Vandraad said:Valheim has this, kinda. The game has wind which changes directions from time to time. Approach an animal from upwind and they notice you from great distances. Approach from downwind and you get get very close before they notice you.
Yeah, I saw it in Valheim (and to a degree, in the Witcher, although not in this way) and .. yeah, very cool. Valheim has so many great features.
I guess the point being is that NPCs, where it makes sense, should use other senses than just visual for determining if they can detect a player. But, given that we're 7 years into this and VR is such a small team, I don't want any ideas popping into their heads that might further delay getting this horse out of the starting gate. I'll take the simple, ham fisted approach.
Vjek in his analysis raised the topic of ITU (invisibility to undead) and explained how, combined with regular invisbility, it can become a powerful tool to bypass potential ennemies. He also said that either the inv system as a whole is good enough to not worry about when you cross a zone, either it is not reliable because of random see inv mobs (or see ITU undeads) and then people won't bother using it (and won't bother working on the skill if it is trainable).
I am wondering :
1. whether there should be a separate ITU system, considering the disposition feature ?
2. whether you would not bother to invis (and/or ITU) your group if you know you'll have to /con every mob because you know random mobs spawn with the Truesight disposition ?
Vandraad said:I guess the point being is that NPCs, where it makes sense, should use other senses than just visual for determining if they can detect a player. But, given that we're 7 years into this and VR is such a small team, I don't want any ideas popping into their heads that might further delay getting this horse out of the starting gate. I'll take the simple, ham fisted approach.
As with nearly every mechanic in the game, it's an analog to what is happening. It's a computer interface modelling the lore and 'reality' of the RPG world. As a long-time old-school RPGer, it's never been an immersion problem for me to fill in the gaps with suspension of belief.
Some concepts that make it easy to model/understand: -
Magic in general isn't infallable and invisibility doubly so. Maybe it leaves a 'shimmer' or outline in the air? Maybe it covers sounds too, maybe not? Maybe it depends on the maintained concentration level of the caster? Etc.
The level of the caster has an impact on the completeness and effectiveness of the spell. Of course the caster's proficiency effects it, as with any spell.
The level of the monster has an impact on the completeness and effectiveness of the spell (for example, imagine the spell is a mind effecting thing, not a reality altering thing).
The relative level of the monster to caster has an impact. Especially if it is a mind effect but even if it reality altering, because the low-level caster will be prone to 'bumbling' (making sounds and shifting stuff) and the high level monster more experienced in being 'observant'.
Not all invisibilities are equal. Rogue shadow walking is utterly different to mage spell invisibility, surely? An enchanter invisibility spell would surely effect the mind and a wizard perhaps warp reality? They could all behave differently. Or all the same *shrug*
The type of monster will greatly effect the spell. Undead often don't have eyes or certainly don't use the rotten things to 'see', so why would an invisibility spell have much or any effect? Other monsters barely use their eyes or use senses we aren't even aware of or at least to an extent a caster would not appreciate and, so would not cope with in their spell.
TL;DR: I think most people look at 'invisibility' in too absolute a way as too concrete a concept. There are so many ways it could work and, more to the point, not work. I really don't think it's a problem to quite easily and simply model its potential fallability to make it balanced.
Adonhiram said:Vjek in his analysis raised the topic of ITU (invisibility to undead) and explained how, combined with regular invisbility, it can become a powerful tool to bypass potential ennemies. He also said that either the inv system as a whole is good enough to not worry about when you cross a zone, either it is not reliable because of random see inv mobs (or see ITU undeads) and then people won't bother using it (and won't bother working on the skill if it is trainable).
I am wondering :
1. whether there should be a separate ITU system, considering the disposition feature ?
2. whether you would not bother to invis (and/or ITU) your group if you know you'll have to /con every mob because you know random mobs spawn with the Truesight disposition ?
As in my previous post, I think people are seeing this in too absolute a way.
Why would something like invisibility have to be 100% reliable to be useful? Since when has anything in a game like this been 100% reliable?
I don't agree that if invis *might* fail no one will use it. It wasn't the case in EQ, in fact, you could pretty much guarantee that it would fail sometimes and would have to mitigate that risk just like any other in the game. Sometimes it would be disastrous, sure, and sometimes it would just be an inconvenience.
