Only thing they've vaguely mentioned is that a casual player might be one that plays somehwere between 30 - 60 minutes per day, iirc.
The problem is, there's no value you can use that will satisfy the casual but prevent the hardcore, without artificial constraints that are worse than the problem they're trying to solve. If you presume casual is 1 hour per day, and plan around that as your baseline for advancement, then all you have to do is play 2+ hours a day to completely avoid the intent of the design goal. When a few players can play 10+ hours a day, they will always advance at a rate that seems "too fast" from a casual perspective. It's been discussed a few times on the forums since 2015, and all the debate generally dissolves into that unfortunate reality.
Evade said: All this excitement for Pantheon has brought me back to EQ p1999. On December 15 I created my Chanter and have been going pretty hardcore. Even with all my knowledge of eq and 15+ years of playing MMOs I’m still only managed to get to lvl 49. I really hope Pantheon has a similar rate of progression. I’m tired of new age MMOs where you can get to cap in a matter of a couple days. Has anyone heard how Pantheon will work? What’s the level cap and have the devs mentioned what they’re aiming for in terms of time to cap?
So... 44 days to get to 49 ehh? It took most people who played casually (ie 3-4 hours a night), and more specifically certain classes (like druids who solo'd Kaladim Dwarfs to reach max level) around 6-8 months to get to that level. P1999 is nowhere near the leveling speed of release EQ. Not even close.
I mean, can you imagine EQ at release having the average player hitting cap in just a little over a month? Yeah... umm.. No.
vjek said:
Only thing they've vaguely mentioned is that a casual player might be one that plays somehwere between 30 - 60 minutes per day, iirc.
The problem is, there's no value you can use that will satisfy the casual but prevent the hardcore, without artificial constraints that are worse than the problem they're trying to solve. If you presume casual is 1 hour per day, and plan around that as your baseline for advancement, then all you have to do is play 2+ hours a day to completely avoid the intent of the design goal. When a few players can play 10+ hours a day, they will always advance at a rate that seems "too fast" from a casual perspective. It's been discussed a few times on the forums since 2015, and all the debate generally dissolves into that unfortunate reality.
Who cares about the hardcore? I mean, that was EQ's original problem. They began to cater to the "hardcore". I remember hearing the constant whines of guilds like Fires of Heaven and the instigator Furor who would whine like a baby and cry if content wasn't developed to his personal expectations.
They should not consider those who provide impractical approaches to game play (ie power leveling with numerous people playing the account 24/7, or people who are jobless and play 8-16 hours a day), rather they should base progression on the average of a more reasonable play time (For instance, in EQ I worked a full time job 40-60 hours a week and still put in 2-4 hours a day, more on my days off as I could). That back then was considered "casual" for PC gamers.
So, it should take as EQ originally did, near 6 months to a year for the average casual gamer to reach max level in content before the expansion.
Thing is, we have had over a decade of MMO deisgn where the concept of waiting more than a couple of seconds to achieve something is an atrocity.
I have a druid on P99 that is only 44. Of course I play for 2-3 hours for a couple nights, then I might not play again for 2-3 weeks, and I think I took like a 6 month hiatus.
But I definietly noticed P99 leveling is faster than Original EQ was back in the day, but it still takes time at least.
But I do recall reading Brad say something about trying to make the game enjoyable and playable for someone who can only put in a couple hours a session.
Fulton said:I have a druid on P99 that is only 44. Of course I play for 2-3 hours for a couple nights, then I might not play again for 2-3 weeks, and I think I took like a 6 month hiatus.
But I definietly noticed P99 leveling is faster than Original EQ was back in the day, but it still takes time at least.
But I do recall reading Brad say something about trying to make the game enjoyable and playable for someone who can only put in a couple hours a session.
I think what he said by that was that they were designing content so that a player could accomplish something within 2 hours of play (ie going and doing a dungeon group or the like), not that one would be able to accomplish a level within 2 hours of play. If that is their design goal, everyone will be max level within the first month of release.
