The latest PTV opened a can of worms regarding Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen and what "open world" will mean for our game. While the team will always do what works best for the game, we still want to hear your thoughts and questions! Did this update bring up concerns or did it confirm your faith in Pantheon?
Savanja said:The latest PTV opened a can of worms regarding Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen and what "open world" will mean for our game. While the team will always do what works best for the game, we still want to hear your thoughts and questions! Did this update bring up concerns or did it confirm your faith in Pantheon?
The biggest hurdle to overcome is the definition of instancing. Many people have their own definition to fit either their pro or con viewpoint. You wont ever convince the people who are against instancing, regardless of definition, that its usage is good for the long-term health of the game.
That said, when (not if) you employ instancing, be mindful of the various types of instancing and use the one which is most applicable to a given situation.
The most obvious (at least to me) version of instancing is where a zone is copied such that multiple groups/raids each have their own, private, version of that zone. Whne it comes to raids, that the form I most prefer when the process to even gain access to that zone is a long, complex and difficult struggle. The reward for the guild-wide effort is that you can enjoy the at your own pace and at your own convenience. We all must face facts that the average age of the playerbase is higher than in previous decades and thus most players have many real-world responsibilities. For such people to have the opportunity to engage in this content when they have fulfilled all the requirements to obtain access, having the ability to schedule a raid time because an instance exists is a benefit to both the playerbase and the game as a whole.
In the stream another version of instancing, that being a door which only opens when a specific set of criteria is reached, isn't a system where multiple simultaneous examples exist. My only concern with this example is this: You have Group A killing Lieutenant #1 and Group B is camping Lieutenant #2 and now the door opens. Group C just happens to be outside the door. Can group C get in even though they didn't do any of the work to actually open the door? I'm not a fan of people getting rewards who didn't put in the work. My other concern with this is that Group C and Group D are both at the door. Both rush in simulutaneously...now what? Does a wholly separate room now spawn for each of the groups? Is one randomly picked as 'the winner' and then gets to engage the content? I'm not confident that 'the door' will have the intelligence to make such a determination.
The other instancing I dont mind seeing is what we saw in EQ1 in the Planes of Power expansion, specifically the Plane of Justice trials. Each trial room existed within the same common zone but was physically disconnected, needing to be accesses via a teleporter. So, in a sense, because once a group entered a trial room that room was unavaiable to others until that group exited the room upon success or failure, it allowed for progression on your own time yet kept you within the same common zone. I could see version of this whereby a dungeon might have multiple locked doors which required keys and once entered by a group they had that area to themselves until they completed or failed it. You keep the common zone atmosphere as you had to traverse the zone to get to the door, you still had to complete some tasks/quests to get access but then your reward is the freedom to complete that little section and (pretty much) your own convenience.
All this said, I still fall back on this statement I've made since I started following this game in mid-2013: However large you think you need to make a zone/area, double it. However many NPCs you think are needed in a given area, double it. However many simultaneous players of a given level range a server can support, halve it. The need for instancing is, nearly always, based upon developers making too small a world, with too little content and cramming far too many people into it. Stop doing that #%@%.
Vandraad said:In the stream another version of instancing, that being a door which only opens when a specific set of criteria is reached, isn't a system where multiple simultaneous examples exist. My only concern with this example is this: You have Group A killing Lieutenant #1 and Group B is camping Lieutenant #2 and now the door opens. Group C just happens to be outside the door. Can group C get in even though they didn't do any of the work to actually open the door? I'm not a fan of people getting rewards who didn't put in the work. My other concern with this is that Group C and Group D are both at the door. Both rush in simulutaneously...now what? Does a wholly separate room now spawn for each of the groups? Is one randomly picked as 'the winner' and then gets to engage the content? I'm not confident that 'the door' will have the intelligence to make such a determination.
...
The need for instancing is, nearly always, based upon developers making too small a world, with too little content and cramming far too many people into it.
This is my biggest dislike of the instancing system they have confirmed so far. VR talks about having very large dungeons as part of their plan. I imagine we will see 10+ groups converging for the boss kill. That sounds like a horrible idea to me. Countless groups with the ability to teleport over to the campfire closest to the now open instance to kill a boss for presumably great loot. Keep in mind Joppa said it would page out to the whole zone the instance is open. For me that fills in the idea the most.
