To the OP I say yes and no. In a group-centric experience, no one player is solely responsible for the outcome. So is a longer fight harder than a short one? No. But what's in a longer fight?
Unskilled/inexperienced players do not understand how to react to dynamic fight conditions and subsequently turn wins into losses. The same can be seen in the engage/mid-fight/late-fight in twitchier games like overwatch. Mechanical skill is only part of the game. Situational awareness: watching a fight unfold and knowing where to be and when to use each power in response to fighting conditions matters.
That said... Groups can always fight easier content where such "skill" is less valuable. Those are the "longer" "grindier" groups that still get you to progress. Just not as fast or efficiently. You can always go back to that boss and fight it when you out-level and out-gear it. In that way, a long fight that's already trivial is absolutely not more challenging and that's how MMORPG stays accessible.
You opt into "challenge" by doing content designed for your level which requires teamwork and execution. If your team skill is higher, you find tougher fights where monsters have more armor and skills that work against you killing it quickly.
Put another way, it's not more challenging because it's longer. It's longer because it's more challenging.
I think someone mentioned AI.
That is where a great opportunity could be. Even if it's fake AI and even if it's all scripted, you're still chaning things that players probably aren't going to expect. If you have 10 scripted things the mobs could potentially do in a fight, it could chagne the entire playing of the game.
Fighter mobs. If all they do is auto attack, +1 special attack, run away when health is low, thats not challenging regardless of the lenght of the fight. Now if they had 10 variations of things they could do, you'd never really know what they are going to do.
i.e. Orc Warrior 1 attacks, stuns, knockback, taunts, and [%find pc/player=castsheals=target1st]; and Orc Warrior 2 attacks, stuns, aoe's [%find pc/player=lowest health=alwaystarget] you have two mobs who fight entirerly different. This could be a script bank and could easily be added to mobs throughout the game so you're not having to do this individually to every mobs and the bank could, as I said, be maybe 10 variations.
Do that with healer mobs, caster mobs, ranged mobs, and add all those together, you've created challenges to ever fight, you've added strategy to ever fight and you've added uniqueness and unpredictability to every fight.
Maybe I haven't played enough games, but the ones I have played all I've seen mobs do is some lame detriment, maybe a short lived stun. Maybe a bit more involved in raid mobs, but still even those were only 1 script. Add multipule levels of random scripts to mobs and you're creating new layers of challenge to the game.
I've said it many times before on these forums that I don't think time in and of itself is challenging, but it magnifies all other existing challenges. Time is the only finite resource everyone has, so if encounters are challenging - time mangifies the element of risk/reward as there becomes a real fear or loss of time from death. But, if the game was extremely easy with no fear of death at all, the element of time wouldn't "create" the challenge.
As an aside, I do think the reward for persistence and time commitment also is important and items shouldn't be gifted to players, which typically means those that would put in more time with all other variables being equal should be able to achieve more or at a faster rate.
I agree that MOBs should have a set of scripted actions that may or may not occur durng a fight. Spell interupts would be particularly challenging for players. An interupted mez or heal at a critical moment could change the course of a battle.
As a related aside, I also think that casters should have some limited form of ability to survive single MOB agro- some shielding spell or blocking ability that would allow them to survive, but prevent them from effectively (or intermittently) casting until the MOB is dealt with.
Kittik said:EQ (EQReborn), is so slow it's bored me to sleep twice. Literally fell asleep with my laptop in my chair playing the game. The draw however is it's harder. I appreciate the levels more. I continually keep opening my character sheet just to see how much futher until next level. It takes forever. Level, after leve, after level with no new abilities however it's crushing. (I play Paladin, I get nothing until level 9 and then I only get 1 extra attack option unless I stick to fighting just undead.) It's rough. I have bash (if I'm using a sheild) taunt and Melee attack. So all I really get to do, is watch my character swing a sword until I die, or the other mob starts running away.
The only real challenge in EQ is the drive to not zone out, or fall asleep. It's longer, but it's not exactly more challenging. There's no real challenge in EQ2, I've have to pull a swarm of orange mobs to push myself. There's no real challenge in EQ, if I pull anything more than a solo yellow I'm dead.
Just addressing the EQ portion of this because a) I play classic era EQ an b) it is the part that goes to your "if it takes longer" point.
