I haven't been able to find any official word on whether or not Pantheon will adopt the current systems like Group/Dungeon/Raid Finder that is commonly used in games like World of Warcraft. IF anyone knows anything or can post a link to that please do so.
In my opinion, the Group Finder system is absolutely terrible and has completely ruined the MMO genre for me. I feel like I might as well be playing with BOTS when I queue up for a raid in WoW, I rarely recongize anyone i'm grouped with, no one talks, I never make any friends, and again it just feels as though I am playing by myself.
Would love to hear others thoughts regarding "Group Finder" systems.
There should be an LFG tool in one form or another to help people look for others that are also LFG. But for things like using a tool to port you to a group or into an instanced dungeon, yeah, that's not going to happen here.
In this game, people are going to be grouping up with others that are in the local vicinity. If you want to join a group that's on the other side of the world you have to travel there. They do plan on having fast travel options like enhanced running speed, porting (some classes) and summoning (some classes). So there will be travel options as well.
Alas they seem to have mentioned the idea of teleporting a replacement player in if a group loses someone after starting a dungeon. So maybe we aren't as safe from the curse of the modern dungeon finder as most of us had assumed. Until seeing that discussed in another thread right near this one I would have assumed that bigdogchris was right. Now - especially since you can always enter a dungeon intending to have people leave so you can teleport in replacements - I am not so sure.
dorotea said:Alas they seem to have mentioned the idea of teleporting a replacement player in if a group loses someone after starting a dungeon. So maybe we aren't as safe from the curse of the modern dungeon finder as most of us had assumed. Until seeing that discussed in another thread right near this one I would have assumed that bigdogchris was right. Now - especially since you can always enter a dungeon intending to have people leave so you can teleport in replacements - I am not so sure.
I don't think you understand how dungeons work in a game like this. They aren't a one group instanced raid. There will many groups all throughout them leveling and exploring. I believe the "teleporting" you refer to is similar to a COTH(call of the hero). The way this spell works is if a replacement is at the zoneline and the group is deep in, the caster can summon the player to the group. Only works within the same zone and the replacement has to be in the group
They couldn't have the kind of LFD that current WoW has even if they wanted to. When that came out in Warcraft they also had to trivialize the dungeons to the point they offered zero resistance (because you were placed in the dungeon with a group of random scrubs who probably cared as much as you about the run).
I imagine it will be a few classes with Call of the hero type skills/abilities and a combination of “safe” spots to camp for the night in a dungeon, so when you log back in you can quickly join a group, and multiple entrances/exits to dungeons. I’d like to see big sprawling dungeons, but once you obtain a key, etc. you can enter the jail/back door/exit etc. similar to a zone like Sebillis in EQ.
((I don't think you understand how dungeons work in a game like this. They aren't a one group instanced raid. There will many groups all throughout them leveling and exploring.))
Understood - that is why the discussions in the other thread I mentioned included discussions of large dungeons with groups throughout them - and individuals in safe spots waiting to join new groups so they could progress deeper.
((I believe the "teleporting" you refer to is similar to a COTH(call of the hero). The way this spell works is if a replacement is at the zoneline and the group is deep in, the caster can summon the player to the group. Only works within the same zone and the replacement has to be in the group))
Call of the hero was discussed too - but what started the other thread was a developer mentioning that if someone left a group in the middle of adventuring they might give the group a way to summon a replacement. Details were not given - the developer might have had something like CoTH in mind but more scarily might have had a less restricted summons in mind.
I was never a fan of the "Call of the Hero" spell, I thought it provided too much ease for players to circumvent content requirements in deep dungeon runs as well as its openness to promoting item sale services. This is one thing I didn't like about EQ.
There are a couple of problems with allowing people to easily replace group members in dungeons:
First of, this is a competition game in terms of camps. Allowing players to call a camp, then provide them an easy way to summon new players to the camp aids a bit in the abuse of perma-camping areas. I think that players should have to either go back to the zone enterance be it as a group or sending a player to help them get through the zone, or the new player must find a way to the camp. This creates more difficulty in holding camps and makes it where players forefit their camp if they run out of players capable of getting to the camp. In EQ, it was not uncommon to have camps open up because the group didn't have enough to hold it and so another group could step in and take over. So this offers a bit of balance.
