philo said:Any low lvl character with speed boost faster than the mob can kite any non summoning melee mob. Fansy was the example as Bards were fast but could also utilize the lvl 4 "no attack" function on a pvp server but that part doesn't really matter as far as the conversation.
I get what you're saying and I think that's just bad gameplay. If it's for regular mobs ... sure, fine. Bosses, though, should be immune to this behavior and it isn't hard to make it so.
Can you define bosses? Do you mean raid mobs?
Edit: the worst mobs possible to make FTE would be open world boss mobs/named that would allow anyone to kite them or move them.
I mean any named encounter that is designed to be challenging. If there are multiple tiers of "bosses" then assign it to a minimum qualifying tier. If there are easy/trivial bosses then I'm not talking about those so much. I hope we don't see many of those but maybe the game will feature some to appease the solo players. If a named boss is designed to be challenging for an appropriately leveled group then that would qualify. Again ... it really comes down to the engage. If players are rushing to tag something just to get "credit" on the engage then the content probably isn't hard enough. Players should have to strategize and work out a plan with their teammates to defeat content that is truly difficult. Even if they know the strat, there should still be a degree of prepration when it comes to timing pre-buffs, positioning, modifiers, wards, temporary abilities, etc. In my opinion, it's critical to have that window for any "boss" to be meaningful or challenging. If players are putting all the emphasis on engaging something as soon as it spawns to "win the tag" then the content isn't hard enough.
oneADseven said:If players are rushing to tag something just to get "credit" on the engage then the content probably isn't hard enough.
Your complaint was that a higher lvl can take a camp from lower lvls (which in actuality won't happen if rep matters but...). Then you say the content isn't hard but that isn't about even lvl content.
Now it is about hard content but even if it is only restricted to raid mobs, players will rush to get credit on the engage if there are 2 guilds both staging for a mob. Which to me is more ok than the other scenario...but still, of course players will rush to engage. Even the hardest mobs in the game will be killable by more than 1 guild. They will definitely rush to engage. " The mob isn't hard enough" isn't valid.
I'd rather have TLC for rare drops specifically (forced mentoring to complete the fight at intended challenge) than have open season camps/the expectation of fighting other players for most worthwhile drops. It is of the most dull and unfun experiences I have had in an MMO, sitting in a room with multiple other people/groups doing nothing but spamming macros (often for hours) to try and tag a rare spawn first. Not to mention it very much encourages only attempting encounters when they are outleveled (whenever applicable) and a win is more or less 100% guaranteed should a tag be won.
Iksar said:It is of the most dull and unfun experiences I have had in an MMO, sitting in a room with multiple other people/groups doing nothing but spamming macros (often for hours) to try and tag a rare spawn first.
Why did you do that? That is super douchey. Move on and come back later.
But at least VR has addressed this type of thing. I remember the fbss was used as an example. They will itemize the game in a way so that a single item/camp isn't the only option. From what I gathered from that discussion there will be multiple "fbss" type of camps that drop the same item...or maybe the same item with a different name.
philo said:Why did you do that? That is super douchey. Move on and come back later.
But at least VR has addressed this type of thing. I remember the fbss was used as an example. They will itemize the game in a way so that a single item/camp isn't the only option. From what I gathered from that discussion there will be multiple "fbss" type of camps that drop the same item...or maybe the same item with a different name.
Because in FFXI that was the only option, there were no respected camps/claims so many things were just an endless standoff between players.
There is a huge difference between "vying to be the first person to engage" and "placing incredible emphasis on engaging the mob as soon as it spawns." An example would be players dropping AoE spells on the spawn-site of a given name to ensure that they win credit the exact moment that the NPC spawns. (If players are doing this then the content isn't really challenging enough, in my opinion, because players are bypassing the preparation phases. Having a variable of randomness is also important here because if you predict the exact second that a mob is going to spawn then you can go through your full routine of pre-buffs, wards, aggro modifiers, temporary abilities while still dropping that AoE on the spawn site.)
