I keep seeing posts about how multiple instances is a big negative and very bad for the game.
I'm probably just being dense, but II don't get it. What's the big deal about instancing?
The only issue I've seen with it is when a team ends up in different instances, which has to be a bug they're working on. If I had to make a choice today I'd have to say I like instancing.
My only gripe with instancing is that most of them are too small.
I mean c'mon, 50 people per instance? why cant we have 200 people per instance and no character collision like most MMO's have? Make the places feel a bit more populated.
it really comes down to population and how many people you actually see flying around, and also it naturally gives you lots of load screens as you go from one to another breaking immersion
but its mainly cosmetics, it does not really hurt the game in any way. in fact instances helps in may other ways, it helps with lag, it stops other players getting in your way and hijacking your mission goals, stops 100's of people standing around exchange consoles or shops blocking your path etc
would be nice in some circumstances like fleet action and pvp if they could hold more people
Yeah I don't mind the thin numbers in space, but I do wish they would increase the numbers per an instance in ground areas. It would give it more of a market feel. It's always rather dull and quiet on ESD and DS9.
Instancing may not be a great option but it's far better than the alternative: dividing the players among servers. I'd rather play with 50 players out 100,000 (and be able to easily switch which 50) than be stuck with the same 5,000 all the time (and not easily play with friends new to the game).
Loading screens are bothersome, but they're a separate issue from instances. It's possible to have instances without loading screens, but STO kept them for performance reasons (it makes it easier for low-end machines to handle the game).
My only gripe with instancing is that most of them are too small.
I mean c'mon, 50 people per instance? why cant we have 200 people per instance and no character collision like most MMO's have? Make the places feel a bit more populated.
I'd like to see numbers on social hubs (like starbase) to be upped to at least 100. I'd like them to remove the 50 annoying wandering NPCs that keep pushing me around to make room for those players.
it really comes down to population and how many people you actually see flying around, and also it naturally gives you lots of load screens as you go from one to another breaking immersion
but its mainly cosmetics, it does not really hurt the game in any way. in fact instances helps in may other ways, it helps with lag, it stops other players getting in your way and hijacking your mission goals, stops 100's of people standing around exchange consoles or shops blocking your path etc
That's the way I see it (as a good thing). Also, space is mind-blowingly big. I wouldn't expect to see hundreds of starships flitting around everywhere I am. As to the loading screen, that's no big deal to me. You get that on zone transitions in every MMO regardless of instancing.
I'd like to see numbers on social hubs (like starbase) to be upped to at least 100. I'd like them to remove the 50 annoying wandering NPCs that keep pushing me around to make room for those players.
It was that way during the trial - I hated it. People bumping into you, getting into your way, and really horrible lag. No Thank you!
I keep seeing posts about how multiple instances is a big negative and very bad for the game.
I'm probably just being dense, but II don't get it. What's the big deal about instancing?
The only issue I've seen with it is when a team ends up in different instances, which has to be a bug they're working on. If I had to make a choice today I'd have to say I like instancing.
Let me ask...
How do the instances make you feel like you are in a real world/universe? I personally love how my vision changes to a static load screen when I walk from my bedroom to my bathroom in the am.
I kid, but the real issue is that the world is broken into a billion load screens between any real action. Something that a xbox/ps3 user will be used to... PC games, and MMO users in general, find it intrusive.
I kid, but the real issue is that the world is broken into a billion load screens between any real action. Something that a xbox/ps3 user will be used to... PC games, and MMO users in general, find it intrusive.
Not really. Don't try and ruin the thread with some stupid anti-console misinformation.
Not really. Don't try and ruin the thread with some stupid anti-console misinformation.
I take it you havent played many xbox or ps3 games then... they tend to have loading screens a ton more than pc games - even now-a-days. People that are used to those screens tend to accept the STO format a lot better than people used to PC games.
If you don't agree, that is your business, but please try not to be rude, or insinuate someones opinion is stupid.
I think, given the nature of the game world, that instancing is pretty necessary. It just isn't realistic to model accurately the whole galaxy. However, I do agree that the instances should be larger, and new instances should only be generated when others are full. Further, some instanced zones (such as planet surfaces) should be quite large and open.
Small areas, such as spacedock, might have a maximum population of 50 or 100, while large areas, such as the surface of a planet (Risa, Andor) might have a maximum population of 200-500.
the real issue is that the world is broken into a billion load screens between any real action... PC games, and MMO users in general, find it intrusive.
