I believe there is some concern over Pantheon eventually becoming "Top Heavy" in that the bulk of the player population is engaged in "End'Game" content. I know it is not in the vision of Brad or those at VR to create a game where this is the goal, but over time it is inevitable, especially if the niche produces a finite playerbase.
I think this helped feed into the overall decline of FFXI as the playerbase grew smaller. Those who remained were hardcore end gamers primarily and it forced the company to switch into a more casual, iLevel, powerlevel gimmick type of experience. A complete change from the original build. You enter a difficult world, help is even more difficult to find in the community and the reaction is to make the game easier to power through to end game.
FFXIV and others I'm sure tried their version of forcing you into low level instances for Daily's and even to unlock special weapons but that's the exact type of antisocial speed raiding this game is trying to avoid, thankfully.
XI's unique job changing system at the time created a world where players were constantly starting over from level 1 again and leveling and redoing conent from a new perspective.
My question then too Brad, Bazgrim, Joppa and the community at large is what kind of interesting ideas have been discussed to promote an organic game world where early, mid and late game weave and connect? Anything beyond simple rewards? Is level capped content a consideration?
If this has been addressed elsewhere in detail, I apologize! The forum search wasn't cooperating well with what I was trying to ask.
personally, i beleieve that this is inevitable in any game, however there are always alts and the progeny system... not to mention i dont know how many times ive made an alt for a friend and i to group up with heck ive even rolled an alt for someone asking for help in global because they were new to the game... one system i would really like to see is a remort system, basically once you hit cap. you have the ability to "remort" into any other class (race stayed the same) but you got to keep 3 skills from your last class totally random could end up with 3 worthless or a super awsome one and 2 crappy ones etc etc. (and a bonus to hp mana) think it was 100 per remort. while the hp/mana didnt OP a newbie until like the 5th remort. it made it desireable to remort at higher levels and gave the person hopes of getting something awsome... also helped with newbie toons and keeping the zones full regardless of how long the games been out... only hinderence i did find was raiding was a MOFO because we would log in to oh... ya our MT just remorted.... so yea we learned fast to have backups but didnt have a 100% bulletproof tank because we were trying to equip a few MT's
Rhelic said:personally, i beleieve that this is inevitable in any game, however there are always alts and the progeny system...
Too true! I do remember light talk about a progeny system and forgot about it. I tend to get attached to my character and personally dislike the idea of exchanging for a new one, but that could certainly be helpful for a handful of players.
For as long as the content is weaved as is currently shown, i don't see this becomming much an issue. Sure eventually if the levels and gear get too far apart it will happen, but that's life to be honest.
I know now that i'm getting older, i don't socialize as much with teenagers as i did when i was a teenager myself. So isn't this a 'problem' that happens with everything? But compared to real life, where you actually need the age differences, there isn't a whole lot i can think off from an game perspective where you would 'need' lower level players, as you can do everything yourself probably more effectively as a lower player. Where in real life this is usually the other way around for things that require strength or agility.
From an EverQuest perspective, they had some immersion. I geuss primarily batwings and skeleton bones. But to be honest, at this stage i geuss its too early to tell if there will be much 'need' for low level companions.
Greenkrak2 said:Top Heavy only happens on dead servers and deadgames,
You underestimate how awesome this game will be, and the steady influx of new players over years.
On the contrary, I believe heavily in this project. The greatest MMO's suffered from this at one point or another. How it's handled is ultimately what keeps it going. The community would love to see massive influxes of players for years and years to come, but everyone knows this is a niche MMO out of the gate. That can be great, and amazing, and still have steady new players, but I'm positive Brad and VR know what they are up against and have considered these issues.
decarsul said:there isn't a whole lot i can think off from an game perspective where you would 'need' lower level players, as you can do everything yourself probably more effectively as a lower player.
Your analogy is intersting. However, considering the vision of the game being group dominated and where the bulk of the experience of the game will be, I do expect low level players say from 10-30 will require steady groups to have a meaningful full experience in the game as much as mid and high level players. Will it be the only experience? Surely not. But avoiding the social element will lead to a wall and those players will be lost (quit) should they not find help. I'm making assumptions, but I think they are correct.
It is inevitable as time is the enemy of all. No matter how hard they try people are going to get bigger and stronger and content will have to meet those new strengths.
