Feyshtey said:I look to the Project1999 community, and give it as evidence that there are far more people thank you might think that believe exactly as I stated. They want that old school EQ world desperately, to a point where an only recently sanctioned emulator hosts as many online users conncurrently as a live server did back in the old days of EQ. The community that wants that not only exists, but is quite strong. And I would argue that a majority, perhaps a vast majority of the people who have come to this site and signed up on these forums did so foremost because 'the guy' from original EQ is the 'the guy' doing this, and sticking to his guns on some core fundimentals from his design past.
People who hate those core principles in old school EQ are not going to be paying to play Brad's newest game. Let alone be here to engage in the development well more than a year before any potential release.
Project 1999 was good fun to play on. I enjoyed having that old EQ feeling but what annoyed me about it was that there were very few mysteries left which is unsurprising for a game that was released in 1999. I'm hoping that Pantheon will feel a bit like Project 1999 but with mysteries in it that players don't know about and have to figure out themselves. That is where the real fun lives for me. Quests that no one knows how to complete. Missing bits of lore that no one has found the missing bits too. Hidden zones that no one yet knows how to enter. Things like that really and the only way to do any of that stuff is to make a new game like Pantheon.
So yeah something new that no one knows all the secrets for and that people are learning how to play together. Plus the fact that Pantheon won't have a map so everyone is running around getting lost. I love that kind of thing where you are running around in a zone and by accident you find something really cool that was hidden away. That is another thing that I am looking forward to in Pantheon.
Xaleban said:So what exactly do you guys mean by crawling? In EQ most of the time it required crawling to get to any specific camp. Seeing as how named mobs randomly spawn from killing their placeholders until they pop, why exactly would you want to crawl around the dungeon unless you already know a named mob is up somewhere in the zone? It seems to me crawling is geared more towards instanced where a boss mob is at the back of the dungeon and requires moving thru and killing mini bosses along the way. As I said before, it requires crawling to get to an area where the particular mob spawns that you are after of course unless your group is already there and you just die and get a drag to camp.
I am hoping dungeons are laid out as I was eluding to. Having named mobs that spawn in different parts of the zone and each one be considered a campable area that requires ''crawling'' to get there would be the classic experience. Sure there could be small dungeons and large dungeons but each having different pieces of loot that drop from random named who spawn by killing their placeholders til they pop. This really does create a great environment for social interaction as well as gaining experience. You can level, chat, and get a chance for a piece of loot all at the same time. I cant really think of any better way for a dungeon to function that this. Now the types of dungeons is where you can be creative. Some that are confusing and have lots of different paths leading lots of different ways with multiple levels/floors, some that are small and densely populated with mobs, some that require keys to advance to other areas, some that can house a major boss deep in but still allow for players to xp and get loot in other areas, some that are raid only, some that have 2 version such as a lower level dungeon connected to its higher level counterpart (sola/solb, uguk/lguk, etc). So many different directions you could go with dungeons but ultimately each having its own areas to camp and variety of loot in my opinion is the best way to go.
Both in EQ and VG there were plenty of dungeons where if you just wanted to crawl around the zone killing and making your way thru it was all there to do so. But what is the point unless you are crawling to the camp you want to chill with your group and soak up xp and loot? Not saying there is anything wrong with roaming around and checking out the zone. But it just seems more viable to get setup in a somewhat safe area and rake in xp and loot while chatting with your group and having a good ole time.
When I think of Crawls, I think of EQ2 at its inception. I think of Fallen Gate, locate in the Commonlands, a dungeon for the low to mid teens, I believe. Many of my best memories in EQ2 are in that dungeon as a tank, working with my group to explore the dungeon from the beginning to the end, hitting every possible named spawn point along the way. You'd get down to the bottom, kill the "Boss", only to find that there was an additional instance WITHIN the dungeon (Fallen gate was NOT instanced itself). If the Boss is up, and drops the key, your group has access to this instance. Within there is a puzzle with dragoon skulls that, once completed, opens up the actual boss. A difficult fight, given the correct lvl range. It was great. Folks rarely knew about that instance at the end. There were always surprises for at least somebody in the group, and the dungeon itself was substantial. There were extra doors and corridors you could venture down, but once you knew the spawn points and the points of interest, you learned the most efficient way to make it through the entirety of the dungeon. However, even with that knowledge, the dungeon itself could still take up to two hours with an average PUG of different personalities.
