Brad McQuaid On Instancing

heartless_ writes "The man behind Everquest and now Vanguard:Saga of Heroes has responded to a Gamergod.com article about chasing that old loving feeling from MMORPGs of the past. He goes off on a long dissertation on Instancing in Massively Multiplayer Roleplaying Games. From the articles 'Let's start with the old school: perhaps the designers are big time original D&D players (or at least AD&D - that's what I played - hey I'm not that old). D&D wasn't massively multiplayer - it was you, your group, and the DM. No one would argue that setup created some great times, great experiences, and great memories. I sure have them. And if that is what you think back on mostly, what you cherish, what you are trying to re-create, then having multiple groups around is a problem.'"

Comments

Not really.

[Short Circuit]

then having multiple groups around is a problem.

Running into competitors in a D&D game makes for a great potential villain. Or at least a comparable entity that alternates between friend and foe.

Good for gameplay and storyline.

Re:Not really.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Not Not Really.

Running into competitors in an internet based game where there is 0 consequences and 0 accountability makes for hundreds if not thousands of people looking to ruin your fun.

He was referring to having D&D style games in a MMORPG. Not having groups in a D&D game setting.

While at face value your comment is correct, it's taking the subject out of context, and dare I say, missing the point.

Re:Not really.

[Short Circuit]

Running into competitors in an internet based game where there is 0 consequences and 0 accountability makes for hundreds if not thousands of people looking to ruin your fun.

No consequences or accountability? You'd think they'd find a way to incorporate that into the game. Certainly on servers where roleplaying is popular, there'd be social consequences, wouldn't there?

I'll admit I don't play MMORPGs...I've got family that do, though.

Re:Not really.

[Ayaress]

The issue in MMORPGs becomes the issue that has been hashed out regarding Final Fantasy XI more than once: Having multiple groups in a dungeon area does, on one hand, allow for some cool interaction, but it also invites game-breaking abuse. The issue FFXI had was that guilds would large groups to monopolize bosses for weeks at a time, both making them incredibly rich and preventing other people in the game from finishing quests or getting good items themselves.

Most MMOs are set up so there's lots of space that allows, and often forces, interaction and confrontation between guilds. My personal favorite in World of Warcraft is trying to get into Blackrock Mountain to do one of the several instance dungeons inside. My server's one of the highest population servers in the US, and on weekends, it's not unusual for the areas outside of the instances to erupt in occasional skirmishes and sometimes large scale fights.

On the other hand, the instanced areas allow for the laying out of much more complex events than are feasible in a multi-party area. In many of the instance dungeons in WoW, there are chains of events that have to be triggered to open certain areas, unlock certain bosses, or complete certain quests. With multiple parties moving around in an area, this will cause all sort of headache. Imagine just clearing one of the pit bosses in Sunken Temple, only to have a party upstairs activate the last statue and spawn it again. Not only do you have to fight a fairly strong boss unprepared, but the other party just got screwed out of the boss THEY worked to spawn.

There's a balance to be sought between interaction and confrontation between players and the controlled teamwork scenarios in dungeon instances. An MMO needs the interaction with other players, but it also benefits greatly from the much richer content you can implement in an instance's controlled conditions.

Re:Not really.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well the "hundreds if not thousands" don't all come at once. Once the few that ruin your fun get punished, the other few come along. Sure, there's moments of levity, and genuine fun. But its only a matter of time before someone else finds a way to press the right buttons.

The consequences are little deterrent, if any. Those that seek to irk others most likely don't find enjoyment from the regular game.

Because of these "incidents", most people who play MMORPGs tend to either develop a thick skin or give it up. Its common with most anonymous interactions (IE online).

Not all MMORPGs are like this, just the most popular ones.

Re:Not really.

[Meagermanx]

MMOs are like all that is boring extracted from a traditional RPG, and shoved into a small space with thousands of people trying to have fun in the same area.
 
Three major factors in MMOs, combat, finance and stats, are the three most boring and time consuming parts of RPGs.
In RPGs it's better to have half a dozen fights in two dozen rooms, and have the rest of the rooms be cool treasure areas, trapped areas, puzzles, and the occasional NPC. Shove monsters in the remaining rooms (in interesting positions: sleeping, playing cards, and other exploitable situations), and you've got a dungeon. A cliche dungeon, but a fun one to play in, none the less.
MMOs just take the monster-smashing, stick the monsters in random areas and make you fight them 200 times before you get to move on.
RPGs make you earn your gold and treasure and then go back to town and reap your rewards with cool weapons and armor and spells. That's fun.
MMOs are so boring in the treasure-grabbing department that people are willing to pay actual money for in-game credits. We're not going to even get into "town runs".
RPGs make you sort out your own stats, which is necessary. But once you get your equipment set up, you're good to go until you level up or get something cool, in which case you're more than glad to fiddle with the rules. It makes math fun.
MMOs make you constantly min-max. They have plenty of items, but they're all the same. A spear works the same as a short sword works the same as a mace. Boring.
 
