((I maintain that 24 is way too small as it will effectively dictate how big guilds will be. ))
But a guild with an A team and a B team (your example) doing the same raid separately because of a lockout timer is NOT any smaller than it would be if raids were larger and they were all one team. I think your argument may more that you don't like the idea of separate teams in the same guild than it is an argument about overall guild size.
Aren't there benefits to having two different teams?
Different poeple can make the raid at different times on different days. Having two teams allows more to be accomodated. It also allows a better mix of geared people that are helping out with newer or unluckier people that desperately need the gear. People can move between teams as dictated by the desirable balance. it is still one guild with loyalty (one hopes) to the guild not just the team.
I am not saying you are wrong - you may be right. Just tossing in a question to help you make clearer *why* you are right.
Vandraad said:On the day that all 3 of those targets are up at the same time, if the content is designed against a 24 person raid, a single guild forms 3 raids and hits all 3 targets. Once all 3 mobs are dead, the Blue Dragon raid now hops over to where the Red Dragon spawns while the Green Dragon raids heads to the Blue Dragon spawn. The original Green Dragon raid is done with the Blue Dragon they go hit the Red Dragon. The only real target anybody else has a chance of getting under this scenario is the Blue Dragon.
Unless you're suggesting that the lockouts apply to the entire guild even if some of the guild were not on that raid? That's the only way these lockouts you suggest would work.
None of that really matters. Each piece of content would have it's own standard of being accessible or contested, as determined by VR. It would be up to the players to prioritize how they want to spend their time if multiple targets are up at the same time. The lockout mechanic would prevent mega guilds from monopolizing the red version and the blue version. I guess you could argue that if they had 25 separate 24 man raid teams they could contest the red version around the clock with a new team every time it spawns. I highly doubt that would be an issue but if it is, VR could very easily adjust the respawn timer to 2 hours, or even 1 hour. It's extremely unlikely that we would see a single guild with 100 separate 24 man raid teams that are hellbent on monopolizing content. It's a highly customizable system that could have both the respawn timer and/or lockout timer adjusted for every single mob, as desired. For all intents and purposes ... the terms "zerging" and "content denial" would not exist as things in Pantheon. All of this while still having an open world (without instancing, phasing, or sharding) and whatever level of competition that VR wants, per encounter.
what does really challenging raid tier single group content mean to you, in the context of Pantheon?
Basically the named boss room/events like we've already seen; group named/boss fights with mechanics above the norm I guess.
Keno Monster said:Watemper said:Only problem I see with zerging is that box armies will take advantage of this...and make the content easy. If there is a 24 man raid...and they all have a box character...then they can just distribute the drops based on their mains. Then once there mains are somewhat raid geared then they can begin to reduce their box army and do a number of split raidings with half mains and half boxes..etc...takes the skill away from the game regardless if you zerg.
And as I mentioned earlier, a 24 character raid limit will MASSIVELY shrink the available content in the world. Imagine sharing open world content with 4 72 toon raiding guilds vs 12 24 toon raiding guilds. Such a tiny limit on how many people can be allowed to experience a given piece of content has the potential to lock way more people out of that content than any massive uber raiding guild.
Never said I was for or against 24 mans...that is what is being talked about. Around 42 would be ideal for me. Regardless....I don't care about zerging as long as the encounters are encounter locked. Meaning if 200 people want to zerg a boss...then all 200 of them will be locked out for 5 days or w/e the timer will be.
Watemper said:Keno Monster said:Watemper said:Only problem I see with zerging is that box armies will take advantage of this...and make the content easy. If there is a 24 man raid...and they all have a box character...then they can just distribute the drops based on their mains. Then once there mains are somewhat raid geared then they can begin to reduce their box army and do a number of split raidings with half mains and half boxes..etc...takes the skill away from the game regardless if you zerg.
And as I mentioned earlier, a 24 character raid limit will MASSIVELY shrink the available content in the world. Imagine sharing open world content with 4 72 toon raiding guilds vs 12 24 toon raiding guilds. Such a tiny limit on how many people can be allowed to experience a given piece of content has the potential to lock way more people out of that content than any massive uber raiding guild.
