The shard is not limited to only one group or raid. Our current tests have shown that APW can accommodate in excess of 90 players and our goal number is around twice that. This number is something we hope to evaluate once we open APW on the test server.
How big is a "chunk" in Vanguard? 90 people doesn't sound like very much to overload an area. I recall doing at least twice that in EQ even before the expansions. I recall chuncks being pretty big size in area, but maybe this raid chunk is different? This quote just doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
Don't know...
Is it more intense for the servers, with raids where one can suspect that there are more traffic or other things going on in that chunk.
What is done serverside and what is done clientside when it comes to raiding and does this mean that a chunkserver with 10 people raiding is more stressed then a chunkserver with 10 just 'playing'?
Maybe it is a figure where they know that nothing will happen. Maybe there is more figures behind that let's speculate on:
90 - Doesn't make any difference on serverload.
120 - Makes a slightly difference
150 - Makes a noticible difference, but still playable.
180 - Still playable but in a less degree then on 150 ppl.
Maybe the goal is that the figure 180 ppl will be like 90 ppl. But for now they choosed 90 to be on the very very safe side, and in the future they will accomodate 180 and still be on the safe side. Just so they don't get 'lagflame' posts.
But one can go the road which was lead by those claiming that a chunk can't function more people then one or two. In that case 90 ppl is alot.
The shard is not limited to only one group or raid. Our current tests have shown that APW can accommodate in excess of 90 players and our goal number is around twice that. This number is something we hope to evaluate once we open APW on the test server.
How big is a "chunk" in Vanguard? 90 people doesn't sound like very much to overload an area. I recall doing at least twice that in EQ even before the expansions. I recall chuncks being pretty big size in area, but maybe this raid chunk is different? This quote just doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
The chunks are large, very large. But I read somewhere, that it's not just the number of people in a chunk, but the proximity of those people within the chunk that can cause issues. The chunks seem to be able to handle very large amounts of people. For example, you could have 60 people at the Phage in the Mgnlus Cave and it won't cause an issue. So for APW, they most be antcipating much, much more.
The shard is not limited to only one group or raid. Our current tests have shown that APW can accommodate in excess of 90 players and our goal number is around twice that. This number is something we hope to evaluate once we open APW on the test server.
How big is a "chunk" in Vanguard? 90 people doesn't sound like very much to overload an area. I recall doing at least twice that in EQ even before the expansions. I recall chuncks being pretty big size in area, but maybe this raid chunk is different? This quote just doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
The chunks are large, very large. But I read somewhere, that it's not just the number of people in a chunk, but the proximity of those people within the chunk that can cause issues. The chunks seem to be able to handle very large amounts of people. For example, you could have 60 people at the Phage in the Mgnlus Cave and it won't cause an issue. So for APW, they most be antcipating much, much more.
Im sure they are expecting a lot of people to hit APW. VG population is so top heavy its sad. So many bored lvl 50s.
Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. Lao-Tze
I don't see what the issue with this is -- it's not the first time zone overflow shards have been created. As mentioned, EQ2 does it as well as City of Heroes (although newer hardware and population decrease cause it to happen much less frequently). It's not true party-level instancing and it's not done to prtoect "carebears" so there shouldn't be any griping.
you guys are pushng this "zone overflow shards" thing as much as SOE pushed "New Game Experience" when people called it revamp 2.0 or doover2.0. They are instances no matter what you want to call them.
So quit trying to make it sound like less of a "back tracking" from NO INSTANCING..to just a few "zone overflow shards".. bah Im sure some PR person thought that up.
Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. Lao-Tze
I'm not sure I see what the whole point to this whole thread is. I mean ... the game has been out for a little under a year. It launched badly, its had issues with lag and everything else since beta (from what I hear of course alot of this is being worked out or already has). If they're doing something in order to keep performance in areas under contrl how can that be a bad thing? They're not instancing the entire game simplying newer areas that are meant to attract large groups (raids).
The game may of launched seamless but the idea that it can never have some sort of instancing is just ludacris in thinking (even eq1 has some instanced areas). I think if this was truely an issue that the community of vanguard was completely against we'd have an NGE style rebellion going on.
