New P99 = instanced?

[Daldaen]

Lols.

[Erati]

hah totally missed the double negative with my trolling eyes and deleted my post :P

[Ganjar]

DO IT!! IT AINT CLASSIC ANyWAYs like iven been saying a few years now. Acting goofy as hell is the funnest part of everquest anyways . Groups are great, raids make memories . DO IT, DO IT NOW!

[Daldaen]

Eh not worth it.

[QuasiGnome]

I played on The Rathe Server with well established rotations for 5 years.

Had a full rotation set up from way back. It worked pretty damn well and allowed 7 or 8 raiding guilds to get steady loot.

It was actually brought up and supported by the server GMs. New guilds came and went but always had a shot at raid content.

Instancing means everyone that wants one can have their own generated raid target and it's loot when they want it. It diminishes the value of raid targets and their loot. It was the beginning of the end for EQ Live and it would be the same here. Why would you even consider going down that same road?

[Daldaen]

Doesn't diminish the value unless it's so easy a caveman could do it.

Raid loot value either economic or social, shouldn't be influence by the fact that it's only available to the guild who poops in a sock longest, stays up latest, or has their turn in the rotation. It should be because your guild is one of the few who had the players with the skills, execution, gear, and strategy to defeat big-bad boss X.

People say instancing was the beginning of the end. Quite to the contrary. It allowed them to create some uber hard events that only a select few could defeat and led to increase the value of raid targets and their loot. How many people did you know with a CoA BP or OMM loot during OoW? Or Mayong loot during Demi? Or Solteris loot during 75. Etc.

[QuasiGnome]

Killing an actual server spawn always meant more to me than killing target_copy_3212 in an instance. If we disagree, then we disagree.

It only hurt the top raiding guild that could have poopsocked everything if they wanted. Thankfully, when I played, the top guild didn't mind sharing and the guild I was in had a full raid schedule for years.

But, again, we may just disagree. /shrug

[SamwiseRed]

i have a love/hate with instances. they ruin world pvp but pve wise they are superior. they stop this whole, bring 80 people to VP and kill dragons in 4 seconds. putting a hard cap on the number of players that can engage a raid mob is a good thing. it prevented encounters being successful because you had dozens of useless players to throw at them. this was the beginning of the end of just being a warm body and zerg recruiting.

[Daldaen]

Originally Posted by QuasiGnome [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Killing an actual server spawn always meant more to me than killing target_copy_3212 in an instance. If we disagree, then we disagree.

It only hurt the top raiding guild that could have poopsocked everything if they wanted. Thankfully, when I played, the top guild didn't mind sharing and the guild I was in had a full raid schedule for years.

But, again, we may just disagree. /shrug

We likely do, but what Samwise said is correct.

Instancing forced you into a limited number of people which has 2 sides.

Bad side - if you are a large guild people get left out.
Good side - your entire guild isn't left out because they aren't as hardcore as the top guild.

Also raids became a lot more based on skill and strategy later on. Partially due to instancing but largely due to more complex events. Mobs didn't have just 2 AEs now. They would spawn adds if anyone does, they would get stronger or weaker based on what was happenings in the raid, they would punish people for not paying attention etc.

[Erati]

one of the lamest part of instances was when your forming an exp group:

Half your group zones in.

"Instance fills up"

Then the rest of your group joins "Version 2" of the zone and your group is separated lol

that happened alot in EQ2, maybe they fixed it, but early on was the pits.