philo said:For those that feel that raid content shouldn't be the focus:
How do you keep people playing long term once they have acquired what they want from group content?
Part of the benefit of raid loot it that there are long spawn times so it gives people incentive to play for a longer period of time as they try to attain that loot.
Good question.
Well, I would say by first establishing a very long and detailed progression system. Thing is, you have to first establish the target "time played" audience as your core focus and then realize you can't appeal directely to the extremes (casual or hardcore).
That is not to say you don't put in elements of play to appeal to them (I said appeal directly, not appeal generally) such as throwing in a raid instance, zone, mobs, etc... You can also put in elements of play that provide to more casual play (ie crafting, social constructs in cities and townships or mechanics that support such, ie LoTRO had a very in-depth instrument system engine). The thing is, the over all base of the game is focused to a given progression rate and focus.
This is done through NUMEROUS means. It really is a layers process which is why I harp on about the many elements of play being layers that impede a players progression naturally. Death penalties, exp rates, travel, recovery time, etc... all play a larger part in the overall time a player spends in play. This if properly implemented creates the long term play in a game.
Those who bypass, fast track and gimmick their way to the max (it will happen, you can not avoid it), you put in various challenges to keep them busy, but you make the challenges MASSIVELY difficult.
That is, you make them "possible", but only if everyone hits their marks perfectly. Which, takes a TON of time. In fact, I heard many guild leaders throw excessive tantrums at how early EQ content was nothing more than a gimmick to block guilds from progressing (ie their argument was that the content was designed to road block until new content was released).
From my experience, this was mostly "complaining" as eventually those guilds developed strategies to defeat that content. The point was, it was a NIGHTMARE amount of difficulty and dedication for a guild to do such.
So, considering that and your point about lentgh in obtaining things, this is what I mean. That is, you design the game primarly through group based content and you do so applying rairty (extreme raity as need) throughout the game. Then, you apply key areas of pinnacle focused group content (raid content) of the same measure... rarirty in spawn, rarity in gear and then package it in very difficult content that takes an enormous amount of effort and focus to master.
You can even have raiding throughout levels (ie as EQ 2 did) to which being high level isn't enough to defeat an encounter (until a certain range as even trying to solo some grey EQ2 raid bosses x4 were enormously difficult). The point is I don't have a problem with raiding, I loved raiding in Early EQ, but what I had a problem with was the players who HATED cRPG progression demanding they get to max level fast so they could play their arcade raid game. That is, I don't hate raiding, I just hate modern raiding expectations.
I'm not sure if, make items more rare, is a great solution? We already have items people are camping everyday for weeks or months. If you make them to rare people will stop camping for them once it becomes more luck based. At that point you are better off farming currency and buying it. Do you think that is a better solution? I'm unsure. That simply leads to a different bottleneck...the currency camp becomes more valued than the item camp and mudflation runs rampant.
There will be low/mid lvl raids in Pantheon. Likely with some sort of artificial lockout (mobs call in friends or despawn etc if you are over the level). The mentor system will allow players to adjust their lvl so for all practical purposes, that is just like any other raid as far as this discussion goes.
philo said:I'm not sure if, make items more rare, is a great solution? We already have items people are camping everyday for weeks or months. If you make them to rare people will stop camping for them once it becomes more luck based. At that point you are better off farming currency and buying it. Do you think that is a better solution? I'm unsure. That simply leads to a different bottleneck...the currency camp becomes more valued than the item camp.
There will be low/mid lvl raids in Pantheon. Likely with some sort of artificial lockout (mobs call in friends or despawn etc if you are over the level). The mentor system will allow players to adjust their lvl so for all practical purposes, that is just like any other raid as far as this discussion goes.
Well, I dislike the player market for a reason. In EQ, I played on Test Server where, Player trade for at least for a long time was not liked on the server because it was viewed as a circumvention of game play. It is also why on the production servers (once I transferred my character) RMT was viewed with extreme disdain (ie you would get banned from groups if people knew you were an RMT twink).
What I know is this... in terms of basic game play, the idea of having to play the game (ie not cheat it through RMT or player trade) balances the concept of achievement. While there were some times where a given item was perma camped, there were always other means to achieve somewhat similar items at different times. I accepted what I could not have and what I could, and this rarity in occurence made the rewards of obtaining it all the more meaningful. I dispised those who bought their items (I knew of necromancers who perma camped easy soloable items at max level to buy their way up through gear through EX trading). So yes, I understand the negatives, but what is the solution? Selling out and giving people items? If that is the case, I would rather not play.
