Watemper,
That is something I have always thought about and it makes sense in terms of game play (ie scaling encounters if they go over the intended cap). Don't take that to mean that I like encounter scaling (I despise it), but as a mechanic to curb or make it much more difficult to defeat an encounter by bringing too many people, I think it works. It would discourage people who try to zerg in all cases except those who wanted the challenge. Other than that, there is no upside as loot should not be increased as the mechanic is really just a game play one of saying "Hey, this isn't meant for that many people".
As for the gear Watemper, just do the basic math on the amount of gear that will be introduced to the game with such a spawn cycle. If EQ had that, it would have had ENORMOUS effects on the game system and speed of progression. Remember that EQ was very gear dependent and guild progression was often a matter of getting your guild equipped to an extent before you could move on. Add in the fact that plat buying is openly accepted these days and it will be rampant that people buy their way through the game.
The math says that items will saturate the game very quickly and raid gear should be very rare, very difficult to obtain, not like it was in WoW where everyone could get the gear if they had the skill to beat the encounter. With EQ's old system, you had to:
1) Get there before another.
2) Be skilled enough to kill it.
3) Hope it drops the item you seek.
4) Wait 7 more days to try again.
By the basic math, it will flood the game in weeks which took EQ months or more for even a small amount of players to achieve. This is was why raid gear was so precious in EQ and pretty much common garbage in games like WoW.
oneADseven,
Encounter locking isn't the answer though, as watemper brought up, you can simply design encounters to scale if they go over the cap. This solves the issue without having the blatant in your face mechanic.
I want to kinda say this is not how it was at all .......
1) Get there before another. > No encounters where either on a rotation or camped.
2) Be skilled enough to kill it. > All content is this way , regardless of the system used. In fact with a locking system , it is easier to balance content to what the original design was intended to be . This coupled with the fact , the encounters themselves can not be monopolized flat out.
3) Hope it drops the item you seek. > Rng has nothing to do with this ... in fact , you might not even get the item if it did drop .....
4) Wait 7 more days to try again. > True, but you more then likely had a rotation on the server. If not you where probably being locked out of content and unable to experience it.
That is how eq was in reality for a comparison.
Tanix said:
oneADseven,
Encounter locking isn't the answer though, as watemper brought up, you can simply design encounters to scale if they go over the cap. This solves the issue without having the blatant in your face mechanic.
It's interesting you bring this up. It's a nice theory, but also one that has major flaws. Let's consider a few things to add context:
1) Meaningful Death Penalty
2) Unlocked Encounters
3) Open World
4) Risk vs Reward
Beyond all that, let's also consider that Watemper's explanation actually utilizes encounter locking. (He mentions that multiple times. His explanation likely uses encounter locking to prevent the issues I'm about to get into below.) But let's take things a step further and imagine dynamic encounter scaling without locking.
We're looking at a "12 man raid" encounter. A team of 12 players decides they want to engage it, and they do. All the while, another team of 12 players wants to engage it, and they do. Is there some sort of expectation that the encounter will now "scale" to the same difficulty of a 24 man encounter? That should be the goal, right? We know the game will have 12 man encounters. We know the game will have 24 man encounters. If you engage a 12 man encounter with 24 players, it should then be roughly equal to the difficulty of a 24 man encounter. This is where things get tricky. Instead of having a 24 man raid working together, they are competing. They aren't following the same strategy. They aren't on the same page. Both teams are vying for the same resource. What if one team is really bad? Is the encounter supposed to dynamically adjust to player skill? Is the original 12 man raid supposed to take on that burden and carry the extra weight? What if the second team is ... purposely bad? As in ... they engage the encounter, but have no intention of actually beating it? Wouldn't this be introducing a new griefing mechanic? Engaging an encounter to cause it to scale, but without having the intention of contributing in a positive way? Or even if they do have the intention ... again, what if they are really bad? What if it's 12 clerics? Or 12 level 1 alts that are camped at this location for the sole purpose of causing encounter scaling? Or 12 monks that engage and then feign death? Over and over again? What if it's 37 random people (none of them are grouped) who just want to zerghump because why not?
Encounter scaling is generally used in games that have personal loot systems. As long as you attack the mob you get your update and you get a chance at the loot. I don't want to see a personal loot system in this game. It would remind me eerily of the multi-tagging system that WoW currently uses. When I played FFXIV they had a similar system. The open-world bosses were big "events" that anybody and everybody could participate in. They were basically zerg fests. Everybody would attack ... kite the mob around, people would die. It was chaos. In the end ... the rewards were really gimp, as they should be. The content wasn't challenging. It was a snooze fest that rewarded people for pressing a couple buttons. VR has mentioned a couple forms of potential encounter scaling in the past. If too many people engage ... bosses will run away. Or they will summon powerful adds. Again, let's consider what this means. Players would be able to force bosses to flee just by showing up. A 12 man raid is fighting a boss ... they get it down to 30% ... they are low on resources. Second raid team is sure that the boss is going to die so they engage it and cause it to flee. That's worse than KS'ing. Encounter scaling just doesn't work without a personal loot system. I'm not a fan of personal loot systems for a variety of reasons but that's an entirely different topic. Encounter scaling could never be "tuned" the same way as legitimate raid sizes. Using that mechanic would literally squeeze the life out of the fine tuning and balancing that is necessary for truly challenging content.
oneADseven said:Tanix said:
oneADseven,
Encounter locking isn't the answer though, as watemper brought up, you can simply design encounters to scale if they go over the cap. This solves the issue without having the blatant in your face mechanic.
It's interesting you bring this up. It's a nice theory, but also one that has major flaws. Let's consider a few things to add context:
1) Meaningful Death Penalty
2) Unlocked Encounters
3) Open World
4) Risk vs Reward
Beyond all that, let's also consider that Watemper's explanation actually utilizes encounter locking. (He mentions that multiple times. His explanation likely uses encounter locking to prevent the issues I'm about to get into below.) But let's take things a step further and imagine dynamic encounter scaling without locking.