Most PC games I've played have "loading" screens when traversing zones (e.g., MMOs, FPS). The "zones" in STO are small, which has benefits and detriments, but one side-effect is you go through a lot of them. Sure, a warping screen or some animation other than the words "loading" might be nice, but not that big of a deal for me. If that's what the hoopla is about, it is not only minuscule compared to other issues, but is greatly player-centric. See Darren's thread for more on immersion (I don't think instances are even mentioned).
Most PC games I've played have "loading" screens when traversing zones (e.g., MMOs, FPS). The "zones" in STO are small, which has benefits and detriments, but one side-effect is you go through a lot of them.
You just agreed with what was implied... a ton of loading in STO. More so than other games. Was that your intent?
anyhoo, whether someone else left out loading and instances as immersion breaking or not, in a post, is irrelevant. I don't understand what you are trying to say with it.
My only gripe with instancing is that most of them are too small.
I mean c'mon, 50 people per instance? why cant we have 200 people per instance and no character collision like most MMO's have? Make the places feel a bit more populated.
They have to worry about the lag. There are more people on STO's single, live server than any given WoW server. (Server Population = STO: 100k+ versus WoW: 15k-)
4 instances of 50 people uses less bandwidth than 1 instance of 200.
When they increase the number of players at Sol, it generally increases lag all around (since SOl is heavily traveled). At the same time, zone chat gives you access to everyone across all instances in the same geographic area.
To redesign the game to support, say, 100 people per instance would require massive changes to a number of things:
Interior spaces (like Sol Station) would need to increased in size due to Player/NPC pathing issues (because even larger hallways is a feature we all want :rolleyes:)
Buy new servers and cap them out (meaning a lot of fleets would be broken and massive support/energy bills).
Increased costs may mean less development funding.
Now, if loading screens in sector block borders were replaced by fly-over areas where content would load as you fly (once loaded you be seen moving into the new sector block) - I'd assume many players would appreciate that (It's essentially what CCP does in EVE with the warp gates).
You just agreed with what was implied... a ton of loading in STO...I don't understand what you are trying to say with it.
You sound excited you've caught me in a contradiction. Not so. I've played the game and am well aware there are loading screens and how frequently they occur.
There were a couple of points in my previous post, but the one most germane to the discussion is that loading screens are mainly caused by map transitions. If that's what the hoopla is about, it would be better served with the phrase "too many map transitions" than associated with "instancing".
Map translations are typically needed as the engine is swapping out textures (e.g., starbases use different textures than sector space) or to balance player population and performance (which is also what instances are used for). Cryptic could merge some of the sector maps by reducing the maximum number of players in an instance, but to conserve performance doing so would require reducing the number of players available for any one mission via autogrouping. So, if anything, the maps should made smaller.
"Map Transition" hoopla might also be about leaving space dock to go to Sol when really you want to go directly to sector-space (which takes two map transitions). If that's all it is, it should be made clear as perhaps Earth Space Dock could include a warp-to-sector-space option.
But, this thread isn't about "Map Transitions" (unless the "hoopla" is the confusion), its about instancing problems.
You sound excited you've caught me in a contradiction. Not so. I've played the game and am well aware there are loading screens and how frequently they occur.
There were a couple of points in my previous post, but the one most germane to the discussion is that loading screens are mainly caused by map transitions. If that's what the hoopla is about, it would be better served with the phrase "too many map transitions" than associated with "instancing".
I think you sound too excited to think you trounced someone's supposed attack on you... Not so, in the least.
You actually agreed with my post, that there are a lot of load screens. You then attempt to split hairs and in a very longish post call instance loading 'map transitions'. While that is accurate, it is not a different thing from instance transitions... as each time you load, you are in a new instance. Trying to separate them is disingenuous, at best.
So, in short, while you think your argument is correct, it is no more than calling a 'tomatoe' a 'tomotoe'.
Ultimately, the case of too much instance loading does very much pertain to the conversation and thread. In my opinion, the instance loading is a bad thing, and thus, so many instances is a bad thing in this game.
I take it you havent played many xbox or ps3 games then... they tend to have loading screens a ton more than pc games - even now-a-days. People that are used to those screens tend to accept the STO format a lot better than people used to PC games.
If you don't agree, that is your business, but please try not to be rude, or insinuate someones opinion is stupid.
That is just not cool.