The real question is how long is the shelf life of a game. Again, time is the enemy. Advances in technology, graphics, new games, eventually everything will run it's course. Sure games like EQ are still around, but they are a shadow of themselves and thier communities.
I am surprised how well WoW has maintained, but I figure it is the one game still out there that has a community, and familiarity, so people keep returning as there is no real challengers out there yet.
I think I played EQ for 4 years steady then on and off after that, Wow for probably 2-3 years steady. So if Pantheon can give me 3+ solid years I'd be happy.
@Fulton
Hmm you might be onto something. It is not as much about the community or being top heavy its usually about the third or 4th expansion.
It usually takes 12-18 months to get a meaningful expansion completed and by the time the third expansion comes out the games have often been operating for over 3 years (at least since the end of a true programmers alpha phase). As such the base game is looking a little long in the tooth compared to both the market and the hardware advancements. Developers are forced to come up with some way of “upping their game” (pun intended) and usually resort to some market inspired fundamental shift.
In WoW the expansions were more on a 2 year cycle if memory serves as they usually had 3 tiers of content per expansion with 6+ months between each. Burning Crusade was an interesting shift to smaller more flexible raid sizes but otherwise was similar to Vanilla. Wrath added difficulty settings and streamlined the concept that everyone should be targeting end game raids as just part of the natural progression. This was novel at first but it really pushed the rush to end game and the expectation that everyone is entitled to raid content, and in a fully instanced game they kinda are. By Cata we were fully on the loot marry-go-round and there just really wasn’t anything to do other than rush levels then grind gear. After Cata things just started getting weird and they ended up with Ninja Pandas and Pokemon.
Eq had two similarly effective expansions in Ruins and Scars where the base game did not really change much just new content was added at a wide cross section of levels. Shadows started trying to deal just how spread out the game was and introduced minimum levels to stop super twinking of raid gear. Shadows also introduced the bazaar which I personally feel was a good thing and only took so long due too tech limitations previously.
PoP in my opinion is when the rails really started coming off though we would not really feel it till the end of the cycle. The world had gotten tons smaller with the PoK ports. The item levels just far trumped everything in Scars and despite only a 5 level boost almost everything was easily an upgrade even over old raid gear. On top of that PoP was almost exclusively a raid expansion. Everything about it was end game raiding. I lost interest in EQ after PoP mostly because WoW showed up.
DAoC had a similar issue with Tides of Atlantis PVE raid content derailing the previously Realm vs Realm focused end game and player crafted gear market.
SWG had combat levels added which was good then the NGE and class levels which should have been shot in the head in its infancy.
I am sure that those of you with extensive experience with other MMOs can pinpoint roughly when the developer began jumping the shark. Usually the first jump is enjoyable but it also signals the beginning of the end and by the third its either dead or has completely reinvented itself.
So even more important than not making the game top heavy to start with it is also a question of how many years can VR hold off from jumping the shark. Ironically, and possibly excitingly, I have a feeling that VR (virtual reality) is going to be what pushes VR to push Pantheon to the next level. With luck they will just be able to change the interface and recompile Pantheon from Unity PC to Unity3D.
Kilsin said:Brad has spoken at length about horizontal progression and how we intend to handle parts of this, I would highly recommend checking it out - have a look through his blog posts for more good info too if you like :)
Thanks Kilsin! I was not searching for the right keywords. Most of this was being handled in posts related to "Noobie Zones" vs discussing it from the top end perspective. I did find some information^^
Fulton said:I think I played EQ for 4 years steady then on and off after that, Wow for probably 2-3 years steady. So if Pantheon can give me 3+ solid years I'd be happy.
Thanks for you input^^ If what I gathered from Brad's and VR's emphasis on horizontal progression and also relying on the fact that VR is only beholden to their own vision I do believe a game of 8+ years is possible. I played FFXI for 9 years before that fateful "add on" dropped... that changed the core play forever. I wouldn't even call it an expansion. Like flipping a switch...not more than a few months went by and the entire point of the game had changed around what the last 9 years had been. People just started crowding into one spot and leeching exp until they were level 99. It was no longer a game I could enjoy. I have to believe that even development regretted it once they saw what happened, but it's impossible to rewind on those things..
