I had this random thought. When I was playing EQ back in the day, the amount of effort it took me to take out a character who was +2 levels higher was tremendous. Will they maintain this type of consistency in difficultness?
Separately, regarding the experience, will it be a crazy amount of experience from one level to the next? (I HOPE SO....) I want levels to mean something and I want someone who's level 45 to be fearful of a level 47.
Also, personal request, make there be no level cap. Just have it have an exponential decay that reaches some high level if the person grinded until they are old as big donkey balls.
Take out a character 2+ lvls higher? You don't mean a mob...solo do you?
Either you were only mid lvl and arent referring to higher end...or you didn't play during EQs prime when it was challenging (or there was a very rare case of a over conned mob that wasnt the norm and didnt really happen).
At the high end single groups, raid equipped, could struggle with some yellow con mobs (obviously we are talking about in the most current expansion)...I guess your example was a lvl 45 vs a lvl 47 so that is likely the case.
I don't expect anyone to be able to solo a yellow con other than at lower lvl. Hopefully it is more challenging than what you are describing. Solo classes focusing on light blues and groups on dark blue/even cons.
Yes exactly! I meant mob soloing :)
I was a bard and a cleric at max level in EQ1. I didn't play a warrior like DaChunker and tear through all the mobs after collecting them in a group. :)
LordJJ said:I didn't play a warrior like DaChunker and tear through all the mobs after collecting them in a group. :)
What?
Edit: oh is that a p99 reference? Queue the responses about how the difficulty doesnt compare to early EQ. Ill leave that alone.
Pantheon isn't going to be like LOTRO where a good solo class can tear through mobs 4-6 levels higher without the slightest concern (other than not getting too many +6s in one pull)?
Eeek what have I gotten myself into ((whimpers))?
Oh well it could be worse. A certain other game under development that we were competing with in the most anticipated vote looked good also ((not AS good I hastily add) but a bit of research revealed that it was a PvP game and although it had a flagging system you could still get PvP'd even with the PvP flag off. So not comparable at all.
I used to hate under-con mobs, but then as I played more I realized that the con system should just be a guideline. Some blue mobs should nearly tear your head off and the odd yellow mob may feel more like fighting an even-con. That's not a bad thing. It keeps you on your toes and you don't take everything at face value.
I would go so far as to remove the con system entirely. You will soon learn what is going to flatten you if you try to solo it or even what areas the mobs are likely to flatten your entire level 30 party. I think we use the con system as too much of a crutch. Let us explore and figure these things out. For the less adventurous, within a few weeks of launch, someone will have posted an online guide to the relative difficulty of every mob in every zone.
Since Terminus is largely being structured as a world with group play challenges, I would expect that solo adventurers are going to struggle in many areas. The latter promos for the game are subtitled "Bring Friends". https://pantheonmmo.com/trailers/sdcc17/
I don't believe the level range at which you can cause meaningful damage to a mob is tied to difficulty, it's just a design consideration regarding attenuation. If I know I can't fight a mob 2 levels higher, I won't, and the difficulty hasn't really changed. My opinon on this was cemented after a recent stint in Rift. Mobs my level and a level higher were so trivial I didn't have to think or worry at all, but as soon as the mob conned red, I couldn't hit it at all. It was limiting, sure, but not difficult as it just forced me to fight meaningless trivial mobs and removed the ability to challenge myself at all.
In fact, by giving you a chance at higher level mobs, you can increase the difficulty by allowing you the option of fighting them, so I'm in favor of a more gradual decline due to relative level (though this does make for twinking paradise).
The difficulty in EQ is more a result of wide/varied pathing, number of roamers, aggro/assist ranges and fleeing mobs, and lack of a leashing mechanic than individual mob difficulty. Unless you're really pushing it you probably aren't dying to single mobs that are just too powerful to defeat. You're probably getting adds or jumped after expending all your resources. The other factor is time to kill on mobs. When the TTK is quite low, there's very little chance for something to go wrong, but when fights take a bit longer, the previously mentioned factors have more time to play out.
