I think Porygon's last post pretty well nailed it here.
It is very *difficult* after all these years to draw a distinction between what should be in Pantheon because it was in EQ and helped make that game great, and what should not be in Pantheon because although it was in EQ that game was great despite it not because of it.
No one here is likely to disagree whan I say that some things were in EQ because that was the best that programming at the time could handle and computers and internet connections at the time could take. The developers doubtlessly wanted to do more but lacked the technology or support structure or linkages to do it. Now they *can* do more.
No one here is likely to disagree when I say that no feature of EQ should be *automatically* put in Pantheon *merely* because it was in EQ. The feature should pass a second test - does critical analysis show that the feature will support Pantheon's core principles, detract from them or be irrelevant.
If the answer is that the feature is neutral - it will neither help nor harm Pantheon - putting it in because some people will enjoy it for nostalgia reasons is entirely appropriate. When some of us say "this feature is terrible you supporters are governed by nostalgia and look at it through "rose-colored glasses" they key point is that we feel the feature is undesirable. The rest is just argument. If the feature is neither good nor bad in the only judgment that matters - VR's - put the damn thing in and let nostalgia weigh in on the scales.
Porygon said:You can make a game that has a large, heavy resemblance to EQ (obviously, since that's what they are doing) but also remove some of the inconvenience of EQ.
Some of us who have played a ton of MMO's, hell tested a ton of MMO's, have come to realize that some of the secret sauce of EQ was rooted in the inconvenience of some systems. It's almost impossible to quantify it until you correlate it with games that have removed it, and do so over a broad spectrum.
This is not to say that there were not flat out stupid things about EQ I really disliked. I thought it was rather punitive and pointlesss to make casters stare at their spellbook while medding for 5 full minutes or more. But when I think back to some of the more vivid and fond memories of EQ they are directly associated with the inconveniences. Like the escort service our guild put together to earn money while providing gaurd services to other players. Or like the day I turned a PGT and a suit of bronze armor into a Flowing Black Robe by bartering thru a dozen or more transactions. Or the day I finally completed a full suit of Armor of Ro (server 2nd) when so few others would even attempt it because of all the very long back and forth travels across multiple continents, the grind to get smithing skill (among others), the faction grinds, etc.. Or the day our guild wiped in Plane of Fear, didn't have sufficient backup gear to make another break to get our corpses, and not one, not two, but three other guilds banded together to get just enough of a break to help our corpse recovery. Or the multiple times our guild was the rescuer in multiple planes for other guilds in the same situation.
My sense of accomplishment was 100% rooted in how time consuming and inconvenient and brutal these things were to complete. When we overcame the situation we were ecstatic. These are directly related. The degree to which you have to overcome defines the degree of accomplishment you can feel, and the degree to which the experience effects you over time. I still remember those events from 15+ years ago. I have no fond memories of WoW, or SWG, or Warhammer, or a laundry list of other games because they didn't have the same kinds of challenges.
The three things you put in that post that "won't drastically change the core gameplay" would wholly elminate all of the memories I listed above.
Breaking into the Planes, rescuing other guilds, being assisted by other guilds, negotiations with other guilds about open world spawns, personal trading, corpse runs, and meaningful death penalties are all things that made Everquest great. These were all very important parts of EQ. The whole instant gratification, no real penalties, community inhibiting series of features that made WoW popular don't hold a place in the hearts of most of the fans of Pantheon because we are here to play a game that brings us back to EQ. What people call an inconvenience is actually an important part of the game. That is why we passionate about these things. It's not rose colored glasses. It's what we want from a game. Just because you view something as an inconvenience doesn't mean it isn't an important part of the game. Some of these features may make some people unhappy, I understand that, but they are features that a core part of the experience, and it could mean that the game isn't for you. Not that the game needs to be brought closer to WoW.
I guess another way to explain it is if you dislike the idea of actually selling items to people and *gasp* interacting with the community, why pick a game greatly inspired by a game where that was popular? If you dislike the idea of corpse runs, why pick a game that is greatly inspired by a game where that will be occuring? If you dislike exp loss on death, then why pick a game that includes that as part of the learning curve? If you dislike the idea of monsters/raids being in open world areas, why pick a game where that is the intended style of gameplay? If you dislike the idea of having to group frequently for the best gameplay experience, why pick a game where that is the backbone of gameplay? Instead of trying to get them to change so many core gameplay features because they inconvenience you, maybe your gameplay style should change to suit the game.
