disposalist said:Sorry for any confusion. I did talk about all gamers, but, because we're in a Pantheon forum, want to narrow it to how it relates to Pantheon.
I suppose MOBAs, etc are relevant, if not directly comparable in type, and yes, perhaps I shouldn't dismiss PvP entirely in that some PvP games are strategic and not 'immediate' and that shows some modern gamers *can* cope with needing patience.
Good points.
Ok so if we only talk about MMOs players and not the entire industry, then I'll bring those points:
1. Many of us are nostalgic. We miss the good times we had on those games as we grew up and want those amazing feelings back. Sadly it's not guaranteed Pantheons will succeed. No matter how good Pantheon will be, it won't be our first MMO anymore. But it might be for some and maybe those players 20 years later will be like: "Man, I miss Pantheon, we don't make games like that nowadays."
And the main reason why I (we) found our first MMO challenging is because we didn't know better. If I play DAoC now I think it's easy because I know everything about it.
2. Games became more popular and want to appeal to mass market and therefore they changed the focus of the game.
- However, I wouldn't say those games are easier. If I compare DAoC in the early 2000's and recent MMOs, usually recent games have more skills to deal with, and give more place for skill expression. My berserker in DAoC about 10 skills but only 5 relevant ones in PvP during SI expansion. Modern day MMO usually have tons more, therefore more complex and difficult to learn.
- We may perceive them as easier because the leveling process is faster and doesn't require a group (I remember telling my friend when playing WoW and comparing it to DAoC: "This is a Massively Soloplayer Online RPG"). However games are utimately still challenging. Although you mainly find said challenges in Max level dungeons/Raids, Max level PvP arenas, etc.
Before, leveling up was the main content of the game, now the max level content is the focus of the challenging experience.
Adrenicus said:I do think you're being slightly ageist towards the younger generation of gamers. I'm in my late 20's, WoW Classic was my first proper MMO. To my knowledge there hasn't been any new MMO's like this EQ you all talk about in my time. You just assume younger gamers won't enjoy it when in fact they haven't been given an opportunity. I absolutely loved WoW Classic and to me it is my "oldschool". I am of the hope I will enjoy Pantheon too. I expect to be grouping more in Pantheon than I did in WoW Classic (though a decent amount of time in that game was spent in at least small groups).
Some very good points have been made. Gaming was much more of a niche in the 90's. Nowadays the majority of the population play games regularly in some form or another. Of course the harder-core end of the spectrum will become more of a niche but it does not mean the player numbers are any fewer (just a previously untapped casual market is being squeezed for all the pennies it has got). As Khraag has pointed out absolutely tonnes of younger players play games such as Dark Souls, rogue lites, MOBAs/strategy games which can be very unforgiving.
Just because there hasn't been a MMO like Pantheon released doesn't mean the market isn't there amongst the younger generation. You can't expect teenagers or college aged students to realistically want to get into a 20+ year old game with a tiny playerbase; it needs to be a new fresh product, a.k.a Pantheon.
You're probably right about the ageism, though I've been quite careful to say 'modern gamer' (that could be an old person) it will, of course, mostly be young gamers. I do realise, when being rational and not a grumpy olf man, hehe, that young gamers are not the issue - of course, I was a 'young' gamer when falling in love with EQ and there were much 'easier' games to play, even back then. I don't think young people are all that different now.
I would also say in all seriousness, I know it's not 'young people' that are a problem, it's more what modern life is doing to young people that's the problem. Anyway... Back to Pantheon...
Classic WoW was *quite* old school - I enjoyed it too, though it really wasn't ideal for me, I played it up until Wrath of the Lich King and instant speed run dungeon rotations killed it for me, amongst other things. I would say; though even classic WoW is nowhere near as 'old school' as classic Everquest, if you *prefer* classic WoW to modern WoW, then that is a good indicator that you will love old school MMORPGs!
You're right about young players needing a 'new' old school MMORPG. Without serious nostalgia I wouldn't have enjoyed EQ P99 and even then I only lasted a year or so until I was hitting the same end game frustrations as I did in EQ (EQ was not perfect).
I am confident that there will be plenty of young players in Pantheon and I'm looking forward to helping them get into the old school vibe.
Excellent post disposalist - both well written and thoughtful.
Adrenicus - I well remember WoW classic. Not the game with that name but the original World of Warcraft when it was released. I thought it was excellently done in some respects (especially the different starting areas and backstories) but catered to an exceptionally juvenile player base, was trivially easy in many respects and allowed far too much griefing. So I didn't stay very long. Pantheon is, I hope, intended to be several game generations harder than original WoW.
Let us go back to the thread title - discussing "challenge". What does challenge mean? If challenge means simply "difficult" and the goal of Pantheon is to be very difficult I see it as having a very Hobbsian lifespan. Nasty, brutish and short.
What do I see as key distinguishing features of Pantheon if all works well - features that fall at least close to the word "challenge".
Slow leveling. Exceptionally slow by recent standards. Months and months to hit level-cap and, by middle level range, days or weeks for a single level. Not simply for the sake of making the entire game a time-sink but to encourage exploration and diversions. And to make the journey a far higher percentage of the experience than the "endgame". Take a day in WoW today to explore and you have "wasted" the time that could have gotten you all the way to maximum level. Yes - one day can do that. If a day is 1/20 of a level you are almost forced to relax and feel you can afford a bit of time to just have unproductive "fun". Yet this isn't a matter of the game being difficult. Individual fights can be similar difficulty to current games and still have extremely slow leveling.
Slow travel. Some would say this is merely tedious, but few if any would equate it to the game being "difficult" in the sense of making fights hard to win or dungeons hard to complete.
Death penalties that matter - the need to think before starting a fight and to care whether you win or lose - not simply fight anything because at worst you respwan 5 minutes away with a trivial penalty. Again, this makes the game as a whole slower and, yes, challenging, but can be implemented regardless of whether individual fights are very hard or perhaps not so very hard. Even fights that aren't so hard will kill you if you are careless or unlucky.