Never said I was for or against 24 mans...that is what is being talked about. Around 42 would be ideal for me. Regardless....I don't care about zerging as long as the encounters are encounter locked. Meaning if 200 people want to zerg a boss...then all 200 of them will be locked out for 5 days or w/e the timer will be.
I was agreeing with you and thought that your comment supported a sentiment we shared.
Keno Monster said:Watemper said:Keno Monster said:Watemper said:Only problem I see with zerging is that box armies will take advantage of this...and make the content easy. If there is a 24 man raid...and they all have a box character...then they can just distribute the drops based on their mains. Then once there mains are somewhat raid geared then they can begin to reduce their box army and do a number of split raidings with half mains and half boxes..etc...takes the skill away from the game regardless if you zerg.
And as I mentioned earlier, a 24 character raid limit will MASSIVELY shrink the available content in the world. Imagine sharing open world content with 4 72 toon raiding guilds vs 12 24 toon raiding guilds. Such a tiny limit on how many people can be allowed to experience a given piece of content has the potential to lock way more people out of that content than any massive uber raiding guild.
Never said I was for or against 24 mans...that is what is being talked about. Around 42 would be ideal for me. Regardless....I don't care about zerging as long as the encounters are encounter locked. Meaning if 200 people want to zerg a boss...then all 200 of them will be locked out for 5 days or w/e the timer will be.
I was agreeing with you and thought that your comment supported a sentiment we shared.
Oh lol sorry. Only problem I had with EQ was content blocking. I would rather be blocked by a skilled boss than one of them soo called uber elite zerg guilds with timers. So encounter locking to me is a must imo..just how they do it is up to them. Some say it is bad...but that is the only healthy option to the game imo.
I like instancing for raid content because it solves the barrier of guilds blocking others in a non PVP server.
If you have to be the best by blocking others by rushing the mob on spawn due to you not having a job then no your not the best.
Wanan be the best, compete on equal terms and drop it first reguardless of instance or not.
Let me clear up what I said before, I just woke up andjust responded before actually thinking clearly what I was tring to say.
I was saying that it should scale like we know scaling does, even thou I know there will have to be some sort of scaling for what I am tring to say.
Most raids, in general, are X man raids. Sometimes you can get away with a little less, sometimes you just can't. What I was tring to say is this:
Why does it have to be that way? Why can't it be, 12 is the min, and 40 is the max, for example.
To explain this better, let me put it this way. Two raid forces go in there, one is 12 man raid, the other is a 40 man raid. For the sake of this example, it's instanced (purely for this example so you can understand what I am tring to say better). What I am saying, is both raids wouldn't be able to tell the difference in terms of challenge/difficulity. a 40 man raid would be just like doing it 12 man. Now I know more ppl means more healing, more dps, more tanks, more CC, etc. Yes, there is the issue with my thoughts.
But let me ask you this..... how many times in your raiding history, have you go to a raid and the raid was called off, or wasn't able to do the fight because it's a 40 man raid and you only had 30 ppl show up that night?
What I am saying, is that I would like the "idea" of 12/24/36/48 etc go out the window and raids change to, hey let's raid! Long as you can get 12 ppl in, you can go in and do the raid. If you have 32 ppl show up, you go in there and do it. Doesn't matter if not enough ppl showed up.
This would, to me, help both small and large guilds.
Now with that said, me personally, want as big of a raid as possible but I understand that sometimes it's just hard to get ppl together. With time zones, work, college, school, kids, real life, etc. It's just rough. So why not find a way that a 12 person raid and a 40 man raid can both tackle the same content and it would be "easy" or "hard" because of the # of people you have avaiable. That's what I was tring to say in a previous post.
Again, outside of what I have said, I am going to way for more information on the matter before I really get into the topic.
Just some random thoughts that I had based on the last page or two of posts:
1) Challenging fight does not equal a script, even though that's what most of us are used to from previous games.
"Raid Level" fights should:
*Note: See my earlier post about what "raid level" means.
- Contain enemy abilities that players must respond to when they occur (example: breath weapon attack). These abilities should have "tells" so that players can see when they are about to occur, but should not be on a timer or script so that they can be predicted on a timeline.
