philo said:I'm with Dorotea on this one. Encounter locking is just a work around to solve the same problem as instancing.
You are still artificially limiting the amount of people who can participate in an encounter. That's, by definition, not an open world.
These are actually opposite each other.
Encounter locking prevents others from engaging the same encounter. It's not instanced so only the group with the lock gets to engage in combat.
Instancing allows *everyone* to engage their own copy of the same encounter.
One is exclusive, the other inclusive. I'm not advocating for one or the other, just pointing out that these are very different and don't address the same root problem at all.
stellarmind said:they can always make the boss scale to how many ppl are in the area
I hope they don't do this. If half your raid doesn't show up the remaining half shouldn't be able to still take down the boss because it's only half as hard. Certainly if there is any kind of keying or progression it shouldn't be possible for a single group to take down bosses that were meant to be killed by 40-man raids.
I also hope that raid or dungeon content isn't lazily reused to produce harder versions for better equipped players similar to what Blizzard did with "heroic" dungeons and raids. Different difficulties/modes of the same content are just lame and lazy. The world should be what it is rather than player-controlled combat content.
Akilae said:These are actually opposite each other.
Encounter locking prevents others from engaging the same encounter. It's not instanced so only the group with the lock gets to engage in combat.
Instancing allows *everyone* to engage their own copy of the same encounter.
One is exclusive, the other inclusive. I'm not advocating for one or the other, just pointing out that these are very different and don't address the same root problem at all.
There can be a limited number of instances available and they are still instances. They don't have to work as you described (even though that is most common). I'm not trying to debate the differences between instancing and any other form of locking out players.
The point was that they are both solutions to the same problem and that if you are locking someone out of an encounter it is not an open encounter like some people seem to be saying it is.
It can't be both.
You can't restrict the number of people able to participate in an encounter and also say it is an open encounter.
philo said:The point was that they are both solutions to the same problem and that if you are locking someone out of an encounter it is not an open encounter like some people seem to be saying it is.
It can't be both.
You can't restrict the number of people able to participate in an encounter and also say it is an open encounter.
I don't think anybody claimed that a locked encounter was an open encounter. The point was that you can have locked encounters in an open world. You said: "You are still artificially limiting the amount of people who can participate in an encounter. That's, by definition, not an open world." Encounter locking isn't the same thing as instancing just like socks are not gloves, regardless of how or why you wear them.
In this case, it's more than just content. We're talking about "really challenging raid tier single group content" as well as 12 man content, 24 man content, etc. Defining content with that terminology means something. If VR were to say that they were going to create the most challenging solo encounter ever seen in an MMO it would lend credence to the idea that the content is meant to be soloed. Who cares how hard solo content is if you can engage it with 20 players?
Raid Tier single group content would make me think one boss that may be triggered by an epic quest turn-in, or an open world mob that may be the same difficulty level as a normal encounter in a raid-tier zone on the way to a boss.
Also when the discusion of lockouts or raid cap sizes come up, I always revert to the idea of splitting loot with raid encounters. Many raid sizes will take care of themselves just due to distribution of loot (people being greedy). The less people, the less you have to share with.
And, trying to make sure ane entire raid is coordinated and communicating was some of the most difficult aspects of large raids in EQ - it's much easier to handle the logistics of 24-36 versus say 72.
oneADseven
I don't think anybody claimed that a locked encounter was an open encounter. The point was that you can have locked encounters in an open world. You said: "You are still artificially limiting the amount of people who can participate in an encounter. That's, by definition, not an open world." Encounter locking isn't the same thing as instancing just like socks are not gloves, regardless of how or why you wear them.
Which is fine, instancing and encounter locking aren't the same. I don't think anyone ever said they were? But they are both solutions to the same problem.
If certain encounters arent open for anyone to participate in then it seems like a stretch to call your game an open world game.