If you like those aspects of MMOs, go ahead and play 'em. I recommend a good RPG any day.
I've recently started an RPG forum with some friends. We play with the rules of the game (All Flesh Must Be Eaten), there's a 24 hour chance to give your orders, and it gives me plenty of time to work up flavor text and look up rules. I'm having more fun than I've ever had with an MMO.

Re:Not really.

[Anonymous Coward]

Running into competitors in a D&D game makes for a great potential villain. Or at least a comparable entity that alternates between friend and foe.

Good for gameplay and storyline.?

In a utopic MMOG setting yes, it would be great. However as many games have proved, it doesn't work. In EQ, there was no PvP, so the villain was this asshole guild filled with college kids who had a lot of free time on their hand pretty much monopolizing content. Your only solution was to play more than them if you wanted to experience the EQ endgame. Ironically Brad and Co. supported this retarted competition.

Then there were PvP games like Shadowbane and DAoC where some guilds (again, college kids and lot of time, yada yada) totally dominated the server. The moment you wanted to build a city in Shadowbane (pretty much the whole server is notified), few moments later the hardcore guild of the server shows up and utterly destroys your futile attempt.

While having utopic ideas about MMOG is nice and all, it doesn't work. EQ proved it perfectly clear how no instancing is bad. Now even the old dinosaur has every new zone since Gates of Discord (well vast majority of them), instanced. It just makes sense. If you want your players to experience PvE content (in PvE game or not) you need instancing or lack of it will bring the little asshole out in many. Internet anonymity + lot of free time + good old fashion human greed = asshole extraordinaire. No instancing turns MMOG into a job.

Post Brad and Co. EQ understood this, WoW also. SWG also. EQ2 ditto. Only Brad is too stubborn to realise it.

Vanguard will fail because of this.

Re:Not really.

[Sierpinski]

Running into competitors in a D&D game makes for a great potential villain. Or at least a comparable entity that alternates between friend and foe.

Good for gameplay and storyline.

The problem isn't running into a potential "villian", which might make the game fun, exciting, whatever. The problem stems from the immature jerks who love to do nothing except grief other players by tapping quest mobs, training mobs of monsters to you, ganking (which is why I play on a PvE server, but still PvP often) and all the other malicious tactics that those immature players consider fun. Instancing takes out the problem of one jerk causing a 40-man wipe because he decided to run in front of another raid and aggro Lucifron and train him back to the raid. When the 40-man raid is all thats there, that doesn't happen (at least not from outside the raid).

Especially once the whole Leeroy thing came out, how often do you think people would do that if the dungeons weren't instanced? I know of several people offhand who would follow any large raid they see going into Molten Core, BWL, or wherever, just to mess with them.

On the flip side though, the equivalent of probably thousands of square miles exist in the game that are not instanced. Lots of things you can do for fun.... me and 7 other friends (Alliance) "invaded" Undercity one knight. Of course we all died in the end, but we had a hell of a time, and we gathered a HUGE crowd to watch.

Or maybe I missed the point of the parent comment and need more coffee. ;-)

Re:Not really.

[Vaystrem]

Three major factors in MMOs, combat, finance and stats, are the three most boring and time consuming parts of RPGs.

"MMOs just take the monster-smashing, stick the monsters in random areas and make you fight them 200 times before you get to move on."

The dungeons in World of Warcraft, having been in all of them, are often meticulously structured and certainly not randomly placed.

"RPGs make you earn your gold and treasure and then go back to town and reap your rewards with cool weapons and armor and spells. That's fun."

Sort of like questing and then having to come out of the dungeon to move onto the next step and be progressively introduced to new elements within the dungeon your exploring? (Stratholm in WoW comes to mind)

"MMOs are so boring in the treasure-grabbing department that people are willing to pay actual money for in-game credits. We're not going to even get into "town runs""

Any time an economy has been structured to be 'separated' from the larger international (or in this case real) economy people find a way to bridge that gap. Its not just an MMO thing, look at countries who have closed internal currencies (China.. for now) its a HUMAN thing.

"MMOs make you constantly min-max. They have plenty of items, but they're all the same. A spear works the same as a short sword works the same as a mace. Boring."

You could look at Dark Age of Camelot where certain weapons work more effectively against certain types of armor. It radically changes the PVP experience, I would argue, and the targets you choose if you are (for example) Blunt (Mace) vs Pierce spec on a class like a Blademaster or Warrior.