I mean, why do you think I harp on them about making this game a server tech game (ie sell it like ARK, 7 Days to die, Dark and Light, Conan Exiles, where players can run their on server configured as they like under their own rules and constraints? It is because I doubt the will be able to make their game in a way that I will accept it and mainstream at the same time. Chances are, I won't even play the game much at release because I know they will sell out (not that they mean to, but that they have been softened by years of modern gaming to where it is enevitable).
/shrug
I've never heard of anyone compare buying items with in game currency to be the same as buying items with real money. This wasn't about RMT. I don't know where that is coming from? It doesn't seem relevant.
Most items in Pantheon will be tradable so personal preference aside, my concerns seem valid and simply making named/items more rare isn't a great solution.
So I guess what I'm hearing is that you don't have a solution that keeps people playing? That's fine, I'm unsure as well.
If the perks are large enough for restarting with progeny, that gives people incentive to stick around. (Though all these "other ideas" where you keep your main negates that. ) People will still run out of content on their max lvl character if they have access to it.
I don't have a perfect solution. That's why I asked the question.
philo said:I've never heard of anyone compare buying items with in game currency to be the same as buying items with real money. This wasn't about RMT. I don't know where that is coming from? It doesn't seem relevant.
Most items in Pantheon will be tradable so personal preference aside, my concerns seem valid and simply making named/items more rare isn't a great solution.
So I guess what I'm hearing is that you don't have a solution that keeps people playing? That's fine, I'm unsure as well.
If the perks are large enough for restarting with progeny, that gives people incentive to stick around. (Though all these "other ideas" where you keep your main negates that. ) People will still run out of content on their max lvl character if they have access to it.
I don't have a perfect solution. That's why I asked the question.
I didn't say people generally equating the two specifically (though as I said, on TEST SERVER, we viewed the EC trade market as cheating game play). I personally view player trade as circumventing having to gain the item yourself, which is equating the two to be similar avoidance of game play requirements. That is my evaluation, my summation of the act.
That is, I personally view paying someone in-game cash that was gathered either by playing market trade games or that of farming easy content for hours to be that of similary bypassing the requiement of play that is needed to obtain an item from its original source (deep in a dungeon). I "personally" see it as bypassing content requirements similar to a person who pays real money to obtain the item without putting in the required play requirements to obtain it. Player trade for all intensive purposes is an outside mechanic of interaction that obfuscates game requirements, and yes... I realize that somoene going and camping the item only to give it to someone else is doing the same. If you aren't getting the item as it was designed, you are cicumventing the requirement to obtain it. Nowhere is farming for instance hill giants for days on end equivilent to breaking the Mushroom king camp with a group, holding it, killing the king and getting it to drop.
philo said:I get what you are saying. Most items in Pantheon will be tradeable. That doesn't offer a solution to the issue of keeping people playing long term without the week long spawn type of raid mob. We seem to be getting off topic.
Though it touches on the topic: Those who cannot obtain X item by camping (either lack of personal skill or the camp is overly farmed or whatever else) are more likely to spend (far) more time playing by farming currency to buy the item than they would if they were in the camp "earning" the item.
Anyway, the best way to keep people playing (IMO of course) is a slow leveling speed (and/or effective progeny system) combined with frequent content updates and horizontal progression. They can keep days/week long lockouts of different challenges if they also apply it to top tier group challenges.
philo said:I get what you are saying. Most items in Pantheon will be tradeable. That doesn't offer a solution to the issue of keeping people playing long term without the week long spawn type of raid mob. We seem to be getting off topic.
Well, I understand your point concerning raid spawns. Though this can also be established with EQ like spawning as well. In EQ, it could take weeks to gain some items. That is, even though most mobs were on a 30 min cycle, you still had a rare spawn chance. So, in a 24 hour period, you had 12 spawn chances (if you perfectly killed a mob on the dot each time it spawned), of that, the mob had a rare spawn chance. So lets say in that cycle for the day, the mob spawned maybe 4-6 times. Of the rare spawning, each rare produced a drop that was common, uncommon, or rare. The rare could take numerous tries to even gain that item. Which means it was possible that you may only see that rare item drop once, maybe twice in a day.
