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.
It makes sense that once you reach the initial game level cap you then spend the vast majority of your time at whatever level cap each subsequent expansion offers because those increases are so small. 50-60 in EQ1 was a quite run compared to 1-50. Having such high hitpoints, manapools, tons of +stat gear made those additional 10 levels a doddle. Only if the levels of an expansion were of such difficulty where characters felt as if they were naked lvl 1 characters would those additional levels actually take some time and effort..but they never do.
Justin5574 said: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.
Through the first 50 levels the playerbase will spread out with only a small percentage of the population spending any significant time at the level cap before a new expansion arrives. Looking at all the threads discussing the pace of leveling and players posting their expected average playtimes it is clear we will not all level up equally. But as I just mentioned above to Trasak, it is inevitable the the vast majority (<80%) of the population will inhabit the top 5 levels eventually even if level cap increases are introduced. There is no mechanic that can stop it.
Tanix said:
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?
PoP did not take long to level from 60 to 65, did it for you? I still spent more than half of my time on Karana on my level 60 monk at max level even in Everquest though arguably it took the longest to get to max level initially in Everquest
Or the psychology ingrained into players to "level" needs to be changed, perhaps changed with pantheon, where you never level and instead you just get better. The spiderlings in front of the city can still kill you, however you are better(faster?) at killing them. Such a concept would be a "game changer" as the expression goes.
The Hobbits never "leveled" they just got older. Maybe gandalf the white was the first progeny, lol.
Manouk said:Or the psychology ingrained into players to "level" needs to be changed, perhaps changed with pantheon, where you never level and instead you just get better. The spiderlings in front of the city can still kill you, however you are better(faster?) at killing them. Such a concept would be a "game changer" as the expression goes.
The Hobbits never "leveled" they just got older. Maybe gandalf the white was the first progeny, lol.
I would be down with a no leveling game where you just increase your skills that you use. It could be class based or generalist with sudo class builds. Fighting a dragon with 35 of your max level friends is pretty hard. Killing a dragon with 100 level 1s is legendary.
To be honest- I am not really all that worried about top heavy for quite some time to come, like.. Years. I think inevitably it will happen to some degree but with the pace of which we are being told the leveling and experience will be at- People will likely have a main higher level character, and probably characters of various other levels in different parts of content.
With the release of new content, there is no law or rules that say it will be all high level content.. Think of how Kunark was, whole new race and all new zones for characters of all levels.. I think the major drawback to that was simply the lack of questing and discoverable lore or interactive environment at that time. You could explore but there were no systems in place like VR is creating for Pantheon- And that is why it will be a game changer, groundbreaking, etc..
I also think Expansions and new content are some of the reasons Progeny is being incorporated into this game.. Makes sense if you think about it.
I joined EQ 1 two years after it launched and played pretty hard core two years straight. I made many alts and there always seemed to be enough players to group at low level. So four years after launch, many were at the top. But there was enough low level players to enjoy that content with.
Trasak said:Tanix said:
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?
PoP did not take long to level from 60 to 65, did it for you? I still spent more than half of my time on Karana on my level 60 monk at max level even in Everquest though arguably it took the longest to get to max level initially in Everquest
Ah, ok yeah, yeah PoP was fairly quick, but PoP is what I would describe as the decline of EQ.
I played a monk and I was only 44 when Kunark came out. Now I admit I wasn't racing to max or playing 8 hours a day, but I did play around 3-5 hours during the week and 10-16+ on the weekends. When Kunark came out, it still took quite a bit of time to level from 49 to 60.
I remember some complaining about lack of end game content in release EQ, but to be honest most of those who capped out so fast weren't playing at a reasonable rate (ie they were living at their machines hard exping and fast racing to the top by any means they could which is saying alot because we had some very hard exp sessions when I played). I really don't think it is reasonable for VR to cater to that. Sony did and it alienated the group based players as they chased the top percent raiders who demanded the game constantly focus on raid content.
I would like them to have the slow pace of EQ leveling combined with the various types of side horizontal content. If they design it right, a linear cap won't be a practical focus.
One of my biggest gripes with EQ was that in the end game there was nearly nothing to do - or rather nothing you *could do* - unless you had a hardcore raiding guild backing you.
Even the content that you could just get in a group and go for tended to be locked down by uber guild members if there was anything like a useful reward from it.