The possibility of *not knowing* if a monster has Truesight or not is an additional worry to mitigate, sure, but again, even back in EQ, there were monsters that *sometimes* saw through invis and sometimes didn't.
Maybe there will be a way of knowing. I can't remember what game, it might even have been EQ, but there was definitely a game where if you were invis and a monster was able to see invis, it would turn toward you *before* actually attacking, like it was suspicious of something. It gave you a little time to pull back and go around or whatever. And it was very cool and exciting too.
And that is largely my point. Invis not being 100% reliable is not a bad thing, it will be much more interesting and exciting and easier to balance.
As for ITU, specifically, yeah, why not? Something clerics and maybe paladins can cast. No reason it should be infallable though, even to undead...
disposalist said: ... And that is largely my point. Invis not being 100% reliable is not a bad thing, it will be much more interesting and exciting and easier to balance. ...
IMO:
Just curious in what other MMO or video game in general is Invis or sneak not reliable, that you have played, where it was easier to balance and more exciting, as a result?
And I don't mean it just doesn't work against undead, I mean a reasonable comparison to the Pantheon system of randomly/unpredictably unreliable.
Where the user has no control (like random repops within detection of the player radius or 'on top of' the player while scouting/pulling, forcing you to eat a death or train your group/the zone-line).
This mechanic, as described and demonstrated to date, may end up being a distinctive/unique feature of the game in the genre. However, that doesn't mean it's a positive one..
Alternately, if you have no example games that you can recall, can you elaborate on what you mean by 'easier to balance' ?
vjek said:disposalist said: ... And that is largely my point. Invis not being 100% reliable is not a bad thing, it will be much more interesting and exciting and easier to balance. ...IMO:
Just curious in what other MMO or video game in general is Invis or sneak not reliable, that you have played, where it was easier to balance and more exciting, as a result?
And I don't mean it just doesn't work against undead, I mean a reasonable comparison to the Pantheon system of randomly/unpredictably unreliable.
Where the user has no control (like random repops within detection of the player radius or 'on top of' the player while scouting/pulling, forcing you to eat a death or train your group/the zone-line).
This mechanic, as described and demonstrated to date, may end up being a distinctive/unique feature of the game in the genre. However, that doesn't mean it's a positive one..
Alternately, if you have no example games that you can recall, can you elaborate on what you mean by 'easier to balance' ?
EQ for one. Some creatures had a *chance* to see through invis, so didn't always (unless I'm misremembering that). It still made sense to avoid monsters even if you had invis, thus it was more challenging. Invis could wear off at any moment with little warning, though, so you still had to be quick, whilst staying as clear as possible, so it was still dangerous and, thus, exciting.
Recently, Baldur's Gate 3 has excellent and exciting 'hiding/stealth' mechanics. It is reliable in some situations, but then a monster can move and turn toward you and your stealth is suddenly a dice roll and you have to move (stealthily but quickly) into better cover or a blindspot to make it reliable again. Even if you are spotted, if you are good you can scramble to a dark spot and re-achieve stealth, though it can then be a cat-and-mouse effort as the monster looks for you and might re-see you. It's great even in alpha as BG3 currently is.
If invisibility is 100% reliable in all situations and can be used to utterly reliably 'skip' anything they want and travel in total safety, how can that be anything but boring? And, of course, it makes designing the challenge level of a zone all but impossible. This zone is level 50... but yeah, you can just walk through it with Invisibility you get at level 10...
By 'easier to balance' I mean the devs still have tools to make a zone challenging, because even if players use invisibility/stealth, if it is fallable, they will still have to use skill and take time to get around. More skill than fighting the monsters? Maybe. Perhaps not as much skill, but a higher risk? That would be fair, wouldn't it? If invisibility/stealth is fallable in various ways, eg. position, speed, timing, knowledge, relative level, multiple types needed, etc, then devs have tools with which to make a zone challenging even to those attempting to traverse it without fighting.