If Vanguard ever went completely overboard on the instancing then I'd agree that it sucks but when its meant as performance control in high pop or popular areas for large groups there really shouldnt' be a problem Chunk instancing is in my opinion as a player who's experienced the Vanguard / EQ2 high pop & resolution lag in the past and even witness the horrors of over crowding and waiting in lines for a mob (which just ruins immersion) from EQ1...instancing done right is a good thing. It makes the experience smoother and more enjoyable. There's no reason that all raid groups need to be in the same area at the same time waiting in line. Cuts down on griping, mob stealing, in fighting, and performance issues...all of which are good things to cut down on.
Please Refer to Doom Cat with all conspiracies & evil corporation complaints. He'll give you the simple explination of..WE"RE ALL DOOMED!
geez i didn't even think VG needed instancing.....its hard enough to even find other peeps to start a group
Nice try. Play recently?
yes I have, ....
so have I ....
Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny. Lao-Tze
If you are playing now (non-pvp, I know nothing about pvp pops), and you are saying you can't find a group.... well, I think simply don't believe that.
At lvl 50 or on any of my alts at various levels, grouping is cake. Even without lfg on, cold tells for group or random invites are a fairly common occurance. And at least in zones like Tet Harbor, Nusibe, Flordiel, the caves, Rahz it is undoubtably too crowded currently with all the lvl 50s piled up like a log jam waiting for APW and working on gearing up.
However, I am on Seradon and I understand Seradon is the most heavily populated. Perhaps Xeth or the others aren't as crowded. It seems a good population attracts new players and player transfers, such is the case with Seradon filling up.
From what I remembered the chunks where huge areas of the world, but wanted to make sure something didn't change. I imagine the chunks can hold more people than 90 and are indeed tracking more objects and activities than the raid zone. The only thing that makes sense is the number of packets that would need updating with that many people in proximity or some other data that must be tracked zonewide due to its raid nature? Maybe the client can't handle the traffic? I was just curious is all.
I am not complaining about Vanguard having instances (or not as some see it) as I don't really care to be honest.
heh, I remember 90 person Trak raids with a dial-up connection. Yikes.
LOL, Recall when Lady Vox would do her first deep breath and 20 people would go link dead from the combat spam. We had to bring half of the servers level 50's just to compensate for the link dead people.
If only we had known about changing the datarate parameter in the config file.... *shakes fist at Vox*
The shard is not limited to only one group or raid. Our current tests have shown that APW can accommodate in excess of 90 players and our goal number is around twice that. This number is something we hope to evaluate once we open APW on the test server.
How big is a "chunk" in Vanguard? 90 people doesn't sound like very much to overload an area. I recall doing at least twice that in EQ even before the expansions. I recall chuncks being pretty big size in area, but maybe this raid chunk is different? This quote just doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
Don't know...
Is it more intense for the servers, with raids where one can suspect that there are more traffic or other things going on in that chunk.
What is done serverside and what is done clientside when it comes to raiding and does this mean that a chunkserver with 10 people raiding is more stressed then a chunkserver with 10 just 'playing'?
Maybe it is a figure where they know that nothing will happen. Maybe there is more figures behind that let's speculate on:
90 - Doesn't make any difference on serverload.
120 - Makes a slightly difference
150 - Makes a noticible difference, but still playable.
180 - Still playable but in a less degree then on 150 ppl.
Maybe the goal is that the figure 180 ppl will be like 90 ppl. But for now they choosed 90 to be on the very very safe side, and in the future they will accomodate 180 and still be on the safe side. Just so they don't get 'lagflame' posts.
But one can go the road which was lead by those claiming that a chunk can't function more people then one or two. In that case 90 ppl is alot.
Another thing to keep in mind is that what the chunk is doing probably effects performance. If you are standing or running around that probably has a lot less impact on the chunk than if you are fighting. Also in APW the NPC are theoretically a lot smarter and have a number of scripted events. This might also increase the load on the chunk. So I don't think you can assess the capacity of a chunk simply based on the number of people in the zone...
Honestly, most people have no concept of the reality of the situation.
Firstly, its not instancing in the sense like WoW has private instances for dungeons.. we can agree on that point as a fact. But it is technically another instance of an area... big deal.
Second, the reality is that they are trying to get the game on its feet and hoping that adding some sort of raid content ( which i personally care less about anyways) would add something for folks who have been 50 for a while, which apparently there are lots of people in this category. So now imagine the day the patch the place in and everyone level 50 goes to check it out.. even low quality graphics games like WoW couldnt ever handle more than 75 people in an area at a time without massive lag. (remember the Gates of Ahn'Qiraj basically was a slide show for most people with crashes and what not)
Complaining that it breaks the idea of the "seamless world" is the stupidest thing I have heard yet, and I truely hope that the person harping on this aspect really does quit the game.