We're looking at a "12 man raid" encounter. A team of 12 players decides they want to engage it, and they do. All the while, another team of 12 players wants to engage it, and they do. Is there some sort of expectation that the encounter will now "scale" to the same difficulty of a 24 man encounter? That should be the goal, right? We know the game will have 12 man encounters. We know the game will have 24 man encounters. If you engage a 12 man encounter with 24 players, it should then be roughly equal to the difficulty of a 24 man encounter. This is where things get tricky. Instead of having a 24 man raid working together, they are competing. They aren't following the same strategy. They aren't on the same page. Both teams are vying for the same resource. What if one team is really bad? Is the encounter supposed to dynamically adjust to player skill? Is the original 12 man raid supposed to take on that burden and carry the extra weight? What if the second team is ... purposely bad? As in ... they engage the encounter, but have no intention of actually beating it? Wouldn't this be introducing a new griefing mechanic? Engaging an encounter to cause it to scale, but without having the intention of contributing in a positive way? Or even if they do have the intention ... again, what if they are really bad? What if it's 12 clerics? Or 12 level 1 alts that are camped at this location for the sole purpose of causing encounter scaling? Or 12 monks that engage and then feign death? Over and over again?
Encounter scaling is generally used in games that have personal loot systems. As long as you attack the mob you get your update and you get a chance at the loot. I don't want to see a personal loot system in this game. It would remind me eerily of the multi-tagging system that WoW currently uses. When I played FFXIV they had a similar system. The open-world bosses were big "events" that anybody and everybody could participate in. They were basically zerg fests. Everybody would attack ... kite the mob around, people would die. It was chaos. In the end ... the rewards were really gimp, as they should be. The content wasn't challenging. It was a snooze fest that rewarded people for pressing a couple buttons. VR has mentioned a couple forms of potential encounter scaling in the past. If too many people engage ... bosses will run away. Or they will summon powerful adds. Again, let's consider what this means. Players would be able to force bosses to flee just by showing up. A 12 man raid is fighting a boss ... they get it down to 30% ... they are low on resources. Second raid team is sure that the boss is going to die so they engage it and cause it to flee. That's worse than KS'ing. Encounter scaling just doesn't work without a personal loot system. I'm not a fan of personal loot systems for a variety of reasons but that's an entirely different topic. Encounter scaling could never be "tuned" the same way as legitimate raid sizes. Using that mechanic would literally squeeze the life out of the fine tuning and balancing that is necessary for truly challenging content.
None of these were major problems in EQ though. Not seeing your issue here.
If you attack a raids mob as another guild, it isn't going to end well. Likely you will be black listed as a guild if you don't get booted by a GM.
I think the problem here is you have a FFXI mentality and have no concept of EQ.
Encounter scaling and personal loot systems sound good, in theory, if you want to promote "social interactions" at the expense of challenging content. It's worth noting, though, that this has "Dungeon Finder" written all over it. Once upon a time that sounded like a great idea too. Players would be linked up and teleport to each other and not have to worry about hassle or tedium. They could just get right to the nitty gritty and bang out those dungeons. It's the same thing with open world encounter scaling and personal loot. Planning and coordination gets flushed down the toilet. When a raid boss spawns ... it's announced in /ooc ... everybody bumrushes it and zergs it down. Encounter scaling just doesn't offer the kind of tuning and balancing that restricted raid sizes do. Would we expect the development team to custom tailor 88 versions of 12 man encounters so that they are consistently challenging all the way up to 100 players? It just doesn't work that way. There are too many variables at play ... too many unknowns, too many conflicts. It always results in the same thing ... some watered down piece of content that gives out participation medals. I'm not aware of any game that has ever pulled off open world encounter scaling while still adhering to the kind of tenets that a game like Pantheon is founded upon. If someone is aware of such a game I would like to learn more.
I think the real problem here is that you have a 1999 mentality. It was already old when I played EQOA (same "concept" as EQ ... unlimited raid size ... DPS racing ... zerging ... horrible emergent gameplay that is considered an exploit in current times) in 2003 and FFXI in 2004. Times have changed. If people want to band together and have a 1999 server in Pantheon I think that would be great. At the end of the day, though, people are wrong if they think that way is the "right" way. That isn't how social constructs work. Call it a golden standard or reasonable play or whatever you want. I challenge you on that and call it bogus. I say my social construct will trump yours, please do something about it. I don't mean this literally ... but please understand that a lot of gamers will have that mentality. It would be incredibly naive to think that everybody is going to magically play nice in a modern open world MMO. Are you 100% convinced that there are more green army men than tan army men? That the tan army men will be splintered into extinction rather than uniting and coming back twice as strong? If there aren't official rules in place ... with official punishments for offenders ... you're in big trouble. Internet gaming isn't brand new anymore. It's way more accessible than it was 20 years ago. If you're expecting community enforcement to curb kill-stealing, zerging, griefing, etc ... I hope you're playing on a PVP server. Otherwise you should probably accept that you have a target on your back and that the "killer personality" from the Bartle Study is actively going to seek you out. Even if there is an unofficial 1999 server in Pantheon ... I guarantee you'd see people showing up there with the sole intention of defying your laws.
Personal loot?
Nope.
The scaling is merely to detour zerging, not reward it. In my example, loot will be the same. So, if the raid is set for 12 with 3 loot that drops, and you bring 100, the raid will get enormously difficult for 100 people (likely even impossible if the mechanics are designed well), you still get 3 loot. Remember, zerging the encounter past what it was designed for isn't going to be reward, even though it may be much harder that the initial design.
So there is no benefit for people zerging it.
EQOA was a console game and specifically designed for console players. Many of mainstream ideas were put into that game, it isn't EQ, it never was. While kids were mostly playing EQOA, adults were playing EQ. You keep telling me how "social constructs" are supposed to work, but we already concluded that your Asian MMO idea of "social construct" isn't what I would consider very social, so we can avoid you phrasing your opinion on such as if it was a written rule.
Tanix said:oneADseven said:Tanix said:
oneADseven,
Encounter locking isn't the answer though, as watemper brought up, you can simply design encounters to scale if they go over the cap. This solves the issue without having the blatant in your face mechanic.
It's interesting you bring this up. It's a nice theory, but also one that has major flaws. Let's consider a few things to add context:
1) Meaningful Death Penalty
2) Unlocked Encounters
3) Open World
4) Risk vs Reward
Beyond all that, let's also consider that Watemper's explanation actually utilizes encounter locking. (He mentions that multiple times. His explanation likely uses encounter locking to prevent the issues I'm about to get into below.) But let's take things a step further and imagine dynamic encounter scaling without locking.