Also, are there definitely going to be 'random' repops in Pantheon? Creatures randomly and unknown to players being able to see through invis? I'm not so sure it will be quite like that. Won't only certain monsters have a range of possible dispositions that might include Truesight which won't necessarily be 100% see-through-invis? Might we not be able to tell if a monster has truesight before being seen? Not sure that is final and decided. Even if it is, once you know a certain area has random repops or certain monsters might have truesight there you will know to not rely on invisibility there. Good thing players have more than one ability and friends to help.
So, yeah, I think 'reliable' invis/stealth would be boring and make zone design/balance very difficult.
IMO:
I've played BG3 and know what you're referring to, but that's not as random as what Pantheons implementation could be. It's not a binary pass/fail, the player has feedback, information, and choice. They can move around. There are weighted rolls. It's not a "This truesight disposition mob spawns, sees you and attacks, 100% guaranteed".
Of course, if you can see the mob before-hand (the disposition is in the name, currently) then you might have a chance to react, depending on detection radius. Or not, depending on how punitive the Pantheon devs are feeling. It might be LOS, full stop, in which case if you can see it, it can see you, and you're training/zoning/dying.
If the repops aren't random, then every zone has dispositions pre-set in every spawn point. I think that's been debunked, and VR has confirmed dispositions will be random, especially in dungeons.
If not, and all spawn points will have specific dispositions, then zones will be broken up by where Truesight (or similar) mobs spawn & re-spawn. Fine with me, cue the emergent player behavior.
I've never seen what you're describing in EQ1, with respect to Invis. Either creatures do or don't, there is no "maybe".
Hence why, with classes that had guaranteed invis minimum duration timers, it was extremely powerful and extremely reliable in zones without undead. I have used it that way in EQ1 for years and am never disappointed or surprised.
But I appreciate you explaining your perspective. Again, IMO, Reliable stealth/invis is in EQ1, and their zones are quite straightforward with respect to design and balance, having changed little in this regard in the past 20 years. If Pantheon was going to use a system similar to EQ1 stealth/invis/IVU, I would have less criticisms to offer. Yet, even as described, myself and those in my guild will be happy to simply kill everything all the time. :)
vjek said:I've never seen what you're describing in EQ1, with respect to Invis. Either creatures do or don't, there is no "maybe".
Hence why, with classes that had guaranteed invis minimum duration timers, it was extremely powerful and extremely reliable in zones without undead. I have used it that way in EQ1 for years and am never disappointed or surprised.
There was a maybe for EQ. Some mob types always had see invis, others that had/were the right caster (wizard mobs I think?) had a chance to cast see invis on themselves (Evil Eyes often did this). Similarly shaman mobs would give themselves SoW sometimes but not always.
FFXI had somewhat unreliable stealth too IIRC, as different mobs relied on any combination of sight/smell/sound.
"This truesight disposition mob spawns, sees you and attacks, 100% guaranteed"
Is it that way?
"It might be LOS, full stop"
It might be.
"VR has confirmed dispositions will be random"
I thought that meant that a particular monster has a percentage chance of being disposition X, rather than any monster has a chance of any disposition or disposition monsters might spawn in random locations? Like, the guards at castle might be alarmist (10%) or truesight (5%), the rats in the basements might be poison resistent (5%) or exploding (5%), rather than a truesight guard might spawn anywhere in the castle (1% every hour).
In that way, players will get to know which monsters *might* be truesight, or whatever, and learn to mitigate the possibilities.
"I've never seen what you're describing in EQ1"
Dang, sorry. I must be remembering a different game. So many MMORPGs. I do remember invisibility running out and blinking off in EQ, though. I guess that was not the higher level improved version.
I'm quite happy to say then, that that's one of the things EQ got wrong, IMO, hehe. EQ wasn't perfect. Having a mechanic that allows you to reliably skip content and never be "disappointed or surprised" sounds terribly boring, hehe.
I can quite understand why VR wouldn't follow that design/balance with Pantheon. It rather sounds like a lack of design/balance. Why it is a good thing to be able to trivially skip most content?
But, yes, if they do have invis/stealth that isn't 100% reliable they will have to make changes to other mechanics, like aggro not being instant or some way of determining potential for aggro before it occurs and, yeah, that might be some development effort. I'm lookig forward to seeing how it works out.
