It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
There are other ways to achieve that goal without splintering the population of the world. You have to weigh in the balance whether the goal is ultimately cooperative play, socialization, and the integrity of the virtual world/immersion, rather than the integrity of challenge. If challenge is more important, which in some games it obviously is, there are ways to address that long before instancing. I don't think this is the case with Pantheon, however.Distopia said:This really depends on a lot of factors, like how instancing is handled, why it's implemented being most important. If it's to preserve the integrity of content, it is beneficial, not cancerous. It also greatly depends on how much actual content is available, the size of zones, as well as how many players are actively playing.Dullahan said:
1. No, they do not need instances. You cannot even compare classic EQ or Pantheon to the abomination that is Agnarr. They have upwards of 20k characters (not players) crammed on a single server designed for roughly 2,000, permitted they are spread across all level ranges. More like 1,000 if everyone is around the same level (hence the reason why all content is so heavily contested with only 1k people online on p99).
7. Instancing is cancer. Placing 10x the capacity of a server into one server is not at all representative of how things existed in EQ live, nor how it would work in Pantheon.
A good example of this is the Corvette in SWG, it was the only real challenging place to experience in SWG (at it's peak), because it was the only "dungeon" that wasn't open. Everything else was typically over run, so those places offered little in the way of challenge. The Corvette's existence didn't ruin anything in the open world either, it didn't hurt socialization, it didn't remove too many players from the world.
This is using instancing smartly, to preserve the integrity of the dungeon's challenges.
Nostalgia is the argument of the feeble-minded when someone likes something they do not. None of the things I've posted have anything to do with when games were made. I've played the new, and I've played the old. Games revolving around accommodating the player and making the experience convenient have all, outside of one outlier, been poor performers that people mostly abandon after a few months.Distopia said:
Your argument is also why a lot of people bring up the nostalgia word. Because most of it is centered around how EQ was at a time when MMORPGs were in their infancy, there was little progress in the way of trial and error at that point. So you're judging how players approached something before they experienced other ways, in some cases better ways.There's also the problem of taking a snapshot of a game at a certain point and saying it was best because of "this", when it could have been a number of other variables that had nothing to do with that. Like there not being many other options, so people dealt with the way things were then...
The contested content idea can be very problematic for a number of reasons. Chief among them being keeping !everyone! entertained. Not just those in large active guilds or the top damage dealers. Ever played a game on the first day of open beta? Not so fun usually is it? Why? Because every where you go everything is dead. That's the ugly side of contested content in a nutshell..