The flaw in your logic is "casual" players like myself aren't going to be up there fighting for the end game bosses with the rush to end game high end guilds. We're going to be casually leveling at lvl 25, 35, or 45 rolling our eyes at the handful of people fighting like children over there toys.
I wasn't talking about the first few months... I am talking about when the larger mass of the playerbase get into max level content. In your scenario, you are never max level and only the top 5-10% of players ever will be. So unless VR is planning on continously increasing max level, more casual players will eventually get to level cap and will want to do harder content.
You could always put in a raid schedule where guilds sign up and go into a rotation. EQ's Stormhammer did this, as well as some of the production servers did this as well where guilds setup rotation schedules and everyone abided by them.
First of all, this is another way to get people to quit playing the game. It worked 20 years ago, but it doesn't go over well when there are other options (games) out there. If there are 6 raid guilds on a server, and 3 raid zones. Every week 3 of those guilds don't get to raid at all, and you would only get to see the same zone once every 7th (?) week. Can you imagine if the one item you are saving your DKP for, you only have a shot at it even dropping once every month and a half? Dead game. At least, dead raiding scene for sure.
This is why it meant something to have raid gear in EQ and why in WoW the gear was common.
People didn't know how to raid back then, nor was there voice chat or great raiding databases. Combine that with the fact that most guilds were these huge forces to beat the content, there was no size limit. Kill a dragon and it dropped a few items for 70+ people, thus not many people had multiple raid drops. Early in WoW, raiding gear wasn't common either but it probably seemed that way because there was a substantially larger playerbase coupled with better information.
I am not sure what your fight about restricting end game gear is for people, as long as it is 'no drop' then it doesn't over saturate the market (auction house, economy, etc). Plus, gearing up your character is the largest weight of character progression - halting that as much as you are suggesting, will also get people to head towards the exits. As long as there aren't charity epics, like today's WoW - then you should be able to put in the time getting as much or as little gear as you want (obviously the game's challenge/difficulty level must be up to snuff), not just waiting for the weeks go bye so you can actually play the game (raiding rotation).
I think Nephele outlined things very well as far as where Pantheon is likely to be going.
The goal. as far as what we have seen so far, is to have the journey more important than the endgame - in fact the very term "endgame" is inconsitent with how VR has indicated they want Pantheon to work. Those that want a traditional type of endgame are as likely as not to speed-level through the content that is the heart of Pantheon, get to maximum level, do some raids, decide that the raiding content is inadaquate for their purposes, and have to decide what to do.
One could ask me as a player that likes to solo as well as group - why am I here? When the blessed day comes and Pantheon is released will I find the numerous manifest advantages over "modern" MMOs worth actually playing for years if I cannot solo much. I hope so but time will tell.
Equally one can ask the players that like to raid more than anything else - why are *they* here? Will they find that the numerous manifest advantages over "modern" MMOs make Pantheon worth actually playing for years if there isn't that much raiding and most of that is competition with other players not the raid boss encounters themselves. I hope so (I am not a raider but the more good players we have the better) but they too will be faced with the choice of running groups (not raids) far more than they are used to or leaving.
Microtransaction MMOs depend a lot on raiders and raiding guilds because they spend far more per person than the typical player. Pantheon will *not* have this incentive to cater to them - so-called casual players are likely to furnish the great bulk of revenue under a subscription model. At least for quite a few years which is really what we should be focusing on.
In this context I think instances for raiding are a terrible idea and I say this as a supporter of using instances where they add value, albeit not frequently. Instanced raids in this group-focused game will just rub the raiders' noses in the likely lack of raid content. But non-instanced raids will give them something very different from what they are used to - and competition with other players is a different dynamic - they may not really worry about the number of actual raid encounters quite as much if they have to worry more about other players. Very analagous to the way pvp enthusiasts argue that competing with players is more challenging and almost infinitely flexible compared with competing with mobs.
Instances for raiding might well be a "terrible idea" but it's still better than everything being open world and denied to you by the number one guild hogging it all...
