@zew...I agree with vandraad.
You could absolutely fix dwarf dragon faction even when velious first released. Many guilds did so. It was common knowledge even within the first month of velious when players had to fix their faction to align with their guild. I'm not sure why the disconnect with your example?
That being said, there were factions that couldn't be fixed (which I don't find to be bad). Decisions should have consequences. That dwarf/dragon thing just wasn't a good example.
Besides, im guessing progeny would likely start a player with a clean faction slate the next time through so adjustments can be made.
philo said:@zew...I agree with vandraad.
You could absolutely fix dwarf dragon faction even when velious first released. Many guilds did so. It was common knowledge even within the first month of velious when players had to fix their faction to align with their guild. I'm not sure why the disconnect with your example?
That being said, there were factions that couldn't be fixed (which I don't find to be bad). Decisions should have consequences. That dwarf/dragon thing just wasn't a good example.
Besides, im guessing progeny would likely start a player with a clean faction slate the next time through so adjustments can be made.
This was not the case initially, although I am sure SOE adjusted for it at some point.
But I directly knew of multiple people stuck on the wrong faction from their guilds and unable to fix it. Were they lieing? I could not say either way, possible, but not sure why they would, unless they were just lazy and didn't really try and fix it.
What is wrong with PUG's? I enjoyed pugs in EQ1. Its how you met new people.
PUG's in EQ1 were not really filled with shitters btw. The game had a learning curve that required you to learn how to play your class. And the higher level you got there was simply no faking your way through it. You either learned to play, you got carried by some generous people or you just did not get group invitations because people knew you were a shitter.
As to the faction discussion:
I want to be able to ruin my faction. I also want to be able to undo that ruin. I am ok with negative actions causing more damage to my standing than positive actions can repair it. -20 vs +5. It just means I have to work more to repair it than it took to ruin it. I would prefer not to see the negaitve or positive values or even a numeric system at all. I would prefer that is left behind the scenes.
arazons said: ... I want to be able to ruin my faction. I also want to be able to undo that ruin. I am ok with negative actions causing more damage to my standing than positive actions can repair it. ...Agreed, arazons.
GoofyWarriorGuy said:Vandraad said "Eventually you will be friendly to the Orcs (or at least indifferent) and permanently KOS to Thronefast. The rewards for doing so should be commensurate with the difficulty of the process and the fact that you're now permanantly KOS to Thronefast."
One point... your entire example was to explain that Factions are 'Fixable' but in your example you then suggest "permanently KOS" which is exactly the opposite of your point. In your example, you could raise your Faction with the Orcs while at the same time Losing Faction with Thronefast humans and thus becoming KOS. But if you ever change your mind, you should be able to reverse the process to regain Faction with Thronefast while at the same time Losing the faction with those Orcs you were once admired by. Nothing should be 'permanent' in your example.
The purpose of that specific example was that undertaking that task was a deliberate and premeditated decision specifically to obtain a benefit or other reward that would not otherwise be available to you by any other means. Just killing humans because you wanted to would not result in you getting the rewards that specific NPCs quests/tasks offered. Thus, that example is a separate faction decision which would result a permanent faction adjustment towards humans in Thronefast.
arazons said:What is wrong with PUG's? I enjoyed pugs in EQ1. Its how you met new people.
PUG's in EQ1 were not really filled with shitters btw. The game had a learning curve that required you to learn how to play your class. And the higher level you got there was simply no faking your way through it. You either learned to play, you got carried by some generous people or you just did not get group invitations because people knew you were a shitter.
When everyone is bad, it's difficult to tell who is actually good.
EverQuest was a product of its time. It was very basic and crude, and I think a lot of people here make the mistake of conflating the inconvenience of EverQuest's systems with difficulty, and consequently the convenience of current MMOs with simplicity.
That's not to say there isn't room for inconvenience in Pantheon. In many ways it was EverQuest's inconveniences that made it the social experience such as it was, but it was not a hard game, and I think the only way Pantheon's failure can be guaranteed is to continue confusing inconvenience with difficulty.
philo said:This was not the case initially,
You are mistaken.
Not mistaken. The facts in evidence happened. Players did have this issue occur to them.
And here's why it's not wrong, when you think it through.
It was easy to get a group and kill dwarves somewhere. Thus putting you on Dragon faction.
But there was no way to just get a PUG and kill dragons somewhere. This had to be done in a raid. And the amount of positive dwarf faction gain was minor compared to the amount of negative hit taken from killing dwarves.
If you just killed one dwarf, maybe killing dozens of dragons might fix it, but that's just a guess. Most people that killed dwarves early for that easy XP, killed loads of them.