What do I see as key distinguishing features of Pantheon if all works well - features that fall at least close to the word "challenge".
Slow leveling. Exceptionally slow by recent standards. Months and months to hit level-cap and, by middle level range, days or weeks for a single level. Not simply for the sake of making the entire game a time-sink but to encourage exploration and diversions. And to make the journey a far higher percentage of the experience than the "endgame". Take a day in WoW today to explore and you have "wasted" the time that could have gotten you all the way to maximum level. Yes - one day can do that. If a day is 1/20 of a level you are almost forced to relax and feel you can afford a bit of time to just have unproductive "fun". Yet this isn't a matter of the game being difficult. Individual fights can be similar difficulty to current games and still have extremely slow leveling.
Slow travel. Some would say this is merely tedious, but few if any would equate it to the game being "difficult" in the sense of making fights hard to win or dungeons hard to complete.
Death penalties that matter - the need to think before starting a fight and to care whether you win or lose - not simply fight anything because at worst you respwan 5 minutes away with a trivial penalty. Again, this makes the game as a whole slower and, yes, challenging, but can be implemented regardless of whether individual fights are very hard or perhaps not so very hard. Even fights that aren't so hard will kill you if you are careless or unlucky.
Right on.
The goal isn't the end game; it's having fun along the way. I had just as much fun in Blackburrow at level 15-20 as i did later in Karnors at level 30(?) and Sebilis in my 40s. You learned your character and made friends along the way. You had to plan travelling because it took time and it was dangerous which made it fun. You had to plan your fights, especially in dungeons because if you died you'd be spending the next hour or two getting your corpse because if you didn't, your gear would rot. This may sound bad, but it made the experience far more exciting.
Khraag said:Ok so if we only talk about MMOs players and not the entire industry, then I'll bring those points:
1. Many of us are nostalgic. We miss the good times we had on those games as we grew up and want those amazing feelings back. Sadly it's not guaranteed Pantheons will succeed. No matter how good Pantheon will be, it won't be our first MMO anymore. But it might be for some and maybe those players 20 years later will be like: "Man, I miss Pantheon, we don't make games like that nowadays."
And the main reason why I (we) found our first MMO challenging is because we didn't know better. If I play DAoC now I think it's easy because I know everything about it.
There will be some of this, yeah, but I really think it's also very much about how those games played and were designed. Needing downtime and needing to talk strategy and discuss knowledge meant you actually connected with other players and the game being challenging (more challenging than other games anyway, if just for the relative complexity) meant you were more involved.
Khraag said:2. Games became more popular and want to appeal to mass market and therefore they changed the focus of the game.
- However, I wouldn't say those games are easier. If I compare DAoC in the early 2000's and recent MMOs, usually recent games have more skills to deal with, and give more place for skill expression. My berserker in DAoC about 10 skills but only 5 relevant ones in PvP during SI expansion. Modern day MMO usually have tons more, therefore more complex and difficult to learn.
They are perhaps as complex (or even more) per player, but I don't agree with as challenging. You didn't even need to group up in most games after EQ for most content. How could it possibly be as challenging when you didn't need to synergise effectively with several other players? It's a big thing for me that Pantheon will actually need groups again. A huge part of the return of the challenge (and, of course, the social aspect).
Khraag said:- We may perceive them as easier because the leveling process is faster and doesn't require a group (I remember telling my friend when playing WoW and comparing it to DAoC: "This is a Massively Soloplayer Online RPG"). However games are utimately still challenging. Although you mainly find said challenges in Max level dungeons/Raids, Max level PvP arenas, etc.
Before, leveling up was the main content of the game, now the max level content is the focus of the challenging experience.
As I said above, I think grouping - having to cooperate and coordinate with others and synergise with their skills and actions - is genuinely much more challenging in and of itself, not just that games had 'harder' encounters *because* you go against them with several people (though they did).
Yeah I don't know much about 'mythic' content or the like in WoW. I hear much criticism though I know some enjoy it. I certainly didn't enjoy the end game in WoW much, pre-mythic. Get the right gear and speed run. I do prefer to enjoy the adventure rather than rush to end game and grind gear tiers repeatedly.
I guess it's not just about 'level' of challenge, but the kind of challenge. As I've said elsewhere, re. contention, playing while being punched in the face would be more challenging, but I wouldn't enjoy that, either hehe.
dorotea said:Slow leveling. Exceptionally slow by recent standards. Months and months to hit level-cap and, by middle level range, days or weeks for a single level. Not simply for the sake of making the entire game a time-sink but to encourage exploration and diversions. And to make the journey a far higher percentage of the experience than the "endgame". Take a day in WoW today to explore and you have "wasted" the time that could have gotten you all the way to maximum level. Yes - one day can do that. If a day is 1/20 of a level you are almost forced to relax and feel you can afford a bit of time to just have unproductive "fun". Yet this isn't a matter of the game being difficult. Individual fights can be similar difficulty to current games and still have extremely slow leveling.
Slow travel. Some would say this is merely tedious, but few if any would equate it to the game being "difficult" in the sense of making fights hard to win or dungeons hard to complete.
Some excellent points, dorotea, but I'm pulling out these two about pace, because I think they are very important as well as being jermaine to my OP.
I think a lot of players (not just modern ones, but perhaps especially modern ones) will argue that slow progression isn't 'challenge', it's boring, but the very important thing to appreciate here is what you say about *relative* activities.
You are absolutely correct, I think, that there is a point at which a game has a pace that is slow enough such that, relative to that pace, other activites like socialising, crafting, even role-playing! hehe, are 'affordable'. There is no longer an appreciable treadmill of progress that you feel you are missing out on if you dismount for a while, so you can relax and actually enjoy *the game* in all its aspects.
In Everquest, I often travelled long distances just to see what was there. I often logged on with no plan and chatted in general channels to see where that took me. Leveling took weeks sometimes and I didn't care because I was enjoying the game enough - and, yes, challenged enough - to not feel I needed to become more powerful or feel I had mastered my skills and wanted to move on.