LucasBlackstone said:I guess another way to explain it is if you dislike the idea of actually selling items to people and *gasp* interacting with the community, why pick a game greatly inspired by a game where that was popular? If you dislike the idea of corpse runs, why pick a game that is greatly inspired by a game where that will be occuring? If you dislike exp loss on death, then why pick a game that includes that as part of the learning curve? If you dislike the idea of monsters/raids being in open world areas, why pick a game where that is the intended style of gameplay? If you dislike the idea of having to group frequently for the best gameplay experience, why pick a game where that is the backbone of gameplay? Instead of trying to get them to change so many core gameplay features because they inconvenience you, maybe your gameplay style should change to suit the game.
I'm in favor of most of the things mentioned here but I do think there is room to meet somewhere in the middle on a few issues.
1.) Selling items - I think a localized AH system would be great. It allows you to buy/sell items in an organized manner. Thats not to say that people wont still sell items the old way... The AH should have a tax to sell and a fee to buy for using the service, just as they would in RL. In order to avoid that tax, or fee, people can still opt to sell items the old way. To me, that is a great compromise that allows both sides to be happy.
2.)Corpse run - I have had my fun with corpse runs but I see no need to bring them back as they once were. I liked an idea in another thread regarding an alternative but can't remember which thread. Upon death, you respawn at a location with your gear and 15-20% exp lost for that level, with possibility of de-leveling. You have a 2-3 hour window to return to your body to recover 10-15% of your exp, maybe the faster you get there the more you get back? If you do not feel like doing the corpse run then you still lost a couple hours worth of exp, so there is an incentive to not die. This idea was proposed because in Pantheon there is gear that allows you to acclimate to a climate... if you are gearless then you might not be able to gear back to where your body is... also, classes have specific actions that allow party members to break a wall, or cross a ravine etc... if those party memebers leave then you can't get back to your body and you would be stuck naked waiting for help. Just seems unnecessary to me.
Porygon, everything you listed above (instant travel, offline auction house and raid instances) are the things that would just make this another craptastic WoW-clone, of which the genre is completely saturated with. The entire purpose of PRF is exactly the opposite of that.
Reposting Kilsen's response in a thread about raids.
Kilsen said:[...] Please don't argue over opinion or suggestions, we will be sticking to our plan and working with everyone to test it, that will be the time for feedback or discussing pros/cons. So in the meantime, please be respectful of each other, no one reply will change the game or have influence over the dev team, so there is no need to fight so passionately to shut someone down if you see their ideas as a threat. We are all in this together and all want the best for the game, including us! Let's wait and see :)
Porygon said:Parascol said:But jeez man, to act like EQ purists are somehow detracting from what the game should be when they respond with telling others that's how EQ was, isn't really an honest assessment either when the game is practically EQ 3.0 already. What other response is there when the classes are the same as EQ? Well yeah, you'll need a wizard to port, because that's how EQ was and ALSO how Pantheon will be. Take a gander at the class pages to see.
You can make a game that has a large, heavy resemblance to EQ (obviously, since that's what they are doing) but also remove some of the inconvenience of EQ.
Having an auction house won't drastically change the core gameplay.
Having ways to fast travel beyond just wizards and druids won't "drastically" change the core gameplay.
Having "raid instances" won't affect the core gameplay.
These 3 things are some of the most recent discussions that have come about. If you made all 3 of these changes you can still have a game that is largely based upon EQ. I don't look at any of these features and think that they defined EQ. The group centric gameplay (which will still exist), the threat of death penalty (still exists), the style of grinding vs quest hubs still exists. You don't lose the core values of EQ by making some changes, but you do create a world that is most likely going to entice a much larger audience.
(Note, I'm not trying to debate those topics above as they have their own threads, just more so picking topics where you can compromise between eq and modern mmo's and not lose the core values of the game).
It's not that were wanting these items due to nostalgia for EQ. And I agree your point have there own threads but I do want to comment on your assement of each as it pertians to this thread. I don't want a EQ remake but I DO want what made EQ great, And it's more than your seeing.
Auction House, I'll give you. I hated ECT, but there are those that like it and VR can do better than an AH.
"Fast Travel" Here you are wrong and it's not about EQ. It's about world size. It's not forcing the player to first visit the content and then higher levels getting fast travel. Or that stupid "fog of war" in the case of map's. it's ALL about world size, and the world should STAY large. Fast Travel throws that right out the window. Fast Travel by some, that can share this with others gives people reason to meet each other and make friends. TOTALLY wiped out if your discount this as core game play.