Whatever Brad can do ....no bad choice of words this is not a one-man show - whatever Visionary Realms can do it is inevitable that in time a large part of the player base will be focused on the latest content. Horizontal or vertical - there will be a lot more players near the newest content than just starting the game or playing new characters. This is the way of it in any MMO.
Slowing progress is important. Horizontal progress rather than all vertical is important. A wide variety of races and classes is important to encourage "alts". Limiting what any one character can do with crafting is important to encourage "alts" (and cooperation among crafters). But eventually we will get there.
So what? Nothing lasts forever. And a game with most of us doing the newest contnet isn't a *bad* thing at all. With progress as slow as we all hope, VR will have more time than is traditional to create *more* new content before we exhaust the *old* new content.
I haven't mentioned Progeny. We don't really know much about it yet. I am very comfortable with how Pantheon looks even if Progeny crashes and burns and never makes it to release. But having played games with systems that resemble what Progeny *may* look like I am enormously hopeful that the system will add major differentiating value to Pantheon and, in and of itself, reduce the eventual bottleneck at the newest content.
Every MMO I have played, for some reason the population declines after the third expansion. There are a lot more variables that come into play that aren't just top heavy that kill the game.
WoW had 2 years with each expansion and never felt top heavy in the end. This is due to the world not being huge. There were central areas people gathered to that lower levels could also gather to, like the AH in Orgrimmar. I am more perosnally worried about dead zones because we are going to have expansions every year, so in 3 - 4 years the world may quadruple. The top end players tend to gravitate towards the newer zones, so the people just starting in the older zones won't see many other people other than newer people.
If VR is smart with there expansion and content releasing, then they can keep the game going for awhile. However, they have expressed a different opinion on the matter of always releasing new content yearly, so people will always have things to do. Sadly, this doesn't account for the new players that get in that will have most of the player population in other expansions all the while them being left behind with not a lot of people to play with. This is where catch up mechanics come into place, which water down the game in the end. IMO, the MMO formula needs to change somewhere, or else you will be on the treadmill to another dead MMO, like they all become eventually.
If the game is good I will predict 3-4 years before the decline happens, that is if they do an expansion every year. But we will see.
dorotea said:So what? Nothing lasts forever. And a game with most of us doing the newest contnet isn't a *bad* thing at all. With progress as slow as we all hope, VR will have more time than is traditional to create *more* new content before we exhaust the *old* new content.
This is one of the few times where I'll disagree slightly with dorotea.
I think that if we ever get to a point where an overwhelming majority (>65% or so) of the playerbase is focused solely on the newest content, then Pantheon has failed to address the top-heavy problem. I say this because it's a snowball type of problem. The longer it goes on, the worse it gets. At first, it might not seem so bad. But over time, it gets worse and worse, and the game and community become less and less friendly to new players as a result. I have seen this occur in just about every level-based MMO that I have ever played. In some, it happens faster, and in some, it happens slower, but it happens in all of them. Left unchecked, Pantheon will eventually reach the point where top-heaviness starts to cause problems as well.
All of the things mentioned - encouraging alts, horizontal progression, slow progression - those all help delay the problem from occurring. In some cases tremendously. In a level-based game however, they're not enough. Why? Because everyone will eventually level up. Levels are, essentially, a function of time invested. At some point, everyone gets them.
So, how can VR prevent top-heaviness from becoming a cancerous type of issue later in the life of the game? As mentioned, all the stuff they're already planning to do will help slow it down. But the key to stopping it completely, if indeed there is a way to stop it completely, is to approach the ongoing development of the game differently than most MMOs have. Specifically, expansions.
Neph's "rules" for expansions:
1) Expansions should always truly add to the entire game world, not just one segment of it. So if an expansion contains only high-level areas (as an example), then all that accomplishes is to segregate the population more along level lines.
2) Expansions should ideally add some new types of gameplay or features to the game, not just content. For example, the team has discussed that housing would likely be an expansion feature. Brad's also made comments about how he might like to do diplomacy as an expansion feature at some point.
3) It's ok to raise the level cap when appropriate, but increases should be relatively small, and the level cap should not be raised in each and every expansion - for ever instance where you deepen character progression, there needs to be an instance where you broaden character progression.
4) When possible, new aspects of character progression need to be available at all character levels, not just the highest.
5) Expansions should be as much about pulling in new players as they are about retaining existing players. Each expansion should ideally coincide with a marketing push aimed at attracting new players to the game.