I play a tonne of both [in particular the Halo series which led the way in phasing out loading screens]. And it's okay to be rude because you're entirely wrong. I'm trying to think of a PC game devoid of numerous loading screens. Bad Company 2? Nah. Mass Effect 2? Nah.
So come on, if you're going to try and pass some theory you pulled out of your TRIBBLE as fact, at least have the grace to admit as such when someone calls you out on it.
I play a tonne of both [in particular the Halo series which led the way in phasing out loading screens]. And it's okay to be rude because you're entirely wrong. I'm trying to think of a PC game devoid of numerous loading screens. Bad Company 2? Nah. Mass Effect 2? Nah.
So come on, if you're going to try and pass some theory you pulled out of your TRIBBLE as fact, at least have the grace to admit as such when someone calls you out on it.
lol yeah, cause the halo series is the benchmark of few loading screens in all console games...also, who said PC games are devoid of loading?
Please, one would think if you were going to insult someone, you would do better with your logic and facts.
lol yeah, cause the halo series is the benchmark of few loading screens in all console games...
Well, given that the majority of the games in that series have NO loading screens once the campaign has started [streaming the data in the background]... yeah.
also, who said PC games are devoid of loading?
You heavily implied it: "I kid, but the real issue is that the world is broken into a billion load screens between any real action. Something that a xbox/ps3 user will be used to... PC games, and MMO users in general, find it intrusive."
Stop trolling.
Which one of us thought to bring up a baseless platform-partisan remark in the guise of fact?
Well, given that the majority of the games in that series have NO loading screens once the campaign has started [streaming the data in the background]... yeah.
Let me understand...
So, a few games [Halo series] on a console make up the entire genre of console games? So, if Halo streams data instead of a million loading screens, then by default, ALL/MOST OTHER console games also do this?
You heavily implied it: "I kid, but the real issue is that the world is broken into a billion load screens between any real action. Something that a xbox/ps3 user will be used to... PC games, and MMO users in general, find it intrusive."
No, you assumed I implied that PC games are devoid of loading screens. Far from it. They are indeed fewer across the board than console games, but certainly not devoid. I am sorry you assumed things not in evidence.
Which one of us thought to bring up a baseless platform-partisan remark in the guise of fact?
I did, but nothing was in the guise of fact, or baseless. As a matter of fact, your comment is not an answer, or a come back to the fact that you started off being rude with your baseless insistence in strawman logic and arguments. You appeared to come across as hostile and argumentative. If you are not trying to be, I am sorry you came off like that.
Again, general statement... console = more loading screens than PC games, hence why I feel a lot of console players accept STO more than PC/MMO players that are not used to it.
Not really much to argue there. Again, please be nice. No need to be rude.
There you go again with the foolishness. If you're going to assert that the frequency and duration of loading screens on games consoles is qualitatively different than on PC you're going to need some evidence. As it is, I'm afraid it is clearly and unequivocably YOU who is trolling.
There you go again with the foolishness. If you're going to assert that the frequency and duration of loading screens on games consoles is qualitatively different than on PC you're going to need some evidence. As it is, I'm afraid it is clearly and unequivocably YOU who is trolling.
So you are calling into question that consoles, have overall, more loading screens in their games than PC/MMO games. I see.
How odd it is that you want to have 'qualitative' information on that. I think it proves the point.
I wish you well on your search for your empirical data, and your future posts. I will provide you no further fuel for your straw arguments and rudeness.
The issues I have with the heavy instancing come from a few areas.
The first is that five players on a team is simply not massively multiplayer. It's more like an MOG than an MMO in that sense. Five ships isn't really a fleet (although technically you could argue that it is). It isn't an armada. It's...a small group of ships.
Like others I absolutely agree that, since space is huge, you really shouldn't see a multitude of ships flitting around the cosmos. But it should indeed allow for a large fleet (DS9, anyone?) to go toe-to-toe with another large fleet/armada (beyond the handful of fleet actions).
In addition, since MMO's are usually dependent on social interaction, heavy instancing really mitigates the social aspect of a game.
And in both of these circumstances, given that playing fields are so small, the heavy instancing really doesn't help matters.
Another problem, for me anyway, is the immersion of a game. STO from the get-go was said to be immersive - it just isn't. And that's a problem caused by the combination of small playing fields and heavy instancing. The lack of persistence caused by the two go together to just drop an already low immersion level another step.
