Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't "No Instances" something that was decided from the beginning as well as being a big reason why so many of us were/are interested in Pantheon?
Arguments aside, this is like going into a restaurant that clearly states they serve only beef and trying to convince them that chicken is better. You may be right and you may be wrong, but that's not what the restaurant serves, and if you didn't like it why did you walk in? Seems almost jerk-ish to try and come in and change one of the main draws for a lot of us. The point of Pantheon, in many ways, was to NOT cater to loud public opinion.
Not saying anyone's argument is right or wrong. I'm saying that even having the argument is wrong. Was it not decided from the very beginning? Did you not know it coming in? And if so, where do you get the right? Is it ignorance, or maliciousness?
Frankly, to avoid the excessive competition and content locking, it is far easier to make raid drops not the endgame at all. Raid targets could be guaranteed spawn (every week or so) with guaranteed multiple drops while group targets of the same level would not be predictable spawns with less spawns.
That way, guilds locking raid targets (if they are so many and not spread at all) would simply gear faster, but not better, and while the big target remains valuable, they don't end up beeing a whole tier of content and gear level.
Ditto for Tralyan.
Personally I see Lockouts as a problem for guilds that are NOT top tier.
In Everquest, when the guild I was in started to raid, we often did not have enough people for a full raid. We solved this by inviting friends from other guilds to join us. Sometimes friends joined from guilds that never raided or from guilds that were at the same place as we were, other times it was friends from the top guilds who joined.
Now imagin the trouble we would have had if there were Lockout timers. "Sorry, can't help you. I'm on Lockout."
I remember having so many friends in other guilds. They would help us and we would help them.
If Lockouts exists, no one in a guild that raids will be willing to help friends in other guilds. You can't risk not being able to attend your own raids just because you wanted to be a good friend.
-sorte.
Tralyan said:Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't "No Instances" something that was decided from the beginning as well as being a big reason why so many of us were/are interested in Pantheon?
Theres alot of things that are said and then changed. Even looking at the FAQ it says "no instances is the plan at this time".
To be fair, I dont care either way. I fully plan on being in whatever guild is pushing the progression.
I just find it funny that in a game which said no instances (which clearly means they are ok with competition and server dominance) now has a thread on alternative ways to promote "easier" competition.
kreed99 said:Dynamic, diverse, and plentiful content. Lower spawn timers on static spawns. Make the encounters dynamic and not instance a static zone. Instancing does not promote community.
2 things. If you lower the spawn time that will just allow the top guild to kill more.
And instancing of raids does nothing to hinder the community. Instancing of dungeons and the like is what would hinder community. Having an instance that a guild enters for a couple hours a week would not change anything.
bryanleo9 said: Solution....have servers for the people that want the competition and play 8 hours a day. The majority of the paying population should have a shot at the top content. Looking back at the history of EQ, the first couple of expansions were due to Uber guilds like fires of heaven and others demanding more content, these expansions were to pacify the powergamers. We shall see if VR gives into them again.
You have to strike a balance. You have to develop an amount of content for all ranges of play. You can't cater to any 1 group of players. And you will never see a game split up the servers into hardcore and not.
Let's say the top 2 guilds from each server rolled onto the hardcore server... that would just make the #3 guild the number 1. Most raid guilds are extremely competitive, and the only thing that holds them back is a better raiding guild.
People seem to be dramatizing this way to much, and assuming that problems from other games will be in Pantheon. I don't believe there will be any type of problems when it comes to casual raiders being denied acess to raid bosses due to top guild spawn camping them. And there will only be competition between the top hardcore guilds of the server. I believe there won't be any problems due to 2 main things.
1 - Top guilds will be so far ahead of everyone else (3-5 months ahead) that when the casual raiding player base reaches the raiding content, hardcore guild will have already moved on to the next big challanging content.
2 - There will be multiple raiding encounters spread all around the world, and getting to the boss will take a siginificant ammount of time and work clearing the zone, so a top guild won't be able to just swoop in get the kill and move on to the next boss, this will prevent top guilds from comming back to earlier/easier content and just having some easy gear from quick kills, because it would be too time consumming to keep every old boss on lock down, wich could potentially lead to a top guild lossing current boss kills to another top, this will allow casual raiding guilds to get their turn at these older bosses.
