPosts: 378Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by DavisFlight

    Aventurine "gets it".


     

    That is why DF is so successful...oh wait..

     

    That is because the game was not very polished at release, no other reaosn than that. UW adresses these concern to a degree.

     

     

  • zimikezimike Dayton, TXPosts: 129Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by zimike

    You just don't get it ... sigh!

     

    Yep, because those who disagree with you don't get it because you are right...right?

    I really shouldn't have to explain this one since it was already explained. Having to fight over a single mob for a quest is the poor game design talked about. To combat the POOR game design, devs had to create instances. This is not the case for every single game that uses instances, but a strong argument could be made for most. There are may other reasons to explain why instances are a cop out, but you really only need one. Its not about agree or disagree, its about fact. 

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,860Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by Niburu

    That is because the game was not very polished at release, no other reaosn than that. UW adresses these concern to a degree.

    So lack of security measures, exploits, heavy skill grind design, no safe zones driving people of the game, forced PVP, etc has nothing to do with it because there is a significant player base that want "features" I listed?

  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKPosts: 8,522Member Uncommon

    So Eq1, UO, DAoC, basically any gen 1 MMORPG more than 10 years ago "got it" as none of them had instancing. 

    Need I mention that some like EQ1 were themeparks with no instances......

    My point is that having instances or not is not indicative of sandbox or themeparks, nor is it indicative of a good or bad game. It's just a technology that is all.

     

  • DarthRaidenDarthRaiden gdfgfPosts: 4,333Member
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by DavisFlight

    Aventurine "gets it".


     

    That is why DF is so successful...oh wait..

     


    Originally posted by DavisFlight

    "Because usually instance are used for technical reasons, for convenience of the developer."


     

    Yeah, seems like Tassos does not get it...at all. Instances are primarily there to improve player experience - "50 people fighting over a single quest/boss mob" issue.

     

    Aventurine unfortunately don't "get's it" cause they start to violate against principles of good game design . 

    BUT..the seamsless world is one thing the do get  right .

    in your example in the quote  one important word is missed..

    "50 people fighting over a single Boss mob"..in a "antagonistic" designed environment.

    They not only fight the Mob but fight also over the right to fight the mob  and loot it.  That puts another gameplay layer on top which is enrichment over an existant  feature.

     

    -----MY-TERMS-OF-USE--------------------------------------------------
    $OE - eternal enemy of online gaming
    -We finally WON !!!! 2011 $OE accepted that they have been fired 2005 by the playerbase and closed down ridiculous NGE !!

    "There was suppression of speech and all kinds of things between disturbing and fascistic." Raph Koster (parted $OE)

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,860Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by zimike

    I really shouldn't have to explain this one since it was already explained. Having to fight over a single mob for a quest is the poor game design talked about. To combat the POOR game design, devs had to create instances.

    If players are fighting over single mob, that is indeed an issue and poor game design.

    Yet, fixing the issue is still poor design? I think your logic fails very hard here...


    Game design you do not like does not make it a poor design.

  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKPosts: 8,522Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Snoepie

    hello noobies..

     

    Cya ingame.. when i slice you with my sword...

     

     

    You mean when your pixel avatar "moves" (just lights up to be precise) some pixels on the screen..... Slicing anything with a sword would actually require getting out of the computer chair and using muscles.

    just wanted to clear that up :)

    it is always amusing when people refer to pixels on screen as "I"

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,860Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by DarthRaiden

    They not only fight the Mob but fight also over the right to fight the mob  and loot it.  That puts another gameplay layer on top which is enrichment over an existant  feature.

    Might be rich but that does not imply it is desired by players...in fact, I would say it turns most of them off.

  • zimikezimike Dayton, TXPosts: 129Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by Niburu

    That is because the game was not very polished at release, no other reaosn than that. UW adresses these concern to a degree.


     

    So lack of security measures, exploits, heavy skill grind design, no safe zones driving people of the game, forced PVP, etc has nothing to do with it because there is a significant player base that want "features" I listed?

     

     

    You need to learn to lighten. Checking over many of your 5k posts, they are all negative. Are you just simply trolling? Your always bashing this and insulting that. It just seems like your ether A) Trolling and get a kick out of responses like this, or B) your live a very sad and depressing life. 