The always open door idea was limited to low levels is problematic but my hope is they keep their word and keep it at low levels. What happens at level 5-10 is only going to give players a false impression about the game as a whole but thats VR's issue to regret later not my hill to die on.
Until we have the MMO-GPT bot making truly massive worlds I think the size will be an issue. Eve had an unusual system of instances not being private. Other players could scan and find your instance created for a quest as well as all the normal locations in the system. It was an unusual way of creating more open world space. As soon as everyone finished the quest, left the area, and some time passed the space would vanish from the game world. This idea was created in the early 2000s and has never been reused sadly. I always thought it would be a cool way to expand dungeons temporarily. The quest takes to secret entrance in a cave wall and poof a new section of dungeon appears other players could also access for mining, exploration, etc. When the zone population falls and the people have left the temporary area it would despawns. Rocks block the path, whatever. Next time it would come back with a different setup or move to a different entrance, etc
I used to have a hard stance against all forms of instancing, since me and my guild will play on the PVP server where content control is part of the game(imo).
But I must admit that some of the reasons Joppa stated for using it are very valid.
Particularly the one where the game will use limited instancing on the starting areas during the first days/weeks of the game release. Anyone who as played a few MMORPGs during release knows how messy it is for everybody. And that simply isn't good for the long-term health of each individual server and its player community. Good job there in my estimation.
Instancing for certain mega-bosses in certain dungeons and raids - this one is a little more debatable. I can get behind this depending on the type of server. As I stated above, on the PVP server content control is part of the game, and instancing can be used to avoid PVP(defeating the purpose of this ruleset). I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't use it altogether, but I hope the design team has thought about having the necessary tools to be able to tweak the implementation of this form of instancing to better fit the target type of server.
All in all, I like the design goals. But the real test will be the implementation. We'll see.
My thoughts are all over the place. When I listen to Joppa talk about things it's always so easy to get behind what he's saying. I'm pretty sure this is the first time I haven't agreed. Buuuut, that doesn't need to mean anything. I don't have to agree with 100% of game design ideas to enjoy the game, I still have no doubts at all that Pantheon is going to be a blast for thousands of hours (which will be several years for me!).
Since we've only really heard ideas for one zone I'll just keep my questions and concerns specific to this one zone and VR can decide if/how they apply to the rest of the game.
Although, we have also seen some footage of the Isle of Infinte Storm which also looked like it would probably be an instance.
Concerns / Questions in no particular order:
1. How do you balance the rarity of loot with the non-rarity of instancing a special boss? If the answer to that is "we will have lock out periods so the special boss will actually be rare" then what is the motivation for the group to continue fighting in that zone during the lockout period? Why would we go fight the lieutenants if we're currently locked out?
2. Do you envision groups coming to this zone and just waiting for the instance to open up? I guess the better question is why wouldn't a group just come in and help kill the lieutenants simply to check this boss off their to-do list for that lockout period (if there are lockouts?)? Starts to feel like a "daily quest" at that point to me.
3. How many instances of Gnashura will be open simultaneously?
4. Can a group that has never even been to the zone show up and go into the Gnashura instance if they happen to be there at the right time?
5. Will killing the Lieutenants give the group (or individuals in the group) certain advantages against Gnashura?
(or disadvantages, maybe Gnashura gets a buff against them as a revenge tactic lol)
6. Will the Lieutenants be spawning at a regular pace or will they spawn randomly with placeholders? Or will they spawn based on a trigger? Or some other methods? Will spawning Gnashura feel like an intentional event or an event that happens by chance?
7. I understand the idea of instancing for the purpose of the integrity of the encounter but I'm concerned that in this case it's also being used to give all players an "equal shot" at something that is held up on a pedestal. Sorta feels like the "everyone gets a trophy" idea.
8. I think my biggest concern has to do with the rarity of encounters and loot. There is a lot less excitement and meaning for me when I know that I'll get a shot at Gnashura exactly once every 4 days (or whatever it ends up being). There is also a lot less emotional attachment to loot when it becomes more common. It is tough to balance that in my mind with the idea of instancing IF instancing is used to increase the number of times players see certain encounters or get certain loot.
To your last question "Did this confirm my faith in Pantheon" I can say that it didn't really effect it. I'm expecting so many options for things to do on Terminus and to think that every single option would perfectly fit my version of perfection would be silly.