Personally I have no issue with instanced raids. My interest in a 'no instanced' game was for the lvling and dungeon experience. Actually I wouldn't even care that much about instanced dungeons - as long as they are not the focus. Instances suck to me because of:
a) LFG tool that comes with it
b) the open world content of a game seems to be designed for an idiot to easily solo it
As a result, anything outside of instances ends up being an antisocial, lonely affair, which means lots of people spend their time in the instances which of course makes the world even lonlier. You have to enter an instance if you actually want content with some form of challenge, so there is no desire of being in the open world.
If you give me the Guks, the Unrest, the Befallen, Sebellis etc. type big ass dungeon type places, give me the challenging overland encounters worthy of grouping up for and 'camping' then I wouldn't care if some instanced dungeons were also in the game - heck, LDON for EQ1 did not bother me at all, in fact I rather enjoyed it as a fresh bit of content that was an interesting break from the open world. THe world was still busy and full and still the same challenging content needing groups to do, so some days I would do open world, others I would pop in an instance.
I have the same view of raids - I am happy with a mix of everything - instances, lockout bosses, triggered boss, raid zones big enough for thee different Guilds to be working through at the same time. Not sure why everything always seems to be an either or discussion. Get it all in there, variety is the spice of life.
Given that Pantheon is being marketed as "persistent open world", "non-instanced", "sandbox" MMO.
Adding in mechanics (instances, lockout timers) that break those aspects does not seem likely if the designers stick to the plan as detailed.
Lockout timers were added by teams that came long after the original designers had moved on from games. In vanguard they did not appear for a couple years after release.
Those teams had no interest in continuing the "vision". They were just changing functionality to the whims of more corporate decision making, where following the $$$ was driving decisions.
And LDON for EQ1 I felt was a travesty. It should never have been allowed. And it is a direct example of what I just said above. Did not fit the original design, added by corporate decision exploring $$ options.
jpedrote said:1 - Top guilds will be so far ahead of everyone else (3-5 months ahead) that when the casual raiding player base reaches the raiding content, hardcore guild will have already moved on to the next big challanging content.
2 - There will be multiple raiding encounters spread all around the world, and getting to the boss will take a siginificant ammount of time and work clearing the zone, so a top guild won't be able to just swoop in get the kill and move on to the next boss, this will prevent top guilds from comming back to earlier/easier content and just having some easy gear from quick kills, because it would be too time consumming to keep every old boss on lock down, wich could potentially lead to a top guild lossing current boss kills to another top, this will allow casual raiding guilds to get their turn at these older bosses.
Even in EQ with Kunark and to an extent Velious, the multiple raid targets were dominated by the top 2-3 guilds. It isn't hard for the top guilds to continue to dominate that content with long respawn timers and a poopsock playstyle.
I'm having a hard time imagining the raiding in this game is going to follow the trend of the past decade where you raid in tiers, especially since they have said time and time again that raiding isn't the focus of this game and only some of the best/better items will come from raids.
zewtastic said:Given that Pantheon is being marketed as "persistent open world", "non-instanced", "sandbox" MMO.
Adding in mechanics (instances, lockout timers) that break those aspects does not seem likely if the designers stick to the plan as detailed.
Lockout timers were added by teams that came long after the original designers had moved on from games. In vanguard they did not appear for a couple years after release.
Those teams had no interest in continuing the "vision". They were just changing functionality to the whims of more corporate decision making, where following the $$$ was driving decisions.
And LDON for EQ1 I felt was a travesty. It should never have been allowed. And it is a direct example of what I just said above. Did not fit the original design, added by corporate decision exploring $$ options.
Nothing about lockout timers goes against any of that (and Pantheon isn't marketed as a sandbox).
>@Porygon, No-Instancing is a fairly serious deal-breaker. It is one of the very fundamental design features Pantheon is based on. It is not going to change.<
Sorry but this is simply wrong.
VR has said and repeated that Pantheon will not have a lot of instancing. And this is important - some games have a *lot* of instancing and that is anathma to the basic design philosophy. I agree with you entirely to that extent.