There was enough challenging content that I could move around at the same level to several different zones and have fun learning them and honing my skills.
There were dopamine hits due to the harsh death penalties and tough encounters, but there was also slow release enjoyment of the general 'adventuring' (exploring, guild stuff, crafting, etc) due to the pace of progression.
Again, none of this stuff isn't something a modern gamer couldn't or wouldn't enjoy, but it's certainly something they aren't used to and would need to try to find how great it is (or to find it's not for them, I suppose).
disposalist said:They are perhaps as complex (or even more) per player, but I don't agree with as challenging. You didn't even need to group up in most games after EQ for most content. How could it possibly be as challenging when you didn't need to synergise effectively with several other players? It's a big thing for me that Pantheon will actually need groups again. A huge part of the return of the challenge (and, of course, the social aspect).
In the context of Raids, because that's how most MMORPG present their content currently, if each player has a more complex class to play, the entire difficulty goes up because everyone is expected to perform at a certain level. If everyone has a more complex class to play it's much harder to coordinate and find good enough players for each role.
If before you only had fewer difficult classes to play, then the difficulty to find good player is lessen because it's only targetd to a fewer individuals.
As for the "You don't have to group to level up". That's what I say. The difficulty has shifted from leveling up to only be challenging in end game content. It's still challenging however.
And to be fair, I agree with you that I'd like to play a game where it's much more encouraged to Find a group and play with players to level up. I'm not arguing that, that's why I am here and having pledged on Pantheon.
Khraag said:disposalist said:They are perhaps as complex (or even more) per player, but I don't agree with as challenging. You didn't even need to group up in most games after EQ for most content. How could it possibly be as challenging when you didn't need to synergise effectively with several other players? It's a big thing for me that Pantheon will actually need groups again. A huge part of the return of the challenge (and, of course, the social aspect).
In the context of Raids, because that's how most MMORPG present their content currently, if each player has a more complex class to play, the entire difficulty goes up because everyone is expected to perform at a certain level. If everyone has a more complex class to play it's much harder to coordinate and find good enough players for each role.
If before you only had fewer difficult classes to play, then the difficulty to find good player is lessen because it's only targetd to a fewer individuals.As for the "You don't have to group to level up". That's what I say. The difficulty has shifted from leveling up to only be challenging in end game content. It's still challenging however.
And to be fair, I agree with you that I'd like to play a game where it's much more encouraged to Find a group and play with players to level up. I'm not arguing that, that's why I am here and having pledged on Pantheon.
Ah, gotcha, yes.
So, I didn't read all the responses so this may have been covered already, but I think that often "challenge" gets confused with "time-consuming" or tediuos. I am going to focus on the application in MMOs (and Pantheon) since that is ultimately the point here.
I know I am painting with a bit of a broad brush, but I think that when challenge is viewed in the context of "old school MMOs" what I end up seeing most often are the references to how much TIME it took to do something, not how "challenging" it was to do.
For example, camping a mob for 24+ hours to get the super rare drop is not "challenging", it is time-consuming. Losing XP and having to earn it back isn't "challenging", it is time-consuming. Going on a long corpse run isn't "challenging" (for the most part, unless you went deep dungeon exploring solo), it is time-consuing. Having to repeatedly run back to town to color up currency, or clear out your inventory, isn't "challenging", it is time-consuming. Having to manually assemble a group to grind or explore a dungeon isn't "challenging", it is time-consuming.
The list goes on...
If "challenge" were really the focus of those activities, then they could be accomplished by something relatively quick but challenging as opposed to simply being time sink. A complicated fight for the loot, a puzzle to solve to get your XP back, some difficult task that would summon your corpse, etc.
The issue with implementing true "challenge" in any game, particularly an MMO, is that no matter how "challenging" something is, eventually people will figure out the most optimal way to beat it and it stops being "challenging". What you are left with is some *fancy thing* that was intended to be challenging ending up being outrageously farmed, because players will always "find a way". Also, until we get dynamic AI that can scale to the power level of the player/group that is doing the content, at the very least the content will only be temporarily challenging until people "overpower" it.
The only real "out", or way to "force challenge", in an MMO is to make something RNG or time based. That way, regardless of whether people figure out the "magic combination" or out level the encounter, there will still be a "challenge" by virtue of time dedication.
Ultimately, you can only really design for a "challege level" that emobidies the spirit of your design intent. Balance difficulty with "how long do we want this to take", and tedium with fun - all combined with an understanding of player psychology and what keeps them playing.
What keeps players (in general) playing is, IMO, reasonable risk vs reward, reasonable progression vs time invested, and reasonable consequences vs choice. Granted, what is "reasonable" is largely subjective, but I imagine the "sweet spot" likes somewhere between "old school poop-socking" and "modern afk button mashing". :)
EDIT: Re-reading my response it looks like I've picked at your comments. I don't mean it to seem that way, I was just trying to address your concerns rather than dismiss them.
Finn said:So, I didn't read all the responses so this may have been covered already, but I think that often "challenge" gets confused with "time-consuming" or tediuos. I am going to focus on the application in MMOs (and Pantheon) since that is ultimately the point here.
I know I am painting with a bit of a broad brush, but I think that when challenge is viewed in the context of "old school MMOs" what I end up seeing most often are the references to how much TIME it took to do something, not how "challenging" it was to do.
Hmm. Most often? Really? It is referenced quite often, yes, but personally, looking back, the most challenge of EQ compared to other MMORPGs since came in encounters/camps/dungeon crawls where you actually needed a full group of appropriate level that knew their role and knew how to coordinate with others well. Subsequent MMORPGs have largely been almost trivially easy when grouping because they make it so you can solo 99% of content.
Finn said:For example, camping a mob for 24+ hours to get the super rare drop is not "challenging", it is time-consuming.
I don't deny that long camps for epic items or the like were memorable and there certainly was a 'challenge' to your endurance and patience and tenacity, but even in those you generally had to hold down a camp while waiting - you weren't often sat there doing nothing - and since the game was fun, it was hardly a chore to stay at one camp for several hours in a few sessions. Also that was a tiny proportion of your life in game.
