Grimseethe said:Currently watching the April roundup.
Hearing that the intention is to make all dungeons and raids open world is deeply troubling.
Ive been playing MMOs for over 20 years and in that time i've noticed one thing, people get more toxic every year.
While i hope a more oldschool MMO attracts a more mature audience, there are always some that ruin it.
So my question is, what will classed as toxic behavior when people are camping bosses, tagging bosses and running away, and in pvp servers killing raid teams for fun.
I personally find the idea of competing for bosses absolutely horrible, it will add hours to every dungeon/raid in a bad way.
The current stance is that camps don't exist.
If someone kills something you were trying to get, and then, when you run away from that "kill stealer" to a different rare spawn spot(because that's all you can do when it comes to DKP farming big guilders), and that kill stealer chases you to kill your new target, it is then considered personal attack and punishable by the overlords of Pantheon.
Basically, it only counts as toxic if it is personal.
Raid guilds on the other hand will have much more protection, I know they will solely get FTE(First to Engage). I don't know what the current plan is for tagging bosses and running away but I assume that it is "personal" once it gets repeated. I don't think killing raid teams for fun will ever be punished, but I could be wrong.
You will most certainly have to compete for some bosses in Pantheon. May the highest level, best geared, most lifeless poopsockers win.
However, in some cases, bosses will have multiple static spawn points, which can help some depending on how it is implemented. There also will be some fights where the door closes behind you, effectively locking out competition.
This is all what I have observed so far, and is certainly subject to being wrong. I just didn't see anyone else responding to your question.
I hate PRIVATE instances. Where a group enters an instance that only they access, mobs do not respawn, and once a single clear is done you leave.
PUBLIC instances, where multiple instances of a zone can exist to sustain a large population I like if it is done correctly. That is, stop people hopping from instance to instance to try and find multiple respawns on a named quickly and such things.
If those issues cannot be overcome, then instancing should not be in game. (I mean in general here, not talking about Pantheon).
I want to stumble across other groups in a dungeon. I want to crawl the dungeon for hours on end if I want. I want to be able to find a spot and hunker down for hours.
I do NOT want some anonymous speed run through a linear carnival ride that is what has become of dungeons in modern games today.
Even with all the issues that come with a non-instanced game, I still want instancing to die as a game feature.
kellindil - I can't agree with a single thing you say. I can't disagree either - I cannot read that gray-on-gray color you use.
Caine - I totally agree that an instanced dungeon or boss fight is more dynamic. But when the interference by others is toxic - and it sometimes will be - there is much to be said for less dynamic encounters.
Instancing can work for many games, but one major reason why I follow Pantheon is because one of its main tenets is having an open world with no instancing.
One MAJOR caveat to having an open world Pantheon would be with raid content. There should absolutely be open world raid content, but there should also be a healthy amount of instanced raid content. If "community matters" I just don't see how forcing us all to compete with other raid guilds to see who can "bat phone" more hard core gamers for end game content would be beneficial to a healthy positive community. While there should be some competition, that shouldn't be the whole kit and kaboodle for end-game content.
I would like to see raid content similar to how EQ2 did it: guilds could have a raid schedule and would be time locked out of a raid for X amount of days once initiated, but would also save their progress when they aren't able to complete the content in a single session. This allows healthy progression, keeps in place a skill-based progression lock (instead of a "bat-phone" progression lock), and allows for healthy competition between guilds to see who can defeat certain raid content first (which would be based on skill, rather than simply living online and gatekeeping content).
Why not use instancing as the primary reward that you only get at the very very end of a process, be that flag, key, multi-step quest, factioning or some combination thereof? A raid zone, locked behind a key, flag, faction, multi-step quest, crafting, or some combination of a few or all of these, is the reward. The items/spells/whatever you get from inside aren't BIS for all slots (though there should be at least 1 BIS item for at least 1 slot there for all classes and things you cannot obtain anywhere else otherwise why would you bother going) but more expanding the horizontal progression VR has been promoting for so long?
