"If ______ is in the game then everyone will feel like they have to do it."
If Keeper is a skill in the game everyone is going to feel like they have to be one.
If climbing is in the game everyone is going to feel like they have to climb.
If a Cleric has the best rez everyone is going to feel like they have to have a cleric in their group.
If duarability loss is in the game no one will want to be a tank.
If crafters can repair items everyone is going to feel like they have to be a crafter.
And I've heard many others.
(and yes, I realize some of these have been confirmed that they will or will not be in the game, they are just examples)
What I don't get is why people are using this argument at all. There are tons of things in the game that litterally everyone is going to have/do. There are other things in the game that have a high value that some people will still choose not to do (even if you think they should).
I don't get this argument given how little we know about the game in actual practice.
I understand the argument about clerics on a metaphorical level. WoW is in a state where if you want to participate in certain content there are good classes and specs and there are bad classes and specs. WoW is designed around optimal gameplay at its core and deviation from this usually spells disaster in higher-level content. However, Pantheon and WoW are completely different games and are in completely different states. Pantheon has the potential to completely avoid this pitfall by relying on player synergies, balancing around this synergy, and confusing meta based gameplay.
I can also understand being a crafter who can repair gear would be seen as optimal, but. that also depends on what other systems are in place to restore gear durability.
The argument about durability loss and no one playing a tank, or a melee... I really don't get. I have played many games that have featured a system that causes durability loss on death and even minor loss of durability while in combat. None of these games had a shortage of tanks or melee DPS for this specific reason. I do understand the argument that ' If the decaying value is too steep, if the amount lost on death is to steep, or if the repair cost is too steep then... But these arguments come down tuning issues and an assessment of these can not be made until players have access to the game and are privy to all the facts.
I love these forums and I love the unique theory-crafting people come up with but what I CAN NOT STAND is when people make assumptions without all the facts, they try to generalize based on what they have experienced in other games, or they generally lack the ability to critically think about a system in question as a whole or how other systems might impact the system in question. It also really irks me when people try to take part of what you said and spin it in their favor, or respond without fully understanding the intent/meaning of your post because of the way they read it in their mind or the fact they didn't read it at all. I'll be honest I am guilty of the latter and have commented on a post or quoted which I read in my brain one way but then going back and re-reading... it's like maybe it was meant in this way or for this purpose. That's one of the beautiful things about written forms of communication, we can spin it based on perspective and mind frame at the time of reading and there is no one there to immediately elaborate and explain that we put our own bias on it and it was really intended in another way.
Ranarius said:"If ______ is in the game then everyone will feel like they have to do it."
If Keeper is a skill in the game everyone is going to feel like they have to be one.
If climbing is in the game everyone is going to feel like they have to climb.
If a Cleric has the best rez everyone is going to feel like they have to have a cleric in their group.
If duarability loss is in the game no one will want to be a tank.
If crafters can repair items everyone is going to feel like they have to be a crafter.
And I've heard many others.
(and yes, I realize some of these have been confirmed that they will or will not be in the game, they are just examples)What I don't get is why people are using this argument at all. There are tons of things in the game that litterally everyone is going to have/do. There are other things in the game that have a high value that some people will still choose not to do (even if you think they should).
I respect why you find this annoying but honestly - most of the time when people say these things it's because from their perspective, historically it is true - or close enough to be effectively true.
We can argue what factors may encourage or discourage players from that behavior but the simple fact is that general player behavior in MMOs will always lean towards self-sufficiency, minimizing risk, and maximizing reward. When you add something to the game that provides a big enough benefit in one of those areas, people will feel compelled to do it. If they don't enjoy it, they'll *still* feel compelled to do it, and then they'll just complain about how they *have* to do it.
It's not about logic. It's about human behavior and the perception that behavior generates.
I agree with you, but I'm wondering what the problem is? Is it the complaining that they feel like they have to do it? Because people will complain even if given a perfect environment (ok, slight sarcasm there).
Or is the problem that it starts to work toward self-sufficiency? I am certainly opposed to self-sufficiency in a social game like Pantheon, so yes, I'd like to avoid that at all costs. But people complaining because they feel like they're forced to do something that they're not actually forced to do doesn't seem like a reason to make design decisions. Maybe I'm wrong...it is important to take human behavior into account, but certainly not at the risk of losing some really cool feature ideas.
Ranarius said:Or is the problem that it starts to work toward self-sufficiency? I am certainly opposed to self-sufficiency in a social game like Pantheon, so yes, I'd like to avoid that at all costs. But people complaining because they feel like they're forced to do something that they're not actually forced to do doesn't seem like a reason to make design decisions. Maybe I'm wrong...it is important to take human behavior into account, but certainly not at the risk of losing some really cool feature ideas.