- Contain enemy abilities or tactics that players will have an easier time handling if they are prepared in advance (example: adds showing up during the fight.) Players should be able to predict these things happening (which means it's ok for them to be on a timer or a script), but there should be randomization within them to prevent things from becoming rote. For example, the adds that show up might be a random assortment each time.
- Involve environmental conditions that players may need to leverage situational gear for, or that force players to adapt their tactics, or both. (Example: The fight takes place on top of a snow-covered mountain cliff, and some of the enemies may use knockback effects that could push players over the edge. Players will need to bring their cold-weather gear and be prepared for the knockbacks.)
2) I've said this before, but "Raid" should not automatically equal a single large monster. If the objective of every raid fight is "kill the big thing", then that limits the ability of the developers to provide diverse and unique experiences from one raid to the next.
3) Raids can and should scale up to larger numbers of players, but they should do that by increasing complexity and adding additional objectives that must be completed simultaneously, rather than simply by making the monsters bigger and tougher.
4) Raid content should be generally available to people who want to do it, as the challenge should primarily come from the content itself, and not from trying to race other players to get a chance at it. However, this does not mean that every piece of content needs to be handled the exact same way.
- Some content (especially content for smaller raid sizes) should be available on-demand via a trigger that groups must perform. The triggers for these fights should scale in complexity and difficulty with the level of challenge of the resulting fight. The toughest triggered fights should be things that take you several days to set up.
- Some content should only be available at certain times or conditions but should feature some sort of locking mechanism to prevent zerg situations. This method should only be used when too many players would break the integrity of the encounter design, which ideally should only happen very rarely.
- Some content should be completely open to anyone and everyone who wants to take a shot at it, while it's there. Content that uses this method of availability should generally have components (such as adds during the fight) that scale with the number of players in the area, or involve things that may truly require several dozen players to defeat in the first place.
A few examples of "raid level" content that I can think of. These are all just hypotheticals, but I think they can illustrate the sorts of challenges that I hope the game can provide us. None of them really relies on a "script" or something that can be learned and then repeated mindlessly, although all of them are things where prior knowledge can help players to prepare.
Example 1: The Orc King - challenging fight for 1-2 groups
At the top of the orc stronghold is the War Room, where the three Orc Warlords meet once each game day to plan their conquests. Each of the Warlords commands one of the Orc Legions, is attended by an honor guard from their legion, and is a very strong fighter in their own right. The Warlords answer only to the King, whose chambers are directly behind the War Room. When they're not in the War Room, the Warlords return back to their legion camps.
Trigger/unlock conditions: To face the king, players must wait for the three Warlords and their guards to all enter the War Room, and then defeat all of the Warlords within that room. This will cause the door to the King's chambers to open as his guards rush out to see what happened. Players may then defeat those guards and enter the King's chambers.
Fight characteristics: The King is a very strong orc wielding a large two-handed great-axe. He is attended by three to five members of his personal retinue of elite guards and advisors, some of whom are nearly as powerful as the Warlord. The makeup of the retinue is semi-random but there will always be at least one shaman and one warrior in the group.
Abilities: The king has three abilities that he will use, at random, during the fight. The first ability is a mighty swing of his great-axe. This acts as a large frontal cleave that will inflict heavy damage on anyone struck, but which can be avoided by stepping back or positioning behind the king. The second is a mighty war-cry which will momentarily stun all players in the room. The stun can potentially be resisted, and the war-cry can be interrupted. The third ability is a blast on his warhorn, which will summon 2-3 more orc guards (of random class composition) from outside who will arrive a few seconds after the warhorn is sounded. This cannot be interrupted.
Terrain/Environment: The entire fight takes place in the king's chambers, which is a relatively large room. The room is lit by chandeliers made from the skulls of foolish adventurers that have been turned into oil lamps, held up by chains. During the fight, from time to time, one of the guards will rush to where the chains are anchored on the wall, and unlock one, which will fall and splash flaming oil across part of the room. The guard will try to aim for the chandelier that happens to be above where players are standing. The flaming oil will inflict burning damage-over-time on anyone it strikes, including any orcs unlucky enough to be in the area (no one said the orc guards were very smart).
