Instance debate

[Ronyn]

I moved this line of discussion to it's own thread. Everybody chill out a bit.

Forbidden, according to forum rules:
Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, contains adult or objectionable content.

Being that those terms can be open to interpretation, I will help clarify the forum rules - we are not concerned with colorful metaphors or "bad words" in general, our rules about how people interact is largely focused on preventing direct insults and personal attacks between people.

In other words - We are not going to moderate the congratulatory phrase of "Youre a fucking genius" but we will moderate the insulting phrase of "you are an idiot".

Hopefully that helps clear up an uncertain about where our lines are.

 

[Nalessa]

Technically, Faufau had instancing.

While you could join anyone from around the world, the game was still divided into shards that had a maximum amount of people (don't know how many it could hold at once).

BUT, that was the (although modified) Offset engine, we now have the Unreal 4 engine, sooo ... I'm not sure how it will be handled, but I suspect there will be something similar in place to keep the game running optimal.

I think most people would love to have like thousands of players show up and fight enemies, but this would destroy framerate, so, I actually don't think we know how well instancing will work untill we have the actual alpha or beta and can break that crap as much as possible with as many people and push it to its limits with how much the average pc can handle.

Even then, there's also the question how many people would be allowed on a shard?
Some people would enjoy small groups of players, others want massive battles.

But like I said, I think first we need to get an actual game so we can stresstest it before deciding how to handle instancing.

 

[AdmiralStryker]

Technically, Faufau had instancing.

While you could join anyone from around the world, the game was still divided into shards that had a maximum amount of people (don't know how many it could hold at once).

BUT, that was the (although modified) Offset engine, we now have the Unreal 4 engine, sooo ... I'm not sure how it will be handled, but I suspect there will be something similar in place to keep the game running optimal.

I think most people would love to have like thousands of players show up and fight enemies, but this would destroy framerate, so, I actually don't think we know how well instancing will work untill we have the actual alpha or beta and can break that crap as much as possible with as many people and push it to its limits with how much the average pc can handle.

Even then, there's also the question how many people would be allowed on a shard?
Some people would enjoy small groups of players, others want massive battles.

But like I said, I think first we need to get an actual game so we can stresstest it before deciding how to handle instancing.

I feel like numbers were fine on Firefall shards. Shards I want to see kept, instancing however should be kept to a minimum.

 

[Destination]

Some people would enjoy small groups of players, others want massive battles.

It would be nice to have material for both camps. I like games that respect player pace/mood instead of 'forcing' it.
A global war effort consisting both of crowded mobs but also smaller teams, different tasks for different objectives sounds like something reasonable to expect. Massive shootouts alternating with more tactical smaller scale play (not instance isolated) for people to choose if they so desire during a play session, helps breaking the monotony and hopefully would keep it fresh and more attractive.

 

[SomeUnregPunk]

It would be nice to have material for both camps. I like games that respect player pace/mood instead of 'forcing' it.
A global war effort consisting both of crowded mobs but also smaller teams, different tasks for different objectives sounds like something reasonable to expect. Massive shootouts alternating with more tactical smaller scale play (not instance isolated) for people to choose if they so desire during a play session, helps breaking the monotony and hopefully would keep it fresh and more attractive.

well technically we will.
The dev's idea is that there will be only one safe spot in the world but you won't be able mine/process ore and craft there.
You need a base to do all that. That base needs to be protected from the same things(smaller mobs to kaju) that will attack the THMPR except somewhat scaled down to what the THMPR and the mining crew will face.

I'd bet we are going to be able to build turrets and other defensive measures but since they want an emphasis on teamwork and skillful play, I'd bet defense of the base is going to just a major task as mining will be. Except the players will be defending from a position of strength while the miners will be fighting from a weaker position. Either position can fail. The miners could either fail while mining or during the escort phase or the defenders may fail in defending their base.

[Edit]
Though for fairness they'll probably put in an option to allow the THMPR to be escorted to the one safe spot in the world, in the likely chance that the defenders fail their task.