6) At no point, ever, should an effort be made to make it easier for new players to "catch up" to existing players due to a level cap raise in an expansion. Doing this cheapens the value of the game's existing content tremendously.
The two most-loved expansions in EverQuest were (the original) Kunark, and Velious. Why? One of the reasons, is that while they definitely had things for higher-level characters to do (Kunark raised the level cap after all), they weren't *only* about high-level gameplay.
After playing many different MMOs in the last 20 years, I strongly believe that the only way to prevent a level-based game from having weight problems later in its life, is to insure that every expansion remembers and does something for low levels and new players as well.
As has already been mentioned at several times in different venues, there are numerous solutions to the narrow linear level based progression common to most MMOs.
These are my thoughts over the years in terms of approaches.
You can apply:
1) Horizontal progression
This is usually a focus on within the level range of content and expands development in ways that is not specific to a direct increase and more of a "side increase". Examples like having to obtain specific environmental gear to defeat certain content is an example of horizontal progression.
2) Sub-Layered Linear Progression
Traditionally you have a game that has levels 1 - 50 for instance and the player progresses along those lines through the content to eventually end the content. Sub-Layered Linear Progression focuses on taking this concept and then segmenting it into a repeating pattern within the over all game.
For instance, you may have an over all 1 - 50 main game. With such, your classes will have various spells/abilities earned at various stages in this main games progression, but... within the game itself, lets say "zones" for instance, there are "sub-layers" of linear content to which the player levels to achieve power growth to overcome content. That is, you can have mini-levels of progression within a zone to achieve a certain end result there. Doing such turns zones into their own games of progression. If you have 20 zones linked to provide an over all linear progression and then have similar progression within each zone (ie you level from 1-10 in zone A on top of you leveling 1-20 within the entire main game), you have greatly increased your content progression design and in doing so you have moved away from the direct 1- 50 end game concept where everyone rushes to the top to sit and grind raid mobs.
3) Skill, spell and level based content intertwined
EQ had skills and spells. Skills were "learn by doing" approaches, spells were level locked obtained via vendor or drop. Taking these concepts and mixing them in with the Sub-Layered Linear Progression and Horizontal progression results in content at exponential levels. For instance, imagine having a run speed skill (you get better over time by using it). Now, you have a "base" main game skill of run speed. This is over all run speed, a basic core aspect of your speed/endurance which increases linearly over the course of a 1-50 main game. Now, each zone has different environments, elements, etc... With this, there is a run speed associated with a specific environment.
Lets say you have a desert sand environment. The sand is hot, the weather is hot and difficult to endure. The sand is often loose and difficult to run in. So, you have a run speed for your overall main game, but... since there is a major penalty to run speed in the desert zone, you are greatly reduced in ability. Over time, your running skill in that particular zone is increased as a skill (ie [you get better at running in desert A: 14].
Also, maybe there is a sub level progression to the zone as well. So, you have maybe 1-20 sub levels within that particular zone. Call it [You ding to level 4 of Desert A] which opens up various spells, abilities, and progressions of content within that zone.
Top it off with needing specific gear to advance in a zone and you are now defying the old concept of rush to the main games end game. I mean, you could level to the main games 50, but.. you would lack the skills, spells and abilities earned in many of the various zones which would make you far less effective than maybe a lower level who put in the time to learn a given zone.
4) Mixed level content
This is where you place a large range of level disparity in a zone. It means you could have a generally level 1-10 zone that has level 20 content, level 50, etc.. content peppered throughout it. That is, while a specific zone may have a certain percentage of a given level content, it could also have some content from the rest of the levels throughout it. This would give purpose to revisit zones from the early levels. Also, such development allows for a continued development of the game in an even balance (ie constantly adding new content to old zones for all levels of content).
The point is, by layering development as such, the focus becomes the "journey", not the "end game" as there are so many layered elements of content in the game that players are constantly working on new content that is at various levels of the game (ie horizontal progression layered within itself).
The possibilities are endless to be honest and such a design approach completely moves away from the over all "end game" ideal of most games these days.