IF VR find some third option that avoids the pitfalls of the two options, great, if they can't then personally I'd prefer at least some be instanced than all be open world and functionally limited to the elitists.
Tanix said:You could always put in a raid schedule where guilds sign up and go into a rotation. EQ's Stormhammer did this, as well as some of the production servers did this as well where guilds setup rotation schedules and everyone abided by them.
On Stormhammer, the GMs would setup testing events for the guilds where they had to defeat a top raid mob in each teir of content. If they beat that mob, they got put into a rotation each week. It actually worked very well, but at that time EQ had been out a while and there was quite a bit of raid content out of multiple tiers.
Past that, putting in instances will only greatly increase the loot into the game which then defeats the concept and feel of rare and worthy gear to which early EQ had.
I disagree. In early wow seeing someone in full T2 MEANT something. The content wasnt easy, it was difficult. Just because a game has instances doesnt mean it takes away from the accomplishment of obtaining gear.
I guarantee if everquest was instanced (like it is on the TLPs) you would still have a huge sense of accomplishment upon obtaining gear. The raids were not easy. I dont think it's instancing vs not that takes away the sense of accomplishment, but the difficulty of the raid.
When sunwell plateau came out it introduced 3 more pieces of T6 gear. Sunwell was so difficult that seeing anyone with a T6 boot, bracer or belt MEANT something. And this is at the end of the 2nd xpac. People would come up to me and send me tells because I had 8 pieces of T6. It didn't matter that it was instanced. It was difficult .
As for rotations... that eliminates all competition. If you're going to opt for rotations you may as well just instance.
Sabot said: I dont think this is even a real problem. The hardcore raiders will deal with whatever system is decided on. The non raiders will never notice. Why bother even listen to anyone that complains or wants something different? Those hardcore types wont quit over this. And anyone that does never bothered to read the most basic information available on what this game is. To be honest I think a large portion of the raiders want non instanced raids. All of the things people complained about in this and other threads are things that the real raiders thrive in and see as fun challenges. I
You're 100% right. But the problem is you're missing an entire group of people, and most likely the largest. Casual raiders will care. If the top 10% of a server isnhardcore raiders. And the bottom 10% doesnt raid... 80% of the server is going to directly be impacted by the system VR sets up. I've been in the position of being a "casual" raider and trying to compete against a hardcore guild for kills. It's not fun.
FierinaFuryfist said:My memory is foggy but how was Plane of Time implemented in EQ??
Terribly...
But yes PoTime was instanced.
But it really didnt matter much, because the elemental planes were not.
Which also didnt matter because RZtW was also not instanced.
EQ had so many cockblocks and choke points. It was horrible.
I'm basically against any "End game content" gated into specific areas with predictable long timer spawns.
It's just less of a hassle to build long term play around something else, that is not binary (kill-no kill) and not in constant competition requiring scouts everywhere and massive portals everytime a raid boss shows up.
Armyguy0 said: I have a couple of ideas. First off it is possible to generate group specific, event driven monsters that only the group can interact with in the world. This mechanism can be applied with a multitude of triggers and leveraged with things like gear/game saturation in mind. Secondly If the “end game” gear doesn’t fall victim to ever increasing level caps associated with expansions and falls in line with lateral progression within class specific gear sets then I think a lot of the conflict goes away.
I've been musing on that a while and the recent stream made me think about it again. For those that played Vanguard, early in its development it had a system they were working on for just that thing called the Advanced Encounter System. The AES was the way they planned to add some group specific content without instancing. Never really fully materialized but I believe we had a go at it early in the beta. Pretty much it worked something like this:
* Groups fight in dungeons, random item X drops.
* Item is used and it sets players on what was known as the Golden Path, which was just a path to find a specific area where you encounter the next part.
* The Golden Mob: The Golden Mob was the end of the A.E.S. encounter. On paper, once you completed whatever task you were set on at the start you would inevitably encounter a Golden Mob spawn. This would be a mob only killable by your group and would give some nifty loot as a reward.