How much would that suck? The miners see the light at the end of their tunnel to only find that light is the smoking ruins of their base, knowing they got to fight even longer to escort the THMPR to the safe spot so that their work wasn't wasted. Every step of the way from then on being even more agonizing.

Or it just simply become a waiting game. The THMPR sits within the ruins of their base while the entire team as a whole rebuild the base around it. All the while knowing they'll have to stop building to fight off the constant attacks.

 

[BunnyHunny]

I'm noticing a few loud people of the "Skills, Muh skills, if not skill pro your bad" (exaggeration) demographic lately. Like their afraid of a shooter based game not requiring skill of some kind... Did they mention something about auto tracking aim assists or something? Chill out people. They don't even have a playable mock up yet.

I think you are misunderstanding what it is about.
Of course, a shooter game requires some kind of skill, to be able to hit a target, but aim is just a small part when it comes to games like FF was.
Aim was probably the least relevant part of skill.

It was about picking a strong combination of items (and perks, if they are part of the game), creating a good setup, moving properly (to avoid taking too much damage), using abilities at the right time, all that kind of stuff.

A good setup and some skilled play could make for an effective power difference of over 700%, compared to a player who did not put too much thought into the setup and plays not very well.

It is undoubtably important for a game to have some kind of skill requirement for some content and/or grant extra rewards to players who simply play better than most of the others.

I'm mean don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to shoot anybody down here, but guys, I remember firefall just being fun. There was that small core of intense pvpers but, overall the game and the people in it were just fun. I'm just looking for that again.

FF did have some kind of skill requirement in PvE content. It was not very high, but it was there.

During 1.3, Baneclaw, Kanaloa and some of the HC missions could be quite hard to beat with a bad platoon/squad and some of them had exclusive rewards, some of which were best-in-slot items.
With a group of around 5 decent players, Kanaloa (20 man) could be farmed for 4x the reward per person, while quite many 20 man platoons struggled and failed beating it.
Skill was rewarded.

During 1.6, Defense of Dredge was (in the beginning) a piece of content that required a proper platoon and some skilled play.
At that time, it was pretty much the main source for top gear.
A group of 5 decent players could farm DoD (10 man) and get twice the reward for that, while quite many 10 man platoons struggled and failed beating it.
Skill was rewarded.

When bane claw came back in 1.7, it required skill. Especially movement. But that was only until the first people got the new era weapons and made a joke out of the boss.

Ember is not supposed to have PvP.
Ember is not supposed to have instances.
Of course, people will be wondering, how the game is planned to be rewarding skilled play, because it seems to be nearly impossible to create an open world multiplayer PvE game without player limitations, where skilled play has a significant impact.


Keep in mind that many people like a challenge.
A game, where skill does not matter, will probably lose most of the players within a short time.
People need a challenge.
There has to be something that many (probably most) people are not able to get, because they are lacking the skill.
It gives people a reason to improve, makes them play better and gives them something to look forward to.

 

[AdmiralStryker]

I think you are misunderstanding what it is about.
Of course, a shooter game requires some kind of skill, to be able to hit a target, but aim is just a small part when it comes to games like FF was.
Aim was probably the least relevant part of skill.

It was about picking a strong combination of items (and perks, if they are part of the game), creating a good setup, moving properly (to avoid taking too much damage), using abilities at the right time, all that kind of stuff.

A good setup and some skilled play could make for an effective power difference of over 700%, compared to a player who did not put too much thought into the setup and plays not very well.

It is undoubtably important for a game to have some kind of skill requirement for some content and/or grant extra rewards to players who simply play better than most of the others.



FF did have some kind of skill requirement in PvE content. It was not very high, but it was there.

During 1.3, Baneclaw, Kanaloa and some of the HC missions could be quite hard to beat with a bad platoon/squad and some of them had exclusive rewards, some of which were best-in-slot items.
With a group of around 5 decent players, Kanaloa (20 man) could be farmed for 4x the reward per person, while quite many 20 man platoons struggled and failed beating it.
Skill was rewarded.