"RPGs make you sort out your own stats, which is necessary. But once you get your equipment set up, you're good to go until you level up or get something cool, in which case you're more than glad to fiddle with the rules. It makes math fun."

I've always enjoyed rolling characters but the actual math aspect of is is to each there own. Either way in MMOs as well as RPGs you are also "good to go until you level up or get something cool"

I'm not sure which MMOs you've played but I've provided a counter example to each of your points, perhaps you are playing the wrong ones? Don't get me wrong - there are significant flaws to MMOs. Being in a raiding guild in WoW I've seen my fair share of Zul'Grub, Molten Core, and Black Wing Lair. The game is now, in a word, fairly mundane. A point you failed to stress, and should have, is that the real problem with MMOs at end game is that more often or not it becomes all about the gear and that either motivates you or it doesn't.

I feel Dark Age of Camelot (DAOC) balanced this better than most with their absolutely superb RVR (PVP) structure. Atleast when you hit 50 you still could go out and defend the realm and feel that you were actually part of a greater cause. Battle grounds in Guild Wars / World of Warcraft just don't do that for me. I can't speak on Shadowbane as I only played it briefly but Shadowbane and DAOC seem to have done a pretty good job of the end game balance, but no matter what - eventually the game gets old.

Re:Not really.

[Meagermanx]

"MMOs just take the monster-smashing, stick the monsters in random areas and make you fight them 200 times before you get to move on."

The dungeons in World of Warcraft, having been in all of them, are often meticulously structured and certainly not randomly placed.

I've only played a little of the beta of WOW, and I didn't get past level 3, or something, so I'll admit I don't know anything about it's dungeons.
So, lemme ask you, what kinds of traps does it have? Are there boulders and swinging blades like in Tomb Raider, or puzzles and riddles you have to figure out, like the classic "Speak friend and enter"?
Are any of the monsters in interesting positions? I mean, are the dungeon guards ever talking or sleeping, or are they always just standing there waiting for you?
I'm asking, because I don't know.

Sort of like questing and then having to come out of the dungeon to move onto the next step and be progressively introduced to new elements within the dungeon your exploring? (Stratholm in WoW comes to mind)

Okay, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying there are a lot of dungeons that make you leave, go to town, come back, and do the dungeon over again? Sorry if I'm misreading you here.
Anyway, one of the time consuming things about going back to town to sell crap is the time it takes to travel back and forth. Also, from what I've heard about WOW, you can't get rideables until level 40!
If you're playing an RPG, the DM can just say something like "Okay, you leave the town and ride through the hilly countryside. You sense eyes watching you, but nothing can be seen. Soon you come to the crystal clear waterfall, and just as the map said, there is a small mound of rock by the base of the waterfall. Upon closer inspection there appears to be a small 2X2 hole in the back, hidden by moss." Boom. Good to go. Sit through 30 seconds of flavor text and you're back to treasure hunting, or back at town, or wherever the action is.

Any time an economy has been structured to be 'separated' from the larger international (or in this case real) economy people find a way to bridge that gap. Its not just an MMO thing, look at countries who have closed internal currencies (China.. for now) its a HUMAN thing.

Okay, when's the last time you were sitting around a table prepping for a game, and somebody handed the GM a fiver and gave him a wink, and the GM said "Ahem, Todd starts with an extra 5,000 gold pieces."? That's never happened to me, simply because people who play RPGs enjoy the act of finding gold, and they're willing to go out and risk life and limb (well, you know) to get it. RPGers even complain if things are too easy and there's too much gold. MMO 'sploiters have nothing on RPGers.

You could look at Dark Age of Camelot where certain weapons work more effectively against certain types of armor. It radically changes the PVP experience, I would argue, and the targets you choose if you are (for example) Blunt (Mace) vs Pierce spec on a class like a Blademaster or Warrior.

That's not really what I'm takling about. I'm discussing the aspect of having to carry a backup weapon because your spear doesn't fit into a small, twisting passage well, or hitting somebody in the back of the head with a mace, trying to knock them out instead of slicing their head off with a sword.
MMOs have no actual combat-like situations. There is no taking into account high ground (that I know of), you never have to duck under a spear to get closer to your target, you never have to even connect with a weapon to hit. I know these are impossibilities with the current state of bandwidth people have access to, but that's just another reason RPGs outclass MMOs in most areas.

I'm not sure which MMOs you've played but I've provided a counter example to each of your points, perhaps you are playing the wrong ones? Don't get me wrong - there are significant flaws to MMOs. Being in a raiding guild in WoW

Different balances for different tastes.