I do appreciate you explaining, too. You always have a very detailed thought out perspective, vjek, though I think you sometimes make pessimistic assumptions, you probably think I make overly optimistic ones hehe!
Iksar said:vjek said:I've never seen what you're describing in EQ1, with respect to Invis. Either creatures do or don't, there is no "maybe".
Hence why, with classes that had guaranteed invis minimum duration timers, it was extremely powerful and extremely reliable in zones without undead. I have used it that way in EQ1 for years and am never disappointed or surprised.There was a maybe for EQ. Some mob types always had see invis, others that had/were the right caster (wizard mobs I think?) had a chance to cast see invis on themselves (Evil Eyes often did this). Similarly shaman mobs would give themselves SoW sometimes but not always.
FFXI had somewhat unreliable stealth too IIRC, as different mobs relied on any combination of sight/smell/sound.
I could have sworn there was a level difference thing in EQ, like red monsters could see through it, others had a chance, depending on level difference, and grey monsters could never see you.
I must be remembering another game.
I certainly prefer it that way (and other more interesting complexities) though.
disposalist said: ... Why it is a good thing to be able to trivially skip most content? ...
IMO:
I read the entirety of your reply, all good there, just wanted to highlight this, and offer my experience as to why this is a good thing, contextually. It's not always about trivally skipping most content.
- When attempting to get to a group in a camp, when repops have happened in more than half the zone, and it takes a long time to get to that camp. I can reach that group. That's good for me and good for them. It allows me and them to efficiently use our limited gaming time. A class without invis or invis pots is less likely to be able to join that camp. When I played a Rogue, being able to reach pretty much any camp in any dungeon without training/dying was one of the few things the class had going for it. I've seen DA Clerics show up too close to a group with 20 mobs behind them in solb, die when DA wears off, and then wipe the group. Ouch. ( Yes, I'm aware of the existence of COTH, for Kunark+ )
- It's a reward for choosing that class. Yep, personal power. Tangible personal power. I chose this class, it has a whole laundry list of things it's not very good at compared to other classes, but it has this to make up for it. I can't tank, heal, mez, charm, buff anyone, stab anything, nor do I have a combat pet. But.. I can invis myself. Go me!
- Considerate travel. At the very least, outdoors, you could SoW/jboots, lev/invis and be on your way. Or be a bard and do it all, faster, better, and for your entire group with the bonus of IVU in a single song! :P It's not content I'm consuming. There's nothing I'm doing except going from A to B, especially in a zone where it's just low level mobs that offer little or no XP. Why train the zone, negatively affecting other players, when you can pass through without bothering anyone else?
I have the impression there is a misconception about what "unreliable" means. As Disposalist pointed out, invisibility in EQ is needed but it will fail at some point for two reasons : the duration of the spell ins random and sometimes there will be see invisible mobs. Therefore invisibility is needed but it is not reliable.
However, we do not talk about the same form of "unreliable" if I refer to the Truesight (disposition) feature. In EQ you know which mobs see inv : usually raidmobs, often group bosses, undeads and, in one particular area, the subcategory of a mob group. For example, in sol A, in the goblin areas, caster type goblins see inv, the others don't.
That means see invisibility is not exactly random in EQ. You know exactly which mobs see or don't see. On one particular spawn point, the mob can respawn as a see inv one if it is a caster subcategory (to keep the same example), and the other way around. In the end, it is pre-defined which mob is flagged as see inv and which is not. The disposition system doesn't work this way : the exact same mob can respawn with its disposition randomly set to Truesight. If we continue keeping our goblin example, it doesn't matter if the mob is a melee gobbo or a caster one, every spawn point has a chance to pop with Truesight every spawn cycle. This makes it way harder to navigate your way, because a quick glance at the mob will not tell you if it is see inv or not. You cannot chose your path to avoid the goblin caster but walk close to the goblin warrior, because whatever subcategory it is, it might or not spawn with Truesight.