That's a crawl.
A camp is zoning into Crushbone in EQ, shouting "LFG!", and getting an invitation to a group sitting in the slaver pits. The puller would venture out, grab a mob or two, and bring it back. Some dungeons, as you said, involve some adventuring to get there (Or an invis to the party to make it), but the destination was always to find a spot, sit down with your group, and camp out.
Both have their places. I think what sets them apart is the reward. In EQ2 and subsequent games, crawls were mostly done for the EXP, or in later years, for tokens you earned at the end of the dungeon that you could turn in for items. There were rarely items within the dungeon itself that would make a player want to camp out and collect.
I'm all for having both. Humungous dungeons like Khegor's End in Vanguard that you could explore, start to finish, with no real goal in mind but adventure and comradarie. Or setting a goal in a particularly packed dungeon to camp out with you group and spend hours XP'ing and/or hoping the named will pop and drop that desirable item. They both have their place.
Cromulent said:Feyshtey said:I look to the Project1999 community, and give it as evidence that there are far more people thank you might think that believe exactly as I stated. They want that old school EQ world desperately, to a point where an only recently sanctioned emulator hosts as many online users conncurrently as a live server did back in the old days of EQ. The community that wants that not only exists, but is quite strong. And I would argue that a majority, perhaps a vast majority of the people who have come to this site and signed up on these forums did so foremost because 'the guy' from original EQ is the 'the guy' doing this, and sticking to his guns on some core fundimentals from his design past.
People who hate those core principles in old school EQ are not going to be paying to play Brad's newest game. Let alone be here to engage in the development well more than a year before any potential release.
Project 1999 was good fun to play on. I enjoyed having that old EQ feeling but what annoyed me about it was that there were very few mysteries left which is unsurprising for a game that was released in 1999. I'm hoping that Pantheon will feel a bit like Project 1999 but with mysteries in it that players don't know about and have to figure out themselves. That is where the real fun lives for me. Quests that no one knows how to complete. Missing bits of lore that no one has found the missing bits too. Hidden zones that no one yet knows how to enter. Things like that really and the only way to do any of that stuff is to make a new game like Pantheon.
So yeah something new that no one knows all the secrets for and that people are learning how to play together. Plus the fact that Pantheon won't have a map so everyone is running around getting lost. I love that kind of thing where you are running around in a zone and by accident you find something really cool that was hidden away. That is another thing that I am looking forward to in Pantheon.
Exactly - It also doesn't help that Project99 is extremely top heavy. Unless you have something inherently wrong with you, there really is no reason to work towards the raid scene there. It's a recipe for a psychotic episode. You can attribute that to the years in between each expansion, the fact that, as you said, there are no secrets in those expansions, and the fact that they plan to go no further than velious.
Pantheon will have progression. It'll be new, and fresh, and not full of people /Auctioning Powerleveling services.
Hokanu said:Amsai said:Saying that though, eveything except Open Zones (open world), in your last sentence might be implied but not stated on either of those pages. And while I would want all 4 of those things, I have seen plenty of arguments on these forums that would suggest that some people dont want 1 or 2 of those things. At the very least Im not sure the audience overwhelmingly desires contested content. There are too many arguments over it or people that want instances etc. I think this probably stems from people that enjoyed EQ at different expacs or from people that favored VG more. In some things there might be too many mixed opinions for anything to be an overwhelming majority, in others thats probably accurate. Then there is the smaller faction of people like myself from other oldschool games who are a minority, but still probably agree on most things with EQ and VG folks.
I am pretty sure (and only going on a shaky memory lol) that most of the stuff you are worried about here based on what there have been arguments over have also been chimed in on by a VR member saying specifically there will not be instanced zones with the possible exception of a story section of the game.
This also says to me it is VERY unlikely the dungeons will be runs like modern day style of... enter, fight to the boss and teleport back to the start and then rinse and repeat..