Example 2: Vash'garok, the Lord of the Peaks - 24-person raid encounter
In the northern mountains, it is said that a great and terrible dragon makes his lair atop one of the great peaks. Vash'garok is rarely seen, as he only hunts during the howling blizzards that plague the region in the winter months. Yet hunt he does. Stories abound of mountain villages burned to their foundations, their people and livestock slaughtered and eaten, and their treasure taken, all in the span of a single night. Those few that have seen Vash'garok and lived to tell the tale speak only of the horrifying scream at the height of the blizzard - the only warning before he struck.
Trigger/unlock conditions: Vash'garok only appears during blizzard conditions, when he comes out to hunt. When this occurs, players may be able to set a trap for him at one of the villages in the area. If he attacks that particular village, the trap will not defeat him, but it will cause him to retreat to ancient stone circle atop Ragnarr's Peak, where he can then be assaulted by players (at least until the weather changes and he returns to his lair.
Fight characteristics: Vash'garok is a Great Dragon, old and powerful. Not only can he breathe fire like most of his ilk, but he is able to cast spells as well, and prefers to use spells that reflect the ice and wind of his mountain home. Vash'garok is adept at using the violent blizzards of the peaks to confound and misdirect his foes, and will generally stay airborne during the fight, landing only briefly to strike before taking to the sky again. This means that fighting Vash'garok is often a matter of reacting to what he's doing and striking when he is within range, rather than a protracted melee. The fight takes place atop a barren mountain peak with only a single path leading up, and sheer drops on all sides.
Abilities: As mentioned above, Vash'garok will spend most of the fight in the air, safely out of melee range (although he may still be in range for spells or ranged attacks). He will circle the peak, barely visible in the storm, swooping in to attack, or flying across to breathe fire on the foolish adventurers who have dared to challenge him. Vash'garok's fire breath is preceeded by a roar, after which he will stop and fly directly across the peak from where he currently is, laying a line of fiery destruction down upon anything in his path. From time to time, Vash'garok will land to attack - either striking at his chosen target with claws and fangs, or smashing at the entire group with his tail, or casting one of the area effect spells in his repertoire, which are mostly cold based.
Terrain/Environment: The entire fight takes place atop a snowy mountain peak with only one path leading up and sheer drops on all sides. The only features on the peak are an ancient stone circle. As the fight takes place during a blizzard, periodically the winds will pick up and begin to push adventurers towards the edge of the peak (in a random direction) unless they brace themselves against the stones or use some other method to immobilize themselves. In addition, the howling wind will do consistent cold damage to players who are not equipped and/or acclimatized against its effects.
Example 3: The Eye of Ufnavir - "Super Raid" class world event
Underneath the Khaga sands like the ruins of an ancient civilization, destroyed long ago. The only remnants are the scattered obelisks and half-collapsed buildings covered in heiroglyphics. Heiroglyphics, if deciphered, that tell the tale of the Mad Prince Ufnavir. Seeing his kingdom's end before him, Ufnavir entered an unholy pact with a creature of great darkness, to take vengeance upon his enemies. On that night, the skies rained fire, and his kingdom burned. But from the ashes, the Prince and his warriors rose in undeath, and marching across the sands, laid waste to their enemies. The souls of their enemies were imprisoned in a large glowing purple gemstone, known as the Eye of Ufnavir. After the battle, the Prince took the Eye back to his chamber in the great pyramid, sealing himself inside to forever gaze upon the torment of his enemies. His warriors, their purpose fulfilled, lapsed into the sleep of the dead. And for thousands of years, the world forgot. Until some enterprising tomb robber managed to break into the burial chamber and steal the Eye.
Trigger/unlock conditions: The Eye of Ufnavir is a "super raid" class event that happens randomly (and rarely) in the Khaga Sands and involves the entire zone (or most of it). When the event occurs, the skies will darken and begin to rain supernatural fire. The ground will shake as armies of the dead rise, and the Mad Prince will begin shouting orders to his armies to find the thief and destroy the interlopers.