Maybe it should be defined as mostly or partially an open world game? It doesn't seem accurate to advertise the game as "open world" when only parts of it are. There has to be some kind of *asterisk* when calling it open world I guess. Maybe say it is open except certain encounters only allow limited participation?
At the very least the faq seems inaccurate if we have locked encounters in an "open world."
If I enter a dungeon and someone is attacking a mob and that mob is not open for me to attack that isn't really an open world. Same as agro locking mobs...the world is not really open with those kind of restrictions no matter how much players or devs want to think it is.
9.0 Are dungeons open world or instanced?
All dungeons are open world.
At what point do the restricted encounters make it so that it can no longer be referred to as open?
Instancing is not the only way to make a game world not be open.
philo said:Which is fine, instancing and encounter locking aren't the same. I don't think anyone ever said they were? But they are both solutions to the same problem.
There are definitely people who are suggesting they are the same thing. In the context of Pantheon, instancing has been ruled out as a "solution" to most problems so citing it as a solution is mostly irrelevant. Walking to work and driving to work can both be solutions for getting to work. Context is important. I tried rationalizing that with the socks/gloves analogy but hopefully this makes more sense.
philo said:If certain encounters arent open for anyone to participate in then it seems like a stretch to call your game an open world game.
The real stretch here is implying that the world is less open if certain encounters are locked. Please see Vanguard as a historical precedent as it was critically acclaimed as an open world game despite utilizing the encouter locking mechanic. If anything, it makes way more sense to target the use of "zoning" while discussing what an open world actually is. Per the Vanguard Wikipedia: "Vanguard is set in a high fantasy world called "Telon", unusual among MMO worlds in that it is almost entirely persistent, with no instancing or load screens. Telon does not have "zones" in the manner of most fantasy MMOs, but there are discrete areas, sometimes called "chunks" which delineate content to some extent and serve to provide general geographical reference points."
philo said:Maybe it should be defined as mostly or partially an open world game? It doesn't seem accurate to advertise the game as "open world" when only parts of it are. There has to be some kind of *asterisk* when calling it open world I guess. Maybe say it is open except certain encounters only allow limited participation?
At the very least the faq seems inaccurate if we have locked encounters in an "open world."
Here is your *asterisk*:
20.0 Will you be dividing the world into zones or will it be entirely open?
"Pantheon is a zone-based game as opposed to having a truly seamless world, although this could change as technology and tools evolve, either before or after launch. Regardless, however, our current technology and tools allow us to create truly vast, rich, and detailed zones. Players will not be running frequently into zone borders. Our larger zones also allow us to create long vistas and views, and in almost all cases, if you can see a location you can travel there.
We have lots of overworld adventure areas and overland dungeons where players don’t need to zone into but there may be several groups hunting there. Even in underworld and dedicated dungeon areas, they will be open world as well. It is all part of the shared experience we really want to capture."
philo said:If I enter a dungeon and someone is attacking a mob and that mob is not open for me to attack that isn't really an open world. Same as agro locking mobs...the world is not really open with those kind of restrictions no matter how much players or devs want to think it is.
Once again you are conflating the terms "open world" and "open encounter." Doing that over and over doesn't make it true, no matter how many people think it is. By your logic the world would never be open if players are restricted from killing each other.
((Vanguard was the last, true sandboxy, "skill-based" MMO until they implemented, raid lockout timers, KDQ, and encounter locking.))
Vanguard was just as much a sandbox with or without lockout timers. Keeping someone from killing the same boss over and over and over to the exclusion of other people having a fair chance at the boss does not in any slightest way impact whether we play the game in a relatively open-ended sandbox or on rails.
Vanguard was just as much a skill-based game with or without lockout timers. I am totally baffled by even the concept that limiting the ability to kill a boss over and over and over reduces the amount of skill it takes to play the game. If anything it takes *more* skill to kill a boss that you haven't already killed 500 times.
In response to 187:
Things that players choose or are restricted by technology are not the restrictions in question.