Of course end game needs to have 'the most challenging' content and, yes, having to coordinate 50 very well equipped players to achieve something does, of course, make something 'more challenging', but I would like to see inovative ways of making end game challenge that doesn't mean you are forced into an ever-intense raid cycle that feels like a job.
Sure 'those kind of players' will always get to end game first and have more powerful gear, but I would like to see it not be so much of a barrier to content so if you want to take your time or if you have to take your time then you don't feel like you're effectively excluded from most of what's going on at high level.
I want to see a very slow levelling speed and lots of horizontal progression and content.
I am the kind of player who enjoys trying all the classes and races, so it always takes me a while to hit end game even though I play a lot. Please, VR, when I get there, don't let it be dominated by (and designed for) those that rushed there?
@disposalist
Unfortunately under the standard linear power progression open world raid targets greatly favor the “End game Rusher” guilds. The first guilds to get an assembled max level raid group will be able to practice targets while having lower gear quality, sometimes for days on end. By being able to practice they will figure out a way around their gear deficit and kill the target. Once they start killing raid targets their gear quality will skyrocket. Now said guild has both the gear and the knowhow and will be able to quickly kill the raid targets as they spawn.
Any guild that enters the raid scene after the leading guild have defeated each encounter at least once will be at a huge disadvantage. They will at most get one or two shots at a raid target if they luckily get there first before one of the guilds with the knowhow and gear swoops in and one shots it. This will further exacerbate the differentiation between the End Game Rusher guilds and the more casual.
Under the linear power progression I really have no idea how to fix this without resorting to raid instances which really just pushed the power creep even further and we have a WoW raid tier/gear tier cycle.
It's great to see so much passion for Pantheon. It is a little amusing though that people are debating possible end game and expansion features when the game has been in development for years and it's still not in Alpha!
With so many varying opinions floating around, one thing that seems reasonably consistent is that the majority of people that played EQ count EQ/Kunark/Velious as the golden years of Everquest. Early expansions are much more likely to be along the concept of the original game because much of expansion development comes from people still involved from the begining. Over time, staff move on, companies change hands, real life interferes and gradually the way the games evolves is bound to change.
The good news is that EQ plus Kunark and Velious gave most of us three "golden years" of game play. Some got a bit more, some got a bit less, many popped in and out of the game for many years. It took me 18 months to get to level 46 and be able to go to the plane of fear for the first time. I never had any thought of "end game" for almost two years. I can't think of any game in the past few years that has held my interest for longer than a couple of months, perhaps six months at most. If I can get anything like the time I got out of EQ from Pantheon then not only would I be very happy, but I would call it an outstanding success.
I do not like the whole premise of these arguments.
All the claims presented here act like players that are efficient, effective, and play the game they enjoy a lot are somehow ruining the game for everyone else.
Some of us actually ENJOY the game and want to play as much as possible and as well as possible. The competitive spirit should not be dumbed down so that people that only play a few hours every week accomplish as much as those that dedicate the time and effort to be the best they can be.
It doesn’t matter if excellence is measured in skills, levels, gear, points, etc. Some players will strive to be the best. Others will not. This will give advantages to those that choose to excel. This will give disadvantages to those that don’t excel. You cannot make everyone equal without turning this into a battle arena. This is not inherently a bad thing. Anyone that spends the time and effort will have more advantages than those that do not.
Since video games are becoming “Esports”, sports analogies are appropriate. If I work out every day to be the best at my sport and achieve Olympic-style abilities, the races/matches should not be handicapped to place the armchair quarterback to have an equal chance of winning.
A core part of Pantheon is competition. Don’t ruin this by handicapping excellent players to enable less excellent players to be equal.
VR needs to ensure that there is content available for casual players that is worth the price they pay. However, VR does not need to punish the players that actually enjoy playing their game and want to spend the bulk of their entertainment time doing so.
Everyone that starts the game at the same time already has the same chance to reach the top.
It's great to see so much passion for Pantheon. It is a little amusing though that people are debating possible end game and expansion features when the game has been in development for years and it's still not in Alpha!))
Very true - to paraphrase an old saying ...those who cannot play, post. Since none of us can play, many of us post on almost any conceivable topic.
((Some of us actually ENJOY the game and want to play as much as possible and as well as possible. The competitive spirit should not be dumbed down so that people that only play a few hours every week accomplish as much as those that dedicate the time and effort to be the best they can be.))