[Durinthal]

I've managed to play a good bit of three games that take completely different approaches to using instances: Asheron's Call (no instances, last I checked), World of Warcraft (only large dungeons are instanced), and Guild Wars (everything outside of towns/outposts is instanced). Asheron's Call, at its height, had many crowded dungeons and people waiting in line for spawns, though this always gave you a chance to meet others. Guild Wars, on the other hand, feels empty, though you will always find that creature waiting for you.
I think that Blizzard's done it best, where you can still randomly run into another player in the middle of nowhere (which can be fun for explorers like myself), but you don't have to wait for a boss to respawn at the end of that long dungeon.

Re:Different balances for different tastes.

[fatboyslack]

Yeah, I quite like WoW's balance. It is fun to meet random players and have a bit of PvP action, but sometimes it is good to concentrate on a 'remote dungeon' and fight with just you and your buddies. Of course, end game for WoW is now all constant running through instances or constant PvPing in.... 'instances' against the Horde. As Tycho said recently on www.pennyarcade.com, I've also become an 'altoholic'. But I digress.

From 0 - 59 the balance in WoW is a delight. At 60 your pretty much stuck with instances or farming.

Re:Different balances for different tastes.

[will_die]

AC did not have instances outside of houses because of technology, however they did dungeons that because of the way they way you had to open the portal were basicly instances.
The WoW situation is good however EQ2 does it a little closer to AC, where you have larger dungeons that are open to all, and then when you get to the end of the dungeon is an entry to a instance where you may have a few more fights and then the boss. This is in addition to full dungeons that are instances.

Instancing and $15/mo

[Anonymous Coward]

Why pay $15/mo for an mmorpg when you spend large amounts of time in instances? Minimally Multiplayer rpgs let me play alone and with a small group of friends over the internets; isn't the monthly fee supposed to be in part to support server infrastructure that does things you couldn't just do with one computer and a non-dedicated server?

Re:Instancing and $15/mo

[Revenge013]

Why pay $15/mo for an mmorpg when you spend large amounts of time in instances?

I think that's a good point. After all, if you're in an instance, then why are you even playing online?

The overall jist of it, as I see it, is that the 'instance' is a sort of 'competition regulation'. It's the tool that devs utilize when they think that the content should be accessable to all players but with regulation... regulation being in the form of a 24-hour timer, once a week, etc.

The other side of the coin is, "Why pay $15/mo to play a game, but only get the leftovers and no chance at defeating the infamous mobs?"

I think people want to have that option to socialize and play a game at the same time... but to also have a fair chance at experiencing a majority of the game content without having to make a full time job out of playing (power-gaming).

Re:Instancing and $15/mo

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you answered your own question. instancing was introduced by some games as a way to provide that catered more details game play thats difficult to do in wide open unscripted areas. It also provides a way for you and your friends to have fun without getting ganked, or harassed by the other morons in the game. Yout get a nice private, scripted, no interference, game play with you and your closests friends.

of course some games take it too far, or dont use it enough. but honestly tryint to complete quests and run around and mine and kill stuff isnt much fun when 500 other people get in your way constantly or bicker senselessly on global chat, or gank your kill or you. not everyone finds that fun.

so a balance between the general population and instanced areas seems to be key. something WoW actually did reasonably well (although there are still some annoying left over EQ'isms like waiting in line to gank the one monster thats the only one thats drops a certain item).

and yeah passing is nice and fast in WoW, but now the problem with WoW is the economy is destroyed and everyone is level 60. suddenly its not as much fun as it use to be.

sorry i digress, but at any rate, instancing has its usefullness and can really enrich your gaming experience, but like anything else it needs to be used wisely.

Re:Instancing and $15/mo

[Xarius]

Which is where Guild Wars has it exactly right, everything outside of Towns or Outposts is instanced.

This allows the game to be free of monthly fees.

Re:Instancing and $15/mo

[Anonymous Coward]

Because when you succeed in the instanced dungeon, you can come out and be in the main world again. You can show the world what you accomplished in the instance. When you beat Hakkar in the 20man Zul'Gurub instance, you can win a ginormous sword called "Jin'Rokh, Destroyer of Worlds", a sword so big it practically drags on the ground when you strap it on your back. You can put that thing on and go walking around downtown Ironforge and get tells like "OMG where did you get that?!"

The larger world outside instances is always there to meet people in. That's what makes it different from a multiplayer-only game.

You can tell Brad doesnt care about PvP.

[L7_]

You can't have a pvp game that uses instances. Some of the best PvP ive ever been exposed to was the dungeon resource xp spots in Asheron's Call on Darktide. Same with the dungeon's in UO: its where people fought, because thier fights were to control resources. It was competitive, and you couldn't famr gold/xp at the best spots without earning that right.