"Raid Intances" again here you are totally off base. And again it's not about EQ it's about the World. You enter a dungon and there are people. fighting together, working together, arguing, rescuing, teasing and laughing. TOTALLY wiped out by an instance. They are dead, they arent part of the "World"
Were from differant play styles, your apperantly a Raider want to rush in and get the best gear from the best bosses and want it all your own and don't want to wait for it.
Although I've never considerd myself one I would have to classify myself more as a Roleplayer. Thats why I'm looking for a mmoRPG to play, not a first person shooter. I don't care if your "first" on anything. I don't care if you get that epic dagger of poking. And I'm pretty sure your going to "win" the game sooner than I. I'll probably never "win" as I'm looking for a world to live in not a game to play. I look at it as. to Win, is to hit max level... well in RL we call that death don't we.. get to max and leave. yea, no thanks, I'm good as a level 40. I just don't want them ripping the "world" out from under me.
The things you suggest are going to do just that!
Porygon said:Parascol said:But jeez man, to act like EQ purists are somehow detracting from what the game should be when they respond with telling others that's how EQ was, isn't really an honest assessment either when the game is practically EQ 3.0 already. What other response is there when the classes are the same as EQ? Well yeah, you'll need a wizard to port, because that's how EQ was and ALSO how Pantheon will be. Take a gander at the class pages to see.
You can make a game that has a large, heavy resemblance to EQ (obviously, since that's what they are doing) but also remove some of the inconvenience of EQ.
Having an auction house won't drastically change the core gameplay.
Having ways to fast travel beyond just wizards and druids won't "drastically" change the core gameplay.
Having "raid instances" won't affect the core gameplay.
These 3 things are some of the most recent discussions that have come about. If you made all 3 of these changes you can still have a game that is largely based upon EQ. I don't look at any of these features and think that they defined EQ. The group centric gameplay (which will still exist), the threat of death penalty (still exists), the style of grinding vs quest hubs still exists. You don't lose the core values of EQ by making some changes, but you do create a world that is most likely going to entice a much larger audience.
(Note, I'm not trying to debate those topics above as they have their own threads, just more so picking topics where you can compromise between eq and modern mmo's and not lose the core values of the game).
All of these things require player interdependence and socialization. Yes, some of these things resulted in a little bit of extra time to deal with, but what is being lost in all these debates is the fact that reputation mattered. A lot. People need to think of reputation as another component of progression that requires daily attention. Some classes could solo and do things by themselves, but if they wanted some specific item they had to group with others to get it. All of these 'convenience' features directly correlate to reputation and relationship building. Your reputation within the community was a part of your characters progression, because it had to be. There were cases where some folks didn't get this and ended up alientating everyone around them for various reasons and actually had to leave the server and start fresh elsewhere.
I cannot make you, or anyone else understand this. We've all debated it ad nauseum. All I'm trying to do is explain why it's important to some people that VR take great caution in changing mechanics that reduce player interdependence. Which I think they are. We can see it in what they've implemented already. People can argue for instances all day long, but open-world is a design decision that seems to have been made early in development. People will have to play nicely together, or risk hurting their reputation and ultimately, stall their progression. That's a good thing.
I cannot wait to spend a ton of time in BRK and other dungeons and just being exposed to other groups and the dynamic it creates when you have everyone in the same area.
Parascol said:
All of these things require player interdependence and socialization. Yes, some of these things resulted in a little bit of extra time to deal with, but what is being lost in all these debates is the fact that reputation mattered.
I totally agree with you here. In the old days you would remember people, for the good and for the bad.
Feyshtey said:Porygon said:You can make a game that has a large, heavy resemblance to EQ (obviously, since that's what they are doing) but also remove some of the inconvenience of EQ.
Some of us who have played a ton of MMO's, hell tested a ton of MMO's, have come to realize that some of the secret sauce of EQ was rooted in the inconvenience of some systems. It's almost impossible to quantify it until you correlate it with games that have removed it, and do so over a broad spectrum.