Think of a game where there is a certain main level progression of skills/abilities/spells, a sub layer level progression of skills/abilities/spells where themes of progression create each zone to be its own mini-game of linear progression in play that has lasting appeal due to its multi-level content to which a player will have to return at various stages in the main game to complete. All zones become relevant at all times, all development a focus at all times, and even more important, individual development to specific areas becomes relevant and a goal to progress horizontally within the main game.
Lastly, the benefit of such a design is… time. That is, such layered content is also the reality of layered time commitment. So, a game doesn’t have to be HUGE to satisfy the grinder as you could have a limited number of zones and due to the layered development systems, provide more content than if you had a larger number of traditionally deisgned zones.
One of the primary reasons I started developing the idea for the logarithmic power growth of characters is due to the top heavy effect that generates down the with each expansion.
The basis of the design concept is that level 1-10 is very fast and effectively a tutorial mostly in the racial starting zones. Levels 11-20 are your class development levels where you gain all your initial instances of group critical skills. These levels are the first that focus on grouping and interdependence. Level 11-20 would take 10 times longer than 1-10. For flavor I would make all classes complete an advancement quest before they can advance past lvl 20.
Starting at level 20 everything becomes primarily group content with each area further from the travel hubs being a higher level than the closer zone.
Starting at level 20 characters will have the ability to hit all monsters with weapon hits and spells though at half the hit chance of a level 50 character. Each level you get fractionally more likely to hit but it is not an order of magnitude different. Likewise hp, mana and endurance would do the majority of its growth from level 1-20 and a level 21 will have roughly half the stats of a level 50 in the same gear.
What players will get as they level from 20-50, in addition to small increases in hit and stats, is new special abilities and situational synergy tools that are required to complete the more difficult content. The highest level content will require the most complex use of situational response skills, encounter tailored items and near perfect team work.
What this means for both Top Heavy game play and expansions is that the majority of characters will be able to meaningfully group together from level 21 onwards. All new content expansions would include a strip of zones extending from level 21-50 including new mob and environment mechanics. The expansions would include new materials to make items from and new special qualities that will be needed. Ideally expansions would also include changes to old content to keep the overall narrative together.
There is also the ability to extend the level cap a little bit further without overpowering the rest of the game as additional levels only add a small amount more power. In that case each strip of 21-50 zones could have an additional zone tacked onto the end pushing the limit up to 60 with globally tied in story lines.
I still think that Pantheon has the opportunity to adopt this system without pushing back release as most of the work they have done could be split between the racial zones and the post level 21 zones. The biggest change is when the classes gain abilities and the background math for stats and to hit from exponential or linear to sudo logarithmic.
Nephele I am not sure we disagree at all. My point wasn't that having a bottleneck around the newest content was good, but rather that if it could only be slowed but not avoided it wasn't disasterous. Top-heavy isn't a plus but it doesn't have to kill a game especially one like Pantheon with such slow progress.
Tanix I mostly agree. The one thing I want that I suspect you do not want in a zone with mixed content is a fairly clear demarcation so that level 7s do not die repeatedly to level 30 mobs before they learn where not to go in a mostly level 5-10 zone. I place a high value on being able to avoid death if one plays carefully and plays well. You place a higher value on danger and risk adding to realism and suspense. Your points are valid but I prioritize differently. I would want either an open area so that the level 7 can see the level 30s before stumbling into their range (if the level 7 is very careful - if not, too bad for her). Or I would want a short leash so she has a fighting chance to escape. Above all I would *not* want a level 7 frantically fleeing for her life to be able to train a level 30 mob into a camp of 10 other level 7s where half the players in the zone could get wiped with no chance at all unless they were at a zone border. Training is bad enough when what gets trained on you is at least approximately the same level. But I am in a fairly small minority in my views on training and I accept that I will have to live with it - or - more likely - die with it.
((1) Expansions should always truly add to the entire game world, not just one segment of it. So if an expansion contains only high-level areas (as an example), then all that accomplishes is to segregate the population more along level lines.
I agree as a player but a developer needs to focus on things that will get players to buy the expansion. New high level content will do this. New races or classes or gameplay features will do this. Adding a new level 5-10 zone is unlikely to either increase sales much or keep people subscribing longer. Ideally they will do some of this but I see them focusing *more* on higher levels, races, classes and features. Things that will get a bored level-cap to buy the expansion and keep subscribing until the next expansion. I suspect that this point one was a lead-in to later points not a suggestion that a lot of developer time should be spent revamping low level areas, in which case I agree entirely.