The fact that all PvP is now done in instances in WoW has IMHO really hurt the game (other than the required 40 man instances eek!), since players no longer get to fight over and use persistance resources that everyone could access. The arenas in STV and DM are nice, as well as the huge outdoor raid boss fights, but not near the types of fights that occur over persistant areas in other games, as players dont need to hold/use the areas after killing the boss or opening the chest.

Re:You can tell Brad doesnt care about PvP.

[RustySpork]

Have you never been ganked while trying to get to a quest objective? There's plenty of PvP going on outside of Battlegrounds!

Re:You can tell Brad doesnt care about PvP.

[Ayaress]

Cases in point: Stonetalon and Hillsbrad. Stonetalon is an alliance rogue playground. Try to do any of the quests - any of them, seriously - on a pvp server without getting ambushed a dozen times. Especially the ones that require you to go up north, near the alliance camp. Hillsbrad, heck, my usual server isn't even pvp, but from THursay evening until Monday morning, the field between Tarren Mill and Southshore is a constant back-and-forth war. Since Arathi Basin came out, it's shifted a bit into Arathi, with the back and forth being between Hammerfall and Refugee Point. Don't evne try questing in most of Arathi, half the mobs in the zone will either be agroed into the raid groups or you'll just get caught in the lag caused by all those people running around hitting stuff.

Re:You can tell Brad doesnt care about PvP.

[LincolnQ]

Well, ganking isn't real PvP. I mean, it is PvP, but it's not really fun most of the time. Sure, occasionally you'll run into an equally matched opponent in the world and fight them, and it will be fun. And the grandparent did mention the pvp arenas in STV and DM, which are clearly awesome. So yeah, there is PvP in WoW outside of instances. But it's not really compelling, and you can't rely on it being actually fun.

Compare to Shadowbane, a game based around PvP. Mostly there were big castle sieges, which were tremendously fun because you were defending something you personally cared about -- your own guild's city. There were also bosses with valuable runes, and we would fight other players for the right to keep the rune. And then there were groups of gankers who would go around killing leveling groups, and you had to always be ready to defend yourself against the gankers whenever they might appear. Now that's PvP that you can care about.

On topic, on topic, hmm... Oh yeah, instancing. Shadowbane didn't have instancing and it was great. WoW had instancing and it was only okay (didn't provide me with nearly the fun factor of a non-instanced persistent world). Guild Wars is all instanced... and I like it a lot, but it's the "counter-strike" aspect of its PvP that's fun, rather than the traditional MMO feel. I'm not currently in a guild so I don't really do the bigger, more organized groups in Tombs, but I do the 4v4 random arena and it's loads of fun. I think instancing takes away from the "awesome, I can DO something" feel of the world.

Re:You can tell Brad doesnt care about PvP.

[screwballicus]

This was also the mechanism for what many DAOCers consider to be the best era in DAOC PvP. Namely, in the period after Darkness Falls was introduced, when PvP and XPing were intertwined through and within it in an interesting way.

Re:You can tell Brad doesnt care about PvP.

[DrSkwid]

one up for DAOC

I look back at EQ for depth, daoc was a bit cookie cutter until DF. Great fun to be had and watch out, Middies are coming.

Re:You can tell Brad doesnt care about PvP.

[illumina us]

You need to get back on and play in Alterac Valley. This BG is so huge you fight to control resources (gold mines, towers, grave yards) and go on quests to gain the upper hand. Unfortunately, some AV games can last over 24 hours. o.O

Preference for real-life RPGs

[bradbeattie]

There are some aspects of D&D (or any other in-person RPG) that online games just don't have.

• Face to face contact. Talking with the other players, making funny voices, facial gestures and generally socializing
• A human DM that adjusted things to the tastes of the group, fudged die rolls, provided a changing storyline that you really, honestly had an impact on.
• Imagination. Limiting graphics to at most a general diagram can inspire. I'm not saying online games can't do this, but the imagination isn't necessary.
• No online fee to play besides the inital gaming materials (that will still be usable 10 years from now).

Yeah, MMOs have a certain flair (no need to schedule a game with friends, automationing most of the game mechanics), but they lose appeal quickly. D&D, Shadowrun, World of Darkness, Toon, etc. Gimme those over MMOs any day.

Re:Preference for real-life RPGs

[Shad_the_protector]

You also forgot to mention the great movement and action liberty you have. You can nearly do everything you want to do. Unlike MMO where you are constently block by the coding difficulty of imagining that someday a player will want to "Jump over an ogre, while throwing a firebolt at an arrow throw by the archer of the team while another ride by there to catch you in your fall."