The instancing simply doesn't allow for a shared universe.
As to lag and other server-related issues, well...more servers, more capacity. And, of course, that means more money.
Eve Online (yes, I referenced Eve, kill me) set a record of simultaneous users logged in on their single cluster server last December with just over 51,000 players - all who were on the same server, in the same persistent universe, and all who could, theoretically, interact with one another all at once.
That kind of potential interaction is not, and never will be, possible with instancing like we have in STO.
Thanks for the post Stelakh! I've jotted down a few thoughts to your points that will hopefully illustrate why I (and probably others) am not seeing it as an issue. Hopefully you can shed some light on it for me, despite all the posts I still honestly just don't see it.
...five players on a team is simply not massively multiplayer...
I don't think the instances are limiting you to five man teams (after all fleet actions allow a lot more). I think its more traditional in that most MMOs generally limited teams to a handful of players to keep things managable. Now raids, having multiple teams together, are usually available as end-game content. Not sure if STO has that on the engineering board or not - but that sure makes sense and from what we've seen instancing should be able to handle 40 players performance wise.
it should indeed allow for a large fleet (DS9, anyone?) to go toe-to-toe with another large fleet/armada (beyond the handful of fleet actions).
What do other MMOs without instancing do to accomplish this? Are they like Fleet Actions, open PvP or is it something else? Also, how does instancing limit this? If nothing else, I would think it could be treated like the random encounters in sector space (they put the image of swirling fleets and you click on it to join). I can see there might be performance problems if the fleets are 50+ players a side, but that would be an engine performance issue. Can't remember now how many ships were in a single instance that last day of the trial when Klingons invaded Federation space, but the numbers seemed huge and the only performance issue I remember was from respawning a lot (focus fire of a lot of federations ships caused instant death ).
In addition, since MMO's are usually dependent on social interaction, heavy instancing really mitigates the social aspect of a game.
How you communicate with a player traverses instances, so the only social difference is you can't see them. In other MMOs I've played there's usually a distance factor at which other characters dissapear - so I can't see them (and hideous lag when they are all close). Now I'm not saying STO doesn't have huge social problems, I'm just don't see the dots connecting them to instancing when there are other bigger things that obviously affect it. [BTW, Darren's got a good thread started on socializing here]
given that playing fields are so small, the heavy instancing really doesn't help matters.
How so? I agree the maps are small and detract from immersion. But, are we talking map transitions or an aspect of instancing? IMHO, it's not a case they're the same thing.
Another problem, for me anyway, is the immersion of a game. STO from the get-go was said to be immersive - it just isn't. And that's a problem caused by the combination of small playing fields and heavy instancing. The lack of persistence caused by the two go together to just drop an already low immersion level another step.
I couldn't agree more about the lack of immersion, I've also said elsewhere that's one of the biggest problem's Cryptic needs to address. But I'm still not connecting the dots back to instancing for it.
Comments
I mean c'mon, 50 people per instance? why cant we have 200 people per instance and no character collision like most MMO's have? Make the places feel a bit more populated.
but its mainly cosmetics, it does not really hurt the game in any way. in fact instances helps in may other ways, it helps with lag, it stops other players getting in your way and hijacking your mission goals, stops 100's of people standing around exchange consoles or shops blocking your path etc
would be nice in some circumstances like fleet action and pvp if they could hold more people
Loading screens are bothersome, but they're a separate issue from instances. It's possible to have instances without loading screens, but STO kept them for performance reasons (it makes it easier for low-end machines to handle the game).
http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=157959
Instancing can be fine, we just need a few minor tweaks to the current implementation.
I'd like to see numbers on social hubs (like starbase) to be upped to at least 100. I'd like them to remove the 50 annoying wandering NPCs that keep pushing me around to make room for those players.
I don't see how the "size" is affected by the instancing. Playable areas are just plain small. Going to one super-instance wouldn't change that.
It was that way during the trial - I hated it. People bumping into you, getting into your way, and really horrible lag. No Thank you!
I still get this continually now, just from mindless npcs. If it has to happen, I'd rather it be from players.
Let me ask...
How do the instances make you feel like you are in a real world/universe? I personally love how my vision changes to a static load screen when I walk from my bedroom to my bathroom in the am.
I kid, but the real issue is that the world is broken into a billion load screens between any real action. Something that a xbox/ps3 user will be used to... PC games, and MMO users in general, find it intrusive.
