Riahuf22 said: For as long as the world is as big as they say it will be match with population into a server is met I see no problem, but this is probably very hard to do, but if they get it right many problems will be solved naturally, but if not open world would work against itself. Let's just hope they get it right that's all I got to say
The server population is an important thing. I played on EQs Test server and the populations were far less than that of the production servers. I would say, at times the Test server was a bit barren (initially, over time it picked up), but to be honest I had the most enjoyment of a game in Test than I ever did on the production servers are even the Legends server. It had a small amount of players for release (It reached 800-1000 before it was wiped compared to the production servers which were several thousand at a time). To some, this was way to small, they needed to enter a zone and have 100's of people present, where at every turn, ever approach there were numerous people contesting content.
I do not like such. I like smaller populations. I don't mind contested content, I just don't like fast food based content where there are lines everywhere to obtain a goal. This as I say, was why I liked Test Server in EQ. It was large enough that you had player balance, contested areas, and intereaction, community and individual recognization, but not too large where you were just a cog in a massive clock of wheels.
This is the important balance I think.
I really wish people would stop looking at 'instancing' through the prism of previous games, like it can't be anything but evil and is the downfall of the genre, nay humanity!
If a zone gets over-populated such that night after night it is rammed full of players arguing and struggling to get any kind of fun camps or crawls going then if the game spins up another instance of that zone to alleviate the crush it won't cause the world to end, game or real.
I know in EQ periodic zone overpopulation (not whole server) was a problem again and again and it did not make me think "Oh, wow, this feels so real! I'm loving this open world experience!" There's nothing like queueing up to kill monsters and squabbling over who gets to wait for which monsters to ping into existence to make a game immersive. Hmm, shall I wait for other players to leave so I can have fun or should I travel for 30 minutes to another zone of my level only to find that one is overpopulated too and have to wait there or come back etc. Yes, that did happen - often. Some nights could be a lengthy circuit of travelling from camp to camp, zone to zone looking for a spot and ending up soloing trash.
I know some have convinced themselves they just can't be used well in any form, like any kind of auction or fast travel or whatever. *shrug* I hope VR aren't just discarding possibilities out of hand because they have some noisy historic opposition.
disposalist said:I really wish people would stop looking at 'instancing' through the prism of previous games, like it can't be anything but evil and is the downfall of the genre, nay humanity!
If a zone gets over-populated such that night after night it is rammed full of players arguing and struggling to get any kind of fun camps or crawls going then if the game spins up another instance of that zone to alleviate the crush it won't cause the world to end, game or real.
Nope, sharding is an awful, baby out with the bathwater solution. You immediately cut in half the meaning of that entire piece of content by doubling its instances. It is, however, incumbent upon the dev team to produce enough content to reasonably match the server demographics.
disposalist said:I know in EQ periodic zone overpopulation (not whole server) was a problem again and again and it did not make me think "Oh, wow, this feels so real! I'm loving this open world experience!" There's nothing like queueing up to kill monsters and squabbling over who gets to wait for which monsters to ping into existence to make a game immersive. Hmm, shall I wait for other players to leave so I can have fun or should I travel for 30 minutes to another zone of my level only to find that one is overpopulated too and have to wait there or come back etc. Yes, that did happen - often. Some nights could be a lengthy circuit of travelling from camp to camp, zone to zone looking for a spot and ending up soloing trash.
Classic EQ was a small game. There were 2 high end leveling zones that mattered, and that was a failure of the dev team. Putting Permafrost and Kedge at the far ends of the world AND making their loot significantly worse than Sol B and Lower Guk was a design mistake. They need to improve in this regard.
disposalist said:I know some have convinced themselves they just can't be used well in any form, like any kind of auction or fast travel or whatever. *shrug* I hope VR aren't just discarding possibilities out of hand because they have some noisy historic opposition.
This is a really insulting statement and you're tallying up those logical fallacies as well. The entire point of this game is to do it differently than has been done for the last 15+ years. I don't get why people come here and argue against the core values of the game because they have convinced themselves they can't be used well.
Keno Monster said:disposalist said:I really wish people would stop looking at 'instancing' through the prism of previous games, like it can't be anything but evil and is the downfall of the genre, nay humanity!
If a zone gets over-populated such that night after night it is rammed full of players arguing and struggling to get any kind of fun camps or crawls going then if the game spins up another instance of that zone to alleviate the crush it won't cause the world to end, game or real.
