Lyyr said:Pardo and Kaplan are not innovators.
Dude, what are you even talking about. All I said was that I agree with his statement regarding competition. I didn't say he was god.
Lyyr said:Ok I am pretty much 100% sure you didn't play much EQ, or were very young when you did. It's great you are enjoying TLP, but please realize that it is nowhere near the original experience.
I mean if you're just going to say random things and assume they are correct that's cool. This will just be a waste of time.
Also. I have been in positions of power on servers. And we absolutely 100% c-blocked other guilds. We destroyed traks teeth just so someone couldnt loot a corpse afterwards. And the only bottleneck for VP was AJ. Dont act like the entire thing was an issue. AJ was the only problematic piece for most players.
Talonguard said:Group C: Very small group, mostly one very active person arguing against both group A and group B because they want to see instanced raids, even though VR has expressly stated there will not be instanced content of that ilk, from day 1.(notice I didn't say no instancing at all.)
If you cared to read the thread, you should have seen that I have stated multiple times that I dont care at the end if the day what VRs decision is. I just want a long lasting game that I can play for years to come. And that won't happen if there is frustration at end game.
Also, the example that the gentleman gave in order to create an un-exploitable lockout mechanic was fine. But I doubt that will ever be used. And it still creates the issue of essentially creating a rotation with the top guilds.
And philo. My comment was meant to mean that once you are an efficient raid force theres only so much you can improve. If it takes a bard 5.5 mins to zone from point a to point b. You cant really develop more skills to speed that up once you know the quickest way you use it. There are ceilings that you hit when trying to be more efficient. That's all.
Lyyr said:Yup raiding is more trouble than it's worth for a persistant, open world. Too many people have been conditioned by WoW and FF14. Everybody wants everything at thier convienance now.
Agreed, I think it will be a rude awakening for some. Some will enjoy a open world type of competitive raiding system while others will be turned off by it. We could say that about a lot of the systems in Pantheon. It definitely won't be catering to the masses.
zewtastic said:The problem could have been solved with more Raid Bosses respawns that did not operate like clock work.
Yup this and batphones is the cause of raid boss camping. Inny and CT in casic EQ had it right with they ridiculously large margin of error (days) in spawn time. I believe the keys to keep guilds from poop socking is randomness, difficulty, quality, duration, quantity.
Randomness: Make it near impossible to predict when (possibly even where) a boss will spawn
Difficulty: Make it so even the best geared people might still wipe if they aren't on their toes
Quality: Ensure all bosses drop highly desired gear by at least one or two classes
Duration: Make the raids long, make it an investment, put lots of mini-bosses with some chance to drop a decent item along the way, in case we need to log out early we still get the chance for loot.
Quantity: Give loads of options to choose from, so even if the hardest of hardcore raiders spent all day every day hitting these mobs, there are still plenty left for others.
I don't really like the idea of lockout timers either, but there does have to be something to stop one or 2 guilds from controlling every raid encounter. Instead of lockout timers, maybe the raid mob can just have a mechanic where it remembers the characters of raiding level that last killed him via a tag of some sort much like a buff stays on a character, where if the raid mob detects a character with this buff it will then have an uncontrollable range or mode of attacks on those characters. For example, if a player engages a raid mob that was recently killed by said player, the mob would instantly target that character and take him down maybe prefering healers or cloth wearers. The goal here isn't to make it impossible, but to make it almost impossible in that the raid mob is no longer controllable like it was before until it forgets those characters. Just an idea because lockout sounds like a newage bandaid type of thing, why not just give some sense to it.
Yes yes and yes. Lots of raid bosses where one raid boss takes up a nights worth time (long). Also make it so you can't logout in dungeon and raid areas and also they can't summon past all the beginning stuff. Eliminate the shortcuts.
Yup this and batphones is the cause of raid boss camping. Inny and CT in casic EQ had it right with they ridiculously large margin of error (days) in spawn time. I believe the keys to keep guilds from poop socking is randomness, difficulty, quality, duration, quantity.
