Instanced small team combat.

[Zulthus]

Sandbox really doesn't have anything to do with instancing. It means open-world gameplay, not 15x15 feet zone gameplay with 8 players.

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by Zulthus

Sandbox really doesn't have anything to do with instancing. It means open-world gameplay, not 15x15 feet zone gameplay with 8 players.

Sandbox does however means having the freedom to do what you'd like within the limits of gameplay, whether it be duels in a tower or having ANT races on Oshur. The idea that anything other than participating in the huge battles should be automatically dismissed would make PS2 even more restrictive than the original.

[Goku]

I think there is a place for such a feature in the game.

You could have Outfit vs Outfit fighting areas for say 1 squad up to a platoon. This would be good for training to settling disputes over who is the better outfit. The area would be perfect for events such as Outfit Wars. I would love to see this done yearly for instance.

I wouldn't even mind allowing a single outfit to do this. If you want to do training for certain tactics. Have 1 squad stay your empire then another can morph to another doing the battle.

This would of been great even in PS. I know there is people who think it will take away from the game population, but I do not think it will be that major. First there will be plenty of pop going on the real maps as that is what the game is made for. Just allow the players who want to do at certain times allowed to do so. Make sure there is no rewards for instanced fighting as well. That will make sure it does not become a true alternative to playing the game.

EDIT: Reading this thread there are many people concerned about this taking away from the real fights going on in game. Well perhaps putting a limiters on doing instanced fighting will help. Only allow outfits to actually do the instanced fighting along with possibly merging squads with allied ones. This keeps randoms from forming a squad to even there being a randomized placers for randoms to do the fighting. Make these instanced fighting limited to only a couple matches a day per player (account)/outfit. This bars outfits from doing this too much or people continually joining other outfits to keep doing instanced matches. There should be a cost attached onto actually during these matches. If Outfit points are still in game and there are other options to spend points on it will make Outfits be more considerate on what they spend points on. This is on top off putting a limiter on how many instanced fights can be going on at one time in order to bar too many players doing it at once. Not sure of what a current hard cap could be, but high enough to accommodate a good amount of outfits though low enough to not take away from the actual game play.

[Tigersmith]

Originally Posted by Kitija

GLobal Agenda is thataway ------->

Yep this sums it up, no instances please. even for small team combat. go on the test server if u wanna play small teams haha

[DashRev]

Originally Posted by Vancha

No, you cited examples of games where the instance-based alternative was either better (WoW) or required (I assume you were referring to ToA?)

It's a good thing SOE haven't stated any intention to turn PS2 into a sandbox game, otherwise everything you just said would directly contradict SOE's plans for PS2 (or perhaps I should say "design philosophy".)

Oh...

As someone (I assume) who is familiar with the RvR of DAoC, how you can honestly think Battlegrounds were "better" than open-world PvP in WoW is beyond me. Blizzard didn't add BGs because PvP wasn't fun, they added them for convenience. Players could now just sit in their capital city and wait in a queue instead of flying out to one of the PvP hotspots. In theory, they worked as a type of "Instant Action" button.

As for DAoC, I was actually referencing the actual instances, as ToA was just zoned content. As in, the simplistic single-group instances that were used to level and entirely emptied out Darkness Falls of levelers and removed any need for the Finns and Redcaps groups. You would zone in, complete the objective (either kill X number of mobs, kill the named mob, or clear the instance) zone out, reset, and repeat. You never saw another player in PvE again.

And finally, just like Zulthus said, "sandbox" does not mean "throw every conceivable feature into the game just because not having them might be considered restrictive."

Instances, in any form, just do not fit with what PlanetSide means; it is a massively multiplayer, open-world, persistent battlefield. Every one of those defining characteristics would be diminished by the addition of instanced content.

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by DashRev

As someone (I assume) who is familiar with the RvR of DAoC, how you can honestly think Battlegrounds were "better" than open-world PvP in WoW is beyond me. Blizzard didn't add BGs because PvP wasn't fun, they added them for convenience. Players could now just sit in their capital city and wait in a queue instead of flying out to one of the PvP hotspots. In theory, they worked as a type of "Instant Action" button.

I think BGs were better than open-world PvP in WoW because I played DAoC. Open world PvP in WoW was terrible. Worse than terrible. It wasn't accommodated at all (a development failure).

Originally Posted by DashRev

As for DAoC, I was actually referencing the actual instances, as ToA was just zoned content. As in, the simplistic single-group instances that were used to level and entirely emptied out Darkness Falls of levelers and removed any need for the Finns and Redcaps groups. You would zone in, complete the objective (either kill X number of mobs, kill the named mob, or clear the instance) zone out, reset, and repeat. You never saw another player in PvE again.

I started DAoC after instances already existed, but you're basically pointing to another development failure. The benefit to doing instances was so great that it wasn't worth doing it any other way.

Originally Posted by DashRev

And finally, just like Zulthus said, "sandbox" does not mean "throw every conceivable feature into the game just because not having them might be considered restrictive."

And if you read his post, then you also read my reply. My objection was to your notion that there's only one style of gameplay anyone should ever participate in in Planetside.

Originally Posted by DashRev

Instances, in any form, just do not fit with what PlanetSide means; it is a massively multiplayer, open-world, persistent battlefield. Every one of those defining characteristics would be diminished by the addition of instanced content.

Then what were continents? What of the battles that happened when people were trying to open up new continents? If a squad of a VS outfit went to a new continent to hack a base and a squad of a TR outfit went to resecure it (and did so), how was that any different?