Nope, sharding is an awful, baby out with the bathwater solution. You immediately cut in half the meaning of that entire piece of content by doubling its instances. It is, however, incumbent upon the dev team to produce enough content to reasonably match the server demographics.
disposalist said:I know in EQ periodic zone overpopulation (not whole server) was a problem again and again and it did not make me think "Oh, wow, this feels so real! I'm loving this open world experience!" There's nothing like queueing up to kill monsters and squabbling over who gets to wait for which monsters to ping into existence to make a game immersive. Hmm, shall I wait for other players to leave so I can have fun or should I travel for 30 minutes to another zone of my level only to find that one is overpopulated too and have to wait there or come back etc. Yes, that did happen - often. Some nights could be a lengthy circuit of travelling from camp to camp, zone to zone looking for a spot and ending up soloing trash.
Classic EQ was a small game. There were 2 high end leveling zones that mattered, and that was a failure of the dev team. Putting Permafrost and Kedge at the far ends of the world AND making their loot significantly worse than Sol B and Lower Guk was a design mistake. They need to improve in this regard.
disposalist said:I know some have convinced themselves they just can't be used well in any form, like any kind of auction or fast travel or whatever. *shrug* I hope VR aren't just discarding possibilities out of hand because they have some noisy historic opposition.
This is a really insulting statement and you're tallying up those logical fallacies as well. The entire point of this game is to do it differently than has been done for the last 15+ years. I don't get why people come here and argue against the core values of the game because they have convinced themselves they can't be used well.
*2 , you would have been thinking are these thread being create by other company'spy just to mess up this game's direction , like those internet army from china lol
if the developers are reading these worthless instance vs open world post plz disregard it and simply just delete thread
an open world zone crowded with different kinds of people and group were what makes everquest so addicitve , so much action interaction around with everyone, the gameplay experience was unique and organic ,
Wow guys. Just because people think limited instancing might be ok doesn't make them trolls or people out to destroy Pantheon. They simply have differing opinions. If that makes you so angry that you have to get defensive and attack them for what they say, maybe you need to take a step back for a while. Or do you want for people to think the Pantheon community is full of a bunch of toxic people who can't look past their own biases and prejudices to actually consider that folks might have different viewpoints?
I still say it's too early to know whether overpopulation will be a problem or not. There are so many aspects of the game that are simply not set for launch yet. Yes, we've all watched the streams - but what you have seen in the streams is pre-alpha. We should expect it to change. After all, that's sort of the point of testing.
With that said, I have absolutely no problem if there's limited sharding of zones strictly based on overpopulation, if that's something that VR thinks is needed for launch. Is it a perfect solution? No. But it's preferable to trying to cram too many players into the same place at the same time. I hope that it's not needed, but if it is, you won't see me arguing against it just because of some stupid principles or idealism. And I would hope that most rational people would be willing to accept it in that case as well.
That's my personal opinion. People can agree or not, and that's cool. We're not the ones making the game, and we're not the ones who will have to make the call on this when the time comes. We should remember that.
Nephele said:Wow guys. Just because people think limited instancing might be ok doesn't make them trolls or people out to destroy Pantheon. They simply have differing opinions. If that makes you so angry that you have to get defensive and attack them for what they say, maybe you need to take a step back for a while. Or do you want for people to think the Pantheon community is full of a bunch of toxic people who can't look past their own biases and prejudices to actually consider that folks might have different viewpoints?
I still say it's too early to know whether overpopulation will be a problem or not. There are so many aspects of the game that are simply not set for launch yet. Yes, we've all watched the streams - but what you have seen in the streams is pre-alpha. We should expect it to change. After all, that's sort of the point of testing.
With that said, I have absolutely no problem if there's limited sharding of zones strictly based on overpopulation, if that's something that VR thinks is needed for launch. Is it a perfect solution? No. But it's preferable to trying to cram too many players into the same place at the same time. I hope that it's not needed, but if it is, you won't see me arguing against it just because of some stupid principles or idealism. And I would hope that most rational people would be willing to accept it in that case as well.
That's my personal opinion. People can agree or not, and that's cool. We're not the ones making the game, and we're not the ones who will have to make the call on this when the time comes. We should remember that.