Some thoughts on Ranarius's points/questions:
1. How do you balance the rarity of loot with the non-rarity of instancing a special boss? If the answer to that is "we will have lock out periods so the special boss will actually be rare" then what is the motivation for the group to continue fighting in that zone during the lockout period? Why would we go fight the lieutenants if we're currently locked out?
To answer your last question first: The lieutenants will still have their own loot tables that one would assume is likely to be desirable.
When I was listening to Joppa explain how this Gnashura thing works, I got the impression that once you killed him you would only be locked out from killing him again during this 'Window' of him being available.
So let's say the Lieutenants need to be slain within 10 minutes of each other in order for Gnashura's room to be available... The Lieutenants may have seperate spawn timers or Place Holders which limit how often they are even both alive at the same time... So eventually they are up at the same time and are slain within the time limit and Gnashura's area is opened up for a set X time period... you then go into an instance and sucessfully kill him... you are then tied to that instance where he is still dead and so going back in will just put you in an empty room.... X time expires and Gnashura's area is closed up again... all instances of his area are now reset until his area is unlocked again.
VR can then limit the frequency of Gnashura being available by controlling how often the Lieutenants themselves can respawn at the same time. They could even have behind the scenes algorithm's to prevent them from both being up again together for a set time after Gnashura has been opened and slain. They could even code it so that this 'set time' is adjusted dependant on how many groups were able to successfully kill Gnashura during this current window.
So if his room is opened and Zero groups succeed in killing him, then the Lieutenants may be up again together an hour later. But if his room is opened up and 12 groups succeed in killing him, those Lieutenants don't show up at the same time again for maybe another 12 hours. And there should be no notification on how many groups actually killed him this time around, so unless you ask around and got an accurate poll of the server at the time you wouldn't know for sure how long before Gnashura could potentially be triggered again.
Obviously this '12 hours' is just an example and VR would decide if and how much variance is caused by multiple groups being successful. It may not be fair if Gnashura being opened during Peak hours and killed by dozens of groups would make it impossible for players in off peak hours over night to ever see him.
2. Do you envision groups coming to this zone and just waiting for the instance to open up? I guess the better question is why wouldn't a group just come in and help kill the lieutenants simply to check this boss off their to-do list for that lockout period (if there are lockouts?)? Starts to feel like a "daily quest" at that point to me.
I would hope that Gnashura wouldn't be the only thing of value in this dungeon for people to come there for. Yet I do suppose that some players may have farmed all the items they may be interested in already and so coming back for Gnashura may be the only thing they are there for. My previous thoughts on how lockout would work vs how often Gnashura can be available would create enough variance that most players wouldn't be able to consistantly predict when it is worth showing up just in time to kill Gnashura on some schedule.
3. How many instances of Gnashura will be open simultaneously?
From what I understood of what Joppa said... it would open an instance for each seperate group that got to his room during his 'window of opportunity' that he is available to fight. So if only 2 groups showed up, there may only be 2 seperate instances, but if 30 groups showed up you could have 30 different instances.
I think this question though is related to your 7th question... which I will comment on seperately.
4. Can a group that has never even been to the zone show up and go into the Gnashura instance if they happen to be there at the right time?
This thought does bring up a seperate idea... Should players be required to have killed the Lieutenants personally at least once before to be eligible to go into Gnashura's room. This would thus encourage players to Adventure in the zone in preperation and hunt down these Lieutenants seperately while adventuring in the zone even when Gnashura can't be triggered, so that if and when Gnashura is made available later they can take part.
5. Will killing the Lieutenants give the group (or individuals in the group) certain advantages against Gnashura?
(or disadvantages, maybe Gnashura gets a buff against them as a revenge tactic lol)
Interesting idea. Perhaps this only applies if you were involved in the killing of the Lieutenants for this particular opening of Gnashura's room. And if you are involved in both Lieutenants deaths, you get double the boon/bane effect.
6. Will the Lieutenants be spawning at a regular pace or will they spawn randomly with placeholders? Or will they spawn based on a trigger? Or some other methods? Will spawning Gnashura feel like an intentional event or an event that happens by chance?
