This is one of those ideas that I feel like is an obvious addition to creating a dynamic and alive MMO, and one that I can't really understand why it hasn't been implemented before. When you're creating a virtual world, and a big part of that is drawing from life and making it as realistic as possible, why would you not? Especially when it comes to something that's such a HUGE part of the world - Travel.
Great ideas on this thread. So much so that I think they should be consolidated in one post to make the dev's job easier.
I have a question for those that have more game developement experience than I.
If considering where the team is in the development of Pantheon, is introducing these types of mechanics feasible at this juncture?
Genuinely curious. Is it too late? Are many of these ideas that we post things that, if taken, would have to be added in subsequent patches?
NoobieDoo said:If traveling on the main road gives you a speed boost, players might be more inclined to stay on the road than to venture off to areas unknown and explore.
I actually don't see that as a downfall. Those who make the choice to venture out off the safe roads, take on the risks and choose to explore gain greater rewards. The greatest treasured moments I've ever had in an MMO have come when I've taken the time to go to a place simply to see whats there, rather than following some prescribed path.
I don't think we should get any bonus to running on the path besides it being safer with less chance to run into mobs. The point of the road is safety not convenience. They want us to go explore and find cool stuff in the world. We shouldn't be encouraged to stick to the path to get from point a to b. Before maps came out in EQ people followed zone walls and discovered faster ways to travel from a to b that wasn't along the road.
Moarcrits said:I don't think we should get any bonus to running on the path besides it being safer with less chance to run into mobs. The point of the road is safety not convenience. They want us to go explore and find cool stuff in the world. We shouldn't be encouraged to stick to the path to get from point a to b. Before maps came out in EQ people followed zone walls and discovered faster ways to travel from a to b that wasn't along the road.
In EQ running zone walls wasnt about speed. It was about not getting lost, and being much MUCH less likely to get agro (safer).
I look at this as the theory of the carrot or the stick. It's encouraging a specific behavior thru positive reinforcement or negative.
Travel: The game includes a core tenent of community and group-oriented play. That's gonig to require travel in many (most?) cases. If you make travel painful (stick) then people will enjoy the process of traveling to join a group less, perhaps much less so. If you make travel less a burden by being slightly faster and safer along roads (carrot) people will be more inclined to do so.
Exploration: If you force people to seek the fastest possible route through content with acceptable risk in order to get from A to B then you might as well not even have a graphic representation of a road, and over time most people will use roughly the same path anyway. So it's not really exploration, it's just a learned lesser or evils (stick). Whereas if you provide bonuses to those who deliberately choose to go out to new places and just kick over rocks because there happen to be rocks then you give them reason and pleasure in doing exactly that (carrots).
Travel and Exploration need not be intertwined. In fact I'd argue that they should be deliberately kept in seperate spheres of thought. One is an activity to complete a defined goal (get to "B" so I can do "X"). The other is precisely the opposite; "I wonder what's over thereabouts...Maybe there's something I could do there.... ".
Feyshtey said:Moarcrits said:I don't think we should get any bonus to running on the path besides it being safer with less chance to run into mobs. The point of the road is safety not convenience. They want us to go explore and find cool stuff in the world. We shouldn't be encouraged to stick to the path to get from point a to b. Before maps came out in EQ people followed zone walls and discovered faster ways to travel from a to b that wasn't along the road.
In EQ running zone walls wasnt about speed. It was about not getting lost, and being much MUCH less likely to get agro (safer).
I look at this as the theory of the carrot or the stick. It's encouraging a specific behavior thru positive reinforcement or negative.
Travel: The game includes a core tenent of community and group-oriented play. That's gonig to require travel in many (most?) cases. If you make travel painful (stick) then people will enjoy the process of traveling to join a group less, perhaps much less so. If you make travel less a burden by being slightly faster and safer along roads (carrot) people will be more inclined to do so.