A month after the stupid raid area goes live and people have been there done that.. you'll probably not ever see a second spawning of the place anyways so you wouldnt even know it broke some fictional seamless world that was promissed and wah wah wah.. i want what is says on the box. Things change, learn to adapt or quit today.
Personally I'm really glad they did this. Without it APW woud have been a nightmare overloaded with people fighting it out for every inch. As it is it will still be contested and still have many people in it but it will be split to support a max number of people at a time. Frankly the zone cloning in eq2 was one of the best idea's for handling overload ever without taking the MMO out of the game.
What I don't like are private instances which in my opinion break the the immersiveness of the game by making it so you are no longer part of the world. Splitting chunks into multiple instances isn't really the same thing at all. I still feel like I'm in the world with all the other players and unless I really think about it can't even tell that there are multiple instances of the chunk I'm in.
I'm glad SOE had the guts to push this through in spite of the expected rain of negative comments from spectators to the game yelling that they went back on their word. I think the world is still seamless and that hasn't changes and is a destinction that is important when compared to zone/instance based games like most games in the past, eq, eq2, wow, etc.
So there it is, VG has instancing... Now we can move on. Good move Soe your players appreciate it.
Who expected anything different? This is yet another case of SOE doing the same old same old. In the grand scheme of things SOE is simply trying to deliver a playable game. It may not be as unique or innovative as the game Sigil had in mind, but that ship sailed long ago.
This isn't the first change SOE has made to the original "vision" of VG, and it certainly won't be the last.
It's a move in the right direction, something Sigil should've employed in the first place rather than foster the pipe dream of an eventual Advanced Encounter System to deal with issues of overcrowding and competition of content.
And that is what instancing is supposed to do, prevent overcrowding and guarantee a fair chance at content for everyone that wants to experience it. So for all of you that are attempting to split hairs about whether this is true instancing or not, or worse, if this is something better than WoW's use of instancing...give me a break.
It doesn't matter if it's quest indicators, mini-maps, instant world travel, easier experience curves, soul binding, rest experience, etc.; there's a lot of things Sigil/SOE has added to the game in only the past year, pre-launch and post-, that brings Vanguard's features up to date with 2nd generation MMOs. I'd hope for and expect more.
Hopefully SOE will improve upon this and be able to bring the level of instancing up to, well, 2nd generation MMO standards. It's a start though.
Raid Dungeons need to be instanced, you see, in EQ2 ( a game with a lot of raid dungeons ) in the weekends there are at least 5 different raid-groups in each raid door... what would happen if the area wasnt instanced? Think about the mess...Vanguard will have just one Raid Dungeon for a couple of months... can you imagine how many people would love to do it at the same time? Most of people that play only will have weekends to raid.
Raid Dungeons are very different than Raid creatures, usually they have a small story and quests, it is not possible to have fun in a non instanced complex Raid Dungeon with a story line and complex encounters.
I think it is time for gamers to play and enjoy Vanguard for what it is and not for what it is suposed to be...
What do you prefer , a really exciting raid ( did ever see the place ? ) instanced or a messed up simple raid with no loadings?
Some people here said that enjoys the game for the gameplay and immersion, well, one instance will change it? You can always keep yourself away from raids...
Most of people here dont even raid, trust me if someone is used to raid , this one would understand this choice...
Vanguard is a good game now, and I really dont understand why there is a need to always find something to hate about this game...
Vanguard does have a seamless world one raid , even 25 raids wont change it, to me honesty I do prefer a seamless world with some high quality instanced raids or even instanced small storylines than a seamless world without this kind of feature...
This is an extra, one more detail to a game that is already good and deep, not a nge.
Im sorry, if you think raids in L2 are better and deeper than EQ2 raids, well, we really need to agree in disagree....
I really think you are not used to real raid dunegons ...
For what I saw about this first deeper raid in Vanguard, I can say, it is even better than EQ2 ones, trust me, if you get excited about l2 raids, well, you should wait and experience APW.
Im not bashing L2 but the dungeon and raid content in this game are very simplistic, well, pve complexity is not the main focus there, and if you play the game, you know about this.
As I said before, this new feature will not cut anything from Vanguard, it will just add, the world still seamless.