This is really hilarious considering the attitude of the people who agree with you. You're cherry picking the "toxic" posts and ignoring the overtly toxic ones that happen to align with your opinion. And you're right, we're not making the game, so why are people like you fighting tooth and nail for something that has been stated dozens of times won't be a thing? Isn't that toxic?
Ok, so we are all passionate about Pantheon, but there's no need see these discussions as a 'fight'.
I apologise if my comments about people seeming intransigent offends, but it does seem some have opinions that are utterly intractable.
I'm not demanding they are wrong and I am right - just giving my opinion and hoping it is discussed or at least tolerated. One thing that I believe *is* wrong, in a discussion forum, is to attempt to suppress others' opinions by derision, brow-beating or even causing discord that would get a thread shut down.
Now I know these are not classic discussion forums, they are development forums, so I don't doubt Kilsin might well shut this down as it's been discussed (and argued about) many times, but new members will happen along (hopefully) and want to talk about these things (this is a good thing) and I, for one, hope we can perhaps point them at previous threads, perhaps briefly give our opinion, if we think it might be helpful (allowing that there are - and even presenting - multiple sides to the argument is probably most helpful), and move on.
To get back to the thread...
What I call 'periodic' overpopulation isn't something that can be easily solved or avoided. In a server that has 'healthy' levels of population and, assuming we don't shift people from server to server often, there will be zones and level ranges that have surges. Someone mentioned two zones above in EQ, I actually had in mind three or four different ones. The reason is, it varied over time and server to server, it wasn't just about bad design.
I would suggest you can't have a 'healthy' population level - avoiding zones getting too quiet - without the opposite: zones *sometimes* getting overpopulated.
Though it would be great! I don't see VR building so much content that there is always spare/empty capacity. One answer that isn't available in road building is to spin up another 'road' when one becomes too busy. If only.
If that starts to happen regularly then you look at making another server or transferring characters where that level range isn't overpopulated, but you completely solve the problem of overpopulation in the meantime.
All I'm saying is, to disregard the option of some types of instancing just because the whole argument has blown up and become touchy might be to suffer some situations without good reason.
When zones get overpopulated, you are already in a bad situation. Is instancing really going to make it worse if used in a limited, temporary and controlled manner?
Maybe you restrict it to beginner zones? Maybe some places are intended to be 'contentious' and will never have it? Maybe you can opt out of instancing if you would prefer to accept crowds?
It doesn't have to be done like it's always been done. Something like WoW Wrath of the Lich King style Dungeon Finder grouping and teleporting to instances and back was, indeed, awful for the genre, in my opinion, but avoiding overpopulation with zone sharding is massively different and doesn't even have to be done like it has been before.
At least in this thread it looks like we are fairly evenly split with some that I didn’t feel comfortable putting in either camp from their responses in this thread alone.
Vehemently against any form of instancing
1 Keno Monster, 2 henrycc265, 3 oneADseven, 4 EppE, 5 Ziegfried, 6 Syrif, 7 stellarmind, 8 Greenkrak2 (advocating poopsock eww), 9 Chogar, 10 MauvaisOeil, 11 Caine
Considers instancing of one form or another as a tool that can be used
1 Trasak, 2 disposalist, 3 Grimseethe?, 4 Nephele, 5 Riahuf22(at great need), 6 Khendall, 7 Fragile, 8 dorotea, 9 Evade, 10 Mayceus, 11 DracoKalen
Couldn’t tell for certain but I think against from past posts
1 Raidan, 2 Tanix, 3 SoWplz, 4 philo
Couldn’t tell for certain but I think open to using limit instancing from past posts
1 Valorous1, 2 Manouk
*edit* removed pointless sentence*end edit*
Obi-Wan: Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
I think what we are really dealing with here is that we have a different point of view of what is enjoyable and what contributes to that experience. There is also the difference between recreation and relaxation and what we are hoping our play times will be like. Recreation usually involves some form of striving against a goal simply for the pleasure of it. Relaxation is usually actually a period of time where you set your goals aside and just recharge.
Pure Open world is very much a recreation environment, not that you can’t find ways to relax but its more conducive to recreation.
Conversely instances can reduce the amount of competition which can make the same experience less goal oriented and more relaxing. Not that those of us who might be looking at Pantheon to be more of a form of relaxation do not have in game goals.