You are right in the sense there may be mixed opinions on this stuff, the people who want instances do have voices and often loud ones but i think its fairly safe to say that is not the direction of VR and to be honest i would be extremely surprised if the the majority of people signing up and pledging money for this game are against contested content, open zones, emergent behavior, and a dilberate lack of hand-holding and spoon-feeding content as mentioned by Fey. While specifics may not be listed in the pantheon pages regarding these exact features I think we all have a good sense of the direction VR are heading in and i feel like the 4 features that Fey has stated are about bang on with the majority of peoples expectations who are prepared to part with money based on a concept that those features are very much entwined with being... the 2 big and regularly discussed old school mmo's on thei firum VG and EQ
On a side note I think it is great you are ensuring that all voices are heard and considered and that is a noble and considerate thing for someone like yourself who is actually for those old school features but is great you want to keep it real by reminding us of the range of opinions, but I feel like its probably summed up best by saying it is simply not going to be that kind of game, I cant imagine they are going to risk the momentum now and the interest that is evolving for this game by going back on a range some of the very much cherished and loved features of the old school that clearly make a large point of difference present day run of the mill mmo's and those particular old school ones that have been fondly discussed and reflected on by the devs and a very large chunk of pledge supporters who are speaking time and time again.
I would feel bad for those who want a instanced game because i would imagine that the devs have well and truly moved well past that discussion now in their inner circles and those who are lobbying for instances in dungeons etc are probably barking up the wrong tree with Pantheon, however thinking about it they have PLENTY of mmo's to be playing right now and other ones in development, I would say they are pretty spoilt for choice as it is.
Thanks for the kind words. I know sometimes I come off as being an ass but Im usually playing devils advocate or just trying to introduce ideas or features that others might not be familiar with. But in more direct answer to your post. You are correct, especially about the instance thing. If anyone at this point is thinking thats going to happen then they are completely lost and someone needs to give them directions. But my main point was to show the differences in opinion. A couple of more accurate points of contention would be the progeny system, the Mentors, Caravan, or Level Trials. Two of these ideas would be new to most here, One was in EQ, and the other in VG. But from what I remember reading the community seemed split on all four. If not against it, then maybe just differences of opinion in implementation. And while no Instances is the direction. Plenty of people do argue and worry about contested vs non-contested. Ive seen plenty of people confirm that while they are old school EQ vets, they now worry about time and access. And would prefer everything from all non-contested to half/half to only Raids be contested. So thats what Im saying is that there are some issues that the majority of the community didnt sign up for. Lastly, there have also been ongoing changes to development since the kickstater. Some changes big enough to have completely remove some things while some brought brand new things that werent originally going to be part of the game. For instance Im not sure how many people remember, but FFXI was touted originally as one of the games Pantheon was going to pull from. A couple of revisions and months later they re-focussed it to EQ and VG. So its not fair or accurate for someone to say that people wouldnt sign up for it if they werent all in for old school EQ, because anyone here from the beginning might still be here despite the changes. I think many old school players from many games have and will continue to gravitate towards this game. FFXI, EQ, VG, DAoC, Lineage, SWG, Ragnorok, arent anywhere close to the games they once were or in some cases even still in operation. Some people have moved on. But some like me for instance have been looking for a new home for years.
I signed up because this is the closest thing Ill ever get to XI so it seems, and even after some revisions that still hasnt changed. So many meaningless PvP indies coming out, or they do something dumb like permadeath. But not many games like this. Really the only other oldschool game in interested in is Project Gorgon and thats really more Asherons Call style then EQ. But dont misunderstand me, I dont expect this to be FFXI either. But likewise I think plenty of VG and EQ people are expecting EQ with some revisons and brand new features.
Well, I'm one of the ones that hopes this is EQ with some new revisions and features :) But when I say I desire EQ it doesnt mean I desire a clone. What I desire is an adherence to some of the core philosophies that I believe made EQ a uniquely exceptional game. I fully hope that it is a new experience, with a new learning curve and a new set of challenges that I as a player have to overcome. (And some crap that pisses me off in the process, undoubtedly.)
Persistent, non-instanced dungeons is one of those core principles. The competition for content was an absolutely critical element to the game's success, IMO.
If you look at "instancing" as a crutch developers had to fall upon, because they didn't imagine such a sucess or influx of people. Server was only built for 2k people, and they stuffed 8k, etc.