Most instancing we see in other games you just get for free. You put in no work, no effort or anything, it's just there and you benefit from it. Instead, make it the reward for the hard work of an entire guild. You could even apply this to the allged single group 'raid' content put forth by VR.
Again, with anything, thinking outside the box on how some mechanic can be utilized so as to provide a benefit to the playerbase, ensure the long term health of the game and give rewards for hard work and effort of many people can only be a good thing for the game. Instancing has a place, it has a use, it has benefits.
Personally, I prefer the world to be as open as possible with as little instancing or character phasing as possible. I think that the overuse of artificial walls makes the world and the character base feel smaller than it actually is. Now with that being said, I don't completely reject the idea of instancing. I think there could be some niche cases where instancing could be good. I'm specifically thinking about PvP battlegrounds, some form of solo character trial, and maybe a few specific bosses that need to have their encounter instanced off.
I often see people advocating for instanced raids, and when they do they often mention the fact that instancing helps lessen competition over mobs and gear to reinforce their position. Personally, I want to see large open raid zones and I honestly think that competition is a good thing. Competition acts as a natural time gate that keeps people playing, and it adds value when you obtain an item that is heavily coveted. I do think that when you keep things open you have to be very mindful of the aspects related to competition though. You have to make sure respawn rates are fair, there has to be a fair tagging method, and you have to be mindful of chokepoints. Instancing has become the to-go-to method because it basically eliminates these factors from consideration and saves time, but I think there is a cost for constantly doing things the easy way.
The only general thing I can say about instancing is that I hope it is used sparingly, only when it makes sense, and only when it adds more value to the player experience than it takes. I hope that it doesn't become the to-go-to solution for every high-end situation and some form of balance is struck between maintaining an open world and implementing instanced content.
Vandraad said: Tl;DR Instancing, if used properly with an eye on thewho, what, where, and why of the specific content, can be a great boon to the overall health of the game. To summarily dismiss any use of instancing is shortsighted.
I pretty much agree with this. I wouldn't like a LOT of instances, but using it in some places where the benefits seriously outweigh the detriments would make a lot of sense.
My opinion on this is...Raids require instancing, plain and simple. If they aren't it will literally BREED toxicity.
As far as everything else, names and dungeon bosses (note i didnt say raid targets) be left in the open world.
Also that idea (it better only be an idea because its STUPID as heck) which only "raid guilds" get the luxury of a first to engage protection... is also just a system to breed toxicity.
You can't single out a group because it's a large force (thats all a raid really is) and give them "benefits" that the rest of the population doesn't have. The end of the day a raid target in your world is just another camp mob and should render zero protection right?
This whole "there is no camps" stance is just a way of shruggin off the problem of toxic players. All it does is invite more gray area things that toxic players will find holes in.
The only thing systems like that breed are things you don't want in your community...a bunch of epeens and toxic players/shite guild leaders running around yelling
"THeRe uISH NAO CampS, thesh devs said sohhh...hehehthehe"
Anyone who played EQ when PoP came out in EQ will know what cockblocking toxicity does... it does shite for the community
IMO:
Jothany said:Vandraad said: Tl;DR Instancing, if used properly with an eye on thewho, what, where, and why of the specific content, can be a great boon to the overall health of the game. To summarily dismiss any use of instancing is shortsighted.I pretty much agree with this. I wouldn't like a LOT of instances, but using it in some places where the benefits seriously outweigh the detriments would make a lot of sense.
Yep.
SinisterJoint said:... The only thing systems like that breed are things you don't want in your community...a bunch of epeens and toxic players/shite guild leaders running around yelling
"THeRe uISH NAO CampS, thesh devs said sohhh...hehehthehe"
Anyone who played EQ when PoP came out in EQ will know what cockblocking toxicity does... it does shite for the community
Agreed. Exactly how it will turn out, and far worse given more than 20+ years of increasing toxicity in the online community, generally.
I feel quite differently from Sinisterjoint above. Raids are the thing that should not be instanced the most imho. They are supposed to be the most challanging, top tier content. These type of encounters are exactly the type that should be open world. Let players compete if they want to face the most difficult content. Coordination and team work and efficiently mobilizing are skills that have value.