Unless my brain fails me (and these days that happens more than I'd like), my group ran this in a cave and the Golden Mob was a gargoyle statue that we had to use the item that started things at to get it to come to life so we could kill it.
Unfortunately, as with many things during Vanguard's development, that system never quite panned out so I believe it was eventually just abandoned altogether. Still, there's some merit to the idea if it were to have a bit of time in the iteration oven. There's certainly something there you could do something with.
I know VR wants some open world mobs. But if they want to add some other stuff along that line, this system might be worth taking another look at. Wouldn't be too hard to addsome boss/raid encounters using that wall mechanic from the stream boss with some tweaking that allows entry from group or raids only in but not out and creating a "Golden Mob" type encounter within. It's certainly something I look forward to hearing more about.
I remember a web cast ware Brad McQuade talked about Vanguard and its/ his shortcommings within that game. He was very honest and it was when I truely started to like him as a person. Either way there was alot of back end(Investor) stuff that helped to kill Vanguard.
Kratuk Said:
For those that played Vanguard, early in its development it had a system they were working on for just that thing called the Advanced Encounter System. The AES was the way they planned to add some group specific content without instancing. Never really fully materialized but I believe we had a go at it early in the beta.
I think there was alot of stuff that didnt get to see the light of day because of money and investor influence/ emotional stress. Hearing that a form of it was atleast thought about is good enough for me to think it may have been tossed around a bit.
You're 100% right. But the problem is you're missing an entire group of people, and most likely the largest. Casual raiders will care. If the top 10% of a server isnhardcore raiders. And the bottom 10% doesnt raid... 80% of the server is going to directly be impacted by the system VR sets up. ))
My guess is maybe 10% of the server will be interested in raiding and most will be casual about it. But you may be right - no way to have even a reasonable guess now.
Fragile said:I wasn't talking about the first few months... I am talking about when the larger mass of the playerbase get into max level content. In your scenario, you are never max level and only the top 5-10% of players ever will be. So unless VR is planning on continously increasing max level, more casual players will eventually get to level cap and will want to do harder content.
I don't think that will be an issue. I think VR has a lot of side progression content planned. Remember, Velious was not a level progression expansion, yet it had a ton to do for non-raiders. As long as VR provides content at a regular pace (1 year or less) and continues to provide horizontal progression, I doubt you will see this as a major issue. Most of modern gamers are used to progression pace at a much faster pace, so if they tune it right across the board (fights take longer, down time, leveling speed, travel time, etc....) then the game will take much longer for people to progress in and the bottle neck of everyone being at max level will be less of an issue. Though I say this is contingent on those design features. The easier they make them, the more likely your concern will be true. That is why I argue how important even the most subtle of features have on game progression.
Fragile said:First of all, this is another way to get people to quit playing the game. It worked 20 years ago, but it doesn't go over well when there are other options (games) out there. If there are 6 raid guilds on a server, and 3 raid zones. Every week 3 of those guilds don't get to raid at all, and you would only get to see the same zone once every 7th (?) week. Can you imagine if the one item you are saving your DKP for, you only have a shot at it even dropping once every month and a half? Dead game. At least, dead raiding scene for sure.
The same argument can be translated to a micro level in forcing people to wait on drops, spawn cycles, down times, etc... They will either accept it, or they won't. This is a niche game, not a game trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I can not only imagine your example, I lived it. This is why EQ gear was coveted. Why there was such excitement to finally get an item, and why players who had them were looked at with awe. I can look back to tons of MMOs I have played over the decades, and yet I can't tell you the items I got from any of them, except... in EQ I can account for every raid drop I won, explain to you in detail the event and what it took to get it.
That is the point, that is "meaningful content". Now some will not like this, some have gotten used to immediate gratification and instant results and will not accept anythying other than winning on every outing and having all your dreams come true in a single play session. This game is not for them and it doesn't need to be. Pantheon doesn't need millions of subs, it doesn't even need 100's of thousands of subs to pay its bills (which is one of the points VR has made in their development cycle as to it being slow and even in order to insure they stay in the black and can afford to function with a smaller player base).
