>Wasnt it mentioned that classes would potentially have 2 paths they can take to determine their speciality?? That's clearly not happening anymore...<
Sadly finishes reading this and walks away slowly, tears dripping down both cheeks, hoping against hope that there is still room in VR's heart for real differences between two characters in the same class.
For me playing an instanced game is not much different than playing a private game at home where I can invite friends to join me.
If every raid group can just open up their own private instance for their own raid and access any boss any time without having to deal with open world contestable issues, that is essentially what you get.
I suspect most, if not all the old time hard core EQ1ers understand this, and are not expecting to see raid groups lining up at the instance portal.
In a true contested world, all resources are fought over. That include harvesting, camps, loot, bosses, raid targets.
Instancing wipes that away and simply creates a single player game w/friend invites.
zewtastic said:I suspect most, if not all the old time hard core EQ1ers understand this, and are not expecting to see raid groups lining up at the instance portal.
In a true contested world, all resources are fought over. That include harvesting, camps, loot, bosses, raid targets.
Instancing wipes that away and simply creates a single player game w/friend invites.
You're taking a very very one sided approach to this.
1) if you go read my recent post about raiding on the TLP servers you'll see this is factually incorrect.
2) if a raid consists of 25 players... you dont see people with 24 friends all on the same schedule able to form up and raid. THts not a realistic thing to expect. You might however see a group of 5 or 6 friends create a new guild and welcome new potential friends into the guild. Or even a group of 5 or 6 friends that decide on a saturday afternoon they want to try and pug a raid boss... which allow players that are unguilded or maybe don't have the playtime to commit to raiding during normal hours a chance to see the content.
These are 2 things that realistically would not happen if there were no instances. Most people will just look to join an established guild, and no pug group is going to be contending with an established guild for a raid boss.
If you have ever been on the receiving end of being hardcore c-blocked from content by a further progressed guild. You'll know that it's not fun, and creates a level of frustration that causes people to quit games.
Lyyr said:If having raids means Pantheon has to get lockouts or instances, I'd rather not have raids. Anything that damages the persistant shared nature of the world needs to be avoided at all costs imo.
I'm curious why you feel that an instanced raid boss would cause you to feel like the world is ruined.
I assume (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you are more of a casual player given your willingness to forego raids. So as a casual player, why would having a raid that's instanced.. (remember. Just a raid. Not a dungeon. Not a starting zone, just a raid) affect your gameplay in any way shape or form?
((Instancing wipes that away and simply creates a single player game w/friend invites.))
Words fail me in describing how much I disagree -and I say this as someone that wants instances to be very limited.
1. Pantheon is about social play and cooperation. Competition over limited resources with most players losing out to the few that are more dedicated/have more time/have no real world committments is *not* a core tenet of Pantheon. Some of us will talk about unlimited competition for everything as a good thing but I bet that is a vocal but small minority. And this comment is global - it includes competition for resources and landscape mobs at least as much as raid bosses.
2. Pantheon doesn't even needs *groups* much less raids to be a MMO rather than a single player game. Although it will have both. There will be so much to do with other players that doesn't exist in a single player game. Chat, Guilds. Crafting interdependencies. And you say that if one aspect doesn't work precisely the way you want it is essentially a single player game. Nope, not even close.
Porygon said:2 things. If you lower the spawn time that will just allow the top guild to kill more.
And instancing of raids does nothing to hinder the community. Instancing of dungeons and the like is what would hinder community. Having an instance that a guild enters for a couple hours a week would not change anything.
I am talking about lowering spawns from 7 days to like 1-2 days. And if a guild kills it too much they will get bored with it eventually and allow other people to try it. Lower spawn timers allow for more opportunities for everyone. If a single guild is stuck farming one particular mob and doesnt do other content then that is when another guild goes and does another raid zone and keeps it on lockdown. Diverse content.
Instancing seperates you from the world for those couple hours a week. Most raid zones wont be available to those with basic characters, so by having hard acclimation barriers you basically will have your own private zone except for others at your same raid level. Think of Elemental Zones in eq1 PoP before everyone was flagged. Top raid guilds had free reign of those zones. Yes, eventually people will catch up, but i don't think things will be as bad as you think they will. This game is going to be of a definite higher skill set and difficulty level than eq1 ever was.
Also, by avoiding bottlenecks like eq1 had you can create multiple different ways to accomplish a similar thing.
kreed99 said:I am talking about lowering spawns from 7 days to like 1-2 days. And if a guild kills it too much they will get bored with it eventually and allow other people to try it. Lower spawn timers allow for more opportunities for everyone. If a single guild is stuck farming one particular mob and doesnt do other content then that is when another guild go does another raid zone and keeps it on lockdown. Diverse content.