Not really. Don't try and ruin the thread with some stupid anti-console misinformation.
I take it you havent played many xbox or ps3 games then... they tend to have loading screens a ton more than pc games - even now-a-days. People that are used to those screens tend to accept the STO format a lot better than people used to PC games.
If you don't agree, that is your business, but please try not to be rude, or insinuate someones opinion is stupid.
That is just not cool.
Small areas, such as spacedock, might have a maximum population of 50 or 100, while large areas, such as the surface of a planet (Risa, Andor) might have a maximum population of 200-500.
Most PC games I've played have "loading" screens when traversing zones (e.g., MMOs, FPS). The "zones" in STO are small, which has benefits and detriments, but one side-effect is you go through a lot of them. Sure, a warping screen or some animation other than the words "loading" might be nice, but not that big of a deal for me. If that's what the hoopla is about, it is not only minuscule compared to other issues, but is greatly player-centric. See Darren's thread for more on immersion (I don't think instances are even mentioned).
You just agreed with what was implied... a ton of loading in STO. More so than other games. Was that your intent?
anyhoo, whether someone else left out loading and instances as immersion breaking or not, in a post, is irrelevant. I don't understand what you are trying to say with it.
They have to worry about the lag. There are more people on STO's single, live server than any given WoW server. (Server Population = STO: 100k+ versus WoW: 15k-)
4 instances of 50 people uses less bandwidth than 1 instance of 200.
When they increase the number of players at Sol, it generally increases lag all around (since SOl is heavily traveled). At the same time, zone chat gives you access to everyone across all instances in the same geographic area.
To redesign the game to support, say, 100 people per instance would require massive changes to a number of things:
- Interior spaces (like Sol Station) would need to increased in size due to Player/NPC pathing issues (because even larger hallways is a feature we all want :rolleyes:)
- Buy new servers and cap them out (meaning a lot of fleets would be broken and massive support/energy bills).
- Increased costs may mean less development funding.
Now, if loading screens in sector block borders were replaced by fly-over areas where content would load as you fly (once loaded you be seen moving into the new sector block) - I'd assume many players would appreciate that (It's essentially what CCP does in EVE with the warp gates).You sound excited you've caught me in a contradiction. Not so. I've played the game and am well aware there are loading screens and how frequently they occur.
There were a couple of points in my previous post, but the one most germane to the discussion is that loading screens are mainly caused by map transitions. If that's what the hoopla is about, it would be better served with the phrase "too many map transitions" than associated with "instancing".
Map translations are typically needed as the engine is swapping out textures (e.g., starbases use different textures than sector space) or to balance player population and performance (which is also what instances are used for). Cryptic could merge some of the sector maps by reducing the maximum number of players in an instance, but to conserve performance doing so would require reducing the number of players available for any one mission via autogrouping. So, if anything, the maps should made smaller.
"Map Transition" hoopla might also be about leaving space dock to go to Sol when really you want to go directly to sector-space (which takes two map transitions). If that's all it is, it should be made clear as perhaps Earth Space Dock could include a warp-to-sector-space option.
But, this thread isn't about "Map Transitions" (unless the "hoopla" is the confusion), its about instancing problems.
I think you sound too excited to think you trounced someone's supposed attack on you... Not so, in the least.
You actually agreed with my post, that there are a lot of load screens. You then attempt to split hairs and in a very longish post call instance loading 'map transitions'. While that is accurate, it is not a different thing from instance transitions... as each time you load, you are in a new instance. Trying to separate them is disingenuous, at best.
So, in short, while you think your argument is correct, it is no more than calling a 'tomatoe' a 'tomotoe'.
Ultimately, the case of too much instance loading does very much pertain to the conversation and thread. In my opinion, the instance loading is a bad thing, and thus, so many instances is a bad thing in this game.
Good day.
Well let me apologize then for coming off that way. My desire is to listen & learn, so thank you for your input.
No problem. I forgive you for coming off that way.
Also, I am glad I could help you learn more, and realize the mistake of your position on the 'hoopla'. Thank you for taking the input.
So come on, if you're going to try and pass some theory you pulled out of your TRIBBLE as fact, at least have the grace to admit as such when someone calls you out on it.
lol yeah, cause the halo series is the benchmark of few loading screens in all console games...also, who said PC games are devoid of loading?
Please, one would think if you were going to insult someone, you would do better with your logic and facts.
Stop trolling.
