I searched for this using the Search function as well as browsing, but the subject eluded me. Hence, this post.
I really liked it in EQ, when dark blue conning mobs (for non-EQ people: dark blue meant a mob you should be able to kill and get XP from) could be undercons. They had more HP than they should, hit harder or had tougher spells/abilities etc. than their counterparts. It added to the sense of mystery, uncertainty and excitement for me. You thought you could win the fight, but no, not always. It kept you on your toes. I find it also added to the need for interaction between players. You needed their wisdom.
I hope this will be incorporated in Pantheon, too.
I couldn't agree more. Some of them that are coming to mind are Lich of Magruel (sp) in Everfrost, the dragons in Western Wastes, stuff in the zone between Cobalt Scar and Western Wastes, and the evil city part of The Overthere.
Nothing was more exciting than kiting a blue-con dragon behind TOV entrance to its death...then picking another blue-con dragon and realizing almost immediately that you made a terrible, terrible, terrible choice as you are being flung across the zone. Same thing with the zone leading to Western Wastes...water zone + blue-con causes more problem than you would think. And with Lich you don't even know what the hell you just ran into the first time you find him in Everfrost. The evil/golem camp in Overthere was crazy hard for what they conned.
Added excitement...can't beat it!
I agree completely. It just added to the sense of adventure and made sure that you kept on your toes and did your research. It also made sure that people didn't always just pick on mobs that were easy and that sometimes you might die when you didn't expect it. I think that is what made things more memorable. Dieing from something that you never expected would kill you.
It's about matchups. In sports, we see upsets because a team that might not be as highly rated is actually a bad matchup for the higher rated team. One team's strength exposes the other team's weakness.
"undercons" in EQ were different across classes, or at least styles. I remember getting the first charred guardian shield on my server with my monk. I gave it to my shaman friend. A druid friend found out and wanted one too so I told her how to get it. She got OBLITERATED because that mob resists magic. Neither of us had any way of knowing before hand that to her it was a huge undercon, but for me it wasn't.
etc.
An amazing part of EQ were the upsets, both directions. Sometimes you were able to pull out fight you had no business winning and sometimes you went into a fight you knew you were going to win and got smacked.
I think the way to handle this is that there can be three parts to a /con
1) Con Color -> Tells you an estimated level range of the mob
2) Faction -> Tells you whether the mob will attack you or not or to what degree it hates or likes you
3) Challenge level -> Tells you if a mob is weak for its level or more strong
So as pointed out, a mob 5 levels lower that likes you and is weak may con as Blue "Soandso smiles in your direction and appears frail"
But a mob 5 levels lower than you that hates you and is very tough may read as Blue "Soandso scowls in your direction and appears quite formidable"
I have always liked games where there is some kind of bestiary associated skill. Perhaps /con could be linked to that?
The more you kill (and thus learn about - nothing like slaughtering and then pawing through a creatures guts to learn all about it!) the more you know the better your knowledge when you /con.
That ability could give clues to level, faction, resists, abilities, etc.
If you're worried about a new type of 'monster' keep killing the simpler ones until you're confident you know the type then when you move on to tougher 'versions' your /con will give pretty good info.
Could be class based or maybe a side-skill? If you're going into the wilderness, take a ranger or someone who has bestiology (or whatever that should be named!) because they might know when that particular monster can summon others or heal it's friends or is resistant to mind effects or whatever.
Undercon as a concept seems weird to me. I feel like there should naturally be some variability between enemy types so even something of the same level but a different enemy type may be easier or harder prey (in other words I don't expect a "con" to tell me everything about the fight I am about to have, just a reasonable range of expectation).
I had a love hate relationship with Undercon’s; I loved when I got into a surprise fight with a NPC that I assumed I would destroy only to get my arse handed to me, and I hate it at times due to silly pride J I would really like for Pantheon to add some Undercon mobs into the game just to add some surprises.
Rint said:I had a love hate relationship with Undercon’s; I loved when I got into a surprise fight with a NPC that I assumed I would destroy only to get my arse handed to me, and I hate it at times due to silly pride J I would really like for Pantheon to add some Undercon mobs into the game just to add some surprises.
It would make things very interesting for sure!
Under cons can be fun. Like it.
I also liked that EQ would randomly kick you in the nuts. Orc 1 Commonlands.
I was grouped there a few nights ago and at lev 6-7-8 we had some blue cons, yellows, reds etc.
Then Lord Shin Ree spawns. Cool, another named like High Chief Foloas (lev 12) .... *KICK*
Lord Shin Ree is lev 17-22 and hits like a TRUCK. We ALL died. .....