Subsequently, if each dungeon in Pantheon is 4x bigger/deeper than in EQ, and more remote. Then even a starting dungeon (like befallen) would be as deep and vast as upper & lower guk. And each of these beginner dungeons housing hundreds each. Then.. having some 20 or so such deep & vast beginner dungeons... means that Pantheon will have wide content, more per level than you will be able to take in. EQ is actually pretty linear by todays standards.
IMO, "instancing" is great for story telling, but it is not needed as a crutch for lack of content. I have not heard one valid argument for having an "instanced" dungeon. Other than based on Character story.
@ Hieromonk
Depending on your definition of challenge.......
Instances can make more challenging fights. Of course as I said this usually devolves into highly choreographed dance steps you need to memorize (not always). And you can add time restraints too that if you cant complete it in X time, you get kicked and have to do it all over again (assuming you arent locked out). Its definitely debatable though. Because the flip side is the social/community challenge and the "indirect" PvP of contested content of open-world.
Amsai said:@ Hieromonk
Depending on your definition of challenge.......
Instances can make more challenging fights. Of course as I said this usually devolves into highly choreographed dance steps you need to memorize (not always). And you can add time restraints too that if you cant complete it in X time, you get kicked and have to do it all over again (assuming you arent locked out). Its definitely debatable though. Because the flip side is the social/community challenge and the "indirect" PvP of contested content of open-world.
What exactly about an "instance" that makes more challenging fights..? Never heard that before.
Are you trying to say, that by adding an articial means to enter or access a dungeon, means to you, it is challenging..? Or, it becomes a challenge just to get in... thus everything inside is now challenging content..?
Your keep suggesting game mechanics that control the environments and availability of a raids. You keep promoting instancing, in hopes of controlling the envireonment in which people fight... and how often they fight, etc.
Why..?
Hieromonk said:Amsai said:@ Hieromonk
Depending on your definition of challenge.......
Instances can make more challenging fights. Of course as I said this usually devolves into highly choreographed dance steps you need to memorize (not always). And you can add time restraints too that if you cant complete it in X time, you get kicked and have to do it all over again (assuming you arent locked out). Its definitely debatable though. Because the flip side is the social/community challenge and the "indirect" PvP of contested content of open-world.
What exactly about an "instance" that makes more challenging fights..? Never heard that before.
Are you trying to say, that by adding an articial means to enter or access a dungeon, means to you, it is challenging..? Or, it becomes a challenge just to get in... thus everything inside is now challenging content..?
Your keep suggesting game mechanics that control the environments and availability of a raids. You keep promoting instancing, in hopes of controlling the envireonment in which people fight... and how often they fight, etc.
Why..?
First off Im not gonna answer the first question because its a troll question! If you really cant understand it then you can look it up but I doubt thats the case.
2nd, I have never promoted instances for this game. In fact I made a post a couple of days ago (only a few @#$&ing posts up) that suggested anyone looking for instances in this game at this point must be lost and needs to get directions.
Thirdly, I think I was being pretty fair with both ends of the spectrum, and fairly displaying the possibilities (even the negatives of instancing).
Lastly I wont respond to you ever again. Its been a while so I thought Id give you a chance again. My mistake. If anyone else would like to help him understand elementary concepts or that people are entitled to different opinions, then be my guest.
Good luck Heiro with the development of that imaginary game your always talking about thats clearly not this one. I hope it works out.
Amsai said:Hieromonk said:Amsai said:@ Hieromonk
Depending on your definition of challenge.......
Instances can make more challenging fights. Of course as I said this usually devolves into highly choreographed dance steps you need to memorize (not always). And you can add time restraints too that if you cant complete it in X time, you get kicked and have to do it all over again (assuming you arent locked out). Its definitely debatable though. Because the flip side is the social/community challenge and the "indirect" PvP of contested content of open-world.
What exactly about an "instance" that makes more challenging fights..? Never heard that before.
Are you trying to say, that by adding an articial means to enter or access a dungeon, means to you, it is challenging..? Or, it becomes a challenge just to get in... thus everything inside is now challenging content..?
Your keep suggesting game mechanics that control the environments and availability of a raids. You keep promoting instancing, in hopes of controlling the envireonment in which people fight... and how often they fight, etc.
Why..?
First off Im not gonna answer the first question because its a troll question! If you really cant understand it then you can look it up but I doubt thats the case.