Fragile said:People didn't know how to raid back then, nor was there voice chat or great raiding databases. Combine that with the fact that most guilds were these huge forces to beat the content, there was no size limit. Kill a dragon and it dropped a few items for 70+ people, thus not many people had multiple raid drops. Early in WoW, raiding gear wasn't common either but it probably seemed that way because there was a substantially larger playerbase coupled with better information.
Did you organize, design and lead raids in EQ? While EQ raids had a bulk of players who were simply told to attack a mob, or turn off attack most of the fight, that was the fodder roles of EQ fights. The intricate roles were those who did tank switching, healing chains to swap targets, controlled group changes on multi-target events, etc.... If you watch the AoW fight on a video, it looks stupidly easy, but if you knew what was going on, not so much.
EQ while not being big on the action/arcade concept of play with "dance revolution" style mechanics, was an endurance based fight with intricate swaping mechanics for healers and tanks. It was the type of fighting where one single mistake by the tank meant the raid was killed near instantly by the Boss swinging around on the raid.
As for numbers, yes... some people took 70 people to do a target that could be done with a well trained raid of 30. You know what though? They had to divy the loot between 70 people though which is why those large guilds started trying to block other raids from doing content (which is why PoP was a massively crap expansion due to its bottle necks). A raid of 30 could gear up faster than that bloated zerg of a guild and they knew it.
Just so you know, I led raids in WoW and other games as well. Players didn't get "better" at raiding, in fact I would put my old guild of raiders up against todays top guilds of today. Content today is arcading, not cRPGing.
Fragile said:I am not sure what your fight about restricting end game gear is for people, as long as it is 'no drop' then it doesn't over saturate the market (auction house, economy, etc). Plus, gearing up your character is the largest weight of character progression - halting that as much as you are suggesting, will also get people to head towards the exits. As long as there aren't charity epics, like today's WoW - then you should be able to put in the time getting as much or as little gear as you want (obviously the game's challenge/difficulty level must be up to snuff), not just waiting for the weeks go bye so you can actually play the game (raiding rotation).
Restricting ALL gear is the point. When something is commmon, it is meaningless. I watched how gear meant something in a game like EQ where everyone was walking around in raid gear in WoW, Rift, DDO, LoTRO, etc... all because token systems and instances provided EVERYONE the means to get something and when everyone had it, it didn't mean so much.
If long term progression, waiting on gearing up, and having rarity in a system sends people to the exits? Then they are shallow gamers who want instant gratification and pleasing them means yet another mainstream boring game where nothing means anything. Cater to them, causes people like me to go to the exits.
Which then brings up the point... why are they making this game? Is it to continue to cater to more of the same mainstream garbage out there? Or did they say they were making a game for niche players who wanted a solid and meaningful game play experience, not a theme park ride with vending machines for the lazy and bored?
dorotea said:
You're 100% right. But the problem is you're missing an entire group of people, and most likely the largest. Casual raiders will care. If the top 10% of a server isnhardcore raiders. And the bottom 10% doesnt raid... 80% of the server is going to directly be impacted by the system VR sets up. ))
My guess is maybe 10% of the server will be interested in raiding and most will be casual about it. But you may be right - no way to have even a reasonable guess now.
It was my understanding that Pantheon was going to be a group focused game mainly? Raids were supposed to be a very small component of it. That is, it was suppposed to be more like EQ release, and less like EQ later where everything was about raiding. If they design it that way, raiding will be a part time thing, not the main focus. I know I hope so because if raiding becomes like it is in EQ, then I have no desire to play.
zewtastic said:Ok, you do know P99 is a emulator, right?
Do not compare any MMO, run by a professional game company to anything on an emulator.
