Mythic PKs Microsoft. Gets Phat Lewt.

[schild]

Sigh, wrong thread. PLZIGNOREKTHXBYE

[Pug]

OHHHHHH BURN RIGHT BACK AT ME OMG USING MY WORDS AGAINST ME>LDKJFSDLKFJ DDFKD CANNOT CONTINUE.....

Hey, I thought your post was too moronic and opinionated to warrant any sort of logical response. Out of respect to Gordon I didn't use "PSYCHO".

The only thing better than burning someone is listening to them cry afterword.

Thanks for sharaing.

[Venkman]

The only games we've really seen instancing in are, Anarchy Online, which was crippled as everybody knows from other idiotic problems. And now City of Heroes,

EQ: Lost Dungeons of Norrath. Diablo II, though nobody ever claimed that was massive :)

In terms of the future: WoW, Auto Assault, Tabula Rasa, EQ2, Guild Wars

Zone = Content is shared in public areas with an entire servers' population

Instanced Area = Content is unique to the players playing in a private area

Content is not unique. It's cloned. The big difference is that the rewards from that content ends up in the persistent spaces. Instancing is about how one gets those rewards. But what one does with them is based on the "massive" parts of the genre.

I couldn't care any less if you don't like instancing, but unless you've only been playing MMOGs for a few months, or only played L2, you know damned well why people want instancing. Even with that though, I'm gonna go out on a lark here and assume you know that no game out now nor coming is going fully instantiated. They all have public areas, for the very purposes that already compel people to congregate: socializing (meeting new potential groups) and commerce. The difference is that people aren't tripping all over each other to get that traded content. Fucking early EQ was more PvP than any game I've played since, except there you had to call DaddyGM or wrest control of the zone from the campers you wanted to kick out.

That was fun?

[anyuzer]

Ahh yeah, forgot LDoN. That's a big one. And no, I don't count Diablo II for anything... except being mind numbingly painful :)

[schild]

Diablo? Mind-numbingly painful? You must think of it as a game and not a scavenger hunt.

[Alluvian]

It is painful either way.  So much damn clicking and more repetition than your average mmog, and that is saying a lot.

[schild]

Mouse clicking never bothered me. I'm glad the BNorth people are allowing the WASD movement scheme. But it's all about the thrill of the hunt.

[Pug]

Zone = Content is shared in public areas with an entire servers' population

Instanced Area = Content is unique to the players playing in a private area

Content is not unique. It's cloned. The big difference is that the rewards from that content ends up in the persistent spaces. Instancing is about how one gets those rewards. But what one does with them is based on the "massive" parts of the genre.

Yes. Content in an instanced area is cloned. So is the content in zones across multiple servers.

Maybe exclusive is a better word. The content in an instanced area is exclusive to the players in that area in that they are the only ones that can interact with their instanced area content even though the content is a clone of what other players are interacting with in other private instanced areas.

Players in a MMOG zone do not have exclusive access to content even though that content is cloned across multiple servers. MMOG players have to share the content with the other players who play on their server.

An instanced area is protected from outside influence and guarantees your mobs aren't camped. Instancing is good for avoiding kill-stealing camp camping people. Instancing works well in other games and I'm sure that it will expand the Diablo-like line of RPGs.

Instancing is bad for massively multi-player virtual worlds because it removes a great deal of PvE competition. Even though it's great to be able to jump into the game and go kill a dragon without ever worrying about what anybody else is doing, having to worry about what everyone else in the world is doing is part of what makes a virtual world feel like an inhabited world. Even though you may not directly interact with more than 20 of those other 1980 players they still matter. What the other 1980 players are doing does still have an impact on you and what you can do in the world, even in a PvE world. Once you effectively remove those other 1980 players by instancing content then people will begin to wonder why they are paying a subscription fee for a massively multi-player game rather than playing NWN or Diablo.

Instancing has other downsides as we've already seen in games like Diablo. Instancing increases the rate at which content is consumed. It's only a matter of time before killing an instanced dragon becomes just as common, repetitive and pointless as killing Drudge in AC or Rats in EQ.

Instanced PvP will likely boil down to little more than a ladder competition for bragging rights rather than being a means to a way of life in a player inhabited world. PvP encounters will be more like a quick Counter-Strike match than what you'd find in game like AC DT.