We're looking at a "12 man raid" encounter. A team of 12 players decides they want to engage it, and they do. All the while, another team of 12 players wants to engage it, and they do. Is there some sort of expectation that the encounter will now "scale" to the same difficulty of a 24 man encounter? That should be the goal, right? We know the game will have 12 man encounters. We know the game will have 24 man encounters. If you engage a 12 man encounter with 24 players, it should then be roughly equal to the difficulty of a 24 man encounter. This is where things get tricky. Instead of having a 24 man raid working together, they are competing. They aren't following the same strategy. They aren't on the same page. Both teams are vying for the same resource. What if one team is really bad? Is the encounter supposed to dynamically adjust to player skill? Is the original 12 man raid supposed to take on that burden and carry the extra weight? What if the second team is ... purposely bad? As in ... they engage the encounter, but have no intention of actually beating it? Wouldn't this be introducing a new griefing mechanic? Engaging an encounter to cause it to scale, but without having the intention of contributing in a positive way? Or even if they do have the intention ... again, what if they are really bad? What if it's 12 clerics? Or 12 level 1 alts that are camped at this location for the sole purpose of causing encounter scaling? Or 12 monks that engage and then feign death? Over and over again?
Encounter scaling is generally used in games that have personal loot systems. As long as you attack the mob you get your update and you get a chance at the loot. I don't want to see a personal loot system in this game. It would remind me eerily of the multi-tagging system that WoW currently uses. When I played FFXIV they had a similar system. The open-world bosses were big "events" that anybody and everybody could participate in. They were basically zerg fests. Everybody would attack ... kite the mob around, people would die. It was chaos. In the end ... the rewards were really gimp, as they should be. The content wasn't challenging. It was a snooze fest that rewarded people for pressing a couple buttons. VR has mentioned a couple forms of potential encounter scaling in the past. If too many people engage ... bosses will run away. Or they will summon powerful adds. Again, let's consider what this means. Players would be able to force bosses to flee just by showing up. A 12 man raid is fighting a boss ... they get it down to 30% ... they are low on resources. Second raid team is sure that the boss is going to die so they engage it and cause it to flee. That's worse than KS'ing. Encounter scaling just doesn't work without a personal loot system. I'm not a fan of personal loot systems for a variety of reasons but that's an entirely different topic. Encounter scaling could never be "tuned" the same way as legitimate raid sizes. Using that mechanic would literally squeeze the life out of the fine tuning and balancing that is necessary for truly challenging content.
None of these were major problems in EQ though. Not seeing your issue here.
If you attack a raids mob as another guild, it isn't going to end well. Likely you will be black listed as a guild if you don't get booted by a GM.
I think the problem here is you have a FFXI mentality and have no concept of EQ.
He might not , but I do . Eq was and still is one of the most amazing games. I still play it to this day .. with that being said . It is and has always been fundementally broken in aspects and this is honestly , one of them.
There where not major problems in eq ? WHAT ? In eq we locked down a plane to intentionally prevent a guild from getting into time. Lets not start to get into wizard lock down groups , or the fact a single group of people where capable of out dpsing a entire raid if there a plane or two ahead in content. This allows them to prevent a players progression , not because the players are unable to do the content but simply because there bored and do not want the players to complete the progression and advance.. That is piss poor game design , when I have the ability to stop you from even attempting to progress that is griefing on a entirely new level.
If you attack a raid mob as another guild , it isn't going to end well ? Likely you will be black listed ... who cares , you are expecting guilds to have the same social dynamic that you value and on the other hand are expecting guilds to compete fairly , this system does that simply put ... This is not 1999 EQ this is Pantheon ! Most guilds that are competitive will only care about the end results ie a raid kill. You want to talk about challenge and intended game design , yet seem to want a "loop hole" that can be exploited.
Also if theres no rules violation , why does a GM get involved in the first place? The entire point is that there is never a need for them to get involved in the first place ... you know they can go do real GM stuff like help that skar that's stuck in a tree or something since encounters are locked there is no issue from the start.
Tanix said:EQOA was a console game and specifically designed for console players. Many of mainstream ideas were put into that game, it isn't EQ, it never was. While kids were mostly playing EQOA, adults were playing EQ. You keep telling me how "social constructs" are supposed to work, but we already concluded that your Asian MMO idea of "social construct" isn't what I would consider very social, so we can avoid you phrasing your opinion on such as if it was a written rule.
You really don't get it. My entire point is that there will be, and always will be, other social constructs that run directly counter to your own. Nobody cares if you like it or if you're willing to approve. I'm not claiming anything to be a "written rule" as much as I am saying that these constructs will exist ... without your permission, acceptance, or blessing. You may not enjoy the company of kids ... or Asians ... or 100 different other types of people. Good luck with that in an open world modern MMO.
Xxar said:Tanix said:oneADseven said:Tanix said:
oneADseven,
Encounter locking isn't the answer though, as watemper brought up, you can simply design encounters to scale if they go over the cap. This solves the issue without having the blatant in your face mechanic.
It's interesting you bring this up. It's a nice theory, but also one that has major flaws. Let's consider a few things to add context:
1) Meaningful Death Penalty
2) Unlocked Encounters
3) Open World
4) Risk vs Reward
Beyond all that, let's also consider that Watemper's explanation actually utilizes encounter locking. (He mentions that multiple times. His explanation likely uses encounter locking to prevent the issues I'm about to get into below.) But let's take things a step further and imagine dynamic encounter scaling without locking.
We're looking at a "12 man raid" encounter. A team of 12 players decides they want to engage it, and they do. All the while, another team of 12 players wants to engage it, and they do. Is there some sort of expectation that the encounter will now "scale" to the same difficulty of a 24 man encounter? That should be the goal, right? We know the game will have 12 man encounters. We know the game will have 24 man encounters. If you engage a 12 man encounter with 24 players, it should then be roughly equal to the difficulty of a 24 man encounter. This is where things get tricky. Instead of having a 24 man raid working together, they are competing. They aren't following the same strategy. They aren't on the same page. Both teams are vying for the same resource. What if one team is really bad? Is the encounter supposed to dynamically adjust to player skill? Is the original 12 man raid supposed to take on that burden and carry the extra weight? What if the second team is ... purposely bad? As in ... they engage the encounter, but have no intention of actually beating it? Wouldn't this be introducing a new griefing mechanic? Engaging an encounter to cause it to scale, but without having the intention of contributing in a positive way? Or even if they do have the intention ... again, what if they are really bad? What if it's 12 clerics? Or 12 level 1 alts that are camped at this location for the sole purpose of causing encounter scaling? Or 12 monks that engage and then feign death? Over and over again?