The issue with p1999 is content doesn't get added and it is extremely top heavy. Yes, it was a bad example and is probably a little bit out of context. For clarification, I do not support instancing as a solution for contested content. As long as game devs continue to add content then it's fine not to have instancing.
I was talking with someone recently that is in a P1999 raiding guild. They said the First to Engage mechanic resolves issues with kill stealing raid targets. And the rush of excitement to see who can gather the troops first is pretty exciting and much more fun than instanced EQ Live raiding was.
For areas where I do support instances, I would say things like in-game player flats/apartments/housing, or guild halls would make good situations where you want to give people private area but not use it as mechanic that takes away competition.
Iv been playing and enjoying EQ P99 for a while now and I gata say the biggest issue that really blocke me from enjoying the game to its fullest is that the end game zone isn't instanced. Zones like Veeshanes Peake, the end zone for Kunark. This zone requires. you to camp several drops in single group content + kill a raid boss. What happens is that 1 guild dominates the raid boss and hogs the single group camps to block other guild from getting into the end zone. There has only been 1 guild in that VP since it was added to the server. This guid was baned from all raid content by the Mods just yesterday for being a toxic pain in the ass on the server. I dont agree with that because they are playing the game as it was intended.
This would all be avoided IF VP was an instance. I think that EQ did a great job with this in there Planes of Power expansion. All the zone where open except for Time. This let all the guild who spent the time to get keys to Time to raid that zone on there own schedule and not have to war over who enters the zone on what day or having to deal with sharing spawn timers with something that really requires a lot of planning to take on. Antoher way of doing it would be having quests for guild to compleate in orfer to spawn a raid boss.
What happens personally with this environment is that my guild gets all the way to the end but is blocked by another guld hoging the content. I get frustrated and have 3 options. 1. defect to the guild even if I dont like that guild. 2. Pretend that content doesn't exist and look the other way feeling a sickening feeling in my chest the whole time. 3. quit because i cant handle the frustrating feeling of never being able to experience I know Im ready for.
its also a drag when something is spawning at 6-8 am and you have to poop sock to have a chance to get it.
Please no poop socking!
To me the "for raid zone instancing" camp seems to be missing a big point that has been raised time and again, and Nephele has re-iterated it in this thread; raiding is not the primary goal of the end game content. VR have said this almost from day one; this is not the direction that the game is headed.
(Nephele)
Here's a short list of what we'll likely be doing at the level cap based on what we have been told so far:
- Extremely challenging single-group adventuring content
- Epic quest lines for weapons, armor, or ability upgrades
- Seeking out artifacts to enable access to more areas
- Participating in dynamic events that take place across the game world
- Raiding
The heart of Pantheon might beat to the same rhythm as EQ1, but it is a different beast. As such, you cannot make huge assumptions about how bad game play will be without instancing because is doesnt follow the same recipe as other games. The developers are aware of the pitfalls of instancing and non-instancing. They play the same games we play. Hell, they even coded some of them.
In most MMORPGs, there really is nothing to do when you hit max level and have completed the max level contested zones, except to raid. In Patheon, there will be other things to participate in. Yes, there will be some raids, but it seems to me that there will be rewards that lie in the areas away from the raiding content. If more people are employed in things other than raiding, it means it will be easier for those that want to raid.
I think if they keep raiding and there gear that comes with it and long quest lines like epics seprated it would help alot with this in a group centric game lets keep raiding for loot drops not bottle neck 80% of the server at need x to finish this quest I have 100+ hours into.
Gruzzen said:Greetings all,
I know that this topic has been discussed before and that the Dev. have pretty much made a decision on Instances, which the last I heard there will be no instances ingame, but I wanted to add my own opinion so the Dev have something they can think about in case the no-instance policy doesn't work out as expected.
I believe that End game zones should be instances.
