Instance debate

[BunnyHunny]

Instancing is bad!

Only for bad players.
This goes for PvP and PvE.

Instancing is the easiest (and probably the best) way to allow actual coordinated teamplay, actual balance and to implement content that has a real skill requirement.

In PvP, it allows to have teams of equal sizes (and balanced skill) play against each other.

In PvE, it allows implementing enemies with specific attacks, balancing enemies (strength and number) and general tasks around a fixed max number of players.

If a fight is not instanced, people can simply respawn and return to battle, as often as they like, or new players come and join in.
It is almost impossible to fail killing any kind of enemy.
People do not act as a coordinated group, where every single player matters, but as a mob, where nobody really matters.

If you think that PvP and PvE content (with requirement for individual skill and coordinated teamplay) can be balanced just as well, without any kind of instancing, feel free to explain how that is supposed to work.

 

[Despair]

Only for bad players.
This goes for PvP and PvE.

Instancing is the easiest (and probably the best) way to allow actual coordinated teamplay, actual balance and to implement content that has a real skill requirement.

In PvP, it allows to have teams of equal sizes (and balanced skill) play against each other.

In PvE, it allows implementing enemies with specific attacks, balancing enemies (strength and number) and general tasks around a fixed max number of players.

If a fight is not instanced, people can simply respawn and return to battle, as often as they like, or new players come and join in.
It is almost impossible to fail killing any kind of enemy.
People do not act as a coordinated group, where every single player matters, but as a mob, where nobody really matters.

If you think that PvP and PvE content (with requirement for individual skill and coordinated teamplay) can be balanced just as well, without any kind of instancing, feel free to explain how that is supposed to work.

Do you know Azuregos or Lord Kazzak of the Vanilla Version of World of Warcraft? They were outside of instances and gave you a debuff after you died...your were unable to get into the fight for 10 Minutes after your death. (Or you were permanently frozen or one shot again)
These world bosses needed some coordination of tanking, healing, not attacking after certain abilities (aggro wipe), not wasting mana and more.

They became weak when new items and instances were introduced but at first they were damn hard to beat, even with new players joining the fight.

 

[BunnyHunny]

Do you know Azuregos or Lord Kazzak of the Vanilla Version of World of Warcraft? They were outside of instances and gave you a debuff after you died...your were unable to get into the fight for 10 Minutes after your death. (Or you were permanently frozen or one shot again)

I was editing my post while you quoted it (revoked the changes, since you already had quoted).
This is some of what i had added

If a fight is not instanced, people can simply respawn and return to battle as often as they like (unless dying causes a significant, stacking malus for a limited time and/or respawn has a significant delay), or new players come and join in.

Many people in one area do not act as a coordinated group, where every single player matters, but as a mob, where nobody really matters and where no tactics are applied.

The higher the number of players, participating in the same event, the lower the importance and the impact of the individual (unless something like a tank class exists, because in that case, it would be the opposite, for that specific player).

If an enemy does not scale with the number of players, it becomes easier with more players.

If an enemy does scale with the number of players, those who are skilled get indirectly grieved by those who are not skilled.

If players can respawn as often as they like, any enemy will die at some point.

If players get a malus for respawning, it should be completely incapacitate them for a significant amount of time (like what the old WoW bosses caused).

These world bosses needed some coordination of tanking, healing, not attacking after certain abilities (aggro wipe), not wasting mana and more.

They became weak when new items and instances were introduced but at first they were damn hard to beat, even with new players joining the fight.

I am all for bosses with such abilities, however:
According to MK, EVERY "class" is supposed to be optional in Ember.
There is supposed to be no content at all, where anyone is forced to play a specific role, so no requirement for tank or heal (which i find pretty bad, to be honest).

I don't know how well it worked back then, in WoW, but i know that if you now tried to do any kind of open world fight where any kind of tactics have to be applied, there would always be a number of people who are such special snowflakes, that no rules apply to them.
They will do what ever they like, no matter if it wipes out 100s of players or not.
People will deliberately sabotage fights, if they can.

Just look at many people in these forums.
They do not want any kind of teamplay.
They do not want to have to follow any kind of instructions/rules.


If the individual matters, there will be people who grieve the shit out of the community.
If the individual does not matter, it is not about skill anymore.

Back in WoW, the community would punish assholes and they would have to suffer from not being invited into raids/groups (which were necessary to be able to play most of the game).
If there is only open world content (where groups are not important), that does not work.
If there is no retaliation for people being scum, they will behave as they like.
If isolation has no negative effect, assholes will show their true self.

Just look around the forums and see how many people are against any kind of requirements or bonuses for joining groups/guilds.