Instancing seperates you from the world for those couple hours a week. Most raid zones wont be available to those with basic characters, so by having hard acclimation barriers you basically will have your own private zone except for others at your same raid level. Think of Elemental Zones in eq1 PoP before everyone was flagged. Top raid guilds had free reign of those zones. Yes, eventually people will catch up, but i don't think things will be as bad as you think they will. This game is going to be of a definite higher skill set and difficulty level than eq1 ever was.
Ahhh I get what you are saying now. And I agree that having barriers for the raiding areas in the zone is not something I considered before. That's an interesting concept. And I cant wait to see how it plays out.
As for your first part. Someone else in this thread said it best. People vastly underestimate a top end guild and their driver for remaining top end. If the only reason to kill a mob is to prevent guild #2 from killing it... I think that's more than enough for them.
Good reply though! Got me thinking!
Porygon said:Lyyr said:If having raids means Pantheon has to get lockouts or instances, I'd rather not have raids. Anything that damages the persistant shared nature of the world needs to be avoided at all costs imo.
Lyyr said:I'm curious why you feel that an instanced raid boss would cause you to feel like the world is ruined.
I assume (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you are more of a casual player given your willingness to forego raids. So as a casual player, why would having a raid that's instanced.. (remember. Just a raid. Not a dungeon. Not a starting zone, just a raid) affect your gameplay in any way shape or form?
I would think a willingness to allow instances would make for a casual player, since it makes the content more easily available to the casual player. Not caring about raids or prefering no instances over raids just means he doesn't think raids are as important as having a persistant world to play in.
This post was edited by geatz at June 22, 2018 3:51 PM PDT
Porygon said:I'm curious why you feel that an instanced raid boss would cause you to feel like the world is ruined.
I assume (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you are more of a casual player given your willingness to forego raids. So as a casual player, why would having a raid that's instanced.. (remember. Just a raid. Not a dungeon. Not a starting zone, just a raid) affect your gameplay in any way shape or form?
Not a casual player. I am firmly against the casualization of the game which is what instances bring. Instances are a key feature of casual mmorpg's. If a certain type of content can't be implemented without instances it's most likely content that doesn't belong in Pantheon. If every raid gets it's own personal loot pinata to beat on, in their own private little play house it destroys the perception of Terminus being a peristant shared experience. It becomes more of a virtual theme park. It makes raiding a pretty insular experience that no longer takes place in the broader community but in private space. If that is the kind of game you want to play, there are already dozens out there that cater to this style of play.
Did you ever raid in a peristant world? having to share the space with your fellow players creates a far richer experience than instancing ever will, and it's not just content denial, that actually happens pretty rarely. When I raided, I was one of the scouts that tracked what was up, so raid leaders could determine what our target priorities were. Instancing ruins that, and you know what alot of times I actually had more fun scouting targets than actually killing them.
If one part of the game gets instancing to make it more 'fair' then it will only be a matter of time before the rest of the game gets instances, as a matter of 'fairness'.
In all this theory crafting on how instances and lockouts would work if they were to be implemented, I don't really see much discussion about how these ideas impact other areas of the game, like the death penalty for example. How would you see the harshness of Pantheon's death penalty being perserved in a casualized instanced raiding scene? Perhaps corpses disapear when the instance expires? That might not be a bad way to preserve the death penalty.
Shai said: bryanleo9 is right about that. These games do tend to attract disaffected folks who use it as an opportunity for social empowerment. That can result in really great experiences or the worst kind of asshattery. I don't know how to solve it, but I hope the objective is to help people who want to use their virtual social capital for good and to frustrate the ones that want to stick it to everybody they meet.
You just accept it for what it is. You take the good with the bad, realize it's a game and find a way to enjoy those asshats. How much this stuff bothers you is really up to you!
One thing to keep in mind is humans have a tendancy to give greater weight to negative experiences when recalling them.
VR could have free for all open world competition servers, lockout servers, and even instance raid mob servers. And we can decide the play style we want to enjoy.
Mod Edit: Spelling - so I could remove double post.
Lyyr said:Did you ever raid in a peristant world? having to share the space with your fellow players creates a far richer experience than instancing ever will, and it's not just content denial, that actually happens pretty rarely.
I actually have been on both sides of this. And I can assure you that there is noone that feels that by being c-blocked or content denied by another guild creates a rich enviroment.
And I really question your statement of raiding creating a far richer environment. How often are you watching another guild raid... how often are you near the raid boss they are killing... the only people that are seen by other raid groups forming and raiding would be an opposing force.
The reason Daybreak Games actually instanced the EQ1 tlps was because 98% of the population was being held back by 2 guilds and eventually settled on instances being the best option.
