German Com rep response to "reservation system for dungeons".

[Dreadnought]

whatever, i think i get it. the wording some times is so retarded.
so their saying they are making individual instances, but they arent saying how many can be active at once which is what could cause the wait lines.
sorry, but i blame SE for not wording things as well as i could have.

[VydarrTyr]

lol wow did you guys not read anything?
you are incorrect sir.

Slow your horses there, Vinny. You're getting snarky, but that quote actually supports what I said. In fact, if more than one party could be in the same dungeon, then this entire discussion would not make sense because no one would be waiting in lines. Everyone would just enter the same dungeon.

"Instanced" content -- by definition -- means that every party spawns in its own dungeon. It means SE's servers are running a separate program of the dungeon for every party. In other words, your party and my party can be in the dungeon at the same time, but we're in completely separate dungeons (i.e., separate "instances").

Here's a definition of "instance dungeon" from Wikipedia:

In massively multiplayer online games, an instance is a special area, typically a dungeon, that generates a new copy of the location for each group, or for certain amount of players, that enters the area.

Don't trust Wikipedia? Here's a definition of "instance" I pulled from Google:

Each instance of a program is, by definition, a separate process, as a process is merely an instance of a program, and thus each instance has a unique PID (process identification number).

And here's one from PC Mag that says the same thing.

There is no sharing of dungeons. My party can be running the dungeon at the same time as your party, but we wouldn't be in the same dungeon. We'd be in identical dungeons with completely separate mobs. Think of it like, when the instance starts, you're transported to an entirely separate world, where your party is the only one that exists in that world. We're in identical dungeons, but on separate worlds. So every mob that spawns can only be killed by your party, because your party is the only party in the dungeon.

And like I said in the previous thread, if everyone was just transported into the same dungeon and we were all sharing the same mobs, then no one would be waiting in line. We'd already be in the dungeon. So this entire discussion wouldn't make sense.

So yes, I do read. But you have to read it with an understanding of what "instance" means.

[VydarrTyr]

whatever, i think i get it. the wording some times is so retarded.
so their saying they are making individual instances, but they arent saying how many can be active at once which is what could cause the wait lines.
sorry, but i blame SE for not wording things as well as i could have.

Yes. The problem is definitely SE's "wording." You're totally right to blame them. If you -- with your superior writing skills -- had done the post, you'd have made it clear they were talking about instanced content. Which they didn't do, right? I mean, just look at what they said:

However, nothing was mentioned about how many parties can take part in the instance at the same time.

Wait, isn't that exactly what you quoted? And doesn't it use the word "instance" right there in the sentence?

Hmm. Maybe SE's not to blame for your posts, after all.

lets just say i 'work' on video games as a side project, i know very much what instances are and how they work.
i took back what i said and changed my entire post because i realized the context of what they were saying was off.
since they use their own quirky technology and do things differently than i would it really wasnt surprising to me that theyd just create several of the same zone with multiple routs and just call it an instance... i really was expecting that.

Awesome. I love how you deny, deny, deny that they're using instances, and then say that you expected that they'd use instances. Yeah. You knew it all along.

And if you think instance dungeons are "quirky technology," then I'm still not convinced you know what "instance" means. For example, it doesn't mean that they "create[d] several of the same zone with multiple rout[e]s." It means that they created one zone, and they run it on multiple instances.

[Dreadnought]

Yes. The problem is definitely SE's "wording." You're totally right to blame them. If you -- with your superior writing skills -- had done the post, you'd have made it clear they were talking about instanced content. Which they didn't do, right? I mean, just look at what they said:Wait, isn't that exactly what you quoted? And doesn't it use the word "instance" right there in the sentence?

Hmm. Maybe SE's not to blame for your posts, after all.Awesome. I love how you deny, deny, deny that they're using instances, and then say that you expected that they'd use instances. Yeah. You knew it all along.

And if you think instance dungeons are "quirky technology," then I'm still not convinced you know what "instance" means. For example, it doesn't mean that they "create[d] several of the same zone with multiple rout[e]s." It means that they created one zone, and they run it on multiple instances.

k first off i was being sarcastic because i felt stupid for not getting what they said in the first place. sarcasm can be hard to get online so im not mad that it wasnt caught on.
second, let me show you this-
"since they use their own quirky *technology and do things differently than i *would it really wasnt surprising to me that *theyd just create several of the same zone with multiple routs and just call it an instance"

* the quirky technology im talking about is their hardware and software which have been noted by several people to not be optimized for creating an MMO, if those people were wrong and everything their side is great then... woops? either way i know im right in this aspect so ague it all you want.
edit, oh wait what i mean here is, i know im right because things would have been alot easier if they just went with at least the cry engine... or something with instructions.

* there are many things lots of us would have done differently than they

* what i said was (which i MEANT prior to this thread), i was expecting them to create a set number of the same zone awaiting occupancy- which are not instances. this and my poor understanding of their wording led me to think there were going to be multiple parties in one "instance". i use quotes here because i was expecting them to label these ever existing zones falsely as instances.
at what point did i deny they are using instances and then say i expected them to all along?

the last part of my sentence was referring to me expecting them to falsely call what they are creating instances. that was my expectation prior to me realizing they actually are using legitimate instances---- so one of my original questions still stands, how many at once?
wow, you non the less misunderstood what i said just as i them.