Aenra said:Dullahan said:Well since you say its progressing, I guess we're just wrong to feel the way we do. Thanks for pointing that out. In the name of progress!
Irony is fine, when you can make it work. Being sarcastic with nothing but baseless generalisations however does not quite live up to that term, so you might wish to reconsider if the above was a 'smart' reply or not;
I can help however; what i said was that:
i) i see the general direction (and i said that's good, i even bolded it) but at the same time
ii) i see no specifics denoting even a 1% of improvement/glossing over the problems its last iteration had. Problems which i outlined in that same post.
When the person in charge of this whole project makes it his business to go public and say "i've learned", "i've learned since" everywhere they will hear him, i am simply expecting to see just how, where, and in what way said "learning" shall be evident. Having had almost 20 years to "learn" and only after stating so himself, i fail to see why it would be unreasonable/unfair of me to wonder where that shows.. Or more to the point, worry when i do not see anything reflecting said 'learning'. YET. Worries Dullahan, just worries.
Now since i need spell out even the most evident.. Liking something is ok. Liking something even though admitting it had issues is also ok. Playing it smartass when someone goes out and says "what about improvements on said issues?" is NOT ok.
I did not say we should expect perfection, i did not say it's a bad system, i most certainly did not imply anything overall damning.
I just implied that we shouldn't say 'fine'/'i blindly trust you' sans justifications/specifics. Once again, reading comprehension is a must for forum participation.
You are still working under the assumption that the open world system and contested content in EQ was somehow flawed or not working as intended. You also seem to believe that people in general have changed to the degree that such a system would not work, even in a game fundamentally different than what has been offered in recent years.
Pickles and ice don't make ice cream, just as MMOs designed around solo progression and rushing to end game don't make for a social atmosphere where people are inclined to work together. People haven't changed. They are no more competitive or vindictive today than they were 20 years ago. You simply can't expect things to work like they did in EQ in games where everyone hits max level in a matter of weeks and/or sits at "end game" for a year(s) with the entire playerbase vying for the same limited content. Its the same problem with P99, same problem with Vanguard. Every example anyone has cited to disprove the viability of contested content is pointing at the same broken models or incompatible systems.
There is no need to try to extort changes to Pantheon's philosophy by quoting Brad's promises back to him (out of context). While I'm sure those promises included ways to make better games, they were largely references to execution in regard to development and the running of a business (which he has delegated to others). Pantheon was still sold to us as a game being "built with EverQuest as the foundation."
Ok, for starters, glad to know we've left the irony aside. Thank you. Your post touches on so many different concepts i am in truth uncertain of how to reply.. :)
- About people: If you think people haven't changed, ie the MMO community isn't as a whole defined by different criteria than it was 20 years ago? If you think WE haven't changed, some 20 years down the road? Your call. Just take a moment of pause prior to preaching that as an unassailable fact. Take a second moment of pause to remind yourself that we're a closed pre-pre-alpha community, and in no way or form a representation of its final form.
- About EQ as a foundation: You said it yourself. AS a foundation. AS, dullahan. If a vague promise over something that will and will not hark back to the roots and so on is sufficient for you to feel 100% re-assured, again, good for you. I would just assume you'd be able to accept that your personal utter re-assurance/belief need not necessarily be another's. There is a lot of fine lettering here that we have yet to read. Partly because it has yet to be typed, partly because they're still uncertain about the budget (they're not going to GDC for laughs and martinies, they're going there to see what they can snatch. Hopefully they manage it too). What my post touched on was exactly this.. the "so far", the lack of a solid "how" as of yet. At best, and i do mean at best, you need to sit down and consider just why this bothered you so much. And whether that means something.
- About extortion: honestly? A random nobody (me) is ..extorting? Because i said what? That i am waiting to see what he's going to do better this time? Seriously? You've got some fine standards by which to judge people Dullahan :)
- And finally, about what my post was about: (you mention even solo progression..what's that got to do with anything?..)
The topic is instanced vs non-instanced. My post was about how the theory is good, Brad's sticking to it is good, but how, also, simultaneously, i) facts are lacking (for now, we judge with what we've got don't we?) and ii) i hope no one thinks subscription solves everything.
Those two points Dullahan. Whatever got you worked up, not my fault.