I'm not trying to say that all instancing is bad or that instanced games will not be fun, but I am saying that primarily instanced games do not belong in the same category as MMOGs. The only reason why these newer versions of Diablo are being called MMOGs is so that publishers can justify charging a monthly fee.

[Alluvian]

You baffle me schild.  But so does everyone who enjoyed Diablo 2 or even diablo 1 after one play through.  You don't even have a bunch of guildmates to chat with while your brain is being sucked out of your ear.  You dont HUNT anything in diablo2.  I charges at you mindlessly till you click on it a few times and then you get something totally random.

As far as instanced mmogs vs small group mmogs go, well, I have not played many small group online rpgs lately.  have you?  Am I missing them?  NWN has combat about as bad as your average mmog when online in realtime.  And when I played it we were CONSTANTLY plagued with disconnects and drops where everyone would disconnect at once and the savegame would get corrupted.  Playing NWN in a small group online was a fucking nightmare in my experience. Awful netcode at least initially. Maybe it is better now.

[Alluvian]

Players in a MMOG zone do not have exclusive access to content even though that content is cloned across multiple servers. MMOG players have to share the content with the other players who play on their server.

...


Instancing is bad for massively multi-player virtual worlds because it removes a great deal of PvE competition. Even though it's great to be able to jump into the game and go kill a dragon without ever worrying about what anybody else is doing, having to worry about what everyone else in the world is doing is part of what makes a virtual world feel like an inhabited world.

You are making an argument and using opinions in the place of facts.  Or to be more specific you state facts and then call the facts bad because of your personal preferences.  The same thing is being done on the other side.

To me, your statements above simply reinforce my belief in instancing as a positive factor in mmog games.  I don't personally give a flying fuck about PvE competition and personally find it about the stupidest concept to have ever come out of the mmog.  Let it rot in hell says I.  Your opinion is obviously different.  But is is just that, an opinion.  One that at this moment seems to be a minority in this thread.

I much prefer digging out my own niche of friends in the mmog of my choice than having to deal with all the fuckheads.  Every mmog I have been in I have made new friends in.  Some last, most fizzle as we move on to new games, but I would rather I choose who I associate with than having to engage in 'competitive pve' *shudder* with an asshole.

That is my choice when it is provided.

In the end I will generally play the better game, as I do not find instancing a REQUIREMENT of a good mmog.  But just something I like.

[schild]

You baffle me schild.  But so does everyone who enjoyed Diablo 2 or even diablo 1 after one play through.  You don't even have a bunch of guildmates to chat with while your brain is being sucked out of your ear.  You dont HUNT anything in diablo2.  I charges at you mindlessly till you click on it a few times and then you get something totally random.

I played with Soulflame last night. 'twas fun. It's a brainless game. At least it's a well made brainless game.

[HRose]

It's fun because you are all right. Everyone.

Instancing is surely needed and valuable today but not because it's an evolution. The exact contrary.

Instancing is now required because the genre collapsed on itself and noone has been able to create a world. Basically the genre has failed and it's going back to "just a game" that requires a better compromise to be fun.

Darniaq has pointed some of the reasons about why instancing is interesting and they are all true. My opinion is that instancing is a workaround because the design of these MMOGs hasn't been able to valorize the massive value.

The fact that these games are massive is becoming a problem. The design failed. So we go back to try to get the best from both worlds: the quick, tailored fun of the instances (cooperative play) and the social aspect of the hubs (like IRC or the message boards).

This is exactly what Richard Garriott anticipated in his interviews years ago. I find it quite depressing.

[Venkman]

Instancing is bad for massively multi-player virtual worlds because it removes a great deal of PvE competition

That's only bad if you like PvP shaded towards resource control. That's not been proven to have a very wide appeal, nor has it been attempted by serious developers with real money (me not thinking competing for mobs is fun is an aside). However, the values of rare/random spawning content is something I do think instancing will affect. Yes yes, we all have horror stories of 30+ hour camps in EQ. But the rewards in EQ are higher than all other games by a few orders of magntitude partly because of that (and the sadistic death penalties, and the horrendous grind, and the indirect PvP). Players remember everything they did to get their first Epic. Players have long since forgotten the first ten weapons they used in SWG.

