A basic question is whether something like Goblin Cave is intended for experience gain in the first place.
At the risk of oversimplifying - MMOs typically have two types of content. Dungeon and landscape. In most MMOs that I know landscape content is by far the faster choice for leveling quickly whereas dungeon content gives greatly inferior experience per hour but much better chances for good gear. Either type of content, of course, can be designed for either solo or group play so the fact that Pantheon will emphasize group play does not necessarily mean that it will be designed for most experience gain to come in dungeons.
In short, Goblin Cave may wind up as content to be enjoyed for its own sake and to give good (for its level) gear but if we want to actually gain levels we will travel the world outside of dungeons doing quests, camping mob settlements and the like.
dorotea said:A basic question is whether something like Goblin Cave is intended for experience gain in the first place.
At the risk of oversimplifying - MMOs typically have two types of content. Dungeon and landscape. In most MMOs that I know landscape content is by far the faster choice for leveling quickly whereas dungeon content gives greatly inferior experience per hour but much better chances for good gear. Either type of content, of course, can be designed for either solo or group play so the fact that Pantheon will emphasize group play does not necessarily mean that it will be designed for most experience gain to come in dungeons.
In short, Goblin Cave may wind up as content to be enjoyed for its own sake and to give good (for its level) gear but if we want to actually gain levels we will travel the world outside of dungeons doing quests, camping mob settlements and the like.
If i remember correctly, in EQ there was an xp bonus in fact for dungeon content as it was more dificult than overland content for the same level mobs?
More dificult content should rightfully be more rewarding.
I think in general it would be a mistake to segregate content into "grind this for gear" and "grind this for xp".
For those who like the idea of 20 hours of grinding to level up from 10 to 11, keep in mind that about 1/2 of your time in game will be spent takiing care of other tasks (banking, crafting, traveling, etc).
It might seem like a "hard core gamer dream come true" to have to spend that many hours leveling up, but its going to become absolutly Brutal when you start to do the math and see it would be like 2,000+ hours of gameplay to get to level 50 at that rate. No one whos not a teenager has That kind of time.
As for the journey promoting socializing, i agree 100%, but thats really more of a function of the pace of Combat, not leveling. IE: Downtime.
As long as the pace of combat is somewhat slow, and deliberate, so that it requires communication, and downtime so you can med up and shoot the breeze etc, i think thats much more important than forcing you to spend successive months of grinding just to get though your lvl 20's
For those who like the idea of 20 hours of grinding to level up from 10 to 11, keep in mind that about 1/2 of your time in game will be spent takiing care of other tasks (banking, crafting, traveling, etc).It might seem like a "hard core gamer dream come true" to have to spend that many hours leveling up, but its going to become absolutly Brutal when you start to do the math and see it would be like 2,000+ hours of gameplay to get to level 50 at that rate. No one whos not a teenager has That kind of time
VR has made it abundantly clear throughout development that much of Pantheon's appeal involves "alternate advancement" such as Exploration, Perception, Crafting, Socialization, etc. A very large percentage of players intend to spend quite a lot of their game time pursuing those options. We aren't overlooking it, we're looking forward to it.
There will no doubt be plenty who seek to reach max level ASAP, enjoy all the endgame content, then move on. That's a perfectly acceptable way to play Pantheon. I think they will miss a lot of enjoyment that way, but it is their choice. I hope they enjoy their time on Terminus. I don't agree that leveling up will be nearly as slow for them as for the rest of us. Some players will finish the game in months, some will play it for years.
If a player sees the whole point of Pantheon as getting to endgame for the Raids, then 1000 hours of just grinding might well seem brutal to them. It doesn't appeal to me very much either.
But for those like me who plan to enjoy all the adventures that Terminus offers, I expect most of my levels to come as a byproduct of having fun & adventure with my friends, not grinding till my eyes bleed. Outside of the first few levels until I have a functional toolkit for my group role, I don't intend to grind for xp hardly ever. For crafting materials or special loot drops sure. But XP and levels are just numbers. I'm interested in fun.
Jothany said:
But for those like me who plan to enjoy all the adventures that Terminus offers, I expect most of my levels to come as a byproduct of having fun & adventure with my friends, not grinding till my eyes bleed. Outside of the first few levels until I have a functional toolkit for my group role, I don't intend to grind for xp hardly ever. For crafting materials or special loot drops sure. But XP and levels are just numbers. I'm interested in fun.
It comes all down to what is getting you and most others hooked. Levels, gear, exploration...
When you look at Zelda breath of the wild, there is no levels. All goes into gear and more importantly exploration. I am all for it.
lotuss79 said:...
It might seem like a "hard core gamer dream come true" to have to spend that many hours leveling up, but its going to become absolutly Brutal when you start to do the math and see it would be like 2,000+ hours of gameplay to get to level 50 at that rate. No one whos not a teenager has That kind of time.
...
IMO:
It's interesting you bring this up in the context of progression rate. Recently, the exact same scenario played out in Embers Adrift.