Re:Preference for real-life RPGs

[Meagermanx]

You can nearly do everything you want to do. Unlike MMO where you are constently block by the coding difficulty of imagining that someday a player will want to "Jump over an ogre, while throwing a firebolt at an arrow throw by the archer of the team while another ride by there to catch you in your fall."

Or, you know, climbing a small hill. Or jumping over a fence. Or crossing a shallow stream. Or walking down a steep cliff... but you get the point.

Re:Preference for real-life RPGs

[Shad_the_protector]

I had forgot those little damn thing you always want to do but can't. But to say the truth these should be available to do and aren't that hard to do.

Re:Preference for real-life RPGs

[bradbeattie]

I don't remember where I saw it, but there was a parody board game of an MMO. Roll a d20. If you roll a 1, you can't connect to the server. Sit this game out. Stuff like that.

Re:Preference for real-life RPGs

[Anonymous Coward]

1: voice chat with your guild covers most of that. No funny faces unless you go to the trouble of webcams. of course not seeing your RPG mates is probably a plus for MMOs.

2: totally agree. I once DMed a game with no rules or dice, just made up a story and let people act.

3: have you seen the graphics on WoW? politely, they leave lots to the imagination :p

4: paper RPGs are expensive too, particularly if you buy premade campaigns. in value for money they both get destroyed by non-subscription videogames, or, say, a deck of playing cards. mind you, I wrote an RPG myself* (and even got my friends to play for a fair while), that was pretty cheap entertainment.

Yeah, I'm only defending MMORPGs for fun, I hate level grind and would never pay for one. But I also gave up pen and paper style when I got Unreal Tournament, so there you go.

*best.RPG.ever. btw

Cloudsong

[Dolly_Llama]

The author clearly has never had his Cloudsong zerged out from under him.

In my Experiences.

[Doctor Tesla]

Instancing can be a great tool in a game, especially to guard against annoying behavior like loot stealing, dishonorable PVP, and spawn camping. But for the most part, I find the normal MMO atmosphere much more enjoyable. The idea of being out in the wilderness, and that being the same wilderness as everyone elses - the idea that I could run into anyone else at any moment - that is the true fun.

I remember my favorite all time moment in gaming was during Final Fantasy XI (not an altogether wonderful game, but regardless) while I rested at a campfire. I saw someone else run past at full speed, with an orc following. I quickly ran over and helped him, we formed a party, and that was the beginning of a beautiful gaming partnership. Guild Wars may earn a lot of people through its lack of monthly fees, but a lot of people are still going to be turned off by the fact that it's not really a true MMO as they know and wish it to be.

Do Instances harm MMO communities?

[1inthestink]

As a veteran of a few MMOG's (WoW and City of Heroes most recently), I thought Brad's comments were mostly on the mark. I was surprised at how even-handed his remarks about World of Warcraft were, although he did allow himself a few cheap shots.

I definitely think that he exaggerates the impact of instancing on speed of leveling. City of Heroes is a highly instanced game, in fact, the majority of missions take place in an instance, whereas very little of World of Warcraft takes place in instanced areas. But there's no question that the speed of leveling is dramatically faster in WoW. He gives some great analysis of the thought process behind designing a faster leveling game, but the statement that more instances = faster advancement is demonstrably false.

Furthermore, I think that instancing is just one aspect of an MMOG that can either work for or against community-building. The biggest factor in my mind is content soloability. If you don't NEED a group to defeat the vast majority of a game's content, a lot of people won't bother. You can pretty much solo your way to max level in WoW, but trying to do so in EQ or any traditional MMOG would be damn near impossible. This fits in with WoW's more casual-friendly atmosphere, but it means that unless you plan on joining a guild, you're unlikely to make many new friends.

Not that you'd really want to if you've spent any time listening to the General Chat channel in the Barrens. "OMFG Trollz r gayzor!!111!"

Re:Do Instances harm MMO communities?

[MMaestro]

I think you have to distinguish between instances for doing Missions/Quests/Storyline from doing instances for getting phat-l3wt. Any instance thats done for a mission is a good thing by my book. The last thing anyone wants is to get ganked or have to wait in line to finish a mission. On the other hand, instancing for special l3wt generally isn't a good thing for a wide range of reasons.

Naturally its all subjective, but this is generally the case. Games with more instance designed areas tend to be less competitive than those that force players to gather in one area to kill the same monster/boss/dragon.

Re:Do Instances harm MMO communities?

[Rhys]

Only played CoH recently eh?

There was the great herding nerf about three to six months back. The great hearding nerf slowed down leveling speed (particularly in the post-30 world) dramatically. I've been playing WoW for four months now, and haven't hit 60 quite yet. In CoH, I'd hit 50 in about 3 months.