Probably there is a way to balance open world bosses for a game like Ember.
But it will be complicated.

 

[Estender]

I was editing my post while you quoted it (revoked the changes, since you already had quoted).
This is some of what i had added

If a fight is not instanced, people can simply respawn and return to battle as often as they like (unless dying causes a significant, stacking malus for a limited time and/or respawn has a significant delay), or new players come and join in.

Many people in one area do not act as a coordinated group, where every single player matters, but as a mob, where nobody really matters and where no tactics are applied.

The higher the number of players, participating in the same event, the lower the importance and the impact of the individual (unless something like a tank class exists, because in that case, it would be the opposite, for that specific player)

If an enemy does not scale with the number of players, it becomes easier with more players.

If an enemy does scale with the number of players, those who are skilled get indirectly grieved by those who are not skilled.

If players can respawn as often as they like, any enemy will die at some point.

If players get a malus for respawning, it should be completely incapacitate them for a significant amount of time (like what the old WoW bosses caused).



I am all for bosses with such abilities, however:
According to MK, EVERY "class" is supposed to be optional in Ember.
There is supposed to be no content at all, where anyone is forced to play a specific role, so no requirement for tank or heal (which i find pretty bad, to be honest).

I don't know how well it worked back then, in WoW, but i know that if you now tried to do any kind of open world fight where any kind of tactics have to be applied, there would always be a number of people who are such special snowflakes, that no rules apply to them.
They will do what ever they like, no matter if it wipes out 100s of players or not.
People will deliberately sabotage fights, if they can.

Just look at many people in these forums.
They do not want any kind of teamplay.
They do not want to have to follow any kind of instructions/rules.


If the individual matters, there will be people who grieve the shit out of the community.
If the individual does not matter, it is not about skill anymore.

Back in WoW, the community would punish assholes and they would have to suffer from not being invited into raids/groups.
If there is only open world content, that does not work.
If there is no retaliation for people being scum, they will behave as they like.


Probably there is a way to balance open world bosses for a game like Ember.
But it will be complicated.

So how are you gonna instance a wargame?

 

[BunnyHunny]

So how are you gonna instance a wargame?

If the budged would allow it, this is how i would do it:

>>>War in the open world
>Everybody can participate and gain rewards by participating.
>Dying is punished loosely --> respawn in a different location and get a temporary malus
>Playing better (having a higher impact) would grant more/better rewards for the same time investment.
>Rewards being normal resources (different rarities included), which are required for any kind of crafting.
>Amount and rarity of rewards would depend on type of event and on individual performance.

>>>Instanced content (including instance bosses), entries could be placed at certain points on the map, making map control in the open world a requirement to be able to enter the instances in the first place.
>Requires a coordinated group of highly skilled players.
>Dying is punished heavily --> respawn limited to certain milestones, squad wipe resets the instance
>High reward, but only if the instance is finished.
>Rewards being exclusive resources and blueprints, which are required to craft certain stuff.
>Amount and rarity of rewards would depend on instance, group performance and individual performance.


The open world would allow instant action for everyone, with no need to stay for a certain time and without requiring to commit to any other players (while still giving the option to do so).
Everybody would play the open world war, because everybody needs the resources and because instance entries have to be conquered.
Instance entries would create a reason to push into certain areas of the map.
Playing well would be rewarded and allow faster progress.

Instances would promote playing in groups, joining an army, learning to play better, etc.
Everybody could try to beat the instanced content, but everybody should have to struggle and barely anybody should be able to beat it without failing a few times, before.
Not every player (or every group) should be able to beat all (or even any) of the instances (skill requirement).
Playing exceptionally good would be rewarded, by being able to finish the instances and therefore being allowed to progress further (be it horizontally or vertically).

 

[BunnyHunny]

STICK TO YOUR VISION, BELIEVE IN YOUR GAME, HAVE AN ADAMANT LEADERSHIP AND DON'T FALL INTO THE FIRE.

What if parts of the vision are flawed and were not completely thought through?

 

[AdmiralStryker]

What if parts of the vision are flawed and were not completely thought through?

That's for decision by the game community and the devs, not one person. We would all rather see you highlight what's flawed and not thought through and say why it's flawed and/or not thought through, rather than just saying it's flawed and not thought through.

 

[Destination]

What if parts of the vision are flawed and were not completely thought through?

You fix them. (key word: YOU).

 

[BunnyHunny]

We would all rather see you highlight what's flawed and not thought through and say why it's flawed and/or not thought through, rather than just saying it's flawed and not thought through.

Read pretty much any of my posts.