So, you can have such systems that reduce the occurence of items in group play. Heck, put in numerous rare types in a spawn with each having their own loot table and you drastically increase the rairty of an item. So, lets say you have in one area a place holder in a lab area. The place holder is simply "an assistant", then you have a rare or uncommon pop, which is another type, and another, of another type all relevant to the room area and each having their own items and rarity. In such, you just created a list of rare mobs where people could spend weeks/months just as they wood in raids to gain items.
No need to have extensive end game raiding, grouping could achieve the same results.
Though as I said, I am not saying no need for raiding, just that raiding doesn't have to be the focus it was in later EQ as "end game".
Iksar said:
Anyway, the best way to keep people playing (IMO of course) is a slow leveling speed (and/or effective progeny system) combined with frequent content updates and horizontal progression. They can keep days/week long lockouts of different challenges if they also apply it to top tier group challenges.
Ya I agree and I think the above quote is the answer. But, you know, easier said than done.
-The leveling speed would have to be so slow as to turn off the more casual players I think? Maybe that is ok and they wouldn't be turned off if they weren't in a hurry anyway? Unsure? The fastest players tend to burn through the levels, and burn through any incentive to play long term, quickly.
-Progeny is a main solution that I see..though there are a lot of mixed feelings there. I think it could be a major part of the solution but I am very skeptical in some of the "alternatives to progeny" that people have been mentioning.
-Frequent updates are simply not a possibility. Even if the team were to quadruple in size they wouldn't be able to keep up with players. They won't be frequent enough.
-Horizontal progression does delay burning through the content. That is a way that we know VR will create incentive and extend their content. I tend to be concerned. Players will only stick around for "side grades" instead of upgrades for so long. It is a temporary solution but it does work to some extent as long as it is not rinse/repeat a bunch of horizontal progression every expansion.
Like anything the answer is somewhere in a balance of all of these things and others. I hope it is enough?
It is easy to say we shouldn't cater to the top players who burn through content but there is a very steep trickle down factor. Once the top guild/players run out of incentive to continue playing others are right behind them, and in greater number.
philo said:Iksar said:
Anyway, the best way to keep people playing (IMO of course) is a slow leveling speed (and/or effective progeny system) combined with frequent content updates and horizontal progression. They can keep days/week long lockouts of different challenges if they also apply it to top tier group challenges.
Ya I agree and I think the above quote is the answer. But, you know, easier said than done.
-The leveling speed would have to be so slow as to turn off the more casual players I think? Maybe that is ok and they wouldn't be turned off if they weren't in a hurry anyway? Unsure? The fastest players tend to burn through the levels, and burn through any incentive to play long term, quickly.
-Progeny is a main solution that I see..though there are a lot of mixed feelings there. I think it could be a major part of the solution but I am very skeptical in some of the "alternatives to progeny" that people have been mentioning.
-Frequent updates are simply not a possibility. Even if the team were to quadruple in size they wouldn't be able to keep up with players. They won't be frequent enough.
-Horizontal progression does delay burning through the content. That is a way that we know VR will create incentive and extend their content. I tend to be concerned. Players will only stick around for "side grades" instead of upgrades for so long. It is a temporary solution but it does work to some extent as long as it is not rinse/repeat a bunch of horizontal progression every expansion.
Like anything the answer is somewhere in a balance of all of these things and others. I hope it is enough?
It is easy to say we shouldn't cater to the top players who burn through content but there is a very steep trickle down factor. Once the top guild/players run out of incentive to continue playing others are right behind them, and in greater number.
By the way, you can still have group based content that is on a 7 day respawn of rares.
Also, keep in mind that WoW was entirely instanced (which allowed everyone to get everything far faster than a contested content game) and its development cycle was near 2 years and yet it retained tons of people (which was odd considering the game became stagnat very quickly due to its design, far more than EQ did). EQ's development cycle dropped to 6 month cycles.
While I don't think VR can keep up with a 6 month cycle, I think a year cycle is reasonable for a large amount of content and with EQ like rare contested group content with long term development, it will likely keep people very busy.
As for the locusts, you never design a game for them. They are migratory, they will consume your content and move on faster than you can ever keep up. They are a plague occurence, not a healthy audience.
philo said:For those that feel that raid content shouldn't be the focus:
How do you keep people playing long term once they have acquired what they want from group content?
Part of the benefit of raid loot it that there are long spawn times so it gives people incentive to play for a longer period of time as they try to attain that loot.