Randomness: Make it near impossible to predict when (possibly even where) a boss will spawn
Difficulty: Make it so even the best geared people might still wipe if they aren't on their toes
Quality: Ensure all bosses drop highly desired gear by at least one or two classes
Duration: Make the raids long, make it an investment, put lots of mini-bosses with some chance to drop a decent item along the way, in case we need to log out early we still get the chance for loot.
Quantity: Give loads of options to choose from, so even if the hardest of hardcore raiders spent all day every day hitting these mobs, there are still plenty left for others.
Thats fine. I was hoping there was some nuance to your proposal that I missed.
Maybe it could be explained more simply? Something like:
There will be miniboss fights that have lockout timers that prepare you for a main boss encounter that is a standard spawn (no lockout timers)?
That would not be accurate. This is an idea I have discussed with at least 50 people over the last year or so and nobody else has drawn that same conclusion. I posted the original concept (simple version) and the expanded one. Trying to make it "super simple" is just going to remove context that ties things together. If you have read both versions and it still doesn't make sense then I don't really know what to say. I never referred to anything as a mini boss.
philo said:Agreed, I think it will be a rude awakening for some. Some will enjoy a open world type of competitive raiding system while others will be turned off by it. We could say that about a lot of the systems in Pantheon. It definitely won't be catering to the masses.
I am not sure those in favor of lockout timers and genuine chances for players to try their hand at very difficult raids/encounters are going the be the ones with a rude awakening. Given the only references to competition from VR on this are about how it was generally negative in terms of experience:
"Likewise, some game mechanics often associated with earlier MMOs involved inordinate amounts of downtime, overly severe penalties, too much competition over content and resources, and even downright boring or overly repetitive gameplay. Our intention, therefore, is not to bring back ‘everything’ from the old days, but rather to pick and choose those which make sense and are needed to make a fun, social, cooperative, and challenging game."
"Overcrowding and too much competition are indeed problems that have plagued both MMOs with and without instancing. If there are not enough players around, it can be hard to group and socialize. But if there are too many people around, the world feels crowded and people have to wait for encounters or spawns, or even compete for them. "
The no lockout/no instance crowd seems to be missing this point. Why would they go back to raiding exactly like how EQ had it with the hyper competition when they acknowledge above that it was a problem to the point of calling it a "plague" ? There is no way in hell they can create enough raid content for it to work out given their commitment to making this game primarily group based and their constant emphasis that this is not a raid focused game and that raiding will only be a small part of it. Top that off with numerous mentions of possibly using lockout timers or other methods to combat content denial by devs on the forums over the past years.
@187
An easier version of the main boss is in essense a miniboss. Lets not get hung up on verbiage.
I thought you did a pretty good job of explaining it in the first one. Sometimes over explaining doesn't add anything. Simplifying to only the info that is absolutely necessary can be helpful.
I never said it was a bad idea...which it seems like you imply that's how I think (maybe I'm wrong?). I'm just trying to understand if there is something I didn't catch. I feel like I understand what you are proposing but it seemed like a lot of explanation for what boils down to a fairly simple idea...so that lead me to think I might have missed something.
It seems like you have it backwards. The "main boss" is the standard version, if anything. The hyper version (or true hyper in the expanded version) is simply a contested version that is a bit more difficult and drops higher quality loot. I know you say that we shouldn't get hung up on verbiage so why not just use the same verbiage instead of twisting things? To be fair, I never used the word "main boss" either. Standard is not the same thing as mini. Hyper is not the same thing as main. Maybe this is where the nuance is?
@Iks
We do know that the official stance is to only utilize instancing rarely. Beyond that we will have to wait and see how things pan out as we get closer to release.
Having any open world competition for raid mobs will be a rude awakening for some even if they all don't utilize that mechanic. Also, some systems might be a rude awakening in general like I mentioned...for a number of reasons (I know that's vague but I don't want to get to off topic and derail the thread).
oneADseven said:It seems like you have it backwards. The "main boss" is the standard version. The hyper version is simply a contested version that is a bit more difficult and drops higher quality loot. I know you say that we shouldn't get hung up on verbiage so why not just use the same verbiage instead of twisting things?
I just think using boss and miniboss are terms that are more generally understood.
But for you and I talking directly I can refer to the more difficult encounter as the hyper boss if you prefer.