Encounter scaling is generally used in games that have personal loot systems. As long as you attack the mob you get your update and you get a chance at the loot. I don't want to see a personal loot system in this game. It would remind me eerily of the multi-tagging system that WoW currently uses. When I played FFXIV they had a similar system. The open-world bosses were big "events" that anybody and everybody could participate in. They were basically zerg fests. Everybody would attack ... kite the mob around, people would die. It was chaos. In the end ... the rewards were really gimp, as they should be. The content wasn't challenging. It was a snooze fest that rewarded people for pressing a couple buttons. VR has mentioned a couple forms of potential encounter scaling in the past. If too many people engage ... bosses will run away. Or they will summon powerful adds. Again, let's consider what this means. Players would be able to force bosses to flee just by showing up. A 12 man raid is fighting a boss ... they get it down to 30% ... they are low on resources. Second raid team is sure that the boss is going to die so they engage it and cause it to flee. That's worse than KS'ing. Encounter scaling just doesn't work without a personal loot system. I'm not a fan of personal loot systems for a variety of reasons but that's an entirely different topic. Encounter scaling could never be "tuned" the same way as legitimate raid sizes. Using that mechanic would literally squeeze the life out of the fine tuning and balancing that is necessary for truly challenging content.
None of these were major problems in EQ though. Not seeing your issue here.
If you attack a raids mob as another guild, it isn't going to end well. Likely you will be black listed as a guild if you don't get booted by a GM.
I think the problem here is you have a FFXI mentality and have no concept of EQ.
He might not , but I do . Eq was and still is one of the most amazing games. I still play it to this day .. with that being said . It is and has always been fundementally broken in aspects and this is honestly , one of them.
There where not major problems in eq ? WHAT ? In eq we locked down a plane to intentionally prevent a guild from getting into time. Lets not start to get into wizard lock down groups , or the fact a single group of people where capable of out dpsing a entire raid if there a plane or two ahead in content. This allows them to prevent a players progression , not because the players are unable to do the content but simply because there bored and do not want the players to complete the progression and advance.. That is piss poor game design , when I have the ability to stop you from even attempting to progress that is griefing on a entirely new level.
If you attack a raid mob as another guild , it isn't going to end well ? Likely you will be black listed ... who cares , you are expecting guilds to have the same social dynamic that you value and on the other hand are expecting guilds to compete fairly , this system does that simply put ... This is not 1999 EQ this is Pantheon ! Most guilds that are competitive will only care about the end results ie a raid kill. You want to talk about challenge and intended game design , yet seem to want a "loop hole" that can be exploited.
Also if theres no rules violation , why does a GM get involved in the first place? The entire point is that there is never a need for them to get involved in the first place ... you know they can go do real GM stuff like help that skar that's stuck in a tree or something since encounters are locked there is no issue from the start.
I said those were not major problems, not that there were not major problems in EQ.
Your examples were later EQ, not release EQ. Also consider that PoP was not prime EQ, in fact... it is considered the point that EQ sold the farm and became a garbage mainstream MMO. The "golden era" of EQ was Verant EQ (ie EQ, Kunark, Velious). While problems existed in EQ, the bulk of problems were around SoL on...
If VR does not deal with issues as it did in EQ concerning play violations, then you might as well call Pantheon "Eve Online". The fact is, the threat that if they don't mainsttream the game, people are going to abuse things is really pushing it (there will be abuses, but this "the world is ending" is a bit far fetched. Community policing will have a large effect, and them having a policy similar to EQ can remedy the major offenses (people coming in and trying to zerg an encounter while another guild is attempting it).
I know that most of the EQ players I played with, think the tactics of interfering with another guild while they are fighting is not "competitive", it is a bunch of low life griefers hiding behind PvE and using immature behavior as a claim of normality. That behavior may have happend in later EQ when most of the player base left (many of the good guilds who got tired of the crap SoE design catering to idiot guilds who were the largest instigators of PvE griefing).
If Pantheon is pulling back in the older community, focusing on attending to that niche, while there will be problems, the idea that everyone is going to act like mainstream MMO players and zerg, harrass, and the like is a bit much.
Tanix said:If Pantheon is pulling back in the older community, focusing on attending to that niche, while there will be problems, the idea that everyone is going to act like mainstream MMO players and zerg, harrass, and the like is a bit much.
Per the FAQ:
1.1 Who is the targeted player (demographic) base for this game, and why?
While some MMOs have been designed with the goal and desire to appeal to all gamers, all of the time, we at Visionary Realms believe the future of MMOs is all about making more focused games, targeting specific gamers with distinct preferences. Pantheon is first and foremost a deeply social game. Players who desire cooperative play, working together as a team, and the shared experiences that result from playing with other real people to overcome challenges will enjoy Pantheon. Players who want an MMO to be their home and to interact with communities and player-driven economies will find what they are looking for in Pantheon. Why? We feel that, at least recently, the MMO players who enjoy these elements have been orphaned. In fact, the Visionary Realms team feels they are part of this orphaned group. And it doesn’t take a lot of research to find countless articles, blogs, and posts full of players looking for the kind of experience we aim to offer in Pantheon.
Absolutely not. There are many younger players out there who enjoy cooperative and social play. They love playing PC and console games, regardless of genre, with their friends and against the game’s AI. When these younger gamers play Pantheon, they’ll find that cooperative play, but in a lasting, persistent, and content-rich virtual world. Millions of players have been exposed to massively multiplayer games in the last 15+ years. So, while we’re not trying to appeal to everyone, Pantheon will attract a large group of gamers, both young and old.
oneADseven said:
Tanix said:
If Pantheon is pulling back in the older community, focusing on attending to that niche, while there will be problems, the idea that everyone is going to act like mainstream MMO players and zerg, harrass, and the like is a bit much.