This is not to say that there were not flat out stupid things about EQ I really disliked. I thought it was rather punitive and pointlesss to make casters stare at their spellbook while medding for 5 full minutes or more. But when I think back to some of the more vivid and fond memories of EQ they are directly associated with the inconveniences. Like the escort service our guild put together to earn money while providing gaurd services to other players. Or like the day I turned a PGT and a suit of bronze armor into a Flowing Black Robe by bartering thru a dozen or more transactions. Or the day I finally completed a full suit of Armor of Ro (server 2nd) when so few others would even attempt it because of all the very long back and forth travels across multiple continents, the grind to get smithing skill (among others), the faction grinds, etc.. Or the day our guild wiped in Plane of Fear, didn't have sufficient backup gear to make another break to get our corpses, and not one, not two, but three other guilds banded together to get just enough of a break to help our corpse recovery. Or the multiple times our guild was the rescuer in multiple planes for other guilds in the same situation.
My sense of accomplishment was 100% rooted in how time consuming and inconvenient and brutal these things were to complete. When we overcame the situation we were ecstatic. These are directly related. The degree to which you have to overcome defines the degree of accomplishment you can feel, and the degree to which the experience effects you over time. I still remember those events from 15+ years ago. I have no fond memories of WoW, or SWG, or Warhammer, or a laundry list of other games because they didn't have the same kinds of challenges.
The three things you put in that post that "won't drastically change the core gameplay" would wholly elminate all of the memories I listed above.
I agree with you in concept that the inconvenience of EQ very much added to memorable experiences in the game (and I think most do). Where I think everyone disagrees is which experiences actually added something and which didn't. That probably speaks to our differences as players and individuals, in terms of what we enjoy or don't.
However, I also don't think that things need to be inconvenient to generate a meaningful or memorable experience. There's a difference between inconvenience and challenge and effort and they can come in different ways. I'll give three examples:
1) I loved running my player shop in SWG - more than any other crafting-related thing I have done before or since. Yet, my shop was an NPC vendor who mostly sold stuff while I was offline or away. I wasn't directly interacting with other players behind the counter in my shop all that often. What made it so meaningful and memorable though was the time and effort I put into setting up the shop, stocking it with items, and then the reputation that I was able to build over time. People knew my name, and it hadn't required me to be online at the same time as them for that to happen.
2) In Vanguard, I will always remember the guild hall that my guild built - because it took all of working together for weeks to build it. First saving up the money and doing the endless diplomacy parleys to get the plot, then all the collection needed to actually build the hall itself. I probably would have gone insane if I had tried to do it all myself, but with the entire guild halping, we split up the work and were able to complete it even if it took a while. Afterwards, it was something we had all built together.
3) In LOTRO, I talked a small group of guildmates into exploring an obscure quest line with me, when most players were skipping those and going to expansion content. That quest line turned out to be much longer than we expected, and led us to an instanced dungeon with some really tough fights. There wasn't even a great reward from it, just a title. But it was a title that very few people had. I wore that title with a lot of pride for the rest of my time in that game, because it signified that I had done something special, something that most people hadn't done. Even if many players probably would have thought I was silly for wasting my time on old content when I could have been raiding with them in the expansion.
I have tons of great memories from EQ, but I can also name memorable and meaningful experiences from many other games - even WoW - and convenience systems or the lack thereof wasn't so much a factor as it was the personal investment I had in each one. Because of this, I don't think that "QoL" features are fundamentally bad or detract from the game. What I do think is that the implementation of these features can't be done in a vacuum. It needs to be carefully considered, alongside every other piece of the game. Is fast travel bad? It depends on how it's set up and how far it goes. Is an auction house bad? Again, it depends on how it's implemented, and how it works alongside the game's itemization. Is raid keying bad? It depends on whether it feels like part of a logical, organic progression or whether it feels contrived and tacked-on. All of these things are subjective, which means we as players won't always see them the same way - but, I think the important thing is to try to make everything in the game feel really meaningful, while recognizing that there are multiple ways to achieve that goal, and that they don't all involve tedium or inconvenience for the player.
Nephele said:However, I also don't think that things need to be inconvenient to generate a meaningful or memorable experience. There's a difference between inconvenience and challenge and effort and they can come in different ways. I'll give three examples:I have tons of great memories from EQ, but I can also name memorable and meaningful experiences from many other games - even WoW - and convenience systems or the lack thereof wasn't so much a factor as it was the personal investment I had in each one. Because of this, I don't think that "QoL" features are fundamentally bad or detract from the game. What I do think is that the implementation of these features can't be done in a vacuum. It needs to be carefully considered, alongside every other piece of the game. Is fast travel bad? It depends on how it's set up and how far it goes. Is an auction house bad? Again, it depends on how it's implemented, and how it works alongside the game's itemization. Is raid keying bad? It depends on whether it feels like part of a logical, organic progression or whether it feels contrived and tacked-on. All of these things are subjective, which means we as players won't always see them the same way - but, I think the important thing is to try to make everything in the game feel really meaningful, while recognizing that there are multiple ways to achieve that goal, and that they don't all involve tedium or inconvenience for the player.