Of course, but it is too early to know, it could be that in Pantheon that particular caster goblin has a higher chance to spawn with Truesight enabled as that warrior goblin. In this case we come closer to the EQ system, but tbh, noone knows and perhaps it is not even worked out by Joppa and the team. Also, in EQ, a quick right clic tells you if the mob sees or doesn't see : /con a see invisible mob shows your faction (if it is "ready to attack", it sees you, doesn't it). We don't know if /con a mob in Pantheon will work the same way.
Adonhiram said:
... invisibility in EQ is needed but it will fail at some point for two reasons : the duration of the spell is random ...
No issue with the rest of your post, Adonhiram, but felt this was necessary to point out..
Improved Invisibility from EQ1
" Cloaks you in a mystic veil, rendering you invisible to many creatures for 10.0 mins. "
vjek said:No issue with the rest of your post, Adonhiram, but felt this was necessary to point out..
Improved Invisibility from EQ1
" Cloaks you in a mystic veil, rendering you invisible to many creatures for 10.0 mins. "
I mean, as a self only spell for two classes (that they got near the level cap) that doesn't really break anything.
vjek said:
Adonhiram said:... invisibility in EQ is needed but it will fail at some point for two reasons : the duration of the spell is random ...
No issue with the rest of your post, Adonhiram, but felt this was necessary to point out..
Improved Invisibility from EQ1
" Cloaks you in a mystic veil, rendering you invisible to many creatures for 10.0 mins. "
Haha you got me there Vjek, but I have to add nontheless :
- Improved invisibility (fixed duration) comes only with Velious (wizard, enchanter, nec IVU only), and Luclin (mages) ;
- It is self only ;
- Other classes rely on the random duration invisibility the inv. classes can cast on them.
This is very interesting because it means SoE started making things easier for some classes only 2 or 3 years after release... I'd like to know what the internal debate was amongst devs in these times. And what is the debate today in the Pantheon staff : perhaps they are parted too between pro- and anti- invisibility, which, in the grand scheme of things, is in the end a debate about QoL (Quality of Life) and how it impacts gameplay.
@vjek Thanks again for reading and making thoughtful response. I believe I understand what you are saying and I don't disagree, but I would say what you think is good about personal invis/stealth in EQ is quite subjective.
Easing grouping: A lot of people, myself included, might say that, if you want to join a party deep in a dungeon, you should have to join another group to get down there or have that group fight back up to get you. That could be considered irritating or tedious, but I would say it is respectful of the challenge and dangers (design) of the dungeon and content and keeps the content 'meaningful'.
Personal Power: It is an impressive and satisfying personal power of some classes in some games, but it isn't a 'given' that wizards *should* be able to turn invisible. This is a new game and there are many ways to give satisfying, powerful abilities without having such a fundamental effect on content. I'm not saying it's *wrong* to want those enjoyable powers, but the game might be more balanced without them and there are a load of other things a wizard can do.
Considerate travel: Again, I get it, but like the easing of grouping, you are 'skipping' content. Yes, it may well be content you have seen 100 times before, but it might not be. Sure, who cares if you skip it, but then, how meaningful is travel and exploration? If you can just float invisibly over the Desert of Death, that carefully designed and balanced challenging content is trivialised and wasted. If you can *choose* which content to encounter, then the thrill and danger of travel and exploration - a major part of the game - is gone.
Like I say, I appreciate that it's somewhat subjective, but surely a zone retaining its meaning - its desired designed challenge - it an important consideration balanced against a player's desire to get to a group more easily, feel powerful in a particular way or travel easily?
Personally, as with a lot of similar MMORPG hot topics, I am happier to undergo some 'pain' and even 'tedium' in order for the game to be ultimately more meaningful and challenging. I would prefer abilities to be more limited and have to rely on friends and skill than avoid a little of what should actually be fun, anyway.
It's a little like it being assumed wizards and druids should be able to teleport. Why? And how powerful should it be? In my experience (in original EQ and definitely in P99) it ended up trivialising travel and feeling unimmersive. Some say, fine, travel was boring. I suppose if travel *is* boring then, yeah, fine, though teleports-made-mundane isn't much better. But what if travel isn't boring? Reflecting back to invisibility/stealth: Dungeon crawling isn't boring, surely? Surely other abilities ensure a wizard/rogue feel powerful without being able to skip content?