Per the FAQ:
1.1 Who is the targeted player (demographic) base for this game, and why?
While some MMOs have been designed with the goal and desire to appeal to all gamers, all of the time, we at Visionary Realms believe the future of MMOs is all about making more focused games, targeting specific gamers with distinct preferences. Pantheon is first and foremost a deeply social game. Players who desire cooperative play, working together as a team, and the shared experiences that result from playing with other real people to overcome challenges will enjoy Pantheon. Players who want an MMO to be their home and to interact with communities and player-driven economies will find what they are looking for in Pantheon. Why? We feel that, at least recently, the MMO players who enjoy these elements have been orphaned. In fact, the Visionary Realms team feels they are part of this orphaned group. And it doesn’t take a lot of research to find countless articles, blogs, and posts full of players looking for the kind of experience we aim to offer in Pantheon.
Absolutely not. There are many younger players out there who enjoy cooperative and social play. They love playing PC and console games, regardless of genre, with their friends and against the game’s AI. When these younger gamers play Pantheon, they’ll find that cooperative play, but in a lasting, persistent, and content-rich virtual world. Millions of players have been exposed to massively multiplayer games in the last 15+ years. So, while we’re not trying to appeal to everyone, Pantheon will attract a large group of gamers, both young and old.
Not sure your point. They are stating that gamers today have been orphaned by modern game design attending to mainstream concepts. If you actually read all of the FAQ and Tenants, it is pretty clear what they are aiming at in terms of play focus. You are simply picking and choosing and inferring as you like to support your position.
Who do you think are the people who complained the most about MMOs today? Are you honestly going to tell me it is mainstreamers who are the ones who demand all the modern designs of MMOs to be the ones who are complaining about the design? It is the older gamers who complained, those who long for the days of old MMOs where the games didn't have all the modern gimmicks (and some who understand that maistream design isn’t gaming, it is entertainment).
What they are saying is they are building off the base of those older game designs and bringing them up to modern tech so the mainstream players of today, who have not experienced this can experience what older gamers of the past had.
If we apply all the design suggestions you and some people here make, what we get is another modern MMO with all the designs and constraints that exist in modern MMOs, but with a few old concepts.
The problem is, EQ wasn't just about those key aspects, it was a culmination of many subtle elements and if you remove all those to cater to modern "convenience", you will end up with yet.. another... mainstream MMO.
How do I know this? Because I watched the rinse and repeat arguments MMO after MMO over the last two decades with people like you going on about how if they didn't change this, or put this in, or restrict that... the game would tank.
Here is my prediction. IF they put in everything some of you want, the game will not tank, it will be a resounding success, just as most MMOs are in their early releases. Then over time as the locusts eat through the game, they will drop it and go after another MMO. Will Pantheon survive? Sure.. just like all the other gimmick MMOs out there do. It is the same garbage you see on the sites like MMORPG.com. They all praise an MMO, go on and on about how it needs all these "modern" designs and conveniences, then.. it releases, they all complain and move to the next game.
Pantheon when it was first Kickstarted, you had only a small subset of supporters who wanted the MMOs of the past. In fact, the early forums were pretty much in agreement on most concepts of play... until... over time... the game progressed and the graphics got better. The people on some of the MMO sites in the beginning downed this game, called it a loser, would never be made, looked ugly and loudly and arrogantly proclaimed the game and its tenants a failure because it was stuck in the past.
Now, those most of those same people praise the game, and Pantheon is near number 2 or 1 often by the same mass of people who downed the game before.
These same people who are now making the same claims as they did when they were downing the game, but now they are excited about it, but still demanding it be mainstream in design (or the game will fail).
If they get what they want, this game will be yet another in a long list of garbage because it is what they want which is exactly what has continued to kill these games over the years.
If you don't see the correlation of my response and the message I quoted from you, and how that relates to my last couple posts on this page, it is what it is. I think the target demographic is much bigger than you think. As long as VR sticks to their game tenets, Pantheon will be an incredible game. There is no hidden tenet that stipulates they must emulate EQ as often as possible. I'm not going to break things down any further for you. My stance has been consistent since I started posting on this thread on page 4. I think zerging is garbage. Eliminating that isn't a "modern design convenience." It's just common sense for a game like this. I have spelled out my rationale multiple times and it extends to kill-stealing and malicious training. I agree to disagree with you. Best of luck to you and yours.
oneADseven said:If you don't see the correlation of my response and the message I quoted from you, and how that relates to my last couple posts on this page, it is what it is. I think the target demographic is much bigger than you think. As long as VR sticks to their game tenets, Pantheon will be an incredible game. There is no hidden tenet that stipulates they must emulate EQ as often as possible. I'm not going to break things down any further for you. My stance has been consistent since I started posting on this thread on page 4. I think zerging is garbage. Eliminating that isn't a "modern design convenience." It's just common sense for a game like this. I have spelled out my rationale multiple times and it extends to kill-stealing and malicious training. I agree to disagree with you. Best of luck to you and yours.
If that is so, then everything they said when they were initially designing the game has changed. That is, they were talking about their vision, how they weren't chasing "crowds", but delivering specifically to a certain goal and they were more than willing to accept the consequences of such (Brad talked about how with a small subset of subscribers they could still be very successful due to the fact that they weren't bank rolling with massive investors and front loading their expenses).
You have been clear on your position, it is a common one I saw in games like FFXI and I was very clear with you that you and I would never agree on things because your view is exactly what I disliked about those MMOs.
My only hope is they do not listen to your points (I read your arguments in exp chains, another feature I dispised about FFXI), that they hold to the old concepts of what made a game like EQ work, that they take the successful elements of VG (before it was destroyed by SoE mainstreaming), and consider the lessons learned with modern MMOs to help avoid those problems. If they do to some reasonable extent, I may enjoy this game and hold to it like I did to EQ for years. If they put too much mainstream in it and they already have put many things that make me cringe (ie color coded quest chat bouncing balls for example), I may pass on this game realizing that times change, people change, and the past sometimes just gets misunderstood.
Time will tell, but I can tell you without a doubt, I want nothing to do with the game you want, absolutely nothing.