Zone lines are a restriction but due to technology we are accepting that as is. Would most people rather not have zone lines? Yes, of course.
PvP is a player choice, not a restriction.
If I can't attack a mob that I want to attack because it is already at the cap for number of players attacking, that is not a choice. If I can't attack another player it's because I chose to play on a server that doesn't allow that.
The question is, at what point do the number of restriction make it so a game is not reasonably considered an open world any longer?
I don't have an answer to ^ that but it is some point after what would be considered reasonable within the parameters of the game.
It seems to me that if players can play with each other in the same game, but not actually attack the same mobs that is close to that line of not actually being an open world. I guess each person can determine that line for themselves.
I know I didn't consider EQ as purely an open world game after LDoN came out. It wasn't. There is a line there somewhere based on the restrictions.
dorotea said:((Vanguard was the last, true sandboxy, "skill-based" MMO until they implemented, raid lockout timers, KDQ, and encounter locking.))
Vanguard was just as much a sandbox with or without lockout timers. Keeping someone from killing the same boss over and over and over to the exclusion of other people having a fair chance at the boss does not in any slightest way impact whether we play the game in a relatively open-ended sandbox or on rails.
Vanguard was just as much a skill-based game with or without lockout timers. I am totally baffled by even the concept that limiting the ability to kill a boss over and over and over reduces the amount of skill it takes to play the game. If anything it takes *more* skill to kill a boss that you haven't already killed 500 times.
You make the huge leap to assume players/guilds were somehow being blocked from accessing content.
In my extensive Vanguard experience starting in beta, and over a year raiding with BotS, we never blocked any group or guild from an attempt on any raid target or otherwise. There were many situations where BotS and another guild showed up to attempt a raid target, and BotS always allowed the other guild first shot. If they failed then we would attempt.
Before I joined BotS I always assumed 'blocking' was what they did. But I was pleasantly surprised when I first started raiding with them. I doubt I would have stayed if they had shown such a 'trollish' mentality.
What I did find out about BotS was they were a very high functioning group, very disciplined. This was largely the key to their success.
When 'fake' mechanics have to be created to let less-skilled players feel good about themselves by making it simple for them, that is a game less interesting or worthwhile.
KDQ did exactly that. Overnight Vanguard switched from a skill-based game, to a grind-based game. Now players could simply grind out quests and receive raid-level gear. Gear that used to be only accessible if you had the skill to achieve it. The irony here is that all these groups/guilds that outfitted themselves with sudo-raid gear from KDQ and elsewhere still could not take down raid targets. They simply lacked the skills.
I don't remember who said it earlier, but 'locking encounters is exactly like creating in-game instances.' It's full instancing in all aspects except actually having the instance.
Not a huge fan of restricting content to a specific number of players to ensure it's challenging, because what that usually comes down to is that there's very strict min-maxing requirements regarding what equipment you MUST have, what abilities you MUST use and what your raid composition MUST look like in terms of classes. Very little room for interpretation or choosing your own play style. Everything needs to be done by the numbers to optimize your chance of success. It also means people will only want to take characters at the highest possible level to join the raid.
As others have said, because larger groups have to split the same rewards everyone is going to get less and excessively large groups are harder to organize, so the problem takes care of itself for raids that require 24+ people to tackle. Regular group-sized raid tier content and 12 man content would probably be more 'zergable' without restrictions though.
Anyway, it'd be better in my opinion if the difficulty of the content itself was designed with roughly (not specifically) a given number of people in mind and that sets the minimum/default difficulty. And then it gets scaled up as more people get involved (more adds spawn to help the boss, the boss might get to use another ability, etc).
philo said:The question is, at what point do the number of restriction make it so a game is not reasonably considered an open world any longer?