Fight characteristics: Given the scope and scale of this event, it's designed to involve everyone in the zone, and the entire zone will be filled with varying-sized groups of undead soldiers, including some undead commanders that could constitute raid bosses in their own right, each with unique abilities. To describe those here would take an entire page, so just use your imagination. It's an army that players are dealing with. Of course, the Mad Prince himself is no slouch either. To make things even more interesting, the Mad Prince can't be defeated. He can be fought to a standstill (and will have to be), but he will never actually die until the Eye is replaced.
Completing the event: To complete the event, players within the zone must complete all of the objectives:
1) Recover the Eye from the foolish thief who has stolen it (who will be holed up with some friends at a random location in the zone)
2) Defeat the Undead Commanders. This will open the central pyramid.
3) Fight off the Mad Prince and his minions to reach the treasure chamber in the pyramid, where the Eye can be placed back into its rightful place.
Note: This means that one player will have to carry the Eye through the gauntlet and put it where it belongs, while everyone else keeps the endless horde of undead busy around them. The Eye can be passed from player to player by targeting them and using it, which gives them the Eye (think of it like a football). If the player carrying the Eye dies, the Eye will appear on the ground next to their corpse and can be "picked up" by interacting with it.
Terrain/Environment: The skies outside are raining fire, which will target random fiery aoes on the ground, zone-wide. They don't do a lot of damage individually, but they will keep happening (in different locations) every few seconds. Bring healers. In addition, inside the pyramid, traps (to deter would-be robbers) abound, everything from spike traps that will immobilize and deal damage, to deadfalls which will knock down and push players, to fiery oil which will pour into narrow passages and that players will have to leap across. This is, of course, in addition to the hordes of continually-respawning undead.
Vandraad said:Keiiek said:They'll do it like they did in Vanguard. Raid bosses in dungeons will have lockout timers of 3-7 days. They'll always be up. Maybe not in the same places, but they'll always be up. Overland raid bosses will spawn randomly or be triggered someway, but will not always be up. They will also have lockout timers and be locked to the group that tags it 1st, but they will be the contested targets. In the 7 years i played Vanguard, I've never heard of guilds arguing over raid mobs with this system.
Unless you can show a quote from Joppa stating that is indeed fact, you're only speculating. But I'll take your bet and say the approach will be like EQ1 where the mob spawns in X days with some +/- random variable. If you want the mob, be in the right place at the right time and before anybody else.
After some things said by the dev's both on forums and in discord, willing to bet you're wrong on this one.
I'm generally in favor of any system that allows access to varied content. I support "raid" tier content for various group sizes--I really think WoW did this well. What is raiding besides grouping up with your fellow comrades and tackling content that is intentionally designed to be more difficult than your run of the mill content? I think when you are getting to the edge of the game, ie large raid content, I don't have any issues with the use of instancing. Open world encounters have their place and can be a nice experience from time to time. However, I honestly think they would be doing their demographic (30+ year old guys with kids and a career) a disservice if a majority of limited play time is devoted to screwing around fighting others for the chance to experience content. Sometimes it is just nice to plan a raid, go there, wipe a bunch because everyone is a noob, and eventually kill some stuff.
Instancing/encounter-locking/lockout-timers are the unfortunate "lesser-evils" necessary to deal with the reality that humans can be hyper-aggressive, competitive, toxic, greedy, and shitty towards each other, especially in virtual environments that lack real-world consequences. Those types of people are already present on these forums, in the subreddit, and in the Discord with clearly stated intentions to monopolize what content they can. That monopolization often happens with zergs and multi-boxes because the thrill for these types of people is the denial of the content and easily farming loot to distribute how they please with little to no competition (or the goal is to "force" competition with other big guilds, but even then the result is that two or three guilds at the top "compete' with each other while everyone else lacks an opportunity to meaningfully engage with arguably some of the best content in the game).
I'll note that I'm typically against instancing and view its negatives as too extreme, and in my view encounter-locking with a first-to-engage mechanic is the most appropriate "lesser-evil" to protect against the unfortunate realities mentioned above. "Anti-zerg" features, like bosses spawning more adds or disappearing, will also generally fall short in adequately solving this problem as it easily leaves the door open to competing groups/guilds to punish the first group/guild to engage.
Now, as for the concept of raid-tier single-group content...