    Try to be a bit more positive. If you have something negative to say, perhaps bring up a couple positive points too :)

     

     

    Darkfall had many problems due to lack of funds and poor design in the beginning, but they managed to over come most of them. I'm sure any game that comes out will have exploits, so Darkfall certainly didn't create the patent for this behavior.

    Skill grind was heavy, but that changed a long time ago. Yes, I wish the grind would have been reduced greatly on release. This would have kept more people around.

    Forced PVP? Well kind of. Starter cities did offer some protection. Players could still attack you, but they would end up being zapped to death by the guard towers and you could take all their stuff. This only became tricky if you were in a clan at war with another. However, you didn't have to join a clan if you didn't want too. 

    I must agree with some points you have made, but most of these issues got fixed later. Hell, new players had protection they could enable for X amount of hours and no one could attack them at all.

     

     

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,860Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by zimike

    Try to be a bit more positive. If you have something negative to say, perhaps bring up a couple positive points too :)

    I am not negative, I am just realistic and reality can be depressing :)


    Darkfall is horrible game from design perspective. It consists of things that might look pretty on paper but do not work well in reality.


    Nothing really got fixed. The game is flawed deeply in core mechanics and design.


    It is trying to mix games such as War of Roses or Chivalry: Medieval Combat with traditional MMO attributes such as persistent world, character development, loot, crafting and grinding.

    Mixing 2 vastly different player archetypes in one large pot makes the experience unsatisfying for either targeted audience.

    Aventurine realize they do want and need more casual player base but are unable to adapt and stubbornly insist on hardcore PVP game design making only little compromises instead of taking radically different design approach.


    There is little hope for DF since Aventruine successfully choke their game to death.

  • DarthRaidenDarthRaiden gdfgfPosts: 4,333Member
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by zimike

    Try to be a bit more positive. If you have something negative to say, perhaps bring up a couple positive points too :)


     

    I am not negative, I am just realistic and reality can be depressing :)


    Darkfall is horrible game from design perspective. It consists of things that might look pretty on paper but do not work well in reality.


    Nothing really got fixed. The game is flawed deeply in core mechanics and design.


    It is trying to mix games such as War of Roses or Chivalry: Medieval Combat with traditional MMO attributes such as persistent world, character development, loot, crafting and grinding.

    Mixing 2 vastly different player archetypes in one large pot makes the experience unsatisfying for either targeted audience.

    Aventurine realize they do want and need more casual player base but are unable to adapt and stubbornly insist on hardcore PVP game design making only little compromises instead of taking radically different design approach.


    There is little hope for DF since Aventruine successfully choke their game to death.

     

     

    The "traditional" MMO genre has been invented with "hardcore PvP design" as an element.   The root for all persistant worlds is all playstyles mixed together.  just saying.

    What's new is the emphasis on action and FPP on the combat side of things.

    (Because AV and DF:UW can't keep tradional playstyles alive we need to wait for a succesfull attempt on this, tho. There already new attempts made to crate sandbox experinece with action combat sytle on the way)

     

    -----MY-TERMS-OF-USE--------------------------------------------------
    $OE - eternal enemy of online gaming
    -We finally WON !!!! 2011 $OE accepted that they have been fired 2005 by the playerbase and closed down ridiculous NGE !!

    "There was suppression of speech and all kinds of things between disturbing and fascistic." Raph Koster (parted $OE)

  • GdemamiGdemami Beau VallonPosts: 7,860Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by DarthRaiden

    The "traditional" MMO genre has been invented with "hardcore PvP design" as an element.   The root for all persistant worlds is all playstyles mixed together.  just saying.

    The keyword here is "element".

    In DF tho, it is a core design formula.


    And no, mixing all play styles together it is not the root of MMOS. That is why you have instances, battlegrounds, PVP on/off zones, etc.


    Smart developers try to accommodate - allow full, enjoyable experience of various play styles but that does not mean you mix them together, on the contrary that makes the gaming experience non-enjoyable for most.