I already touched on how often the Lieutenants may spawn or may spawn at the same time in my comments to your first question... but to comment on your last question: I would think that it might be either. There may be times when the whole zone is aware that both Lieutenants are up and work together to have them die in the right way to trigger Gnashura. But there may be other times when groups are just fighting in the zone and a Lieutenant suddenly pops up and they kill him and Gnashura is triggered without any pre-arranged organization by other players.
7. I understand the idea of instancing for the purpose of the integrity of the encounter but I'm concerned that in this case it's also being used to give all players an "equal shot" at something that is held up on a pedestal. Sorta feels like the "everyone gets a trophy" idea.
While I wouldn't go as far as saying this is 'everyone gets a trophy' since they would still need to succeed; Just showing up doesn't mean free loot. But I do see your thoughts on 'everyone gets a try' without there being any competition.
Back in the day I played on the same server as the 'Fire's of Heaven' guild which, during that time period, competed for top Guild in the world. There were also 2 or 3 other strong guilds who heavily competed with them on our server for content. This may have been adventurous for those 3 or 4 guilds, but for the rest of us it meant we had almost no shot at content until months after those guilds all had them farmed out. And then we had to go through our own struggles with the rest of the guilds who were now competing for that content.
I do understand that this competition did have some good points and did lead to players being more focused and work hard to be ready to attempt such content, but it also meant that a majority of players either rarely got to even see content or may never have gotten to experience it.
As Joppa explained their current idea's for how this could all work, I could see how this could both encourage the focus and work that players would need to have to get to/trigger such content, and still make sure they can have a chance at it without being blocked by bigger stronger guild/raids getting there first.
8. I think my biggest concern has to do with the rarity of encounters and loot. There is a lot less excitement and meaning for me when I know that I'll get a shot at Gnashura exactly once every 4 days (or whatever it ends up being). There is also a lot less emotional attachment to loot when it becomes more common. It is tough to balance that in my mind with the idea of instancing IF instancing is used to increase the number of times players see certain encounters or get certain loot.
I do think this is a valid concern and I would also put my voice into encouraging VR to carefully tune those dials that effect how often these kinds of Raid encounters can be made available.
Joppa did explain that not all such content would be like Gnashura and triggered on mass for everyone who's around when it happens. He said that some events could require items from quests or from loot drops perhaps even in entirely other zones in order to allow a group to trigger access to a Raid encounter which is only available to that 1 group who meets the requirements.
They could then balance things by making those items required to be limited to 1 at a time in your inventory so that you couldn't go get 4 of them ahead of time to give you 4 back to back kills on the Raid. You'd need to use the item once and only after you've completed the Event could you go back and gather the requirements again, which would have it's own time commitments and potential bottlenecks.
VR could also have a combination of both types of systems for events. So not only do you need to go collect the right reagents to trigger the event, you would also then need to wait for special conditions to be met before those reagents could be used. So you might have the correct burt offering for the Altar, but the ritual can only work while the Altar is under moonlight while it's raining, which algorithm's can control how often those conditions show up at the same time.
But it does mean that once those conditions happen, all groups who are present and also have the required reagents can make their attempts at the same time.
Savanja said:The latest PTV opened a can of worms regarding Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen and what "open world" will mean for our game. While the team will always do what works best for the game, we still want to hear your thoughts and questions! Did this update bring up concerns or did it confirm your faith in Pantheon?
IMO: I see the judicious use of instancing as a good thing. I have no desire to have other players negatively affect the playtime of my guild/group by preventing tangible progression.
I am happy to compete for resources, which is how I perceive open world mobs. So, I see it as a positive that Visionary Realms has confirmed, once again, their use of instancing. Provided it's used where necessary, I have no problem whatsoever with instancing. It's use on the EQ1 TLP servers has made the experience vastly more fun and vastly less toxic, socially.
I have no economic concerns regarding the creation of more/many/some/all loot, provided you have a properly designed and implemented virtual economy and loot system.
Even if you don't have a properly designed and implemented virtual economy and loot system? I would still rather have instancing than a repeat of the mistakes of history on the social toxicity side of things.
If your economic design and implementation is appropriate? You can generate an infinite amount of items and the economic impact can be exactly zero. I am happy to discuss such economic design at length. :)
I hope instancing will be used to tell the story of Terminus, and allow encounters to be experienced the way designers intended, rather than the story be negatively impacted by malicious players.
If that means key moments, quest encounters, epic quest milestones, and similar pivotal plot points will be instanced? Great.