I read this debate somewhat differently. I think the issue isn't whether people that play more, and more intensely, should get to "endgame" faster, have better gear, and be more able to handle the content because they have the experience and the gear. They can and they will, this isn't really a disputed point at all. And I think the great majority agree with you - this isn't unfair. It is normal and proper.
The debate, such as it is, focuses on whether these efficient and effective players will wreck the experience for others. Not by being better geared and trained and thus causing envy, but by monopolizing the content and preventing other players from having a fair shot at it. Almost all of us can agree that it is fair for the most dedicated to do better. Far fewer will agree that it is fair for the most dedicated to block those that hit high levels later from having a fair chance to enjoy the same content.
The most egregious example cited in these threads IMO has been people acknowledging that top raid guilds often farm content that they have already done, not for the practice or the gear (which is certainly legitimate) but quite explicitly for the purpose of blocking up and coming guilds from getting better and thus competing more effectively. I for one consider this to be a form of griefing and grounds to ban players and dissolve a guild - others here strongly disagree and see it as legitimate competition.
Thus, debate flurries around suggestions as to both whether to try and prevent "monopolization" of content and, if so, how to do it, with encounter locking, cooldowns and even instances all suggested by some and hotly objected to by others.
((A core part of Pantheon is competition. Don’t ruin this by handicapping excellent players to enable less excellent players to be equal.))
No one wants to handicap anyone - the debate is whether to allow those that quite properly have better gear and more experience to prevent others from doing the content that they have already done in order to get the same gear and experience, albeit later in the game's life cycle.
@Trasak Asheron's Call's levels worked like this. The game had a huge level cap (126, later 256) that could take years to hit. I played for 4 years before hitting the cap (although I did reroll 2x). Anyway, the level structure did allow people to group with playes at a wide range of levels. It wasn't uncommon to see groups high level groups include players as low as level 80. A level 40 could easily do stuff with a level 60. It's definitely an interesting model to consider
Honestly, I think MMO's should start looking at Path of Exile's model of expansions and leagues, and one of the reasons for this is how it makes the game so friendly to new players. The POE model requires a major shift in philosophy for what long-term play looks like. First off, PoE has never raised the level cap despite launching 8 expansions, relying instead on extensive horizontal progression. Secondly, the game is focused on rerolling characters on fresh servers versus playing the same character for years and years. One of the best things about this that it completely removes the issue of a new player starting the game years of leveling behind everyone else (or the game having to trivialize the leveling process so they can catch up).
Because the game is focused on restarting, the vast majority of the new content has elements for all levels. For example the first expansion, Sacrifice of the Vaal, introduced new areas for all level ranges with dangerous mini-bosses. Defeating the mini-bosses gave you nice loot with a chance for currency allowing access to an end-game boss (sort of the equivalent of a raid boss). The second expansion introduced NPC's that you could raise reputation with to access their unique crafting abilities. These NPC's and their missions were found across all levels.
So in additio to the expansion model interspersing content throughout the entire game instead of stacking it on top, PoE also features leagues. Leagues are fresh servers that introduce league-specific mechanics and items. At the end of a league, your characters and items get transferred to a permanent leauge. Two of my favorite leagues were Breach (which had random horde-mode encounters and related end-game bosses) and Delves (which had a bottomless dungeon of increasing difficulty). These leagues offere a large incentive for people to start fresh. You might thing, "why would I want to keep re-leveling over and over, especially if I want to play the same class". But the key is that the new content, items, and mechanics keep the experience fresh. Even so, if you really want, playing on a standard server is still an option. The expansion content is always put on standard servers immediately. Sometimes the league-specific content is added to standard servers after the league expires. There's been several times that I skipped a league or two and just kept playing on standard.
I think this model has a lot of potential in the MMO space. I would make the leagues last longer than they do in PoE. Maybe a year would be a good period of time.
dorotea said:I read this debate somewhat differently. I think the issue isn't whether people that play more, and more intensely, should get to "endgame" faster, have better gear, and be more able to handle the content because they have the experience and the gear. They can and they will, this isn't really a disputed point at all. And I think the great majority agree with you - this isn't unfair. It is normal and proper.
The debate, such as it is, focuses on whether these efficient and effective players will wreck the experience for others. Not by being better geared and trained and thus causing envy, but by monopolizing the content and preventing other players from having a fair shot at it. Almost all of us can agree that it is fair for the most dedicated to do better. Far fewer will agree that it is fair for the most dedicated to block those that hit high levels later from having a fair chance to enjoy the same content.