There is even an argument that all games by nature are a mixture recreation add relaxation. Paintball and PvP are hard on the recreation side. Surfing and arranging the objects in your player housing to look just right would be far on the relaxation side. Rock climbing and dungeon crawling with a group of friends are more in the middle with the difficulty of the climb and dungeon dictating which side it leans.
This is one of those good times to take a step back and try and examine your motivations and interests then remember that other people may not share your motivations or interests. That does not make their opinion wrong, just different. Calling someone’s opinion a “logical fallacy” is rude and dismissive of another person. We should all be striving not to dismiss other people’s opinions simply because they are different from our own.
P.S. If I put someone in the wrong category feel free to let me know and I’ll move my list around.
Well put, Trasak.
There is bound to be disagreement - there are some very different wants and needs from this community - and many theories about what has 'ruined' the genre - but I'm confident Pantheon won't do anything so badly wrong that any of us can't bear it and will do a lot that we all love.
In the meantime, I'm happy to discuss all aspects no matter our differences.
You're observations re. recreation and relaxation are very valid and what some find recreation and relaxation will differ.
My missus cannot understand how I can play Battlefield before I go to bed, but I find it quite relaxing! Whereas I find PvP and contention in MMORPGs quite the opposite. *shrug* I know that's weird, but that's how I am ;^)
Instancing. Contention. Trading. Fast travel. Maps. Third party tools. Etc. Pick any of these and you might expect disagreement, but I hope we can realise *because* it's expected and understandable, it should be tolerable or even healthy.
Trasak said:At least in this thread it looks like we are fairly evenly split with some that I didn’t feel comfortable putting in either camp from their responses in this thread alone.
Vehemently against any form of instancing
1 Keno Monster, 2 henrycc265, 3 oneADseven, 4 EppE, 5 Ziegfried, 6 Syrif, 7 stellarmind, 8 Greenkrak2 (advocating poopsock eww), 9 Chogar, 10 MauvaisOeil, 11 Caine
Considers instancing of one form or another as a tool that can be used
1 Trasak, 2 disposalist, 3 Grimseethe?, 4 Nephele, 5 Riahuf22(at great need), 6 Khendall, 7 Fragile, 8 dorotea, 9 Evade, 10 Mayceus, 11 DracoKalen
Couldn’t tell for certain but I think against from past posts
1 Raidan, 2 Tanix, 3 SoWplz, 4 philo
Couldn’t tell for certain but I think open to using limit instancing from past posts
1 Valorous1, 2 Manouk
Also from past threads I would say that for the most part the two groups usually are on the opposite sides of many threads and we rarely agree so I guess its no surprise that we are not agreeing in this thread either. Sometimes one or the other of us will jump sides but pretty rarely as I think our perspectives and experiences are pretty different.
Obi-Wan: Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
I think what we are really dealing with here is that we have a different point of view of what is enjoyable and what contributes to that experience. There is also the difference between recreation and relaxation and what we are hoping our play times will be like. Recreation usually involves some form of striving against a goal simply for the pleasure of it. Relaxation is usually actually a period of time where you set your goals aside and just recharge.
Pure Open world is very much a recreation environment, not that you can’t find ways to relax but its more conducive to recreation.
Conversely instances can reduce the amount of competition which can make the same experience less goal oriented and more relaxing. Not that those of us who might be looking at Pantheon to be more of a form of relaxation do not have in game goals.
There is even an argument that all games by nature are a mixture recreation add relaxation. Paintball and PvP are hard on the recreation side. Surfing and arranging the objects in your player housing to look just right would be far on the relaxation side. Rock climbing and dungeon crawling with a group of friends are more in the middle with the difficulty of the climb and dungeon dictating which side it leans.
This is one of those good times to take a step back and try and examine your motivations and interests then remember that other people may not share your motivations or interests. That does not make their opinion wrong, just different. Calling someone’s opinion a “logical fallacy” is rude and dismissive of another person. We should all be striving not to dismiss other people’s opinions simply because they are different from our own.
P.S. If I put someone in the wrong category feel free to let me know and I’ll move my list around.
Lol at great need? Clearly stated i wasn't saying completely for sharding, and said only during launch, and also said if they match the size of the world with the amount of people they allow pre server than the problems will be solved naturally, so honestly if anything I have been on the middle ground of things and notchoice in a side but that's oki
@Riahuff22
Yeah, kept going back and forth if I should have put you off to the side or not. I put the (at great need) as a way to indicate you were not universally for sharding but considered it as a possible tool at launch to smooth out the over crowding. Should I change (at great need) to (only at launch to prevent overcrowding) or create an undecided catagory? I realize now that even my lists had my bias of basically being those Vehemently against any form of instancing and everyone else so I put you in the everyone else catagory.