Great post. The distinction between inconvenience and challenge is what resonates most with me. I've had plenty of meaningful experiences in the MMOs I've played (and no, EQ was not one of them; I didn't even know what an MMO was until 2008 when a roommate introduced me to the concept). There are memories I will treasure forever, accomplishments I will always take pride in, and friendships I will maintain til the end of my days.
I find myself most engaged in an MMO when the story is well-written enough to grip me and the mechanics of combat are complex and challenging. Design decisions that were done for no other reason than to inconvenience the player really don't add much to the experience for me. I like your point that everything in the game needs to feel meaningful. To me "you must suffer through inconvenience" isn't enough to make a mechanic meaningful. Raid attunements are a great example of straddling this line. It becomes meaningful and enjoyable when it's connected to a story that provides background on the raid into which you want to venture; it becomes just an inconvenience when it's just a box to check off - think doing a rich story chain with some varied open world and instanced encounters related to the raid, vs attunement requirements that are just "kill X many of this mob" and "clear this dungeon X many times".
FeyshteyThe three things you put in that post that "won't drastically change the core gameplay" would wholly elminate all of the memories I listed above.
Just because you have fond memories of these things, doesnt mean they are the only memories you have. You will have opportunities to create more memories involving overcoming challenges regardless of if the game is a clone of EQ or not. Thats what is so confusing. Its always that "all or nothing" style of discussion. Either the game is just like EQ or you feel you cant have fun. Mind you, noone is asking for the game to be drastically changed. The core style of gameplay is never going to change...
LucasBlackstoneI guess another way to explain it is if you dislike the idea of actually selling items to people and *gasp* interacting with the community, why pick a game greatly inspired by a game where that was popular?
Again, this is a poor arguement... because even in WoW, people still spend vast amounts of time trading face to face. Youre acting like if we put an AH in the game, they will disable trading from person to person... it wont. It just creates another way for players who cant spend 2 hours selling their gathered mats to players and still level up that day.
fazoolPorygon, everything you listed above (instant travel, offline auction house and raid instances) are the things that would just make this another craptastic WoW-clone, of which the genre is completely saturated with. The entire purpose of PRF is exactly the opposite of that.
1) No it wont.
The fact that you can literally type this and beleive it, is just insane to me. When you ask someone whats the first different between WoW and EQ that comes to mind, most people would answer with leveling or questing. Followed by grouping and death penalties. None of those thing will change with anything i listed.
Also, if you have read any of the posts on the subject... NOONE IS ASKING FOR INSTANT TRAVEL.
I really dont know how many times i can say this. Anytime someone brings up any form of fast travel (except ports, because my god, they were in EQ so they should be in Pantheon also) people assume they are talking about teleporting from 1 zone to another. Who wants that? f-in WoW didnt even have that. It takes like 19 mins to fly from Undercity to Booty Bay.
Figuring out a way to include "fast travel" at higher levels and after youve explored a significant portion of the game and maybe done some quests will not ruin this game. If you limit where your able to go, and make those areas seperate from Wizard and Druid ports.. you will still get the oh so valuable "WTB Port to XXX" spam that is apparently game changing while still making the max level game far less tedious and also not ruining the leveling experience. I dont see anywhere how that is a negative?
ParascolPeople can argue for instances all day long, but open-world is a design decision that seems to have been made early in development
Zorkon"Raid Intances" again here you are totally off base.
I only quoted this part because i wanted to touch on something that is similar to the overreaction regarding fast travel options.
Noone is asking for instanced dungeons. I actually enjoy heading into an area such as BRK and dealing with other players.
However... there are VERY FEW times that you will end up with multiple guilds raiding the same zone at the same time. There isnt really a need for open world raid zones. If you create instances in the style of the EQ1 TLPs where you mass gather at the entrance, trigger the instance and zone in, you will still get that social interaction you desire in the form of "omg what are all you guys doing here".