To be fair, you're correct in that we're talking about multiple things here. I think FTE solves the issue of high level solo players "dominating lower content" that always seems to happen with MDD. The high level solo player has the advantage even when "competing" against a full group of lower level players. FTE makes it so the group has the advantage, as they should, seeing that Pantheon is a "group-centric game." I think a TLC can be avoided while using FTE because the higher level players can't trivially dominate the lower level content. They are forced to compete, often with the odds stacked against them (unless they are grouped with an equal number of players at which point it's more even ... but it's highly unlikely that you'll see a full group of high level players farming a low level zone which makes it a non-issue.)
That's what the original focus of my post was on and you deviated from that when you said that MDD was a better option because it required players to actually beat the encounter. That is false. You also said that FTE leads to people kiting around mobs for extended periods of time until their friends show up. I don't think that should be possible. That situation can be avoided completely when the game is actually challenging. It's my opinion that FTE is the superior mechanic in a truly challenging game because it places a burden on the player to actually defeat the encounters in their entirety. If players are spamming macros to "win the tag" then the content isn't hard enough and or the spawn cycles are too predictable. It's a completely valid stance because I have personally played MMO's where that logic was upheld. (EQ2/Vanguard)
The FFXI model could have been improved upon by making the encounters more difficult and less predictable (you could predict the exact second something would spawn which is a big issue while discussing a meaningful prepration phase) but it was an older game just like EQ was. There were definitely players using macros to try and win the engage as soon as something spawned just like there were cases of people tagging something and then kiting it around for extended periods of time. Neither of those things were issues in EQ2 and they were both solved by the implementation of "truly challenging content" that required players to leverage a meaningful countdown phase in order to execute a clean pull.
Iksar said:Because in FFXI that was the only option, there were no respected camps/claims so many things were just an endless standoff between players.
This isn't true at all. There were hundreds of "respected camps." The biggest difference of course is that these camps were "XP Camps" in FFXI. When it came to names/bosses, players would compete, and high level players dominating lower level content was never an issue and is the main reason why that game didn't need a TLC.
Iksar said:I'd rather have TLC for rare drops specifically (forced mentoring to complete the fight at intended challenge) than have open season camps/the expectation of fighting other players for most worthwhile drops. It is of the most dull and unfun experiences I have had in an MMO, sitting in a room with multiple other people/groups doing nothing but spamming macros (often for hours) to try and tag a rare spawn first. Not to mention it very much encourages only attempting encounters when they are outleveled (whenever applicable) and a win is more or less 100% guaranteed should a tag be won.
It's funny you bring up "intended challenge" while also advocating for MDD. MDD allows players to zerg content which is a major issue that EQ dealt with. Players circumvented the "intended challenge" by having multiple groups/raids beating on the same encounter trying to out-DPS each other. If a mob is designed for a single group/raid and you allow an unlimited number of groups/raids to engage it, and reward the "top damage dealer" with 100% of the reward, you are, by definition, encouraging players to circumvent the intended challenge of any worthwhile encounter in the game. MDD also allows for players to set up "kill groups" ... yeah, a full group of wizards whose primary focus is on dealing damage. They can ignore all of the important encounter mechanics like tanking, CC, healing, etc ... they let the plebs handle those insignificant tasks and focus on nothing but raw damage. When encounters are super contested then they build outside healing/tank groups to handle those aspects of the encounters and help ensure the survival of the kill group.
Loot not dropping off low level mobs is just completely unacceptable if we get any sort of wardrobe system.
I still think this is really a solution looking for a problem. I've never had any serious issue with higher level people taking all the mobs in any other MMO I've played.
In a truly difficult game world ... FTE is like a game of chess. (Leap-frogging is possible but you can plan ahead to compensate for it and it's effectiveness is naturally diminished if a preparation phase is expected as core gameplay.)
MDD is like a game of Hungry Hungry Hippos. Kill-stealing, leap-frogging, zerging, TLC, nom nom nom nom.