This is a reasonable question and there is no doubt that people will look at this differently. Locking an encounter doesn't take away from the open feel of a world, in my opinion. I can understand how some people might feel that way based on experiences they have had in other games but it's important to think about why some of these restrictions started being used in the first place. Encounter locking prevents zerging and allows developers greater control with how they balance and tune their encounter designs. I think that's extremely important. VR has stated that they want to have "really challenging raid tier single group content" and there are only so many ways to accomplish that. I think restricting the amount of players that can engage these encounters is necessary ... otherwise, how do you distinguish "really challenging raid tier single group content" from "single group content?"
zewtastic said:I don't remember who said it earlier, but 'locking encounters is exactly like creating in-game instances.' It's full instancing in all aspects except actually having the instance.
How does this even make sense at all? I really don't understand how people are conflating encounter locking with instancing. There are several major issues that arise from instancing. It removes players from the world and prevents them from seeing each other. Instead of having a Halnir Cave with 60 players in it, you have 10 Halnir Caves with 6 players each. Instead of people running into each other, they are isolated inside of their own pocket dimensions. Instead of people sharing space and vying for the same resources, everybody gets their own exclusive version of the zone. Whether it's a quest update, faction update, item upgrade, spell upgrade ... these accomplishments happen much more frequently because rather than the associated resources being exclusive, they become inclusive.
It's impossible to have any sort of meaningful dialogue with this topic if these facts aren't accepted as reality. Again ... instancing removes the idea of "shared space and shared resources." These are two critical aspects that cannot be ignored. Encounter locking does neither of those things. To put things in perspective ... it's similar to saying that "walking to work and driving to work are the exact same thing except one allows you to drive rather than walk." Okay ... fair enough! Nobody is ever going to try and debate that. It's important to understand the value of being able to drive to work, though. In the context of Pantheon ... where sharing space and sharing resources are considered pillars of core game design, avoiding the use of instancing is paramount.
Kaeldorn said:As others have said, because larger groups have to split the same rewards everyone is going to get less and excessively large groups are harder to organize, so the problem takes care of itself for raids that require 24+ people to tackle.
This isn't exactly true, though. There are plenty of guilds that plan on utilizing box accounts to gain an edge. If a guild has a raid team of 20 real players, and 10 box accounts, those box accounts usually ignore the rules of loot distribution. They provide a benefit to the raid (it could be 10 summoners that send in their DPS pets) without having to "split the same rewards." This is not an uncommon practice. If the game allows players to zerg ... they will zerg, and these box accounts will be used as often as possible to provide that edge. I understand the point you are making here but players figured out how to exploit that theory a long time ago and it's extremely prevalent with how much more accessible multi-boxing is today. The issue is that this "advantage" can be scaled higher and higher. Bring more summoners/necromancers who can deal damage with their pets, but also start giving them buff bots (bards) that can amplify their damage and keep those resources regened. This is the worst kind of emergent gameplay I can think of when it comes to trivializing content and allowing it to happen should be avoided at all costs.
oneADseven said:This isn't exactly true, though. There are plenty of guilds that plan on utilizing box accounts to gain an edge. If a guild has a raid team of 20 real players, and 10 box accounts, those box accounts usually ignore the rules of loot distribution. They provide a benefit to the raid (it could be 10 summoners that send in their DPS pets) without having to "split the same rewards." This is not an uncommon practice. If the game allows players to zerg ... they will zerg, and these box accounts will be used as often as possible to provide that edge. I understand the point you are making here but players figured out how to exploit that theory a long time ago and it's extremely prevalent with how much more accessible multi-boxing is today. The issue is that this "advantage" can be scaled higher and higher. Bring more summoners/necromancers who can deal damage with their pets, but also start giving them buff bots (bards) that can amplify their damage and keep those resources regened. This is the worst kind of emergent gameplay I can think of when it comes to trivializing content and allowing it to happen should be avoided at all costs.
Another reason to disallow multiboxing then.
If they need to make concessions in their content design for normal players to make things challenging for multiboxers, something is wrong.