The most egregious example cited in these threads IMO has been people acknowledging that top raid guilds often farm content that they have already done, not for the practice or the gear (which is certainly legitimate) but quite explicitly for the purpose of blocking up and coming guilds from getting better and thus competing more effectively. I for one consider this to be a form of griefing and grounds to ban players and dissolve a guild - others here strongly disagree and see it as legitimate competition.
Would you consider professional athletes to be blocking content for the rest of us? There are many high school athletes. Only the best will be chosen to play in college. Only the best of those get chosen to play professionally. We aren't all equal. The few spend much more time and effort to become better. They earned the top professional spots. They get to do all the best content before the rest of us, if the rest of us will ever.
If I wanted to play professional football, soccer, hockey, badmitton, etc, but I could not because the college/professional league spots are already taken, should I be upset that they are blocking my progress? I had same chance to play as they did, I paid my fees, but I did not succeed as well as they did.
If two teams make it to the championship, should they have to stop and give others a chance to win until every team had a chance to play in the championship?
The same applies to MMOs/E-Sports. There are only so many spots at the top. Not everyone gets to complete all content immediately. Some people will always be better and will get what we want first.
The only way to give everything to everyone is instancing (which, this population appears greatly against). The next step down is to handicap those that are successful through timers, ghosts, or whatever, which in turn limits the game play of the top players, basically blocking content for the sucessful to give it to the less succesful.
If blocking players from content is not OK, why is is OK to block the top players from experiencing the same content? This is a MMORPG, repeating content is a thing. If we all only had the chance to experience content once, we would never have enough content worth our $.
Overall, I think the problem is the mind set of entitlement. When I see successful people, regardless of what they are successful at, I look up to them. They make me want to work harder to become successfull in my own way. I do not frown upon them, claim that they are blocking my chances to experience a better life, and demand that the world make up for my lackings by boosting me artificially to their level.
One of the ideas behind Pantheon is recognizable gear showing off achievements. Less achieved players should be able to look upon the top players, see what they have achieved, and strive to match them. They should not demand that VR handicap the system to they can have the gear too.
zoltar said:Honestly, I think MMO's should start looking at Path of Exile's model of expansions and leagues, and one of the reasons for this is how it makes the game so friendly to new players. The POE model requires a major shift in philosophy for what long-term play looks like. First off, PoE has never raised the level cap despite launching 8 expansions, relying instead on extensive horizontal progression. Secondly, the game is focused on rerolling characters on fresh servers versus playing the same character for years and years. One of the best things about this that it completely removes the issue of a new player starting the game years of leveling behind everyone else (or the game having to trivialize the leveling process so they can catch up).
Because the game is focused on restarting, the vast majority of the new content has elements for all levels.
Don't get me wrong, I love alts. But, there is no way I would want to spend a huge amount of time maxing out a character, only to abandon it later. This is one of the reasons that I don't switch games very often. I put a lot of effort into a character and hate to see it all trashed by leaving. Not to mention that constantly starting a new character invalidates any reputation gains that I have made.
I have nothing against spending time on an "event" server, or starting a new character for some special reason. But, overall, my top character is still my go to guy.
Now, hoping that progeny works, I would have no problem constantly restarting my character, because its still the same character, just restarting for additional replay and potential gains. I think done well, this could be the equivalent of your rerolling of characters without losing the time and effort put into the character.
Beefcake said:I do not like the whole premise of these arguments.
All the claims presented here act like players that are efficient, effective, and play the game they enjoy a lot are somehow ruining the game for everyone else.
I understand, but my concern is based on my experiences with games like EQ.
So, what happens when a player rushes off to max level? They bypass most of the games initial design content to rush to cap and then what?
In EQ, this happened and there were a small minority of players who rushed through the content (fast for EQ release, but still took a long time) and then.. they complained at the time there was nothing to do, not enough raid content to focus on. They were very vocal and consistent in their complaints and those complaints began to drive development. In fact, it was a common joke or angst among some of the community at how the top percent of players were demanding the game cater solely to them.
If Pantheons focus is not "end game", which they have already commented on and even established in their basic tenants, what danger is there from players who push to the end? I mean, if the game is not designed around end game, then would they not end up being without much to do? Would this not spur a cycle of angst and disapproval to this situation? Would this also not have a pressure on the developers to somehow attend to these complaints?