Everything they could do without instances they did and they did it with quality, it is good to see they are trying to do everything good, you see, they could create a simplistic and not inspired raid dungeon just to fill the spot, but they did it in the best way, even with the possibility of criticism.
A lot of people in forums will always trash Vanguard for the bad release and it is funny to see what is happening, SOE is adding a pretty impressive experience in the game, but everyone prefer to see this as a nge or just a cut in seamless world feeling in the game.
So, either they address the performance impact of a crowded dungeon, or release an unplayable dungeon that the game's future is hinged upon. I see that many people here would rather see the game die than adopt instancing.
It's a move in the right direction, something Sigil should've employed in the first place rather than foster the pipe dream of an eventual Advanced Encounter System to deal with issues of overcrowding and competition of content. And that is what instancing is supposed to do, prevent overcrowding and guarantee a fair chance at content for everyone that wants to experience it. So for all of you that are attempting to split hairs about whether this is true instancing or not, or worse, if this is something better than WoW's use of instancing...give me a break. It doesn't matter if it's quest indicators, mini-maps, instant world travel, easier experience curves, soul binding, rest experience, etc.; there's a lot of things Sigil/SOE has added to the game in only the past year, pre-launch and post-, that brings Vanguard's features up to date with 2nd generation MMOs. I'd hope for and expect more. Hopefully SOE will improve upon this and be able to bring the level of instancing up to, well, 2nd generation MMO standards. It's a start though.
I couldn't disagree more. "fair" is not on the lips of hardcore gamers looking for a hardcore game. VG is advertise as being hardcore , now what you jjust said makes the game casual friendly and pretty much a care bear sklumber party ... I can't believe i'm even discussing this, it is just so annoying to be apart of an NGE title ,,,
Vanguard is no longer being advertised as a "hardcore" game. I don't think it has been in a long time. Really, McQuaid was the only person that ever preached that "hardcore" non-sense, while simultaneously saying the game was much as much for "core" and "casual" players...as if there exists a gamer that didn't meet either three of those criterias.
Anyway, sorry if you fell for that "hardcore" mess. There was nothing ever hardcore about Vanguard to me. There's no way to make any MMO any more "difficult" other than to increase timesinks, since challenge in MMOs is defined by how long it takes to do something and how many people are needed to do it.
As far as fair goes and hardcore gamers, you'd actually class any present content in Vanguard more hardcore than say Burning Crusade's attunement process and downing Illidan? I'd call something like that "fair" because every guild has a fair chance at completing the content; it's hardcore too given how much of a timesink it is for so many people.
Showing an above average patience for grinds and timesinks is all "hardcore" is. The featuresets incorporated into the timesinks don't really matter, but it helps if they get rid of unnecessary annoyances like overcrowding and unavailable content; which instancing conveniently does.
Comments
How big is a "chunk" in Vanguard? 90 people doesn't sound like very much to overload an area. I recall doing at least twice that in EQ even before the expansions. I recall chuncks being pretty big size in area, but maybe this raid chunk is different? This quote just doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
Don't know...
Is it more intense for the servers, with raids where one can suspect that there are more traffic or other things going on in that chunk.
What is done serverside and what is done clientside when it comes to raiding and does this mean that a chunkserver with 10 people raiding is more stressed then a chunkserver with 10 just 'playing'?
Maybe it is a figure where they know that nothing will happen. Maybe there is more figures behind that let's speculate on:
90 - Doesn't make any difference on serverload.
120 - Makes a slightly difference
150 - Makes a noticible difference, but still playable.
180 - Still playable but in a less degree then on 150 ppl.
Maybe the goal is that the figure 180 ppl will be like 90 ppl. But for now they choosed 90 to be on the very very safe side, and in the future they will accomodate 180 and still be on the safe side. Just so they don't get 'lagflame' posts.
But one can go the road which was lead by those claiming that a chunk can't function more people then one or two. In that case 90 ppl is alot.
I'm so broke. I can't even pay attention.
"You have the right not to be killed"
Nice try. Play recently?
How big is a "chunk" in Vanguard? 90 people doesn't sound like very much to overload an area. I recall doing at least twice that in EQ even before the expansions. I recall chuncks being pretty big size in area, but maybe this raid chunk is different? This quote just doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
The chunks are large, very large. But I read somewhere, that it's not just the number of people in a chunk, but the proximity of those people within the chunk that can cause issues. The chunks seem to be able to handle very large amounts of people. For example, you could have 60 people at the Phage in the Mgnlus Cave and it won't cause an issue. So for APW, they most be antcipating much, much more.