My concern is that we have had two decades where people have either gotten used to instant gratification systems or that is all they experienced which then drives the perception as to what is "normal" for a game like this. It is like when VR did a poll years ago on how long combat should last and most people, even being from the original EQ era, still tended to think combat should be extremely short (seconds, to a minute or two), similar to WoW and nothing like what EQ was. This obviously also drives leveling time, etc...
In my opinion, what made EQ was its combat time, its leveling time, its numerous road blocks which were major obstacles to overcome to which each success was seen as a milestone, an accomplishment of diligent effort. We shouldn't measure the road blocks by how we would like them, but how we would not like them. If the game is filled with "acceptable" time sinks, I can promise you people will treat it just like any other modern MMO.
Tanix said: ... So, it should take as EQ originally did, near 6 months to a year for the average casual gamer to reach max level in content before the expansion. ...
Using say 1 hour a day, that means either ~180 or ~360 hours played to reach max level, based on your suggestion.
This also means that some players will be able to reach max level, playing 10-20 hours per day, "worst" case, in somewhere between 9 to 36 days. Is that ok, in your opinion?
vjek said:Tanix said: ... So, it should take as EQ originally did, near 6 months to a year for the average casual gamer to reach max level in content before the expansion. ...Using say 1 hour a day, that means either ~180 or ~360 hours played to reach max level, based on your suggestion.
This also means that some players will be able to reach max level, playing 10-20 hours per day, "worst" case, in somewhere between 9 to 36 days. Is that ok, in your opinion?
if someone wants to play 24/7 and reach max level in days, so be it, as long as when they complain that they have nothing to do, it falls on deaf ears.
I agree, of course, that very slow leveling is essential to the design of Pantheon. Whereas the OP cites p1999 positively for slow leveling I use LOTRO as a similar example. Both far faster than things were "back in the day" but both far slower than many MMOs today.
I also agree that the design needs to focus on the more typical player. It shouldn't take a normal player 10 years to reach level cap because VR wants the "no-life power levelers" to be unable to do it in less than one year. As Fulton says let them hit level cap and be bored - they won't get a lot of sympathy if they whine. I say this as someone that will hit level cap far faster than most - not because I am a better player (I am not) but because I have more time to play. But I won't be bored and I won't whine - I will work on alts and crafting and other wonderful things.
In terms of giving the casual player something useful and fun to do in a relatively short game session - many of us are married (or in a marriage-type relationship) often with children. Not so many of us can play 6 hours in a night and go to sleep at 5AM with no one else being affected or caring. It isn't just the amount of time - it is hard to group if you have three hours you can play but you need a 10 or 15 minute afk half a dozen times for family problems, doorbell aggro, telephone aggro or the like. Even when people can play for hours on and off they may not have much if any quality *group* time.
This is why some of us, while recognizing the Pantheon will be primarily a group game, want good solo content as well so people can play more than once a week as might be the case if they could only play when they had 2-3 hours of almost uninterrupted time in a row. People are more likely to drop the game if they cannot play most days. Good solo content meaning things to fight not just crafting or harvesting by oneself. Good solo content meaning the ability to improve gear and gain levels. Noting as I always try to that since we want people encouraged to group when they *can* group that grouping should give better gear and faster experience.
I love how it is always said that people have families and marriages and such now, and can no longer play a game for hours at a time compared to EQ. Did no married people play EQ? Did no one have children? I find it astonishing. It took me 3 years of EQ to hit 50. While I do not want that pace per se, I enjoyed myself for (most) of that time. I do not care that some people cannot play 6 hours, and some can play 20. I have a serious job and a real life, and ok...some days I will play for 6 hours, and then I might not play more than 1 for 2 weeks. I still want a long, enjoyable game that does not yield people being 50 in 2 weeks. Because, while it is all great and good to say you do not care about someone hitting the cap in 2 weeks, that kind of thing is deadly to the long term survival of a game. Once people are bored at the top, they stop playing and that is a death spiral. Further, if you can get to the top that fast, it usually means the "real" game is at the top only, and that is not the game I want to play.