Second, being able to easily call people to the camp makes it easier for Item selling services, especially if they try to put any loot restrictions on items at the drop. The company can summon the customer to their camp easily, kill the mob, let them loot and send them on their way. I know you can never fully get rid of this problem, but I don't think the game mechanics should aid it.
A dungeon should be difficult to get in and out of, players should not be handed easy tickets to get in deep into a dungeon, just as players should not be able to fast travel around the world. These things should take time, primarily because time is one of the key factors to help reduce camps, dungeons, areas from being overun and perma-camped due to easy means of travel and summoning.
If you want to group with friends who are already DEEP within a dungeon, they will have to find a way to get you there with effort AND if the dungeon is just too dangerous (ie like some of the EQ dungeons were, getting to Seb 2 near Traknon), then it should be a venture that is planned ahead of time. Doing this keeps that area from being overrun by everyone.
Tanix - While we both agree on the basic point one thing I am curious about. Your dislike of Call of the Hero.
My reaction to druid and mage travel spells is to question whether they are inconsistant with the basic design objectives of the game and will only be in Pantheon because they were in Everquest. I point out, correctly, that they are a form of instant travel that undercuts the concept of large world and great difficulty getting from one place to another. The typical response I get is that while this is self-evidently true they are more than worth having because of their contribution to the social elements of the game and the benefits of giving characters things they can do that other characters badly need. This is, of course, a valid response. One needs to weigh the plusses and minuses.
I look at Call of the Hero in essentially the same way. It is a form of instant travel that undercuts some of the basic design parameters, but is also something that makes some characters badly need help from other characters.
If you liked the travel spells and CotH I would easily understand. If you disliked both I would easily understand. But you dislike CotH and I don't think you object to the travel spells.
The possibilities are (1) you are being just a bit inconsistant here or (2) the harm of CoTH is more than the harm of the travel spells in your eyes, maybe because the travel spells work only to get to certain limited locations or (3) the benefit of the travel spells is greater than the benefit of CotH to you.
I am reasonably sure that you are being perfectly consistent and I am missing something about the travel spells and CotH. Can you educate me on this?
dorotea said:
Tanix - While we both agree on the basic point one thing I am curious about. Your dislike of Call of the Hero.
My reaction to druid and mage travel spells is to question whether they are inconsistant with the basic design objectives of the game and will only be in Pantheon because they were in Everquest. I point out, correctly, that they are a form of instant travel that undercuts the concept of large world and great difficulty getting from one place to another. The typical response I get is that while this is self-evidently true they are more than worth having because of their contribution to the social elements of the game and the benefits of giving characters things they can do that other characters badly need. This is, of course, a valid response. One needs to weigh the plusses and minuses.
I look at Call of the Hero in essentially the same way. It is a form of instant travel that undercuts some of the basic design parameters, but is also something that makes some characters badly need help from other characters.
If you liked the travel spells and CotH I would easily understand. If you disliked both I would easily understand. But you dislike CotH and I don't think you object to the travel spells.
The possibilities are (1) you are being just a bit inconsistant here or (2) the harm of CoTH is more than the harm of the travel spells in your eyes, maybe because the travel spells work only to get to certain limited locations or (3) the benefit of the travel spells is greater than the benefit of CotH to you.
I am reasonably sure that you are being perfectly consistent and I am missing something about the travel spells and CotH. Can you educate me on this?
First off, as I have said before I am not arguing for an EQ clone, I like a lot of what EQ did, I disagree with various aspects of it though. As for the wizard/druid “reasoning” for having a teleport spell, social interaction is a component of that, but keep in mind that travel across the “world” is different than access to a deeper area of a dungeon.
In EQ, porting around the world was not open everywhere. The druid/wizard port areas were specific, limited to given areas, so they were controlled to where you could go. This is important because you can still design your port locations in areas that protect the content. That is, you don’t put ports near dungeons or in very hard to get areas that are designed to be difficult as it circumvents the point of long travel. You limit ports to their proximity to cities and the like forcing the player to still have time in travel.