How big is a "chunk" in Vanguard? 90 people doesn't sound like very much to overload an area. I recall doing at least twice that in EQ even before the expansions. I recall chuncks being pretty big size in area, but maybe this raid chunk is different? This quote just doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
The chunks are large, very large. But I read somewhere, that it's not just the number of people in a chunk, but the proximity of those people within the chunk that can cause issues. The chunks seem to be able to handle very large amounts of people. For example, you could have 60 people at the Phage in the Mgnlus Cave and it won't cause an issue. So for APW, they most be antcipating much, much more.
Im sure they are expecting a lot of people to hit APW. VG population is so top heavy its sad. So many bored lvl 50s.
Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
Lao-Tze
I don't see what the issue with this is -- it's not the first time zone overflow shards have been created. As mentioned, EQ2 does it as well as City of Heroes (although newer hardware and population decrease cause it to happen much less frequently). It's not true party-level instancing and it's not done to prtoect "carebears" so there shouldn't be any griping.
you guys are pushng this "zone overflow shards" thing as much as SOE pushed "New Game Experience" when people called it revamp 2.0 or doover2.0. They are instances no matter what you want to call them.
So quit trying to make it sound like less of a "back tracking" from NO INSTANCING..to just a few "zone overflow shards".. bah Im sure some PR person thought that up.
Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
Lao-Tze
I'm not sure I see what the whole point to this whole thread is. I mean ... the game has been out for a little under a year. It launched badly, its had issues with lag and everything else since beta (from what I hear of course alot of this is being worked out or already has). If they're doing something in order to keep performance in areas under contrl how can that be a bad thing? They're not instancing the entire game simplying newer areas that are meant to attract large groups (raids).
The game may of launched seamless but the idea that it can never have some sort of instancing is just ludacris in thinking (even eq1 has some instanced areas). I think if this was truely an issue that the community of vanguard was completely against we'd have an NGE style rebellion going on.
If Vanguard ever went completely overboard on the instancing then I'd agree that it sucks but when its meant as performance control in high pop or popular areas for large groups there really shouldnt' be a problem Chunk instancing is in my opinion as a player who's experienced the Vanguard / EQ2 high pop & resolution lag in the past and even witness the horrors of over crowding and waiting in lines for a mob (which just ruins immersion) from EQ1...instancing done right is a good thing. It makes the experience smoother and more enjoyable. There's no reason that all raid groups need to be in the same area at the same time waiting in line. Cuts down on griping, mob stealing, in fighting, and performance issues...all of which are good things to cut down on.
Please Refer to Doom Cat with all conspiracies & evil corporation complaints. He'll give you the simple explination of..WE"RE ALL DOOMED!
Nice try. Play recently?
yes I have, ....
Nice try. Play recently?
yes I have, ....
so have I ....
Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
Lao-Tze
If you are playing now (non-pvp, I know nothing about pvp pops), and you are saying you can't find a group.... well, I think simply don't believe that.
At lvl 50 or on any of my alts at various levels, grouping is cake. Even without lfg on, cold tells for group or random invites are a fairly common occurance. And at least in zones like Tet Harbor, Nusibe, Flordiel, the caves, Rahz it is undoubtably too crowded currently with all the lvl 50s piled up like a log jam waiting for APW and working on gearing up.
However, I am on Seradon and I understand Seradon is the most heavily populated. Perhaps Xeth or the others aren't as crowded. It seems a good population attracts new players and player transfers, such is the case with Seradon filling up.
Thanks Orphes,
From what I remembered the chunks where huge areas of the world, but wanted to make sure something didn't change. I imagine the chunks can hold more people than 90 and are indeed tracking more objects and activities than the raid zone. The only thing that makes sense is the number of packets that would need updating with that many people in proximity or some other data that must be tracked zonewide due to its raid nature? Maybe the client can't handle the traffic? I was just curious is all.
I am not complaining about Vanguard having instances (or not as some see it) as I don't really care to be honest.
heh, I remember 90 person Trak raids with a dial-up connection. Yikes.
LOL, Recall when Lady Vox would do her first deep breath and 20 people would go link dead from the combat spam. We had to bring half of the servers level 50's just to compensate for the link dead people.