I figure the pace of leveling should approximate the retention of the subscriber base. Much like a Laffer curve, it is hard to pinpoint the optimum point but easy to convey the concept. Regardless of the pace of leveling the subscription model is dependent on real life time and not time spent in game (ie. price per month and not pace of leveling). Retaining subscribers ensures the game has longevity (which we all desire).
If the pace is too fast then content cannot keep up with the subscriber base and subscriptions falter, the game dries up. If the pace is too slow such that content is not varying then people get bored and subscriptions dry up and the game falters. Somewhere there is a model where the magic number of the subscriber base maintains the subscriptions to the game and the game has longevity. I have no idea what or how the model will be for Pantheon. I just hope that Pantheon has a longevity since I am eager to fork over subscription dollars even though I am a casual player and slow leveler. My pace is slow but I will fork over my subscription dollars if the content is enjoyable - regardless of how many others have already completed the content or have yet to complete the content. I believe so long as there are subscribers that all subscribers are equal. Note that consuming content is not the same as having content created.
antonius said:I love how it is always said that people have families and marriages and such now, and can no longer play a game for hours at a time compared to EQ. Did no married people play EQ? Did no one have children? I find it astonishing. It took me 3 years of EQ to hit 50. While I do not want that pace per se, I enjoyed myself for (most) of that time. I do not care that some people cannot play 6 hours, and some can play 20. I have a serious job and a real life, and ok...some days I will play for 6 hours, and then I might not play more than 1 for 2 weeks. I still want a long, enjoyable game that does not yield people being 50 in 2 weeks. Because, while it is all great and good to say you do not care about someone hitting the cap in 2 weeks, that kind of thing is deadly to the long term survival of a game. Once people are bored at the top, they stop playing and that is a death spiral. Further, if you can get to the top that fast, it usually means the "real" game is at the top only, and that is not the game I want to play.
I agree! when EQ came out I was married with two daughters and a full time job. All that stuff was more important than EQ. While EQ did become my only “hobbie” I could not camp a mob or be in a raid that lasted more than a couple of hours. Also my play style of wandering around to see what was behind that hill was not conducive to fast leveling. I have no records to boast of from EQ, though I did have my successeS. I look forward to exploring Terminus, one hill at a time.
During the first 10 years of EQ I played about 6 hours a day, starting after work. So the coffee company I liked made a lot of money. I was working at the time.
I don't work anymore, I'm retired. Well, I do, but its just a few hours a week for gas money and getting outside. So basically I will be playing a lot.
It took a long time to level back then. Most everyone was just wishing they could hurry up and get into the high 40s so they could join raids.
In vanilla EQ, as we got to 48-ish, we started showing up in Freeport when Fear raids were being organized, and some of those raids lasted quite a long time. If there was even a partial wipe they lasted much longer. By the time Hate went live, I was in a guild, and we started doing that as a guild quite a bit. Plus LGuk as groups, and some other things.
Those were very big raids (member count) and if you did second floor of Hate it could go 10-12 hours from the time you ported into the house to start the raid. Of course as we leveled up, the time went down a little, but not a whole lot.
Once Planes of Power expansion came out, we were raiding 3 or 4 times a week, with Sky being a two day raid sometimes if too many had to leave. So having no caravan system as VR has talked about, we just camped at a safe spot and reassembled the next day at a preset time.
This is partly why I've argued in favor of larger raid member count raids than VR is currently talking about. To be fair, EQ didn't much of anything like what it took to raid Fear before there was a Fear, really, other than Vox and Nagafen. And we didn't need all that many to do Lady Vox and just a few more for Lord Nagafen. But there is something epic about needing Wizards to port groups up to a plane until you had enough to do the raid, then port themselve up. And then needing all 72 or 60 raid members to succeed.
I don't think a 24-man raid is going to be anywhere as epic. Not to mention if a 72-person raid lost 8 people ("have to get up early for work") it could often proceed. But if you lose 8 people to RL (which is always more important) responsibilites from a 24-man raid you are dead in the water.
It will be interesting to see how it all scales out, because if anyone can make it work, the designers at VR and the testing process through pre-alpha, alpha, and beta will surely be able to work it out.
vjek said:Tanix said: ... So, it should take as EQ originally did, near 6 months to a year for the average casual gamer to reach max level in content before the expansion. ...Using say 1 hour a day, that means either ~180 or ~360 hours played to reach max level, based on your suggestion.