2nd, I have never promoted instances for this game. In fact I made a post a couple of days ago (only a few @#$&ing posts up) that suggested anyone looking for instances in this game at this point must be lost and needs to get directions.
Thirdly, I think I was being pretty fair with both ends of the spectrum, and fairly displaying the possibilities (even the negatives of instancing).
Lastly I wont respond to you ever again. Its been a while so I thought Id give you a chance again. My mistake. If anyone else would like to help him understand elementary concepts or that people are entitled to different opinions, then be my guest.
Good luck Heiro with the development of that imaginary game your always talking about thats clearly not this one. I hope it works out.
Well, I guess you see that your own argument was invalid, so much so you won't explain it...? And to answer Larirawiel and most likely you... just because you could zerg a zone 18 years ago... you think that is how Pantheon will play 20 years later with 64bit game world and full fledged mechanics..?
Dynamic vast dungeons capable of handling 3 different raids, all going on at same time, all in the same dungeon without steping on onother guild's toes, because you never see them...? Why do you feel Dungeons like these are not possible..? Or why are you not looking forward to this, instead of complaining about age old mechanics that are superficial and restrictive because the game world's back then had to be. Now they do not....
You clearly have a problem looking at things how they were back then & trying to solve such problems now, while using newer unevasive fundmentals. Or perhaps, it is just that you don't know what the root cause of the problems with raiding and contentious mobs where back then... (too little of content and too much upward content, instead of outward). So you don't understand how that won't be a problem this time around..
Needing to protect your raid via instancing is for backwards thinkers...
I couldn't care less if raids were zergable. That always worked itself out. Sure, the act of killing the raid mob may have been trivialized, but the reward did not scale to the size of your raid. As soon as another guild comes along and starts taking the raid targets with half the force, being in the zerg loses its luster.
This is a little off topic but tonight I was talking to a guy on P99 who was suggesting raiding may possibly be tiered/instanced ie 12man/24man/36/man etc. Please tell me this is not the case. I cant even begin to elaborate on the negativity of this. I am going to assume I was either being trolled or completely misinformed. There shouldnt be a pre determined number of players that can participate on a raid altho limiting it to 72 like EQ did would be ok. But I couldnt take another game of tier based raiding.
Xaleban said:There shouldnt be a pre determined number of players that can participate on a raid altho limiting it to 72 like EQ did would be ok. But I couldnt take another game of tier based raiding.
72 was just the maximum the raid UI allowed once that was added in game (which wasn't until many years after release). You could still have more than 72 working together in a raid. You just had to form two separate raid groups. That was a common practice.
So no one cares about challenge anymore? Trivializing the content doesnt matter because hey I can bring all 650 of my friends and thats what is truly important. I think I just threw up in my mouth. There is a difference between interdependent gameplay and the social dynamic vs just having a ridiculous body count. At some point skill and tactics have to come into play. Maybe Dullahans right and small guilds will come in and take down raids. And if that happens I hope they do it over and over and over again. Forever locking out those huge zergs that tried to do it easy mode. Thankfully Im sure VR is taking a heavy look at this. Pretty sure devs dont enjoy working hard for the players just to have their creation trivialized. How they go about it is yet to be seen.
Tbh, I don't know how they will prevent zerging without instancing. Of course some guilds will attempt to low man but the majority will take the path of least resistance. I did enjoy a good zerg myself but I think their should be both large scale fights and more focused small team content. I always think back to ffxi with nostalgia because I enjoyed how at the 75 cap the developers added content for both large groups and groups with a max of 6 people.
Guess I'll just have to wait and sea
Amsai said:So no one cares about challenge anymore? Trivializing the content doesnt matter because hey I can bring all 650 of my friends and thats what is truly important. I think I just threw up in my mouth. There is a difference between interdependent gameplay and the social dynamic vs just having a ridiculous body count. At some point skill and tactics have to come into play. Maybe Dullahans right and small guilds will come in and take down raids. And if that happens I hope they do it over and over and over again. Forever locking out those huge zergs that tried to do it easy mode. Thankfully Im sure VR is taking a heavy look at this. Pretty sure devs dont enjoy working hard for the players just to have their creation trivialized. How they go about it is yet to be seen.