During 1.6, Defense of Dredge was (in the beginning) a piece of content that required a proper platoon and some skilled play.
At that time, it was pretty much the main source for top gear.
A group of 5 decent players could farm DoD (10 man) and get twice the reward for that, while quite many 10 man platoons struggled and failed beating it.
Skill was rewarded.

When bane claw came back in 1.7, it required skill. Especially movement. But that was only until the first people got the new era weapons and made a joke out of the boss.

Ember is not supposed to have PvP.
Ember is not supposed to have instances.
Of course, people will be wondering, how the game is planned to be rewarding skilled play, because it seems to be nearly impossible to create an open world multiplayer PvE game without player limitations, where skilled play has a significant impact.


Keep in mind that many people like a challenge.
A game, where skill does not matter, will probably lose most of the players within a short time.
People need a challenge.
There has to be something that many (probably most) people are not able to get, because they are lacking the skill.
It gives people a reason to improve, makes them play better and gives them something to look forward to.

While I'm fully in agreement that skill should be rewarded, 5-manning a 10man and 5-manning a 20man is abuse and should not be allowed. If content here requires 20 skilled players, it should require that. You said it yourself-if a content gets failed by 20 bad players and 5 decent(not even good) players, that's not okay. I'm open to skill rewards for speedruns or bonus objectives, but you shouldn't be abusing an encounter's design.

 

[BunnyHunny]

While I'm fully in agreement that skill should be rewarded, 5-manning a 10man and 5-manning a 20man is abuse and should not be allowed.

So typical... No it is not abuse.
It is "using the own skill in a way that does not directly benefit bad players who would get carried".
Nearly every game with instanced content allows this and it is 100% a good thing.
Skilled players can clear the content with a smaller group and benefit from their skill by having fewer people to share the loot with.

If you want to reduce the amount of interesting content for skilled players and make them leave, yours is the way to go.

If content here requires 20 skilled players, it should require that. You said it yourself-if a content gets failed by 20 bad players and 5 decent(not even good) players, that's not okay. I'm open to skill rewards for speedruns or bonus objectives,

By 5 decent players, i meant 5 players which are probably better than 99% of the player base.
I guess it should have been pretty obvious that i did not mean average players, because otherwise, everyone would have been doing what we did.

Either, i say "with 5 of the best players, we managed to do it and farmed it", or i say "with 5 good players..."
"with 5 decent players...".
Either, it is me being an arrogant, elitist pig, for calling me and my buds better than most of the others,
or it is the content not being properly balanced, when 5 good players can do it, because it should be 20 good players,
or somebody says what you just said.

In either case, somebody gets offended or has something to criticize.

but you shouldn't be abusing an encounter's design.

Again, it is not abuse.
The instance allows UP TO x players.
That does not mean you have to take that many.
It simply means that the encounter is (supposed to be) balanced for UP TO x players (with average? skill).
There is a max player limit, to have a minimum skill requirement to be able to beat the content.
If there was no max allowed number of players, every raging potato would be able to beat all content.

If the group includes some players who perform 100% better than expected, why should they be forced to take some more players into the platoon, when they do not need them.
That is called carrying trash through content. I remember some people on these forums being pissed about people getting something they do not deserve, by being carried by good players.

Beating a 20 man instance with 20 players is optional and that is how it should be.
Skilled players will be able to beat the content with fewer people than expected, so they get more reward per player. That is how "being skilled" works.
You get more than the others for being better than the others.
Games which do not offer this option, are supporting the carrying of trash and do not properly reward skill.

 

[Silv3r Shadow]

Only read the first few posts..
If anything needs balancing, balance the bosses/mobs not changing players to compensate if there are instances.
Every instance adds extra micro managing, when Devs Nerf certain ability based on the instance it creates the rest of the world less balanced.
Just my 2 cents, for example, power rating and MR etc causes too much Power Creep, snowballing too high as a reminder of a bad 'end game' mechanic

 

[Nalessa]

I feel like numbers were fine on Firefall shards. Shards I want to see kept, instancing however should be kept to a minimum.