Tanix said:My only hope is they do not listen to your points (I read your arguments in exp chains, another feature I dispised about FFXI), that they hold to the old concepts of what made a game like EQ work, that they take the successful elements of VG (before it was destroyed by SoE mainstreaming), and consider the lessons learned with modern MMOs to help avoid those problems. If they do to some reasonable extent, I may enjoy this game and hold to it like I did to EQ for years. If they put too much mainstream in it and they already have put many things that make me cringe (ie color coded quest chat bouncing balls for example), I may pass on this game realizing that times change, people change, and the past sometimes just gets misunderstood.
There are plenty of people who feel the same way you do. They don't want "points to be considered" -- they want the same sounds in their echo chamber to continue reverberating. It's been that way for a long time and that's why these kind of comments pop up:
"The problem I have with pantheon is that it is way more favoring the designs and biases of the everquest crowd (somewhat expected considering Brad). The community there is practically hostile towards ffxi players and pretty much anything that deviates from their ideal of everquest even in the slightest amounts.
I know this from experience as I used to be pretty active there but I grew tired of dealing with their crap.
It still seem like the closest thing to a modern offering like older ffxi so I will probably still try it. I just have lost a lot of faith that even being as close as it is to my wants, that it will truly be a new mmo home for me."
As well as:
"Yeah, several people including myself were there from the ffxi community and several/many of the eq fans would repeatedly spout false information about ffxi trying to discredit it from discussion. Despite the fact that I am looking for all of the "tent poles" or w/e they're called of pantheon (basically the primary points of the game) I was basically told again and again that the game wasn't for me even though I frequently agreed (and more importantly, agreed on underlying goals) on much of the topics of discussion."
These comments are from years ago and unfortunately the culture hasn't changed all that much. There are a bunch of people who quit posting or lost interest in general because they were tired of being viewed as outsiders. I think that's a shame. I think the "target demographic" has been clearly defined and that FFXI players are just as much a part of it as EQ players. FFXI was inspired by EQ. It literally used EQ as a foundation to build from ... but then they changed a few things. They eliminated zerging. They eliminated kill-stealing. They alleviated malicious training and the advantages of multi-boxing / power leveling. To suggest that FFXI was a mainstream game ... it's laughable. FFXI was an oldschool hardcore MMORPG cut from the same cloth of EQ.
In the end, your stance is not new. It's fearmongering. You like to use trigger words. I think a lot of people "try" to use logic in their arguments, but in the end, humans will almost always resort to instinct or emotion ... and then justify it in the end, no matter what that looks like. People like to use extremes. They claim that if any one of X amount of things happen ... Pantheon will be absolute garbage. Any deviation from EQ is one giant leap toward the next mainstream gimmick MMO. There is no creativity ... no room for improvement, no chance to evolve. Just fear of the unknown that has people tucking away to their private little safe space. This is why I base my arguments around game tenets or underlying principles and values.
Would XP Chains have a positive impact on the core values of the game? As someone who places an extremely high value on the tenets ... because they represent the "magic" that I miss from oldshcool MMO's ... yes, I think they would, and I speak from experience. Would encounter locking do the same? Absolutely. These things might be foreign or even taboo to some ... but they sure as hell aren't "mainstream convenience." You know what zerging is? Old convenience. Once upon a time there was an era where developers weren't able to maintain a firm grip on their world and ensure that it was cheese proof. Players were able to take advantage of the lack of structure ... they could zerg "unkillable content" (Sleeper?) -- bards could quad kite challenging NPC's by themselves (instead of being available as the ultimate synergist in groups ... the role their class was designed for) -- monks could flop their way through dungeons or drop train bombs on other players.
VR has gone out of their way to say that they aren't interested in building another emulator. They understand, without a doubt, that there are a variety of "issues" with EQ that they do not want to bring back. I'm not going to pretend to know their exact thought process on that matter but I am content with connecting the dots and trying to understand. I'm fine with breaking down systems/features/mechanics and then asking questions. Do these things make the game more fun, social, or challenging? Every now and then I get lucky enough to hear some on-topic responses that really address whatever is being discussed. For the most part, though, I have to endure the vibe from those two phrases I quoted from the beginning of this post. Nothing new, nothing special. Most people don't have the patience to deal with that kind of nonsense but I do. Sorry for the inconvenience. Multi-box Armies. Power-Leveling. Zerging. Old Convenience.
oneADseven said:Tanix said:My only hope is they do not listen to your points (I read your arguments in exp chains, another feature I dispised about FFXI), that they hold to the old concepts of what made a game like EQ work, that they take the successful elements of VG (before it was destroyed by SoE mainstreaming), and consider the lessons learned with modern MMOs to help avoid those problems. If they do to some reasonable extent, I may enjoy this game and hold to it like I did to EQ for years. If they put too much mainstream in it and they already have put many things that make me cringe (ie color coded quest chat bouncing balls for example), I may pass on this game realizing that times change, people change, and the past sometimes just gets misunderstood.
There are plenty of people who feel the same way you do. They don't want "points to be considered" -- they want the same sounds in their echo chamber to continue reverberating.
Considered? What you seem to not understand is that for over two decades many of us have been doing is "considering" those arguments and each time, your arguments were implemented into the game, the game was turned into a steaming pile of garbage. We have considerded, more than considered and we have a massive industry of MMOs where that consideration has been put to the front.
No more. I know I am personally done considering the same implementations that have been basically put in over these two decades. This ins't my first rodeo, I wasn't a kid when EQ came out (or when the first MMOs came out for that matter), I have no "nostalgic" view of the past and I personally have much more detailed and technical understanding of gaming and computers than the average gamer, not to mention I have been a gaming hobbiest for over 40+ years.
Nothing you are presenting is new, or some special kind of reasoning that I haven't seen implemented in some fashion over the years. I know what you want, I know what it produces and I have no desire for it.
What I can't understand is why you people come to games like this and then demand they cater to a completely different focus. If the designer of FFXI was coming out with a new game to try and recapture the magic of FFXI, even if I had no game available, you wouldn't see me running to that game claiming it should be like EQ, yet.. I see many people making arguments for games that had nothing to do with EQ, constantly asking for the game to be developed with those ideas in mind.