Finn said:Losing XP and having to earn it back isn't "challenging", it is time-consuming
No, not challenging, but that isn't the purpose there. The purpose of XP loss is to make you fear death. Also, earning it back, presuming you actually enjoy the game, was still fun. It's not like you thought "oh no I have to group up and kill monsters to get my xp back" you didn't have to go do exactly what you did the first time. Because the pace of the game was that much slower in general, it didn't really feel like a major chore because you weren't expecting to level up every hour anyway.
Finn said:Going on a long corpse run isn't "challenging" (for the most part, unless you went deep dungeon exploring solo), it is time-consuing
But again, challenge wasn't the sole point (though as you note it often could be). Having to potentially travel to get your corpse added to the fear of dying and the fear and respect of dangerous zones and the meaning of travel and exploration.
Finn said:Having to repeatedly run back to town to color up currency, or clear out your inventory, isn't "challenging", it is time-consuming.
But again, that wasn't the purpose, obviously. Encouraging the use of a town/hub is a social encouragement. Because it took a while you would probably visit traders or crafters or even socialise while you were there. Also it was to encourage meaningful travel and exploration - you had to plan you baggage space and consider your intended loot haul etc. like a real 'adventure'.
Finn said:Having to manually assemble a group to grind or explore a dungeon isn't "challenging", it is time-consuming.
Again, not intended as challenge, intended as social interaction. Whilst I agree some form of LFG tool is useful (and there actually was one in EQ, but it was crappy and didn't much get used) if it were to remove the need for social interaction it would be removing something quite important just for convenience.
Finn said:The list goes on...
Yeah, and as above, most of the normal complaints I see about early MMORPGs being 'slow' or 'tedious' indicate someone missing the point. Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but you kinda have missed some points. Now, I agree, not all Everquest mechanics were perfect or even intentional, but most of them were for good reason, if not a reason everyone appreciated.
Finn said:If "challenge" were really the focus of those activities, then they could be accomplished by something relatively quick but challenging as opposed to simply being time sink. A complicated fight for the loot, a puzzle to solve to get your XP back, some difficult task that would summon your corpse, etc.
Taking time to complete something is not a chore, though, if that thing is meaningful, as I explained for your examples above. Yes, I think some of those could have had improvements to make them more 'fun', but in essence, they had intention and meaning and weren't needlessly tedious. Not everything has to be quick or convenient to be worthy.
Finn said:The issue with implementing true "challenge" in any game, particularly an MMO, is that no matter how "challenging" something is, eventually people will figure out the most optimal way to beat it and it stops being "challenging". What you are left with is some *fancy thing* that was intended to be challenging ending up being outrageously farmed, because players will always "find a way". Also, until we get dynamic AI that can scale to the power level of the player/group that is doing the content, at the very least the content will only be temporarily challenging until people "overpower" it.
The only real "out", or way to "force challenge", in an MMO is to make something RNG or time based. That way, regardless of whether people figure out the "magic combination" or out level the encounter, there will still be a "challenge" by virtue of time dedication.
It's the same for anything in life, though. Any 'fun' activity can become boring, done enough times. Progressing any skill can get tedious once mastered, I suppose. Can't blame old school MMORPGs for that phenomenon hehe. I know you weren't.
The thing to do with MMORPGs is have several classes to master, several races to experience, with different cultures and home areas. Several zones for the same level ranges and a world big enough that you can have completely different adventures even though you are 'repeating' the game.
Personally, I played several alts over a few years in Everquest and there were still many zones I never mastered - some I barely went in - and a couple of classes I certainly never mastered.
Also, you can even pick the same class and race and you will adventure with different people and those different groups will be a different experience.
Pantheon is set to be big. And have lots of interesting classes and races and zones and crafts. I'm not worried that it can have me occupied for years with 'new' stuff. Then there will no doubt be expansions. Then there will be new friends persuading me to do it all over again with them and it will be a different experience guiding them.
Finn said:Ultimately, you can only really design for a "challege level" that emobidies the spirit of your design intent. Balance difficulty with "how long do we want this to take", and tedium with fun - all combined with an understanding of player psychology and what keeps them playing.
What keeps players (in general) playing is, IMO, reasonable risk vs reward, reasonable progression vs time invested, and reasonable consequences vs choice. Granted, what is "reasonable" is largely subjective, but I imagine the "sweet spot" likes somewhere between "old school poop-socking" and "modern afk button mashing". :)
I don't disagree that there should perhaps be less 'endurance' required than for some of the parts of EQ and VR recognise that with their talk of being able to achieve 'meaningful progress' in two or three hour sessions. But "able to achieve meaningful progress" doesn't mean everything will take less than 3 hours. I still would want an epic quest to take many many hours though perhaps no section would require you to 'hold' a camp for more than 3 hours. I still would expect some zones or dungeons to take many hours to traverse, but perhaps have 'safe' spots where you can log out and log back in next session at intervals you could expect to reach in less than 3 hours.
Also, as noted above, I wouldn't want things like corpse runs or travel to be speeded up just to 'save time'. VR could try to make it more interesting, but that stuff has more meaning than 'challenge' or even 'fun'.
I hope I haven't just sounded disagreeable hehe. I do agree that there is a compromise to be made between old-school and modern gaming. Grief not everything in EQ was perfect, for sure! There is a balance, but I think we need to be very careful what we throw out as it might have had worth in unobvious and hard to appreciate ways.
disposalist said:Is this just a modern demographics thing, I wonder?
...
@Jobeson You say the question boils down to "Do people want to win more often or lose more often?" and whilst I think that's part of it, I also think it comes down to "Who are video gamers?" and "What are video games?"
...
We might say "people want dopamine hits every few minutes now", but which people?