How do you keep people playing long term once they have acquired what they want from raid content? You are theorizing that raid loot will have long spawn times and will be contested, that may or may not be the case here. Group content could be made in the same manner as raid content if devs really wanted to...the mobs with the best stuff could have long spawn times as well as rare drop rates. And in fact that was the case in EQ for several group mobs...not everybody wore an FBSS during the first few years of play. So when we talk about raid content as a way to keep people playing this argument falls apart quickly. To make matters worse there are many players who do not raid for various reasons (not enough time, don't like huge guilds/groups, simply don't like raiding). The raiding end game does not exist for them, they do not care about it and when they run out of their content most will quit rather than become raiders. The raid community is actually quite small, I realized this many years ago when I looked into the statistics on raid completion in WoW. More recently we can look at LFR (looking for raid) as the only raid content a majority of WoW players do...and I'm fairly certain that is not the bar the raid community here wants to set. In order to appeal to a majority of players raid content would need to be watered down, as an occassional raider myself I would hate that.
Another thing to consider: if raid content has bottlenecks and guilds block each other on progression kills, how many guilds will actually be raiding? I remember way back in 2001 in EQ there were 2-3 top guilds that controlled all of the progression content while the rest of us did the older stuff. In a non instanced world if you have long respawns on raid content you can expect several guilds to quit raiding out of frustration making the raid population even smaller. When players cannot even attempt a raid boss that content essentially doesn't exist for them. It's why instancing was introduced, and it's why WoW took a huge chunk of the EQ raider population. Will Pantheon be able to pull raiders out of FF14 and WoW? Theres no guarantee of that, I haven't really seen any serious raid gameplay footage of Pantheon yet to even attempt to make that determination. I can tell you this: the big boys can churn out a lot more raid content a lot faster.
My view on things is to keep group gear equal to raid gear stat wise in order to maintain the group content focus. Keep the raid gear as unique cosmetic rewards...cool looking weapons/armor/mounts/titles you get the idea. Put mechanics into the game that reduce/discourage content blocking on PvE servers. Basically don't make the same old mistakes. Some of that bathwater really should be thrown out the trick is to not toss the baby too...and we all have our own ideas of what should stay and what should go.
Ziegfried said:philo said:For those that feel that raid content shouldn't be the focus:
How do you keep people playing long term once they have acquired what they want from group content?
Part of the benefit of raid loot it that there are long spawn times so it gives people incentive to play for a longer period of time as they try to attain that loot.
How do you keep people playing long term once they have acquired what they want from raid content? You are theorizing that raid loot will have long spawn times and will be contested, that may or may not be the case here. Group content could be made in the same manner as raid content if devs really wanted to...the mobs with the best stuff could have long spawn times as well as rare drop rates. And in fact that was the case in EQ for several group mobs...not everybody wore an FBSS during the first few years of play. So when we talk about raid content as a way to keep people playing this argument falls apart quickly. To make matters worse there are many players who do not raid for various reasons (not enough time, don't like huge guilds/groups, simply don't like raiding). The raiding end game does not exist for them, they do not care about it and when they run out of their content most will quit rather than become raiders. The raid community is actually quite small, I realized this many years ago when I looked into the statistics on raid completion in WoW. More recently we can look at LFR (looking for raid) as the only raid content a majority of WoW players do...and I'm fairly certain that is not the bar the raid community here wants to set. In order to appeal to a majority of players raid content would need to be watered down, as an occassional raider myself I would hate that.
Another thing to consider: if raid content has bottlenecks and guilds block each other on progression kills, how many guilds will actually be raiding? I remember way back in 2001 in EQ there were 2-3 top guilds that controlled all of the progression content while the rest of us did the older stuff. In a non instanced world if you have long respawns on raid content you can expect several guilds to quit raiding out of frustration making the raid population even smaller. When players cannot even attempt a raid boss that content essentially doesn't exist for them. It's why instancing was introduced, and it's why WoW took a huge chunk of the EQ raider population. Will Pantheon be able to pull raiders out of FF14 and WoW? Theres no guarantee of that, I haven't really seen any serious raid gameplay footage of Pantheon yet to even attempt to make that determination. I can tell you this: the big boys can churn out a lot more raid content a lot faster.
My view on things is to keep group gear equal to raid gear stat wise in order to maintain the group content focus. Keep the raid gear as unique cosmetic rewards...cool looking weapons/armor/mounts/titles you get the idea. Put mechanics into the game that reduce/discourage content blocking on PvE servers. Basically don't make the same old mistakes. Some of that bathwater really should be thrown out the trick is to not toss the baby too...and we all have our own ideas of what should stay and what should go.