Defeating content (100-0) is the difference between have and have-not with FTE. With MDD, you just have to do one more damage than the other guy. In theory, you could win credit by doing 2% of the overall damage compared to 1% each from 98 other zergers. That's why the lockout mechanic from Vanguard won't be used in Pantheon if the game is full-blown MDD. Every encounter with a lockout mechanic would be a literal loot piñata.
oneADseven said:MDD allows players to zerg content which is a major issue that EQ dealt with. Players circumvented the "intended challenge" by having multiple groups/raids beating on the same encounter trying to out-DPS each other. If a mob is designed for a single group/raid and you allow an unlimited number of groups/raids to engage it, and reward the "top damage dealer" with 100% of the reward, you are, by definition, encouraging players to circumvent the intended challenge of any worthwhile encounter in the game. MDD also allows for players to set up "kill groups" ... yeah, a full group of wizards whose primary focus is on dealing damage.
We both know you didn't play EQ during its prime so dont insinuate that you know how it was. Those raid mobs were designed for large numbers of people. Because only one group got the exp/loot rights doesnt mean that is what the encounter was designed for. Loot was still distributed fairly and the exp gains were inconsequential.
Look, we get that you don't have much experience with MDD so you are arguing against it.
That's the same kind of arguments we have seen with your experience with a progeny type of systems that has character restart. It's the same as your experience with purely contested raid bosses compared to other boss respawn options.
You have made it very clear in the past regarding a number of systems that you are arguing against these things simply because you don't understand how they will work. There have been very few points you have argued against over the years that you are very familiar with it seems.
I encourage you to wait and see how it plays out long term instead of immediately arguing against a system that wasn't present in FF11 or EQ2.
Questaar said:The more I think on it, the more I agree that mobs that con grey drop no loot. If you want that level 20 ring be level 30 or less. If you’re level 31 get in the zone at your level or make an alt.
That's a possibility given the mentor system and the option to delevel.
philo said:oneADseven said:MDD allows players to zerg content which is a major issue that EQ dealt with. Players circumvented the "intended challenge" by having multiple groups/raids beating on the same encounter trying to out-DPS each other. If a mob is designed for a single group/raid and you allow an unlimited number of groups/raids to engage it, and reward the "top damage dealer" with 100% of the reward, you are, by definition, encouraging players to circumvent the intended challenge of any worthwhile encounter in the game. MDD also allows for players to set up "kill groups" ... yeah, a full group of wizards whose primary focus is on dealing damage.
We both know you didn't play EQ during its prime so dont insinuate that you know how it was. Those raid mobs were designed for large numbers of people. Because only one group got the exp/loot rights doesnt mean that is what the encounter was designed for. Loot was still distributed fairly and the exp gains were inconsequential.
Look, we get that you don't have much experience with MDD so you are arguing against it.That's the same kind of arguments we have seen with your experience with a progeny type of systems that has character restart. It's the same as your experience with purely contested raid bosses compared to other boss respawn options.
You have made it very clear in the past regarding a number of systems that you are arguing against these things simply because you don't understand how they will work. There have been very few points you have argued against over the years that you are very familiar with it seems.
I encourage you to wait and see how it plays out long term instead of immediately arguing against a system that wasn't present in FF11 or EQ2.
Brad himself has said that zerging was an issue in EQ so that isn't something I have pulled out of a magical hat. As far as me not having experience with MDD you're wrong again. EQOA used MDD and I have personal experience leveraging it to amazing effect. My guild never lost a single contested pull in EQOA because there was no chance for the underdogs to compete. If the alpha guild shows up to a contested spawn then they win every single time. Rather than the burden of difficulty being placed on being able to beat the encounter from 100-0, you just set up your group/raid to do more damage than those you are competing with. It isn't rocket science and it leads to the kill squads that I mentioned earlier. MDD creates a formula (most damage done is really simple ... EQOA took it a step further and added threat as a variable and it ultimately trumped damage -- if you wanted to win credit for a contested kill you just needed to create a group loaded with threat generation) and as soon as it's reverse engineered it leads to a "meta" that will dictate the best possible group/raid compositions for winning contested fights. So yeah ... I have experience with games where you can zerg, and games where you can't. Zerging is lame and has no place in a truly difficult game. The "creative trivial loot code" you mentioned earlier where encounters scale/flee/reinforce was supposed to be the answer to zerging. I doubt it's still a planned mechanic (I mentioned earlier that it can easily be used as a griefing tool) but I guess we'll have to see if it's still on the agenda.