Demographics is certainly a large part of popularity, but popularity includes more than pure demographics. If you want the most popular game you build it for the widest audience and the most generic idea of success/winning the game. South park has a great "game" in their show called Heroin Hero. All you do is run around and chase the dragon/injecting heroin, never losing. It is honestly the perfect comentary on the popular modern games I have seen.
The people who want the dopamine hits are gamers of all types now given how popular it is. It sells better because it is more addicting. New gamers have only experienced this system. Old gamers have gotten used to it. It is expected because it is everywhere. We like to call them casual gamers, but it is the common gamer in reality. The world focuses on common because that is where the money is. Your common sports fan will watch the game, support their team buying a jacket, perhaps buy a ticket from time to time.
My hope for Pantheon is that it hangs around in the background like Eve with a loyal fanbase for decades. Eve is profitable MMO that has been around longer than WoW. Never making huge waves even though it has the only universe where players actually change the world. You want to sell your junk, well only players will buy it. Your junk has a real value they want for recycling the metal resources. If you want to buy junk you can buy it in the middle of nowhere. You set a lower price because people don't want to haul their own junk to larger trade hubs. There are people who play the game who literally are just space truckers making tons of money buying and selling. Some build their own stations to save on taxes and make money from other players who want to do business with them.
We hear a few great stories from time to time, but your average person doesn't want to RP in a world they want to be the same hero everyone else is. In Eve's world you have freedom. You can open a bank if you can get people to trust you. You have viable playstyles for ships and weapons with a great deal of balance between them. You have multiple main factions and ways to play it all safely or go all in with one. You have a great economy for farming / trading / mining /etc. It all works near perfectly. You have great pvp rules for engaging others. You have great pve rules for missions and exploration. The GMs help set up special servers to hold massive fights that sometimes break out of literally thousands of players vs thousands of players from major alliances attacking eachother. You have the GMs staying out of player fueds. Regarding the bank if you steal from the bank you opened the GMs won't go ban you.
The combat is horrible by todays standards, the game fully supports true boxing which I despise (in a pvp game especially) and sadly RL money can be sold in game. Honestly Eve does this better than most games that pull goods out of thin air for you. Eve has it locked for skins, monthly subs, and a few other things, but none of them actually hurt their economy by selling anything you would actually use in game. It creates a system for the wealthy players to play the game for free. Those are my only three complaints though.
I honestly want to go give it another shot after writing this just to be in the world again. This is the draw of world building and not copy paste vendor pays out endless gold with the goods vanishing from the game.
Melt down the 150 rusty swords you collected while adventuring over the past few weeks. Sell the iron ingots to a guy who wants to transport thousands of them over land to the capital city where he can sell them at a higher price. Knowing he may end up hijacked on the road he hires people to protect his multiple wagons or possibly just a single enchanter capable of distracting and confusing a few enemies long enough for him to get away safely from most situation. On his way back he loads up with the cheap copper that the capital is known for. Transporting it back to his home city with the same guard. Seeing how much money he makes week after week you decide you want to go to the capital yourself to buy better armor. So after a little investigation you load up with as many local goods you can buy for cheap but sell well in the capital. You only carry what you can, but you are confident you can sneak past anything as a plain adventurer. You don't make nearly as much money as the person who does this for a living, but you turned a small profit where you could and you were going to make the trip anyways. (teleportation magic / banking magic ruins this idea of a world economy for Pantheon but it is a world that could have been)
Eve is also the game that proves LAS systems work. Your ship is effectively a LAS system. Even if you can do everything perfectly, you cant do everything perfectly at the same time because your ship doesn't have endless power / mount points / equipment slots etc.
X
A little off the topic at hand but just doing some brainstorming. If it is easy to change the difficulty to one zone (as we saw in the latest stream), would it be just as easy to change the difficulty of an entire server? My thought here is to have a server that would appeal to that "Modern Gamer or Causual Gamer." I don't know if that muddies the water too much or not but just a thought. I know for me personally I am on the EQ1 style hype train but will be dragging some of my friends kicking and screaming.
Seanzyo6 said:A little off the topic at hand but just doing some brainstorming. If it is easy to change the difficulty to one zone (as we saw in the latest stream), would it be just as easy to change the difficulty of an entire server? My thought here is to have a server that would appeal to that "Modern Gamer or Causual Gamer." I do know if that muddies the water too much or not but just a thought. I know for me personally I am on the EQ1 style hype train but will be dragging some of my friends kicking and screaming.
Now that they are no longer hard coding, no it wouldn't be difficult at all to do something like that.
Seanzyo6 said:A little off the topic at hand but just doing some brainstorming. If it is easy to change the difficulty to one zone (as we saw in the latest stream), would it be just as easy to change the difficulty of an entire server? My thought here is to have a server that would appeal to that "Modern Gamer or Causual Gamer." I don't know if that muddies the water too much or not but just a thought. I know for me personally I am on the EQ1 style hype train but will be dragging some of my friends kicking and screaming.
That is a very interesting thought, but I have to say, I think it would be a shame to not encourage 'modern' or 'casual' gamers to *try* a more challenging game than they are used to. I guess they still could though. Characters on different servers.
Also, as has been noted in this and other threads, the type of 'challenge' people like varies greatly. What some players think of as challenge, even, varies.
It has also been suggested in previous similar discussions over the years that there could be servers that cater toward those wanting things like harsher death penalty and more contention. 'Hardcore' servers where things are 'tougher' and 'anything goes'.
In an MMORPG, splitting the player base is a dangerous thing, though, especially in a social game and one already aiming at what might be a niche audience.
There are some things that are much more clerly best kept separate, like PvP and PvE, but finding some definition of 'casual' and 'hardcore' that has clear and useful delineation is almost impossible I think.
It depends on what you consider challenge is, or what you consider being a meaningful challenge. In a common way I consider challenge being something you can and have to work on with skill and intelligence to reach success.