Pretty much. There is no reason why Pantheon can't be a group focused game with long term development, spawns, etc... raid content as end game was manufactured, not a need in progression.
You have to understand we aren't talking about everyone. This isn't about people who don't raid or don't do the most difficult content or who don't fully immerse themselves in every aspect of the game.
There is always a small percentage that runs out of content /incentive to play first....followed shortly after by more...and more and more, Eventually you have a percentage of your playerbase who has little incentive to continue to pay their subscription fee until more content is produced. That is the problem.
It has happened repeatedly in the genre in all kinds of games. In games that are itemized a variety of ways. Those that have long camps and short camps. Slow leveling and fast leveling etc.
I don't want to get to in depth about specifics as it isn't necessary. Most people should understand the overarcing concepts being presented...I'd hope?
Iksar listed what are kind of the standard solutions. Ziegfried pointed out that content blocking does extend the life of content for some...which is beneficial for the lifespan of the game in the long run, but still doesn't present a solution for the players running the content currently. The players being blocked aren't the ones we need a solution for.
The people who blast thru quick and run out of content will unsub, I do not see this as an issue unless the content is so laughably easy that the majority of players can clear it all before the next expac comes out. Those bleeding edge players will either resub when the new content releases or move on to another game, if Pantheon is engaging and "fun" then those players will return to beat whatever comes out in an expac then unsub again when they cleared that expac. This has been happening in several MMORPGs for over a decade, these games do not die because the top raiders "beat the game" too fast they only die when the majority of players reach that point. Losing a few thousand subs is quite manageable, but losing 50,000+ subs is when MMOs go to the "free to play" graveyard.
Ziegfried said:The people who blast thru quick and run out of content will unsub, I do not see this as an issue unless the content is so laughably easy that the majority of players can clear it all before the next expac comes out. Those bleeding edge players will either resub when the new content releases or move on to another game, if Pantheon is engaging and "fun" then those players will return to beat whatever comes out in an expac then unsub again when they cleared that expac. This has been happening in several MMORPGs for over a decade, these games do not die because the top raiders "beat the game" too fast they only die when the majority of players reach that point. Losing a few thousand subs is quite manageable, but losing 50,000+ subs is when MMOs go to the "free to play" graveyard.
Yep, and in the past companies have tried to appeal to that minority due to them being vocal only to realize that by doing so, they alienated the bulk of their subscriber base. I honestly think if EQ would have had paid much more attention to their group game (and not thinking thier group players were just mainstreamers who wanted easy content) over the raid game, they would have retained a larger portion of their base for longer. It was natural for them to lose subs to a game like WoW, but when my friends and I left, it wasn't because we were jumping ship to the new games (in fact we tried out a lot of the new mmos as they were released, but always played EQ as our main focus), it was because we felt like Sony was more concerned about their raiders than anyone else, so we moved on to WoW.
Tanix said:Akilae said:Tanix said:PoP turned the game into a gimmick with theme park style entry gates and keyed zones. The entire expansion focused on raids, period. Raids were needed to progress most locations. If you were a guild that did not have raid capability, your options were limited to a few zones while the rest of the game was designed for the top end raiders and catered to their entire concept of content blocking. I raided some of PoP, and even my guild who did raid hated PoP for its numerous bottle necks.
So you didn't like PoP's raids and rapid travel. Many others did. When the world grew so large that it could take well over an hour just to get from point A to B the players started complaining. Even those who weren't fans of instant travel could support something being done to help.
Tomato, tomahto.
You make a very compelling point, for mainstream design. Note how your objection is that people loved PoP because travel was fast travel all over the world ( a modern mainstream design mechainc). Keep in mind many of us who look to this game as a solution do so because of our desire for it to attend to not "mainstream" design choices, but that of the older systems where things like travel meant something. Pop was considered a mainstream dumbing down of EQ, it was Smeds vision of EQ, not Brads and we all know where Smed took us with his vision.
I didn't say people loved PoP because of the fast travel. I said that most players didn't hate the fast(er) travel due to the growth of the world reaching a point where travel really was more time-consuming than it was worth. In the end, these are games and games should be enjoyable. If you spend half your play time traveling it won't take long to get bored and go find a more entertaining game.