I am not here as a "fanboy". I do not tend to base all my hopes in an ultimate and utopic manner, in advance, on any a person, concept or form. I am here as someone who hopes this will work out, who wishes to support it (and already has), who will give his petty insight, as that is the best he can do.
Your views are one thing. Your interpreting others' based on what you deem as 'acceptable or not' is quite another. If your views are Brad=win, good. They are not mine though. First i will see what he has to say, and then and only then will i get to make that call myself. And i believe that's a fair thing to say.
Liav said:Niien said:I think I would have said soemthing along the lines of... People will be people, there are good and bad extremes on both sides. We can't do anything to change that and sometimes we just have to deal with it the best we can. :)
I agree, although it is irrefutable that some game mechanics breed toxicity more than others. Just worth taking into consideration.
Agreed, that's why I'm against most catering to hardcore raiders. It seems to breed elitistism.
Niien said:Liav said:Niien said:I think I would have said soemthing along the lines of... People will be people, there are good and bad extremes on both sides. We can't do anything to change that and sometimes we just have to deal with it the best we can. :)
I agree, although it is irrefutable that some game mechanics breed toxicity more than others. Just worth taking into consideration.
Agreed, that's why I'm against most catering to hardcore raiders. It seems to breed elitistism.
Depends on your definition of "hardcore raider". If you mean those who advocate for purely contested raid content with variable respawn rates, then sure.
Kilsin said:Rallyd said:"Shards" is instancing, by definition. If someone were to play politics and claim that Pantheon will have no instancing and then slip in "shards"... well we will hope that won't happen cuz I doubt we wanna go down that road.
It wasn't explained that way by the VG devs mate.
A Shard was basically a chunk and 6 of them were mirrored to form the 6 shards, each one almost identical apart from a few glitches/AI behaviour which proves they are actual standalone chunks.An Instance is basically a closed off clone that locks that particular instance to a certain amount of players, usually a group or raid and is usually entered by a portal etc.
With VG's Shards, anyone could enter any shard at any time and see others in the same shard, there used to be huge PvP battles on the PvP servers to try and wipe other guilds and even entire guilds would enter a shard and /shout to check if anyone else was there so they could form up and start a raid to claim that shard as their own, you cannot do this in Instances, they are locked instances of a section of the game and very different to shards man, the way the VG devs explained it was quite interesting but my memory is fading since the conversation was many years ago now!
Kilsin... that^ is NOT the definition of "instance".
An "instance" is any clone of an existance zone, created the INSTANCE somone triggers it. Period..!
edit: including any zone not in the game, that is created for a players.
No, Kilsin is actually correct here.
The term "instances" refers to multiple occurrences of the same thing. That's where the word came from.
"There were five instances of eqgame.exe open in my task manager."
"There were several instances where I felt deja vu."
Dullahan said:The thing is, you can also create instances of a mob, even if you aren't instancing an entire zone. Same principle, even if the rest of the world is still "open."
While that is true man, I was specifically referring to an instance like a dungeon or quest line where a person or group enters and gets that instance locked to them, as the OPs title refers to "area's".
Liav said:No, Kilsin is actually correct here.
The term "instances" refers to multiple occurrences of the same thing. That's where the word came from.
"There were five instances of eqgame.exe open in my task manager."
"There were several instances where I felt deja vu."
Correct, but that^ is not how Kilsin had defined them.
He said: "An Instance is basically a closed off clone that locks that particular instance to a certain amount of players, usually a group or raid and is usually entered by a portal etc."
Kilsin was merely describing a type of instanced zone, but that is not the definition of one. So I responded for clarity sake.
He was just being loose with his words, but he is not being technical.
As proof, he goes on to say "A Shard was basically a chunk... each one almost identical apart from a few glitches/AI behaviour which proves they are actual standalone chunks".
That is not the definition of shard in MMORPG context, which is universally understood to represents an autonomous server, or crystalized world.. left under it's own influence (ie: stand alone). Shards do not go away, they are permanent.
Kilsin was attempting to explain how something may have been portrayed to him in the past.
Instancing vs non-instancing:
Instancing can be good and add color and depth to MMORPGs. Such as a Wizard going back to meet his Master, and is instantly ported into a "instanced zone" where he has to face some trial, or test of skill, etc.