If only we had known about changing the datarate parameter in the config file.... *shakes fist at Vox*
"Freedom is just another name for nothing left to lose" - Janis Joplin
.jpg)
How big is a "chunk" in Vanguard? 90 people doesn't sound like very much to overload an area. I recall doing at least twice that in EQ even before the expansions. I recall chuncks being pretty big size in area, but maybe this raid chunk is different? This quote just doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
Don't know...
Is it more intense for the servers, with raids where one can suspect that there are more traffic or other things going on in that chunk.
What is done serverside and what is done clientside when it comes to raiding and does this mean that a chunkserver with 10 people raiding is more stressed then a chunkserver with 10 just 'playing'?
Maybe it is a figure where they know that nothing will happen. Maybe there is more figures behind that let's speculate on:
90 - Doesn't make any difference on serverload.
120 - Makes a slightly difference
150 - Makes a noticible difference, but still playable.
180 - Still playable but in a less degree then on 150 ppl.
Maybe the goal is that the figure 180 ppl will be like 90 ppl. But for now they choosed 90 to be on the very very safe side, and in the future they will accomodate 180 and still be on the safe side. Just so they don't get 'lagflame' posts.
But one can go the road which was lead by those claiming that a chunk can't function more people then one or two. In that case 90 ppl is alot.
Another thing to keep in mind is that what the chunk is doing probably effects performance. If you are standing or running around that probably has a lot less impact on the chunk than if you are fighting. Also in APW the NPC are theoretically a lot smarter and have a number of scripted events. This might also increase the load on the chunk. So I don't think you can assess the capacity of a chunk simply based on the number of people in the zone...
---
Ethion
Honestly, most people have no concept of the reality of the situation.
Firstly, its not instancing in the sense like WoW has private instances for dungeons.. we can agree on that point as a fact. But it is technically another instance of an area... big deal.
Second, the reality is that they are trying to get the game on its feet and hoping that adding some sort of raid content ( which i personally care less about anyways) would add something for folks who have been 50 for a while, which apparently there are lots of people in this category. So now imagine the day the patch the place in and everyone level 50 goes to check it out.. even low quality graphics games like WoW couldnt ever handle more than 75 people in an area at a time without massive lag. (remember the Gates of Ahn'Qiraj basically was a slide show for most people with crashes and what not)
Complaining that it breaks the idea of the "seamless world" is the stupidest thing I have heard yet, and I truely hope that the person harping on this aspect really does quit the game.
A month after the stupid raid area goes live and people have been there done that.. you'll probably not ever see a second spawning of the place anyways so you wouldnt even know it broke some fictional seamless world that was promissed and wah wah wah.. i want what is says on the box. Things change, learn to adapt or quit today.
Personally I'm really glad they did this. Without it APW woud have been a nightmare overloaded with people fighting it out for every inch. As it is it will still be contested and still have many people in it but it will be split to support a max number of people at a time. Frankly the zone cloning in eq2 was one of the best idea's for handling overload ever without taking the MMO out of the game.
What I don't like are private instances which in my opinion break the the immersiveness of the game by making it so you are no longer part of the world. Splitting chunks into multiple instances isn't really the same thing at all. I still feel like I'm in the world with all the other players and unless I really think about it can't even tell that there are multiple instances of the chunk I'm in.
I'm glad SOE had the guts to push this through in spite of the expected rain of negative comments from spectators to the game yelling that they went back on their word. I think the world is still seamless and that hasn't changes and is a destinction that is important when compared to zone/instance based games like most games in the past, eq, eq2, wow, etc.
So there it is, VG has instancing... Now we can move on. Good move Soe your players appreciate it.
---
Ethion
Who expected anything different? This is yet another case of SOE doing the same old same old. In the grand scheme of things SOE is simply trying to deliver a playable game. It may not be as unique or innovative as the game Sigil had in mind, but that ship sailed long ago.
This isn't the first change SOE has made to the original "vision" of VG, and it certainly won't be the last.
It's a move in the right direction, something Sigil should've employed in the first place rather than foster the pipe dream of an eventual Advanced Encounter System to deal with issues of overcrowding and competition of content.
And that is what instancing is supposed to do, prevent overcrowding and guarantee a fair chance at content for everyone that wants to experience it. So for all of you that are attempting to split hairs about whether this is true instancing or not, or worse, if this is something better than WoW's use of instancing...give me a break.