We have tons of games out there with the mechanics you want. They have compettive spawn games, Encounter locking, multiple xp based arcade gimmicks, etc... Why do we need yet another game to fail implementing those same ideas? Go play those numerous mainstream games, they will provide you everything you seek.
oneADseven said:Would XP Chains have a positive impact on the core values of the game? As someone who places an extremely high value on the tenets ... because they represent the "magic" that I miss from oldshcool MMO's ... yes, I think they would, and I speak from experience. Would encounter locking do the same? Absolutely. These things might be foreign or even taboo to some ... but they sure as hell aren't "mainstream convenience." You know what zerging is? Old convenience. Once upon a time there was an era where developers weren't able to maintain a firm grip on their world and ensure that it was cheese proof. Players were able to take advantage of the lack of structure ... they could zerg "unkillable content" (Sleeper?) -- bards could quad kite challenging NPC's by themselves (instead of being available as the ultimate synergist in groups ... the role their class was designed for) -- monks could flop their way through dungeons or drop train bombs on other players.
Exp chains are an arcade mainstream gimmick. It is no suprise why FFXI had them, as Japanse design in gaming is drastically different than western design. I still can't forgive them for buying and completely destroying the Wizardry IP. I do not like Japanse or most Asian based MMOs, I dislike their idea of progression, development and game play implementation.
oneADseven said:VR has gone out of their way to say that they aren't interested in building another emulator. They understand, without a doubt, that there are a variety of "issues" with EQ that they do not want to bring back. I'm not going to pretend to know their exact thought process on that matter but I am content with connecting the dots and trying to understand. I'm fine with breaking down systems/features/mechanics and then asking questions. Do these things make the game more fun, social, or challenging? Every now and then I get lucky enough to hear some on-topic responses that really address whatever is being discussed. For the most part, though, I have to endure the vibe from those two phrases I quoted from the beginning of this post. Nothing new, nothing special. Most people don't have the patience to deal with that kind of nonsense but I do. Sorry for the inconvenience.
There you go again, quoting them, then inferring their motives and design direction in a context you desire that is outside of reality. They said that, but the basic tenants of the game clearly point out a direction that is counter to mainstream. Also, in discussion from many of them, while there are differences of opinion between them, they are pretty clear about wanting to avoid many of the artificial mechanics of modern games, the very mechanics you are advocating for.
You could understand a lot of what they are seeking to do by reading the past discussions of them over the years, seeking to understand EQ more than with an ignorant biased dismissal that you have and reading the basic mission statement and tenants of this game in the context of those original games. That would go a long way to providing you understanding. That, or simply keep forcing that square peg into the round hole, maybe they will change and make FFXI for you?
Fact is, your idea of what this game should be is pretty much in conflict with a lot of what was initially stated as a progression goal. You merely started shaping it to your own expectations of it being another FFXI and that is what I see you doing, taking a new game and trying to force it into your expectation of your favorite game, even if that is nowhere in the list of games it is spiritually succeeding. I see a lot of people doing this here, who like mainstream design concepts, see Pantheon as a new game and want it to be made into their next mainstream MMO project.
You aren't somehow new or special in your position, I have dealt with people like you MMO after MMO through Alpha, Beta, and on to release. It is a broken record of ideas that when implemented always puts us back to the same issues. I watched games like UO, EQ, LotRO, WoW, DDO, etc... move away from their intiial design goals (yes, even WoW before release moved away from its original design, which is why the orginal Blizzard team left at that time). Pantheon is supposed to be something that steps away from that cycle of insanity chasing "games for everyone" and trying to gimmick its way through entertainment focused solutions, not gaming ones. Maybe it is time to stop looking at games like EQ and early VG as antiquated systems and see that maybe those intial designs, even with all your percived flaws of the systems, actually worked? EQ didn't go to crap because they stayed with the intial design focus, it went into the hole because Smedly drove it there full force without hitting the breaks chasing cash dollars through mainstream gimmicks. Maybe... the point is to go back to those designs as they explain, but to adjust them as needed for modern function, maybe? Or should we implement more failed aritficial gimmicks and arcade systems yet again.. you know... because it will work this time!
More of the same. Extremism, fearmongering, ostracization, sweeping exaggerations, and bias. "You people." ... "People like you." Blah blah blah. Gimmick! Artificial! Asian! You think you represent the "core audience" and anybody who disagrees with your viewpoints are confused lost puppies. You assume a lot of nonsense. You think my stance on zerging / training / power-leveling / kill-stealing / multi-boxing is "ignorant biased dismissal" -- where is the mission statement that backs these things up? Do you have any substance behind what you say or do you like to keep spewing things out, hoping it will eventually stick? Are you sure you have done your research? You suggest that I just don't understand ... that I'm trying to force a square peg into a round hole. I have been down this road before and I know where it leads. I'll share some Chinese Proverbs.
Talk does not cook rice. Be not afraid of growing slowly, be afraid only of standing still. A fall into a ditch makes you wiser. A closed mind is like a closed book; just a block of wood. He who cheats the earth will be cheated by the earth. He who thinks about every step he takes will always stand on one leg. All things change, and we change with them. When the winds of change blow, some people build walls and others build windmills. If you want to find out about the road ahead, then ask about it from those coming back. Solve one problem, and you keep a hundred others away. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Men trip not on mountains they trip on molehills. If you want to avoid being cheated, ask for prices from three different stores. A clever person turns great troubles into little ones, and little ones into none at all. If your face is ugly, you cannot blame the mirror. Pearls don't lie on the seashore. If you want one, you must dive for it. Insanity is doing the same thing in the same way and expecting a different outcome. Be not disturbed at being misunderstood; be disturbed rather at not being understanding.
Zerging. Power-leveling. Multi-box Armies. Old Convenience. Kill-stealing. Malicious Training. Room for improvement. As long as compromises are made, while adhering, strictly, to the game tenets ... all is well. If you look at a game like WoW (or any modern MMO) ... it's quite obvious they don't have the same guiding principles. Citing their worlds, failures, or issues ... is unrelated. They had a different mission statement. A different philosophy. A different vision. Stick to the tenets and consider them the only absolute truth. Anything outside of that is white noise. If you think I expect an FFXI remake you are deeply mistaken. Like I said ... I like to connect the dots and ask questions.
I like to consider the goals first, and then the available options afterwards. It's a night and day difference compared to the "core audience" who gets to assume that their way is the right way. Rather than judging the existence of zerging/training/kill-stealing/multi-boxing/power-leveling based on merit ... we have to suffer through the infallible logic that they are magical. A world without them is a gimmick. Solutions to said problems are artificial and contrived. People like me ... we can't possibly have better expectations. We're just here to ruin your fun and destroy your nostalgia. We love steaming piles of garbage. But not just any steaming pile of garbage ... those are widely accessible. We want to take the one MMO that we (you ... us?) are truly looking forward to and ruin it. You have it all figured out.