The hyper version is the bigger boss...with the better loot. The other, weaker, version... is the mob that you fight that prepares you for the fight with the hyper version ( it's a stepping stone type of encounter).
The weaker version is on a lockout timer with a much faster spawn time, while the hyper version is a more standard raid mob with a long-ish spawn time and is a contested spawn (no lockout timers apply).
Is that the general idea?...without getting into specifics? Any glaring errors there?
While the standard version would be weaker than the hyper version, it should still be considered "standard" and very difficult. It would not be fair to consider the hyper version the standard version, thus the "hyper" distinction. I know I referred to the standard version as a sort of stepping stone but it isn't in the same context as what you described in your initial response. The "standard" version aka ghost version would still be very challenging and defeating it should be considered an accomplishment in and of itself. Don't think of it as a weak pushover. Think of it as more of an accessible version of the "hyper" version that is toned a bit for multiple reasons. Risk vs reward is important so if we are indeed going down the path of lockouts as has been alluded to, I think it makes sense to offer both types of encounters to preserve meaningful competition while still offering a degree of content accessibility. It allows players to learn the encounter because it is content that cannot be monopolized. I know I went into deep detail explaining things and a big part of that was to try and paint a picture that is quite a bit different from the typical "stepping stone" type of encounter that we have seen in the past. The entire point of this concept is to make content accessible without removing the sense of competition that many players appreciate having in an open world game.
Just to be clear, in my mind the hyper version (when it is current content) will likely only be killable by the top guilds on the server and the weaker version would be killable by those top 5ish, or slightly weaker, guilds (don't get hung up in my rankings). The point is that I understand they are both "raid level" difficulty mobs.
I admit I'm struggling a bit with the concept because I keep expecting you to point out a major discrepency in my understanding of the system and it seems like I'm just rephrasing what I mentioned before.
It's a fine system, I understand the reasoning behind it. I guess what I'm still not grasping is why it has to be a weaker version of the same mob and not just a different encounter with a similar strategy to what is utilized in the "hyper" version fight so that the players learn what to do in the fight without fighting a weaker version of the same mob?
Can't you have a different mob that teaches players about the next encounter? Utilizing the exact same mob as a weaker version seems like lazy development. Normally stepping stone encounters aren't the exact same mob and they still prepare the players for the next, harder, encounter.
(the above question purposefully avoids the lockout timer discussion. Which, from a personal point of view, I'm fine with weaker raid mobs having a lockout timer and only having the best loot be contested. That doesn't get into the whole discussion about if lockout timers fit into VRs vision)
@Philo
Normally, (at least in my experience) stepping stone encounters are something you find in an instance. Maybe stepping stone wasn't the best way to describe the ghost version. You don't necessarily need to kill the ghost version in order to kill the hyper version. In fact, I'm pretty sure what I suggested worked the opposite way. The "first" spawn would be hyper. Once that version is killed, it respawns as the ghost version. If the mob would generally have had a 5 day respawn window without the lockout mechanic being considered, then after 5 days (approximately) the ghost version would evolve back to the hyper version. I know this may sound like lazy development but I actually think it's being extremely resourceful. Creating unique challenging encounters is no easy feat so we are taking various encounter designs and offering them to the playerbase in a way that is both accessible and competitive at the same time.
Another option to consider (that would be much lazier) would be a system where all raid mobs spawn as a "ghost" as their "standard" version ... but once per 3-5 days, another copy of the mob spawns that is purely contested. The encounter would be the exact same as the ghost version but the only difference is that it would be a "bonus kill" available once every few days or so. I really loved the way FFXI utilized the "hyper" versions of bosses and will admit that this concept was influenced by both my understanding of how the ghost mechanic worked in Vanguard, and what I remember regarding how the hyper mechanic worked in FFXI. As far as whether or not lockout timers fit into VR's vision, this is something I would like to know ... is this truly being considered as a viable option or is it just an imaginary carrot being dangled? Content accessibility has come up countless times and VR has consistently stated that the ghost mechanic from Vanguard was something they were considering for Pantheon because of how well it worked in Vanguard. This idea was crafted with that realization in mind. I have never personally experienced a lockout mechanic in an open world game.