CoTH is a bit different in that where the player summons and goes is not controlled. The player gets to choose where they will go and then summon people directly to them. It would be like allowing druids/wizards to simply pick anywhere in the world and allow them to just port there. There has to be limits and the integrity of the dungeon needs to be preserved. If you allow people to circumvent that, you defeat the entire point of game play.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand the importance of character development and progression and its relation to the obstacles of the world, but we you have to be careful to not “close doors” on content obstacles to which a spell like CotH will do due to its design. This is why I said that if they greatly limited its use to very specific areas it “might” be acceptable, but it depends on what it actually provides.
The point is, it isn’t “just” about travel, there are layers upon layers of game play here that need to be considered. Travel as a basic obstacle is an issue, but as I said, you can control that by still providing travel as an obstacle with the druid/wizard rings (as long as you don’t put ports into cities/dungeons or right next to them), but then in the case of dungeons, there is the circumvention of not only travel as an obstacle, but the difficulty in that travel (more of a dungeon thing).
In the druid/wizard example, time is the main key (difficulty is important but it takes a back seat on world ports), in the dungeon example, difficulty is the key issue here (among the issue I pointed out with how easy access to camps can cause issues in contested content).
In a dungeon like for instance Sebilis in EQ, there were two levels, and the dungeons were DEEP in. Players could use various tricks to help get in (invis, sneak, FD, etc..) but the mobs had a lot of abilities (see invis, high direct damage spells, SoW run speed, snare, etc…)
To get to the second level, you had to jump into the water, swim to (A) on the map, which took you to an area where there were lots of frogs who randomly saw invis AND they had a spell called Ice Comet if they were a mage which could almost outright kill some players. Trying to get through there solo, even as a monk using FD was EXTREMELY difficult, usually a failure.
Then, you had to pass through that area, going near the mushroom mobs (which could also see invis if they were casters) and pass along a set of halls filled with these mobs to get to the Juggernaught area at (3). Also on the map you will notice (2) which was the mushroom king and both (2) and (3) were very contested camps due to (2) dropping the most widely desired item in the game for Kunark (Fungi Tunic) which was farmed by everyone due to its value for twinking monks and (3) being where many spells dropped for certain classes.
It was very hard to get back to those areas, it took a very skilled group who could time pulls, kills, manage their resources in order to get back to those locations due to many pops, see invis mobs, etc..
That difficulty (in the beginning before most mages had CoH) was key to being able to get the camp. After CoH became common, people would just cycle summoning to the king camp, etc… It was bad because without it, many camps would fall apart and this is good, because it left room for other people to get the camps. Also, the travel to those difficult areas kept “fly by night” or short term groups from popping in as well (unless they were raid geared, which even then the king was a hard spawn to hold as a single group).
Point is, in the dungeons case, it is “content” specifically that is the obstacle in the dungeon. In a large open world, it is travel time which is the obstacle. So, in the former, bypassing the difficulty in content is the issue, in the latter it is bypassing the time constraint.
In the end, the issue is balance here in risk vs reward, and time is a component as well in this, which is why travel in the world is important as an obstacle and difficulty in the dungeon is also important (which also has a time component as well).
Ultimately though, Ports are controlled in location, CoH is not and if your point is.. “well, we can put in controlled CoH points in a dungeon”, my point is… why is that good for the game? IF your answer is, it promotes group reliance… well.. you don’t “need” a group to travel from one side of the world to another, but you in most cases require a group to get to one side of a dungeon from another. CoH I would say does not promote group interaction, it circumvents it.
If some random mage wants to sit around in a dungeon Coth'ing people down for money.... why stop them. How is that different from a druid of wizard standing around porting people around.
Also, even without coth you could just have the person die and then either get summoned, get dragged by a rogue or monk... like theres a ton of options to easily get people into the area of the dungeon you're in.
You guys are overthinking things. Trying to eliminate every possible way for someone to abuse a mechanic in a minimal way. Its not worth it
Porygon said:If some random mage wants to sit around in a dungeon Coth'ing people down for money.... why stop them. How is that different from a druid of wizard standing around porting people around.