Also, instancing can be very bad and ruin the taste of the game, when Developers rely on it too much as a developmental crutch. Relying on them and over using instanced zones, instead of actually adding depth to a game. Such as when you hvae 5 instances of Lower Guk... only because the developer didn't take the time actually to make additional dungeons & content for 5k players.
Obviously back then, EverQuests underlaying mechanics didn't allow for easy Development work, so "instancing" and cloning a zone was an easy solution to solving crowding. Instead of actual content creation.
Today, in a modern MMORPG there is ZERO reason to have "instancing" of zones as a crutch to handle populace. It is wrong and cheapens the game.
Hieromonk said:Liav said:No, Kilsin is actually correct here.
The term "instances" refers to multiple occurrences of the same thing. That's where the word came from.
"There were five instances of eqgame.exe open in my task manager."
"There were several instances where I felt deja vu."
Correct, but that^ is not how Kilsin had defined them.
He said: "An Instance is basically a closed off clone that locks that particular instance to a certain amount of players, usually a group or raid and is usually entered by a portal etc."
Kilsin was merely describing a type of instanced zone, but that is not the definition of one. So I responded for clarity sake.
He was just being loose with his words, but he is not being technical.
As proof, he goes on to say "A Shard was basically a chunk... each one almost identical apart from a few glitches/AI behaviour which proves they are actual standalone chunks".
That is not the definition of shard in MMORPG context, which is universally understood to represents an autonomous server, or crystalized world.. left under it's own influence (ie: stand alone). Shards do not go away, they are permanent.
Kilsin was attempting to explain how something may have been portrayed to him in the past.
Instancing vs non-instancing:
Instancing can be good and add color and depth to MMORPGs. Such as a Wizard going back to meet his Master, and is instantly ported into a "instanced zone" where he has to face some trial, or test of skill, etc.
Also, instancing can be very bad and ruin the taste of the game, when Developers rely on it too much as a developmental crutch. Relying on them and over using instanced zones, instead of actually adding depth to a game. Such as when you hvae 5 instances of Lower Guk... only because the developer didn't take the time actually to make additional dungeons & content for 5k players.
Obviously back then, EverQuests underlaying mechanics didn't allow for easy Development work, so "instancing" and cloning a zone was an easy solution to solving crowding. Instead of actual content creation.
Today, in a modern MMORPG there is ZERO reason to have "instancing" of zones as a crutch to handle populace. It is wrong and cheapens the game.
I still disagree but I do appreciate that you actually replied and fleshed out your argument like this.
Instances in games are generally not accessible by the public, only by a select few who "initiate" it. If I join an instanced raid with my guild, someone can't zone into my guild's version of that zone. There is a distinction to be had here between that, and what Phinigel is currently doing. On Phinigel, the closest parallel here is shards as Kilsin elaborated on earlier.
While I agree that it is not an ideal solution, it is a good solution for achieving the goal they set out to do. To make sure everyone can experience the content to the fullest extent.
In my previous post I was just elaborating on the colloquial term "instance" as opposed to the more technical, highly specific term used in MMOs.
Liav said:Hieromonk said:Liav said:No, Kilsin is actually correct here.
The term "instances" refers to multiple occurrences of the same thing. That's where the word came from.
"There were five instances of eqgame.exe open in my task manager."
"There were several instances where I felt deja vu."
Correct, but that^ is not how Kilsin had defined them.
He said: "An Instance is basically a closed off clone that locks that particular instance to a certain amount of players, usually a group or raid and is usually entered by a portal etc."
Kilsin was merely describing a type of instanced zone, but that is not the definition of one. So I responded for clarity sake.
He was just being loose with his words, but he is not being technical.
As proof, he goes on to say "A Shard was basically a chunk... each one almost identical apart from a few glitches/AI behaviour which proves they are actual standalone chunks".
That is not the definition of shard in MMORPG context, which is universally understood to represents an autonomous server, or crystalized world.. left under it's own influence (ie: stand alone). Shards do not go away, they are permanent.
Kilsin was attempting to explain how something may have been portrayed to him in the past.
Instancing vs non-instancing:
Instancing can be good and add color and depth to MMORPGs. Such as a Wizard going back to meet his Master, and is instantly ported into a "instanced zone" where he has to face some trial, or test of skill, etc.