VR has left open the possibility of having *some* instancing. Instances to let people pursue limited story-driven content without interference. Instances of zones when there is overcrowding but it is temporary so not desirable to create new servers. The mob scene at release for instance. Instances for certain content where they consider unlimited competition inappropriate.
They have not, repeat not, said they will have any of these instances. But they have not ruled them out either. And key words in the FAQ which says they have no specific plans for instances are "at this time".
dorotea said:>@Porygon, No-Instancing is a fairly serious deal-breaker. It is one of the very fundamental design features Pantheon is based on. It is not going to change.<
Sorry but this is simply wrong.
VR has said and repeated that Pantheon will not have a lot of instancing. And this is important - some games have a *lot* of instancing and that is anathma to the basic design philosophy. I agree with you entirely to that extent.
VR has left open the possibility of having *some* instancing. Instances to let people pursue limited story-driven content without interference. Instances of zones when there is overcrowding but it is temporary so not desirable to create new servers. The mob scene at release for instance. Instances for certain content where they consider unlimited competition inappropriate.
They have not, repeat not, said they will have any of these instances. But they have not ruled them out either. And key words in the FAQ which says they have no specific plans for instances are "at this time".
While I think you're right in saying that the lack of instancing may not be categorized as one of the very fundamental designs of Pantheon - I do absolutely think that it's the fundamental impetus for a very large portion of the playerbase for being here. It may not be a defining "design", but it is a defining feature. I'd say one of the biggest. If we were to order features of Pantheon by how much those features define it as an MMO, instancing (or the lack thereof) would be one of the highest, if not THE highest.
I'm not one of those folks that says "If this is in the game, I won't play it". Never done it on these forums, because most of the topics we talk about I can live with, or without. I didn't finally decide to support Pantheon because of the colored mana, or the perception system, or NPC disposition. I didn't even do it because it espouses a more group oriented approach to MMOs. I did so because it advertized no instances. That's it. That's the defining differentiator between what Pantheon is supposed to be, versus all the other MMO's out there. All these other features out there are like spices. The perception system is the salt to the steak of instancing. Without dungeons, none of that would happen, and instances change the entire direction of how dungeons (and raids) will be experienced.
But because it says "at this time", it's up for debate? Just because the team of VR didn't say "end of story", we're talking about changing the nature of the entire game? So people looked at the Pantheon difference and thought to themselves, "man, I'm gonna try to change that!" before hitting that support button?
Again, it just seems wrong.
jpedrote said:People seem to be dramatizing this way to much, and assuming that problems from other games will be in Pantheon. I don't believe there will be any type of problems when it comes to casual raiders being denied acess to raid bosses due to top guild spawn camping them. And there will only be competition between the top hardcore guilds of the server. I believe there won't be any problems due to 2 main things.
1 - Top guilds will be so far ahead of everyone else (3-5 months ahead) that when the casual raiding player base reaches the raiding content, hardcore guild will have already moved on to the next big challanging content.
You clearly don't understand the mind-set of the average world/server first chasing guild. They will do anything they can to get and then maintain that position. Farming an old boss to keep the competition from having the opportunity to kill it and get gear is what they have alts or bench scrubs for (assuming the first team is completely geared from the encounter). Content denial is a basic part of their strategy if it's available in the game.
Tralyan I almost entirely agree with you especially on the most important point - instancing is one of the curses of current MMOs and a big attraction of Pantheon is it is not going down that road.
The only place we differ is that I think instancing may be OK under three circumstances. So I wouldn't say to VR please NO instances ever.
1. In a *very* limited number of quests that are in the game to show a story where this is best done without other players interfering. As per discussion in the "my story" thread not stories central to the game or our place in the game. but side stories that are totally optional and not important other than for adding some depth for those that want it. As in showing a race's history a bit.
2. On a *temporary* basis to alleviate overcrowding where there is no better solution. For a starter zone at release. For a dungeon that averages 100 characters in it day after day and until people move on to other content its a nightmare to have to wait an hour and take a number to get to kill one giant ant.
