PvP is already instanced. Not having X-server makes no sense if you're going to instance it in the first place.

It's a complete joke to suggest that TOR is doing more innovation than MW3 or BF3. Zero is not greater than zero. This game has taken multiple steps backward. It's behind a game that's 7 years old.

Posting a summary after I finish listening.

Um, what? The only way I see being able to "control your avatar" in TOR and WoW is by pressing movement buttons and giving attack/ability commands. So maybe you can enlighten me as to what you're trying to talk suggest here, though I'm fairly certain you're just full of hot air.

The **** are you on about, bud? WoW has fantastic animations. In fact, there are many instances in TOR where the animations aren't dynamic such as moving and using the AoE spin that Shadows get. (It plays a stationary animation - your feet glide along the ground like ghost dog ).

Very true. This is one of the more subtle reasons why this game feels like a dead-boring singleplayer game. On top of the rampant instancing, the zones are linear and in many of them the zone itself is split into 4-5 mini-zones (Coruscant, Nar Shadda). These combine to create the ultimate single player experience... in an MMORPG.

I'm cracking up just imagining this.

Turn TOR into the best MMORPG of the decade? Not even possible.

Best post in this thread.

Yeah *********** right. Instancing the main game world in MMOs is the single worst thing you can do for a game; this even includes having main servers with too little population (servers are a kind of instancing). Every triple A MMO since WoW has been criticized for its lack of a seamless world. AoC, WAR they all looked like shadows of the MMORPG world that WoW had. TOR is instanced worse than all of them. You honestly think people play MMOs so that they can play by themselves? Or are you saying that if you cut the population in half it magically causes people to stop being jerks about taking mob kills? The reason the game is instanced to hell is the same reason most people see massive drops in performance with a measly 10-20 people on screen in a Warzone. The game cannot run with multiple players on screen. It's not an MMO.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (5) Q, E, R, T, F, G, Z, X, C, V, B (16) Shift+ .... (27) 27 Total hotkeys right there and you can hit them all if you were 3 years old while keeping "w" depressed. Welcome to MMOs.

Back in my day when you pressed a button to cast a spell your character casted the spell.

Lmfao. That's essentially the dichotomy of these forums: there are those that want a good game instead of a bad one and those that think all of the issues aren't issues and want everyone to stop telling them there's things wrong with the game.

Ability delay is exacerbated by more active players. With the exception of the bugs involving abilities off the GCD, this game actually runs flawless in single-player PvE. Step into a Warzone and the GCD actually almost finishes ticking down on the UI before the ability activates. Don't worry, though, sweetheart - just keep typing emoticons and fanboying for this game. You're only helping BW justify keeping it bad.

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=159300 1,000 pages of people having problems running this game.

Just a heads up. TSW is being developed by Funcom. Funcom literally deserted their previous MMO, Age of Conan in less than two years and it was one of the worst (technically speaking) products released on the MMO market. Most people who played AoC feel obligated to let people know that Funcom has proven themselves to be very poor in the MMO department.

It's fairly irrelevant as to what you consider a "gaming PC". I haven't upgrade my machine in a few years now and my PC specs double the posted system requirements. I'm sure there may be PCs that can run this game with no problems but people buy the game based on if their computer meets the system requirements. If it's not running properly on a computer that meets the requirements, then either someone lied or there's a problem with the game. And to clarify, I have Warzone FPS issues and ability delay in Warzones with the settings set as low as possible while I am exceeding the system requirements.

The appeal to belief is being misused (by you). The false dilemma in Conclusion 1 is fair, I suppose, but Conclusion 1 was literally used to create the premise: "BioWare has a reason to instance the main game world". Feel free to deny that premise as much as you want on the grounds of "BioWare could have both not wanted their players to enjoy the game fully and had no reason for instancing the game world". The most favorable resulting conclusion from your new position is that BioWare instanced the main game world for no reason. If you are falsifying my argument based on a lack of agreement with that premise than I am happy. You have to start to realize that you can't just attempt to slice imaginary holes in an argument without looking at what remains, logically, when you do so - unless you will continue to provide weak arguments and dig your own grave, like you have here.

I was hoping you would do that. Let's compare our arguments side by side: You are now claiming that SW:TOR is heavily instanced in the main game world, not because it improves performance but because: 1: Instancing the main game world is not counter-intuitive to MMOs and is viewed positively by players. 2: The game is not better enjoyed without an instanced main game world. Conclusion: The main game world is instanced under no logical premise. We know nothing and never will. Additionally, the premises you mark as opinions are not opinions. Empirically speaking, it can be observed that players prefer a lack of instancing in all situations where it can be achieved. If the prevailing opinion of the consumer is that one thing is good and another is bad, it is a fact that more people enjoy X than Y. Also, I asked you to name the fallacy in my argument. Which you didn't. You initially claimed my argument was using a fallacy to draw its conclusion and you seem to not know which it was. A false premise is not a fallacy.

Yes it is.

Please locate and name the fallacy in the following argument (the argument I have been making for pages now): Premise 1: Instancing the main game world is counter-intuitive to the MMO experience, it is essentially looked down upon in all forms. Premise 2: The game would be better enjoyed by its players without an instanced main game world. Premise 3: SW:TOR instances the main game world. Conclusion: Either BioWare doesn't want its game to be better enjoyed by its players or has another reason for instancing the main game world. Using this conclusion as a premise: Premise 1: BioWare has a reason to instance the main game world. Premise 2: The only advantage to instancing the main game world is increasing performance in situations where too many players are on screen. Conclusion: BioWare has instanced the main game world because the game does not perform in a satisfactory manner if it is not.

I don't provide any proof? I have provided significant proof, you simply reject it because you don't like the logical conclusion it supports. This is your argument, and it's fallacious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Apparently you didn't. Ad hominem. So you offer no solution to the problem of why the game splits a low population planet of 50 players into two instances. Main cities in WoW easily have 50+ players on the screen at once, this game splits a questing zone of 50 spread out people into 25. The fact is that logically there is no reason to instance your game so heavily if: a. MMO players don't like the outdoor world instanced. b. The game runs fine if you don't do it. Is there seriously anyone that WANTS planets to be sharded into multiple instances? That wants their MMORPG to have less players in it?

No, no, no, no, no. I am correct - my argument is sound, but this is outright wrong. A lot of people in here, especially Argolith, don't really know how to apply their logic. My argument employs the facts that the game instances zones down to 25 players and doesn't run properly with 20 people in a Warzone to suggest that the game is not capable of running that many simultaneous players. Essentially, there is no reason to instance the planets and zones if it isn't going to affect the performance of the game. MMOs want tons of players to play the game with. Argolith is using the skeptical approach to say that because you don't know for sure that the engine is to blame, it can be any number of reason as to why the game is the way it is. This is true but this is a video game not metaphysics. You can't really use Hume to argue a point about the nature of anything but knowledge. If you take all knowledge skeptically, you can't even "know" that "you can't know". Argolith can't argue anything from this position, so he's merely pointing out a flaw in my argument (one which exists in every argument) and offering no argument of his own.

It doesn't matter, guy. The effects are still there. If your game engine can handle 100 million simultaneous players on screen flawlessly and you limit the game to drawing 10 characters on screen at a time it doesn't matter what the engine is capable of. You're saying that the game is fine because in some sort of David Hume epistemological view of things it's possible that the engine can handle more than 20 people on the screen (it can't even handle 20) when the game actively makes it so that you never have that many players on screen and when you do (Warzones) it fails miserably. Are you nuts?