Also ... you took my quote out of context. I wasn't insinuating that every encounter in the game was designed for a single group. I was saying that if you have an NPC that is designed for a group, but then allow 100 players to kill it, that's effectively trivializing the encounter via zerging. If you have a raid boss designed for 24 players and allow 200 people to kill it together, they are trivializing the encounter. If there isn't some sort of scaling mechanic in place then overwhelming a mob with sheer numbers is a surefire way to trivialize content. That isn't really up for debate. Encounter scaling sounds interesting but I'm highly skeptical that it's something we'll see in Pantheon. A feature like that poses plenty of challenges of it's own. There are a few games that leverage encounter scaling but they also use personal loot systems rather than MDD. You try to mix those things together and it's a recipe for disaster. This outcome can be predicted trivially without in-game experience. I'm not going to delve into your comment about progeny or other systems that I apparently don't understand because it's off-topic.
I was saying that if you have an NPC that is designed for a group, but then allow 100 players to kill it, that's effectively trivializing the encounter via zerging. If you have a raid boss designed for 24 players and allow 200 people to kill it together, they are trivializing the encounter. If there isn't some sort of scaling mechanic in place then overwhelming a mob with sheer numbers is a surefire way to trivialize content.
Your concerns are unwarranted. Similar to the lvl 50 wizard fighting to take a spawn from a low lvl group. 99x's out of 100 it won't happen like that. ..that's being generous saying it might happen 1 in 100 when reputation matters.
You obviously mistook what Brad mentioned about zerging in EQ because, again, you didn't play it in it's prime so you misunderstand what he was saying.
The type of thing you listed above simply didn't happen unless there was a raid going for a target that had to clear trash mobs along the way. It's more like a mob was tuned for 6 groups but there were 8 or 9 groups of guildies online so everyone participated.
There wasn't ever 200 people killing a mob designed for 24 like your example lol.
Not only is that totally pointless because it is more difficult to manage 200 people..but back then a 200 person raid would lag everything to hell and make it harder, and the loot distribution would be silly. or 100 people killing something tuned for 1 group lol. Your perspective is so skewed as to make it completely invalid in this particular discussion.
It simply wasn't anywhere close to how you are describing it.
But even so, the amount of people used to kill a mob doesn't have any bearing on whether you award the kill to most dmg dealt or first to engage so I'm not sure why you are making that the issue?
I'm assuming you aren't suggesting that you make the mob unattackable by others once it is aggroed? That would be ridiculous. Making a mob unattackable by someone at any point is very poor design for a ton of reasons...so much so that it doesn't even need to be brought up I don't think?
It does sound like EQOA system was poorly implemented so it is understandable that you think the way you do when basing off of that. It doesn't have to be that way.
Here is a quote from Brad on zerging:
"But the zerging issue is something we're keeping in mind. If we are more open and less restrictive when it comes to group/raid sizes, then we do have to be concerned about someone bringing 20 people to a 15 man encounter. We don't want content and encounters trivialized due to zerging."
https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/441287/group-raid-size
Allowing players to defeat content with more players than it's designed for is also bad game design because it enables zerging. Zerging is clearly identified as an issue that they should be concerned about, specifically when it comes to trivializing encounters. It wasn't an issue in Vanguard because they utilized FTE and encounter locking. It wasn't an issue in EQ2 because they utilized FTE and encounter locking. It wasn't an issue in FFXI because they utilized FTE and encounter locking. The only game I have played where zerging was an issue is EQOA and that's also the only game I have played that used MDD over FTE.
philo said:You obviously mistook what Brad mentioned about zerging in EQ because, again, you didn't play it in it's prime so you misunderstand what he was saying.
The type of thing you listed above simply didn't happen unless there was a raid going for a target that had to clear trash mobs along the way. It's more like a mob was tuned for 6 groups but there were 8 or 9 groups of guildies online so everyone participated.
If an encounter was tuned for 6 groups but a guild killed it with 8 or 9 groups, that's zerging. It gets even worse when the mob is contested and you have multiple guilds (with 6+ groups) vying for MDD kill-credit simultaneously. EQOA was a great game but I specifically remember seeing 100+ players show up and downing raid bosses that were designed for significantly less players. How do you prevent zerging when your kill-credit model is based on most-damage done and there is no limitation on how many players/groups/raids can engage it? When zerging is actually encouraged by the kill-credit model itself? Any time two groups "compete" for a single-group mob, they are zerging it ... and MDD rewards players who win the competition for most damage.
philo said:But even so, the amount of people used to kill a mob doesn't have any bearing on whether you award the kill to most dmg dealt or first to engage so I'm not sure why you are making that the issue?