Players starting out found the advancement rate challenging, but not punitive. It was fun, in Tier 1. (Level 1 to 9) Up until the end of Tier 2 ( ~L19) at which point they started to do the math.
Then it was brought up to the development team, and their response was: " Working As Intended " which meant that more than 1000 hours of play time would be required, and possibly up to 2000 hours, to reach max level, in that game.
90% of the level 25+ players left the game. They're down to less than one hundred concurrent online players, unless it's prime time hours. They started out with thousands, and are down to a few hundred.
And curiously, the trend continues, to this day. Players play level 1-20, or sometimes 1-25 then try a few other game loops, then just cancel their sub and leave. There are other more fun options for them to spend their play time on, so they do.
It is bad enough that there are less than five full groups of players, globally, willing to endure the punitive progression rate they have defined for their game, above level 30, and those numbers continue to drop, daily.
The breaking point for most of their paying customers appears to be when it takes 8-10+ hours per level, or 6-8 at-level grouping-required targets defeated, per 1% of XP, for that level. (with a TTK of ~30-45sec)
For me, the really horrible realization was that it's more punitive than EQ1, within which it took me less than 1000 hours to reach max level, from launch. And it took others FAR less time.
I hope the Visionary Realms development team doesn't repeat the same historical mistakes as Stormhaven Studios, and will instead learn from them.
What Jothany says is much the way I look at it - with one significant difference. Maximum level isn't going to be the time to enjoy the game - probably the content at maximum level will be pretty crappy. As witness SWTOR which was developed with a huge budget and did many things very well indeed - but for years there was little to do at maximum level.Maximum level will be the time to finish off a few things to polish the character and then focus on the next character. If I was one of the people that never played alts I would absolutely dread it and would do all I could to slow down my leveling.
What is the one significant difference? I have more time than most of us to play, and am an altoholic. After a few weeks "wasted" trying many different races and classes and every single craft I will likely focus on one character and speed-level it to maximum level. Not to be a "main" but to have a character that can support a growing family of alts and can help friends and guildmates with content. Even a poorly geared and poorly played level 50 (or whatever the maximum level is) will bring in far more coin than a low level, will have access to more areas to harvest in, and will be more than handy if someone needs help at a much lower level.
Then it was brought up to the development team, and their response was: " Working As Intended " which meant that more than 1000 hours of play time would be required, and possibly up to 2000 hours, to reach max level, in that game.90% of the level 25+ players left the game. They're down to less than one hundred concurrent online players, unless it's prime time hours. They started out with thousands, and are down to a few hundred.
And curiously, the trend continues, to this day. Players play level 1-20, or sometimes 1-25 then try a few other game loops, then just cancel their sub and leave. There are other more fun options for them to spend their play time on, so they do.
It is bad enough that there are less than five full groups of players, globally, willing to endure the punitive progression rate they have defined for their game, above level 30, and those numbers continue to drop, daily.
The breaking point for most of their paying customers appears to be when it takes 8-10+ hours per level, or 6-8 at-level grouping-required targets defeated, per 1% of XP, for that level. (with a TTK of ~30-45sec
I would not equate this to why players are leaving games. I think the reason players are leaving games has more to do with how much fun they are having than how fast or slow their character progresses. There are many factors in what makes a game fun and I won't try to argue that progression speed is not ONE of those factors, but there are so many other factors that are equally or even more important. It becomes clear when you play a game that you progress SUPER fast and people are still quitting (New World, Diablo Immortal, and so many others are good examples of that).
The primary argument seems to be, slow down and experience the content. I agree, but would say that 1000 hours of leveling instead of 2000 hour is still Plenty of time to experiece the content of the game.
Then at some point you create an alt of a different race, on a different continent, and experience that lvl'ing up content as well.
To have such a glacial pace of leveling in an effort to make you experience All the content the game has to offer on one character seems almost punative.
Additionally, these games are at their core all about rewards (many different types of course), but without proper rewards for your effort, they will not really be enjoyable and people won't play.
If you grind dungeon content for hours and see an underwhelming progress towards your next level, it will not feel (to most people) that you are getting a just reward for your effort.
lotuss79 said: I agree, but would say that 1000 hours of leveling instead of 2000 hour is still Plenty of time to experiece the content of the game.
I'm sorry if this sounds judgemental, but since most of the 'content' of Pantheon hasn't been created yet, we can't possibly make a sensible judgement about how long it will take to consume that content. All we can do is speculate.
It's like saying "Any movie longer than 1½ hours is too long, because 1½ hours is plenty of time to tell a story". If the story is 'Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs' then sure, 1½ hours. If the story is 'Lord of the Rings' then the situation would be seriously different. We don't yet know just how rich in variety & complexity Pantheon will turn out to be, though we've had plenty of indications from the Devs about their plans.
Jothany said:lotuss79 said: I agree, but would say that 1000 hours of leveling instead of 2000 hour is still Plenty of time to experiece the content of the game.I'm sorry if this sounds judgemental, but since most of the 'content' of Pantheon hasn't been created yet, we can't possibly make a sensible judgement about how long it will take to consume that content. All we can do is speculate.