Exploration: If you force people to seek the fastest possible route through content with acceptable risk in order to get from A to B then you might as well not even have a graphic representation of a road, and over time most people will use roughly the same path anyway. So it's not really exploration, it's just a learned lesser or evils (stick). Whereas if you provide bonuses to those who deliberately choose to go out to new places and just kick over rocks because there happen to be rocks then you give them reason and pleasure in doing exactly that (carrots).
Travel and Exploration need not be intertwined. In fact I'd argue that they should be deliberately kept in seperate spheres of thought. One is an activity to complete a defined goal (get to "B" so I can do "X"). The other is precisely the opposite; "I wonder what's over thereabouts...Maybe there's something I could do there.... ".
Here's another thread that you take what I said and changed it. I never said it was about speed. You had 2 options, follow the road and possibly get lost or end up some where you shouldn't be, or follow zone walls and at least have a semi decent idea of where you were. If you got lost, follow the wall back the way you came.
You talk about tennents, and a tennet clearly stated they want people to explore, so your line of thinking should be, run speed bonus to all areas outside of the roads to encourage exploration of areas off the beaten path.
That's dumb. Run speed is run speed on or off the road.
You bring up the tennent of community and people traveling on roads will bump into each other and want to group. No it will be done the same way as it has in every MMO since EQ, in a large public area using chat channels or in the target zone using chat channels that you're either LFG or LFM.
To assume by encouraging people to use roads by offering a run speed buff will increase player interaction more than simply seeing another player run by is ridiculous and is a veil to guise your desire to have a feature you want included.
I also never said travel and exploration were one in the same. People who want to explore shouldn't have less advantage by not getting run speed buff by doing so, they already are at a disadvantage by having to deal with aggro mobs being all around. Players who want to get to point b shouldn't have an advantage to get there quicker simply for the sake of making travel more convenient. If thats the case and you're going to speed up travel on roads, make the zones smaller so you can get there quicker. Wait that defeats the purpose of having a "huge vast world" to live in.
And if you think people won't exploit the run speed on the roads you clearly haven't been around MMOs long.
Wizard pulls mob to road, gets increased run speed, outruns mob to cast spell, rinse and repeat. Now you're using the roads mechanic to be able to kite as a class that normally couldn't kite.
Wait your rebuttal will be "make it so if you have aggro you don't get the boost!" Ok sure let's do that, but also let's remember the road isn't always aggro free so at some point you will end up aggroed, well there goes your speed buff and the point of having it just went away because aggro is zone wide so you're going to end up at base speed, so we end up back at there being no point in having the mechanic in game.
Congrats you just created more problems than you solved by "fixing" a problem that was never there to begin with.
Wow dude... Um, maybe reread what I said? I wasnt attacking you, but you're sure taking it as though I had.
Run speed is not "run speed". Not in any real-world scenario. I promise you that any runner will be happy to tell you that they can achieve a considerably higher average time over a given distance when the terrain is more suited to it. I own land, and I know that in mid to late summer you physcially cannot run thru the fields at much more than walking speed. The growth is too dense, you cant see variations in the surface where you might twist an ankle, and you get torn to shreds by everything slapping against your skin (including your face). Whereas if you run down the ditch road that we scrape and maintain and keep weed-free you can run notably faster. And if you were to run on a conditioned track designed for running, more so still. So run speed is NOT run speed. Environmental factors make a huge difference. And we own land because we have horses. Traveling by horse is as easily impacted by terrain or enviroment, and in many ways much more so. You simply cannot realistically gallop a horse thru a forest even without the ground clutter without considerable risk of taking your own head off on a branch or injuring the horse.
Yes, one of the tennents is that they want you to explore. But the underlying premise of my post was that providing incentive to explore and easing travel on specifically prescribed routes need not be at odds. Both can be achieved without detracting from the other.