Don't understand how a 200 man zerg is fun raiding lol...Encounter locking provides way more longevity for the game than allowing box armies and permanent camping of raid bosses..especially if you have to do these raid bosses for a quest piece. Way more negative can happen without encounter locking than encounter locking.
First time back on the forums in like 5 months. Open this post and begin reading to realize why I stopped checking them ....
"We want our difficult encounters!" yet "Instances and encounter locking take away the open world feel!". Like come on people. If they take no steps to stop zerging, then your difficult encounters go right out the dang window. So how do you stop the zerging? Yep that's right, using encounter locking and/or instances ...
Whether you like the idea or not, it's more than likely going to happen because its the best way to combat the much bigger issue without taking away from the world. If someone has a better way to kill a zerg on raid tier content then by all means bring it up. So far this is a pointless argument with no one providing any better solution.
Raid limits also to leads to negatives like having a bench or a B team. People are worried about guilds blocking each other from content, but raid limits will block people, your own friends in your own guild, from playing with you at times.
I understand anti zerging measures, but I still maintain that people should be left to their own devices, even if they do negative things, instead of having overt artificial game mechancs in place that, imo, already have arguable value to begin with. Content should be designed with a difficulty in mind not based on the number of people it should take to defeat it. That number is always going to be fluctuating as different guilds and differently geared and skilled people tackle it.
It's the same as a level 6 Necromancer being able to kill a level 8 mob while a level 6 Monk can't. The level 8 mob is the level 8 mob, its power and difficulty are what they are regardless of who is attacking it, whether that be 8 level 4s or the solo player that's able to do it based on their class/level/items/skill/etc. There's no restriction on how the level 8 mob is killed and I don't think there should be one for other content either, raid or not.
In EQ on Cazic Thule, and probably elsewhere, low level(talking 8 and below even) necros figured they could group up en masse and kill sand giants with their unresistable lifetap. It was awesome and hilarious and there was no limit that said 'sorry 41st level 8 necro, you're not allowed to attack this mob'. And yes, after a short time they patched lifetaps to only work on mobs I believe up to 7 levels higher than you. An appropriate step was taken to curb the zerg without impacting the core integrity of the world.
If 13 people in one guild can kill the white dragon and it takes 36 from another guild, so be it. If it takes 84 toons from another guild, that's up to them to determine the value(as has been mentioned with organizational issues and the watering down of loot).
This also enhances the social dynamic and the expectation that reputation matters. People in a boxing or zerg guild will not be respected as much, there will be social drama, it will be great. I can't stress how important this is for the game. It's a dynamic that simply does not exist anymore(in my experience) and it's one that leads directly to a crazy immersive world that people care deeply about. I hope VR is willing to risk taking the bad with the good to bring back the social magic of a game like EQ.
Encounter limits also promote a cookie cutter raid force. We HAVE to have 8 healers for BWL. No, you don't, you're being forced to take 8 healers because of this artificial limit on the raid. This is why you see the hardcore guilds in games forcing members to have alts so they can stay flexible if someone doesn't show up, instead of inviting another friend or guildie. I believe some meaningful decision making is removed from the players and replaced with an illusion of decision making, when really the raid limit is dictating raid composition.
it's going to be be a design choice. the most challenging encounters have always been instance locked. if you make it an open world encounter then the boss needs to be dynamic. if you have this type of setup then it can be abused, exploited or trolled depending on how the boss is designed
basic example:
boss is baseline at 6-12 players
under the condition that 13-24 players boss games %hp, damage, damage reduction, gains new spell
if the player know this condition in an open world:
the best course would be to ensure a max group of 12 players
4 more players want to do the encounter or 1 player just wants to troll the other 12
you then have a situation where it becomes a pvevp
building a dynamic boss is possible but from a design point of view... to sum it up it's: user complexity designer simplicity vs user simplicity designer complexity
Accomplishments feel less meaningful if there isn't a sense of consistency in how they are earned. The idea of creating "really challenging raid tier single group content" sounds compelling to me, but it loses a lot of appeal if players can essentially raid that content. That same logic applies to 12 man and 24 man raids. If I see someone wearing a breastplate that drops from a 24 man raid, it should mean something. Players should know, immediately, that the player wearing it earned it. That entire concept is gone if that same breastplate is being worn by a player who used 50 players to defeat that same encounter.