Except it does. The games I have experience with that utilized FTE (EQ2, FFXI, Vanguard) also had a limit on how many players could be engaged with a given mob at any point in time. This was achieved by locking the encounter after it's engaged. If players wanted outside assistance they would need to /yell the encounter off which would open it up to zerging. Once /yelled, though, it would no longer be worth any rewards (I wonder why ... probably because they wanted to preserve meaningful risk vs reward and discourage zerging) so players generally avoided doing it against named bosses unless they were trolling. I have seen that happen a few times in EQ2 where multiple raids would zerg an encounter after /yelling despite there being no reward just to deny others from being able to kill it legitimately.
My point is simple, really. If you design an encounter to be challenging for 24 players, how can you preserve that challenge if you allow 25+ players to engage it? If there isn't a scaling mechanic implemented then each additional player contributes toward further zerging and that leads to the content being trivialized. EQOA was one of my favorite games ever ... I would rank it up there really close to FFXI, if not equal. At the same time, I wouldn't classify that game as truly challenging and I attribute that to the fact that players could zerg content. Zerging is a non-issue with FTE (assuming encounter locking is also in-tact, which it has been in every MMO I have played that utilized FTE) and that's why I think it's the superior mechanic while discussing a "truly challenging game." It also alleviates the need to add a mechanic like TLC (EQ2 got it wrong because they still used TLC despite having an FTE model) because it prevents high level players from being demi-gods that can rampage through lower level zones with no competition from low level players.
You mentioned that I just don't understand how things are going to work but I hope you understand that my post is centered around how things "could" work. The FFXI model was fantastic because it was a truly group-centric game that didn't have any artificial restrictions like TLC that prevented high level players from farming low level content. Unfortunately, some of the spawn timers were too predictable, and some of the encounters could be kited for extended periods of time (issue you brought up earlier) which poses a different set of problems. Those problems are removed, though, when you make the game truly difficult (like EQ2 did with it's encounters, and Vanguard eventually did) and place an emphasis on the preparation phase of combat. An ideal world for me would be to take the best elements from the various games I have played and to capitalize on their strengths while minimizing the downsides.
The only knock I have seen (that I personally give any merit to) against FTE is that it "restricts interactions." Yes, the same way you prevent players from being able to attack each other on a PVE server. Is that considered an artificial restriction, or a necessary one in order to preserve the desired experience? Personally, I associate zerging as something that immediately detracts from a "truly challenging experience." Allowing an unlimited amount of players to engage any given mob certainly adds to the "social experience" because you allow players to randomly assist other players during their travels. I can see why people appreciate having something like that in-game and view FTE as an artificial mechanic that prevents it. At the end of the day, VR will either prioritize the "truly challenging experience" or the "truly social experience" when it comes to kill credit. I don't think it's worth enabling zerging just so random players can attack mobs that another group was already engaged with. That opens up the possibility of KS'ing, zerging, etc, and that can be draining on CS resources. So while FTE does indeed restrict how many players can actively engage a mob at the same time, I feel like that's a necessary component of a truly challenging game. If players are desperate for help then they can always /yell and forfeit any potential rewards. That's the best way to preserve meaningful risk vs reward while still allowing players to call for help when they really need to.
Or ... maybe VR is still intent on leveraging encounter scaling. Like I said earlier, I doubt it. I'm not saying it's impossible but please direct me to a post from 2017 and beyond that shows any sense of commitment to it and I'll reconsider. I feel fairly confident that encounter scaling has been deemed incompatible with other design decisions, just like the encounter lockouts from Vanguard that were alluded to being a potential solution for content denial. In any event, my original post on this thread was a direct response to Aradune on whether or not "both" could be achieved. Yes, I think it's possible to create a world that doesn't require a TLC-like mechanic while simultaneously encouraging players to focus on appropriate level content without artificially forcing them to do so. I think it's possible with FTE but that comes with the caveat that a truly challenging experience is prioritized over players being able to zerg (help each other). Again ... I understand the argument that people don't want to be restricted in being able to zerg. I just think it's a bad argument. It's as bad (okay, not quite) as me saying that I want to roleplay an evil character and be able to help NPC's kill players so PVP should be enabled on PVE servers. The end can never justify the means.