It's an interesting discussion.
IMO:
As with any in-game mechanic, it's definitely subjective regarding how it ends up affecting someones play time.
I only used thos examples because that's how it is used in EQ1, today, and since it was implemented.
I bring up these issues because I've seen how players respond to how it's possible to play the game; the results are: emergent player behavior.
Regarding travel; Vanguard permits unlocking fast travel points for anyone. You can return to any of them once you've been there once. The VR devs have spoken of a similar system for Pantheon.
Even if they haven't, there is strong evidence based on the class pages today that Druids and Wizards will be able to take groups with them to travel to destinations they've been to previously.
If fast-travel of any kind is going to be in the game, at all, this will drive the emergent behavior of Pocket druids or Pocket wizards, as in EQ1. That is, an entirely separate account owned by a guild or person that is used entirely and only for fast travel of another individual or group.
Can't be avoided, can't be 'fixed'. Players will, 100% guaranteed, use this to not consume (skip or bypass) content.
When I see that type of implementation, I know (from history) how players will take advantage of it. The game permits it, players will do it.
Similarly, with powerful personal abilities like Invisibility, Stealth, FD, or similar, if the game permits it, the players will do it.
Even if Invis/Stealth turns out not to be reliable, everywhere it is reliable, players will use it as much as possible as a convenience in as many ways as provides an advantage.
Again, if it's possible, players will use it to not consume (skip or bypass) content.
If the design goal of players being forced to consume content is always a higher priority than them optionally being able to not consume (skip or bypass) content, then of what great value do mechanics like stealth and invis have? Is there a great deal of value implementing them, if their use is relegated to gimmick status? Sure you can turn invisible or stealth, but what if you can't use it for any non-combat advantage? If that's a/the goal, then make it combat only, and save everyone some time. :D
To your point, disposalist, I don't personally think Wizards and Druids should have a monopoly on teleportation. I think it's a fundamentally broken balancing scheme to include non-combat abilities in combat balancing, yet, that's what EQ1 has done forever. Because fast travel is seen as so grossly overpowered, and with the emergent behavior of Pocket druids/wizards, the appetite to balance combat for those two classes is gone. If you objectively compare their combat abilities with other classes, there is a stark contrast, yet, no-one cares. Why? Because they can teleport.
So, that's a lost opportunity, imo. Instead of giving reasonable travel options to everyone and making all combat roles unique, powerful, and interesting, VR (and others) continue to include, give weight to, and consider these amazingly powerful non-combat abilities in combat balancing. It's objectively and logically flawed, yet, it's being repeated. Not a fan of seeing that happening, again.
If you have invisibility pots or smell masking pots, or similar optional states that temporarily allow players that effect, then that power can be shared, with the risk/reward tap/sink balance of a consumable.
Clearly, it's not an issue that invis/stealth is in the game, at all. That precedent has been set.
As with the old story/joke of " We've established you're a business person, now we're just deciding on price " I see it as: " We've established you're in favor of invisibility, now we're just deciding on implementation features "
Hehe. "Business person"? I though that was... erm... 'lady of the night'?
We agree on teleports. I don't think something so fundamental should be under any particular class control. It couldn't, can't and shouldn't be 'balanced' with combat abilities. Yes, pocket porters would unfortunately no doubt be a thing.
Re. invisibility/stealth I think I understand your point, but I still think maybe you're being overly 'binary' about it. I don't think it needs to be 100% predictable to still be very useful and powerful. I don't think it needs to be infallable or is reduced to a gimmick. As you say "We've established you're in favor of invisibility, now we're just deciding on implementation features". I agree and I'm sure there is an implementation that makes it neither infallable, nor a gimmick.
Teleportation (or at least fast travel) could be the same. I really liked the implementation of horse routes and stables in original LotRO. You had to travel to the destination at least once, travel wasn't instant or even completely safe, depending on roaming monsters or trains, but it was quicker than running and you could zone out a little (or leave the room if you were brave) while the horse ran it's route. You could even hop off half way if you liked, though you couldn't then jump back on. You might see someone you knew on the route or see someone in trouble or see a POI or monster you'd not encountered before and leap off the horse.