Yeah that would be ideal, shards seem to be perfect, they kept player amount in check so that servers didn't lag like crazy, but you had more then enough people show up everywhere, especially at tornados or SH/TD siege/retake events.

 

[BunnyHunny]

when Devs Nerf certain ability based on the instance it creates the rest of the world less balanced.

Why would they do that?
Why not simply change the instance instead?

 

[AdmiralStryker]

So typical... No it is not abuse.
It is "using the own skill in a way that does not directly benefit bad players who would get carried".
Nearly every game with instanced content allows this and it is 100% a good thing.
Skilled players can clear the content with a smaller group and benefit from their skill by having fewer people to share the loot with.

If you want to reduce the amount of interesting content for skilled players and make them leave, yours is the way to go.


By 5 decent players, i meant 5 players which are probably better than 99% of the player base.
I guess it should have been pretty obvious that i did not mean average players, because otherwise, everyone would have been doing what we did.

Either, i say "with 5 of the best players, we managed to do it and farmed it", or i say "with 5 good players..."
"with 5 decent players...".
Either, it is me being an arrogant, elitist pig, for calling me and my buds better than most of the others,
or it is the content not being properly balanced, when 5 good players can do it, because it should be 20 good players,
or somebody says what you just said.

In either case, somebody gets offended or has something to criticize.

20-man raids are not designed to be fought by 5 people. When you're playing an encounter in such a way that it massively benefits you while going against how the game is designed, I deem that abuse.

While I'm okay if you're doing a 20-man with 17, or 10 with 8, so on, you shouldn't be able to waltz through a raid with such ease. It's very easy to make a raid hard and require skill while keeping it at the point where it requires most, if not all, of the players recommended to fight it. As you said, it's the content not being properly balanced. I'm fine if players are skilled-but I'd prefer to see this:

Raid requires 10 players max:
Same loot as if you brought 20 players into a 20-man, Raid is scaled for 10 people, Raid has bonus objectives that require skill and smart gameplay to achieve. These are what grant you the additional loot.

Over this:

Raid requires 20 players max:
Can be done with 5, relatively easily, for 4x loot.

 

[AdmiralStryker]

Why would they do that?
Why not simply change the instance instead?

Changing the instance affects pretty much everybody who runs it. Changing the ability only affects everyone who uses that ability. I'd rather see them(assuming we're talking about this case) modify the ability only when they're inside that certain instance.

 

[Torgue_Joey]

20-man raids are not designed to be fought by 5 people. When you're playing an encounter in such a way that it massively benefits you while going against how the game is designed, I deem that abuse.

ISN'T IMBALANCE MORE A SUITABLE WORD?
UNLESS THEY FOUND A FAULTY CODE/MECHANIC WHICH MAKE THE ENTIRE THING EASY FOR 5 MAN GROUP WITHOUT REPORTING THE GLITCH/BUG/ERROR. THEN THEY ARE ABUSING IT

 

[BunnyHunny]

Changing the instance affects pretty much everybody who runs it. Changing the ability only affects everyone who uses that ability. I'd rather see them(assuming we're talking about this case) modify the ability only when they're inside that certain instance.

Yes, changing the instance has an impact on everyone who runs the instance. Inside of the instance.

Changing an ability has an effect on every single player using the ability, no matter what content they choose to play. It also has an effect on all content in the game.

Your logic is flawed.

What you suggest is like saying:
My screw driver does not fit the screw, so i will change the ISO Norm for screws and screwdrivers world wide and have everyone around the world use the type of screws that fits to my screwdriver.
Because otherwise, all of the people who use my screwdriver have a problem with the screws.

Instead of simply getting a screwdriver that fits into the already existing system.

Please tell me you were joking.

 

[BunnyHunny]

20-man raids are not designed to be fought by 5 people. When you're playing an encounter in such a way that it massively benefits you while going against how the game is designed, I deem that abuse.

They are not designed to be fought by 5 AVERAGE people.
The instance is designed to be challenging for 20 AVERAGE players.
That means it will not be challenging for 20 good players.
And definitely not for 20 players in the top 1%.