Also, even without coth you could just have the person die and then either get summoned, get dragged by a rogue or monk... like theres a ton of options to easily get people into the area of the dungeon you're in.
You guys are overthinking things. Trying to eliminate every possible way for someone to abuse a mechanic in a minimal way. Its not worth it
I think I already covered that in my explanation, why it is worse than people porting.
I mean, so what if a guy wants to set up a pay service at a camp, lock down the camp with a group and charge or give benefit to those he selects to port to the camp to get an item right? /sarc
EQ even had issues with some guilds setting up things similar to this selling off the drops for cash to players.
If you think that is "good" for the game, then we don't agree on what a good game is.
Tanix - thanks.
My suspicion that the limited number of druid/mage ports affected your conclusions was correct. You also saw more harm to gameplay in jumping over dungeon content that was put there to prevent easy access than in most forms of jumping over distance (but not content) using the druid or mage port. Hopefully that is a fair although greatly oversimplified summary.
Porygon - I think the problem some of us see is that this isn't merely something that can be abused by clever people - this is something designed from the start to enable barriers to content to be jumped over (at least for the person being teleported) and thus something potentially harmful even when used "as intended" with no abuse.
dorotea said:Tanix - thanks.
My suspicion that the limited number of druid/mage ports affected your conclusions was correct. You also saw more harm to gameplay in jumping over dungeon content that was put there to prevent easy access than in most forms of jumping over distance (but not content) using the druid or mage port. Hopefully that is a fair although greatly oversimplified summary.
That is fair I think. As I said, it depends on the context of the issue . In world travel, time is more of the issue and time has layers of subtle effects on various other systems (difficulty as well, but this is controlled by port locations). In Dungeons, difficulty (though time is also a component) is the more focused issue. So yes, I think you summarized my points pretty clearly.
While Call of the Hero could definitely be abused (and was) — I think it is a kneejerk reaction to remove it completely also due to past behaviors.
You could easily control abuse through expensive reagents, long cooldown times, or even long cooldown times specific to a character/account (so you can’t stage a pocket CotH in case of wipes), etc. etc.
I’d also be ok with a /no rent item that a Ghoul / Skeleton / Frogolok / Lizard etc. Summoner (rare/semi rare random named in zones?) that would drop a stone that summons 1 character to the group while in the same zones with the similar to CoH so it wouldn’t necessarily have to be mage specific - but still carry a risk/reward. The caveat being that type of disposition could also summon mobs to create a nasty train while fighting them. I’d also keep the same long cooldowns etc. mentioned above.
Anyway, just spitballing a few ideas - it wouldn’t be hard to be creative with it.
Tanix said:I think I already covered that in my explanation, why it is worse than people porting.
I mean, so what if a guy wants to set up a pay service at a camp, lock down the camp with a group and charge or give benefit to those he selects to port to the camp to get an item right? /sarc
EQ even had issues with some guilds setting up things similar to this selling off the drops for cash to players.
If you think that is "good" for the game, then we don't agree on what a good game is.
Yes. Actually. Who cares. People will sell items any way they can. If the items are bop they will sell loot rights. Guilds will already offer looting rights for raid items most likely, theres nothing wrong with any of this.
While were campaigning against coth because of its potential negative uses why not also remove stealth AND feign death, because those can also be used to exploit and bypass content...
Raidan said:While Call of the Hero could definitely be abused (and was) — I think it is a kneejerk reaction to remove it completely also due to past behaviors.
You could easily control abuse through expensive reagents, long cooldown times, or even long cooldown times specific to a character/account (so you can’t stage a pocket CotH in case of wipes), etc. etc.
I’d also be ok with a /no rent item that a Ghoul / Skeleton / Frogolok / Lizard etc. Summoner (rare/semi rare random named in zones?) that would drop a stone that summons 1 character to the group while in the same zones with the similar to CoH so it wouldn’t necessarily have to be mage specific - but still carry a risk/reward. The caveat being that type of disposition could also summon mobs to create a nasty train while fighting them. I’d also keep the same long cooldowns etc. mentioned above.
Anyway, just spitballing a few ideas - it wouldn’t be hard to be creative with it.