It doesn't matter if it's quest indicators, mini-maps, instant world travel, easier experience curves, soul binding, rest experience, etc.; there's a lot of things Sigil/SOE has added to the game in only the past year, pre-launch and post-, that brings Vanguard's features up to date with 2nd generation MMOs. I'd hope for and expect more.
Hopefully SOE will improve upon this and be able to bring the level of instancing up to, well, 2nd generation MMO standards. It's a start though.
"Freedom is just another name for nothing left to lose" - Janis Joplin
.jpg)
Im sorry, but there is a mistake here...
Raid Dungeons need to be instanced, you see, in EQ2 ( a game with a lot of raid dungeons ) in the weekends there are at least 5 different raid-groups in each raid door... what would happen if the area wasnt instanced? Think about the mess...Vanguard will have just one Raid Dungeon for a couple of months... can you imagine how many people would love to do it at the same time? Most of people that play only will have weekends to raid.
Raid Dungeons are very different than Raid creatures, usually they have a small story and quests, it is not possible to have fun in a non instanced complex Raid Dungeon with a story line and complex encounters.
I think it is time for gamers to play and enjoy Vanguard for what it is and not for what it is suposed to be...
What do you prefer , a really exciting raid ( did ever see the place ? ) instanced or a messed up simple raid with no loadings?
Some people here said that enjoys the game for the gameplay and immersion, well, one instance will change it? You can always keep yourself away from raids...
Most of people here dont even raid, trust me if someone is used to raid , this one would understand this choice...
Vanguard is a good game now, and I really dont understand why there is a need to always find something to hate about this game...
Vanguard does have a seamless world one raid , even 25 raids wont change it, to me honesty I do prefer a seamless world with some high quality instanced raids or even instanced small storylines than a seamless world without this kind of feature...
This is an extra, one more detail to a game that is already good and deep, not a nge.
..............................................................................................
"Freedom is just another name for nothing left to lose" - Janis Joplin
.jpg)
Im sorry, if you think raids in L2 are better and deeper than EQ2 raids, well, we really need to agree in disagree....
I really think you are not used to real raid dunegons ...
For what I saw about this first deeper raid in Vanguard, I can say, it is even better than EQ2 ones, trust me, if you get excited about l2 raids, well, you should wait and experience APW.
Im not bashing L2 but the dungeon and raid content in this game are very simplistic, well, pve complexity is not the main focus there, and if you play the game, you know about this.
As I said before, this new feature will not cut anything from Vanguard, it will just add, the world still seamless.
Everything they could do without instances they did and they did it with quality, it is good to see they are trying to do everything good, you see, they could create a simplistic and not inspired raid dungeon just to fill the spot, but they did it in the best way, even with the possibility of criticism.
A lot of people in forums will always trash Vanguard for the bad release and it is funny to see what is happening, SOE is adding a pretty impressive experience in the game, but everyone prefer to see this as a nge or just a cut in seamless world feeling in the game.
.
So, either they address the performance impact of a crowded dungeon, or release an unplayable dungeon that the game's future is hinged upon. I see that many people here would rather see the game die than adopt instancing.
I couldn't disagree more. "fair" is not on the lips of hardcore gamers looking for a hardcore game. VG is advertise as being hardcore , now what you jjust said makes the game casual friendly and pretty much a care bear sklumber party ... I can't believe i'm even discussing this, it is just so annoying to be apart of an NGE title ,,,
Vanguard is no longer being advertised as a "hardcore" game. I don't think it has been in a long time. Really, McQuaid was the only person that ever preached that "hardcore" non-sense, while simultaneously saying the game was much as much for "core" and "casual" players...as if there exists a gamer that didn't meet either three of those criterias.Anyway, sorry if you fell for that "hardcore" mess. There was nothing ever hardcore about Vanguard to me. There's no way to make any MMO any more "difficult" other than to increase timesinks, since challenge in MMOs is defined by how long it takes to do something and how many people are needed to do it.
As far as fair goes and hardcore gamers, you'd actually class any present content in Vanguard more hardcore than say Burning Crusade's attunement process and downing Illidan? I'd call something like that "fair" because every guild has a fair chance at completing the content; it's hardcore too given how much of a timesink it is for so many people.
Showing an above average patience for grinds and timesinks is all "hardcore" is. The featuresets incorporated into the timesinks don't really matter, but it helps if they get rid of unnecessary annoyances like overcrowding and unavailable content; which instancing conveniently does.