Interesting post. I can see where you are coming from.
Ranarius said:Maybe I'm wrong...it is important to take human behavior into account, but certainly not at the risk of losing some really cool feature ideas.
In this, we agree. I understand your frustration very well. A challenge that we will always have on these forums is that for every one of us who can see a version of something that's "better" than what existed in some previous game, there are 5-7 others who either aren't able to see it or simply don't want to try. (That is probably its own commentary on human nature, honestly). There are some folks in the community that I truly respect, but trying to talk to them about certain subjects is about as effective as ramming my head into my desk. For whatever reason, they just simply aren't willing or able to see a way that something *could* work. It doesn't make them bad people, but it does mean that I'm never going to convince them when it comes to those particular subjects.
All we can do in those cases is speak the truth we see and then move on with other parts of the discussion. Fortunately, the folks at VR really do try to read everyone's thoughts and opinions in these discussions - and often, they find the compromise or alternative that the community always seems to circle around but never quite gets to.
Nephele said:...
A challenge that we will always have on these forums is that for every one of us who can see a version of something that's "better" than what existed in some previous game, there are 5-7 others who either aren't able to see it or simply don't want to try. (That is probably its own commentary on human nature, honestly). There are some folks in the community that I truly respect, but trying to talk to them about certain subjects is about as effective as ramming my head into my desk. For whatever reason, they just simply aren't willing or able to see a way that something *could* work. It doesn't make them bad people, but it does mean that I'm never going to convince them when it comes to those particular subjects.
All we can do in those cases is speak the truth we see and then move on with other parts of the discussion. Fortunately, the folks at VR really do try to read everyone's though
...
This is a great summary of something I've observed discussing game design online for 20+ years.
Some potential customers are immediately eager and able to use their imagination, experience, and history towards design and theorycrafting. Some, simply aren't.
From what I've seen, it's a primary polarizing feature of most online communities that discuss these topics.
I think when people say stuff like that the issue tends to not be "if ___ is in the game then everyone has too" but instead it tends to be "if ___ is in the game then i worry that i'll be forced to do it" instead. it ultimately means the same thing though but it helps bring a better light into what they say.
To add an example of this:
yes, I'll admit that i'm not much of a person who cares about "being in a guild" in a mmorpg. I've always loved joining random groups an meeting new people as thats what makes it feel more of a "world" to me instead of having to group up with the same people everytime some new content (raids/dungeons) drops and yes, If I feel like i'm forced to be in a guild then it'll diminish the 'engagment' aspect with the community for me as I've seen how other mmo communities close themselves off from one another simply because everyone feels like being in a guild is mandatory to be in the 'best groups' to run whatever content they wish to run. Instead of being more willing to banding together with those around you to complete X task. But again that's just an example how how the "If __ is in the game then everyone has too" types of feedback that's derived from my own personal experiences in video games and with such features, since I don't play MMORPGs to be in a Clique instead i play them to be in a massive online world.
The point being is that when people say such things they all have their own reasons for claiming how "everyone will have too" for whatever thing they are talking about; whether that be from crafting to climbing and whatever else. All of their concerns ultimately originate from a source which is formed from either the user experiences or from what they've witnessed occurred for others and If they didn't care about the product then they wouldn't have even mentioned/argued their concerns over ___ thing.
So I disagree.
i'd say don't stop saying "if ___ is in the game then everyone has too" as it's providing feedback an concerns for the feature which is something they wouldn't get if they just kept silent about. But that's just my two cents here.
I actually like your guild example. Someone might say "guilds exist and now we're all forced to join one otherwise we're not able to go on that specific adventure." But we both know that isn't true, because we've both played without guilds and still had opportunities to go on that adventure. Is it as easy to find a group? No, not in my experience, but still possible, which means I'm not actually forced to join a guild.
znushu said:So I disagree.
i'd say don't stop saying "if ___ is in the game then everyone has too" as it's providing feedback an concerns for the feature which is something they wouldn't get if they just kept silent about. But that's just my two cents here.
Stick with the guild example - using your argument you'd actually be saying guilds should NOT be in the game because not everyone wants to be in one, and without one you're at a disadvantage. This is what I feel like people are using the argument for. "If Keepers are in the game, and I choose not to be one, I fear I'll be at a disadvantage." They're not arguing for a feature, they're actually arguing against features.
Thanks for your point of view though (and the others that have chimed in). It does help me reach a slightly better understanding, even if I do not agree.
Thanks for the post and responses I have found the conversation thought provoking.