For example, I consider being challenge :
On the other hand, I consider not being challenge :
But, challenge can also be something you decide to make a challenge. I remember that with my guild for fun we decided to make a challenge to reach Qeynos from Freeport naked and without SoW with a max lvl 10 character in the early game. I made it after 10-12 tries getting farer and farer each time (hated highpass hold, badly) and I loved it cause it was fun and it made me learn a lot on how NPC aggro zone was working, and basically it was harder than killing efreety lord for the first time which I made the day after with my main.
About bosses difficulty, I don't really care as long as there is available content for all skill level. The situation I don't want is being blocked 6 months on the same boss that is the unique available challenge, some diversity is needed in the challenge level. I'd prefer also boss fights being meaningful, I currently play lotro and I must admit I do not like boss fights which are not meaningful anymore. It makes no sense most bosses being able to oneshoot the biggest tanks, it reduces them to hp bags, makes equipment meaningless and devaluates healer's skill. It makes no sense making bosses immune to nearly all players skills and making them all able to enrage cause it reduces tactical options to DPS run and ... eeeeeh DPS run. I don't like the gameplay based on the fact that if the try is not perfect we have to die and retry, I like when we have strategic options, for example to switch in a defensive mode to recover and then get back on a more offensive mode. It is also a challenge to be able to perform these changes and have a resilient raid/group, and the enrage system kills this kind of challenge.
So if I had to sum up, I'd say that for me challenge is linked to discovery and learning process more than difficulty itself. Wanting challenge is not dated, I want challenge of different types, different level of difficulty, to keep the feeling of progression in a meaningful world.
((In an MMORPG, splitting the player base is a dangerous thing, though, especially in a social game and one already aiming at what might be a niche audience.))
This is definitely the primary danger in having too many servers with too many rulesets. Many rulesets have been suggested - perhaps the most "mainstream" ones pvp, roleplaying, no multi-boxing, harder than standard Pantheon, easier than standard Pantheon.
None of us know yet how many servers VR will have - VR has no idea either they will figure this out some time after Alpha when they have a better feel for how many people are interested in playing. A major consideration that they have discussed is how many people they feel would be the proper number of players per server and what the marginal cost is of adding servers. They have said extra servers will not be very expensive but that is for multiple servers with the same ruleset. Though if a "Pantheon lite" server merely has mobs do 20% less damage or have 20% fewer hit points but otherwise has the same content this should be a trivial change.
The number of servers is very important to your point. If Pantheon is to start off with two servers adding a few more will be a major diversion. If they plan to have 20 servers adding a few more special ruleset versions will be far less of a risk.
((That is a very interesting thought, but I have to say, I think it would be a shame to not encourage 'modern' or 'casual' gamers to *try* a more challenging game than they are used to. I guess they still could though. Characters on different servers.))
The question here is whether a "Pantheon lite" server would drain people away from the "real game" or would get us people that otherwise would never try the game, who might decide they like it enough to try a character on a normal difficulty server. I can't say I have an opinion on that point.
Seanzyo6 said:A little off the topic at hand but just doing some brainstorming. If it is easy to change the difficulty to one zone (as we saw in the latest stream), would it be just as easy to change the difficulty of an entire server? My thought here is to have a server that would appeal to that "Modern Gamer or Causual Gamer." I don't know if that muddies the water too much or not but just a thought. I know for me personally I am on the EQ1 style hype train but will be dragging some of my friends kicking and screaming.
I really don't think it is good to dramatically split the experience of the game that way among the playerbase, so much so that the "shared" experience differs so much from player to player and any achievements/feats/experiences are called into question.
disposalist said:Adrenicus said:I do think you're being slightly ageist towards the younger generation of gamers. I'm in my late 20's, WoW Classic was my first proper MMO. To my knowledge there hasn't been any new MMO's like this EQ you all talk about in my time. You just assume younger gamers won't enjoy it when in fact they haven't been given an opportunity. I absolutely loved WoW Classic and to me it is my "oldschool". I am of the hope I will enjoy Pantheon too. I expect to be grouping more in Pantheon than I did in WoW Classic (though a decent amount of time in that game was spent in at least small groups).
Some very good points have been made. Gaming was much more of a niche in the 90's. Nowadays the majority of the population play games regularly in some form or another. Of course the harder-core end of the spectrum will become more of a niche but it does not mean the player numbers are any fewer (just a previously untapped casual market is being squeezed for all the pennies it has got). As Khraag has pointed out absolutely tonnes of younger players play games such as Dark Souls, rogue lites, MOBAs/strategy games which can be very unforgiving.
Just because there hasn't been a MMO like Pantheon released doesn't mean the market isn't there amongst the younger generation. You can't expect teenagers or college aged students to realistically want to get into a 20+ year old game with a tiny playerbase; it needs to be a new fresh product, a.k.a Pantheon.
You're probably right about the ageism, though I've been quite careful to say 'modern gamer' (that could be an old person) it will, of course, mostly be young gamers. I do realise, when being rational and not a grumpy olf man, hehe, that young gamers are not the issue - of course, I was a 'young' gamer when falling in love with EQ and there were much 'easier' games to play, even back then. I don't think young people are all that different now.
I would also say in all seriousness, I know it's not 'young people' that are a problem, it's more what modern life is doing to young people that's the problem. Anyway... Back to Pantheon...
Classic WoW was *quite* old school - I enjoyed it too, though it really wasn't ideal for me, I played it up until Wrath of the Lich King and instant speed run dungeon rotations killed it for me, amongst other things. I would say; though even classic WoW is nowhere near as 'old school' as classic Everquest, if you *prefer* classic WoW to modern WoW, then that is a good indicator that you will love old school MMORPGs!
You're right about young players needing a 'new' old school MMORPG. Without serious nostalgia I wouldn't have enjoyed EQ P99 and even then I only lasted a year or so until I was hitting the same end game frustrations as I did in EQ (EQ was not perfect).
I am confident that there will be plenty of young players in Pantheon and I'm looking forward to helping them get into the old school vibe.
Agree completely! And you were careful, I just read 'modern gamer' in my own head as 'teenager/uni student' which highlights my own judgemental brain haha! I actually only played until the Burning Crusade myself and didn't raid either, just enjoyed the leveling process with friends/guildies.
