In another thread this quote caught my attention and made me realize something.
starblight said:If there is one thing EQ taught me is that the end game is not at all what I am interested in. It still amazes me I spent so long trying to race to the end only to find I raced by all the good content. While I can’t speak for everyone, I can say I at least will likely have lots of alts.
It made me realize that in EQ I was able to play sessions of any length of time while leveling up, exploring, crafting etc. But when we got to end game raiding we could no longer play a 2 hour session. If we wanted to raid all of a sudden we were expected to be able to play a 6 hour session (or longer in many cases). It never really hit me until today for some reason that that was actually a big turn off for me. I really DID enjoy the long raid sessions, they were a blast. But I really hope there are differing length end game play sessions being designed for Pantheon. I know they have mentioned many times over the years that they are aiming for "around 2 hour play sessions being able to accomplish things" but does this also include end game raids?
I really have no problem with longer raids; 6, 8, even 12 hours for those that are at a time in their lives where they can log on for those lenghts of times. I just personally won't be able to participate in those anymore and I am OK with missing out on some things because of my time restrictions. I just also hope there are some great end game raids being planned for the 2 hour and under crew (I could MAYBE stretch that to 4 hours on a Friday night once a month). EQ did not have that option back in the day.
It doesn't seem to me like doing as you suggest is any real problem. All that's really needed is the intention to break up long adventures/quests/raids into manageable bits, and VR clearly has that intention.
A few places like that 'safe' area shown in a recent stream should work in most cases. Then groups can plan their raid like anyone taking a long trip. Quest until you reach the first 'rest stop' and then decide whether to camp out till next session or push on to the next one.
Of course the cost to such a system will require greater planning when putting together a group, but that's to be expected given the emphasis since day 1 of this being a more socially based game. By the time anyone is at end-game raiding, they should have that part under control.
It will also help that VR has stated their intention to have mid-level raids, starting as early as lvl. 30 or even 20. That will let players learn the spacing/timing of such rest stops.
And yes, I certainly support having some raids that can be completed in 2-3 hours.
I think Raid time also depends on the event itself and more-so the determination or collective mindset of the players, hence begetting terms such as "hard core" or "filthy casual"
or "family style" etc.
There is nothing stopping anyone from not completing any raid in a set amount of time, that is, engaging, dieing, trying again, dieing, figuring one part out, dieing and 2 hours later packing it up, licking your wounds and trying again some other day. "sore loser's" will find each other and become power gamers or whatever I mean, its a game. But the point remains, there is nothing stopping anyone from...stopping and coming back another day. It will always be there. Of course there is some "E-peen" to conquering the event first but that does not make the obese middle aged man or woman any more attractive just because they're driving a sportscar and good people know this and speak of it sarcastically while boiling it down to its bare bones, being: its fun and thats it, means nothing more. Some people find the discovery of tactics to be the thrill, echoing the bhuddist mantra where the journey is the point, not the destination or something like that, some just keeping up with the expansion or keeping current is where they want to be. If this game is to be re-playable by anyone coming in at any time, anyone starting this year or 5 or 10 years from now; should have the same experience and same thrill in conquering old content FOR THEIR FIRST TIME. What I am hoping progeny will allow is wizened old "professionals" to sneak into these other groups, perhaps as alts or straight up progeny and experience the same raid or event from a different class, one they have never played before which offers its own challenges and who knows they may come up with an entirely new strategy. 10 years later the new kids may not use"lol" anymore and say something else progeny-ing in exposes you to that and keeps you young at heart while at the same time you can be cool and drop some knowledge at the right time, clue-in some tricks you've learned but all this? is not the game is it? its social interaction within the game.
As far as loots, I do hope they make some things that are useable in end game and not discoverable as such but by those very powergamers, themselves who are always seeking that little edge, that extra something. Because it is that info, once learned that will cause players to want to revisit older content to get that one piece for that one class that has that one clicky or effect that is 20-30 levels lower but is STILL effective at current levels because the powergamers discovered something about it that added a fraction of an edge. thats another way to keep old content fresh or revisited frequently but how do you bury something that deep?