2) Expansions should ideally add some new types of gameplay or features to the game, not just content. For example, the team has discussed that housing would likely be an expansion feature. Brad's also made comments about how he might like to do diplomacy as an expansion feature at some point.
I agree in all respects.
3) It's ok to raise the level cap when appropriate, but increases should be relatively small, and the level cap should not be raised in each and every expansion - for ever instance where you deepen character progression, there needs to be an instance where you broaden character progression.
I agree in all respects - not least because horizontal progression doesn't trivialize earlier content when done correctly but vertical expsion almost always *does*. Raise the cap from 50 to 55 and all earlier content is trivial. Send the 50 into a new zone where she needs all new gear that is only needed against the enemies in that zone and old content is as challenging as before the expansion.
4) When possible, new aspects of character progression need to be available at all character levels, not just the highest.
I am inclined to simply say I agree but it may depend on the type of progression. Then again, that may be covered by your "When possible". Take an AA system for example. Whether it is good to do this at maximum level so that bored level-caps now have a use for gaining experience again has been argued heatedly on these forums, as you know. Whether an AA system starting at level 1 or level 10 so that characters can be different as they level up from other characters in the same class and can focus on different ways to fulfill their role has also been argued. I will express no opinion and risk sidetracking this thread but I think it is fair to say that AA at level-cap has gotten more support on the forums (far from unanimity) than has AA while leveling.
5) Expansions should be as much about pulling in new players as they are about retaining existing players. Each expansion should ideally coincide with a marketing push aimed at attracting new players to the game.
I agree they should be about both. I am not sure I agree with "as much". New blood is nice but many games have failed in trying to push themselves on new players - especially after they have become middle-aged or old games. While new blood is *nice* keeping your player bases subscribing is absolutely essential. Thus my comment under point 1 that expansions need to focus on what will keep the player base you already have buying and subscribing; with anything else you get a pleasant bonus.
6) At no point, ever, should an effort be made to make it easier for new players to "catch up" to existing players due to a level cap raise in an expansion. Doing this cheapens the value of the game's existing content tremendously.))
I can agree entirely with this as an ideal. But I have seen more than one current MMO - successful ones - where as time passes the difficulty not just of getting to level-cap but gearing for it is a *huge* disincentive for new players. Pantheon may not get to this point soon but it very well may get there.
One can say that the same game features that were wonderful for *us* as we leveled up and explored will be just as good for new people. One can argue that *we* couldn't get to level cap fast even if all we cared about was level-cap raids, so if it worked for us why not for new players. Nor is this a bad argument. But we had eachother to group with at-level. Even a year or two after release many of us will be rolling alts to try different things. In five years will there be many groups for low and especially mid-level content? Maybe not. Will a version of mentoring fill the gap? Maybe not entirely. Maybe we shouldn't even care now - leave it to VR to do what is best under the circumstances that prevail in 5 years.
But Pantheon may need some way to reduce the disincentive for new players - whatever that may be. Hot issue in LOTRO right now but LOTRO is a different game and over 11 years old.
dorotea said:Nephele I am not sure we disagree at all. My point wasn't that having a bottleneck around the newest content was good, but rather that if it could only be slowed but not avoided it wasn't disasterous. Top-heavy isn't a plus but it doesn't have to kill a game especially one like Pantheon with such slow progress.
(...snip)
But Pantheon may need some way to reduce the disincentive for new players - whatever that may be. Hot issue in LOTRO right now but LOTRO is a different game and over 11 years old.
I think the slight disagreement is just that our perspectives differ slightly. That's understandable since we both haven't played the same games at the same times :)
For example, I have/had a lifetime subscription to LOTRO. I stopped playing shortly after the Mirkwood expansion released partly because the game and its community (at least on the Landroval server) was starting to feel very top-heavy to me. Some of your comments make me feel like perhaps the pendulum has swung back the other way since then, which is cool if it's true. That's just not something that I've seen happen in longer-running games, but then again, historically, I have bailed out of most of those games at the 3 to 5 year mark, when the top-heavy problem is really just starting to show up.
I play FFXIV today, which is coming up on 5 years, and top-heaviness is starting to become a problem there as well. Ironically, the problem was made worse last year, when Square Enix introduced a way for people to skip over lower-level content and "catch up". In short order, the perception took hold among many players that the progression skip was required if you wanted to enjoy the game.