I'm going to touch on your specific question:
"I guess what I'm still not grasping is why it has to be a weaker version of the same mob and not just a different encounter with a similar strategy to what is utilized in the "hyper" version fight so that the players learn what to do in the fight without fighting a weaker version of the same mob?"
This is something I tried to explain in detail (the added context wasn't absolutely necessary but I was hoping it would help deliver some important takeaways) in my other posts. I have been a hardcore raider for many years so when I hear people complaining about content denial or anything related to it, I completely understand where they are coming from. I have been on the other side of that coin since I first started playing. I have always been competitive and will be the first to admit that the general philosophy is to deny as much content as possible. We would always encourage guild members to rush to max level so that we had free reign over attempting "contested" encounters while they weren't actually "contested" at all. This is because we were so far ahead on the leveling curve that there just wasn't much of an opportunity for people to compete unless they managed to keep up with our almost insane commitment to grinding. There are many issues with this. For one, it's been stated countless times that Pantheon won't be a game where people feel compelled to rush to max level. This concept is partially inspired by that statement. It doesn't matter if you rush in an effort to monopolize these kind of encounters because eventually ... when people catch up, they WILL have an opportunity to engage the "standard" or "ghost" version.
This is something they would otherwise have a very hard time accomplishing. Once the top guilds get this content on farm, they poop sock it and bat phone it. They kill it within a short period of the mob spawning and DENY the rest of the server any chance to practice the encounter and actually learn the timing/mechanics that are required to defeat it. This is why I think it's incredibly important to offer both the standard and hyper versions. You can't deny players the ability to get the encounter mechanics down. Lockouts are focused on content accessiblity and that's exactly what we're talking about here. People will have their chance to learn the encounter and put themselves in a better position to contest the hyper version when it spawns. This makes for a more fulfilling and meaningful competitive scene because the ability to block other players is diminished quite a bit. The value of poopsocking and batphoning is decreased with this system. Are people still going to go ham for the hyper version? Sure ... but they can never prevent others from at least understanding the basics of how that encounter works or continue expanding an otherwise insurmountable power gap that can be achieved by rushing to max and taking advantage of an "uncontested" / "competitive" raid scene. It offers content accessibility without removing the thrill of competition ... in fact, I would argue that it makes getting involved in the competitive raid scene more meaningful and accessible. We need to stop letting players ruin the fun for others ... if you create a scenario where denying content from others offers an edge, it becomes a rule, by default, to do that, and do it as much as possible. It truly seems like a "best of both worlds" type of system to me that strikes a sweet middle ground that fosters a healthier sense of competition that would hopefully alleviate the pseudo-PVP concerns that many people have.
For discussions sake, lets assume a separate mob has the exact same loot table and a very similar fight to the "ghost" version. You must realize that the reason the "ghost" version was implemented how you are describing is because the developers were rushing out content and it was easier for them to push out an identicle mob with lower stats than to create a whole new mob/encounter. It's what I call lazy development. (it can still have the same lockout timer.)
I can site numerous examples where stepping stone encounters are not instanced. That is not how they have to be. What I consider the best dungeon ever made in any mmo, ToV (when it was current) in EQ, was full of stepping stone mobs that lead you through it little by little as your guild increased in power. I know some people will relate to that dungeon...
We all understand that some guilds will monopolize content. Granted, they will tend to monopolize the mobs with the best loot most often (the hyper version). But I think we all understand the benefits of lockout timers...similar to instances. That doesn't have to be explained. We understand that having lockout timers on the ghost version at least leaves table scraps on the table for the weaker raiding guilds. That doesn't address the guilds who are fighting to compete for the hyper version...but I'm guessing you might think that isn't as much of a priority? Let them fight it out? (you don't need to answer that, it was hypothetical and a whole other discussion about where we should draw that line ).
In the end, I understand the reasoning behind what you are saying and, personally, I'm fine with lockout timers on weaker raid mobs to leave table scraps on the table for more casual raiders but I still think the "ghost" mob shouldn't be identical to the hyper version. That's lazy/poor development. I expect better from VR.