There is an old saying - God is in the details. For that matter so too is the Adversary,
My consistent opinion has been from day one here that there should not be a firm stance "no instancing". I am happy that things have moved well away from that position. Instancing can be very bad if overused - the game can feel sterile and have too little interaction with other players. But no instancing whatsoever opens up many bad possibilities in terms of griefing and overcrowding.
So I will trust in VR to use instancing to solve more problems than it causes. If they know what they are doing - that seems like a fair position to take. If they do not know what they are doing - the game has worse problems than instancing. I think they do know what they are doing and while they will surely get some things wrong they will quite likely get more things right.
Just as important - I trust them to listen to feedback in alpha and beta and adjust things if it looks as if they are not working as well in practice as was hoped for. So any of us in those two tests - and between them that includes a lot of us - should concentrate on this issue among others and let VR know what we think.
I like what I heard and am totally fine with a nuanced answer. My only disagreement with Joppa is that I don't really have a problem with shard-based instancing when the population is too high. This is primarily because I strongly prefer high player populations since it makes finding groups easier.
Hello,
I liked some of the ideas that have been shared here. Two of them that I would like to condense here and formalize. For the Gnashura event... one could imagine that you need to have killed both lieutnants at least once to get a key from each AND at the same time, you would need a community effort to get Gnashura to pop.
I think both of these would be a good thing. Firstly, it would ensure that you couldn't enter the room/instance just because you happened to pass by at a lucky time. You would need to do some work ahead of time : aka some effort from your guild / group. And, a community effort means that there should be some event that would require a more important effort that brings the community together and that plays against "instancing makes people not share the common experience of an open world". Lastly, I think that once Gnashura has popped, the event should last some (significant) time AND all groups that have put in the preliminary effort should be able to go in and enjoy their instance... BUT only once per pop period.
It means also that : 1) big guilds could chain kill the lieutnants to get keys and trigger the event for themselves, but they could go in only once. 2) Other guilds would then be able to also go get after the lieutnants (after or at previous times), get the keys and give it a try. Of course, they would benefit from the big guilds trigger effort, but on the other hand the big guild would not have been able to forbid access to others. 3) It would also mean that the efforts the big ueber guild does to advance is somewhat shared with the community, and not a selfish "we are the forefront and screw the others".
I am very happy to see VR taking a nuanced stance with instancing. As many have already stated, a judicious use can help alleviate a lot of toxic behavior while at the same time keep the benefits of an open world adventure.
I am a little nervous about the use of sharding, by which I mean creating copies of the same zone. While I understand this is meant to address the issue of over population at release, I hope that if server populations remain high months later that VR will open servers and allow transfers to less populated servers. Games where sharding persist defeat the purpose of an open world game, especially when players have an option to pick and choose which shard they go to.
Lastly I hope VR takes to heart what Vandraad said: "However large you think you need to make a zone/area, double it. However many NPCs you think are needed in a given area, double it. However many simultaneous players of a given level range a server can support, halve it. The need for instancing is, nearly always, based upon developers making too small a world, with too little content and cramming far too many people into it. Stop doing that #%@%."
Thorndeep - the one area I have felt most strongly about over the years in terms of "instancing" has been the use of sharding at release.
In terms of player choice - the normal approach I have seen in other MMOs is to not give a choice initially but to allow players to join groups and then switch shards to the one the group leader is in. This is sometimes used to form groups to actually do things but very often is used when something is happening in one shard but not others and people want to go there for it. A GM or Guide event for example.
I do not disagree with your point that sharding should be temporary, outside of any areas where VR has reasons to want a small and controlled population e.g. for story reasons or to enable a festival event to work as intended. The reason I so strongly have pushed for sharding at release is because it can be and should be temporary. Having three shards of each starter zone for two months causes no long term problems. Having three times more servers than needed on a long term basis and then doing a major merger after two months causes many problems, Loss of names and publicity that Pantheon must be collapsing because it had to do a huge merger so soon after release not least among them.
I think the initial instancing for decreasing strain on servers during launch period is really good solution - i'm all for it.
I also think that instancing some bosses is a positive thing - what got me worried (as far as i remember it correctly - watched the video quite some time ago) was the statement, that once an instanced boss has been slain there will be period that this boss will be unavailable - i hope that this will be applied to the members of the party that actually slain the boss and not everyone.