Also, instancing can be very bad and ruin the taste of the game, when Developers rely on it too much as a developmental crutch. Relying on them and over using instanced zones, instead of actually adding depth to a game. Such as when you hvae 5 instances of Lower Guk... only because the developer didn't take the time actually to make additional dungeons & content for 5k players.
Obviously back then, EverQuests underlaying mechanics didn't allow for easy Development work, so "instancing" and cloning a zone was an easy solution to solving crowding. Instead of actual content creation.
Today, in a modern MMORPG there is ZERO reason to have "instancing" of zones as a crutch to handle populace. It is wrong and cheapens the game.
I still disagree but I do appreciate that you actually replied and fleshed out your argument like this.
Instances in games are generally not accessible by the public, only by a select few who "initiate" it. If I join an instanced raid with my guild, someone can't zone into my guild's version of that zone. There is a distinction to be had here between that, and what Phinigel is currently doing. On Phinigel, the closest parallel here is shards as Kilsin elaborated on earlier.
While I agree that it is not an ideal solution, it is a good solution for achieving the goal they set out to do. To make sure everyone can experience the content to the fullest extent.
In my previous post I was just elaborating on the colloquial term "instance" as opposed to the more technical, highly specific term used in MMOs.
Can you explain, where you came up with the idea, that "Instances in games are generally not accessible by the public, ..."
When in fact, that is not the case. Anyone playing EQ Progression server knows they can zone into Sol B, and have 5 instances of that exact zone up... and all you do it need to type /pick to choose between what version of that zone you want to be in.
In EQ2, the same thing... when a Zone is too populated, entire zone would duplicate, to handle more people. Many games use this crutch, as a means to handle population because these Developers don't have deep enough story, to handle all the Characters in the story world.
You had defined "instance" so beautifully here: "The term "instances" refers to multiple occurrences of the same thing". There is no reason to go back on your definition, or start adding qualifyers like the zone has to be locked, etc.
And again, a Shard is not a zone... a shard is an autonomous world and is perminant. That is why we use the word "shard" to denote it is shattered diamond, or Crystal that last forever.. but different from the other shattered worlds. Kilsin used "shard" loosely and is not technical, or correct.
BTW, there are solution to these problems, and most are easily fixed when making a new game. That is why it is so hard to sit here and listen to people talk about wanting "instancing", when there doesn't need to be any in place.
There is a difference between:
"Zone that is open to the public and is an exact copy of another zone."
and
"Zone that is not open to the public and is an exact copy of another zone, because it is locked only to the players who created this particular zone."
If you want to call both of them the same thing then that's just dumb, because they fundamentally differ.
Liav said:There is a difference between:
"Zone that is open to the public and is an exact copy of another zone."
and
"Zone that is not open to the public and is an exact copy of another zone, because it is locked only to the players who created this particular zone."
If you want to call both of them the same thing then that's just dumb, because they fundamentally differ.
Dead horse beaten much? You seem to be missing the point. It's about the integrity of the world and NOT having "an exact copy of another zone" regardless of those distinctions between shard and instance. They don't matter, it's about not duplicating content which waters down the world, ruins immersion, leads to item inflation, devalues content as a whole, etc, etc, etc. That's the fundamental issue.
Krixus said:Dead horse beaten much? You seem to be missing the point. It's about the integrity of the world and NOT having "an exact copy of another zone" regardless of those distinctions between shard and instance. They don't matter, it's about not duplicating content which waters down the world, ruins immersion, leads to item inflation, devalues content as a whole, etc, etc, etc. That's the fundamental issue.
I don't think it's as much of an issue. Phinigel would be dead if not for picks and instanced raiding.
I believe anyone who thinks that Pantheon won't be overcrowded is naive. You'll either need 50 servers, or an unreasonably large world.
Elrandir said: You can't really compare a progression server to the release of a new game. For one, even with its 'slow' experience rate, it's still way faster than EQ was at launch, and I'm guessing faster than what we'll see in Pantheon. People will spread out across content due to the difference in leveling rates. Also, everyone already knows all there is to know about the EQ progression servers, so yeah lots of people are heading to the same places because people have a preset leveling paradigm, this won't be true in a new game.
It's not that much faster. Less than double, maybe 25-50% faster. That's hardly "fast".