I'll define this as content designed for a single group that 1) expects players to perform their class/role to an almost pefect level, 2) requires a mix of the highest quality gear/specialized gear available, and 3) throws incredibly unique/demanding/harsh challenges at the group that will expect high levels of synchronization/harmony within the group to overcome.
Most games fail to implement any content that would meet these requirements designed around a single group, instead focusing their efforts on creating only adequately difficult dungeons with the most challenging content being raids. This is clearly a missed opportunity for content designers to provide an amazing experience for their highly skilled players, something that will satisfy their desire for being challenged and push them to become better in their class/role in between raiding schedules.
The clearest benefit in this type of content is that it only requires a single group to complete, i.e. you don't have to always rely on pre-determined schedules for the rest of your guild to show up. It also encourages community-building on the group level, i.e. encourages people to get to know each other even more than your usual dungeon content, since it's content that will most likely demand synergy and chemistry between the group in a higher capacity than is usually seen. I imagine raid-tier single-group content wouldn't typically be run with pick-up-groups, but rather people you've gotten to know and can rely upon. Personally, I find this smaller-scale content (that's just as challenging/difficult as raids) to be more rewarding than large-scale raids. I still love raids and want to see them in the game, but this focused group content absolutely has a place in the game as well, and I think its presence will go a long way towards keeping the game alive.
Now, if this content is zergable, then it's pointless and isn't worth the time developing since it'll just be bulldozed over with multiple groups.
Well said, Sicario. I have heard quite consistently over the years that Pantheon will be a mostly group-driven game. I think this is great, especially for max level players. I enjoy raiding as much as the next guy ... but if all of the best rewards are gated behind raiding, exclusively, the raid content effectively becomes "end-game." I agree with your stance that highly challenging group content, especially in an open world, has mostly been a missed opportunity in this genre. It's easy to pull that off when instancing is used as a crutch because instanced zones are usually limited to the amount of players that the zone is designed for. Seeing highly challenging group content in the open world would be very refreshing. At the same time, none of that means anything if players can trivialize the content with numbers. I have seen plenty of wild accusations posted on here that basically suggest that MMO content has devolved into participation trophies.
While that may be true in some games, it's not some sort of universal truth. I think it's completely reasonable for MMO's to feature "skill-check content" -- content that is tuned and balanced to be incredibly challenging, where the only difference between have and have-not is the ability to overcome the challenge. I think it's fair and reasonable to feature a decent amount of this content, too. Allowing players an opportunity to schedule their play is pretty important, especially if you're talking about really challenging content. These type of encounters generally require a lot of strategic planning and getting the right players to show up at the right time can take significant effort. These type of encounters are great candidates for the ghost mechanic from Vanguard. The content is meant to be accessible -- rather than using a respawn timer to control how often it's rewards enter the game, "difficulty" is considered the ultimate gating mechanism. You cannot offer this content in the open-world if it can be zerged.
There is no reason why we can't see a healthy mix of content types in Pantheon. Between fully contested, semi-contested, and accessible; there is enough wiggle room there to ensure that players can never be starved from content. I have read plenty of studies on MMO game theory and player motivators. Richard Bartle, Nick Yee, and Jon Radoff have all dedicated significant time and effort to understanding what makes the MMO player tick and were generous enough to share that information with the masses. When I think about an MMO World, that's exactly what I want it to be ... a world full of diversity, with different player personalities, different objectives, different priorities, all converged into a huge melting pot. "Shared Space & Shared Resources" are obviously incredibly important for this game and as such, instancing should almost never be considered. People seem to think that instancing content is the only way to make it accessible ... the reality is that Vanguard discovered the open-world solution to this problem many years ago. A little TLC for that system would put Pantheon in a great position to truly redefine the genre.
As I have stated previously in this thread ... zerging and content denial do not have to be problems in this game. VR has the power and experience to ensure this. While they have not publicly committed to utilizing the ghost mechanic from Vanguard, I have seen it referenced quite a bit over the years. It is the ultimate compromise in my eyes. Pantheon could have the perfect balance of competition, cooperation, and conflict ... all in the open world! The only argument someone can make against that is that they are a purist and want to see one extreme or the other. I think this would be a huge missed opportunity. I don't want to see special ruleset servers that attempt to separate people based on their achiever/socializer/explorer/killer personalities. Players are the main ingredient in the MMO magic recipe and because of our diversity, we shouldn't have to choose between sweet, savory, sour, or spicy. The more flavor, spice and texture we have, the better off the world will be. I sincerely hope that Terminus is built from the ground up to account for a wide range of player types. If we want our world to be full of life then we need to have all of these building blocks in place.