See how we have a possibility of "cycle repeat" behavior that existed in the original game of EQ which eventually lead to the exodus of group focused players over raiders? The primary reason many left EQ when WoW was released was because EQ became a "Raid Game" and if you weren't in the top raids, you were lacking.
Tanix said:If Pantheons focus is not "end game", which they have already commented on and even established in their basic tenants, what danger is there from players who push to the end? I mean, if the game is not designed around end game, then would they not end up being without much to do? Would this not spur a cycle of angst and disapproval to this situation? Would this also not have a pressure on the developers to somehow attend to these complaints?
VR's focus may not currently be on the end game but sooner or later they will have to produce end-game content or keep moving the goalposts, e.g. increasing the level cap or expanding horizontal progression, to keep high level players playing. The carrot has to continuously be moved or they risk stagnation. As long as there is character progression there will be a cap. Players at that cap will get bored without something to do. It's VR's task to strike a balance between keeping those players content and keeping everyone else content knowing that sooner or later "everyone else" will also reach that cap and need something more to do.
Very few games have managed to avoid this and even then not completely. MUDflation is real.
Tanix said:If Pantheons focus is not "end game", which they have already commented on and even established in their basic tenants, what danger is there from players who push to the end? I mean, if the game is not designed around end game, then would they not end up being without much to do? Would this not spur a cycle of angst and disapproval to this situation? Would this also not have a pressure on the developers to somehow attend to these complaints?
The difference here is that VR can reitarate (and should do so very frequently) their approach to the game, that of horizontal progression. Players will know ahead of time that 'rushing to the end' might not be the best in their long term best interest. If a subset of the population rushes to the end only to find out that any future content is many months away, it is not the fault of VR nor is it now VR's responsibility to cater to that whiny minority. They knew full well the ramifications of their choice and now they need to live with those decisions.
Beefcake said:zoltar said:Honestly, I think MMO's should start looking at Path of Exile's model of expansions and leagues, and one of the reasons for this is how it makes the game so friendly to new players. The POE model requires a major shift in philosophy for what long-term play looks like. First off, PoE has never raised the level cap despite launching 8 expansions, relying instead on extensive horizontal progression. Secondly, the game is focused on rerolling characters on fresh servers versus playing the same character for years and years. One of the best things about this that it completely removes the issue of a new player starting the game years of leveling behind everyone else (or the game having to trivialize the leveling process so they can catch up).
Because the game is focused on restarting, the vast majority of the new content has elements for all levels.
Don't get me wrong, I love alts. But, there is no way I would want to spend a huge amount of time maxing out a character, only to abandon it later. This is one of the reasons that I don't switch games very often. I put a lot of effort into a character and hate to see it all trashed by leaving. Not to mention that constantly starting a new character invalidates any reputation gains that I have made.
I have nothing against spending time on an "event" server, or starting a new character for some special reason. But, overall, my top character is still my go to guy.
Now, hoping that progeny works, I would have no problem constantly restarting my character, because its still the same character, just restarting for additional replay and potential gains. I think done well, this could be the equivalent of your rerolling of characters without losing the time and effort put into the character.
But part of the idea of progeny was that you have to "retire" your old character.
Anyway, if a game tried to use this model, I would definitely avoid designing it around a bunch of super-grindy reputations. And playing on a permanent server would definitely be an option, you just might be delayed in getting access to the league stuff a while.
Akilae said:
Tanix said:
If Pantheons focus is not "end game", which they have already commented on and even established in their basic tenants, what danger is there from players who push to the end? I mean, if the game is not designed around end game, then would they not end up being without much to do? Would this not spur a cycle of angst and disapproval to this situation? Would this also not have a pressure on the developers to somehow attend to these complaints?
VR's focus may not currently be on the end game but sooner or later they will have to produce end-game content or keep moving the goalposts, e.g. increasing the level cap or expanding horizontal progression, to keep high level players playing. The carrot has to continuously be moved or they risk stagnation. As long as there is character progression there will be a cap. Players at that cap will get bored without something to do. It's VR's task to strike a balance between keeping those players content and keeping everyone else content knowing that sooner or later "everyone else" will also reach that cap and need something more to do.
Very few games have managed to avoid this and even then not completely. MUDflation is real.
That is why we are having this discussion. You don’t have to appeal to a singular linear progression model. That is, in my various solutions of content through horizontal, sub linear progressions in zones, etc… they can provide an array of content that is not singularly driven to a head.