Keepers are an interesting topic for me as I will likely not have any interest in what they have to offer. It is possible if I play the game long enough, I will change my mind but from what I can see so far it is just not my cup of tea. But I am glad they are adding it to the game. I feel an MMO needs many things to give the world life.
What I do fear is that the devs will reward keepers in a way that will convince me to play one even though I would rather not. This is in there power to do. So, while I get your frustration and I see your examples used, maybe even by me, they at times can be warranted argument.
FatedEmperor said:Pantheon has the potential to completely avoid this pitfall by relying on player synergies, balancing around this synergy, and confusing meta based gameplay.
This might be the case, but when a group can only support 4,5, or however many people, and there are more classes than slots available... people will figure out which is the best combo and you will experience being left out of that group from time to time on harder content if that gap is significant.
In raids for examplein classic/vanilla wow you brought 40 raiders and yes the synergy was powerful enough that you still wanted druids despite the fact that they were in fact really awful at everything. But, you only needed 1 or 2, out of 40 raiders. Guilds that were pushing the content and really cared about bringing hte best, did exactly that. Oh what's that you are a hutner? sorry we aready have 2 in our 40 man.
A few classes specifically come to mind, but that is speaking of WoW. Rift had a similar thing, except there were only 4 classes but so many specs. So you were not "left out" you jsut wern't always allowed to play the spec you wanted because of the competing classes/specs.
And sure we can just NOT use that argument, but ignoring something that is going to happen whether you believe in it or not is honestly only going to hurt you. You can and should play whatever it is you like the most, but be aware and don't be surprised when it happens. Esp in a game like this were failure = huge punishments.
Also it's not about being forced. it's about time vs reward, what is considered meta, and how it will impact your experience with others (how they treat you) and if they will accept you for your choices.
Yaz87x said:
Also it's not about being forced. it's about time vs reward, what is considered meta, and how it will impact your experience with others (how they treat you) and if they will accept you for your choices.
This statement I totally agree with. People are afraid that if they aren't using the meta they will be treated like 2nd class citizens. Which may be true in the top of the top guilds, but I've found that in general the majority of players enjoy more variety than the meta. So, maybe the top of the top players are essentially "forced" to play a certain way (meta), but I wonder what percentage of players that actually is.
Also, just because the top of the top don't want a certain feature in the game (because it's existence "forces" them to use it) doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the game.
oh no i totally love variety but I know in most games I have played, the common man see the meta and top performers and think "I want to be that" and many push themselves into that meta, many pug groups are also not willing to risk the failure and just assume if you are not meta that you are dumb or if they have the option to take a meta or take you and they dont know either of you... they are going to take the meta. It's just like gearscore or item levels. If I don't know you and you have more gear than the other guy I don't know, then risk vs reward tells me I can probably assume risk is minimized more so with the person who has more gear, or playing the "right" class, etc.
This became very rampant in WoW, Rift, Wildstar, etc. It didn't take long either. If a class or spec was known to be piss, people would avoid them, not bring them. Ask Shadowpriests how Mythic + is. Most are declined invites and really struggle to get into higher difficulty content. Unfortunately the design of their class makes them unable to do decent damage while on the move, making them very weak in high difficulty dungeons. The same goes for Tanks that rely more on self healing in high difficulty raids. You know what's better than healing damage? Not taking it at all. Tanks that rely on shielding themselves, avoiding damage completely, or having SO MUCH HEALTH that it tickles them, will ALWAYS be favored over the tanks who take the whole hit (or most of it) then heal themselves back up, because at some point you are going to reach bosses in progression that just kill you in a few hits or one hit and where you failed, those other tanks wont.
Class design is scary and monumentous task, variety is good, but it comes with consequences.
Two general comments.
1. I disagree with some of the comments above about the evils of self-sufficiency. There is a balance here. If no one needs to group to accomplish their objectives this runs counter to the goals of creating the game in the first place. Though I can argue that if 90% of us are here because we love to group why won't we group to get xp and gear even if solo play could get the same things. When a game has forced grouping it tells me that most players of that game prefer to solo - otherwise you do not *need* to force grouping. While I can so argue I will not - I don't want this game to be identical to all the others any more than the rest of us do. Give us a choice - not an echo.
The other side of the balance is when no one can do anything on their own other than, maybe, crafting. If I want to go out and explore the world I need to do it in a group because what if a spider 5 levels below mine attacks. It will kill me if I am solo. I consider this a lot worse than characters being too self-sufficient.
We should be able to play on our own. But we should not be able to accomplish as much or to accomplish it as quickly as in a group. Encouraged grouping. Rewards for grouping. Not forced grouping, please.