All EQ classes are boring in the early levels. You have very few, if any, class defining abilities and getting to the teens/20s to open things up for a class is a slog. And it is difficult, because the mob difficulty/level curve is exponential and starts outpacing the players on a level by level basis around level 6-7. But you are learning a ton of valuable stuff even then, like single pulling, watcing the entire area around you, learning which mobs are over-coned or under-conned for their level, etc. But....at 9, Paladins get a bunch of things, one of which IS class defining - Flash of Light.
Pickup groups have a built in expectation that paladins and SKs are aggro machines and the DPS can go HAM on every mob with no aggro issues because hey, knight tank is best tank. Guess where that expectation comes from? Well, starting at level 9, you get your first tool for snap aggro - Flash of Light. Now here's your challenge, and it is both game ad player driven - hold aggro off twinked rogues, monks, rangers, wizards and magicians all going HAM on every mob you pull. The meta for MMOs changed, and after 14 yars of WoW warping people's minds, aggro on tank is 100% tank responsibility, and groups even in old style EQ now think they have no role in heklping tank keep aggro. No no, that's all on you, knight tank. You have to hold that aggro in a game that was designed around a group all chipping in on every aspect of combat, inclduing keeping aggro on tanks. You don't get bonus aggro generation like tanks do in every othr MMO. You have to work that out yourself. You won't have hepful teammates in a PUG, you have to work that out for yourself.
Now, pursuant to the knight tank challenge, why is longer harder? Because the longer the fights, the longer the leveling....the more chances you get to fail the challenge, ye of the mighty snap aggro, knight tank am teh best tank. Every single pull in every group you ever join...you'll be challenged. Your cleric or CC gets beat on? Guess who just failed their challenege? Again, there is no "this class generates more aggro because tank" mechanics in EQ. You have to go figure all that out on your own. All "longer" does is present that challenge more often and over a longer stretch of time.
We've had these discussions before, and I may have given different answers before - but how I feel right now is this: The "Challenge" of anything you do in game amounts to your personal ability to cope with / overcome the mix of obstacles that need to be overcome to do whatever it is you are doing in game.
With that definiton in mind, time itself (it takes forever!) might indeed be a challenge for some players if they are time limited within the game (I can only play 2 hours a night, 3 times a week!). For others, time itself may be nothing. Similarly, for some players, games that require being good at "twitch" skills (nimble fingers) may be easy for some and quite challenging for others.
Just using these two parameters, the following would generally be true:
- Players with low play time but very good twitch skills would find completing content challenging if that content required more time than they had available.
- Players with lots of play time but very poor twitch skills would find completing content challenging if that content required more "nimble" than their fingers could provide no matter how much time they had to do it.
Now - you can pick my examples apart... but the premise remains true: Conent will have a variety of combined obstacles you will need to overcome... and your personal ability to do that dictates how "challenging" it is or isn't.
I think longer fights are more challenging if done right. If the fight is just long and thats it, then yes that is easy. If a fight isn't long, then you can de-value all the mechanics that mob has. So lets say there is a mob with a tank buster every 20 seconds, however, the mob only lasts 30 seconds. And let's say that tank buster ability is very dangerous and requires a lot more healing and timing compared to the other abilities the mob has. If you kill the mob in 30 seconds then you only have to deal with it once. If you kill the mob in 45 seconds then you have to deal with it twice and if 65 seconds atleast 3 times. So depending on how hard the mechanics are on a mob the longer it takes to kill that mob can greatly enhance the diffculty as it can use more of its mechanics and if some mechanics are tough for you to deal with, then the fight is much harder with the added bonus of time.
But if you are just getting at if the boss has a lot of hp and that's it then no the mob isn't tough, unless it lasts soo long you have to manage your resources efficiently.
I think more challenging game play can be incorporated in this style of fighting without adding HP's or AC as the OP pointed out.
Most challenging memories come from when things go south. By this I mean the additional add, the low health monster that ran away and told his friends deep in the dungeon how you hurt them, the high level roamer you weren't expecting just yet; where players need to re-evaluate their roles instantly and know and see the class capabilities without having to waste time chatting(typing)
I remember seeing comments from the devs where they also feel the same way; Brad once commented how adding HP's or AC was a poor shortcut and wont be done, and Joppa mentioning some small AI in making monsters have certain characteristics, like runner, and alarmist. Also that caster monsters would also be limited by Line of sight, like player casters. so I think VR is keeping this in mind for regular battle encounters and hopefully , after the pre alpha folks have vetted the basic combat mechanics, the Alpha folks can get a taste of combat dynamics.