I'm also not suggesting that Pantheon needs fast travel, at least not in its initial years unless the world grows massively. But fast travel was not one of the reasons the lion's share of players complained about in PoP.
Tanix said:Akilae said:Tanix said:Also, remember that the original developers of WoW all left right before it was released due to it being bought out by a major entertainment company. Basically, those who created WoW had no hand in its later development. That is, WoW had a pretty good initial design template, but then was taken over by "Big Entertainment" and that is why it ended where it is.
Almost... WoW was released late 2004 and wasn't merged with EA until mid 2008, 3.5 years later. While Vivendi was involved prior to EA they left Blizzard to run their division as they saw fit. Though EA has done WoW no favors they had no impact on the first expansion and very limited impact on the second. Yeah, after that it was a shitshow.
Slight of hand. The point was, most of the original developers left Blizzard before WoW was released. You claiming Vivendi was involved and let Blizzard run as they saw fit only proves the point and shows why the developers left. WoW was taken over by big business mainstream design from day one and your dismissal of what happend not only flies in the face of the facts of the time, but it claims to have some intimate knowledge internally of Blizzard at the time. What I speak of was public knowledge, your argument claims restricted knowledge, so... please explain how your assessment flies in the face of public statements by the original developers at the time.
There is no sleight of hand here and I have no "intimate knowledge" of the inner workings of Blizzard. What I posted is all public information, easily found on the net with a zero effort search. I am dismissing nothing. You, on the other hand, assert that Vivendi's light-touch involvement drove away all of the developers which begs citation. Do you have copies of the employee rolls from each of those years we can use to verify your claims?
Tanix said:Akilae said:But from the beginning WoW was a raid-focused game. The solo and group play wasn't an end unto itself but a means to reaching the raid content. Nobody got to level cap and then spent all their time hanging out in low level areas for the amazing gray content.
Incorrect, WoW didn't even have a major raid zone working at release. The entire focus of WoW on release was group content. The "raid" focus (if you want to call two group content raids) of WoW was Strathalome and Scholomance and Upper Black Rock spires at release, all 10 man dungeons. MC was slated to be a 25 man dungeon and was pushed to a 40 man at the behest of Furor (I remember him swooning over this in interviews at the time) and other like minds. This was all common knowledge during the time.
If you want to be pedantic about this, WoW's initial release focus was getting to market ASAP, in time for the Christmas season and before EQ2, released at the same time, could gain too much market share. The game was incomplete on release which they fairly quickly patched with more content, including raids. Again, this is all available on the net. And as I recall everyone enjoyed the larger raids regardless of how they came to be.
Tanix said:Akilae said:All RPGs, not just MMORPGs, are character development games. That necessarily involves constantly improving yourself, growing and getting stronger, more powerful. By definition there is an end-game as long as there is a level cap. Players at that cap need something to do, something that increasingly challenges them over time. Group content can only go so far in that direction thus we have raids. Raids can also serve as a time gate on player progression to prevent players from burning through the content too quickly. That's why PoP and other content was "gated".
Except this is false. End game is a modern definition of those who do not wish to put the effort into the journey in order to get to the top (D&D certainly didn't operate as such and cRPGs also did have this concept). I remember it, I watched EQ, WoW, etc.. and heard the arguments of certain types of people who despised the RPG concepts, didn't want to develop a character, rather they were interested in playing an arcade game with others at max level and they did raids. Your argument is not one of people who loved cRPGs, but people who loved arcade games and liked the multiplayer interaction of MMO raids. This was also what some of us PC gamers were upset about during the time as the console generation flooded into WoW and brought with them all the game expectations they had of console games which were extremely different in design to that of PC games.
That's an interesting perspective. As an "end game player" I don't avoid the journey to reach end-game. I engage it, enjoy it and then reach the cap. So it seems you've mischaracterized a whole swath of players because I know I'm not alone in my playstyle (would hardly be possible with the millions of MMO players). Yeah, there is always the vocal minority who shout endlessly about how crappy the leveling experience is and that we should all just start out at level cap so we can enjoy "the real game". But they're the minority, however vocal. WoW's leveling is a joke and I doubt you could find many people who disagree with that statement. But there will always be a few here and there who hate even that and just want to be max level. Most of us end-gamers don't share that mentality at all.