2. There is no way to avoid the inevitable. Groups or raids will often - maybe usually - prefer stronger contributors. Some characters will be weaker because the player isn't very good. Despite all efforts, about half of us are below average. Some characters will be weaker because their class isn't as good for the specific content. Live with it - no attempt at balancing is prefect and excessive balance produces homogeniety and boredom. Some characters will be weaker because they are set up poorly or have inferior gear or the like. If a player wants to be in the top groups or raids he or she will try for cookie-cutter specs. Those who prefer more individuality - okay that is the player's choice (as it will be mine).
Ranarius said:"If ______ is in the game then everyone will feel like they have to do it."
If Keeper is a skill in the game everyone is going to feel like they have to be one.
If climbing is in the game everyone is going to feel like they have to climb.
If a Cleric has the best rez everyone is going to feel like they have to have a cleric in their group.
If duarability loss is in the game no one will want to be a tank.
If crafters can repair items everyone is going to feel like they have to be a crafter.
And I've heard many others.
(and yes, I realize some of these have been confirmed that they will or will not be in the game, they are just examples)What I don't get is why people are using this argument at all. There are tons of things in the game that litterally everyone is going to have/do. There are other things in the game that have a high value that some people will still choose not to do (even if you think they should).
Nephele had it right in that so long as the individual have, from their perspective, come to beleive such things are true, who are we to say they are wrong?
Climbing in Pantheon will be a requirement as if you choose not to learn to climb, you are effectively cut off from reaching some amount of content, content that very well may provide some item, spell or ability also perceived to be necessary to your character. Do you really want to be that cleric who doesnt have their best heal spell or rez spell because you didn't want to learn to climb?
Speaking of the cleric and them having the best rez, in EQ1 it was absolutely true. The average player is risk averse, taking great pains to avoid losses, specifically XP, if in their mind re-gaining that lost XP is time consuming. The cleric, with their 96% rez, is necessary to them. I cannot count how many times a person would not accept a rez from a cleric who just had the 50% rez, choosing rather to hold off getting the rez in the hope that a higher level cleric came by, taking it down the last minute before the rez timer ran out.
So, yes, in the eye of the beholder, whenever a player perceives that some thing is a benefit to them they feel they cannot do without, that thing then becomes a requirement for them.
Ranarius said:"If ______ is in the game then everyone will feel like they have to do it."
[...]
My assumption is a char will allow the game to act upon them, taking what is presented to them and acting on it like some Deus ex Ludicrum/ RNGesus where the faith of the games mystery on how it impacts the player, leading them to certain things by just their random interaction is how they are supposed to go from some digital Karmic predestination. what place is this? who are you!? I must be destined to meet you today... blah blah blah.
However, this is based on the supposition that you go in reacting how you want to, and intentionally not being sure you react to everything or test everything, but letting it flow. Otherwise you will be stuck in your home city for months. Not that this is a bad thing! because that just shows how much content is available in just a home city, to climb, to craft, to quest, to lore keep, etc
1. If content is in the game, then everyone will feel they have to do it- eventually.
Content can only add to longevity. Some will not want to craft, but may discover the benefits of crafting later on and may get down on themselves for not crafting earlier. But that should not make starting crafting later feeling as if they are taking a step back to "catch up" Likewise with Lorekeeping.
Maybe this is the great horizontaler- or great leveler.
Those that do want to "meta" game and do/lorekeep/craft/climb/BiS as much as possible at each level or milestone will be spending time in doing so and hopefully enjoying that time in doing so. Those that circle around (not back!) to lorekeeping or crafting will experience the same adventures as the "meta" but experience them as new and eventually, meet the "meta" as a peer at the same level, possibly doing the same content just having arrived at different times and each taking a different length of time to get there. One taking a shorter path in some ways the other taking a longer path in some ways, but the outcome being just as beneficial and worthy to both.
Ranarius said:"If ______ is in the game then everyone will feel like they have to do it."
If Keeper is a skill in the game everyone is going to feel like they have to be one.
If climbing is in the game everyone is going to feel like they have to climb.
If a Cleric has the best rez everyone is going to feel like they have to have a cleric in their group.
If duarability loss is in the game no one will want to be a tank.
If crafters can repair items everyone is going to feel like they have to be a crafter.
And I've heard many others.
(and yes, I realize some of these have been confirmed that they will or will not be in the game, they are just examples)What I don't get is why people are using this argument at all. There are tons of things in the game that litterally everyone is going to have/do. There are other things in the game that have a high value that some people will still choose not to do (even if you think they should).
This is all just min/max stuff.