This also means that some players will be able to reach max level, playing 10-20 hours per day, "worst" case, in somewhere between 9 to 36 days. Is that ok, in your opinion?
If I remember right, back in early EQ, there was a guild of players who played a character 24 hours a day (they traded off who controlled the character) and then through guild based assistance (ie more than just 6 people playing, speciall pulling, exp tricks such as monk FD pass off, etc..), they were able to level a player to 49 in about 1-2 weeks.
So, it did happen back then, but it wasn't the norm. Am I ok with some people wasting effort to such? Sure... they can knock themselves out, but to what benefit? First, in order to achieve this they needed numerous high level players catering to PL'ing the character 24/7 to achieve it. To what benefit? If Pantheon is a group based game primarly (ie 6 man), and raid focus is a small percentage of play, then what purpose does it serve players to max out with such extreme effort? If they decide it is worth such, more power to them, but... here is the key... when they get to max level and they start complaining, the response should be one that points out they ruined their own play. The problem with SoE is that they began to cater to that small percentage of power gamers. If pantheon seeks that, they only need to state such and I will politely bow out as I have no desire to experience that progression I did with EQ.
So, again. I am ok with that, as those people won't be driving the game and to be honest will be deserving of a dunce hat for blowing through content in such a manner. As long as the game isn't designed to cater to them, we are good. They are the extreme, just like trying to cater to the guy who logs in once a week for an hour is not someone who should be given development focus. They are the extreme and can only harm the games development if they are catered to.
dorotea said:This is why some of us, while recognizing the Pantheon will be primarily a group game, want good solo content as well so people can play more than once a week as might be the case if they could only play when they had 2-3 hours of almost uninterrupted time in a row. People are more likely to drop the game if they cannot play most days. Good solo content meaning things to fight not just crafting or harvesting by oneself. Good solo content meaning the ability to improve gear and gain levels. Noting as I always try to that since we want people encouraged to group when they *can* group that grouping should give better gear and faster experience.
There should be no solo content (ie content designed for solo) in my opinon, like EQ (being a group focus game) rather solo play should not be penalized as this is the key to emergent game play. If you are able to find ways to achieve such, then this should be apluaded, not "nerfed" because you failed to meet the rigid design demands or because some other player threw a tantrum because you did not meet the letter of the "role" to which you were assigned.
As a monk, soloing was very difficult. I remember the last time I could solo as a monk was around level 36 (until later kunark/velious content that allowed it through gear) where I milked every aspect of my skills to gain exp. I would use Instill Doubt to fear kite the gnolls in South Karana. Combining this with mend and bind wound, I could through very careful and often random play, solo a blue conned gnoll to gain exceptable exp.
That content was not designed to be solo. Granted many mana based classes with special utility had better tools to achieve such, but even they had to be careful because it was not "designed" to be solo'd.
This is how in my opinion Pantheon should design content. If a player can solo such, good for them, but nowhere should content be "designed" to cater to soloing. In a game like EQ (spirit to which Pantheon is working after), solo content will have a negative effect. Let players find their solutions, don't make them for them.
antonius said:Once people are bored at the top, they stop playing and that is a death spiral.
Or worse, they throw epic tantrums and threaten through various claims to leave the game and take everyone with them if their demands are not met as some did with EQ which led to very unhealthy design decisions by the developers.
Malla said:I don't think a 24-man raid is going to be anywhere as epic. Not to mention if a 72-person raid lost 8 people ("have to get up early for work") it could often proceed. But if you lose 8 people to RL (which is always more important) responsibilites from a 24-man raid you are dead in the water.
It will be interesting to see how it all scales out, because if anyone can make it work, the designers at VR and the testing process through pre-alpha, alpha, and beta will surely be able to work it out.