When people went to empty continents to mess around with ANT races or tournaments, or when outfits went to practice drills, did you notice their absence (before the game was practically dead)? Would them having an instance to do those in really have been any different?

[Goku]

Originally Posted by Tigersmith

Yep this sums it up, no instances please. even for small team combat. go on the test server if u wanna play small teams haha

Way too much of a crusade against some type of instance that isn't meant for primary game play. There is NO reason not to have some kind of battle area for outfits on opposing sides wanting to face each other. If people want to do this more often then other modes then oh well. Why should you force them to do only the huge zerg fight if they want something more coordinated every now and then?

[DashRev]

Originally Posted by Vancha

I think BGs were better than open-world PvP in WoW because I played DAoC. Open world PvP in WoW was terrible. Worse than terrible. It wasn't accommodated at all (a development failure).

I started DAoC after instances already existed, but you're basically pointing to another development failure. The benefit to doing instances was so great that it wasn't worth doing it any other way.

And if you read his post, then you also read my reply. My objection was to your notion that there's only one style of gameplay anyone should ever participate in in Planetside.

Then what were continents? What of the battles that happened when people were trying to open up new continents? If a squad of a VS outfit went to a new continent to hack a base and a squad of a TR outfit went to resecure it (and did so), how was that any different?

When people went to empty continents to mess around with ANT races or tournaments, or when outfits went to practice drills, did you notice their absence (before the game was practically dead)? Would them having an instance to do those in really have been any different?

To start, in an ideal world, how do you propose instances fit into PlanetSide? If the two are perfectly balanced, do you see 50% of players participating in open-world combat and 50% in instances at any given time? 70%/30%? How do developers strike this balance? You've replied to every example given that it was just a poor implementation of instances. To me that suggests that finding that flawless balance is much more difficult than you give it credit. Why would it be any easier for SOE? Can you even find an example of it working perfectly?

As for your "sandbox" rationale, where do we draw the line? You're a really ardent supporter of instancing. What happens when we find a really ardent supporter of PvE raiding? Of an in-game auction house? Of space battles? Of submarine warfare? Of Minecraft-style terrain manipulation? Or any other fringe feature?

The reality is, game development is not a magical, infinite machine. You don't simply input ideas and output quality gaming. These things take resources, namely money and production time. The more elements you try to squeeze into a game, the more resources it requires to make a quality game. In practice, the best games are made by realistic developers. These developers take a core set of concepts, and spend years hammering them out to make a balanced, polished, and complete game.

PlanetSide, and its sequel, have a stated focus. The game exists around a massively multiplayer, open-world, persistent battlefield featuring hundreds if not thousands of players vying for territory control. Any feature first needs to be tested against this statement; will this idea further our goal in delivering these concepts in a quality game.

Instancing does not further the stated design goals of the PlanetSide universe.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Tigersmith

Yep this sums it up, no instances please. even for small team combat. go on the test server if u wanna play small teams haha

You realize that using the test server like this makes it functionally identical to an instance, don't you?



Well, I guess we figured out that its just the name that trips people up. Instance bad, test server good.

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by DashRev

To start, in an ideal world, how do you propose instances fit into PlanetSide? If the two are perfectly balanced, do you see 50% of players participating in open-world combat and 50% in instances at any given time? 70%/30%? How do developers strike this balance? You've replied to every example given that it was just a poor implementation of instances. To me that suggests that finding that flawless balance is much more difficult than you give it credit. Why would it be any easier for SOE? Can you even find an example of it working perfectly?

98/2%? I'm not asking for anything more than a room with a lock.

Though yes, if SOE implemented instances with zero development of open-world combat (WoW) or gave people a 500% xp bonus (DAoC) I'd fully expect instances to become the most popular place in the game.

As far as where instances could fit into PS2, I'll have to get back to you on that one, seeing as I have yet to play the game.

Originally Posted by DashRev

As for your "sandbox" rationale, where do we draw the line? You're a really ardent supporter of instancing. What happens when we find a really ardent supporter of PvE raiding? Of an in-game auction house? Of space battles? Of submarine warfare? Of Minecraft-style terrain manipulation? Or any other fringe feature?

I hate instancing. I'm just enjoying the debate.

I wouldn't be opposed to PVE, space battles, submarine warfare or map building if they were somehow implemented correctly. In fact, if PvE were implemented, instances are where it could happen.

Originally Posted by DashRev

The reality is, game development is not a magical, infinite machine. You don't simply input ideas and output quality gaming. These things take resources, namely money and production time. The more elements you try to squeeze into a game, the more resources it requires to make a quality game. In practice, the best games are made by realistic developers. These developers take a core set of concepts, and spend years hammering them out to make a balanced, polished, and complete game.

Instancing does not further the stated design goals of the PlanetSide universe.

I don't expect to see instances, PvE or additional planets anywhere near release, but if they decide to go down the EVE route of constantly updating their game, who knows what we could see or where we could be 8 years down the road.

[Dreamcast]

No......


Only place where this should be possible is the Virtual training......if it is still in the game then there should be virtual training for squads to test out tactics or whatever, there outfits can get together and compete if they want.

[knaggsy]

Please please please no instances other than those used for VR training.

The only other way I would want them is for outfit vs outfit fights for example for events which have no effect on the PS2 map or game but its like a mini-game within the game outfits can play against each other for pride and glory.