From what i have read and heard so far, it looks like:
("-" flaw, ">>" possible fix)

-actual coordinated teamplay will not be properly supported (because of missing necessity)
>> instances

-armies will be pretty irrelevant
>> instances, army exclusive bonuses and cosmetics

-skill will not properly be rewarded (no requirement for individual skill, in order to be able to unlock things and beat content)
>> instances, top contributor rewards (top contributor=player with highest impact in an event with at least x participants, more participants -> higher top contributor reward)

-there will be no content (gameplay or items), exclusively for skilled players
>> instances, top contributor rewards

-there will be no way to skip parts of the grind, by playing well
>> instances, army bonuses, top contributor rewards

-time investment will be the only driving factor for progressing (playing better might reward slightly more, but still nothing that time could not get you)
>> top contributor rewards, army bonuses, instances

-all rewards are simply an amount of resources and therefore nothing special (reward does not feel "rewarding")
>> instances with exclusive (rare) drops, exclusive top contributor rewards

-crafting any item will require a high amount of resources (no special, rare items from hardcore content required)
>> exclusive rewards for instances, rare mobs and top contributions

just to name a few things.

 

[Destination]

Read pretty much any of my posts.

I kind of agree with you, in general (not in every detail).

They say Ember is supposed to be 'massive' and 'open world', while at the same time they say 'skill should matter' and 'PvE centered'. I wonder HOW are they gonna pull that off to its full, or even at least to some reasonable extent.

There are 2 possibilities:
- outstanding design becoming a reality.
- at least ONE of the elements mentioned in the previous sentence will not be entirely true.

Not trying to be negative but it's more likely the latter. Could be pretty fun in its own way, no matter if they (intelligently, realistically?) don't choose to 'chase some impossible'. We're still years from there. I have faith this game will surprise me for good one way or another, that's what memorable games do: they show you something you hadn't thought before.
Also, the fact this is an independent project and the fact Kern 'has a score to settle' are good indicators.

 

[BunnyHunny]

They say Ember is supposed to be 'massive' and 'open world', while at the same time they say 'skill should matter' and 'PvE centered'. I wonder HOW are they gonna pull that off to its full, or even at least to some reasonable extent.

There are 2 possibilities:
- outstanding design becoming a reality.
- at least ONE of the elements mentioned in the previous sentence will not be entirely true.

Not trying to be negative but it's more likely the latter.

That is exactly what i am worried about.
Afaik, there is not a single game out there, that is actually skill based AND a multiplayer AND "real" open world.
I have no idea how that would be supposed to work.

 

[Torgue_Joey]

that is actually skill based AND a multiplayer

UNREAL F*CKING TOURNAMENT.

AND "real" open world.

NOT EVEN THE ONSLAUGHT WAS OPEN WORLD. IMAGINE THE ONSLAUGHT AS OPEN WORLD.
ETERNAL BACK AND FORTH. BORING.
STUNTS AND ACTION AND SPIDER TROLLS. FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN

 

[BunnyHunny]

UNREAL F*CKING TOURNAMENT.

Wasnt unreal tournament instanced?

 

[Torgue_Joey]

Wasnt unreal tournament instanced?

UNREAL F*CKING TOURNAMENT.


->NOT EVEN THE ONSLAUGHT WAS OPEN WORLD.<- IMAGINE THE ONSLAUGHT AS OPEN WORLD.
ETERNAL BACK AND FORTH. BORING.
STUNTS AND ACTION AND SPIDER TROLLS. FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN

 

[BunnyHunny]

If i was able to find the answer to my question in the post i quoted, i would probably not have asked the question.
So what new information is this repost supposed to give me?

I never played URT.
What is onslaught?

If Onslaught is a game mode in URT and NOT EVEN that one was open world -implying that nothing in that game was- (making URT only 2 out of the 3 things), what was the point of mentioning URT?
Also, isn't URT PvP focused?

If Onslaught is a separate game that was not open world, again what is the point of mentioning it?

Also, before extra smart people come and say "but Planetside 2 is a skill based open world multiplayer"... even though i did not specify that, i think it should be pretty obvious that we are talking about PvE games (which is the main reason for balancing problems), because that is what ember is supposed to be.

 

[Destination]

For a PvE OW setting, even if AI was 'futuristic' there would be the issue of 'overcrowding' which can't be countered by adding more AI enemies because of technical reasons, and perception reasons (chaos) even if engine could support unlimited capacity.
Looks like they are going for something along the lines of 'enemy gets stronger' by killing players, and not just 'enemy gets more numbers'. The large scale strategic side can also add challenge, but this goes in the lines of 'challenging the playerbase as a whole' and can't increase personal challenge. Both good ideas but still could fail to address the issue of 'skill should matter'.
'Skill should matter' can be interpreted as 'no steep vertical progression' and that's positive but somewhat insufficient.