You're also forgetting that isn't not 1999. It's not going to be anywhere near as difficult of a learning curve as EQ was originally. There are a lot more factors at play here than just "new game".
Liav said:It's not that much faster. Less than double, maybe 25-50% faster. That's hardly "fast".
You're also forgetting that isn't not 1999. It's not going to be anywhere near as difficult of a learning curve as EQ was originally. There are a lot more factors at play here than just "new game".
That's true, but progression servers like Phinney are essentially designed for overpopulation, whereas a new game will launch with as many shards/servers as needed to handle anticipated populations.
Also, while its true that information is likely going to disseminate much faster in a game today, there's a big difference between looking up something new online, and having already done it a few times over and knowing exactly what to expect.
Elrandir said:That's true, but progression servers like Phinney are essentially designed for overpopulation, whereas a new game will launch with as many shards/servers as needed to handle anticipated populations.
Also, while its true that information is likely going to disseminate much faster in a game today, there's a big difference between looking up something new online, and having already done it a few times over and knowing exactly what to expect.
They're designed for overpopulation because there would be overpopulation. If Pantheon is not designed to compensate for that, it's going to be a really poor experience to say the least.
Liav said:They're designed for overpopulation because there would be overpopulation. If Pantheon is not designed to compensate for that, it's going to be a really poor experience to say the least.
Yes, but you're kind of missing the point. They've already said they'll launch new servers with incentives to migrate if overpopulation is a thing. But I'm guessing the population vs time dynamics on a progression server are fundamentally different than what Pantheon will see around launch. When Phinney launched, there was an exodus from Ragefire and Lockjaw. The same will likely happen to Phinney if a new progression server launches. The point I'm making is that it's a completely different animal, so you need to be pretty careful if you're going to attempt to use it to draw parallels.
Liav said:There is a difference between:
"Zone that is open to the public and is an exact copy of another zone."
and
"Zone that is not open to the public and is an exact copy of another zone, because it is locked only to the players who created this particular zone."
If you want to call both of them the same thing then that's just dumb, because they fundamentally differ.
No, they are the EXACT same thing... an instance.
Again, the WHO, WHY, or WHAT of why that instance was created, does not matter. They all have the same mechanic and are not fundamentally different.
Odd, that You seem to think it WHO, WHY and WHAT matters... and that if an "instance" is created for a Guild, and locked then it is not an instance, or should be called something else. It just happens to be a closed, or lock-out instance... which is nothing other than a type of instance.
There are good types of instancing... and bad types of instances. We already have a solution to the bad types of instancing.. and the good type can add more flavor and depth to a game, when done right. Really not much to discuss about the topic, unless you are in favor of more cheap gameplay and want cookie-cutter instancing so your guild can be served up fresh pie. Those games are a dime a dozen and most here want something more than that.
Liav said:Krixus said:Dead horse beaten much? You seem to be missing the point. It's about the integrity of the world and NOT having "an exact copy of another zone" regardless of those distinctions between shard and instance. They don't matter, it's about not duplicating content which waters down the world, ruins immersion, leads to item inflation, devalues content as a whole, etc, etc, etc. That's the fundamental issue.
I don't think it's as much of an issue. Phinigel would be dead if not for picks and instanced raiding.
I believe anyone who thinks that Pantheon won't be overcrowded is naive. You'll either need 50 servers, or an unreasonably large world.
Everquest is 17 years old this month...
Everquest and Kunark combined.. are extremely small surface area for some 10k players.. who already know the world, know the raid mechanics and are RACING to get all the known items in the world. Add the fact, that Veloius and EQ is still a small world by Todays 64bit standards means Phinny is not a good comparison to anything Pantheon..
Pantheon will release with more landmass than Original EverQuest ~ Velious, and overcrowding will not be a problem, because you guild will not have even visited all the dungeons, or zones... and will not be in the same dungeons as everyone else. Or may be in the same dungeon, and taken a different path than the other guild, and are now miles parts from each other..
Picture Guk, with 3 more deeper levels, that may require a mini-quest to get past the first throne room, etc.
Simple put, Brad himself said too much upward content was a flaw he made when designing EQ, & that Pantheon will have more outward content (kunark/velious) , than upward content (PoP, etc). So people and guilds will be asble to expand out, well before they expand upwards.