Honestly, nevermind. The more I reread your post to respond to each point the more I realize that you are directly attacking and using negative accusations rather than just discussing the topic. I dont need that crap. You've successfully killed my interest in what could have been an engaging and interesting topic.
there is a flip side to this.
while i love to explore, if there is virtually no fast travel, (ports, very fast run speed/mounts, something) it actually inhibits my ability to explore.
this may seem counterintuitive, but if my group is in zone A, then i cannot go to any other zone because if i do, my group would have to wait 20 minutes, maybe longer to wait for me. i don't want to make 5 people wait for me because i saw a butterfly the night before. so i log out every night very near my groups gathering point.
i remember in vanguard myself/friends/guildmates made a toon, spent the first day traveling to the zone where we were gathering and didn't leave it until about level 35. the suggestions i have seen sound as though some want it to be slower.
seems that out of the very few rez points, no rifts, no run speed boost unless you roll one of 2 classes, everything requires a group. there will be ALOT of down time.
exploring is fun. running from A to B for 45 minutes while 5 people that have 2 hours to play wait is not so much, imo.
think of APW: EVERY guild that was far enough along stuffed a couple casters by zaygius. even the players that were arguing against the eventual release of rifts didnt want to fight there way down that 'quick access' tunnel each go.
Feyshtey said:Run speed is not "run speed". Not in any real-world scenario. I promise you that any runner will be happy to tell you that they can achieve a considerably higher average time over a given distance when the terrain is more suited to it. I own land, and I know that in mid to late summer you physcially cannot run thru the fields at much more than walking speed. The growth is too dense, you cant see variations in the surface where you might twist an ankle, and you get torn to shreds by everything slapping against your skin (including your face). Whereas if you run down the ditch road that we scrape and maintain and keep weed-free you can run notably faster. And if you were to run on a conditioned track designed for running, more so still. So run speed is NOT run speed. Environmental factors make a huge difference. And we own land because we have horses. Traveling by horse is as easily impacted by terrain or enviroment, and in many ways much more so. You simply cannot realistically gallop a horse thru a forest even without the ground clutter without considerable risk of taking your own head off on a branch or injuring the horse.
Pantheon = RL mechanics.
Feyshtey said:Moarcrits said:Pantheon = RL mechanics.
So then by your definition, Pantheon would indeed have a run "boost" while on a road.
Yes and we will not be able to cast spells either because you can't do that in RL but you want RL mechanics in game.
Hint, it's a game, stop comparing real life with a game.
Clearly you missed the sarcasm that was that post.
Moarcrits said:
Yes and we will not be able to cast spells either because you can't do that in RL but you want RL mechanics in game.
Hint, it's a game, stop comparing real life with a game.
Clearly you missed the sarcasm that was that post.
You have a massive chip on your shoulder, and I'm not sure why. Is it really necessary to be combative?
Feyshtey said:NoobieDoo said:If traveling on the main road gives you a speed boost, players might be more inclined to stay on the road than to venture off to areas unknown and explore.
I actually don't see that as a downfall. Those who make the choice to venture out off the safe roads, take on the risks and choose to explore gain greater rewards. The greatest treasured moments I've ever had in an MMO have come when I've taken the time to go to a place simply to see whats there, rather than following some prescribed path.
Moarcrits said:Feyshtey said:Moarcrits said:I don't think we should get any bonus to running on the path besides it being safer with less chance to run into mobs. The point of the road is safety not convenience. They want us to go explore and find cool stuff in the world. We shouldn't be encouraged to stick to the path to get from point a to b. Before maps came out in EQ people followed zone walls and discovered faster ways to travel from a to b that wasn't along the road.
In EQ running zone walls wasnt about speed. It was about not getting lost, and being much MUCH less likely to get agro (safer).
I look at this as the theory of the carrot or the stick. It's encouraging a specific behavior thru positive reinforcement or negative.