I've come to this conclusion from my experiences playing EQ and other free-for-all mmorpg games that did not have instances. What will happen is that the first 2 or 3 guilds that make it to end game will (at first) play nice with each other. Sharing the end game zones with each other i.e. Guild A does Zone 1 this week and Guild B does Zone 2 and next week they switch zones. Once you have 4 or 5 guilds wanting to do the end zones then peoples greed or impatience will win out and it will become cut-thoart. Training a guiild right before they do the encounter to wipe them and stealing the kill or a more powerful guild just running over the other guild who was there first but is still learning the zone. Heaven help you if there is a bottle-neck in the progression like having a guild have to farm keys to enter an end zone. The server I was on in EQ had Conquest and Seven Dreams in constant conflict over this. They hated each other. It poisoned the community overall and ruined the enjoyment for everyone.
My understanding is that in Pantheon guilds will be 25 man. Which mean once you get 100 people at end game the fireworks will start. A server with only 100-200 active players isn't very profitable for a gaming company to keep around let alone charge $15 dollars to play. Play in a hard core guild cause lots of people to burn-out and the guild needs to keep replacing players. Having a low population isn't going to allow that causing the hard-core players to give up when their guild can't raid like they want.
Finally while EverQuest did have lots of quest to do no one ever did them because to do them when the reward was design for your level meant that you had to get a group together and most people did not want to waste their time doing quest since they never got any gear out of it and it didn't produce as much xp as just camping during that same amount of time. This problem I don't know if I have a viable solution to it but i would suggest something like being able to share the quest with the group and the reward being a choice of one items between 3 to 5 that is appropriate for the level and can cover most class roles (healing, melee, magic, armor, range etc)
Anyways thanks for listening to me I'm looking forward to this game as I really really enjoyed playing an Enchanter and have never found any other game with a class even remotely close to an Enchanter
Gruzzen
Disagree. No instances. There are plenty of games out there to play with instancing. I play none of them.
((Disagree. No instances. ))
To me saying none - not a single one - is an extreme position. I would prefer to say not many instances and only where there is a good reason to have one. I can think of three situations off-hand where instancing should not be ruled out as a possibility.
1. Story instances. This would normally be a situation where a character is shown something of interest by participating rather than just reading text from a NPC. Perhaps backstory about his or her race. Perhaps backstory about the world and the Gods. Thus a character might participate in a retrospective instance playing out the history of the first dwarves on Terminus. Maybe with no xp or other reward - just for the story. My guess is that this is far from what you were thinking of and you might not object at all. But it is technically an instance.
2. Dungeons that unlock important aspects pf the world or character progression where it simply is not fair to allow progression to be blocked for weeks or months because someone, or someones, or a powerful but not very nice guild is going out of its way to monopolize it. Maybe just to grief others. My hope is that VR will not program such roadblocks - and by progression I mean ability to access a zone or other significant content or aquisition of some ability of major importance not simply a dungeon that drops nice things. I expect dungeons that drop nice things to always be competitive. My hope is that if they do program such roadblocks they will also put something in to prevent griefing. Such as a boss that your group triggers in some way and that cannot be taken away by other groups at the bottom of the dungeon so if you can get to it you can attempt the unlock without interference by a nasty guild or even one person of much higher level. If my hopes are well placed no instancing is needed and I agree with you. If my hopes fail - then we may need an instance and I do not.
3. What you may think of as layering rather than an instance. Multiple versions of a zone to prevent the zone from becoming far too crowded. To only be used when severe overcrowding occurs. A classic example being multiple versions of a starting zone when the game is released and the hordes crowd in. Far better than having enough servers to prevent this - since a month later when the rush abates that would require extensive server mergers or character transfers to avoid empty servers.
Phyr said:I have played eq1 and eq2 since inception. If end game isn't instanced, there needs to be a different mitigation method to prevent farming guilds or sign up calendars for an all-clear date to do it. Even if the gear is no-trade, guilds will compete to farm it 4 days a week until every member's alt has the drop. Is that fun? I don't think so. This is why I never play end game anymore, I got sick of all the raiding for something I didn't even want. Maybe there needs to be a fixed limit on how many times a guild can raid a zone, to make people plan carefully who should get the drops. Active-time raid tokens as an economy sink maybe?