This is a strawman argument. I dont think I've ever heard of people just throwing bodies en masse at a mob as a realistic strategy. Yes, it has happened. No, it's not a viable tactic as a general rule.
Having mass numbers is more often a liability than as a benefit. The lack of discipline, the lack of defined roles, the lack of focused strategy... Attacking Nagafen with 200 underequiped idiots would almost always have resulted in 200 corprses under Nagafen. And in an unlikely success, there would have been 200 people arguing about the 7 drops, all of the participants unlikely to participate in another zerg for a fraction of a percentage chance of any personal benefit.
I dont think its a strawman. Besides its not my idea its what Ive seen spit out by people on these forums. There seems to be a bigger worry about immersion and the social dynamic than anything else in almost all aspects. Im not against those things but I think the appoach should be more balanced to include an equal worry over proper mechanics and challenge. Besides I was using an exaggerated number. And I have seen this strategy used before and even worse..... zombieing. Which if you dont know what that is imagine a zerg strategy thats close to a bind or with a bunch of people that can rez and just throwing bodies at something til it goes away. There are always players that are either 1. Happy to just be a part of something or 2. Want to watch the world burn (reference the infamous guild in EVE that I wont name). I wouldnt be bringing it up if i had not witnessed this behavior before. And understand Im not saying this would happen in Pantheon, but lets not be totally blind to it either. This is why Brad has said they might have mechanics (not set in stone) where you maybe get an ever increasing number of adds the more people you bring to a raid. Or maybe have the Raid mob run away and despawn if you try to zerg.
You can prevent "zerging" nearly a thousand different ways.
Which ways you choose to combat zerging are dependent on world type & game mechanics, etc. A common way to prevent zerging is random spawns, and random places. Another pure combat way to thwart zerging, is a "growth mob", that get stronger per every attacker, etc. Or, dungeons that have one way entrances with pit falls along the way, like Velks where it doesn't matter if you have 200 people, moving them all in sync is a nightmare...
The design of the dungeon alone, can prevent zergs.. if that is some how a major concern.
Agreed Hiero. There are limitless design possibilies that make zerg or zombie tactics friutless. I agree that should be a consideration in encounter design, and there should be measures in place to prevent a mob of characters overcoming an encounter they are too low or ill-equipped to master. But given the statements the devs have given I really dont see that as a significant concern. If nothing else, Brad has shown no lack of willingness to swing the nerf bat :)
I dont really remember zerging be that much of a problem in classic eq on my server (Bertox). Although it was very possible than to do so in some dungeons.... but content not meant to be raided is more fun to play in a group. And with a large group... you might as well hit a raid target.
I have never enjoyed dungeons more than the early EQ dungeons.
They all had a few things in common which made them enjoyable to me and I hope to see them return in Pantheon.
*They were huge. 10+ groups could easily hunt there.
*Lots of interesting places (nameds)/Camp spots. In a good group it was a very social/fun experience. Ususally everybody stayed till everybody got what he/she came for.
*Increasing difficulty the further you got in
*Trains! =) Please keep them in! =) One way or another, it forces ppl to interact ;P
*You could spend days and sometimes weeks in them, making new friends (Slow leveling is a good thing!)
*Just running to a dungeon... seeing the action there... looking for a group. Somehow I felt so more connected to my char than any other system that had me just blinking all over the place or queueing up for stuff.
*It were the perfect places the make new friends =)
Would there be anything I would change?
Well although I like the fixed time respawn method in EQ1, I would like to see some more variations on it.
The good things about this system is that you actually get to learn a dungeon. Its nice and natural that after a while you get comfortable moving around in a dungeon. You know what to expect. So I wouldnt change it too much but maybe;
*Litte randomness in the spawn times. Like 5 mins +- (0-60s) on every mob.
*More wanderers with more variation in their paths. Also maybe if there is nobody hunting them, keep respawning them (up till a certain amount). So in a crowded dungeon there would be 10 of them running around... but in a dungeon that hasnt been hunted in for a while this number could grow to 50+. This way it makes the fight in a lot harder, maybe multiple groups working together. But once a few groups are settled in it wont become an annoyance.
*The ability to shout for help (not on all mobs, special ones). Better clear the area before you kill these ;P
Heh... this thread makes me want to login to Bertox and revisit Old Seb... ;P