I'm not anti-instancing if used strategically, especially in the way Brad used to talk about it. Epic type quests where the developers want to provide a play area for the individual to prove their worth. Also, warwizards or other creative/unique play sessions that have to be in private areas to work.
The term "open world game" is used as an advertisment these days. It draws in players.
While the pantheon devs have been a bit wishy washy on instancing at times, they have beaten the "open world game" drum from the beginning. It would likely push players away if instancing was used more than very sparingly...
philo said:I feel quite differently from Sinisterjoint above. Raids are the thing that should not be instanced the most imho. They are supposed to be the most challanging, top tier content. These type of encounters are exactly the type that should be open world. Let players compete if they want to face the most difficult content. Coordination and team work and efficiently mobilizing are skills that have value.
I'm not anti-instancing if used strategically, especially in the way Brad used to talk about it. Epic type quests where the developers want to provide a play area for the individual to prove their worth. Also, warwizards or other creative/unique play sessions that have to be in private areas to work.
The term "open world game" is used as an advertisment these days. It draws in players.
While the pantheon devs have been a bit wishy washy on instancing at times, they have beaten the "open world game" drum from the beginning. It would likely push players away if instancing was used more than very sparingly...
Honestly, I don't see how NOT having raid targets in instances will work. At least in any sustainable fashion. The term "open world" still applies regardless if the Raid target is in an instance or not. Do you truly think that having guilds race to a raid target is "challenging top tier content"??
Having it in an instance does not render it easy... it's still challenging end game top tier content" it's still an "open world game" I fail to see how it makes it less challenging? or how the open world is "more challenging"
SinisterJoint said:
Honestly, I don't see how NOT having raid targets in instances will work. At least in any sustainable fashion. The term "open world" still applies regardless if the Raid target is in an instance or not. Do you truly think that having guilds race to a raid target is "challenging top tier content"??
Having it in an instance does not render it easy... it's still challenging end game top tier content" it's still an "open world game" I fail to see how it makes it less challenging? or how the open world is "more challenging"
philo said:SinisterJoint said:
Honestly, I don't see how NOT having raid targets in instances will work. At least in any sustainable fashion. The term "open world" still applies regardless if the Raid target is in an instance or not. Do you truly think that having guilds race to a raid target is "challenging top tier content"??
Having it in an instance does not render it easy... it's still challenging end game top tier content" it's still an "open world game" I fail to see how it makes it less challenging? or how the open world is "more challenging"
Just to get this out of the way, if all raids are instanced it is not an open world game. There is some grey area where if instancing is used very sparingly most people will be reasonable enough to still consider it an open world game.
We know there will be 3 raid zones with multiple targets in each on release...and the amount of raids will grow from there. If that much of the content is instanced its definitely not open world.
Mobilizing efficiently as a guild is a skill that has value. It requires teamwork and coordination and leadership and dedication. If guilds want to participate in the highest tier content, let them compete for it.
We should all understand by now that raiding in Pantheon is optional (similar to how other systems are being advertised as optional...perception, crafting etc.). VR has stated multiple times the focus is on the journey and not the destination.
So yes, if someone wants to participate in raids they should 100% have to put in the time required. That doesn't mean having access to raids whenever without any competition.
We already know the infamy system will allow some raid target access without the need to compete so there is some hand holding going on already. To desire more than that is not only unecessary but, it is catering to the masses who aren't willing to put in the time. Instant gratification and silver platter and all that. It wouldn't be a good look for a game that is trying to go back to the time prior to when games had an easy button. Thankfully that is not the direction they say they are going...how it ends up is yet to be seen.
Ive played MMO's for a long time and your vision of "hand holding" is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off.
Its not catering to masses to put RAID targets in instanced. Your version of difficulty, isnt difficult at all. You think having people waiting at targets to call them DIFFICULT?? (thats what will happen and if you dont know that you really have no leg in this argument honestly )
It does not make things "more challenging". If you mean more challenging by having to worry about another guild TRAINING your raid... NO THANKS
Having to be ON CALL for raids is not increased Difficulty (this will ALSO happen)
Not to mention the dev's say "there are no camps" right?