Yeah, there might be a solution, maybe even a summoner spell, with a lore based reagent that is expensive and purchased at a vendor? That would make it common for a classes spell, useful in some situations, but not abusable to excessive means. Add in a cooldown and then you might have something that still has use, but can't be abused (ie moving entire groups across dangerous areas or cycling people into a group indefintely). I would personally prefer a solution that keeps it as a special ability to a class, I am not a big fan of giving such abilities to everyone.
Porygon said:Tanix said:I think I already covered that in my explanation, why it is worse than people porting.
I mean, so what if a guy wants to set up a pay service at a camp, lock down the camp with a group and charge or give benefit to those he selects to port to the camp to get an item right? /sarc
EQ even had issues with some guilds setting up things similar to this selling off the drops for cash to players.
If you think that is "good" for the game, then we don't agree on what a good game is.
Yes. Actually. Who cares. People will sell items any way they can. If the items are bop they will sell loot rights. Guilds will already offer looting rights for raid items most likely, theres nothing wrong with any of this.
While were campaigning against coth because of its potential negative uses why not also remove stealth AND feign death, because those can also be used to exploit and bypass content...
Can't beat them, join them?
They might as well open up an RMT store?
As for FD, it has limitations. While it is possible for a monk to flop their way through some areas, this was EXTREMELY difficult in content of level. In fact, it was likely you would die getting through some areas. It would allow a monk to get through content that was lower than them with some ease, but there were even dangers then. Fact is, it was not a "get out of jail" free ability, it had its draw backs, and "risks" in use. If it were a danerous zone, chances are the monk would be killed a few times before they finally made it through, but if they were very clever they might be able to carefully get around. As for stealth, it had the same risks as well, but it was a lot harder because one see stealth mob and the rogue was toast (and there were mobs like this in some areas of the game).
Though I don't see how that is comparable to an ability that allowed players to be safely moved from one side of the zone to the other without any worry or concern. I think your example is apples to oranges here.
Now if you want to put some negatives to the spell, sure... lets add some risks? Maybe... there is a percent chance it drops the player somewhere in the zone randomly if it fails? You know, kind of how FD can fail and you get killed because of it? Need to make sure the percent fail is similar to FD, you know... to be fair and all!
They do that and I say, yes, absolutely put in CotH.
You good with that?
Edit:
Oh, and make the spell have to be leveled by skill similar to FD where you have to use the skill thousands of times before you get to the point where it doesn't fail everytime, but still fails part of the time.
I am starting to like the spell now!
Uh, how is finding ways to make in-game money in an efficient way in any way similar to having an RMT store?
Every bit of thing you sell to another player for money is a thing that is tied a respawn timer and as such is denied to anyone else for a bit. Why on earth would it be bad to sell cleared dungeons? lol
Let's rally around a persistent world game and then hate that there are other players playing the game the way they like... smh
Spluffen said:Uh, how is finding ways to make in-game money in an efficient way in any way similar to having an RMT store?
Every bit of thing you sell to another player for money is a thing that is tied a respawn timer and as such is denied to anyone else for a bit. Why on earth would it be bad to sell cleared dungeons? lol
Let's rally around a persistent world game and then hate that there are other players playing the game the way they like... smh
Well, you do realize RMT sites will use this feature as a means to more easily do RMT?
That is one part, the other part is that this also encourages players to lock down content and charge other players to access it.
Do you think that is a good design for a game?
Spluffen said:Tanix said:Spluffen said:Uh, how is finding ways to make in-game money in an efficient way in any way similar to having an RMT store?
Every bit of thing you sell to another player for money is a thing that is tied a respawn timer and as such is denied to anyone else for a bit. Why on earth would it be bad to sell cleared dungeons? lol
Let's rally around a persistent world game and then hate that there are other players playing the game the way they like... smh
Well, you do realize RMT sites will use this feature as a means to more easily do RMT?
That is one part, the other part is that this also encourages players to lock down content and charge other players to access it.
Do you think that is a good design for a game?
1) irrelevant
2) yes
Well, it certainly explains your position. You don't care if RMT is advanced by this and you are all for camp locking to force players to pay to even play the game.
That will go over well.