I am sure this game will 100% attract gamers from all age groups and to address the title I do not think wanting a challenge is just dated (though from what I've heard of EQ, some QOL suggestions are reasonable and necessary imo) :)
Even looking at the single player scene, games like DOS2 and BG3 have huge followings and have some comparisons to pantheon (especially with regards to challenge and the limited active skill set)
Challenge in what sense of the word? How is the person challenged?
Go waaaay back to DnD and the challenge was purely mental in that you had to really think creatively to go beyond the literal descriptions of spells, abilities and stats and come up with a strategy, a route, a conversation on the fly.
Look at many modern games and the challenge is mostly physical where you have to click buttons in the exact right order, as quickly as possible in response to some flashy on-screen visual to defeat whatever it is you are up against. Stimulus - Response in as short a timeframe as possible.
Go to EQ1 where, in most settings, it was a group against a single NPC. Now look at many RPG games where its the single person mowing down hordes of NPCs.
All of these represent different types of challenges. But where does Pantheon exist on a spectrum of challenge?
Many have argued since 2014 that the Unlimited Action Set provided better challenge yet other say the Limited Action Set (which is currently the approach VR is taking) provides more of a challenge. Same goes for more teleport options verses fewer; invisibility vs no invisibility; out-of-group buffing allowed vs in-group only (with VR taking a hybrid approach on this one). These are all high-level challenges in that they are game-wide. There are then the low-level challenges which are experienced by a given class and/or a given race and even at a given level outside of the high-level challenges.
In the end, for me, it comes down to balancing the rewards for whatever 'challenges' we might face, though I prefer using the term risk instead of challenge.
I have seen gaming evolve from having to place plastic film on the tv for a games background and playing field to what we have now. Regardless of the era and technology, a game simply needs to be engaging and fun; however, after witnessing the evolution of the mmorpg genre I have lost interest in the theme park style of game play. Games that lack a sense of depth of play do not appeal to me. I enjoy having to master a class’s abilities and facing encounters that require you to do so. I don’t see having to learn complex systems as inherently difficult.
Yes.. it takes time and effort. That doesn’t mean it’s hard to do.
Thirteenmoons said: I realize my last sentence needs some clarification.. Yes.. it takes time and effort. That doesn’t mean it’s hard to do.
I think it needs another clarification.
Khraag said:Thirteenmoons said: I realize my last sentence needs some clarification.. Yes.. it takes time and effort. That doesn’t mean it’s hard to do.I think it needs another clarification.
Heh.. indeed. I too laughed at the irony.
i have yet to find a way to edit posts on the phone browser. :(
Vandraad said:Challenge in what sense of the word? How is the person challenged?
Go waaaay back to DnD and the challenge was purely mental in that you had to really think creatively to go beyond the literal descriptions of spells, abilities and stats and come up with a strategy, a route, a conversation on the fly.
Look at many modern games and the challenge is mostly physical where you have to click buttons in the exact right order, as quickly as possible in response to some flashy on-screen visual to defeat whatever it is you are up against. Stimulus - Response in as short a timeframe as possible.
Go to EQ1 where, in most settings, it was a group against a single NPC. Now look at many RPG games where its the single person mowing down hordes of NPCs.
All of these represent different types of challenges. But where does Pantheon exist on a spectrum of challenge?
Many have argued since 2014 that the Unlimited Action Set provided better challenge yet other say the Limited Action Set (which is currently the approach VR is taking) provides more of a challenge. Same goes for more teleport options verses fewer; invisibility vs no invisibility; out-of-group buffing allowed vs in-group only (with VR taking a hybrid approach on this one). These are all high-level challenges in that they are game-wide. There are then the low-level challenges which are experienced by a given class and/or a given race and even at a given level outside of the high-level challenges.
In the end, for me, it comes down to balancing the rewards for whatever 'challenges' we might face, though I prefer using the term risk instead of challenge.
Thought provoking as always, Van. Hmm. "Risk" is tricky too. What is 'risk'? Risk of what?
This thread and your comments prompt me to question what *I* think of as challenge, too, and my first thought was "risk of failure". But what is "failure"? Death?
But what is 'death' in an MMORPG? Isn't the chance of death just a *measure* of the challenge, though? What is the *actual* challenge?
Noodling on this a while I think I'm going to have to split this up and write some thoughts... Bear with me...
Grouping
This is often the first thing that comes to mind for me when thinking of challenge. Often in the form of "in modern MMORPGs (and for years back) you can solo near everything".
To me, grouping is not only more fun, but is vastly more challenging if the content is hard enough to *need* to group up.
To coordinate your actions and your skills with the actions and skills of several other people is, of course, much more challenging then just relying on your own.
Abilities
Of, course, though, there are your own character abilities to learn, coordinate, synergise and master.
Some games, even modern ones (shock!) are good at this. Some are not.
In some games you can just use a couple of your abilities for nearly everything. You barely have to think what your doing. Abilities seem like 'flavour'.
Some require you to execute your abilities in a dance-dance-revolution style finger mambo.
Some throw dozens of abilities at you and the main challenge to the players is to wrangle the keyboard.
Some have a limited action set, some over-limited, some just don't have many abilities available in total.
Planning
Which brings me on to planning. Needing to plan, of course, is an additional challenge. Some games don't require any 'planning'. You can approach any encounter with all your abilities and gear available and work out how to beat it.
Some games require you to bring a subset of your abilities and gear and you are 'locked into' that configuration for the encounter. If you fail, you need to try a different setup.
Some games limit your inventory, so you have to plan a session/journey.
Failure and Punishment
This is a big issue, I think. In some games, you try, you fail, you pop back to just before the fight, you try again. And again.
Some related elements to the 'failure': -
How random did it feel?
How much was it your fault?
How long did it take?
In some there is an additional 'punishment' phase before you can try again. A 'death penalty' or a 'lock out' of the encounter maybe? You could need to do a corpse run. Lose experience points. Get damaged gear to repair. Have to return to a town hub. Etc.