Also, D&D and similar games don't have a level cap. There is no end game at all. And if you've ever tried DMing an actual raid you would see it's neither practical nor fun for anyone. Those games work best with small groups simply due to information management. Now we have computers to do that for us so the only concern with getting tons of players together with a common goal is one of lag when everyone starts in with spell and action effects. But counter to your assertions raids are not mutually exclusive to enjoyment of sub-cap adventuring. You can have both.
Tanix said:
Akilae said:I'm not sure what game you want to play. You dislike raiding and fast travel, don't seem to care about progression, and want plenty of solo content. Maybe you'd prefer a game like Life is Feudal where you can play solo or as a group, build out your home/village/city while plenty of others are doing the same, talking or not talking to each other, fighting or not fighting with each other, etc. No levels, just skill improvement and slow growth with a nigh impossible-to-reach "cap".
PoP was not progression, it was bottle necks. PRogression is a basis for cRPG play, PoP containerized what was an open world and turned it into a bunch of key contests to progress. I love character progression, AD&D style development and openess in play, not arcade style theme park play and PoP has more in common with WoW in its basic core principals of design than it does original EQ. EQ to Velious was an open world game. PoP was a themepark for arcade junkie mainstreamers.
I like group play, I even enjoy raids, but I don't care for modern mainstream design which is all back end loaded content focused on arcade junkie fast track play where "development" is measured in how many keys you collect rather than the endurance of a characters design over the course of an environment.
I don't want a modern raid game, but apparently you do? Which then begs the question, after you have read the tenants of this game, the FAQ, can you please explain to me how this game achieves what you are expecting over what I am?
I suggest that your perception of progression is not the same as mine and we both probably differ from a great many other players. I enjoyed PoP. You didn't. And that's fair, not everyone will have the same experience. I enjoyed WoW, too, until they turned it into a soulless grind while also handing out free raid loot to all.
I love both group play and raids. They're not the same thing and provide different challenges. I want a modern game built with the tenets of EQ1 where the journey matters. And I want that game to have challenging content for those who hit the level cap, classically defined as raids. If there are no big baddies in the world that need killing then we're just playing in the world of the Teletubbies. All rainbows and friendship. I'm not really interested in a kids' game.
Everything I've read and watched about Pantheon suggests it will be the game I'm looking for. There will be group content, raid content and a touch of solo content. There will be an environment requiring meaningful social interaction to achieve anything. There will be a real Enchanter class! But it will also have a level cap which by definition means there will be an end-game so perhaps it's not what you're looking for? Nothing so far suggests Pantheon will be D&D Online.
Akilae, I agree with the great majority of what you said. But having said that I would like to focus on one point where I do not necessarily agree, because I see it as significant.
((And I want that game to have challenging content for those who hit the level cap, classically defined as raids. ))
Some people enjoy raids because they enjoy the format of having many multiple groups working together. Some do not. But all of this is quite different than enjoying raids because they are more challenging or give better rewards.
I agree that in most games raids are precisely as you describe them. But is it necessary that a raid give the most challenge or the best reward?
Could Pantheon be designed so that single group enemies are just as hard for that group - or harder - than a four group encounter is for four groups? With equal or better rewards matching the difficulty level.
In other words, would it be a good idea for Pantheon to deliberately change what you correctly describe as the standard model?
LoTRO specifically catered to very difficult group content that was designed similarly to raids in how they functioned. The idea that only multi-group raid content can be challenging or dynamic is just a belief based on the fact that most games only ever present content in this fashion.
dorotea said:Akilae, I agree with the great majority of what you said. But having said that I would like to focus on one point where I do not necessarily agree, because I see it as significant.
((And I want that game to have challenging content for those who hit the level cap, classically defined as raids. ))
Some people enjoy raids because they enjoy the format of having many multiple groups working together. Some do not. But all of this is quite different than enjoying raids because they are more challenging or give better rewards.
I agree that in most games raids are precisely as you describe them. But is it necessary that a raid give the most challenge or the best reward?
Could Pantheon be designed so that single group enemies are just as hard for that group - or harder - than a four group encounter is for four groups? With equal or better rewards matching the difficulty level.
In other words, would it be a good idea for Pantheon to deliberately change what you correctly describe as the standard model?
When I say "challenge" I'm not referring to difficulty. Often raids are no more difficult than group dungeon crawls. The additional challenge comes from coordinating the efforts of 20-40 people to overcome an encounter, something I very much enjoy. "Harder", to me, is more a measure of player skill; This isn't something most games require when advancing from group content to raid content. Gear is the typical gate to raid content. Whether Pantheon will do anything different from most other games in this area remains to be seen.