Travel: The game includes a core tenent of community and group-oriented play. That's gonig to require travel in many (most?) cases. If you make travel painful (stick) then people will enjoy the process of traveling to join a group less, perhaps much less so. If you make travel less a burden by being slightly faster and safer along roads (carrot) people will be more inclined to do so.
Exploration: If you force people to seek the fastest possible route through content with acceptable risk in order to get from A to B then you might as well not even have a graphic representation of a road, and over time most people will use roughly the same path anyway. So it's not really exploration, it's just a learned lesser or evils (stick). Whereas if you provide bonuses to those who deliberately choose to go out to new places and just kick over rocks because there happen to be rocks then you give them reason and pleasure in doing exactly that (carrots).
Travel and Exploration need not be intertwined. In fact I'd argue that they should be deliberately kept in seperate spheres of thought. One is an activity to complete a defined goal (get to "B" so I can do "X"). The other is precisely the opposite; "I wonder what's over thereabouts...Maybe there's something I could do there.... ".
Here's another thread that you take what I said and changed it. I never said it was about speed. You had 2 options, follow the road and possibly get lost or end up some where you shouldn't be, or follow zone walls and at least have a semi decent idea of where you were. If you got lost, follow the wall back the way you came.
You talk about tennents, and a tennet clearly stated they want people to explore, so your line of thinking should be, run speed bonus to all areas outside of the roads to encourage exploration of areas off the beaten path.
That's dumb. Run speed is run speed on or off the road.
You bring up the tennent of community and people traveling on roads will bump into each other and want to group. No it will be done the same way as it has in every MMO since EQ, in a large public area using chat channels or in the target zone using chat channels that you're either LFG or LFM.
To assume by encouraging people to use roads by offering a run speed buff will increase player interaction more than simply seeing another player run by is ridiculous and is a veil to guise your desire to have a feature you want included.
I also never said travel and exploration were one in the same. People who want to explore shouldn't have less advantage by not getting run speed buff by doing so, they already are at a disadvantage by having to deal with aggro mobs being all around. Players who want to get to point b shouldn't have an advantage to get there quicker simply for the sake of making travel more convenient. If thats the case and you're going to speed up travel on roads, make the zones smaller so you can get there quicker. Wait that defeats the purpose of having a "huge vast world" to live in.
And if you think people won't exploit the run speed on the roads you clearly haven't been around MMOs long.
Wizard pulls mob to road, gets increased run speed, outruns mob to cast spell, rinse and repeat. Now you're using the roads mechanic to be able to kite as a class that normally couldn't kite.
Wait your rebuttal will be "make it so if you have aggro you don't get the boost!" Ok sure let's do that, but also let's remember the road isn't always aggro free so at some point you will end up aggroed, well there goes your speed buff and the point of having it just went away because aggro is zone wide so you're going to end up at base speed, so we end up back at there being no point in having the mechanic in game.
Congrats you just created more problems than you solved by "fixing" a problem that was never there to begin with.
I still think there is validity to this idea.
Travel on roads/paths should be faster than travel through a dense jungle or mountain range. Just like it is faster than water travel (swimming).
I understand the concern that this will make people "stick to the roads" but I dont think thats real. There isn't any mobs or loot or experience on the roads so people will spend all their time out in the world and their traveling time on the roads.
Think about it: most of your interest is spent hunting, camping, questing, gathering, etcetera. None of that happens in the middle of a paved road. The only time players will "stick to the roads" is to travel.
The incentive would simply be to put less interesting stuff close to the roads that way, people will venture off-the-beaten-path (literally as well as figuratively) and use the roads primarily for long-distance traveling.
fazool said:I also think this could then trigger a whole other series of dynamic world ideas like:
real bandits on the road
guards and real toll booths
route 66 style inns and shops along the way
And a more realistic and consistent feel for the gameworld, in that there is travelers on the roads and the wildlands are much less heavily trafficed.
Hey P-forums,
I was reading some of the comments and felt like I had a bit of sudden insight.