Re:Do Instances harm MMO communities?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're basing your experience on just WoW and CoH then you're not going to see what Brad is talking about. My first character to just lvl 50 in oldschool EQ took me just shy of 60 days played. Granted i talked alot and killed a little, but it wasn't unheard of for people to take as long as i did or longer. Now we got people going through MMO's with their first char getting to max level in 10-20 days played. And that's a casual gamer. MMO's have gotten shorter and easier over the years. And it hasn't been good for the genre. You get more people bitching over the lack of "end game content" because they flew too fast through the rest of the game.

AD&D?

[Anonymous Coward]

Long periods of boredom broken only by adding numbers in your head. I was so happy when my character died and couldn't be resurected.

Re:AD&D?

[Song for the Deaf]

Long periods of boredom broken only by adding numbers in your head. I was so happy when my character died and couldn't be resurected.

Your DM must have sucked donkey balls, then. Either that or you must have been that guy who was too cool for D&D, but not cool enough to have anything else to do. I always hated it when you showed up to the gaming sesh.

Re:AD&D?

[Shad_the_protector]

2 reason I see.

1- Your DM is really borring.
2- You are more of the visual guy that need a vision of what is happening

hope it is the first, because you, else you are unlucky to not be able to enjoy such a great game genre.

Cool?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody has ever accused me of being cool, so you must be thinking of somebody else.

Very true -- the GW alternative

[Morgaine]

Different balances for different tastes.

Very true. After "completing" two conventional grind-based MMOGs to max level over several years of pain, I now adore the Guild Wars approach. Its designers completely threw out the MMOG rulebook, and created an amazing breath of fresh air amid the tedium of traditional MMOGs.

The "emptiness" of zones that you speak of is the challange: it's you and your friends against the whole zone, without any of the annoyances of shared zones. It also means no dying to trains created by inept or uncaring players, no waiting for spawns, no camping, no kill stealing, etc etc etc. All of the fun, none of the pain. Just you and your chosen colleagues, which can of course be AI henchmen, against the whole world. It's excellent.

But as you say, tastes vary, and some people like the pain of old MMOGs, the drudgery of waiting, and being at the mercy of others.

Re:Very true -- the GW alternative

[k_187]

yes, but how is that massively multiplayer?

Re:Very true -- the GW alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, but how is that massively multiplayer?

It's as MMO as traditional MMOGs in practice, because you still get to choose your playmates from the thousands of people online, out of the millions of registered subscribers. And 99% of the time, that's what people do and want in traditional MMOGs.

The only thing that it doesn't allow is the unsolicited presence of people whom you did not invite and who 99% of the time do nothing but ruin the game for you.

Shared zones sound good, until you realize that you've suffered enough because of them, and that almost everything that they introduce is bad.

It's not that GW is perfect of course. For example, it should allow a teammate who is leaving to be replaced by another, warped into the instance --- maybe NCsoft will add that some day. It's damn good as it stands though, compared to EQ and similar games that use shared zones a lot.

The best PvP is instanced

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't have a pvp game that uses instances.

Huh? You're really just showing the narrowness of your PvP experience in that comment. :-)

Guild Wars is a PvP-oriented (but not PvP-mandatory) MMOG/CMOG that is really without peer in being utterly skill-based --- pure, unadulterated player skill. The most experienced person (good old fashioned real player experience, not "XP") always wins in GW's PvP, not the person with the best armor or the best weapon.

This is PvP at its best, the opposite of the boring turns-based PvP you get in traditional MMOGs that have a PvP element. It's fast and furious, a feast of movement and skill just like real close-quarter combat.

Yet, the fighting zones and arenas in GW are 100% instanced. So, your point is totally baseless.

Re:The best PvP is instanced

[Anonymous Coward]

What are the consequences for losing in Guild Wars? Ladder ranking?

Instancing works well in WoW

[Ninwa]

I personally think that the instancing in WoW is done at just the perfect amount. Only the large-scale dungeons are instanced which is a great way to prevent boss-stealing. However, the rest of the world is not instanced so as mentioned before you can run into anybody just about anywhere.
 
On the other hand, in City of Heroes beta when I played EVERYTHING was instanced to a degree and it really lost the feel of really being a part of the world because of it.
 
The last extreme is Asheron's Call where nothing was instanced. This provided endless hours of entertainment for me sitting at portal spawns camping 'noobs' with my friends but I guess that's not for everybody. :] Darktide FTW?