This situation occured in the very start of when this content was introduced in EQ, and does not reflect whether SoE snuck in changes or adjustements eventually.
It's purely an example of players getting royally screwed by taking an unknown faction hit without being aware of the impacts.
eunichron said:arazons said:What is wrong with PUG's? I enjoyed pugs in EQ1. Its how you met new people.
PUG's in EQ1 were not really filled with shitters btw. The game had a learning curve that required you to learn how to play your class. And the higher level you got there was simply no faking your way through it. You either learned to play, you got carried by some generous people or you just did not get group invitations because people knew you were a shitter.
When everyone is bad, it's difficult to tell who is actually good.
EverQuest was a product of its time. It was very basic and crude, and I think a lot of people here make the mistake of conflating the inconvenience of EverQuest's systems with difficulty, and consequently the convenience of current MMOs with simplicity.
That's not to say there isn't room for inconvenience in Pantheon. In many ways it was EverQuest's inconveniences that made it the social experience such as it was, but it was not a hard game, and I think the only way Pantheon's failure can be guaranteed is to continue confusing inconvenience with difficulty.
There is difficulty in patience. Patience of having to wait for levels because the amount of grind it took to get them was monumental. Patience to wait for loot, spawns, dkp, camps, etc.
Hell, instant gratification is easy...
I remember NPC stat padding so high that you didnt really have a chance to kill "most" anything solo.
Enter required class interdependence for anything worthwhile....
Getting a group to work together was the real challenge in the combat gameloops. And everyone had a role to play. At anytime there was real threat of things switching aggro and killing half the group. Facing mobs was required alot for the tanks. DPS could rip aggro... Mobs could add requiring crowd control. Getting the mob to camp by it self for the pullers. There were so many different seemingly mundane tasks, all part of a larger process that required them to fire off in sequence. Where if any single one fails, it sets you back 10-15 minutes.... See difficulty in patience.
We need some inconvience, otherwise there is no risk. If there is no risk, there is no amount of loot that you can provide to truly provide a rewarding experience.
I think one of the problems with EQ factions is that there were too many of them and it wasn't always intuitive. When you're killing stuff, most of the time you had no idea what the factions are that you were raising or lowering. In a game of massive grinding, it was simply too easy to do irreparable damage to a faction before the game had an opportunity to explain the consequences in doing so.
The faction system has to have some sort of naturally intuitive nature that is easy to understand. This can be as simple as having a tooltip to explain what the faction is the moment you have done anything to alter it, or having certain factions be apparent in their associations based on appearance.
Some examples:
-You kill a Freeport guard. You see in your log that you lost 50 faction with "The Citizens of Freeport" and 100 faction with "The Global Organization of City Guards". (Here, the "scales" of your faction adjustments are indicated in their names. The first likely means all citizens in the city of Freeport, whereas the latter means all of the city guards in the world.)
-You see an overturned wagon ambushed by Gnolls. The deceased occupants of the wagon are dressed like Freeport citizens and the guard that's calling for help is dressed exactly like a Freeport guard. (Based on their attire, helping the guard by killing the Gnolls will probably increase your faction with the city of Freeport.)
-You open your character window to how your recent actions have affected faction. In the category "Global Factions", you are able to read a description that the "Global Organization of City Guards" are the primary peacekeepers of all the main cities in the world, but they are on a separate faction from the local city populous. It is then indicated that "by lowering this faction, you may be attacked upon entry into any main city". (Factions should be described by easy to access in-game functions)
-You are grinding red dragon whelps at level 20. You see that your faction with the "Far Seas Trading Co." is lowered each time you do it. You hit level 50, try to talk to Lord Nagafen, but realize that your grinding at level 20 permanently removes your ability to do any level 50 quests with him. (This is an example of poor design. At level 20, you had no way of knowing your actions would affect your end game choices. Nothing in the game to that point would indicate what the "Far Seas Trading Co." is, and it was not a relevant faction until 30 levels after the fact.)
I don't necessarily disagree with your other points, I just think you're being a little myopic. I will make the counterpoint that all of those mechanics exist in other MMOs, yet you would still be hard pressed to find many on this forum that will admit that FFXI was a hard game, that Vanilla WoW was a hard game, even though they had all those same mechanics and necessitated a great deal of time investment (i.e., grind). Even the current top MMOs (WoW, ESO, FFXIV, GW2) have those same mechanics and grind (obfuscated in one way or another), but still no one here will admit that those games are "hard" in the way that EQ was.
arazons said:Getting a group to work together was the real challenge in the combat gameloops. And everyone had a role to play.