Good luck stopping people from doing that. Now you know why game design isn't easy.
While the OP mentioned mostly all game mechanics. This argument can bleed into QoL as well.
A good example is if there is a mini map added to the game that shows where POI and group members are. While you could say, you dont have to use it. But in reality, you are at a disadvantage if you dont due to efficency and speed to arrive at X or know exactly where group members are.
-Jaz
zewtastic said:This is all just min/max stuff.
Good luck stopping people from doing that. Now you know why game design isn't easy.
I am certainly not trying to stop people from min/maxing. But that might actually simplify the example a bit. Some people say "If sword X is in the game and it does 0.01% more dps than sword Y then I am forced to use it." The whole point here is that min/maxers should choose to use sword X because they want to (or because they were smart enough to figure out that it does 0.01% more dps). But some people are aruging that sword X shouldn't even be in the game at all because if it is they are forced to use.
If I choose to use sword Y, for whatever reason, I might be at a slight disadvantage but shouldn't I have that option? Min/max wouldn't even exist without options.
This is sort of related to the min-max issue plaguing modern MMOs.
I think it would be great to label servers to help distinguish between the type of player
Normal
Roleplaying
PVP
A normal server would labeled as such and is a great place for hardcore players that want to race to the end and min/max
Roleplaying server would be labeled as such as well and be a place for players that just want to be a part of the gameworld and take things a bit more relaxing pace and not bother each other with min/max crap.
PVP server is self-explanatory.
Other than PVP, there would be no differences between the worlds other than the labels to help round up similar types of players. I would definitely be lured to the roleplaying environment with a description like this.
Beefcake said:It's no different than the other argument you see here every day:
If Pantheon has X (or doesn't have X) feature/system, I demand a refund/won't play/no one will play.
If it's not exactly what I want, no one will play.
I agree with you.
Beefcake awhile back I let my anger and rage get the best of me.. You did nothing wrong. It was other people verbally attacking me. I read your post while I was anger and misread the things you said. You did nothing wrong. I just lost it and took it out on you. I was wrong and I say I was wrong. I'm a shame of myself for the words I spoke to you out of anger. I wish I was able to take it back. I brought shame to myself and my family name with my actions toward you. I have a lot of regret for it too. I hope some day you can forgive me for my ignorances and my words of hate. I like to think I'm better than that. However I'm human and I make mistakes. Since I made a fool of myself publicly. I thought it only fitting to apologize to you publicly.
I'm am sincerely sorry for taking my anger out on you... If you never want to speak to me again. I totally understand and I only have myself to blame... Please forgive me for being a total jerk towards you.
Vander said:Beefcake awhile back I let my anger and rage get the best of me.. You did nothing wrong. It was other people verbally attacking me. I read your post while I was anger and misread the things you said. You did nothing wrong. I just lost it and took it out on you. I was wrong and I say I was wrong. I'm a shame of myself for the words I spoke to you out of anger. I wish I was able to take it back. I brought shame to myself and my family name with my actions toward you. I have a lot of regret for it too. I hope some day you can forgive me for my ignorances and my words of hate. I like to think I'm better than that. However I'm human and I make mistakes. Since I made a fool of myself publicly. I thought it only fitting to apologize to you publicly.
I'm am sincerely sorry for taking my anger out on you... If you never want to speak to me again. I totally understand and I only have myself to blame... Please forgive me for being a total jerk towards you.
That's a worthy hyjack post :) Thumbs up from me even if he doesn't give ya one.
Vander said:Beefcake said:It's no different than the other argument you see here every day:
If Pantheon has X (or doesn't have X) feature/system, I demand a refund/won't play/no one will play.
If it's not exactly what I want, no one will play.
I agree with you.
Beefcake awhile back I let my anger and rage get the best of me.. You did nothing wrong. It was other people verbally attacking me. I read your post while I was anger and misread the things you said. You did nothing wrong. I just lost it and took it out on you. I was wrong and I say I was wrong. I'm a shame of myself for the words I spoke to you out of anger. I wish I was able to take it back. I brought shame to myself and my family name with my actions toward you. I have a lot of regret for it too. I hope some day you can forgive me for my ignorances and my words of hate. I like to think I'm better than that. However I'm human and I make mistakes. Since I made a fool of myself publicly. I thought it only fitting to apologize to you publicly.
I'm am sincerely sorry for taking my anger out on you... If you never want to speak to me again. I totally understand and I only have myself to blame... Please forgive me for being a total jerk towards you.
Worry not. When I first came here a few years ago, I did the same if not worse.
We are all passionate about this game and want it to be the best it can be.
I also apologize if I reacted poorly.