As mentioned in the Lassiz video, there are a lot of people who will/would feel pushed out if there is a bunch of inaccessible content, knowing that other players can/will be the ultimate gatekeepers and rule-makers instead of the devs. https://youtu.be/o3Holmesv34?t=3145
It's really too bad that zerging and content denial are still considered potential "problems" this far into development. They can both be solved in one fell swoop without resorting to instancing, contrary to popular belief. There is far too much hyperbole surrounding this topic which makes it nearly impossible to have any sort of meaningful dialogue. I would like to see the narrative changed and for Pantheon to be revered as an open world game that is built on a foundation of group-centric play, social constructs, challenging content, shared experiences, and earned achievements. None of these things are new; they are clearly defined and emphasized in the game tenets. We have always known what kind of game Pantheon is meant to be, it's just been a little vague on how some of the game goals would be accomplished. Because of that, a lot of people assume the worst. Content monopoly and trivialization could be eradicated from all things Pantheon and I don't see how that could ever be perceived as a bad thing. I hope 2019 is the year where we get to see that happen. This game has always been dubbed as a spiritual successor to both EQ and Vanguard -- I for one am extremely excited about the emergence of the latter as it will reinforce many of the principles that I value in an ideal MMO experience. We can have the best of both worlds. #ChallengeReborn #CommunityMatters #TrustInPantheon
((People seem to think that instancing content is the only way to make it accessible ... the reality is that Vanguard discovered the open-world solution to this problem many years ago))
I am probably one of the more vocal people here saying please do not rule out instancing.
With that background I totally agree that instancing isn't the only solution and may not even be the *best* solution most of the time. All I argue for is the mindset that occasionally instancing *may* be the best approach and when Pantheon hits that situation please don't just bypass it because of philosophical objections.
If Pantheon was mostly instanced - if it was even *half* instanced I wouldn't be at all happy. Too many games are like that. But if it lets us have far more readily available content in a few spots where nothing else works as well - use it.
And given a choice between a spiritual successor to Vanguard and a spiritual successor to EQ I will always pick Vanguard which *was* a spiritual successor to EQ but made up-to-date for the time (ignoring the financial and other issues that tormented its release).
So reviving an old thread so it is more or less on topic initially...
There has always been an emphasis on challenging content, meaningful risk/reward, earned accomplishments, etc. So the question I propose ... what does really challenging raid tier single group content mean to you, in the context of Pantheon?
If the difficulty of the fight is the same and the gear check is the same, and the skill check is the same, then the risk is the same. I think the reward should be equivilant and I always assumed that is what "raid tier" meant. If crafted gear is weaker than raid tier gear only twinks will care about crafting. The guilds would just sell it off for a guild split while farming their ideal sets. If epic quests simply end with go raid to get the epic item it would once again be a singular path for progression.
I remember Neph saying something like, "If we are building only one best option then we have failed at achieving diversity" That applies to gameplay as well. If progression all over the game stops and leaves only raids you will have a raid or die game. It is my hope VR is fully aware of this idea. The drive for horizontal progression has been huge, but the meme that only raids will have the best loot is still alive and well. Does horizontal progression ultimately end with raid set vs raid set in VR's vision?
So what raid tier ultimately means is going to be nothing if it is just a stepping stone for actually raiding.
dorotea said:I agree that "raid" does not and should not equate to "difficult" and the size of the endeavor should not necessarily relate to the quality of the rewards.
Yeah, I personally had thought VR made that clear with "raid tier" being a common term for other pillars of game play. Horizontal progression requires there to be actual progression. It doesn't mean horizontal progression until raids.
"Pantheon is not a primarily raiding game" has been the idea behind world building for pantheon. Making Raiding the only path to progression turns that idea on its head.