It's like saying "Any movie longer than 1½ hours is too long, because 1½ hours is plenty of time to tell a story". If the story is 'Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs' then sure, 1½ hours. If the story is 'Lord of the Rings' then the situation would be seriously different. We don't yet know just how rich in variety & complexity Pantheon will turn out to be, though we've had plenty of indications from the Devs about their plans.
doesn't sound judgemental at all. and thats a totally fair point. i would just rather explore all the content over multiple characters. for one character to experience it all while leveling up does not seem realistic.
would it really have been possible to experience All the content EQ had to offer on three different starting continents with one player character? probably not.
im just concerned that the game (based on what was seen in the stream) will not give enough xp reward for effort expended. no one wants to feel like they're on a treadmill going nowhere.
lotuss79 said:doesn't sound judgemental at all. and thats a totally fair point. i would just rather explore all the content over multiple characters. for one character to experience it all while leveling up does not seem realistic.
would it really have been possible to experience All the content EQ had to offer on three different starting continents with one player character? probably not.
im just concerned that the game (based on what was seen in the stream) will not give enough xp reward for effort expended. no one wants to feel like they're on a treadmill going nowhere.
I think if we have multiple continents and starting towns, you cannot expect doing it all on one character...
There are at least two basic ways to look at the question of how long it should take to reach maximum level.
1. The way most people playing MMOs seem to look at it. Maximum level is a desired gtoal and if it takes too long they will be unhappy. With the caveat applicable to many Pantheon supporters that being too *fast* may be even worse than taking too long. Few if any of us want a path such as some of the major MMOs have where it is very doable to reach maximum level in a day or a week,
2. The opposite approach. The game doesn't start at level-cap it *ends* then. Nothing to do but repeat a limited amount of content ad nauseum. The longer it takes to get there the more players will be happily adventuring and crafting at the levels where there is a lot to do.
Both approaches are valid but the key determinant is how much fun it is to play the game at lower levels and how much fun it is to play the game at maximum level. The better the "endgame" the more players will view everything that comes before as a nuisance to be sped through as fast as possible. Naturally, a poor leveling experience will also be an incentive for the people that don't leave outright to speed through it. We do not know how this will apply to Pantheon yet. One reason I have consistently, and for years, argued against devoting a lot of time to level-cap raids or other content is that it will cannibalize player interest in Terminus as a whole - devour it and leave very little but the "endgame" experience and the rush to get to such. Far better to get the game out the door with no endgame content at all - none - and tell people we will have it in six months. Few players will frantically level-up to get to an empty zone.
If there is no endgame - or almost none - 1,000 hours enjoying the world and character development looks a lot more like the goal rather than an obstacle to be overcome.
dorotea said:If there is no endgame - or almost none - 1,000 hours enjoying the world and character development looks a lot more like the goal rather than an obstacle to be overcome.
However... people will reach max level eventually... and then? You still have to give people some reason to log in, to feel some growth.
in EQ1, when you reach max level, there was still place to go, some raids and the epic quest and such.
I do not really think VR will release the game with nothing at all for maximum level - though I really think they could and if it would allow release significantly earlier they *should*.
I agree with everything you say, Grobobos, but my point is based on the design goal of having progress to maximum level being very slow. If they have no endgame at all for three months it will affect no one but possibly the most fanatic "no life" speed-leveler. If they have a bare bones endgame for a while after that it will not affect a lot of us. Meanwhile they can use the time and resources to get the game out the door sooner and focus more on polishing the earlier levels which are absolutely critical to grabbing and keeping new players. Plus - lack of a real endgame at release will be a strong encouragement for us to stop and sniff the roses more often than we might, and with the promise of an endgame "soon" (TM) it won't discourage anyone but the serious endgame raider from subscribing. I do not think anything will get us the serious endgame raider - not with the slow pace of getting to maximum level and lack of a store selling instant boosts to maximum level.
You are probably right, that being said.. EQ1 had a very lively raiding crowd even though the leveling was long. I do not remember however what endgame there was at release. I actually took my time to go to max level and didn't even know that there existed such a thing called raids and endgame at the time.
lotuss79 said: no one wants to feel like they're on a treadmill going nowhere.
I can certainly understand that concern. My first MMO was Asheron's Call. At release, max level in AC was 126. A couple of expansions later it had been raised to 275. I had a lot of fun and played it for over 10 years straight, but nobody could deny that AC was a major grindfest. I'm glad I did it. I wouldn't want to do it again in Pantheon, for sure.
In streams over many years, the Dev's have emphasized that we should not be overly concerned about specific numbers we see in them. Not combat numbers, nor stats on gear or player's attributes, TTK, rate of resource regen, whatever. They are focused on making all systems work smoothly together, without glitches. Until they have a much larger number of players in the game to draw conclusions from - at least Alpha, and for some things even till Beta - they won't be dialing-in numbers for many such things.
Of course that doesn't mean you shouldn't voice your feelings about what you see, good or bad.