That's why how instancing is used is more important than whether it's used at all. I definitely agree CoH feels like Diablo on steroids. However, CoH lacks an economy too, which games like Tabula Rasa and EQ2 will have and which is an important part of the success or failure of instancing (imho, if that needed to be said).

The 2,000 people I co-habit the game with at any given time (and the 15,000 accounts registered on that server) are all definitely part of why I pay a fee. SWG is a good example here, as is Eve. 99% of the people I knew I never saw. All customers and vendors with vendors, drop-off points, stories via email and second-hand accounts, and so on. That was compelling though. I'd hit Coronet every so often just to see what the latest hot advertised item was and run into some folks.

CoH has none of that. It can't. It lacks anything to do but personal power-advancement. Of course, that's perfectly fine as it's fun as hell. But I don't consider CoH an MMOG and am particularly glad they ain't charging a fee for Guild Wars. I suspect a bit of money will be leaving the genre somewhat soon (though for how long depends on how much they get done with GW from what I saw a few weeks ago).

The fact that these games are massive is becoming a problem. The design failed

It's late and I'm up early, so need to ask if you can link those Garriot interviews so I have something for my morning coffee (#1) :)

Virtual worlds haven't failed imho. Instancing now is just like PvP was back at Play2Crush and 3D rendered graphics before it: something new to sell. It's not that there's been some grand sociological reality check. It's that selling an RPG in a massive virtual landscape isn't alone a selling point. Either it's gotta be co-branded (EQ2, WoW, SWG) or needs an entirely new reason for existence (Instancing, no-fee-GW, Entropia). Nobody can sell EQ, as much as Ryzom is going to try (forgettable standard persistent world). Everyone who wanted EQ was here or slowly trickling in. Co-brands hopefully bring them in droves and new concepts bring in the previous naysayers.

MMOGs were just at a saturation point. And will be again.

[HRose]

It's late and I'm up early, so need to ask if you can link those Garriot interviews so I have something for my morning coffee (#1) :)

No, sorry. It's really something a few years old.

I remember it was a pair of months after he left Origin and he was speaking of Tabula Rasa design. Basically he wanted to make a world with big hubs like cities where everyone could gather, then you could form a group and start your own adventure, exactly following the concept of Guild Wars.

What I remember that is missing from the current project is that he wanted to implement a REAL economy. Where players could earn real money by selling stuff. He made absurd examples like selling paintings inside the game and stuff not directly related to the loot. His idea was to be able to play the game like a work. Depending completely on it.

The other absurd idea was about a strange karma law. The setting was already a mix of fantasy and sci-fi but he also added a karma value about the player that should have depended on his actions. And then your aligment would have influenced your look. He made an example about the weather changing around you, producing mist, the equipment reflecting your corruption and so on...

Quite foolish.

[schild]

If people don't shoot for the stars they'll never hit them.

I'm sure many people said Starfox wouldn't change anything. I'm also sure many people at Square didn't think Final Fantasy would save them (oh the irony of the the The Spirits Within).

If Mr. Garriot wants to put all of his whackass eggs into one nest, then I am interested in seeing what will come of it.

[Miscreant]

Will slaying monsters with power chords from my fancy guitar be fun?  I don't know.  But I agree, Tabula Rasa is different, and you gotta love a guy putting it all on the line to make a whacked out game.  
 
Take Peter Molyneux and Black and White -- sure it wound up a no-fun mess, but by God it was different.

[schild]

I thought it was powerchords from a whacked out harp.

[Tebonas]

All that instancing right now does is protect the players from each other. But without good accountability that is direly needed.

So instancing will be an important part of most new MMORPGs until there is a good way to hold players to their actions. We all know what the anonymity of the internet does to people, don't we?

[Miscreant]

Probably a harp.  

I think "Tabula Rasa" is a terrible name, though.  Most people won't know what it means, and the rest will think they get to build things from scratch somehow.  

The marketer of Deer Hunter bragged that customers saw the box 20 feet away and instantly knew what Deer Hunter was and how you played it.  The Tabula Rasa marketers have their work cut out for them.

[schild]

Nor will they have to deal with the inbred goatfuckers who buy Deer Hunter. Maybe he's aiming for the most intelligent group of players ever. Maybe not. Who cares, most k1dd135 will be playing World of Warcraft.

[eldaec]

My opinion is that instancing is a workaround because the design of these MMOGs hasn't been able to valorize the massive value.