Not 'infallable' safe, instant travel, but not a gimmick either.
I'd love to see invisibility and stealth implemented in a similar useful-but-not-imbalanced way.
Of course, later on LotRO had routes that were 'instant' horse rides and Hunters could somehow 'guide' (teleport) a whole group vast distances... but then again they also made it possible for soloers to do previously group and even epic encounters... *sigh*
Very interesting points have been raised here. One thing we should think of is the long term perspective. I am quite sure invisibility WILL at some point of Pantheon's life be introduced because the pressure from the player basis will become too strong. It's the same mechanism which lead SoE to implement fixed invisibility in EQ after 2-3 years and AA invisibility for almost everyone past House of Thule.
We, the future players, may be pro or anti-invisibility. Let's say the anti-invisibility faction is larger or louder and the devs don't implement invisibility except the rogue stealth at launch of the game. To use Disposalist's example, there will be "no floating invisible above the Desert of Death" (invisibility is not levitation /wink - but we understand the hyperbole to picture an example). Great, there won't be any way to bypass the Desert of Death. Players will have to group up and fight their way through the Desert of Death in order to reach the City where they can sell their loot, go on supply runs, meet guildies, whatever.
Three years later, guess what will happen. Everybody is so fed up with the daily "Desert of Death run" required to reach the City, multiple people post on the forums about their playtime being atypical and that they can't find "Desert groups" which blocks for them the City access, other people complain about high end players offering for plat a military "Desert escort" service, and so on.
BAM.There you go, patch at N+3, invisbility, here I am. Voilà... Of course, one can argue this will never happen because us, the future players, are all so excited about a new difficult game with no Quality of Life ****, and that we swear to maintain the purity of the game's essence, et caetera... but human beings are human beings, and a few years later the interpretation of the Purity Axiom will change, I'm quite sure of that !
Adonhiram said:Very interesting points have been raised here. One thing we should think of is the long term perspective. I am quite sure invisibility WILL at some point of Pantheon's life be introduced because the pressure from the player basis will become too strong. It's the same mechanism which lead SoE to implement fixed invisibility in EQ after 2-3 years and AA invisibility for almost everyone past House of Thule.
They did what? Omg. I was well out of EQ by then I guess. Planes of Power giving everyone teleporting was near my end with EQ.
So they decided that, presumably, just some classes having invisibility was unbalancing so they gave to it everyone? Lol. Strikes me as a bad decision to appeasea mass market.
I'm not saying VE won't do that, but everything so far (and what persuaded me to invest big in Pantheon) suggests they don't prioritise the mass market - quite the opposite - and want to do what's best for the game's meaningful challenge.
No one can see the future, but I don't think we can or should assume these QoL measures are inevitable at all.
Adonhiram said:
We, the future players, may be pro or anti-invisibility. Let's say the anti-invisibility faction is larger or louder and the devs don't implement invisibility except the rogue stealth at launch of the game. To use Disposalist's example, there will be "no floating invisible above the Desert of Death" (invisibility is not levitation /wink - but we understand the hyperbole to picture an example). Great, there won't be any way to bypass the Desert of Death. Players will have to group up and fight their way through the Desert of Death in order to reach the City where they can sell their loot, go on supply runs, meet guildies, whatever.
Three years later, guess what will happen. Everybody is so fed up with the daily "Desert of Death run" required to reach the City, multiple people post on the forums about their playtime being atypical and that they can't find "Desert groups" which blocks for them the City access, other people complain about high end players offering for plat a military "Desert escort" service, and so on.
That is down to the content design. Much better would be to not put a common public area behind the Desert of Death. More like the DoD should be a barrier to a very difficult raid zone, effectively using challenging content (requiring a certain character level, acclimation level and skill level) to 'gate' even more challenging content. The DoD would indeed seem annoying and painful if it blocked off somewhere you had to visit for mundane things. That would be bad design.
Again, I don't think we can assume VR will design their zone badly enough that invisibility (and levitation - FYI is was in response to another comment on using invis *and* lev to cross zones trouble free that I mentioned floating invisible) become something *needed* to avoid regular tedium.