Good one Brad ! lol
Also like them :)
whether it is because they are slightly different (magic resist, run *just* too fast to kite) or merely tougher than standard.
I recall Orc HIgheway in Oasis .... "oh look they mis-spelt 'A Orc' ..."
It taught you to pay *close* attention!
PS as a mage I loved the high-fire-resist mobs that Wizzies were scared of :) [hah, you better-than-you, snooty wizzies!]
Seems a bit odd to me. But eventually Id learn that this type of mob is stronger than con indicates and that one is weaker. This is right there with hell levels for me. Guess you had to be there because while its not a deal breaker or anything I just dont get the fascination? This would be like me saying I thought it would be really awesome to have it where you needed to face a certain direction for optimal crafting results based on crafting type from XI. Its interesting I guess but definitely an odd thing too want badly.
Amsai said:Seems a bit odd to me. But eventually Id learn that this type of mob is stronger than con indicates and that one is weaker. This is right there with hell levels for me. Guess you had to be there because while its not a deal breaker or anything I just dont get the fascination? This would be like me saying I thought it would be really awesome to have it where you needed to face a certain direction for optimal crafting results based on crafting type from XI. Its interesting I guess but definitely an odd thing too want badly.
As someone on the fence about this, maybe I can help shed some light. I think this is just another example of how Everquest had the uncanny ability to humble people. Just when you think you know how things work, the game pulls the rug out from under you and you're left wondering what just happened. It added to difficulty, which as we all know is something a massive portion of the community is looking for. I get it. It's working with imperfect information. And it's often with nostalgia that we look back on systems like this, because though they may have sucked at the time, they were one of the many cogs in the system that contributed to the larger machine.
With that said, allow me to work the other side of the argument. I've never liked systems that increase difficulty artificially. I use this example sometimes regarding the North American educational system: I utterly abhor trick questions on tests. In my opinion they do nothing to prove any sort of benchmarking for students to gauge where they actually stand. They help fill a teacher’s bell curve at a student’s expense. How does you composing some convoluted, ass-backwards question, designed solely to confuse students, do anything to prove their knowledge on a subject you were responsible for teaching them? Is a test not designed to give a student the opportunity to prove the knowledge they have acquired without being duped by some pompous professor over the semantics of a question?
Now that’s a roundabout way of making a point (and I think I’ve just learned something about myself and my time in school :/) but I feel like it can apply here to some extent. If there is actually a system that requires the knowledge of a fight or specific creature type, as @Krixus describes, then I’m all for it. I think it’s great if a mob is more difficult in one area but maybe very weak in another, even if that isn’t immediately recognizable. Maybe a mob has inherent strengths and weaknesses against different classes, schools of magic, weapon types, etc. This system requires a knowledge of a fight and a creature type which can be learned over a period of time and then applied. The player then should be rewarded – it’s a test and they studied!
Undercons are effectively more difficult because we’re being lied to. They take a system in the game that was meant to help players gauge where they stand and manipulate it in a way that artificially makes content more difficult. Don’t give me a trick question and then be pleased with yourself. Congratulations, you tricked me.
bigdogchris said:I think the way to handle this is that there can be three parts to a /con
1) Con Color -> Tells you an estimated level range of the mob
2) Faction -> Tells you whether the mob will attack you or not or to what degree it hates or likes you
3) Challenge level -> Tells you if a mob is weak for its level or more strong
So as pointed out, a mob 5 levels lower that likes you and is weak may con as Blue "Soandso smiles in your direction and appears frail"
But a mob 5 levels lower than you that hates you and is very tough may read as Blue "Soandso scowls in your direction and appears quite formidable"
While spelling it out like this seems to make sense, it somewhat ruins the experience. The fact that some mobs are of appropriate level for you, but of unknown strength is a major plus for me. I don't need to have my hand held via UI element telling me I'm too small to ride the rollercoaster. Let me figure it out. It's part of the adventure.
Deadlyfury said: I like to compare it to real life, and it makes the consider system more real to have undercons. "The smallest guy in the room can also be the toughest" kinda thing. All for it here
Yea, I can see this side too. Still on the fence about it personally. I wasn't a huge fan of the concept in EQ but it didn't ruin anything for me.
Reht said:Would be really cool if they tied conning a mob into the perception system: the higher your perception, the better chance you have of more accurately guessing a NPCs level and power compared to yours.
Now this makes sense, and I could get on board with it more fully.