The fact that these games are massive is becoming a problem. The design failed

Exactly.

Games I can think of where the pve game is designed for the entire community to play together...

1) A Tale In The Desert.

That is all. This is the only pve game I can think of that is designed from the ground up for massively multiplayer gaming.

When the design of a game allows everyone in a dungeon/zone/encounter/project/event to work together without significant penalty to progression, and when content is designed around large loosely organised groups working to a common goal, and when both servers and clients can support 100s of players doing exactly that in the same location, and when all the above is *fun*; then, and only then, can we get rid of instancing.

Current pve non-instanced MMOG design brings with it OOC crap like camp ownership; kill stealing; 'lists' to get into groups at the key spawns; group size limits that are less than the expected population of the dungeon; fears that > 5% of the population in one location will bring down the server; and a hunting model so ineffective that the best way to gain xp is to camp a spawn point. When any of this is happening it tells you that your design is blatantly inappropriate for massively multiplayer co-operative play. Solutions: fix the design or use instancing, either one can produce a fun game.

And the most fashionable non-instanced solution - locked encounters - is not a solution at all, it completely misses the fucking point.

[Venkman]

The other absurd idea was about a strange karma law. The setting was already a mix of fantasy and sci-fi but he also added a karma value about the player that should have depended on his actions. And then your aligment would have influenced your look. He made an example about the weather changing around you, producing mist, the equipment reflecting your corruption and so on...

Quite foolish.

How so? He did this with the "Air of (Insert)" back in Ultima IV, almost two decades ago. That was an NPC game, but your actions did affect your Air, and if your Air was bad enough, stuff happened. An Air of Cowardice meant nobody talked to you. An Air of Deceit meant the guards attacked on sight. And so on. The only thing he proposed (based on your description) is a way to graphically render it.

The Karma system is straight from UO. There it affected your character's title and access to some places.

Hehe, and you never mentioned why you thought MMOGs were a failure.

As to ways to fix the OOC problems, the only way is to ensure that there can't be any contested content. People don't want competition for their own goals. Given the option to socially insulate themselves or use "player accountability tools" (a paper tiger until an ungriefable system can be designed), players will choose insulation in quest-based PvE games and PvP in PvP games. Which side has way more money being collected?

Over-instantiation dilutes the staying power of an MMOG. CoH will be the first to expose this (AO woulda been if it ran perfectly). It allows small friendship groups to stick entirely to themselves. As we've all seen, when even 10-15% of a group quits, it can start a title wave of mass quitting, particularly since with little depth, CoH is a very easy game to simply shelve for a time. Good for gamers. Bad to compel a monthly fee.

It's about striking the balance. Instancing is here. Like PvP, it has its uses.

[Pug]

Instancing is surely needed and valuable today but not because it's an evolution. The exact contrary.

Instancing is now required because the genre collapsed on itself and noone has been able to create a world. Basically the genre has failed and it's going back to "just a game" that requires a better compromise to be fun.

 I couldn't agree more.

Instancing is a step backword to Diablo style gaming that was necessary because nobody was able to design a functional virtual world. Developers got hung up on finding ways to prevent players from misbehaving rather than finding ways to entertain their players or making their worlds more believable.

Current MMOG worlds remind me of an old Twilight  Zone episode, "Number 12 Looks Just Like You", where people are forced to conform and everyone looks and thinks  alike. MMOGs are coded so that players have no choice but to conform.

I don't believe that instancing will be a solution more than a temporary distraction from the problem. Unfortunately instancing recreates the same repetitive and predictable PvE found in games like Diablo. I think that people will begin to hate instanced games once they have consumed all of the content... just like Diablo.

[Mesozoic]

The evolution of MMOGs.

1997:  thousands of us can all play together!
1997:  all these people are assholes!
2004: get these assholes away from me!

[SirBruce]

I like to think of playing MMOGs as analogous to the moviegoing experience, or going to the ballpark, or any public event entertainment.

I am entertained at the same time in the same place as hundreds or thousands of others.  I can interact with them if I choose, and discuss the experience.  I can even go with a group of  friends and enjoy the experience together with them (groups).

But I can also CHOOSE to see the movie or the game by myself.  Even though I'm in a crowded theatre or ballpark.  And that's an enjoyable and different experience from watching the movie or game on TV by "myself".