I dont want INSTANCED dungeons, but i dont see INSTANCED raids impacting the server in any way shape or form.
Porygon said:FeyshteyThe three things you put in that post that "won't drastically change the core gameplay" would wholly elminate all of the memories I listed above.
Just because you have fond memories of these things, doesnt mean they are the only memories you have. You will have opportunities to create more memories involving overcoming challenges regardless of if the game is a clone of EQ or not. Thats what is so confusing. Its always that "all or nothing" style of discussion. Either the game is just like EQ or you feel you cant have fun. Mind you, noone is asking for the game to be drastically changed. The core style of gameplay is never going to change...
But I don't. I've played at least 2 dozen MMO's since EQ, most of them for several months and some for years. I don't have any stories to tell. I don't have singularly memorable events. I don't have any "I can't believe I finally finished that" moments to share.
Any rational person would have to ask why? Maybe I'm a masochist. But maybe, just maybe, the inconveniences of EQ that havent really existed since were a major, unrecognized, unappreciated ingrediant that made EQ so compelling and so memorable. No game since has recaptured that kind of gameplay experience for me. Not even EQ itself, being that most if not all of those inconveniences have been removed. In fact it was when those inconveniences began being removed that I started to feel less like I was in a virutal lving breathing world and more like I was in an artificial construct. I recognized the changes in the personality of the game and the behavior of its players, and it was obviously attributable to the quality of life elements being put in (read as: taking inconvenience out). I eventually realized that I was so bored because I had to put in so little thought. The game did things for me that used to entice me.
The only reason I played for as long as I did was because of the friends I'd made years previously. And at some point I realized I wasnt really making any new friends either, because I didn't need to nearly as much as I once did. And that was a direct result of "conveniences".
fazool said:Porygon, everything you listed above (instant travel, offline auction house and raid instances) are the things that would just make this another craptastic WoW-clone, of which the genre is completely saturated with. The entire purpose of PRF is exactly the opposite of that.
Actually it isn't, Pantheon is a group centric game, not a raid centric game, so making raids instanced wouldn't change that, even though I don't want raids instanced myself. Offline AH's doesn't break community becuase with it being a group centric game you will always reach out to people for help, grouping, tradeskill items and the like. Pantheon will have druids and wizards who will port so it already has fast travel in it.
Noone is asking for instanced dungeons. I actually enjoy heading into an area such as BRK and dealing with other players.
However... there are VERY FEW times that you will end up with multiple guilds raiding the same zone at the same time. There isnt really a need for open world raid zones. If you create instances in the style of the EQ1 TLPs where you mass gather at the entrance, trigger the instance and zone in, you will still get that social interaction you desire in the form of "omg what are all you guys doing here".
I dont want INSTANCED dungeons, but i dont see INSTANCED raids impacting the server in any way shape or form.
If you believe guilds wont run into each other anyway (which I actually disagree with), then what does it matter? Why revamp the current design? What is the benefit of having it instanced if all guilds can raid on their own anyway? What is the advantage?
I haven't seen much in the way of debating whether instances are needed for overland contenet. But there was a recent raging debate about how it is unfair that druids and wizards can get rich off porting, while other classes cant.
At the end of the day, there will be fast travel with the current design. It may not be riding a griffon for 20 minutes, but its planned. You might just need to find a player to do it.
I think for me I just want VR to stay focused and finish the game in the next year or two.
Parascol said:If you believe guilds wont run into each other anyway (which I actually disagree with), then what does it matter? Why revamp the current design? What is the benefit of having it instanced if all guilds can raid on their own anyway? What is the advantage?
Instancing raids allows for controlling more variables when designing encounters - which leads to more unique and varied mechanics. With instanced raids, you can design encounters for specific numbers of people, manipulate terrain, have multi-room simultaneous fights going on in a single encounter, boss movements, and more. Simply put, you can do more with a raid boss if it's instanced than if it's in the open world.
Naunet said:Parascol said:If you believe guilds wont run into each other anyway (which I actually disagree with), then what does it matter? Why revamp the current design? What is the benefit of having it instanced if all guilds can raid on their own anyway? What is the advantage?Instancing raids allows for controlling more variables when designing encounters - which leads to more unique and varied mechanics. With instanced raids, you can design encounters for specific numbers of people, manipulate terrain, have multi-room simultaneous fights going on in a single encounter, boss movements, and more. Simply put, you can do more with a raid boss if it's instanced than if it's in the open world.