I was correctly put in the camp that supports some form of sharding or instancing as a "tool that can be used". This post is to give a brief summary of why I am in that camp.
I feel that sharding is not a good general approach at all - it separates the community and makes it too easy to do certain things by going from shard to shard to shard until you find what you want. But I feel equally that it *is* a good temporary way to deal with temporary overcrowding at launch - far better than having extra servers which will then become underpopulated. Caveat - this does not mean I disagree with VR when they say they do not plan on using shards. I withhold opinion until I see how they intend to handle the situation.
I feel that instancing is overall a poor way to run a game. It separates the community and makes many things too easy. But I feel equally that it is a good way to solve certain problems. Problems like how to tell a story without other players getting in the way. I know this isn't a story-driven game but I hope it will have stories and if some of them call for a player to do or see things that can best be done or seen without interference instances are a good way to do it. This is *not* the type of instance that has some of us so adamantly opposed - it is closer to a FFXIV cut scene in some ways. But it is a type of instance and I see a good use for it.
But I also see a use for the type of instance that some of us *are* adamantly opposed to if done in great moderation. An occasional dungeon or raid where the developers can design it for precisely the size group or raid that is allowed in. A boss or drop that is needed to progress to other areas if things work that way in Pantheon. Players should not be prevented for weeks or months from seeing entire zones or other areas of great importance because they are not in one of the leading guilds that may attempt to monopolize certain content.
But do I want most Pantheon dungeons or raids instanced? No. Maybe a handful at most. And not the large sprawling dungeons that often had multiple groups in them in EQ. Either much smaller dungeons or maybe just the boss room at the end of the large sprawling dungeon. Since an ....aggressive ....guild can monopolize a boss but can't really keep other people from getting to the bottom where the boss spawns. Unless getting there requires killing *other* bosses, of course, and they monopolize *all* the bosses - much harder to do.
And where the boss is needed for some key or other means of getting to a new area - note that *this* is my concern not the loot the boss may drop - why not one "real world" boss at the bottom but also one instanced boss in a separate room that does not drop any loot - just the key so that progress can *not* be prevented by one or more guilds however much they may try to hog the loot.
@dorotea
Ohh, I never really thought of using instances as a means of having challenging encounters for the purposes of flagging. That would have made PoP 100 times more interesting if you could trigger a no-loot boss to get flagged for the next zone. If you want the loot you still need to find them in the open world but if you just want access to the zone then proving that you can defeat the boss is all that is needed.
The using instances for flagging would also be a way to ensure that it IS difficult. You can set the max group size, max level (with the option to suppress your level through the mentor system), item quality and even group composition if there is a thematic reason too.
In game it could be more like stages in a gladiator arena possibly even with a transparent wall where people can watch but not participate. I really think this is a good example of one of the ways instancing can enrich an open world game rather than conflict with it.
That very same thing can be accomplished without instancing by utilizing the ghost mechanic from Vanguard. Content denial as a term doesn't need to exist in Pantheon. VR can assign "accessible values" to any piece of content they want in the open world. If they want something to be 100% contested, that's easily done. If they want it to be 100% accessible, same deal. If they want it to fall anywhere in between that range ... easy peasy!
My point was and is that I think it unwise to rule out sharding or instancing as a matter of principle.
They are tools. When they do the job better than other tools - use them. When they do not .....do not.
If VR solves every problem in a different way I will be delighted. If VR leaves a problem to fester because they object in principle to the tool that would have fixed it I will be less delighted.
Honestly my main concern about instancing is neither content lockout, item influx or whatever very long term goals than can, or can't, be problems after all.
It's mainly because sharing a world and a server should not, to me, be hindered by virtual shards, instances and such. Going to X place on my server I expect to cross any players at this X place and not having to be invited in parties, guilds, raids or whatever.