Still against trivial loot code. One of the pleasure of overleveling some areas is to be able to clean them on free time withouth beeing hindered by trivial loot rules, and gathering things we couldn't or didn't know they existed while lower level. Mentoring or not, it's not better than GW2's permasync if it forces you to delevel to defeat a kobolt king and drop something you want, wether it is a "on use" item, a cosmetic one, or a cash flow.
I dislike the idea of a trivial loot code also. Levelling your character should not make it so you can experience less of the game content. If I need firefly wings to cast my light spell and can't farm them myself if I want to because I am level 50, that seems pretty lame. I think it's also healthy socially for a game for lower level zones to have players of varying levels in it. Sure, maybe some people aren't social, but the opprotunity for the chance to occur is good in my eyes.
As for the debate between oneADseven and philo about zerging, I have seen first hand that zerging severely messes with encounter balance. It's one of the biggest problems in an open world game. I don't know of a good fix while still keeeping it open world with anyone able to engage. I *think* the best answer is probably a FTE system even though that hinders the competition aspect of open world boss encounters. If you have enemies scale then griefing by simply showing up with some groups and doing nothing or some small amount of damage to "engage" will occur.
((Still against trivial loot code. One of the pleasure of overleveling some areas is to be able to clean them on free time withouth beeing hindered by trivial loot rules, and gathering things we couldn't or didn't know they existed while lower level))
I agree but I remain on the other side on this issue. The small benefit to the high levels is outweighed by the possible overwhelming detriment to the lower levels if high level characters are given a reason to come back and slaughter the low level mobs. From a VR perspective one of the worst things they can do is risk that the first few days of a new player's experience be turned into a nightmare by high levels slumming in the starter zones.
((I think it's also healthy socially for a game for lower level zones to have players of varying levels in it))
Perhaps. Bring them back by having higher level enemies in part of the zone or better yet amenities that appeal to higher levels. Have the crafting stations in the starter zones give a small bonus that is available nowhere else for example (yes I made the same suggestion for housing neighborhoods - why not - a bad idea shouldn't be allowed to die from lack of repetition). Or have merchants selling things higher levels can use give a small discount.
Once or twice in the streams we've seen, "our" group failed miserably several times to kill a boss. Then they asked another group to join them, and it became trivial.
Coming from EQ2 and Vanguard, that striked me as very odd. Won't many guilds bring 12 or 18 players to the valueable group bosses every time?
@187 & Brads quote
If boss mobs are locking so that only a certain number of people can attack after it is engaged you may as well make the encounter instanced...so that only a certain number of people can attack. It is essentially the same thing.
That's like trying to say mirrored zones/picks/shards (whatever you want to call them) aren't instances. Installing work arounds that do essentially the same thing as instancing may as well just be instancing.
Stop trying to develop/play in an open world game if you aren't ok with the numbers of people that might participate in an open world encounter.
We have all seen it before I'm sure, sometimes game developers are ok with players playing in a way that wasn't intended and sometimes they get butt hurt that the content they spent so much time on wasn't played through how they expected. In an open world game they need to be ok with players playing through content in a way other than what was intended. It is open...not as restricted as it otherwise would be. As long as no exploits are being utilized it should be fine, even if it hurts the devs ego a bit...
I'm ok with more people participating in an encounter than was intended for a number of reasons:
1) It simply gives more people the option to join. More social interaction/community building. We shouldn't have to leave friends/guild members out due to artificial restrictions. I'm not a fan of choosing which of my guildies has to sit out. I've done it before. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth and isn't fun. It goes against multiple tenants.
2)The best players/guilds will always kill boss mobs with the minimum number they can. It is easier to gear up a smaller number of players than a larger number. More gear per person. When you are talking about a week long spawn time on some bosses those extra people can make a huuuuuge difference in the time it takes to equip your guild in order to be ready for the next higher tier of encounters. It regulates itself.