Manouk said:..., there is nothing stopping anyone from...stopping and coming back another day. It will always be there...
The issue with stopping (at least in the old eq raids that I was involved in) was the respawns. I you played 2 hours to clear "trash mobs" then stopped, when you came back you'd have to repeat those 2 hours. It would be an endless cycle of clearing the same trash mobs every session.
I actually think that doing an entire raid in one session is kind of important (in my opinion) and I'm OK with raids taking a long time. I was just saying I hope that some of them are designed to be completely finished one session of 2 hours or so. I also hope some others are designed to take 4+ hours. Variety is a good thing.
Ranarius said:I know they have mentioned many times over the years that they are aiming for "around 2 hour play sessions being able to accomplish things" but does this also include end game raids?
Sure, if your raid is fully geared and knows all the strats... Raiding goes way faster when you've already run that content 100 times and outgear the encounters. But another raid group, just starting out and probably undergeared and under-aware of the strats is going to take far, far longer. Possibly multiple days to still not complete a raid.
I'm hoping VR sticks with the variety and depth of content that EQ had around the PoP era. There were raids that involved nothing more than entering the area to kill a single boss and others that took an eternity to complete but completing the whole thing was not usually the goal. There was crafting (and grinding for mats), standing around handing out buffs while bs'ing with the guild, logging in an alt to see content you haven't played yet, and on and on. It would be a huge shame if all of the content was broken down into bite-size chunks.
Mordecai said: That’s true Iksar. Not sure on trivial loot coding tho. I mean I am assuming that if it’s a level 20-30 raid, loot would be specific to those levels. Would also assume that anyone who got a piece of gear from there would be something they’d use for a while. Since it’s raid loot. The.n again I could totally be missing your point on trivial loot coding.
That depends on how gearing works out for Pantheon. Will they go a more WoW style gear treadmill or something more fitting of a "world" like EQ where some potentially amazing loot can drop as early as level 13, that a player might use all the way to 50 or beyond.
The content in EQ, even at low level, was good. I don't really consider EQ having an "end game" because it was all good. Plus, characters had their full ability set by mid 20's anyays.
I normally stay out of raid discussions but I was quoted in the beginning
I would love it if the game had very few or maybe even no raid content and instead take that development time and put into more group orientated content. I know many do not agree with me and I respect that. It is likely the devs also understand that lots of people want to raid. I do not hold out any hope of getting my way. But quality challenging group content for me is way more rewarding when you succeed then raiding. Well at least raiding in EQ as a non-essential wizard.
The sad thing is at some point if a player dose not raid, they will hit a wall on progression as far as gear goes. It saddens me that in a sense whether you like to raid or not it is kind of forced on you. But the game has to run out of content at some point I just consider that end around the time raiding becomes the last choice.
starblight said:I normally stay out of raid discussions but I was quoted in the beginning
I would love it if the game had very few or maybe even no raid content and instead take that development time and put into more group orientated content. I know many do not agree with me and I respect that. It is likely the devs also understand that lots of people want to raid. I do not hold out any hope of getting my way. But quality challenging group content for me is way more rewarding when you succeed then raiding. Well at least raiding in EQ as a non-essential wizard.
The sad thing is at some point if a player dose not raid, they will hit a wall on progression as far as gear goes. It saddens me that in a sense whether you like to raid or not it is kind of forced on you. But the game has to run out of content at some point I just consider that end around the time raiding becomes the last choice.
That's certainly my experience in EQ too, but I'm hoping A) Pantheon raids are somewhat different (so I will want to get involved), B) Pantheon itemisation is somewhat different (so we won't *have* to do raids to keep up) and C) Group content is looked upon as the ideal, not raid content.
I know there are lots of people want to raid. I also know it's still a minority of the player base, historically. I hope there are raids in Pantheon, but I hope there is change and innovation in the area.