The MMOs of today have had this problem because they only copy existing systems which contained this problem of a linear progression system. If VR takes this route, they will only recreate the problems of the past.
They have to do two things. One is to focus on trying to disperse content progression through various means (as has been discussed), and two be able to accept that some players will be locusts, no matter how reasonable you design the content progression. Fact is, you don’t cater to locusts and EQ learned this lesson when it lost most of its group base when WoW came out which specifically on release focused to group based play.
So as long as they attempt to provide a robust system of progression AND recognize that the “extreme” players can not be satisfied, they will be able to achieve a good balance in play.
I honestly think that if Verant and SoE had told guilds like FoH and Afterlife who whined, complained and threatened that they were making games for a group focus rather than attending to the top percent raider game focus, EQ would have lasted much longer in success than it did.
Raid focus “END GAME” play is what killed EQ
Vandraad said:Tanix said:If Pantheons focus is not "end game", which they have already commented on and even established in their basic tenants, what danger is there from players who push to the end? I mean, if the game is not designed around end game, then would they not end up being without much to do? Would this not spur a cycle of angst and disapproval to this situation? Would this also not have a pressure on the developers to somehow attend to these complaints?
The difference here is that VR can reitarate (and should do so very frequently) their approach to the game, that of horizontal progression. Players will know ahead of time that 'rushing to the end' might not be the best in their long term best interest. If a subset of the population rushes to the end only to find out that any future content is many months away, it is not the fault of VR nor is it now VR's responsibility to cater to that whiny minority. They knew full well the ramifications of their choice and now they need to live with those decisions.
Agreed.
Tanix said:So, what happens when a player rushes off to max level? They bypass most of the games initial design content to rush to cap and then what?
If a player rushes to the max and skips a bunch of content, like I probably will for my first character, then that is on them. If they want to enjoy the rest of the content, they need to create an alt or do something to enjoy the rest of the content.
Tanix said:In EQ, this happened and there were a small minority of players who rushed through the content (fast for EQ release, but still took a long time) and then.. they complained at the time there was nothing to do, not enough raid content to focus on. They were very vocal and consistent in their complaints and those complaints began to drive development. In fact, it was a common joke or angst among some of the community at how the top percent of players were demanding the game cater solely to them.
If Pantheons focus is not "end game", which they have already commented on and even established in their basic tenants, what danger is there from players who push to the end? I mean, if the game is not designed around end game, then would they not end up being without much to do? Would this not spur a cycle of angst and disapproval to this situation? Would this also not have a pressure on the developers to somehow attend to these complaints?
IMO, if players rush to the end and then have the nerve to complain about not enough content, they should be ignored. MMOs tend to have massive content that never gets explore some people. If someone rushes, skips all the other great stuff, and then complains about lack of content, everyone should simply tell them to shut up.
Just as I state the VR should not institute systems to "make equal" those that play a lot and those that play occasionally, they should also not cater those that rush ahead. VR has already stated that, although raids exist, they are not the focus of the game. In fact, much BIS gear will be attained through non-raids.
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.
If people believe Pantheon will be an end-game focused MMO, they have not listened to VR's many statements to the contrary. VR cannot be blamed and should not have to cater to those that did not listen.
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 :)
zoltar said:But part of the idea of progeny was that you have to "retire" your old character.
Anyway, if a game tried to use this model, I would definitely avoid designing it around a bunch of super-grindy reputations. And playing on a permanent server would definitely be an option, you just might be delayed in getting access to the league stuff a while.
Yes, the character would be retired. But to me, that is not the same thing and restarting a new server. Its a continuation of the same character in a new form, hopefully with some bonuses for doing so. In the end, I believe the overall character will be the best result.
I know its a semantics thing, but its still the same character to me. I just look at the final version being completed, and all the restarts along the way are part of the path to the end character.
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.
You greatly underestimate the amount of people that casually play games. They are often times the majority, be it silent, in a MMO. Very few people ever reached max level in EQ let alone end game content. What made EQ special was that it wasn't a game about trivilized leveling to reach end game, the journey to level truly was one of the more memorable parts of the game.
"Just make a friend" also assumes that my friends will be online when I want to play. A healthy "pug" community is important to any game. Developing a game around this mentality is a pitfall you see repeated over and over in games. I shouldn't have to find a Discord community for a game in order to do content, the game should present me with the means to meet up with people, known or random, and complete content.