I also would not like dungeon areas to be limited to 6 (or less) players because it makes great sightseeing than can be usefull for an infinite way of Mastering roleplay events, and beeing limited to open world areas is quite like paying for content you can't access outside of driven rails.
again: a big fat NO to sharding and instances. We need an open-world game, and MORE diversity of mmorpgs in the market than what currently exists. #communitymatters #makenightmatteragain
Trasak said:
Also from past threads I would say that for the most part the two groups usually are on the opposite sides of many threads and we rarely agree so I guess its no surprise that we are not agreeing in this thread either. Sometimes one or the other of us will jump sides but pretty rarely as I think our perspectives and experiences are pretty different.
Obi-Wan: Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
I think what we are really dealing with here is that we have a different point of view of what is enjoyable and what contributes to that experience. There is also the difference between recreation and relaxation and what we are hoping our play times will be like. Recreation usually involves some form of striving against a goal simply for the pleasure of it. Relaxation is usually actually a period of time where you set your goals aside and just recharge.
I appreciate what you're trying to say here Trasak, but I think that plugging people into "camps" is doing them a disservice. We have far more in common than we do not, even if some of the flashpoint discussions on these forums make it seem otherwise.
Case in point: In your list, you have me in hard opposition to oneADseven. That's not really the case. oneAD and I talk quite often and I have a lot of respect for his thoughts and opinions, as I believe he does for mine. We don't always agree completely on everything, but typically where we disagree, it's on nuance and detail. In many past discussions he has challenged me to think about things from a different perspective, and I'd like to think that I've done the same for him.
That's what community is about. I get frustrated when I see people being overly combative or attacking each other because that behavior accomplishes nothing. And yes, people are guilty of that on both sides of this debate (as well as others). But it possible to understand why folks take a different position even when we disagree with that position. It's possible to ask clarifying questions to understand the goals that someone is trying to achieve, instead of telling them that their idea is wrong. It's possible to take everyone's thoughts into account and to try and offer up new ideas as potential solutions, and it's possible for people to admit that even their own preferred approach has downsides, all without "giving in" to "the other side". Everyone just needs to approach the topic with the right mindset.
I appreciate rational discourse and well thought-out opinions. I wish more people would post those instead of attacking each other.
Look, here's an example of what I wish more people would do (thanks Mauvais!) :)
MauvaisOeil said:Honestly my main concern about instancing is neither content lockout, item influx or whatever very long term goals than can, or can't, be problems after all.
It's mainly because sharing a world and a server should not, to me, be hindered by virtual shards, instances and such. Going to X place on my server I expect to cross any players at this X place and not having to be invited in parties, guilds, raids or whatever.
I also would not like dungeon areas to be limited to 6 (or less) players because it makes great sightseeing than can be usefull for an infinite way of Mastering roleplay events, and beeing limited to open world areas is quite like paying for content you can't access outside of driven rails.
I agree with Mauvais's concerns. I would not want sharding or instancing to make parts of the world feel un-populated by walling people off in places where I couldn't see them.
When I think about potential uses, I think about what EQ2 did with some of it's shared content zones at its launch (for example, Blackburrow) where once the zone hit a certain population, a new copy would be spawned, and people zoning in would be diverted to that new copy in most cases. It wasn't a perfect implementation at all, but what it was trying to do was to keep individual zones from being overpopulated. I think the goal was a good one, and so I'd be ok with a (better) implementation of that sort of instancing in Pantheon, if it's needed. The key for me is that it's a temporary thing. I view this as being very different from a permanent sharding system where you can pick which shard you go into regardless of how many other players are around, or a "true" instance where the only people inside are your group or raid.
@Nephele
I was actually surprised by oneADseven's perspective on this issue as I thought it made perfect sense for his challenge tower idea we had talked about a while back. Even you and I don't agree on everything as I have no problem with crafting writs as a means of leveling crafting and you prefer that even leveling crafting all crafting should have a needful purpose, not that I disagree with that thought either I just can't think of a way to implement it but your dynamic buildings idea is a good start.
I wasn’t trying to put people into camps more that with many issues a there are usually multiple positions. Being in a different position on an issue is not an acceptable reason to attack other people’s opinion simply because it is not your own. I’m going to do something I usually don’t and I’m going to take that sentence out of my post. The sentence indicates there are ideological camps and it scuffs up my message. I suppose in my own way it was a little bit of an attack as I disagree with a few people on almost every issue and almost always agree with other people.
@Trasak - no worries sir, and thanks for taking my feedback in the way it was intended :) I'm just sensitive to the fact that over the past year there's been a rift developing in this community for no good reason (at least in my opinion). I think that's happened because we've started to see people as falling into "camps" or "sides" in discussions, instead of recognizing that everyone's perspective is unique. I've been guilty of it too sometimes.