((The issue with stopping (at least in the old eq raids that I was involved in) was the respawns. I you played 2 hours to clear "trash mobs" then stopped, when you came back you'd have to repeat those 2 hours. It would be an endless cycle of clearing the same trash mobs every session.))
That is the advantage of the "rest stop" approach. You either log-off there and need not repeat anything to get back or there is some back door or other way to get there without fighting the mobs you already went through.
My first experience with really long raids was in DAOC after an expansion so bad it almost killed the game and they had to hastily introduce "classic" servers that didn't have it. Endless hours to complete a raid and afks made impossible for much of the raid because of the mechanics that were used. I hated it then and I hate it now. Most of us have real problems blocking out 3-6 hours where we can be sure we won't be interrupted by work calls, family, doorbell aggro or the like.
A six hour raid is bad enough under any circumstances but if I can do an hour or two here and an hour or two there and be done in a few weeks that makes it a lot more tolerable.
dorotea said:A six hour raid is bad enough under any circumstances but if I can do an hour or two here and an hour or two there and be done in a few weeks that makes it a lot more tolerable.
Not to single you out, Dorotea, as several others have said something very similar, but this necessitates locked instances. As far as I can tell, there are two ways to implement these:
1. WoW-style where every individual can have their own copy of a locked intance for a single given encounter. Part of the "everyone gets equal access to everything, aka trophies for everybody!" approach to game design.
or 2. Keep the EQ-style "there's only one of these each week" approach but convert the open-world aspect into an instance that is locked to the first person/group/raid to lock it down.
While it would be sad to say farewell to multiple groups/raids fighting for the same content (I really enjoyed that despite losing more than winning) it might be a fair trade-off to allow instance completion by those who can't dedicate that much time in one sitting. Personally, I'd never vote for instances over open-world content but the time concern is valid. The discovery of an open-world spawn versus knowing absolutely that an instance respawns as a set time and date. Racing to put together a raid group and get on location to kill a world spawn before anyone else, versus entering an instance and killing something to lock it down while you wait to get your raid together. A lot of the thrill is lost with instances imo.
Luckily there are more than just two options on this and there is so much room to work with between instances and old EQ style hardcore content denial. And there can exist those rare world raid spawns that are highly contested while at the same time have other raids that players can plan around.
But honestly I hope there is a strong single (and some double) group PvE focus even at "end game" that is extremely high challenge and equally as rewarding as any raiding. Raiding has been the focus for the past 15+ years and it is fairly tired IMO.
((Not to single you out, Dorotea, as several others have said something very similar, but this necessitates locked instances. ))
I don't mind at all - feel free.
I admit to being in the minority here that believes that there are advantages to a limited use of instances in Pantheon. But I didn't and don't see rest stops or way stations as having anything to do with instancing. I see them as a way to skip content - in this case content you have already done - and there are indeed negatives to this.
I see anything that requires people to block out 4-6 hours of uninterruptable time in one sitting to finish something and get credit as an enormous negative. I prefer the negative of content skipping if that allows us to do huge blocks of content in managable pieces. If this isn't workable yes I would prefer outright instancing to requiring 6 uninterrupted hours to do a raid.
But let me focus on two more basic and conceptual issues.
1. Is there any reason for a raid to take longer than group content? If 6 people can kill 5 bosses in 2 hours in a group dungeon why cannot 30 people kill 5 more difficult bosses in two hours in a raid dungeon?
If one argues that raid rewards are better and should require enormous investment of time this leads to conceptual question number 2.
2. Other than the fact that MMOs typically do it this way - is there any reason for raid rewards to be better than group rewards? A raid is actually easier than a challenging group dungeon. Typically even challenging raids allow for a few players to be relatively unproductive or outright afk for some fights. A good, challenging, group dungeon will require every player in the group to be active and productive for every boss. This will be Pantheon which is neither a solo game nor a raid game. The focus will be on groups. One rewards core content more than optional outlying content - this is a truism. Few will argue that solo play should pay even as well as group play. Why should raids pay *better* than normal group play when zerging bosses with 30 people isn't exactly the epitime of challenge or social interaction. Often in raids the participants are told to be quiet and just listen to instructions since you cannot have 30 or even 10 people talking. Whereas in a real group encounter every player may and often will talk.