I do not go against how the game is designed, when i clear the content with less than 20, but very skilled players.
Are you telling me, that being better than average means that i am abusing something?

I keep repeating myself, rewording my statements and you keep ignoring it.

You make wrong claims, i destroy them, you make them again.
Reason does not seem to be your strength.

It is not abuse.

While I'm okay if you're doing a 20-man with 17, or 10 with 8, so on, you shouldn't be able to waltz through a raid with such ease.

So nobody should not be able to play more than 10% better than the average player?
Either that, or the content FORCES you to have a high number of people in the group, which would be pretty damn stupid.
If a platoon is forced to have at least x active members, that means a group of skilled players will be bored to death and probably has to carry some noobs along the way, because you wanted to force them to.

What you suggest would lead to good players (being paid for) carrying noobs and enabling them to get gear.
I am pretty sure that you said you were against that.

It's very easy to make a raid hard and require skill while keeping it at the point where it requires most, if not all, of the players recommended to fight it. As you said, it's the content not being properly balanced.

Yeah... no.
Only possible, if there is no big difference between shit players and pro players.
Or if you are willing to lock 99% of the player base out of the content, because they are too bad.
Or (like i said 1 paragraph above) good players are forced do take noobs with them, in order not to get bored to death by playing the content with a full platoon of good players.

By 5 decent players, i meant 5 players which are probably better than 99% of the player base.

Can be done with 5, relatively easily, for 4x loot.

Really? Are you fucking serious?
Are you unable to actually read what i write and respond to that, without making shit up for once?
How about you and some others pull your heads out of your asses.
How about you use reason and logic, instead of just making shit up to be able to attack what ever i say, because thats what you seemingly like to do.

ISN'T IMBALANCE MORE A SUITABLE WORD?

The word you are looking for is "skill".
When a skilled player is many times as effective as a noob, that is not an imbalance. That is impact of skilled play.
The content was balanced for the average player.
When "being skilled" means to be as effective as 10 others, then it makes things easier.

UNLESS THEY FOUND A FAULTY CODE/MECHANIC WHICH MAKE THE ENTIRE THING EASY FOR 5 MAN GROUP WITHOUT REPORTING THE GLITCH/BUG/ERROR. THEN THEY ARE ABUSING IT

Yeah... right. People who play far better than most others, must be abusing some mechanic.
How full of yourself are you?
There are people who play better than you.
There are people who play far better than you.
Just because you are not able to do it, that does not mean, those who can do it must be abusing some kind of broken mechanic or imbalanced things.

Are you guys unable to get the thought into your thick head, that there might be people who just play better than you?
Are you guys unable to fathom that you are not the measure of all things?

Typical loser logic:
He is worse than me? What a noob.
He is better than me? What a no life. Must also be abusing something.
He is as good/bad as me? Yay we can be friends.

It's very easy to make a raid hard and require skill while keeping it at the point where it requires most, if not all, of the players recommended to fight it.

Even back then, many 20 man platoons failed in Kanaloa and had to be carried by one good player who then did 70% of the platoon's damage (no, not with Arsenal bullshittery).
DoD platoons failed all the time, even when they abused bugs and created platoons of 20 and more.
They had to be carried by a good player as well.

What a shame that there was no content like this, balanced for skilled players.
If there had been any content like it, 99% of the player base would have never been able to beat it.
Looking back, i really wish there had been lots of content like that.


You guys talk shit about those who were skilled and were able to beat content with fewer people than anyone else.
What you should be doing, is talking shit about the ≈90% of players who were so bad that the content that was balanced to be a challenge for them, was so ridiculously easy for people who actually knew what they were doing.

 

[Torgue_Joey]

OH GAWD. HERE HE GOES AGAIN.

The word you are looking for is "skill".
When a skilled player is many times as effective as a noob, that is not an imbalance. That is impact of skilled play.