I'd love to turn that around if we're able. As the game gets closer to launch, more and more people will be joining this community. I would rather they see a single group of people that's able to respectfully discuss important aspects of Pantheon in spite of our different perspectives and experiences, than two groups of people who seem to get in fights over everything that comes up.
Nephele said:I agree with Mauvais's concerns. I would not want sharding or instancing to make parts of the world feel un-populated by walling people off in places where I couldn't see them.
When I think about potential uses, I think about what EQ2 did with some of it's shared content zones at its launch (for example, Blackburrow) where once the zone hit a certain population, a new copy would be spawned, and people zoning in would be diverted to that new copy in most cases. It wasn't a perfect implementation at all, but what it was trying to do was to keep individual zones from being overpopulated. I think the goal was a good one, and so I'd be ok with a (better) implementation of that sort of instancing in Pantheon, if it's needed. The key for me is that it's a temporary thing. I view this as being very different from a permanent sharding system where you can pick which shard you go into regardless of how many other players are around, or a "true" instance where the only people inside are your group or raid.
I have to agree with this as well. While I am opposed to instancing in general, I wouldn't say that it couldn't be useful as a tool. It's been proven to be useful as a tool but the disagreements usually come down to how effective the tool is, and whether or not solving the issue in question is worth the additional issues that might come up as a result. I think sharding was particularly useful for EQ2 launch because there were only 2 starter cities and the majority of the player base was funneled into either Antonica/Commonlands. It was even okay for Thundering Steppes and Nektulos. My hope is that it won't be necessary in Pantheon because of how the world is constructed. By having 3 separate continents, and each race having their own starter city, I think players will fan out organically which should alleviate congestion concerns.
It might not solve the congestion issues completely and I think that's okay ... but I wouldn't be completely opposed to using some form of limited sharding. (First 30 days of launch, or after an expansion, for example.) I just worry when I think about these things because of how EQ2 played out. It started out with sharding for starter zones and a few instances ... and then the next thing you know, people are force popping multiple versions of the same open world contested boss by flooding the zones they spawn in as a way to trigger the additional shards. That is when sharding got out of control. As far as instancing ... it went from seeing a couple raid zones being instanced in vanilla to having a single non-instanced raid zone for the next two expansions, and then none that I can remember after that.
Beyond all that ... I'm also hoping that progression feels a bit different in this game. Rather than players following the same linear path of quest hubs where everybody wants to kill the same quest mobs in order to advance, I'm really hoping that all content has some sort of meaning. If a certain dungeon is full, or a certain camp taken, there should be another dungeon or camp that is close to the same value. Not because it's for a different quest ... but because XP in general would be considered valuable, and players could make their own player driven quests. I want to see a return to the days where a group can set up camp to kill crabs for the entire evening and be okay with it. And when they outlevel that camp, they can go find something else. It's a big shame when players are forced into bottlenecks as a result of linear progression rails. A more open-ended approach with progression (XP / Items / Spells) could do wonders for making an open world game feel open ... allow some fun/healthy competition, but without making players view each other as enemies or invaders of their space.
Trasak said:I was actually surprised by oneADseven's perspective on this issue as I thought it made perfect sense for his challenge tower idea we had talked about a while back.
I ended up revising that dungeon concept because it was originally dependent on some form of instancing. A lot of people didn't like that and made good points about how it didn't really fit into the "vision" that has been described for this game. In the end, it was a good experience. It challenged me to try and think outside the box to find a way to maintain the underlying concept without relying on instancing. I ended up being much happier with the revised version than the original, particularly because of how it could end up being a shared zone/experience.
Advocating for instancing means you are promoting ideas directly contrary to the developers vision for this game. Whether you are right or wrong about the merits of instancing is not so much the point here. "Useful tools" is not how I see phasing, sharding, instanced dungeons/raids. I see them as community killers, as world killers. It creates a radically different experience, one that I think would be better suited to a lobby game. Nothing wrong with lobby games I enjoy ARPGs but that is not what I am looking for in an MMORPG. I want the Massively Multiplayer aspect in all it's glory, I don't want to be in a group of 6 players alone in a dungeon and I don't want to get phased into a near empty zone when zone A is crowded. There's nothing massively multiplayer about that.