So yes a raid involves more than one player but in some ways it isn't any more solcial than being solo.
The "rest stop" or "waystation" idea that dorotea proposed doesn't need instancing. There are various ways you can implement it within any zone:
1) Safe spots (campfires) where groups can log out and then log back in later to continue their adventure
2) Unlockable intra-zone teleports where a group that has made a certain amount of progress within the zone unlocks the ability to start at a point deeper in on their next visit (see: Vanguard's Ancient Port Warehouse)
3) A "wing" design where players can take different paths that lead to different encounters. (see: EverQuest's North Temple of Veeshan)
4) Multiple entry points to a zone that let you come at the map from different approaches, instead of being confined to a single linear path.
Which method is best within a given zone depends on the zone map. I do think however that every zone is going to need one of these methods. If you don't have these things, one of two problems occur:
1) Players abuse mechanics like invisibility, feign death, aggro leashing, or whatever to try to bypass as much content as possible to get to their desired boss room. In some cases, even abusing death - "just run down, you'll die, but our rogue will drag you the rest of the way and then we'll raise you". Another example: "Our guild has a summoner alt parked near the priest's room. 5 plat per person for a summon to his location."
2) Players who are more time-limited will never be able to see certain content (at least, not when that content is relevant). "I'd love to do the raid with you guys but it takes 3 hours just to get to the boss and I can't stay online that late."
So all that is to say that I mostly agree with dorotea on the time factors involved in content. It's ok to have really "deep" zones that are very big, but there need to be ways to mitigate that. That said, I also think that ALL content should be meaningful, not just bosses. (I know you weren't suggesting otherwise dorotea, but I feel like it's important to state for discussions like this one).
I think VR wants to avoid a situation where over time the vast majority of what players care about boils down to "raids and/or group bosses". Not only does that make the game less welcoming to new players over time, but allowing players to shift into that focus also affects the quality of content that gets added in expansions, etc.
dorotea said:1. Is there any reason for a raid to take longer than group content? If 6 people can kill 5 bosses in 2 hours in a group dungeon why cannot 30 people kill 5 more difficult bosses in two hours in a raid dungeon?
In my experience, a raid with equivalent content (apart from being more difficult to account for having a larger group) to group content takes the same amount of time as that group content provided everyone knows what to do, how to do it, coordinates well and is appropriately geared for the content. What makes raids take long is that it is much harder to coordinate a larger group an for them to all perform well during each of the encounters. Due to the increased difficulty it only takes a couple of people messing up to cause a raid wipe. It's the wipes themselves that make raids take much longer. If you want to speed up raiding then we have to find ways to minimize downtime due to wipes or reduce the difficulty of raids. Only speaking for myself, I would mourn either of those choices and the difficulty and challenge is what makes raiding rewarding and even wipe recoveries are some of my fondest memories.
dorotea said:2. Other than the fact that MMOs typically do it this way - is there any reason for raid rewards to be better than group rewards? A raid is actually easier than a challenging group dungeon. Typically even challenging raids allow for a few players to be relatively unproductive or outright afk for some fights. A good, challenging, group dungeon will require every player in the group to be active and productive for every boss. This will be Pantheon which is neither a solo game nor a raid game. The focus will be on groups. One rewards core content more than optional outlying content - this is a truism. Few will argue that solo play should pay even as well as group play. Why should raids pay *better* than normal group play when zerging bosses with 30 people isn't exactly the epitime of challenge or social interaction. Often in raids the participants are told to be quiet and just listen to instructions since you cannot have 30 or even 10 people talking. Whereas in a real group encounter every player may and often will talk.