Truth ^
Coordinating more people is always a greater challenge. On that same note it is more of a challenge to coordinate, lead, work together, be in sync in a large size raid than it is a small raid.Similar to the difference between single group content and smaller sized raids.
Pretty sure Pantheon isn't going to include what I would consider large sized raids...but the point remains. While the difference between working with 18 and 24 people might be nil, the difference in challenge between 40 and 100 is substantial.
philo said:Truth ^
Coordinating more people is always a greater challenge. On that same note it is more of a challenge to coordinate, lead, work together, be in sync in a large size raid than it is a small raid.Similar to the difference between single group content and smaller sized raids.
Pretty sure Pantheon isn't going to include what I would consider large sized raids...but the point remains. While the difference between working with 18 and 24 people might be nil, the difference in challenge between 40 and 100 is substantial.
Yes, more challenge for the raid leaders, not the raid.
Though that is only until you assign proper management control structures. Assigning people to groups, with each group leader being the the communication point for the group, then groups being put into logical divisions for purpose and assigned a leader to control those under it. Then, you assign key roles and leader to specific functions Healing team, pulling team, etc... Once done, you have created a very controled and efffective command structure that can communicate accodingly.
Once you achieve that, the work is done, rest is just each part doing its job. This is a lot of work for the people who run the raid, but no more work for the people who follow along. In EQ it was more difficult because you didn't have the tools like todays interface mods have. You had to rely more on the command structure providing proper communication on various events.
With modern interaces (displays of everyones health, detailed chat organizations, specialized message mods to group, voice chat, etc...) raids are nowhere near as difficult in organizing or running as they were in early EQ.
Is there a reason that raid content shouldn't be more tactically challenging (in terms of player skill requirements) as well as strategically challenging (in terms of # of player requirements) than group content of the same level?
Maybe it's just me, but i kind of want both. I've said many times in raiding discussions around these forums that... oh, heck. Let me just copy/paste from the last thread where we talked about this:
Nephele said:2) I've said this before, but "Raid" should not automatically equal a single large monster. If the objective of every raid fight is "kill the big thing", then that limits the ability of the developers to provide diverse and unique experiences from one raid to the next.
3) Raids can and should scale up to larger numbers of players, but they should do that by increasing complexity and adding additional objectives that must be completed simultaneously, rather than simply by making the monsters bigger and tougher.
4) Raid content should be generally available to people who want to do it, as the challenge should primarily come from the content itself, and not from trying to race other players to get a chance at it. However, this does not mean that every piece of content needs to be handled the exact same way.
You can find that thread here, by the way: https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/10036/raid-tier-single-group-content/view/page/5
I'll put it another way. If we're going to have raiding require 18-whatever players (which I support), then let's actually build epic experiences that are truly worthy of that many players, and aren't just hp-inflated versions of single-group, single-mob fights. That way, there still will be an individual player skill requirement, and it doesn't just become about one person shouting at everyone else when to push, when to interrupt, or when to get behind the mob.
Riahuf22 said: I'd say the best way to avoid the whole top heavy thing is to keep the older content relevent to the new expac that come up, I hate how EQ/WoW made zones that badically completely replaced Home cities and such, granted I don't mind seeing awesome new places by any means but if it gets to the point to where cities like Kelethin/Freeport and such become completely empty than that's bad design, and also keep the zones that are in a previous expac or 2 still have relevent gear that way the world will feel bigger, I know this is hard to do. As for the whole top heavy thing it's hard to say how to prevent it, a ton on players nkw day simply go get to max level/find good gear/raid/complete content and I'm not saying this is a bad thing but it a narrow goal that a ton of players like to do.
There are many ways to slow things down, but some people due to habit will skip everything because they are used to thinking "end game = max level raiding". They will scoff at the inbetween concept (defying the very tenants of this game) and rush to the top where they will sit whining about how there is nothing to do. There is nothing to be gained by focusing these folks, they will only end up killing the group game, just as they did with EQ, and just as they did with most MMOs to date where the game became "End game = max level raiding", because top end raiders claimed it so. /shrug
There is nothing wrong with raiding, but there is everything wrong with thinking those players are important and so must be catered to. You make a few raids, and if they run through the game fast, then raid and then whine. Nothing you can do, it is either appeal to them or appeal to the bulk of the game which is the journey. Ignore that and history will repeat itself.