Lyyr said:If every raid gets it's own personal loot pinata to beat on
If the content is hard enough, nothing can be considered a loot pinata.
If I took the average wow guild and put them in a mythic raid environment, they would fail miserably. That's not a loot pinata. A loot pinata would be extremely trivial boss fights that take no skill or preparation to beat... while allowing everyone to have their own instance...
Just raid instancing itself is not a loot pinata.
bryanleo9 said: VR could have free for all open world competition servers, lockout servers, and even instance raid mob servers. And we can decide they play style we want to enjoy.
This wont change anything. The reason this thread exists is to find a way for multiple people on a server to have a decently fair chance at seeing the content. Taking the top 2 guilds off and sending then to a more competitive server would only take guild 3 and make then guild 1. The actual problem wont change.
Lyyr said:Shai said: bryanleo9 is right about that. These games do tend to attract disaffected folks who use it as an opportunity for social empowerment. That can result in really great experiences or the worst kind of asshattery. I don't know how to solve it, but I hope the objective is to help people who want to use their virtual social capital for good and to frustrate the ones that want to stick it to everybody they meet.You just accept it for what it is. You take the good with the bad, realize it's a game and find a way to enjoy those asshats. How much this stuff bothers you is really up to you!
One thing to keep in mind is humans have a tendancy to give greater weight to negative experiences when recalling them.
Freaking nailing it, Lyyr. Preach on.
Porygon said:I actually have been on both sides of this. And I can assure you that there is noone that feels that by being c-blocked or content denied by another guild creates a rich enviroment.
And I really question your statement of raiding creating a far richer environment. How often are you watching another guild raid... how often are you near the raid boss they are killing... the only people that are seen by other raid groups forming and raiding would be an opposing force.
Now I have to question if you ever raided in Everquest before it was infected with instancing. You are viewing it entirely as raid force vs. raid force. It wasn't like how you are presenting it. Raiders showing up to take on Vox, Nagafen, Trakanon, Venril Sathir, Kunark dragons, Velketor, and many other high value targets had to do so in zonea that were bieng used by other players for purposes besides raiding. This kept the raiding guilds a part of thier server communities, everyone knew who the raiders were because they went to the same zones as everone else did for the most part. Pulling the raid content out of the persistant world putting it into instances removes those players from the community during raids. For those zones where raiding and grouping content overlapped it reduces thier depth, danger and mystery and makes them shallow.
Did you ever get to raid Temple of Veeshan when it was new? Multiple guilds raiding the same zone was awesome on so many levels.
Porygon said:The reason Daybreak Games actually instanced the EQ1 tlps was because 98% of the population was being held back by 2 guilds and eventually settled on instances being the best option.
I am not surprised that TLP mirrored live as far as number of guilds at the top. Two guilds/alliances dominating current content was pretty much the norm for every server in Everquest. I am also not surprised that daybreak just went for the easy fix of instancing the content. They don't have a lot of resources to devote to new development for Everquest. If you look at what was involved with gaining access to zones like veeshans peak, sleepers tomb, and vex thal and multiplied it by the number of people in the raid force, it's no wonder only two raid forces per server would make it to the end while content was current. I do believe it is possible to design content in quality and quantity at this point in time that will prevent the kinds of scenarios everyone fears will play out if there is no instancing or lockouts. The team leading Visionary Realms are some of the most experienced and consistant producers of MMORPG's there are.
Porygon said:If the content is hard enough, nothing can be considered a loot pinata.
If I took the average wow guild and put them in a mythic raid environment, they would fail miserably. That's not a loot pinata. A loot pinata would be extremely trivial boss fights that take no skill or preparation to beat... while allowing everyone to have their own instance...
Just raid instancing itself is not a loot pinata.
Do you really think that if Visionary Realms started casualizing Pantheon by adding raid instances it would stop there? It wouldn't. It would continue until the Pantheon resembled another WoW clone. I consider any instanced content a loot pinata, not just raids. The game ceases being a world you inhabit with others and becomes your own personal paper mache donkey to whack till you get the candy out, difficulty is irrelevant (blind fold vs. no blind fold vs. spin while blind folded). Instancing in it's worst cases it's actually operant conditioning.
Also I'll ask you again. How would you preserve the risk presented by Pantheons death penalty in an instanced raid enviroment? Particularly the risk of gear loss.
Porygon said:
I actually have been on both sides of this. And I can assure you that there is noone that feels that by being c-blocked or content denied by another guild creates a rich enviroment.
And I really question your statement of raiding creating a far richer environment.
I have to point out that one of my favorite parts of raiding is mobilizing.
By mobilizing I mean getting your whole guild to a certain raid mob from all over the world as quickly and efficiently as possible once a target has been chosen. That is part of the fun and part of what separates good guilds from others, how efficiently they can mobilize.