Adonhiram said:
BAM.There you go, patch at N+3, invisbility, here I am. Voilà... Of course, one can argue this will never happen because us, the future players, are all so excited about a new difficult game with no Quality of Life ****, and that we swear to maintain the purity of the game's essence, et caetera... but human beings are human beings, and a few years later the interpretation of the Purity Axiom will change, I'm quite sure of that !
Human beings are human beings, but VR are super humans!!!! Hehe.
Seriously, though, VR have the benefit of having seen all that and knowing the damage it does.
Everquest is still going 20 years later, which is testament to it's fundamental goodness. Everquest has also lost a ton of players over the years, which is testament to the questionable choices over its evolution (and lack of, in technical areas).
I believe if they had stayed more true to its origins (and perhaps updated the engine more) that they would not only still be 'going' they would still have large numbers of players.
I have high hopes that VR see that too. After all, they are bucking the modern trends just making Pantheon. Why would they then follow the modern trend of diluting their brand to appease the mass market when they are intentionally avoiding the mass market to have a strong brand in the first place?
disposalist said:
Human beings are human beings, but VR are super humans!!!! Hehe.
Seriously, though, VR have the benefit of having seen all that and knowing the damage it does.
Everquest is still going 20 years later, which is testament to it's fundamental goodness. Everquest has also lost a ton of players over the years, which is testament to the questionable choices over its evolution (and lack of, in technical areas).
I believe if they had stayed more true to its origins (and perhaps updated the engine more) that they would not only still be 'going' they would still have large numbers of players.
I have high hopes that VR see that too. After all, they are bucking the modern trends just making Pantheon. Why would they then follow the modern trend of diluting their brand to appease the mass market when they are intentionally avoiding the mass market to have a strong brand in the first place?
I must say I rather agree here and obviously Disposalist has raised real valid points. I totally understand the vision he advocates for : a challenging game, expressing the pioneer spirit of early EQ (from a global point of view, we all agree it should not be a kind of EQ 2.0) and reluctant to implement too many Quality of Life features to keep the game challenging. I sign up for that as Disposalist does, by the way. But, again, that doesn't mean invisibility should be excluded. May I remind the "easiest" game, World of Warcraft, which killed Everquest because it was so easy and straightforward (quest hubs, 100% solo to max level, postal service from scratch, flying mounts in the third expac etc. etc.), had almost no means of going invisible ? Of course, "induction is not deduction" (a french saying, I hope it makes sense in English too), but this example shows us that there is no direct corelation between invisibility and easy gaming.
In the end, what matters is what kind of invisibility and how invisibility impacts gameplay. It is too early to analyze that, considering only Rogue's stealth is available in pre-Alpha. Time will tell, I suppose... Anyhow I hope our very deep and interesting discussion will feed the dev staff . One thing is certain : please think carefully how you want to implement invisibility and take into accounts all possible variables - don't make it too hard, don't make it too easy :-)
I'm totally happy with invisibilty/stealth being a thing. I'm just also happy with it being limited and fallable, much like teleporting will be. If teleporting could take you from any point to any point at any time it would ruin much of the game. Invisibility/stealth could be similar if not implimented carefully.
Stealth and invisibility not being 100% reliable is a very good thing, dispositions contribute to make each run special and breaks the sensation of routine and will help us keeping attention.
I'm wondering if Truesight is designed to "counter" invisibility only, or invisibility + illusions, or invisibility + rogue stealth, do we currently have any clue ? Personnally, I'd prefer Truesight being a counter to "magic stealth" only (invisibility + illusions) and another disposition being a counter to rogue stealth or "natural stealth", it would add a level of complexity and make the different types of stealth useful depending on situation. I'm also talking about illusions cause it is also some kind of stealth, If I well remember from EQ, race specific illusions were able to change how mobs considered you, and I'm wondering if some kind of disguise skill have been considered for rogues (and / or bards ?) ? It could be fun.
I'm also wondering about how the old /con command could be implemented, it was not very practical to target each mob and apply macro on it. Nethertheless I think the red halo around kos mobs in EQ2 is too much, so maybe something in the middle, like an mark/icon appearing when the mob is targetted and staying after it is no longer targetted would be ok.