But I will agree with you wholeheartedly on this point, I have always held that the most difficult part of any MMO has been organizing and coordinating the group. Whether it's 4, 5, 6 in a dungeon, or 72 in a raid, getting that many people together to focus and cooperate for a few hours in a night is more difficult than any player or boss mechanic that exists in any MMO. That's where the current generation of MMOs (I consider that to be WoW's Wrath of the Lich King expansion and beyond) are easy compared to EQ. Matchmaking systems like group/raid finder that negate any necessity for player interaction in the process have normalized quick PUGs and non-communication, and personal loot systems (whether by actual individual loot drops, or token systems) have normalized instant gratification- as you put it. It does have an adverse effect on game balance to the point that if players aren't expected to communicate during a boss fight, then the encounters have to be designed around that expectation for players to have a chance at success. That is where I think EQ PUGs might be considered more "skilled" than current MMO PUGs.
Naos said: ...Yep, this example is the type of design I'm personally concerned about, for Pantheon, especially with "Hidden Faction Changes" being something they're possibly going to implement, or want to implement.-You are grinding red dragon whelps at level 20. You see that your faction with the "Far Seas Trading Co." is lowered each time you do it. You hit level 50, try to talk to Lord Nagafen, but realize that your grinding at level 20 permanently removes your ability to do any level 50 quests with him. (This is an example of poor design. At level 20, you had no way of knowing your actions would affect your end game choices. Nothing in the game to that point would indicate what the "Far Seas Trading Co." is, and it was not a relevant faction until 30 levels after the fact.)
eunichron said:I don't necessarily disagree with your other points, I just think you're being a little myopic. I will make the counterpoint that all of those mechanics exist in other MMOs, yet you would still be hard pressed to find many on this forum that will admit that FFXI was a hard game, that Vanilla WoW was a hard game, even though they had all those same mechanics and necessitated a great deal of time investment (i.e., grind). Even the current top MMOs (WoW, ESO, FFXIV, GW2) have those same mechanics and grind (obfuscated in one way or another), but still no one here will admit that those games are "hard" in the way that EQ was.
The difference I believe with EQ1 at least in its formative years was that it was punishing, when mistakes were made, so much more so than any of those other games. When you messed up any of those mechanics, it was exteremely punitive in that it punished the whole group and would set you all back. This was where I see the challenge in those mechanics. All the mechanics did in-fact exist in those other games. But there was pretty much a lack of punitive outcomes, relative to what EQ had, for anything you did or failed at doing.
The advantage all other games have had is coming along after EQ led the way and broke new ground.
EQ having only UO's very limited faction system to learn from, definitely introduced new aspects of a faction system to the blossoming MMORPG world. And yes it was very challenging at times. You had to work to learn it and use it. EQ pushed the envelope on faction, as I can recall no subsequent game having such an elaborate system (other than Vanguard another Brad creation).
It added a very unique element to the immersion that you either learned to be careful and educate yourself about it, or potentially got punished later on in your playing future. Brad following in the mold he created in EQ also added extensive faction to Vanguard.
Some of the esoteric ways to gain faction were quite interesting. Bring some odd items found far away, to a vender in some village or town and they might craft you a few things to eat that would raise your faction. Those kinds of quests were diligently sought out as in EQ quests were blared to everyone with bright flahing neon icons over NPC heads. You had to dialog with every npc to find them.
zewtastic said:philo said:This was not the case initially,
You are mistaken.
Not mistaken. The facts in evidence happened. Players did have this issue occur to them.
And here's why it's not wrong, when you think it through.
It was easy to get a group and kill dwarves somewhere. Thus putting you on Dragon faction.
But there was no way to just get a PUG and kill dragons somewhere. This had to be done in a raid. And the amount of positive dwarf faction gain was minor compared to the amount of negative hit taken from killing dwarves.
If you just killed one dwarf, maybe killing dozens of dragons might fix it, but that's just a guess. Most people that killed dwarves early for that easy XP, killed loads of them.
This situation occured in the very start of when this content was introduced in EQ, and does not reflect whether SoE snuck in changes or adjustements eventually.
It's purely an example of players getting royally screwed by taking an unknown faction hit without being aware of the impacts.
Again, there were ways to fix your faction from the start. It might have been difficult for players who were not very advanced in the game but that doesn't make it not possible.
This sounds like another example of what we hear so often on this forum. Many people say they "played" early EQ except they barely scratched the surface and didn't experience everything EQ had to offer so they have a twisted perpective of how things were. They simply didn't advance far enough to know better.