I have yet to see a mechanic in an instance that can't be done in an open world.
Every single one of those things can be solved for without instancing.
Parascol said:Naunet said:Parascol said:If you believe guilds wont run into each other anyway (which I actually disagree with), then what does it matter? Why revamp the current design? What is the benefit of having it instanced if all guilds can raid on their own anyway? What is the advantage?Instancing raids allows for controlling more variables when designing encounters - which leads to more unique and varied mechanics. With instanced raids, you can design encounters for specific numbers of people, manipulate terrain, have multi-room simultaneous fights going on in a single encounter, boss movements, and more. Simply put, you can do more with a raid boss if it's instanced than if it's in the open world.
I have yet to see a mechanic in an instance that can't be done in an open world.
Every single one of those things can be solved for without instancing.
You engage a raid boss he jumps down uses a spell rips basically the entire zone apart and starts launches the pieces at you as part of his mechanic, if it wasn't instanced this would kill everyone in the zone but the people who triggered the encounter, there now you have one.
And at different phases your on different platforms they were created by the raid boss, and to be quite honest with you there were a ton of mechanics that were made that couldn't be in open world, like if you step here and the boss hit you with it he simply heals himself, another raid sees you fighting him all step in that area and bam get could 20% of his life back, repeat til that raid fies and than kill him yourself, so as much as I don't want instance raids there are actually a ton of mechanics you can't use that wouldn't be abused by other people. Or guilds for that matter
Parascol said:Naunet said:Parascol said:If you believe guilds wont run into each other anyway (which I actually disagree with), then what does it matter? Why revamp the current design? What is the benefit of having it instanced if all guilds can raid on their own anyway? What is the advantage?Instancing raids allows for controlling more variables when designing encounters - which leads to more unique and varied mechanics. With instanced raids, you can design encounters for specific numbers of people, manipulate terrain, have multi-room simultaneous fights going on in a single encounter, boss movements, and more. Simply put, you can do more with a raid boss if it's instanced than if it's in the open world.
I have yet to see a mechanic in an instance that can't be done in an open world.
Every single one of those things can be solved for without instancing.
Instance allows you to control the number of people engaged while open world does not. Instance prevents using movement of mobs to break up an encounter. Instance prevents other groups from increasing the difficulty of an event through training and disruption.
It's easy to have instancing with slightly downgraded rewards while having the very best items in the open world.
What I like about open world raids and dungeons is that you never know what your going to find. There could be another group/groups in there. A rare boss could be spawned that is not always there. Rare crafting components might be found deep in a dungeon and you can sneak in by yourself and try to get them. I have always just loved going through an open world dungeon with a group, or even by myself, and being thrilled by the surprise of what I will encounter.
I dont think the "bosses" in Pantheons dungeons have to have any sophisticated mechanics involved. Mechanics can add some difficulty to a fight, true, but then everyone has to look up a guide to see where your supposed to stand during this attack, or what order you need to destroy these crystals etc etc etc... and then a little lag can cause everyone to wipe anyway when you get hit by an instant kill attack that you didnt see in time. In a game like Pantheon that will have a harsh death penatly I dont think lots of mechanics are the right approach for bosses.
A cool idea would be for each dungeon to have multiple different "bosses" and its not guaranteed which ones will be spawned, or where they will spawn within the dungeon. You could be running down some random hallway and see a boss just come around the corner. Each boss could have unique items that have a POTENTIAL to drop(Not like the current games where something always drops.) As far as mechanics go, I'd rather them be simple... like keeping torches lit around the room to keep the ghoul adds away, or interacting with a lever that does some additional damage to the boss or to adds if positioned correctly, or chasing down a fleeing boss by jumping from different ledges where you could potentially fall and die. The skill should come from how well you play your class and the synergy of the group instead of having to following along with, sometimes silly, mechanics.
Just my thoughts on it,
Pilch
Pilch said:What I like about open world raids and dungeons is that you never know what your going to find. There could be another group/groups in there. A rare boss could be spawned that is not always there. Rare crafting components might be found deep in a dungeon and you can sneak in by yourself and try to get them. I have always just loved going through an open world dungeon with a group, or even by myself, and being thrilled by the surprise of what I will encounter.