The items/spells/rewards gated behind content lose their prestige factor because there would be zero consistency with how players overcame the challenge of needing to earn them. I understand that most gear will be tradable and how that can be viewed as a bit of a monkey wrench in regard to earning gear, but having consistency in the challenge department still has a tremendous impact on the perceived value of any given item. Assuming the "Flaming Sword of Sovereignty" drops from raid tier single group content ... the value and rarity of that item is diminished if it's possible for players to acquire it with a raid rather than it being exclusive to extremely challenging group play.
Distinguishing 12 man, 24 man, and raid tier single group content means something. I suppose there is a range for interpretation of "24 man" but it's highly unlikely that most people would think "That content is designed for 18-30 players." I asked this earlier but I'll pose it again ... What is the difference between single group content and really challenging raid tier single group content? The implication is that the content is being designed to offer "raid tier" difficulty while limiting players to a "single group" to defeat it. Labeling content in this way requires thought and planning. Again, let's consider the question that was asked and the manner in which it was answered.
Sarcoth Haven: "What is the plan for raiding in Pantheon, what will be the max group size, and will there be raid dragons?"
Joppa: "Yes there will be raids. Yes there will be ... (long pause) let me think here for a second on how much I want to say. Yes there will be raids. Max raid size right now is ... 24, (24) is the number we're kicking around, we feel like that's a good science to shoot for and start with. We do want to have really really challenging what we would call, kind of "quote" raid tier single group content. We also want to have 12 man content for 2 groups but then 24 players is kind of our core raid target."
At this point, for me, it all comes down to managing expectations. This same topic came up in the public Discord channel yesterday and I explained the thought process of how I interpreted the above quote. I was told quite authoritatively by another community member that I couldn't comprehend what Joppa was saying and that my opinion was wrong. I was reminded that the real reason behind structured raid sizes was explained by Joppa in a follow-up video. He then shared a link to a different stream where Joppa was discussing raid size with Alexensual, and using that prior exchange with Sarcoth as a preface: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XpjH0NPQEQ&t=20m45s
Alexensual: "During the last stream you guys mentioned raid sizes. So the plan is for 12 and 24 currently, correct?"
Joppa: "12 and 24, yes."
Alexensual: "I was wondering if you could go more into detail about that. So specifically, are there plans for a certain raid to be 12, and a different raid to be 24? Or is it more ... the same raid for different sizes, maybe like a mode?"
Joppa: "Yeah that's a good question. A lot of this stuff we can't speak on too in-depth but when I made that comment, it was not to say that we'll have a single raid that has 12 and 24 man versions. It was to say that we'll have a raid that is a 24 person raid. We will have a different raid that is a 12 person raid and that's kind of the pattern, at least for right now, that's the plan out of the gate. Build our raid sizes around that core number of 24 because resource wise, and the kind of standard of quality and performance that we want to have in our raids, that's what we feel most comfortable committing to right now, and then of course a 12 person raid would fall within those parameters. That's our plan out of the gate but it's not that we're going to use the same raid and have these different sizes of the same raid ... but it's also not to say that we're ruling out 40 person content or 36 person content. It's just that it's not our current focus for the raid areas that we're working on and we want to get those finished and polished and tested thoroughly before we make a call on increasing that size for future raids."