This will not work ever in a mainstream mmo , on a emulator sure ...
I am not going to sign up to take a turn , you either can compete and be there at spawn or it will die. Unless there is a coded solution this is just a fact.
This is not to mention what about new guilds? 3 raid zones = 12 raid guilds you want to wait a expansion to even try a raid encounter .. gtfo that will kill this game.
Limit guilds that can raid a zone ?!?! What ?!?! Ill have a Conquest 2 , 3 , 4 and 5 then on rotation. The lockout means nothing if it is implemented like this. This is not even taking into consideration of a new app that just joined the guild ... Thanks for joining cleric #47 sorry , we are not allowed to raid content since we farmed the content before you joined..
The major problem with contested content is simple , it IS THE WILD WEST.
The guilds in question either can mobilize and compete or not and for those that can't due to you know ... real life will simply not see content , not because it's not beatable but simply dead always.
Also for the people trying to compare this to EQ , just stop this is not EQ and will never be EQ and if it is like EQ it will be DOA.
The truth is EQ is a broken game , im sorry to bust bubbles. All the way from retarded itemization (BIS items dropping off level 35 mobs wtf) all the way down to MQ's and how information is processed show eq and so on.
The problem with EQ is after 20+ years , the game is known there is no challenge in EQ. If I rolled a sk right now on EQ , I know EXACTLY what I want , where it is , what mob has it , what that mobs strats are and so on even if we are talking group mobs , raid content or whatever.
There is reasons even EQ moved away from open world raid content .. people quit when there paying for a game and have NO chance at progression.
Open-world content has many challenges to overcome, and I'll admit I don't have the solution. The reality is that if all content is open-world, there will be one or two guilds that will lock down all valuable challenging content. This is just a reality, especially as communication and coordination has gotten easier over the years. This may seem fine for people who are okay with a pure competitive mindset, but this is not good for retention of the playerbase and the longevity of the server. If there are multiple guilds who are both skilled enough and have the desire to kill high-end content but can't due to one or two guilds having it completely locked down, people will stop playing.
And, from a developer perspective, they want as many people as possible to be able to experience the content if they're capable, no one wants to develop intricate fights and challenges that only a handful of the playerbase will experience.
Part of the solution I think is having some open-world raid mobs be spawned by items acquired in a certain manner. Not all, but at least some. Other solutions will need to be thought about in regards to mitigating one or two power-guilds dominating and denying access of content to others.
One thing I always notice in these types of threads is everyone says, "this will happen" or "that will happen" and the common denominator always comes back to the players.
Let's face reality, no matter what "precautions" are taken, the toxic players will find a way to ruin it for everyone else.
We can then either, enjoy what we have, and find more like minded people when we play, or we can keep asking for the devs to modify the game until it becomes something none of us enjoy.
Fulton said:One thing I always notice in these types of threads is everyone says, "this will happen" or "that will happen" and the common denominator always comes back to the players.
Let's face reality, no matter what "precautions" are taken, the toxic players will find a way to ruin it for everyone else.
We can then either, enjoy what we have, and find more like minded people when we play, or we can keep asking for the devs to modify the game until it becomes something none of us enjoy.
But they can add things to prevent it and a very strict Play nice policy that is enforced look at FF14 they ban thousands of accounts a month and make it public.
Vixx said:Fulton said:One thing I always notice in these types of threads is everyone says, "this will happen" or "that will happen" and the common denominator always comes back to the players.
Let's face reality, no matter what "precautions" are taken, the toxic players will find a way to ruin it for everyone else.
We can then either, enjoy what we have, and find more like minded people when we play, or we can keep asking for the devs to modify the game until it becomes something none of us enjoy.
But they can add things to prevent it and a very strict Play nice policy that is enforced look at FF14 they ban thousands of accounts a month and make it public.
Yeah, we've discussed play nice policies on here before, but it always comes down to enforcement.
BTW, are you Vyxx from Bristlebane?