Re:Instancing works well in WoW

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally think that the instancing in WoW is done at just the perfect amount. Only the large-scale dungeons are instanced which is a great way to prevent boss-stealing. However, the rest of the world is not instanced so as mentioned before you can run into anybody just about anywhere.

I have to agree here. For people like myself who can't afford to play for more than an hour or two a day and a few more on the weekends, being able to complete the major quests within an instanced area is a major bonus. The occasional epic quest reward helps too, given that I simply don't have the time to run MC or BWL 50 times in hopes of having one piece of loot drop.

Your dungeon

[Piroca]

RPGs = group sex, without the sex

Vanguard is a game for shut-ins

[Anonymous Coward]

If you haven't read their forums, this is truly the game for no-life shut-ins. It's a scary community over there, these people are for the longest, harshest, most unforgiving, time consuming game that could ever possibly be made. They want the old EQ back but more time consuming.

I honestly believe these folks have given up on life for these damn games, and well since that's the case, give me the hardest one imaginable. They want a game where putting in 18 hours a day every day gives your toons a marked advantage over someone who plays 12 hours a day. Unlike WoW where those two players would be identical after a few months.

Anyway, I hate to check Brad's ego, but this is not going to see the success the original EQ did. Because the original EQ did not have the competition that Vanguard will have. People are going to try it out and there will be a spike, but when players hit the timesinks and stop having the fun they were having in WoW, it's game over for Vanguard. It'll just be another Eve Online or Anarchy Online with a teeny-tiny fraction of the MMORPG player base.

Also Brad's comments about "I want to see WoW have success over 5+ years like EQ did before we rethink some holy cows" is just plain delusional. The game's been out a year and already surpasses the combined success of 5+ EQ combined. If folks were going to leave at level cap we'd see it in a decline right now. It isn't. Blizz mostly gives the customer what they want, (Instead of what the company (Brad) wants - timesinks to keep monthly revenue coming in) so they succeed. Not complicated at all.

Re:Vanguard is a game for shut-ins

[Anonymous Coward]

I took a look at their website.
Much like any other game site, including the mandatory girl-with-big-boobs on the home page. /shrug

Just another holy war

[SmallFurryCreature]

Like the one in my sig this one is never going to be settled. I spotted at least the following holy wars regarding MMO's.

PvP vs PvE. Any PvE game will be instantly joined by PvP fans hounding the forms for PvP to be introduced. Same the otherway around. PvP fans at the moment are in a bit of a bind because the premier PvP games are not doing too well. PvE sells more monthly subscriptions and while games like EQ2 are introducing things like duelling Sony also took a lot of PvP out of its SWG title.

Instanced vs non-instanced areas. The parent article and again you get hotheads on both sides claiming the other sides just don't understand true gaming. It is no fun in EQ2 to find the person you need to talk to has been killed and is on a 8 hour respawn trigger but then again neither is it much fun to be totally alone. If I want to play alone I just visit the lower sewer levels. That place is totally deserted at all times.

Crafting vs non-crafting economy. Should everything be looted/bought from NPC's or should everything be made by other players? The mixed approach that EQ2 uses seems to satisfy neither camp.

1 char per server vs multiple. The problem here is subtle but if you allow multiple characters per server you remove accountabilty. An anti-social player can simply maintain two characters.

There are of course other issues but you can reguarly see these topics being discussed on every MMO forum. Personally I think MMO's at the moment are incredibly primitive games relying more on their addictiveness then on simply being good games. I myself and other players just keep playing because the game we are in is the only show in town and maybe the next levelup will make it more fun then work and we invested to much time in our current character to give it all up.

Stop playing your MMO and you will have to admit that you have wasted countless hours.

I don't know myself why I keep playing EQ2 when if it had been a single player game I wouldn't have touched it with a bargepole. Its combat is boring, the guests stories lame, its character development simplistic. Yet it lives up to its nickname Evercrack.

Oh well, the server should be backup. Just check the email wether I got an invite for DDO and then back to grinding my stove toon.

DDO

[denjin]

I hear Dungeons and Dragons Online is totally instanced for all 'quests'.

Re:DDO

[will_die]

Yea, the main city is global with the design that this is people will meet, socialize, form groups etc.
Then once that is done and they leave the city it will be thier group vs the NPC world like your D&D game played at someones house.

Re:DDO

[Vo0k]

And never a chance to meet another team...
Sometimes such crossovers are really great, when a good GM or two pit two teams against each other in some weird competition, or force them to cooperate, or just two groups of players meet to play a common adventure together...

Pity.

If it had new content...

[PhoenixOne]

I might even pay $15 a month for a single player if it had great new content. But, yes, it is kind of silly to deal with all the issues of a MMPOG (lag, patches, lame players, monthly fees) if you are just playing the single player instances.