The movie doesn't REQUIRE me to go with a group of friends to enjoy it, or to compete/cooperate with fellow movie-goers in a storyline.  I doesn't require forced grouping to enjoy it and neither should a MMOG.

The difference, yes, is that MMOGs are an interactive experience.  But I enjoy interacting with it on my terms, while still enjoying that group experience.  Those who want something else want something like some modern audience participatory improv play where random people run up on stage and each try to add their own part to a story.  The resuly is usually crap, and there's always one or two loud-mouthed assholes who try to hog the whole show.  To me, this is not fun entertainment.

Bruce

[HaemishM]

Some really dumb shit

Everything you said in your post is why instancing is a GOOD THING.

Competitive PVE is fucking stupid, and is what has made EQ such a shitty game for years. It isn't competitve AT ALL. It just means that the people with the most time to spend, or the least amount of morals will always win. Everyone else is sent to the back of the line.

Competition is about actually competing. "Casual" or "time-starved" gamers can never compete in games with what you call "competitive PVE." That means the "community" you praise is really nothing more than robber barons being leeched upon by wanna be robber barons, and then everyone else who are the grist in the mill of said robber barons ego machine.

EDIT: Wow, Bruce said something I agree with.

The "future" of MMOG's, at least for the next few years, is being able to choose your own experience, not having one thrust upon you. Choosing how you experience the virtual world is what instancing is all about. For years, no one had any real choice about how they would spend an evening in an MMOG. You did one or two things in a certain way and that was it. Now the games are swinging to letting you tailor your experience. That's only a good thing.

[Pug]

Everything you said in your post is why instancing is a GOOD THING.

... incoherent rambling ...

No shit?

I'm not trying to say that all instancing is bad or that instanced games will not be fun, but I am saying that primarily instanced games do not belong in the same category as MMOGs.

I don't give a flying fuck whether or not you or anybody else thinks instancing is better. Competitive PvE in games such as EQ has been fucking stupid which is part of why I hate MMOGs. I think Guild Wars is the best game that I've played in years and it has... *gulp* INSTANCING! I LIKE INSTANCING BETTER THAN MMOGS! OMG!

All that I have been trying to convey is that instancing goes against the idea of a massively multiplayer virtual world. I don't care if the result is better or worse. I only care that people are able to see the fundamental difference between instancing and traditional MMOG worlds.

-> INSTANCING != MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER PERSISTANT VITRUAL WORLDS <-

Taking a small group of friends on an adventure in a private game space is not the same as taking a small group of friends on an adventure in a public MMOG zone. It's not just that one happens to be more fun than the other. They are completely different game experiences.

But... But... Instancing is more fun! So is sex yet sex is not the same as instancing.

I'd expect this kind of misplaced hostility from IGN members. Is it the Diablo comments? Is it hard to believe that a better Diablo might be more fun than a better MMOG? Does comparing instancing to playing Diablo hurt anyone's feelings?

[Venkman]

I only care that people are able to see the fundamental difference between instancing and traditional MMOG worlds.

You're defending an irrelevant position. You talk of misplaced hostility yet don't seem to get that we couldn't care any less whether it's "traditional" or not. The fucking genre isn't old enough for tradition. Shit, even the most experienced MMOGs here have been playing for maybe half a decade, and most were already adults when they started.

The only important part is whether a feature is likeable and liked, or not. Change is the only constant, so unless you're fed-exing yourself to Grizzled Old Hasbeen Gamer(tm), why the fuck do you care so much? You see some vast right-wing conspiracy to supplant MMOGs or something?

[Anonymous]

PvP MMOGs are not the future.  Quite simply put, playing a PvP MMOG is like competing with Thresh in Quake.  Boring in the long run for Thresh, and boring in the short run for everyone he runs over.  Players are not able to find a comfortable level where they can play competitively.

I'll hold up DAoC as a good example.  A well built group of eight players can decimate a disorganized army of two hundred.  That same group can take on four times the number of enemies, and not suffer one death.  There has been at least one instance of three players wiping out over seventy players in seconds.  This is a direct result of highly skilled players rolling over everyone else.  There's no reason for highly skilled players to group with lower skilled players, and so they don't.  Fortunately, Mythic has not implemented any of the moronic realm invasion ideas.  Only Shadowbane has had the misfortune of having entire servers all on the same side.