Tanix said:Now you are just being fallicous.
Am I?
Tanix said:Maybe it is time to stop looking at games like EQ and early VG as antiquated systems and see that maybe those intial designs, even with all your percived flaws of the systems, actually worked?
I look at VG as a game that solved many of the issues I have cited in this thread. It wasn't a perfect game but it definitely got certain gameplay elements critically right. It would be foolish to ignore the innovations and solutions that were observed in VG. Many of them have been cited as systems/features/mechanics that are being considered for Pantheon. Some of them are already planned, in one capacity or another. The only fallacious statement I made in that last post is the "You have it all figured out" part. If you think some of the comments leading up to that sound outlandish then you should go back and read some of your previous posts. The context is the same ... the difference is in perspective. If it sounds outrageous to you ... it should.
Surprised noone has brought up a simple thing that existed in EQ, at least while I was there. You could not change your name to erase your misdeeds from the mind of the community, and you could not move your character. I'd perhaps even add the ability to see Account name on examining someone. You want to be a pain in the rear to your fellow players? No way to hide from the fallout baby. Back in the day, reputation was everything. We need that again.
Darck said:Surprised noone has brought up a simple thing that existed in EQ, at least while I was there. You could not change your name to erase your misdeeds from the mind of the community, and you could not move your character. I'd perhaps even add the ability to see Account name on examining someone. You want to be a pain in the rear to your fellow players? No way to hide from the fallout baby. Back in the day, reputation was everything. We need that again.
Yes, link it to account AND pay source (ie name of account holder). I don't mean display the account holders real name, rather link it so the account holder can't simply drop their account, sub a new account and then act like they are new.
I wonder how the oneADsevens would handle such when they build a strong reputation for taking a rare that another group broke the camp for. Me thinks it would not work out so well.
Don't worry about me. I'm prepared for a modern open world MMO filled with players that are going to devise social constructs that revolve around official systems, rules, and guidelines. Once those are established, everything else will fall into place. Systems are intrinsically tied to community politics. Without systems, the game wouldn't exist in the first place. Community comes after systems, because the entire fabric of how the community can interact and behave is contingent on how the game itself is configured.
oneADseven said:Don't worry about me. I'm prepared for a modern open world MMO filled with players that are going to devise social constructs that revolve around official systems, rules, and guidelines. Once those are established, everything else will fall into place. Systems are intrinsically tied to community politics. Without systems, the game wouldn't exist in the first place. Community comes after systems, because the entire fabric of how the community can interact and behave is contingent on how the game itself is configured.
Based on your discussion, I am sure you will be pushing those "official systems, rules, and guidelines" to the point where you can easily find advantage. I find it humorous because you are certainly an "emergent" game player, but rather than being one that seeks to figure out advantage of that between you and the systems, rather you lawyer search the games player to player policy to find "emergent" means to avoid the entire point of player to player civil interaction. I can only imagine you will be a real riot and favorite on the servers you play.
Tanix said:Based on your discussion, I am sure you will be pushing those "official systems, rules, and guidelines" to the point where you can easily find advantage. I find it humorous because you are certainly an "emergent" game player, but rather than being one that seeks to figure out advantage of that between you and the systems, rather you lawyer search the games player to player policy to find "emergent" means to avoid the entire point of player to player civil interaction. I can only imagine you will be a real riot and favorite on the servers you play.
I seem to recall you saying:
Tanix said:Zerging never was emergent game play, nor was power leveling, or any of those other cheese tactics.
Those are the result of poorly skilled players trying to win.
Emergent game play was figuring out how to split mobs that Verant designed to be unsplittable. It was learning to do things like pulling King Tormax to the zone line as a single monk solo without having to fight a single one of his guards (this was a very difficult feat for all but few pullers), or pulling Dane Frostweaver with a team of monks to the zone line and setting up a CoH group to cycle players who got banished every 45 seconds to the pit rather than fighting down to the pit and fighting constant respawns for hours during the fight.
There are numerous issues throughout EQ that were means to which players through clever tactics, could defeat an intended design. The things you describe are just dumb play, brute force tactics by very narrow and limited minds. Thing is, if you put in all these "restrictions" to FORCE a certain play style, all you end up doing is taking away the creativity of play, you destroy emergent play and essentially make a game on rails. That is, you make if bad for everyone just because the behavior of a few, which is exactly what modern game design did, it forced everyone to a specific play, made the games dumbed down, boring, and mundane.
Apparently the game is on rails if they make encounters that are designed to be unsplittable ... unsplittable. Apparently ... if the development team implements an intended design, the game is dumbed down, boring, or mundane ... when it does it's job. You are the one asking for loopholes. You are the one that wants to see a return to cheese play ... who doesn't care if accomplishments are earned fair and square. You would prefer that 12/24 man content can be zerged by any number of players. You don't care about power-leveling. It's hilarious that you have such an anti-rule stance concerning anything and everything to do with game design ... but when it comes to your precious "code" you think it should be sacred. You're willing to turn a blind eye to huge game defining issues (zerging/kill-stealing/malicious training/power-leveling/multi-boxing) but as soon as someone contests your "rare spawn" (in an open world game where competition is inherent, mind you) your feathers get ruffled? Hah!
I have suggested the exact opposite. I hope VR is proactive when it comes time to establish their rules and guidelines. What I do not want to see is a promise of fun/healthy competition that isn't backed up by complimentary game design or rules and guidelines. What I do not want to see is a promise of "emergent social constructs" that are attached to the hip of "in accordance with 1999 guidelines." I don't want to see some wishy-washy "maybe they are competing fairly, maybe one party is stealing" nonsense. VR can create whatever rules they want ... but after that, it's time to set the players free. That is where we are different. You want your codes and standards to be accepted as "the right way" of doing things ... while being willfully oblivious to major game issues that have plagued EQ and other MMO's in the past. I want to see zerging and kill-stealing solved by in-game mechanics. You want to see them exist as options and be able to label people who leverage them. Zerging has been widely accepted as "garbage" for a long time ... we might as well take the trash out now.