The ghost version wouldn't be identical to the hyper version. The hyper version would be noticably stronger which helps justify it dropping an extra piece or two of higher quality loot. If you didn't get to experience the "Behemoth/King Behemoth -- Adamantoise/Aspidochelone -- Fafnir/Nidhogg" encounters in FFXI, I suppose it makes sense that you would think this is lazy development. Again, I consider it resourceful. The standard mobs are still considered incredibly important ... and their rewards shouldn't be viewed as table scraps. It seems like you have a preconceived notion of how all of this would play out whereas I'm actually referencing prior experience with this kind of feature, at least in regards to the "hyper" aspect. I will admit that I didn't get to personally experience the ghost mechanic from Vanguard but I feel I understand why it was created and how it could be merged with other ideas without lessening it's impact.
oneADseven said:The ghost version wouldn't be identical to the hyper version. The hyper version would be noticably stronger which helps justify it dropping an extra piece or two of higher quality loot. If you didn't get to experience the "Behemoth/King Behemoth -- Adamantoise/Aspidochelone -- Fafnir/Nidhogg" encounters in FFXI, I suppose it makes sense that you would think this is lazy development. Again, I consider it resourceful. The standard mobs are still considered incredibly important ... and their rewards shouldn't be viewed as table scraps. It seems like you have a preconceived notion of how all of this would play out whereas I'm actually referencing prior experience with this kind of feature, at least in regards to the "hyper" aspect. I will admit that I didn't get to personally experience the ghost mechanic from Vanguard but I feel I understand why it was created and how it could be merged with other ideas without lessening it's impact.
Its the same mob only weaker, its lazy development whether you realize it or not. Again, I have understood exactly what you were explaining from the very beginning. I kept waiting for the explanation of what I was missing but it just isn't coming at this point. The whole ghost/hyper version, one with a lockout timer, is a very simple concept. I understand the reason behind why it is implemented how it is.
Content is king. I think we'll just have to disagree on what qualifies as lazy development. Again, I consider it resourceful. We already know that raid content in general will be much more limited than group content so if it's possible to recycle existing resources in any meaningful way, I think it's worth exploring, especially in this sense since it's focused on content accessibility. The hyper version doesn't necessarily have to be stronger from just a stat perspective. If it's something that spawns adds, maybe it spawns a few more of a different archetype. If it features some sort of atmosphere/environment effect, maybe it adds in some other variables that consider duration, range, potency, or even adding an additional atmospheric layer altogether. When I think of lazy development, I imagine "enrage timers" being applied to content across the board as a way to add "challenge." When I think about taking a Behemoth and turning it into a "King Behemoth" I think it's possible to get really clever with the toolbox. It's only lazy development if you're actually lazy with how you go about doing it. It's clever/resourceful development if you do it the right way.
Hardmode bosses is something I would love for Pantheon to explore, not a difficulty setting, but a different way of killing the boss, let's use Yog' Saron from wow as the perfect example, the fight on it's core consists of killing the boss with the help of 3 or 4 "watchers" NPC«s that make the fight much easier, but you can talk to the NPC's and tell them you don't want their help, so instead the raid fights the boss "alone" making the fight that much harder, but giving more loot or even better giving really good loot exclusive to the hardmode (not empowered version of items that already exist, but completly new items that are even stronger). Most of the bosses in Ulduar (possibly the best raid ever) have an hardmode "toggle" option, but it's all natural to the fight, not a UI thingy, for example isntead of killing the bosses earth while it's vulnerable you can choose not to leading to the boss becoming more empowered, making the fight harder and also giving more loot, activating a lever and the fight becoming insanly hard due to more adds, or a part of the encoutner room colapsing, etc.
To me this is the perfect way of creating hardedome content without separating it into difficulties and basically doubling the ammount of content available becase you're making content for the casual raiders and hardcore raiders at the same time, there's no UI toggel to select the difficulty, instead you interact with the world to choose the difficulty of the encounter. Maybe this type of hardmode encounter could only be activated once every week and you only add one chance to deafeat after the activation, if the raid failed at killing the hardmode on the first few tries (maybe hours 2-3 hours before the hardmode activation fades), so it's a type of soft "lookout" and only the best of the best would be able to kill it.