You NEED to separate players at some point and cap participation *sometimes*, and by diversifying simultaneous 'worthy' and mutually exclusive activities you have to give room for everyone somewhere else at that time. 'Oh no I slept for a minute and now battlezone X has reached its limit and the other zones have nothing that interest me' shouldn't happen. Massive chaotic shootouts, while being a prevalent characteristic to some extent, shouldn't be all Ember has to offer, IMHO. I'd love to see this occasionally circumvented while still inside an OW setting instead of straight instancing. I don't think that's impossible. Not that I dislike instancing, not at all.

(Ok I'll try not do this again or I'm gonna become a derailing master, sorry OP. I'm going to start creating my own threads once I articulate my ideas in an orderly fashion or somebody else does it 1st)

 

[Dreamin]

Oiee... This thread been around awhile.

I have really wanted to make like a six page post to "help out" but it looks like many of the posts like that are are just special interest "build it my way" stuff.

I don't want to be part of that.

The topic itself is golden though. What can Em8er learn from FF? (first one's a sucker punch but after that it'll get better);

• Don't sell control over design intent or direction in anyway EVER! (Think this is handled)
• patches-upgrades-whatever should happen regularly especially during alpha/beta (test stuff out, that is what it's about not going 3 months, 6 months, 1.5 years between updates/patches, that scheisse helped kill FF)
• New content - small things like A special weapon, A new pet, A zone upgrade starting block (new building/NPC to interact at or with, A new technique for A specific frame to explore, A (or multiple) bug fixed. (These small additions over time help hold consumer interest and give the perception improvement over time.
• IF, items are entered that are intended to be "THE BEST POSSIBLE" (Thoughts on the newest GOLD weapons) the agro should track with their damage/damage reduction capability (not the players capability)
• Events!! Random but regular Events that reward special items that are extremely useful at mid levels, mildly useful at low levels and only placards of entitlement for higher levels (placard combining may be okay if the result is only mildly useful).
• Tune-able in-game radio/internet radio (Ie.. regularly updated multi-track (5-10) loops for consumers to choose their background ambiance.)

I think that's all I'll do for now, I have to leave room for the "I shoulda".

 

[BunnyHunny]

• New content - small things like A special weapon, A new pet, A zone upgrade starting block (new building/NPC to interact at or with, A new technique for A specific frame to explore, A (or multiple) bug fixed. (These small additions over time help hold consumer interest and give the perception improvement over time.)

-patching too often is a waste of resources and gets annoying for both parties
-if patches are almost exclusively very small, they cause no "hype" experience and do NOT give the perception of (much) improvement (unless they are bugfixes)
-when something is patched, it has to be something noticeable and actually useful once in a while

• IF, items are entered that are intended to be "THE BEST POSSIBLE" (Thoughts on the newest GOLD weapons) the agro should track with their damage/damage reduction capability (not the players capability)

If there will be such a thing as agro, how is your plan supposed to work? It does not seem like you have put any thought at all into this.
-from what kind of range does a player get agro?
-guy with "gold" weapon could agro every single enemy within a certain range, just by being there or shooting them once
-who gets agro when there are multiple people with the same weapon?
-how is a player supposed to deal damage, when all enemies in the area attack him, simply for holding a special weapon in his hands?
-weapon swap would cause agro loss
-people could play agro ping pong or simply kite all enemies in circles, while all the others can shoot them with "normal" weapons, without being attacked
-it is a stupid idea anyway, because there is no reason for an enemy to focus on a player that is not very dangerous, just because he has a special gun in his hands

• Events!! Random but regular Events that reward special items that are extremely useful at mid levels, mildly useful at low levels and only placards of entitlement for higher levels (placard combining may be okay if the result is only mildly useful).

There are no levels.

• Tune-able in-game radio/internet radio (Ie.. regularly updated multi-track (5-10) loops for consumers to choose their background ambiance.)

A waste of resources, especially when it is not a game for console.
Your computer can multi task, so you should probably just use your own playlists.

 

[AdmiralStryker]

Encounters can be designed to require skill rather than a large amount of people. Invulnerability, mechanics, etc can all be used. Zone player count caps can be implemented.

We're not fighting a brain dead AI enemy. We're fighting one that is strong, deadly, and will require more than a wall of gunfire to beat. It's not hard to design an encounter to be hard to beat for multiple people. It simply requires thought and new mechanics.

I do agree, hardcapped fights with a certain number of players should happen, but you can do those in other ways besides instancing. No loading screens!