  • Ice-QueenIce-Queen USA, GAPosts: 2,451Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by DavisFlight

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

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

     

    Tasos says, roughly,

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

     

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

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

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

     

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

     

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

     

    Glad to hear about no instancing and phasing, and well said DavisFlight.

    image

    What happens when you log off your characters????.....
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
    Dark Age of Camelot

  • xDayxxDayx St Charles, MOPosts: 712Member
    Originally posted by ste2000
    Originally posted by Schockey
    That is goodstuff! My friend and I left one of the last big titles because the instancing was so inconvenient and the load screens took away so much from immersion.

    To be honest, there are portals that get you inside the dungeon, but tecnically the dungeons are not instanced as everyone can get inside.

    Let's say AV is right in the middle an instanced and a non instanced dungeon

    Only seamless world is Vanguard  where dungeons are connected with the rest of the map with no portals

    Vanguard is not the only seamless world. Mortal Online, Wurm, Xsyon, ATITD, are all seamless, there may be a few others as well.

  • snapfusionsnapfusion San, CAPosts: 954Member
    Originally posted by Flex1

    If used perfectly instances can aid a mmo more than hurt it.

     

    I think Guild Wars 2 does it the way I would say perfectly fits the nature of instances. If you want story elements in your mmo add them.

    One reason I dont play guild wars 2 anymore is because of their instancing, so how is it perfect again?

  • DMKanoDMKano Gamercentral, AKPosts: 8,522Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by xDayx
     

    Vanguard is not the only seamless world. Mortal Online, Wurm, Xsyon, ATITD, are all seamless, there may be a few others as well.

    Vanguard wasn't exactly seamless - the game would pause when crossing region lines - it was very noticeable. Other games have managed to eliminate the loading pause.

  • sanshi44sanshi44 BrisbanePosts: 1,088Member Uncommon
    IMO games were so much better without instancing, the best times ive had have been i ngames that do not offer instances, that being Darkfall and Everquest 1 these 2 games have been th most memorable games ive played, i can still remember the entire map set up of Norrath even after the 8 years or so ive stopped playing for can name probaly 95% of the zones on releases and first couple expansions.
  • SnoepieSnoepie RotterdamPosts: 470Member

    i always like reading stuff here from people who never played the game..

     

    Keep discussing and bashing the game like your used too... fine by me... you never will understand why darkfall have such a strong community and dedication to the game..

  • kartoolkartool Hamilton, ONPosts: 472Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Arglebargle

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

     

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

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

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

     

  • AnirethAnireth Posts: 599Member Uncommon

    What he said was basically "we won't do instances..unless we do them after all". Wow, that was fast. Even politicians usually stand for what they said some days. " This is saying "maybe" without being blunt. "Getting it" is different, even if they end up not doing them.

    I'll wait to the day's end when the moon is high
    And then I'll rise with the tide with a lust for life, I'll
    Amass an army, and we'll harness a horde
    And then we'll limp across the land until we stand at the shore

  • DavisFlightDavisFlight Talahasee, FLPosts: 2,556Member
    Originally posted by kartool
    Originally posted by Arglebargle

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

     

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

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

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

     

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

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

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

  • DavisFlightDavisFlight Talahasee, FLPosts: 2,556Member
    Originally posted by DMKano

    So Eq1, UO, DAoC, basically any gen 1 MMORPG more than 10 years ago "got it" as none of them had instancing. 

    Need I mention that some like EQ1 were themeparks with no instances......

    My point is that having instances or not is not indicative of sandbox or themeparks, nor is it indicative of a good or bad game. It's just a technology that is all.

     

    No one is talking about themepark or sandbox. We're talking about good game design. Almost every MMO that relies on instances does so because they are poorly designed. Games that choose NOT to have instances take the high road and solve their problems through design, rather than hurting their players by half assing everything and then instancing it.

    It's a technology that is usually indicative of the skill level of the developers, and their game philosophy. Almost every MMO with heavy instancing has been poorly designed in some fashion.

  • DavisFlightDavisFlight Talahasee, FLPosts: 2,556Member
    Originally posted by Siveria

    Sadly they don't get that open world greif/gank fests won't survive in the mmo world of casuals.

    Considering they are one of the only successful and growing MMOs of the last 8 years, as is Eve, I'd say you're wrong.

    DAoC is still my favorite MMO, but this style is viable.

Sign In or Register to comment.