I dont think the "bosses" in Pantheons dungeons have to have any sophisticated mechanics involved. Mechanics can add some difficulty to a fight, true, but then everyone has to look up a guide to see where your supposed to stand during this attack, or what order you need to destroy these crystals etc etc etc... and then a little lag can cause everyone to wipe anyway when you get hit by an instant kill attack that you didnt see in time. In a game like Pantheon that will have a harsh death penatly I dont think lots of mechanics are the right approach for bosses.
A cool idea would be for each dungeon to have multiple different "bosses" and its not guaranteed which ones will be spawned, or where they will spawn within the dungeon. You could be running down some random hallway and see a boss just come around the corner. Each boss could have unique items that have a POTENTIAL to drop(Not like the current games where something always drops.) As far as mechanics go, I'd rather them be simple... like keeping torches lit around the room to keep the ghoul adds away, or interacting with a lever that does some additional damage to the boss or to adds if positioned correctly, or chasing down a fleeing boss by jumping from different ledges where you could potentially fall and die. The skill should come from how well you play your class and the synergy of the group instead of having to following along with, sometimes silly, mechanics.
Just my thoughts on it,
Pilch
Why can't there be both instances and an open world version? If you prefer the open world it's there for you, if you want the instance that is an option as well. Why does it have to be one or the other?
Ruar said:Why can't there be both instances and an open world version? If you prefer the open world it's there for you, if you want the instance that is an option as well. Why does it have to be one or the other?
There could be some instanced content in the game, sure.
Pilch said:I dont think the "bosses" in Pantheons dungeons have to have any sophisticated mechanics involved. Mechanics can add some difficulty to a fight, true, but then everyone has to look up a guide to see where your supposed to stand during this attack, or what order you need to destroy these crystals etc etc etc... and then a little lag can cause everyone to wipe anyway when you get hit by an instant kill attack that you didnt see in time. In a game like Pantheon that will have a harsh death penatly I dont think lots of mechanics are the right approach for bosses.
1. Guides aren't necessary. A large part of the fun in raids is learning the encounters. Just have to find a group you vibe well with. :) [edit] Though people helping each other is part of that "community" aspect folk love, is it not?
2. If bosses don't have "sophisticated" mechanics, fighting them is going to get boring... very, very fast.
That said, I agree that a harsh death penalty and complex boss encounters do not mesh well together. This is one of my main reasons I dislike the death penalty, as I know I will get bored if the encounters aren't fun and engaging.
I do like your idea of variable boss spawns in dungeons, though.
Ruar said:Why can't there be both instances and an open world version? If you prefer the open world it's there for you, if you want the instance that is an option as well. Why does it have to be one or the other?
Absolutely. And I think it would be best if there's both.
Naunet said:1. Guides aren't necessary. A large part of the fun in raids is learning the encounters. Just have to find a group you vibe well with. :) [edit] Though people helping each other is part of that "community" aspect folk love, is it not?
2. If bosses don't have "sophisticated" mechanics, fighting them is going to get boring... very, very fast.
That said, I agree that a harsh death penalty and complex boss encounters do not mesh well together. This is one of my main reasons I dislike the death penalty, as I know I will get bored if the encounters aren't fun and engaging.
I do like your idea of variable boss spawns in dungeons, though.
I think you make some good points and I would be willing to try all the stuff suggested if VR can implement it in such a way that keeps those tenets intact. My main wants for Pantheon are for death to be meaningful... (I know it may sound strange to want a death penalty but it just adds an element of danger to the world that you can never get without a death penalty.) And also for rare gear to last a considerable amount of time. Since I know you have played FFXIV I think you may understand this...As soon as you get some of the "rare" gear, if you can call it that, they replace with with something else.
Pilch said:I think you make some good points and I would be willing to try all the stuff suggested if VR can implement it in such a way that keeps those tenets intact. My main wants for Pantheon are for death to be meaningful... (I know it may sound strange to want a death penalty but it just adds an element of danger to the world that you can never get without a death penalty.) And also for rare gear to last a considerable amount of time. Since I know you have played FFXIV I think you may understand this...As soon as you get some of the "rare" gear, if you can call it that, they replace with with something else.
Oh gosh yes, the gear treadmill in FFXIV was/is ridiculous. Luckily I don't think we have too much to worry about on that end with Pantheon though. I think there's a lot of potential for more "horizontal progression" in this game, what with the various environmental effects and VR's expressed desire for a slower pace.
I understand wanting that element of danger with a death penalty. For me personally the negative of relatively boring boss fights (PvE boss encounters are my favorite part of MMOs and where group mechanics can truly shine) outweighs any benefits.