This is when the discussion drifted and the narrative quickly changed to say that Unity was the real reason behind why VR is restricted to using structured raid sizes. The dialogue became a bunch of back and forth between various people in the channel on how the game was in trouble if it can't handle higher-than-24-man raiding. Since "performance" is the main issue, VR should just instance their raids. Unreal is a better option, so on and so forth. I'm not going to go into really deep detail on how I interpret that dialogue between Alexensual and Joppa but I will say that I disagree with the narrative that raid sizes are being limited specifically because of performance issues with Unity.
In any event, I think some clarification from VR would go a long way. My stance revolves around the idea that VR will be leveraging some form of encounter locking in order to preserve the integrity of their content. I have tried my best to explain why I feel that way but have been met with responses that attempt to invalidate my opinion, comprehension skills, legitimacy as a human being, skill as a player, courage, and life choices. All of that is perfectly fine, too. Trying to debate something based on logic or interpretation will typically be met with hostility or denigration unless supported by facts, as is to be expected on the internet. Knowing whether or not some form of encounter locking is officially planned for Pantheon would improve the quality of community dialogue considerably. Otherwise ... encounter locking will continue to be the same thing as instancing, and Unity will continue to be criticized as an engine that is responsible for structured raid sizes. Inquiring minds would like to know fact from fiction.
oneADseven said:Accomplishments feel less meaningful if there isn't a sense of consistency in how they are earned. The idea of creating "really challenging raid tier single group content" sounds compelling to me, but it loses it's appeal if players can essentially raid that content. That same logic applies to 12 man and 24 man raids. If I see someone wearing a breastplate that drops from a 24 man raid, it should mean something. Players should know, immediately, that the player wearing it earned it. That entire concept is gone if that same breastplate is being worn by a player who used 50 players to defeat that same encounter.
People will know the difference, and it will matter. Additionally, the player who did it the "right" way will be much more likely to have other pieces of epic or raid tier loot than the person who raids with a zerg guild. One person will be known for being in an elite guild that does more with less, while the other person will be known for being in a lower quality/ability zerg guild.
I find Joppa's comments extremely discouraging. I despise this kind of fake limitation being imposed on players. There is zero logical reason why a 13th person should not be allowed to join in on the fun other than as an anti zerg measure. It's another cure that is worse than the disease and it violates some of their core tenets.
Keno Monster said:I find Joppa's comments extremely discouraging. I despise this kind of fake limitation being imposed on players. There is zero logical reason why a 13th person should not be allowed to join in on the fun other than as an anti zerg measure. It's another cure that is worse than the disease and it violates some of their core tenets.
Allowing zerging violates 8 of 15 core tenets, at least with how I perceive them.
1) An awareness that content is king.
The abominable zerg monster is king.
2) A commitment to a style of play that focuses on immersive combat, and engaging group mechanics.
Really challenging raid tier single group content sounds like a really nice platform for engaging group mechanics. Kiss those goodbye if people can raid that content.
3) An understanding that a truly challenging game is truly rewarding.
Zerging trivializes challenge. Being able to trivialize "challenge" makes the rewards feel less rewarding.
4) An expectation that with greater risk will come greater reward.
If you can raid group content then risk vs reward is compromised.
5) An understanding that player involvement is required for progression. All actions (or lack thereof) should have consequences. Positive actions should be rewarded. Apathy or lack of action should not be rewarded with bonuses.
Defeating raid tier single group content with a single group sounds like a positive action. Doing it with a raid doesn't.
6) A belief that meaningful character progression will always involve a player increasing in both power and prestige.
Prestigious items aren't prestigious if they can be acquired illegitimately.
7) A sincere commitment to creating a world where a focus on cooperative play will attract those seeking a challenge.
Pantheon is attractive to me because I seek challenge. The integrity of the word "challenge" is compromised in a world that allows zerging.
8) A belief that the greatest sense of accomplishment comes when it is shared - and earned.
Beating raid tier single group content with a single group would feel like a great accomplishment. Not so much if it's possible to raid that same content.