I think it will be fine to be honest. LoTRO had 12 mans and there were times in the Rift where we lost a few people on the Balrog fight and still were able to handle it. Granted, the requirement for content deminishes, it is more difficult to handle it, but think about it, how many times did you do 6 man bosses with 3-4 by using clever tactics and methods? Even with lesser numbers, I think there will be a way, but this will depend on how much of a spread the provide in the skills and abilities of classes. If they force rubber stamped design, it will be more of an issue I think.
((There should be no solo content (ie content designed for solo) in my opinon))
The reasons I disagree are threefold.
Firstly I think that although this is intended to be a niche game the niche will be too small to be financially viable if all we get are people that are happy doing nothing but grouping - and when they don't have a few hours of uninterrupted time they don't play at all. Much better to aim for people that want a game where grouping is encouraged and rewarded more highly (that alone will differentiate Pantheon greatly from almost any other current MMO) but not the *only* way to gain levels and gear.
Secondly I consider getting new people that never played EQ - that perhaps never played *any* MMO other than WoW - that perhaps never played any MMO at all - to be critically important to Pantheon's success. People used to soloing can see that Pantheon gives better rewards for grouping and can learn to group. But this will *not* happen if the game is sink or swim and they cannot happily solo while seeing the better rewards that the "groupies" are getting. It also will not happen if they cannot start out playing half an hour here and an hour there and 15 minutes sometimes and jumping up in the middle without having to leave a group. Most gamers other than MMO players and even most MMO players are not used to sitting down for uninterrupted hour after hour - even if they have the time they don't want this and aren't used to it. Again, let them start on their own terms and get used to the idea over months of seeing that it is a viable way that some of us play. And if they never get used to it and never group their subscription money supports the game as much as mine does.
Thirdly and most importantly we have some people here that push for Pantheon to be the perfect blend of every game feature they want and none that they do not want. I think this is a *huge* blunder. The goal needs to be a game that is significantly better than anything out there now and almost any design feature that takes the game from perfect to very good but also increases the player base and makes the game likely to succeed and survive is the *right* decision even if I personally would have preferred a game that didn't have that decision made. As long as Pantheon is much better than what we have now I will eagerly trade away perfection for survival.
dorotea said:
((There should be no solo content (ie content designed for solo) in my opinon))
The reasons I disagree are threefold.
Firstly I think that although this is intended to be a niche game the niche will be too small to be financially viable if all we get are people that are happy doing nothing but grouping - and when they don't have a few hours of uninterrupted time they don't play at all. Much better to aim for people that want a game where grouping is encouraged and rewarded more highly (that alone will differentiate Pantheon greatly from almost any other current MMO) but not the *only* way to gain levels and gear.
This has been claimed many times, but what do you think in terms of subscribers is required to make this game successful? Do the math sometime and you might be surprised. 10K subscribers at 15 bucks a month is 150k a month. Again, that is 150k a month, not a year, but a month. Now how many people are designing Pantheon? I admit I have not kept up on it, last I checked it was around 11+, but even if it is 30 people, how much does that come out to in expenses per year? Go ahead, do estimates of varying value, consider internet hosting fees, etc… and you might be surprised it doesn’t hit that total of need you might be claiming. Now, consider that it is more likely that Pantheon due its features and design, will hold 50k subs. That I is now 750k a month, a month mind you.
The idea that a MMO needs millions of subs to be successful is bean counter Hollywood math by people who think in terms of ridiculous means because that is all they have ever experienced (ie big studios make 100’s of billions of dollars, so the numbers I mention are a loss in their eyes). So, what do you think a small studio who has built its product over time, paid for it over time (ie did not over borrow to extremes to produce it) requires to be successful?
Point is, this whole talk about how Pantheon “needs” mainstream to survive, is nothing more than.. a fallacy of an argument. The facts, the numbers say otherwise.
dorotea said:
Secondly I consider getting new people that never played EQ - that perhaps never played *any* MMO other than WoW - that perhaps never played any MMO at all - to be critically important to Pantheon's success. People used to soloing can see that Pantheon gives better rewards for grouping and can learn to group. But this will *not* happen if the game is sink or swim and they cannot happily solo while seeing the better rewards that the "groupies" are getting. It also will not happen if they cannot start out playing half an hour here and an hour there and 15 minutes sometimes and jumping up in the middle without having to leave a group. Most gamers other than MMO players and even most MMO players are not used to sitting down for uninterrupted hour after hour - even if they have the time they don't want this and aren't used to it. Again, let them start on their own terms and get used to the idea over months of seeing that it is a viable way that some of us play. And if they never get used to it and never group their subscription money supports the game as much as mine does.