There is no model of accountability that cannot be worked around.  None.  The design can make it more difficult, but those who wish to avoid accountability will still do so.  With that in mind, it becomes impossible to create an open PvP game that will appeal to a wide audience.

PvP MMOGs were doomed once EQ opened.  PvP is the niche, and it's past time PvP fans recognized that.  Players, in general, do not enjoy fighting battles they cannot possibly win.  I never understood why the converse is not also true.

[Mesozoic]

I like to think of playing MMOGs as analogous to the moviegoing experience, or going to the ballpark, or any public event entertainment.

So do I.  Sadly, my theaters, ballparks, and public events are filled with jackasses with names like l33tgolas whose idea of fun is to killsteal, complain, launch poor attempts at scatological humor on /broadcast, and just basically act like cockmongers.  When the content of the game involves the tracking and destruction of mobs, its nice to have the ability to do so alone or just with your friends.

[HaemishM]

All that I have been trying to convey is that instancing goes against the idea of a massively multiplayer virtual world. I don't care if the result is better or worse. I only care that people are able to see the fundamental difference between instancing and traditional MMOG worlds.

No, no it does not. It can help immersion, by taking stupid gamey things like having to wait in line behind other players to kill something away.

See, virtual WORLDS require that a player be immersed. Not one virtual world does that today, because players who are doing the exact same thing are bumping into each other. Over and over again. Essentially, the existant virtual worlds are too small. Way, way too small. Virtual worlds are trying to make you believe you are in Middle-Earth, when really, you are in Wal-Mart when it's really crowded. Virtual worlds require that travel be non-trivial, and that characters are allowed some uniqueness.

In other words, virtual worlds are years and years away. And even then, they may not be good games, because a lot of the things about worlds really aren't fun.

Instancing = Massively Multiplayer Online Games

MMOG's != Massively Multiplayer Persistant Worlds.

None, not one of the any of the things we've seen have been a MMPW. Shadowbane might have come closest, had their actually been an ecology outside of the players. That would have required an impressive AI which Wolfpack had no desire to create.

And even in MMPW, instancing may be a necessary evil, just to make the damn thing fun to play.

[Sky]

My favorite part of EQ was not getting my jboots for six months because the fuckers were always camped. God how I look back at all the fun that was, can't wait to tell the grandkids about standing around fruitlessly because of a bottleneck in the game that thousands of people were lined up for.

Instancing makes sense, and screw the purist viewpoint.

There's non-instanced games out there, play 'em and shut the piehole. Don't play instanced games, you don't have to worry about instancing. Bingo.

[Pug]

I only care that people are able to see the fundamental difference between instancing and traditional MMOG worlds.

You're defending an irrelevant position.

The difference is relevant when you are discussing game features on a message board.

Let me tell you about this great first person shooter called Internet Hearts. Internet Hearts is just like Quake or Counter-Strike. There are thousands of players that join a matchmaker program. Smaller groups of players then get together and duke it out. If you enjoy Quake or Counter-Strike then you will also enjoy Internet Hearts.

In other words, virtual worlds are years and years away. And even then, they may not be good games, because a lot of the things about worlds really aren't fun.

Instancing = Massively Multiplayer Online Games

MMOG's != Massively Multiplayer Persistant Worlds.

I agree except that I still wouldn't call games designed for groups of 2 to 8 players massively multiplayer.

It will take both genious and a miracle for anyone to design a fun game that is based on thousands of players playing in a single massive persistent virtual world. Single massive persistent virtual worlds are on their way out while instanced games like GW and TR are poised to capture a great deal of the RPG enthusiasts' business over the next few years.

It's almost sad to think that the implementation of 3D muds turned out the way they did. Oh well, live and learn.

Now if I can just convince more people that racing is not a sport...

[Sky]

How is a game with instancing not massively multiplayer? Because people aren't all up in your ass the entire time you play? A hub-based instanced solution keeps the good things about mmogs while losing a lot of the negatives. That's why everyone's jumping onboard.

It's called a compromise to make a better overall game experience for the most people possible. You try to keep the areas where the massive part works and lost the parts where it doesn't. That doesn't make it any less massive, just less of a massive pain in the nuts to play. Damn them!

[cevik]

How is a game with instancing not massively multiplayer?

Don't mind Pug, he's suffering from an ailment commonly referred to as "stupidity".