It's not a level based game, and definitely doesn't have the greatest track record with getting and keeping new players, but to define success I actually look at EVE Online, which is 18 years old now, I think? I played EVE for 11 years (while playing other MMOs at the same time), and during that time there were always, *always* new players joining the game. Maybe not a torrential flood of them, but not a trickle either. I attribute this both to it being relatively unique among the MMO population, but also to the fact that the "low-level" content equivalent was designed in such a way where it was *always* relevent and useful. EVE's longevity has happened, in large part, because the things that a new player can jump in and do are just as relevant and useful and fun today as they were 18 years ago.
Now obviously, EVE is a very different type of game from Pantheon, but there's still a lesson there that Pantheon can learn from. If the game's launch content can stay meaningful, relevant, engaging, and fun even as the game ages - and if we can avoid situations where players gain ways to simply bypass that content in the rush to the end - then all that remains is insuring that the game somehow continues to appeal to new players over time. I would love to see Pantheon make it to 10 years without being significantly top-heavy. Obviously at some point beyond that, player preferences may change due to new technology (VRMMOs might actually become a thing), but if we can stave off "middle age" and "old age" for longer, then that's good for everyone.
Anyway, that's my (rambly) perspective.
dorotea said:Tanix I mostly agree. The one thing I want that I suspect you do not want in a zone with mixed content is a fairly clear demarcation so that level 7s do not die repeatedly to level 30 mobs before they learn where not to go in a mostly level 5-10 zone. I place a high value on being able to avoid death if one plays carefully and plays well. You place a higher value on danger and risk adding to realism and suspense. Your points are valid but I prioritize differently. I would want either an open area so that the level 7 can see the level 30s before stumbling into their range (if the level 7 is very careful - if not, too bad for her). Or I would want a short leash so she has a fighting chance to escape. Above all I would *not* want a level 7 frantically fleeing for her life to be able to train a level 30 mob into a camp of 10 other level 7s where half the players in the zone could get wiped with no chance at all unless they were at a zone border. Training is bad enough when what gets trained on you is at least approximately the same level. But I am in a fairly small minority in my views on training and I accept that I will have to live with it - or - more likely - die with it.
Well, failure is a process of learning. To truly have risk, to have realism, it means you can't prepare and plan (ie being careful) and always guarantee success. This is the KEY to anticipation play, to the worry, the fear, the nerve wracking concept of exploration. You can not plan for everything. Now certainly, you can be very careful and such approaches can go a long way to reducing occurences, but there are times that no matter how well you plan, how careful you are in your approach, the randomness of nature will serve you up a big can of whoop arse.
I am STRONGLY against safety nets, even at level 1. What do you teach a new player if you coddle them in some "newbie" levels, then drop them into a game that no longer provides such protections? Isn't that a bit misleading? You should provide the actual game play at start, the same as it is at max level, otherwise you lure people into a false sense of expectation in play and I have seen this method where the new players were coddled only to be throwing tantrums once they hit a certain level of play.
So, either we want to play a game, or we want to be coddled for entertainment. Level is irrelevant in this concept. Bait and switch tactics will only draw the ire of players.
What you can do is design your areas in a way that are logical so that the player, once they learn the area, pathing, etc... can avoid the really dangerous things. The benefit of this approach is that those who want to be coddled can easily look up the cheat sites, maps, pathing etc... online, leaving those who really want an honest gaming experience to LEARN the game on their own.
As for leashing? In my humble opinion it is one of the key elements that has destroyed most games in terms of risk/reward.
Literally the goal of a game like this is to reach end game. That is why people reroll alts. That is why there is a certain degree of dificulty involved in reaching max level. Just make a friend and then you will always have someone to play with and to help you out.
Unless we are talking about content becoming outdated as new expansions are released and once again that is literally the nature of the game. I am not sure what the problem here is.
Bankie said:Literally the goal of a game like this is to reach end game. That is why people reroll alts. That is why there is a certain degree of dificulty involved in reaching max level. Just make a friend and then you will always have someone to play with and to help you out.
Unless we are talking about content becoming outdated as new expansions are released and once again that is literally the nature of the game. I am not sure what the problem here is.