Any half way decent player could fix their dragon/dwarf faction when velious launched. period.
arazons said:The difference I believe with EQ1 at least in its formative years was that it was punishing, when mistakes were made, so much more so than any of those other games. When you messed up any of those mechanics, it was exteremely punitive in that it punished the whole group and would set you all back. This was where I see the challenge in those mechanics. All the mechanics did in-fact exist in those other games. But there was pretty much a lack of punitive outcomes, relative to what EQ had, for anything you did or failed at doing.
For sure, and what a lot of other posters here struggle with is the idea that a game with modern design elements can be challenging, and I think key there is the risk of failure. Not just a risk of failure, but the possibility, and the guarantee of failure; not in the sense of things being impossible, but that you will fail at some point, either due to ignorance or lack of skill.
Look at some of these other threads where people have been going back and forth (some for years) quibbling over minor technical details like floating combat text, nameplate level indicators, spell casting bars, and things like that. None of those things have any bearing on how difficult a game is, or whether or not the risk of failure is great enough to make players fear it. Binding Con and using it on a mob doesn't make you a better player than a WoW player who can look at a mob's nameplate and see that it's a level 59 silver rare mob. Engaging that mob, failing, learning from that failure, and going back at it with proper counters is what makes you a better player.
eunichron said:arazons said:The difference I believe with EQ1 at least in its formative years was that it was punishing, when mistakes were made, so much more so than any of those other games. When you messed up any of those mechanics, it was exteremely punitive in that it punished the whole group and would set you all back. This was where I see the challenge in those mechanics. All the mechanics did in-fact exist in those other games. But there was pretty much a lack of punitive outcomes, relative to what EQ had, for anything you did or failed at doing.
For sure, and what a lot of other posters here struggle with is the idea that a game with modern design elements can be challenging, and I think key there is the risk of failure. Not just a risk of failure, but the possibility, and the guarantee of failure; not in the sense of things being impossible, but that you will fail at some point, either due to ignorance or lack of skill.
Look at some of these other threads where people have been going back and forth (some for years) quibbling over minor technical details like floating combat text, nameplate level indicators, spell casting bars, and things like that. None of those things have any bearing on how difficult a game is, or whether or not the risk of failure is great enough to make players fear it. Binding Con and using it on a mob doesn't make you a better player than a WoW player who can look at a mob's nameplate and see that it's a level 59 silver rare mob. Engaging that mob, failing, learning from that failure, and going back at it with proper counters is what makes you a better player.
Really? LOL.
WoW. What a joke. You realize Blizzard just copied everything that is EQ and dumbed it down for you kiddies, right? Everything!
Spoken like someone who never played the real orignal core EQ, and has no idea how complex and challenging it was. But thinks playing WoW was somehow the pinnacle of MMOs? Again, what a joke.
zewtastic said:Really? LOL.
WoW. What a joke. You realize Blizzard just copied everything that is EQ and dumbed it down for you kiddies, right? Everything!
Spoken like someone who never played the real orignal core EQ, and has no idea how complex and challenging it was. But thinks playing WoW was somehow the pinnacle of MMOs? Again, what a joke.
Thank you for proving my point.
I think some of you need to ask yourselves if pressing "c" on every mob and looking at the chatbox for combat damage is really something we need to have in this game to quantify "skill". WoW utilized nameplates and floating combat text to take the focus away from the chatbox and onto the player. EQ really did play like a MUD, but with graphics. Don't believe me? Check out the UI in some of the earliest versions of EQ. The UI took up about 2/3's of the screen. Who remembers having to do "range checks" because you couldn't even tell how close or far away something was, assuming you didn't use ShowEQ?
WoW changed the genre dramatically by changing the focus from the text box to your character and slash commands to an interactive UI, and it did not "deskill" itself in doing so.
The main thing I see here are people worried VR will botch the balancing act of making the game. In my opinion you won't make a good game by taking away story telling tools and features like the hard hitting factions or difficult faction flips. I can only trust VR will balance things appropriately. If they don't it will of course be annoying, but not exactly game breaking.
If a crazy hermit gives you a lore dump and tells you not to murder baby dragons or you will incur the wrath of their parents, well you may want to listen. That is what makes you an adventurer. Do you throw caution to the wind and slaughter them for resources? Do you simply have a hatred of all things draconic? Will you just turn to the internet to find the meta choice? If a person just blindly completes a quest for 10 gold that sends them on a path, then it sends them on the path to becoming a dragon slayer rather than someone who is willing to work with them. The bad writing we have to trust VR to avoid is when one path continues the story and the other path is purely a dead end.
I hope they put the RPG back into MMORPG.