NOT UNLESS IF THE SO CALLED "INSTANCE" OR "RAID" INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED FOR 10 PEOPLE.
THE NECRO GUILD WARS 1 BETA HAD NEARLY UNLIMITED MINIONS. WAS ABLE TO COMPLETE EVERYTHING SOLO.
HOW THE F*CK IS THAT NOT IMBA?

Yeah... right. People who play far better than most others, must be abusing some mechanic.
How full of yourself are you?
There are people who play better than you.
There are people who play far better than you.
Just because you are not able to do it, that does not mean, those who can do it must be abusing some kind of broken mechanic or imbalanced things.

AN "INVISIBLE WALL" THAT NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE.
A BUG IN THE MERCHANT WHERE YOU CAN SELL A 2 PENNY ITEM FOR 2000 BUCKS.
GLITCHING THRU THE GROUND, KILLING WORLD BOSSES WHICH FUCK UP THE SERVER FROM TRIGGERING THE EVENT.
REACHING INACCESSIBLE SPOT.

WANT ME POST MORE?

Are you guys unable to get the thought into your thick head, that there might be people who just play better than you?

ARE YOU ONLY CAPABLE TO THINK LINEAR? WHICH SOUNDS LIKE ONLY YOUR THOUGHTS EXIST IN THE WORLD?

(PS: Now let not get off topic here again)

 

[BunnyHunny]

NOT UNLESS IF THE SO CALLED "INSTANCE" OR "RAID" INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED FOR 10 PEOPLE.

"They were allowed to use up to 10, but only needed 5, because they played so well."
ABUUUSEEEE!!!

THE NECRO GUILD WARS 1 BETA HAD NEARLY UNLIMITED MINIONS. WAS ABLE TO COMPLETE EVERYTHING SOLO.
HOW THE F*CK IS THAT NOT IMBA?

It is imba.
But we are talking about content in FireFall. More specific: Kanaloa and DoD.
Was GW1 beta part of FF? No.
Was the GW1 beta Necro class part of FF? No.
So what exactly has this GW stuff to do with any of it?
Right. Nothing at all.

A completely useless and off topic example from your side.
Again.

Aside from that, even if it was a useful example, how would any of that speak against what i said? "When a skilled player is many times as effective as a noob, that is not an imbalance."

AN "INVISIBLE WALL" THAT NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE.
A BUG IN THE MERCHANT WHERE YOU CAN SELL A 2 PENNY ITEM FOR 2000 BUCKS.
GLITCHING THRU THE GROUND, KILLING WORLD BOSSES WHICH FUCK UP THE SERVER FROM TRIGGERING THE EVENT.
REACHING INACCESSIBLE SPOT.

WANT ME POST MORE?

No. I don't want you to post more, because it gets embarrassing.
We were still talking about content in FireFall.
And you are still bringing up unrelated stuff, in order to make a point.
Has any of what you mention in this paragraph ever been part of the FF instances we were talking about? No.
Why the fuck do you mention it then?

Aside from that: everybody knows that there are certain broken mechanics in some games. Everybody knows that some of them can be abused.
Does that mean, people who are able to beat content with fewer people than most others MUST BE USING BROKEN MECHANICS?
No.
100% useless post from your side. Again.

 

[Ronyn]

I have seen plenty of debates from opposing views that don't have this level negativity bubbling up.
Calm it down, or this gets moved to the flamewars section.

 

[AdmiralStryker]

Yes, changing the instance has an impact on everyone who runs the instance. Inside of the instance.

Changing an ability has an effect on every single player using the ability, no matter what content they choose to play. It also has an effect on all content in the game.

Your logic is flawed.

What you suggest is like saying:
My screw driver does not fit the screw, so i will change the ISO Norm for screws and screwdrivers world wide and have everyone around the world use the type of screws that fits to my screwdriver.
Because otherwise, all of the people who use my screwdriver have a problem with the screws.

Instead of simply getting a screwdriver that fits into the already existing system.

Please tell me you were joking.

I said you change the ability ONLY INSIDE THE INSTANCE.

IE: When you're in the instance, the ability does 20% less damage let's say, to keep things balanced in there. Outside, it's perfectly normal.