EQs difficulty wasn't really in the mobs, I know you needed a group for most stuff, but what got me killed the most was the unknown element of being in a zone you have never been in before, and getting into trouble with a nasty mob. Also, the nasty roamer mobs that snuck up on you when you least expected and died.
So for me, if VR can make the hairs on the back of my neck stick up when in a zone, then I will be immersed into it. The mobs can be tough, but the zone layout is what makes the game difficult imo.
A FPS example could be this, Counter Strike Source, Modern Warfare (insert w/e here), or anything in that genre vs a game like Dayz, or the ARMA engine in general. Both can be with other players, however, one, or both, is way more structered while the other one is insanely random. CSS and MW are very structured in the sense that I know the likely spots of where people will be or intend to be and can formulate some plan to making sure that doesn't happen. Something like Dayz was very organic and kept my hairs on the back of my neck stuck up because I could be in Electro 1000 times and about 70% of the time it would be something different that catches me off guard.
WoW in a sense, is like CSS and MW compared to EQ, which is more like Dayz. Even with the pvp element in these two games, you would know if you went to Hillsbrad Foothills back in the day you will most likely encounter a ton of alliance or horde and have to pvp your way into the mobs you wanted, but you knew. EQ was a little more random in that sense. Same with mobs obviously.
Would like to point out that every game has a structure to it, but some structures allow for more organic play than others that are more forced.
IMO grinding != difficulty. It's just tedium. Combat needs to actually be challenging and require critical thinking skills to be considered difficult.
Personally I've always found it extremely annoying when there are 'false' barriers put in place to keep you fighting 'the right' monsters.
Diminishing returns due simply to level difference are just so boring and depressing - I much prefer to be able to try even if I fail as long that failure isn't because of some artificial enforcement.
It's probably more complex than I appreciate, but I really want it to feel more 'natural' even if that means much more danger.
Some groups or soloers should be able to tackle some monsters while others could not, not just depending on level, but on the monsters' abilities and the environment, etc.
I do think we need an equivalent to the /con system, though. It's just an analogue to an adventurer having knowledge of monster types or being able to judge from looking. Let's face it, if you were spying on a bunch of orcs you'd know from their movements and physique roughly how tough they were. 3D graphics and surround sound don't allow for the kind of senses a real person has or the kind of minute detail would betray a monster's make up. Without some analogous /con system, you are left with "well, I'll attack and if I die, it was too tough", which is just literally dumb.
As a shaman in EQ1 I could, quite often, solo yellow conned mobs. Sure, it took a long time using the kiting method, but I could do it while waiting for a group. It wasn't that it gave me more xp than if I had stuck to blue conned mobs (over a period of time, that is). I could kill more blues in XX minutes than 1 yellow. It was the challenge of doing it. Many times I ran out of mana and had to hoof it to a nearby zoneline...if the mob had root or snare, I usually ended up in trouble. Now, red conned mobs? Not even worth it to me, died way too many times trying.
LordJJ said:Yes exactly! I meant mob soloing :)
I was a bard and a cleric at max level in EQ1. I didn't play a warrior like DaChunker and tear through all the mobs after collecting them in a group. :)
hes talking about shakerpaging, it was a method of pulling entire zone and using warrior aa rampage with an earthshaker equipped, warriors did not do this solo however it took at least a small group
This is where I'm hoping the gear comes into play. If your a level 30 toon with common gear, you should stuggle agains level 28 mobs. 50% common gear 50% rare, then you stuggle vs. 29 mobs. All rare then you stuggle vs. 30 mobs. Add some epic gear in there occasionally and maybe you'd have a chance vs. a mob that higher con than you....etc...
Kittik said:This is where I'm hoping the gear comes into play. If your a level 30 toon with common gear, you should stuggle agains level 28 mobs. 50% common gear 50% rare, then you stuggle vs. 29 mobs. All rare then you stuggle vs. 30 mobs. Add some epic gear in there occasionally and maybe you'd have a chance vs. a mob that higher con than you....etc...
With that: I am hoping there isn't in-game labeling/color-coding for item rarity/value, and that items from level 40 areas aren't necessarily better than those from level 20 or 30 areas (even if 7/10 times they are).