 

[Thunderstrike]

Dark Souls is mainly SOLO PvE.
Ember is supposed to be MULTIPLAYER PvE.
That makes a massive difference. How can you not get that?

In dark souls, you run around alone.
Enemies are balanced to fight against 1 player.
If you play bad, YOU DIED and can not progress any further than you deserve.

Before mocking me consider the idea that I may have more knowledge on development than you do and you're actually making a complete ass of yourself.

The example of Dark Souls is exactly that; an example. I did not say Em-8ER should be modelled after Dark Souls nor did I say that it would be a good idea. There are many games out there with challenging PvE and Dark Souls just happened to be the one I picked.

Ember is supposed to be a multiplayer and entirely open world.
How do you plan to balance enemies?
If you play bad, you might deal no damage and die all the time, but the enemy and the 100 other players in your area won't even notice (unless the game has no success, the player base is tiny and there are no big battles).
NOTHING will happen if you play bad. You get your participation rewards and thats all you need to progress through the game.

Yeah, about that "YOU DIED" thing. That happens in multiplayer too. Now, you clearly haven't read the Vision Book (or even the sections available on the forums) or weren't paying attention. If you are crap at the game that's its own punishment, you act as cannon fodder for the Tsi-Hu Beasts to rip to shreds since if the AI pays attention it'll go after the weakest link while Humanoids will attack more competent players. Your Omniframe will be destroyed and you'll be playing guard duty while waiting for it to be repaired, and maybe respawns will be disabled at bases under attack. This is an easy problem to deal with with multiple solutions some of which already exist.

If there is no plan on how to actually make the game skill based, probably NOW is the time to talk about it.
If nobody can figure out a way to properly balance a game like that, there should be no promises to produce anything like it.

Once those stages (you are talking about) are reached, what do you suggest should happen, if they still can not figure out how to properly balance the game?
Trash it all and then start all over (like FF did)?

They need a concept that works.
If they follow a concept that does not work, it will end up like FF.
Constant changes, trying to fix problems and move in another direction, wasting thousands of hours of work and lots of money.

A basic idea is not worth much, unless you know how to make it reality.

Saying "I will build a device that can cure all illness and this is how it will look like", is useless, unless you know how to actually make such a device work.

MANY start up companies make this "mistake". They start designing and advertising their product with nice animated pictures, before they have even figured out how the product will work (and if it would even be possible to make it work in the first place).
You can call it a mistake or not, but two things are for sure:
1. they get lots of money from stupid people, who have no idea of the matter, but get blinded by the nice pictures and the promises
2. they do not deliver the product, because they never figure out how to produce it (or it is simply not possible because of physics/thermodynamics, etc.)

When you want to build a house, you do not just start building on quicksand and say "Yeah, lets think about that problem, when we are half way done. Far too early for that, right now."
You have to think and plan before, because otherwise, you are gonna have a bad time.

Excellent. Now let's discuss the inverse: saying too much.

You're right, a lot of small game companies do fail to deliver on promises and many people get sucked in thinking "Oh cool!" only to be swindled by games about aerial property no one can claim *COUGH*. However, Em-8ER is a shooter based around skill and most of the skill in a shooter is fundamental stuff like aiming, movement, ability use, knowing your enemy and its capabilities, etc. At this juncture it's just premature to be throwing out enemy concepts beyond general ideas or ability sets and the finer aspects of balancing your 'frame. The ideas presented already do have some issues in them already but most of them can be worked around or have easy solutions. Beyond that, there's no way to know just how balanced something is until it's actually up and running in-game. You can have the most meticulously thought-out system planned but it means nothing because it may not mesh with other systems, meaning now you have to go back and rework all of your ideas creating FF's problem all over again.

Gabe Newell is quoted as having said "Fuck yes" when he saw the initial design ideas for Portal 2 back in late 2007, the ability to freeze and reverse time in-game to solve more complex puzzles than before. Problem was, it turned out to be a total crapshoot because keeping so much of what you'd already done in mind and planning how you'd solve the puzzle with that was difficult and not very fun for the players. Great idea, looked so good on paper but ultimately just... didn't work.

You are right to have your concerns and no one is saying you shouldn't voice them (unless someone else in the thread was and I wasn't paying attention). Em-8ER has a solid foundation that needs a bit of imagination and love, creating ideas to work around the current planned features isn't hard. It's just hard to predict if they'll end up being any good, which is why there's more reason at the moment to be concerned about balancing the mock-up than there is to be worried about the final game. If you have any concern at all about your money vanishing into the bottomless pit that is game development hell, then please invest it at your local bank instead of on a crowdfunded project.