When I need to get somewhere directly I use the roads almost all the time. And the reason why is I don’t want to get attacked by creatures and die and I don’t want to take inefficient routs. And of course there is always the … I don’t want to get LOST. So if they added this feature or not it would not stop me from using ‘roads’ in the game anyway. (and it wouldn’t certainly keep me from exploring the world which is the premise of the game I’m sure.)
It’s a safe guess to believe when making this game the developers created the roads and intended creatures to either stay away from the roads or to put them directly on the roads pathways. I remember there was a zone where it was safe to travel the roads in day-time but during the night I had to hug the zone wall to get through alive. I think this same gameplay will still be in place because the Roads (with speed increase or not) are going to be a ‘tool’ for the developers to use to make a fun experience for us.
Is the road going to be safe to travel or not? Does it then matter if I’m off road or not? It would be interesting to have this speed increase happen but then to have players know specific places where ambush parties are located and so the game requires you to stop off road and take a brush trail which provides little to no increase in speed. Better safe than sorry, right?
You say: “Hail An Orc Highwayman “
-Todd
Moarcrits said:I don't think we should get any bonus to running on the path besides it being safer with less chance to run into mobs. The point of the road is safety not convenience. They want us to go explore and find cool stuff in the world. We shouldn't be encouraged to stick to the path to get from point a to b. Before maps came out in EQ people followed zone walls and discovered faster ways to travel from a to b that wasn't along the road.
You sound like a real city slicker.
Go out to the country and run off the beaten path. See how fast you run. Even in wide open fields, soft dirt or sand and uneven terrain will keep you from ever moving quickly. Maybe you will throw caution to the wind and run fast anyway, but its a good way to break your ankle.
Dullahan said:Moarcrits said:I don't think we should get any bonus to running on the path besides it being safer with less chance to run into mobs. The point of the road is safety not convenience. They want us to go explore and find cool stuff in the world. We shouldn't be encouraged to stick to the path to get from point a to b. Before maps came out in EQ people followed zone walls and discovered faster ways to travel from a to b that wasn't along the road.
You sound like a real city slicker.
Go out to the country and run off the beaten path. See how fast you run. Even in wide open fields, soft dirt or sand and uneven terrain will keep you from ever moving quickly. Maybe you will throw caution to the wind and run fast anyway, but its a good way to break your ankle.
You sound like a real Sims player.
I'll keep this simple. Go outside and cast a spell. Now go slay a dragon. Couldn't huh? This is a game, not real life.
I've already made my case in every post, no one has a counter point to what i said besides "do real life stuff".
Its. A. Game.
Lets talk game mechanics and not real life mechanics, stay on topic.
Moarcrits said:Dullahan said:Moarcrits said:I don't think we should get any bonus to running on the path besides it being safer with less chance to run into mobs. The point of the road is safety not convenience. They want us to go explore and find cool stuff in the world. We shouldn't be encouraged to stick to the path to get from point a to b. Before maps came out in EQ people followed zone walls and discovered faster ways to travel from a to b that wasn't along the road.
You sound like a real city slicker.
Go out to the country and run off the beaten path. See how fast you run. Even in wide open fields, soft dirt or sand and uneven terrain will keep you from ever moving quickly. Maybe you will throw caution to the wind and run fast anyway, but its a good way to break your ankle.
You sound like a real Sims player.
I'll keep this simple. Go outside and cast a spell. Now go slay a dragon. Couldn't huh? This is a game, not real life.
I've already made my case in every post, no one has a counter point to what i said besides "do real life stuff".
Its. A. Game.
Lets talk game mechanics and not real life mechanics, stay on topic.
A lot of the mechanics that make a game or story enjoyable are those that maintain some semblance of reality. Especially in a virtual world, the immersion factor is of some importance.
I'm not at all suggesting that we make travel fast or easy, but there is a solid argument for making travel somewhat faster on roads from both a realism and a gameplay perspective.