Of course there are times when you get there and there is another guild there. The race to see who can get the required amount of people there first is exciting. Maybe one of the guilds pulls early because they fear the other guild will get the kill. Maybe they aren't completely buffed or maybe not everyone is there yet. The encounter is much more exciting because of the interaction with the other guild. Not knowing what will happen.
Sometimes you get there and another guild is taking down the mob and that is totally fine. Instancing sterilizes the experience. Raiding in an open world creates a much richer experience that isn't possible with instances.
I would rather get to a raid mob and have another guild be killing it repeatedly than have a bland, instanced experience.
Luckily we know instancing is going to be used very minimally so this is basically a waste of breath.
Lyrr said:Alot of stuff
Lol, ok. Few things. A very very few people had the capabilities to farm fire and ice giants. So raiding naggy and vox literally meant plowing thru the zone until you were outside those areas. Which noone was.. so the only socialization involved is the raid running over the other players. Same with velketor, venril sathir and even trakanon. There for a guild running to these mobs and zoning into an instance would be the same as it was when it was a single persistent world.
As far as the keying processes... you are miles off on this one. The keys for VP and VT weren't the issues. Everyone on the server had those 99% completed... with the exception of the last pieces. Which they couldnt get because they were c-blocked from killing trak and emp.
Your fear of vr instancing everything is completely ridiculous. That's basically akin to saying you dont trust them to even remotely stick to what they have said (since they've never ruled out instancing) If that's true, why are you here? Instancing raids would do nothing to impact the socialization on the server... as mentioned in my previous post.. it would actually increase it. By allowing more guilds to recruit for raids and allowing pugs to take chances.
Look man, I've said it before. I dont care either way. I know for a fact I will be in whatever guild is #1, that's my entire goal. I will be killing the bosses whenever possible... I honestly feel that instancing raids would create a much better server atmosphere than the other way around. Contrary to your views.
philo said:.I would rather get to a raid mob and have another guild be killing it repeatedly than have a bland, instanced experience.
See, you say this. But when your guild get the the raid boss for the 20th time and you lose out to the same guild because they mobilize faster, and have more players, and are more coordinated... it tends to get old. People tend to get sick, and quit. Or move along to said better guild. Now on the 30th or 40th time you finally get there ahead of them. All of the stars lined up and now you dont have enough's tanks to pull. Or the right healer group, because they've quit or moved on... this is demoralizing. It's not fun.
But if this is what people want. I'm all for it. I really am. I just know what the rhetoric will be several months after the same guild has kept 95% of the raid bosses down.
At the end of the day, there are only two important questions here. VR has made it pretty clear that they will use the traditional form of instancing very rarely. They have also said that they are looking at shards (duplicate zone copies) and lockouts (ghost mechanic from Vanguard) as two viable features that promote content accessibility. I absolutely agree that open world content is infinitely more satisfying than instances could ever be and it's one of the main draws for this game, to me. That said, neither the shards or lockouts are technically considered instances. They fall into this gray area that kind of accomplish the same thing without taking people out of the persistent world. So all that matters to me at this point is whether or not VR is committed to either of those things. Both of them have been brought up numerous times when people started asking questions about content accessibility but a lot of people I have spoken with recently feel that these features have been "phased out."
I am not a fan of shards at all because it leads to massive loot saturation and still feels very close to instancing. I would be okay with ghosts because at least with these, you can do it on a per-mob basis instead of entire zones. You still get to control the influx of loot. Again, though, it all boils down to whether or not these are still planned features. They have been alluded to many times but there has never been a sincere commitment to either. So in a way, VR has demonstrated that they view content accessibility as important for the overall health of the game ... but how they go about delivering whatever version they feel is best has yet to be determined. It's possible that both have been scrapped completely, and there may or may not be a chance that they have been replaced with something else. We're all just spinning wheels here until VR confirms the intent to follow through with either of these features. One opinion that is growing in popularity is that VR has pretty much abandoned the notion of content accessibility and that all content will be purely contested.
Porygon said:If you want to have a ffa at endgame. You should have no instances and let guilds figure it out themselves.
That sounds awesome, sign me up. In all fairness I fully realize the PvP server will house a minority of the overall community.
Back on track, no one likes lockout timers, but I understand why they are utilized. They slow progression to increase player retention and provide developers additional time to generate new content. Once guilds learn the mechanics, bosses are easily put on farm status and become exponentially easier with every new piece of loot obtained by the raid. It’s unreasonable without lockout timers or similar gating mechanics to expect new content keep pace with guilds’ ability to totally farm out an instance.
I am concerned though, that lockout timers will be used in addition to the Progeny System to buy additional development time and incentivize the community to recycle old content instead of focusing on new content.