I call that selling out. If you can not bring people to your design based on its merits, it means your design is bad. If your argument is that EQ as a game is bad, then my response is you are in the wrong game forum and have misunderstood the entire sell point of this game.
dorotea said:
Thirdly and most importantly we have some people here that push for Pantheon to be the perfect blend of every game feature they want and none that they do not want. I think this is a *huge* blunder. The goal needs to be a game that is significantly better than anything out there now and almost any design feature that takes the game from perfect to very good but also increases the player base and makes the game likely to succeed and survive is the *right* decision even if I personally would have preferred a game that didn't have that decision made. As long as Pantheon is much better than what we have now I will eagerly trade away perfection for survival.
A subjective argument that has little meaning.
What is significantly better? In my opinion, modern MMOs are actually behind that of games like EQ, a devolution of the genre. So we have an issue. What is better? What is worse? What is an improvement? Etc…
Fact is, this is all subjective. I like slow combat systems, very long term development, extreme harsh penalties, depth in systems, etc… Others may not like this, who is right? The answer is neither. They are different focuses in game play. So what is the solution?
Answer… Pantheon was created to serve the crowds who sought old EQ and Vanguard style of play, but at an approach to bring it into the modern day. Does modern day mean disregard all the elements that differs in those games from modern play only to make it a modern game? Nope… What it means is that it takes the old concept of design (long term development with slow progression, difficult content with extreme consequences, etc…) and applies modern packages through better interfaces, design features, etc…
From what you have described, many games out there already provide the elements of play you describe, I see no reason to add more pointless sound to the white noise of mainstream games.
In my mind, ideally the pace of leveling should be quite slow because the pace should also feel somewhat irrelevant due to the way the content and game is designed like old EQ. Maybe that's not the best way to phrase it...
I feel like, or at least hope, that every level has great adventures and interesting things to do. That interesting and useful items that might be usable for very long periods of time can be gotten from a wide variety of level ranges. This was one of my favorite things about EQ - that I didn't feel compelled to rush to level cap at release, because there was always money to be made or some interesting item to be sought during the journey. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if the journey is interesting enough, it won't feel like it matters that I've spent a week getting through level 33 because there was plenty to do and see there. In the end this boils down to "make the game just as much about the journey as the destination".
Rokuzachi said:In my mind, ideally the pace of leveling should be quite slow because the pace should also feel somewhat irrelevant due to the way the content and game is designed like old EQ. Maybe that's not the best way to phrase it...
I feel like, or at least hope, that every level has great adventures and interesting things to do. That interesting and useful items that might be usable for very long periods of time can be gotten from a wide variety of level ranges. This was one of my favorite things about EQ - that I didn't feel compelled to rush to level cap at release, because there was always money to be made or some interesting item to be sought during the journey. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that if the journey is interesting enough, it won't feel like it matters that I've spent a week getting through level 33 because there was plenty to do and see there. In the end this boils down to "make the game just as much about the journey as the destination".
Amen
Evade said: All this excitement for Pantheon has brought me back to EQ p1999. On December 15 I created my Chanter and have been going pretty hardcore. Even with all my knowledge of eq and 15+ years of playing MMOs I’m still only managed to get to lvl 49. I really hope Pantheon has a similar rate of progression. I’m tired of new age MMOs where you can get to cap in a matter of a couple days. Has anyone heard how Pantheon will work? What’s the level cap and have the devs mentioned what they’re aiming for in terms of time to cap?
I remember it taking me about 6-7 months to get to level 60 in EQ back in 2002-3. I was playing about 6 hours a day.
That was without a good guild. After I join a top raiding guild I could get the 5+5 levels they added in the following expansion in about 3 days or so.