You seem to ignore all this BS that (if you were a seasoned mmo player) you would already know but...here we are
And to the bolded above -- If you think that raids in instance is the only content in this game? it wont even be 20% of it and you say "if all that content is instanced the game def isnt open world" exageration
Everyone will have to wait their turn at some point, yes of course. For raids or desirable camps etc. Having to deal with other players competing for limited resources/spawns adds another layer to the game world. I don't see that as a bad thing. I'll wait my turn and be ok with it. That is part of a purely open world game.
Again, no one has to participate in raiding. It is not required to play the game. It is not even the focus. It is optional.
It sounds to me like you might prefer a non-open world game so you don't have to worry about other players? There are positives and negatives to open world games. Things like trains and competing for spawns etc are part of it.
I appreciate adversity in a game. It's the struggles that make the successes actually matter.
I agree with philo in general..
PvP elements of open world play should be minimized. It is one thing to compete with other players for resources, including mobs. It is another thing entirely for them to attack you directly on a pve server e.g. by intentional training. This should be prevented by game mechanics or, failing that, subject to punishment as a violation of the code of conduct.
Instances have a valid role where useful to tell stories and give the back-story. This is not an area where competition is relevant. Thus an instance showing the arrival of one of the races on Terminus and allowing the player to participate in a minor way (as in LOTRO's session play or retrospective zones showing the siege of Barad Dur or the Sixth War) would be very far indeed from having dungeon instances.
Any content barring access to significant parts of the game should not be subject to monopolization. Thus a guild should not be allowed to bar access to entire areas by perma-camping bosses that drop keys or other means of access. Instances are one way - not necessarily the best way - to preclude this.
Kilsin said:What are your thoughts? Can it work? Do you like it better? Or are you a full open-world kind of gamer who despises any kind of instancing in games like Pantheon? Let us know why down below! #MMORPG #CommunityMatters
I support instancing for things that aren't "open world". Like inn rooms and apartments as abodes, since it would be ridiculous to have to build a giant building to house rooms and apartments. But that's about it. Encounter areas and player houses should be "in world".
philo said:Everyone will have to wait their turn at some point, yes of course. For raids or desirable camps etc. Having to deal with other players competing for limited resources/spawns adds another layer to the game world. I don't see that as a bad thing. I'll wait my turn and be ok with it. That is part of a purely open world game.
Again, no one has to participate in raiding. It is not required to play the game. It is not even the focus. It is optional.
It sounds to me like you might prefer a non-open world game so you don't have to worry about other players? There are positives and negatives to open world games. Things like trains and competing for spawns etc are part of it.
I appreciate adversity in a game. It's the struggles that make the successes actually matter.
It sounds like you haven't a clue what makes an open world game an open world. You want "competition" then put your money where your mouth is. Instanced RAIDS puts tEVERYONE on EVEN terms... you know, how competitions work.You have no idea what competition is if you think cockblocking other guilds PROGRESSION is "challenging end game content" because thats EXACTLY what happens..Instead you would rather support toxic behaviour while ignoring that it WILL breed it.
You dont come to this game to make an RP guild and just "play". You come to this game to have a DANGEROUS world to traverse with the looming danger and risk of death. Also to group with 50 of your friends to kill big ass mobs for loot.
THAT is open world, just because raids are instanced does NOT change that... only in your head it does.
Instanced RAIDS (not zones) protect the integrity of progression and fair play amongst guild, it BREEDS a healthy community.
In the end, the same thing happens , more and more GUILDS complain about other **** toxic guild that literally make it their priority to block progression. You REALLY think thats "competition" ??
What did you mention? skill? lul
Your logic is flawed in the worst way because you lack the foresight and experience to see what has happened in EVERY mmo that had open world raid mobs.. Oh wait, whats that? 2 games.. I know what open world is and I think you haven't experienced "Open World" enough to know how it ends.