The thing that got me really excited though (and I hope I won't be dissapointed) is that, that these are the only situations that instancing is considered - that would mean that guild halls and player housing will be available for all to see ... I hope that is the case - I loved games where I could admire other players creativity and their achievements, looking at the grandiose buildings and fantastic gardens while strolling through towns.
If an instanced approach is done simply to keep other players from interfering in a boss fight - wouldn't it make more sense for its respawn to be unaffected by this mechanism? So if a boss normally would spawn once a day - if the fight was instanced it should spawn ...once a day.
Instancing can be great in MMO games because it allows for tangible progression without interference from other players. Although I enjoy competing for resources, such as open-world mobs, I think instancing can prevent other players from negatively affecting the playtime of a guild or group.
I'm happy to hear that Visionary Realms is using instancing, and I don't have any issue with it as long as it's used in the right situations.
Players should personally have to kill the Lieutenants at least once before they can enter Gnashura's room. The goal is to ensure that players have to be able to get past a DPS check and are prepared and capable of taking part in the event if and when it becomes available.
I do not want to see players locked out of an event just because they weren't playing at the time or because one guild has the event on lockdown by knowing the spawn times. To address this issue, I suggest having two Lieutenants, a First Lieutenant and a Second Lieutenant, who can drop two parts of the key. When players combine these parts, they can open the door to the event.
I also think that the event should have different difficulty levels, ranging from normal to hard to mythic. For example, the first level could be a training field with trainees and a Captain and Major, while the next difficulty could add more trainees, a Lieutenant Colonel, and a Colonel. The most challenging level would drop the best loot and materials, with all the previous ranks plus a General and Gnashura. Depending on the level chosen, the loot tables for materials and drops could be different, allowing crafters to make special gear from the event.
When a group enters the event through the door, they should be locked out for a set period of time, like a day. This would prevent one guild from monopolizing the event and give everyone a chance to participate. The group would still need to beat the event to obtain the gear and materials, with the higher-ranked officers holding the best loot and materials.
All gear dropped from the event should be bind-on-pickup, and the materials obtained should allow crafters to make gear up to the same level as the dropped items with specific names to know where the materials came from. This way, players can work towards obtaining the gear and materials they need without relying solely on drops. Ultimately, I believe that everyone should have a fair chance at different mini-raids and events in the game, with success or failure being determined by player skill and effort.
When designing content for the game, it's important to avoid focusing all group content in one or two areas that offer the best gear. This can make players feel like they have limited options and quickly become bored.
To prevent this, offering similar gear in multiple locations throughout the game is essential. This will ensure that players have many options for group content and can choose what suits them best.
By providing a variety of areas with similar gear, players will have more to do, and the game will feel more balanced. It's essential to create a sense of exploration and discovery in the game, and this can only be achieved by providing multiple areas with unique content that players can enjoy.
You and your group have to beat the mini-raid to get the loot, not be blocked from event timers that you cannot help because you do not poop-sock the game. The game needs to be fun and challenging for all not just one guild. I am not saying to make the raids or mini-raids easy but let people have a go at it.
Let me just add that on a PVP server, you kill all other groups and do not let them get the keys but the same concept as above.
Huge fan of the Gnashura implementation of instancing for several reasons. I like that they retain the creative license to use this kind of boss instancing, or not. That they're using nuance. I think thoughtful and tasteful nuance and difference between encounters is part of what creates that magnetism we're all here for. But perhaps my favorite part of the rollout for this encounter is the social and community components involved when the doors get opened to access the encounter. It's an invitation for the entire zone to converge on one, super-charged piece of excellent content. I feel this will be very wonderful for community. I can just see the /say comments now around the beginning and end of everyone's attempts. Stories about everyone's encounter, how that one spell got applied just-in-time and the group just squeaked by, and got their loot, and now the wizard is /dancing with it. How many groups were kinda like, "damn, well, we got our ass kicked lol, our ranger said he was going to Main Tank." Or prior to the encounter, the group who took down the lieutenant or w/e, somehow has a signifier that they did, and the groups who've never taken down the lieutenant are like whoa what's that? and lore conversations happen about what that signifier actually is. or 'yeah we're gonna get our ass kicked here, but we're just here for all this action (community)'. Simply put, I love that, with this encounter, arguably some of the best most thoughtful content will be a thing that the local in game community will be invited to center around. Content really is King here!