On the punishment: -
Does it make you 'fear' failure? Does that fear translate to excitement or frustration?
Is 'resolving' the punishment satisfying or even fun?
Does it feel justified or punative?
Difficulty level and Balance
Most games have a 'level' your character is at and encounters of that level that you are intended to take on. Some games you can take on several monster of your level on your own. Some games you need several other players to take on a single monster (or a group that actas as one encounter). Some games there is danger of 'adds': monsters that may join in and effect the balance greatly.
In some games, the encounters are mostly pitched as 'soloable', but you can still group up. Oh dear.
In some games, the encounters are group-focused, but you can choose to take on higher or lower level encounters and still be well rewarded.
In some games, if you don't take on 'intended' level encounters you aren't rewarded.
On difficulty: -
How difficult did it 'feel'?
How much did you have to 'engage'?
How much did you have to think?
How complex was it?
How much was reactions and timing?
How much was tactics and thoughtfulness?
Reward
I briefly mentioned it in Difficulty, and it's kinda unrelated to the 'challenge' since the challenge is essentially the same, whether or not you are rewarded, but I guess you may not take on a challenge of the appropriate 'level' if the reward isn't great, or is too good, so I'll add:-
Does the reward feel appropriate to the level of challenge?
Reward can be anything, of course, but is usually loot (cash, gear, resources) or XP.
Time
Ok, so this is a big one in the debate, as some people clearly think anything that takes 'a lot' (whatever that is) of time is tedious, not challenging. VR think it is a 'thing' too, though, else they wouldn't be making a point of making sure people can achieve 'meaningful progress' in a two hour session (in a recent roundtable I noted Joppa said a two-to-three hour session though hehe - it's creeping!).
I also think this is a thing, but I think it's a thing that needs very careful consideration, not just limited, since I believe it is the trend towards immediate gratification that has, amongst others, had a detrimental effect on the genre. Not on gaming in general - some games are great being very 'immediate' - but on MMORPGs, yes, a detriment.
There are lots of tales of Everquest epic quest multi-hour camps. There are lots of tales of multi-hour (even multi-day) raids. Would those be a 'good thing' in Pantheon? I think, no, BUT were they challenging? YES! They most certainly were. Was it an ideal challenge? Not for everyone. Did it feel incredibly rewarding when you met that challenge and achieved that goal? YES!
I think this is a prime candidate for some redesign, but to just dismiss 'endurance' and 'patience' as not being a legimate 'challenge' is wrong.
Going back to the 2-to-3 hour session, I think if we can have those endurance and patience challenges but allow them to be chopped up into more reasonable sessions, we have our answer.
The other thing to bear in mind, is those 'epic' camps were, however long, still a tiny percentage of the time spent in game.
Enough!
Ok, so I've waffled long enough and my conclusion from the above is: -
The components of MMORPG Challenge are: Grouping (the compexity of synergy), Abilities (the complexity of self-synergy), Planning (choices due to limitations), Dexterity (dance-dance-revolution style keyboard tapping and reactions), Tactics (thoughfulness), Patience and endurance (all things take some time, but how much?), Difficulty (designed encounter level).
There's probably more - what do you think?
I think Pantheon has a good handle on these *for an old school MMORPG*. Of course, all of those things can vary genre to genre and game to game, but, for the audience they intend and to achieve their tenets: -
They are focusing on grouping (yay!), they are thoughtful about abilities and planning (LAS to be tested and tweaked though!), the pace is toward tactical, but including some timing-based abilities (like shield blocks and aimed shots) and they are intending for encounters of appropriate level to be balanced for a full group who know how to use their abilities.
I'm just thinking this up as I type it and I already realise there are some weirdnesses. I'm asking myself "is death penalty really part of the 'challenge' or does it just add meaning?" and "if death penalty is part of challenge, then is reward also?".
Anyway, the point from *that* is VR has a tough job in thinking all that through, but I do believe they have and I do believe Pantheon will be 'challenging' in all the ways I want it to be.
disposalist said:Vandraad said:Time
Ok, so this is a big one in the debate, as some people clearly think anything that takes 'a lot' (whatever that is) of time is tedious, not challenging. VR think it is a 'thing' too, though, else they wouldn't be making a point of making sure people can achieve 'meaningful progress' in a two hour session (in a recent roundtable I noted Joppa said a two-to-three hour session though hehe - it's creeping!).
I also think this is a thing, but I think it's a thing that needs very careful consideration, not just limited, since I believe it is the trend towards immediate gratification that has, amongst others, had a detrimental effect on the genre. Not on gaming in general - some games are great being very 'immediate' - but on MMORPGs, yes, a detriment.
There are lots of tales of Everquest epic quest multi-hour camps. There are lots of tales of multi-hour (even multi-day) raids. Would those be a 'good thing' in Pantheon? I think, no, BUT were they challenging? YES! They most certainly were. Was it an ideal challenge? Not for everyone. Did it feel incredibly rewarding when you met that challenge and achieved that goal? YES!
I think this is a prime candidate for some redesign, but to just dismiss 'endurance' and 'patience' as not being a legimate 'challenge' is wrong.
Going back to the 2-to-3 hour session, I think if we can have those endurance and patience challenges but allow them to be chopped up into more reasonable sessions, we have our answer.
The other thing to bear in mind, is those 'epic' camps were, however long, still a tiny percentage of the time spent in game.
Firstly, i found your reply to be well thought out and a great contribution to the thread.
It is my hope that there is a place for for content that allows for a long dungeon crawls through the zones. Some of my favorite moments from EQ were those delves into a zone and running the through entire thing. Places like the tower of the frozen shadows. the hole.. velks... they all gave us the ability to spend an entire evening with in them. i agree that it would be wonderful to find the balance you mention; however, I would rather see that it does not religate zones into the brief, expidited experiences that have become so prevelent. Much of the content these days suffers as a result of the search for this balance.
Dark Souls exists.
From Software, who made Dark Souls, is successful.
All is well.