Raids pay better because there is a greater challenge and fewer loot drops per player. Raids are also where you kill the uberbaddies who naturally have the best loot. It wouldn't make much sense for a single group to be able to kill the God of Lootness. Adding more powerful loot drops to easier group encounters would create a serious mudflation problem where everyone can pretty easily get the best loot in the game. That loot should be hard to get, even rare if not ultra rare. But if good loot drops are rare then where is the incentive to kill group bosses who may not drop anything worthwhile?
If there are raids in the game then there has to be a reason to do them that justifies the effort of gathering up a raid group, ensuring everyone has all the consumables they need and are prepared for the raid, getting them on location and then performing well enough to be successful. This effort for a group encounter is almost trivial in comparison.
dorotea said:So yes a raid involves more than one player but in some ways it isn't any more solcial than being solo.
I'm not sure I agree with this last statement either. I recall many social interactions while announcing a raid opportunity to the guild, gathering everyone up, traveling to the raid location, while killing trash mobs, dividing loot and even while recoving from a wipe. The only parts that aren't very social are the boss fights themselves because everyone is focused on doing thier part. Once everyone knows the fights and gear has to some degree trivialized the fights ("on farm") then even those fights become more social.
I'll admit I have more great memories from groups than I do from raids but those also are from trivial encounters. Learning and struggling with new bosses even in groups tends to require focus and dampens the social banter.
Another point on raids: Raid content is supposed to be epic where group content is a kind of training for the raid content. It would not be very epic to take 40 people into a cave, kill the boss which is the only mob in that cave, divvy up the loot and then go home. It should be something that takes a long time, is a journey in itself. For that reason I do agree with your suggestion to have waypoints like safe areas you can camp and continue the next day. I don't think they should be portals of any kind that allow the raid to go off and do other things in the world then return to that spot later. Either continue the next day or fight your way back out of the dungeon. This should also carry the risk that another raid group will come along and continue where your raid left off rather than being instanced. Along with that I think the trash mobs should not respawn any faster than the bosses.
Obviously I've failed to keep my thoughts short on this one -- I could go on for hours about MMORPG design -- so I'll shut up for now :)
Akilae said:Raids pay better because there is a greater challenge and fewer loot drops per player. Raids are also where you kill the uberbaddies who naturally have the best loot. It wouldn't make much sense for a single group to be able to kill the God of Lootness. Adding more powerful loot drops to easier group encounters would create a serious mudflation problem where everyone can pretty easily get the best loot in the game. That loot should be hard to get, even rare if not ultra rare. But if good loot drops are rare then where is the incentive to kill group bosses who may not drop anything worthwhile?
If there are raids in the game then there has to be a reason to do them that justifies the effort of gathering up a raid group, ensuring everyone has all the consumables they need and are prepared for the raid, getting them on location and then performing well enough to be successful. This effort for a group encounter is almost trivial in comparison.
Can't say I agree with this. There is greater organizational challenge but individual/player challenge is often (not always of course) reduced when it comes to raiding, a handful of players able to drop the ball or otherwise large windows for recovery (and greater odds of people able to sell slots in the raid for carrying). FFXIV has had some very difficult raids and they only allow for 8 players (two more than planned for a single group in Pantheon), certainly was not the case that they were easy and most people did not complete them when the content was relevant. The individual performance is far more stressed and that player skill is brought to the forefront as no one is going to cover for your mistakes.
Single group content can be every bit as difficult (if not moreso) on the player skill level as any raid. They certainly would not become loot piñatas that so many people like to assert.
The notion that only the "uberbaddies" in raids can have the best loot AND require more than a very skilled group is an odd way to think of things, far more of a "game" notion than anything related to creating a "world." If only the "uberbaddies" ended up with the best items I wonder how it was that Sméagol ended up with The One Ring in LOTR, or any number of lesser creatures end up with relics of great power in any stories. In a world items of varying powers would be lost and found by all kinds of random creatures/people over the centuries, and while some of the ones that find/make these treasures could be absurdly powerful beings that require a small army to defeat, plenty of others with equal treasures might just be weak enough that an elite few could topple them if found.