I have predicted, that it would take less than 12 Pantheon sized zones for all of original EQ. That is how big a zone can be in Pantheon. You could have guilds in the same zone, that never see each other. Overcorwding is a problem when a developer makes a game, that has no landmass to house the populace. Pantheon will be big and deep.
How will a guild choose where to raid, when they have 60 choices..? Instead of 6.. (Sky, Hate, Fear, Solb, Guk, etc..) Even more funnier, is how would a guild even know about the other dungeons that are found out in the wild.. tyhese guilds are expecting other people to tell them about these sites. They are hoping the internet tells them where these other newly found dungeons are.
How you going to get your guild to those places... So a guild will most likely have a regional presence, not a global one because of the logistics and mechanics invloved in moving 50 people across the game world...
Hieromonk said:Liav said:Krixus said:Dead horse beaten much? You seem to be missing the point. It's about the integrity of the world and NOT having "an exact copy of another zone" regardless of those distinctions between shard and instance. They don't matter, it's about not duplicating content which waters down the world, ruins immersion, leads to item inflation, devalues content as a whole, etc, etc, etc. That's the fundamental issue.
I don't think it's as much of an issue. Phinigel would be dead if not for picks and instanced raiding.
I believe anyone who thinks that Pantheon won't be overcrowded is naive. You'll either need 50 servers, or an unreasonably large world.
Everquest is 17 years old this month...
Everquest and Kunark combined.. are extremely small surface area for some 10k players.. who already know the world, know the raid mechanics and are RACING to get all the known items in the world. Add the fact, that Veloius and EQ is still a small world by Todays 64bit standards means Phinny is not a good comparison to anything Pantheon..
Pantheon will release with more landmass than Original EverQuest ~ Velious, and overcrowding will not be a problem, because you guild will not have even visited all the dungeons, or zones... and will not be in the same dungeons as everyone else. Or may be in the same dungeon, and taken a different path than the other guild, and are now miles parts from each other.. Please back this statement up with something Brad or another Dev has said
Picture Guk, with 3 more deeper levels, that may require a mini-quest to get past the first throne room, etc.
Simple put, Brad himself said too much upward content was a flaw he made when designing EQ, & that Pantheon will have more outward content (kunark/velious) , than upward content (PoP, etc). So people and guilds will be asble to expand out, well before they expand upwards.
I have predicted, that it would take less than 12 Pantheon sized zones for all of original EQ. That is how big a zone can be in Pantheon. You could have guilds in the same zone, that never see each other. Overcorwding is a problem when a developer makes a game, that has no landmass to house the populace. Pantheon will be big and deep.
How will a guild choose where to raid, when they have 60 choices..? Instead of 6.. (Sky, Hate, Fear, Solb, Guk, etc..) Even more funnier, is how would a guild even know about the other dungeons that are found out in the wild.. tyhese guilds are expecting other people to tell them about these sites. They are hoping the internet tells them where these other newly found dungeons are. Please back this statement up with something Brad or another Dev has said
How you going to get your guild to those places... So a guild will most likely have a regional presence, not a global one because of the logistics and mechanics invloved in moving 50 people across the game world...
Please back this statement up with something Brad or another Dev has said
Liav said:Krixus said:Dead horse beaten much? You seem to be missing the point. It's about the integrity of the world and NOT having "an exact copy of another zone" regardless of those distinctions between shard and instance. They don't matter, it's about not duplicating content which waters down the world, ruins immersion, leads to item inflation, devalues content as a whole, etc, etc, etc. That's the fundamental issue.
I don't think it's as much of an issue. Phinigel would be dead if not for picks and instanced raiding.
I believe anyone who thinks that Pantheon won't be overcrowded is naive. You'll either need 50 servers, or an unreasonably large world.
50? I was hoping for more like 100+, any more than 2000 people on a server would be a disaster, any less than 1000 would be the same, keep it in that special area and we're golden.
The 1000-2000 number is only applicable if the amount of available content and world size support it. You could have more if there was more to do to accomodate those players.
Also, EQ servers had ~2000 concurrent players, but probably 2 or 3 times that total (including those offline).
That is really the kind of thing that they will have to consider as they move into beta and have an idea just how big the game will be at launch.