As for sharding for overpopulation at launch... I'm inclined to think about the perfect target of attendance/use in and of the zone but also the world. Which I think might be something like, one or two groups waiting for a camp to open up, killing entry trash, or spelunking trash between camps, those hodge podge camps. Just that little bit of "tough to get the good stuff", but not so preventative that your time is straight up unproductive. At the same time... I could see the ideal "line for camps" *in the popular zones* being even longer than one or two... which would essentially be an invitation to the other, maybe less popular zones also available for that level range (that offer different content, benefits, lore, etc). Maybe it's less popular because its harder to get to, or its one of those difficult and annoying but super rewarding/nichey water zones (my fav! ie those zones that get a bad wrap for xyz, but so rewarding if you can convince a group to go figure it out lol). I think the ideal answer to overpopulation is designing zones for the average long term attendance, but having more available zones/content/quests available, rather than copied content, but since new zones/more great content takes limited resources, and we're all on a time crunch of sorts, maybe the sharding solution is the most feasible and realistic, until resources permit a more ideal situation.
So then with regard to sharding algo stuff, it might be cool to have certain notifiers in that algo, which the algo says oh, all the camps are taken, including non-named camps or 'exp/faction camps', so algo spawns a new shard. At least for alpha launch. I think at big launch, maybe that algo does a more substantial "camp check", across all zones at that level that are available before it spawns a shard. Maybe even there's a way for druids or something to tap into that camp check algo and use some kind of intuition that says, like the trees are speaking to me in xyz zone, saying xyz camp area is available. Any kind of class flavors could be baked into that, like rogue/enchanter network spies, etc. Inviting to more available awesome (but less popular!) world content, rather than sit and complain that this content is not open. Like there is some value in a zone's identity like, yeah that's the crowded zone but it's great if you can get a camp. There's other good zones too though but people don't go to those as much for xyz reason #5. Maybe it's tricky and 'tough to get or enjoy'. Kinda thing. That kind of draw to the world is among my favorite things as I've always enjoyed the road less traveled in mmo's and irl.
Maybe there's a small cost for groups going to a freshly opened new shard. Like. Maybe all the PH's spawn instead of nameds, and maybe camps spawn after 15 minutes, but the trash there spawns with the zone. So the groups willing to battle to all the way to the camp get the newly opened camp, but have to wait for it to spawn mobs for 10 minutes once they get there. Straight up attendance based 'copy entire zone now' i think is too shocking and brash to the in game experience, and dilutes the value of the best camps too much, unnecessarily. Maybe even the new shard has a slight reduction in chance to spawn nameds, or slight reduction in exp or some combo, so that when the shard shuts down, it's like oh, maybe enough main shard camps opened up, that's better anyway.
In my assumptions I imagine two kinds of dynamic scenarios: 1. in an open world, non instanced scenario, the environmental need is for faster mob spawn times and faster, random, RNG, named spawn points but not too fast on the nameds, there will need to be a sweet spot determined to make them worthy enough because they will not spawn in the same spot or from the same PH. 2. Ring type events, or triggered/quest progression events might be better served as instanced- like Gnashura or Gnashura can be one of those open events where if you are a lowbie and get caught inside, good luck.
I think having as little instancing as possible in the open world is a must. Creating sub-sections of that big open world with instancing and separating the player base into these sub-sections depending on what quest they're on or what quests they've completed or whatever other criteria is especially harmful. I do not mind if it's used sparingly like for specific hand-picked quests as long as once that quest is done you're back into the one open-world everybody shares as opposed to being permanently transfered toa new instance of the open world other plays can only join once they've completed this quest. The key word is sparringly.
I do lioke my dungeons and raids to be instanced though, I have bad memories of Anarchy Online where bigger ghuilds would just camp raid and dungeon bosses' spawns making exceedingly hard to have a shot at these bosses not to mention how immersion breaking it felt. Furthermore I like the idea of my party being on its own in a hostile and dangerous envuiironment with no one to rely on but ourselves even though I admit I can see the appeal in being able to meet other groups in dungeons. Maybe the middle ground is best: it would be good to have some instanced dungeons and some open world dungeons or open sky zones without instancialization.