3)The more people you bring to an encounter, eventually there is a bottleneck. Communication/instruction, team work, synchronicity/timing: these are things that become more challenging the more people are brought to the encounter. It might be easy to organize a group of 25 people. It is greater than 4 times more difficult to organize 100. These are things that are difficult to assess as a programmer. Yes larger size encounters are more difficult to balance and we do see VR playing it safe as far as what might need to be balanced down the line in multiple systems (which is smart). Hopefully it doesn't end up being "lesser or bland" because of it.
4) Boss mobs/Encounters can be made that are essentially unkillable under the current gear/power lvl. Give players the option to surprise you with the outcome by doing something that wasn't supposed to be possible instead of restricting them to a set parameter of encounter X is designed for player quantity Y.
Philo, please understand that open-world doesn't automatically imply that an unlimited number of people can engage the same encounter. Please see history as a precedent (EQ2/FFXI/Vanguard) -- you are trying to draw a correlation between FTE and Instancing and it's so far off-base that it's hard for me to believe that you have played any of those games. Vanguard was Brad's last shipped MMO and it was a massive open world experience that also leveraged FTE. I can't even try to comprehend where your head is at right now but let me be really clear in saying that zerging should absolutely be considered an exploit. It's a nasty issue and it can happen regardless of whether the game is open-world/instanced or MDD/FTE if you don't restrict how many players can be actively engaged with an encounter. It just so happens that the MDD model encourages zerging by default whereas FTE is inherently designed to prevent it. I'm not going to cite all of the game tenets that would be violated if zerging were to be possible but let's just say that it would undermine the integrity of the game in unfathomable ways. If you don't agree with that ... that's fine, it's your opinion. I have an expectation that Pantheon will be delivering an experience that emphasizes "Challenge Reborn" -- you know, the catch phrase they used on their posters while promoting it at the major conventions.
oneADseven said:This isn't true at all. There were hundreds of "respected camps." The biggest difference of course is that these camps were "XP Camps" in FFXI. When it came to names/bosses, players would compete, and high level players dominating lower level content was never an issue and is the main reason why that game didn't need a TLC.
Right, that's what I said. There were no respected named camps/claims, leading to spending hours/days of time spamming macros trying to tag a mob with any value with potentially nothing to show for it. It was entirely unfun to me spending time in a standoff with other players like that.
oneADseven said:It's funny you bring up "intended challenge" while also advocating for MDD. MDD allows players to zerg content which is a major issue that EQ dealt with. Players circumvented the "intended challenge" by having multiple groups/raids beating on the same encounter trying to out-DPS each other. If a mob is designed for a single group/raid and you allow an unlimited number of groups/raids to engage it, and reward the "top damage dealer" with 100% of the reward, you are, by definition, encouraging players to circumvent the intended challenge of any worthwhile encounter in the game. MDD also allows for players to set up "kill groups" ... yeah, a full group of wizards whose primary focus is on dealing damage. They can ignore all of the important encounter mechanics like tanking, CC, healing, etc ... they let the plebs handle those insignificant tasks and focus on nothing but raw damage. When encounters are super contested then they build outside healing/tank groups to handle those aspects of the encounters and help ensure the survival of the kill group.
Not sure why this is about MDD/FTE now and not TLC. But FTE more readily encourages fighting other groups over camps while also making it harder and very unappealing for appropriate level groups to experience encounters at the intended difficulty; why waste time trying to compete to tag and attempt a risky encounter vs higher levels when the best course of action would be to outlevel an encounter (whenever possible) and come back when the win was 100% guaranteed should you win the tag? Which is partly why I could see myself supporting a TLC that applied only to rare/named mob drops forcing players to earn whatever (rares) they seek at the intended difficulty.
I'm not getting into raiding or top level content here in regards to zerging etc. I get how MDD might seem far worse should it be open season no holds barred camping, but kill(stealing) groups etc are all based on the idea of groups fighting over camps and I still hold hope they won't let the game devolve into that toxic nonsense. I'll maintain that the answer for a lot of issues isn't FTE nor MDD but PNP.