Please note that in this context you and I may be using the same word different ways. I mean "instance" as a second or third version of the same thing. I do NOT mean instance as something that only one character or one group can be in at a time. So if there were three versions of a low level dungeon that half the players in the game were overcrowding each of the three versions would be social and competitive. So you and I may have different terminology but not disagree on the merits.
3. For a few bosses (open world or dungeon) where excessive competition would keep most players/guilds from even having a chance to ever do the encounter. Particularly at lower levels - end game raids tend to attract people that enjoy what I personally consider excessive competition.
On point three I am reasonably sure we do disagree though my comment on end-game raids may reduce the level of disagreement a bit.
zewtastic said:@Porygon, No-Instancing is a fairly serious deal-breaker. It is one of the very fundamental design features Pantheon is based on. It is not going to change.
Instancing raids and instancing dungeons are 2 widely different things. Pantheon never billed itself as no instances and there have not even been firm statements saying this. In most cases they just say "no instances at this time" ... which I think we can all agree means they are reserving the right to change that view if they feel like they need to.
I'm fine with no instances. I just want people to understand that lockout timers are not a valid substitute for instances. There are many more problems that come about with them.
I want people to get away from the mindset that many of them have, that "instances are bad".
If you look at previous eq tlp servers that were run organically with no instances, you typically have 2 or 3 guilds killing all content in era with several other guilds expansions behind... even when instances were naturally introduced.. these lesser guilds were so far behind they were unable to keep up and eventually fizzle off. You end up with server that are dead during the later expansions with the exception of 1 or 2 high end guilds still playing.
Now if you look at phinny... an eq tlp server that was FULLY INSTANCED... you see a different story. You see 19 guilds clearing velious... 19 guilds clearing NToV and killing vulak aerr in era. The server is in its 12th (iirc) expansion... The serpents spine... and there are STILL 13 guilds clearing content in era.
I think this defintely paints a picture that if instances are done right, it can be a huge boon to the end game raiding scene in a video game and on a server. I mean eq players are stubborn as hell. And many of them believe that the later expansions are garbage... yet give them the ability to stay current and not be held back by other players and all the sudden you tend to see a different story...
That's all I'm saying. Instances aren't bad if done right. I don't want to see dungeon instances... but raids.. sure.
Tralyan said:. But because it says "at this time", it's up for debate? Just because the team of VR didn't say "end of story", we're talking about changing the nature of the entire game? So people looked at the Pantheon difference and thought to themselves, "man, I'm gonna try to change that!" before hitting that support button?
Again, it just seems wrong.
Isnt this the same for any feature that has been changed. Wasnt it mentioned that classes would potentially have 2 paths they can take to determine their speciality?? That's clearly not happening anymore...
I think alot of us know that things can change when it comes to development of a game. Again I dont see instanced raids as something that would hinder the community. Instanced dungeons however... that's aNother story.
INSTANCES/CHANNELS
Modern MMOs are using the term "channels" now. BDO, AA, Bless.
Channel = instance.
An instance is typically an exact copy of an original zone and there can be any number of "copies".
Typically instances are made to deal with technical limitations such as bandwidth or cpu/ram limitations. If a zone gets too crowded and laggy, jump to instance 2.
Some instances/channels are created where players can choose and jump instantly between them, looking for a spawn or escaping pvp, etc. This is typical for Korean MMOs.
Most Korean MMOs all use channels. Typically the number of channels is constant. Two, three or more. But given load issues that could be changed.
PRIVATE INSTANCES
Some instances (not channels) are created dynamically just for a single player/group/raid, and no other players are allowed to join. And that instance is deleted once the party has finished. EQ2 makes extensive use of all types of instancing for example, with private instances for raid groups and entire zones being instanced dynamically as well.
Most if not all games since EQ1 have instances/channels, dynamic reserved instances and so forth.
The only non-instanced MMOs I can think of are UO(original), EQ1 (before LDON), DaoC, Mortal Online, LiFmmo, Vanguard. Vanguard APW had 6 copies, but they were not instances. Essentially 6 APW zones.
All Korean MMOs use channels/instancing.
EQ2, DDO, ESO, GW2, LOTR, SotA, WoW, AA, BDO, TERA, FF, and many more.