You heavily implied it:
"I kid, but the real issue is that the world is broken into a billion load screens between any real action. Something that a xbox/ps3 user will be used to... PC games, and MMO users in general, find it intrusive."
Which one of us thought to bring up a baseless platform-partisan remark in the guise of fact?
Let me understand...
So, a few games [Halo series] on a console make up the entire genre of console games? So, if Halo streams data instead of a million loading screens, then by default, ALL/MOST OTHER console games also do this?
OK....
No, you assumed I implied that PC games are devoid of loading screens. Far from it. They are indeed fewer across the board than console games, but certainly not devoid. I am sorry you assumed things not in evidence.
I did, but nothing was in the guise of fact, or baseless. As a matter of fact, your comment is not an answer, or a come back to the fact that you started off being rude with your baseless insistence in strawman logic and arguments. You appeared to come across as hostile and argumentative. If you are not trying to be, I am sorry you came off like that.
Again, general statement... console = more loading screens than PC games, hence why I feel a lot of console players accept STO more than PC/MMO players that are not used to it.
Not really much to argue there. Again, please be nice. No need to be rude.
So you are calling into question that consoles, have overall, more loading screens in their games than PC/MMO games. I see.
How odd it is that you want to have 'qualitative' information on that. I think it proves the point.
I wish you well on your search for your empirical data, and your future posts. I will provide you no further fuel for your straw arguments and rudeness.
Good day.
The first is that five players on a team is simply not massively multiplayer. It's more like an MOG than an MMO in that sense. Five ships isn't really a fleet (although technically you could argue that it is). It isn't an armada. It's...a small group of ships.
Like others I absolutely agree that, since space is huge, you really shouldn't see a multitude of ships flitting around the cosmos. But it should indeed allow for a large fleet (DS9, anyone?) to go toe-to-toe with another large fleet/armada (beyond the handful of fleet actions).
In addition, since MMO's are usually dependent on social interaction, heavy instancing really mitigates the social aspect of a game.
And in both of these circumstances, given that playing fields are so small, the heavy instancing really doesn't help matters.
Another problem, for me anyway, is the immersion of a game. STO from the get-go was said to be immersive - it just isn't. And that's a problem caused by the combination of small playing fields and heavy instancing. The lack of persistence caused by the two go together to just drop an already low immersion level another step.
The instancing simply doesn't allow for a shared universe.
As to lag and other server-related issues, well...more servers, more capacity. And, of course, that means more money.
Eve Online (yes, I referenced Eve, kill me) set a record of simultaneous users logged in on their single cluster server last December with just over 51,000 players - all who were on the same server, in the same persistent universe, and all who could, theoretically, interact with one another all at once.
That kind of potential interaction is not, and never will be, possible with instancing like we have in STO.
I don't think the instances are limiting you to five man teams (after all fleet actions allow a lot more). I think its more traditional in that most MMOs generally limited teams to a handful of players to keep things managable. Now raids, having multiple teams together, are usually available as end-game content. Not sure if STO has that on the engineering board or not - but that sure makes sense and from what we've seen instancing should be able to handle 40 players performance wise.
What do other MMOs without instancing do to accomplish this? Are they like Fleet Actions, open PvP or is it something else? Also, how does instancing limit this? If nothing else, I would think it could be treated like the random encounters in sector space (they put the image of swirling fleets and you click on it to join). I can see there might be performance problems if the fleets are 50+ players a side, but that would be an engine performance issue. Can't remember now how many ships were in a single instance that last day of the trial when Klingons invaded Federation space, but the numbers seemed huge and the only performance issue I remember was from respawning a lot (focus fire of a lot of federations ships caused instant death
How you communicate with a player traverses instances, so the only social difference is you can't see them. In other MMOs I've played there's usually a distance factor at which other characters dissapear - so I can't see them (and hideous lag when they are all close). Now I'm not saying STO doesn't have huge social problems, I'm just don't see the dots connecting them to instancing when there are other bigger things that obviously affect it. [BTW, Darren's got a good thread started on socializing here]
How so? I agree the maps are small and detract from immersion. But, are we talking map transitions or an aspect of instancing? IMHO, it's not a case they're the same thing.
I couldn't agree more about the lack of immersion, I've also said elsewhere that's one of the biggest problem's Cryptic needs to address. But I'm still not connecting the dots back to instancing for it.
Hopefully no one will, I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the Klingon Way against it.