If this truly is what you're expecting from your Pantheon experience I'm afraid you may be dissapointed. Brad has stated on numerous occassions that End Game will be a part of Pantheon but not the Point of Pantheon.
To be fair Bankie's opinion is not without precedence. Other than DDO I have not played an MMO, including Everquest, where I sat at maximum level for less than 50% of game time. Even when the level caps raised I would cap within a few weeks then spend the next 10-15 months at max level until the next cap raise.
The only reason I did not stay at level cap very often in DDO is because reincarnating was heavily incentivized. I have not seen anything in Pantheon yet that would give me a reason not to stay at maximum level. I don't plan on rushing to max level but I will play a lot and most likely fairly efficiently so I will likely be at max level for most of the time that the level cap remains as it is at launch.
While not everyone will play the same way I do I expect +75% of people who play more than 8 hours a week will quickly have at least one capped character. That is part of the reason that most content is produced for max level because that is where most of the game population is sitting in almost all modern MMOs.
Ironically all modern MMOs also have logarithmic power growth in reference to time played if not in reference to level. This is roughly because a player may spend 240 gaming hours getting to max then spend another 480+ hours sitting at cap collecting gear and raiding. The gear will only give you small relative boost compared to level increases. This also drives the loot cycle issue as the only way to have character growth is through new loot.
So you end up with 75% of your game population focused on your final 10% content level range. I may be wrong on the exact % but the trend is undoubtedly true.
In a log power growth by level rather than by time you need to experience the vast amount of content to its fullest to make it to max level. At which point you can still group with your level 30 friends without making it too easy. You spend say 5 hours to level 10, 50 hours to level 20, 500 to level 30, 5000 to level 40 and 50 will take you a decade. The scale doesn't need to be that harsh but it could be. Rather than being stuck in 10% of the content you could equally experience 90% of the game at varying degrees of challenge.
Trasak said:
To be fair Bankie's opinion is not without precedence. Other than DDO I have not played an MMO, including Everquest, where I sat at maximum level for less than 50% of game time. Even when the level caps raised I would cap within a few weeks then spend the next 10-15 months at max level until the next cap raise.
You capped Everquest in a few weeks?
When did you play it?
Trasak said:
To be fair Bankie's opinion is not without precedence. Other than DDO I have not played an MMO, including Everquest, where I sat at maximum level for less than 50% of game time. Even when the level caps raised I would cap within a few weeks then spend the next 10-15 months at max level until the next cap raise.
The only reason I did not stay at level cap very often in DDO is because reincarnating was heavily incentivized. I have not seen anything in Pantheon yet that would give me a reason not to stay at maximum level. I don't plan on rushing to max level but I will play a lot and most likely fairly efficiently so I will likely be at max level for most of the time that the level cap remains as it is at launch.
While not everyone will play the same way I do I expect +75% of people who play more than 8 hours a week will quickly have at least one capped character. That is part of the reason that most content is produced for max level because that is where most of the game population is sitting in almost all modern MMOs.
Ironically all modern MMOs also have logarithmic power growth in reference to time played if not in reference to level. This is roughly because a player may spend 240 gaming hours getting to max then spend another 480+ hours sitting at cap collecting gear and raiding. The gear will only give you small relative boost compared to level increases. This also drives the loot cycle issue as the only way to have character growth is through new loot.
So you end up with 75% of your game population focused on your final 10% content level range. I may be wrong on the exact % but the trend is undoubtedly true.
In a log power growth by level rather than by time you need to experience the vast amount of content to its fullest to make it to max level. At which point you can still group with your level 30 friends without making it too easy. You spend say 5 hours to level 10, 50 hours to level 20, 500 to level 30, 5000 to level 40 and 50 will take you a decade. The scale doesn't need to be that harsh but it could be. Rather than being stuck in 10% of the content you could equally experience 90% of the game at varying degrees of challenge.
This is more to the point. In FFXI exp was quite slow so getting a party together and earning half a level at 40 in a few hours of social gaming was considered good. That does still mean maxed out characters within 4-6 months. But, questing for skills. gear to be prepared for those levels I expect to slow down that process greatly as well. As long as there is an engagement between players at most levels I suspect it will be fine for the long haul. Also, I don't believe that pace considers farming, harvesting, crafting and general world exploration that Pantheon will include as well as part of it's full experience.