GoofyWarriorGuy said:This debate makes me think about the people who say e-sports shouldn't be called sports. They say that they aren't real athetes because they don't run or jump or do anything that requires you to be strong or agile physically. But they fail to understand the dexterity and timing involved in clicking those buttons at just the right moments and in the right places. Not to mention the strategy and complexity and memory involved. If any of you have ever really followed an e-sport and understand the difference between the Pro's and the common players, you know what I mean.
Hopefully Pantheon will have enough dexterity, timing, complexity, and strategy requirements that we will be able to notice the difference between a great player and an average player.
I agree Goofy, but I highly doubt PRotF will cater to a quick twitch crowd given the gaming skills demonstrated by the devs. I'm guessing that the server/client latency will be more of a determining factor for identifying a great player compared to an average player if this is anything like EQ1. You could easily identify a good player on a PvP server... and you could also easily identify how much of a difference some of the simple game mechanics make when fighting players compared to fighting NPCs (i.e. Chain mail = absolute **** compared to Full Plate in EQ); but its not that apparent on a PvE server. Good competitive games for people that enjoy predicting their enemy's moves and countering at the last second are like Leauge of Legends and as much as I hate to say it WoW. PRotF will likely be more similar to EQ where your "skill" will be highly dependant upon your gear, class/race selection, latency and understanding of the encounters/mechanics... but otherwise just clicking one or two abilities every few seconds and a thrid or fourth skill every few minutes.
As for the Original Post, I love the question. I too have fallen asleep many times in EQ and am not a fan of the "needless" time sinks (like 80mins boat rides, or "hell levels"). With that said though, I think that the challenge increase we saw from the videos was that the encounters weren't intentionally made soley to take longer (increased HP) but the game mechanics made the encounters seem longer. i.e. Lvl + AC versus Lvl + ATK means the players were simply doing less damage and taking more damage but otherwise the same challenge to the player's actual skill and more of a level/gear check (if you have the levels and gear you will succeed regardless of skill but not vice versa). There have been other videos that show actual challenges (aside from just higher lvl dumbfire NPCs) like the environmental factors or boss mechanics that require the use of special skills like removing curses or coordinating CC and conserving resources. We've seen many videos when the poorly playing devs run out of resources and then just stand there and die.
The answer is simple. Yes.
Flip a coin and call the outcome. 50/50. Flipping 10 coins takes longer, but, of course, it's much much harder to predict the sequence.
Try and lift a weight. There's technique involved, but you can or you can't. Now hold it for a minute. Way, way harder.
Drive to the shops without hitting anything. No problem. Drive to the other end of the country in one go without getting tired and making a mistake. Much harder.
The question really is, do you find 'endurance' and 'attention span' and 'tenacity' and 'discipline' and those kind of long-term qualities enjoyable to develop and worthy of reward?
As long as time isn't the *only* 'difficulty' then, of course, time makes it harder and is a decent tool in the 'difficulty' bag.
disposalist said:The answer is simple. Yes.
Flip a coin and call the outcome. 50/50. Flipping 10 coins takes longer, but, of course, it's much much harder to predict the sequence.
Try and lift a weight. There's technique involved, but you can or you can't. Now hold it for a minute. Way, way harder.
Drive to the shops without hitting anything. No problem. Drive to the other end of the country in one go without getting tired and making a mistake. Much harder.
The question really is, do you find 'endurance' and 'attention span' and 'tenacity' and 'discipline' and those kind of long-term qualities enjoyable to develop and worthy of reward?
As long as time isn't the *only* 'difficulty' then, of course, time makes it harder and is a decent tool in the 'difficulty' bag.
I missed you disposalist.
MauvaisOeil said:disposalist said:The answer is simple. Yes.
Flip a coin and call the outcome. 50/50. Flipping 10 coins takes longer, but, of course, it's much much harder to predict the sequence.
Try and lift a weight. There's technique involved, but you can or you can't. Now hold it for a minute. Way, way harder.
Drive to the shops without hitting anything. No problem. Drive to the other end of the country in one go without getting tired and making a mistake. Much harder.
The question really is, do you find 'endurance' and 'attention span' and 'tenacity' and 'discipline' and those kind of long-term qualities enjoyable to develop and worthy of reward?
As long as time isn't the *only* 'difficulty' then, of course, time makes it harder and is a decent tool in the 'difficulty' bag.
I missed you disposalist.
*hugs*
disposalist said:The answer is simple. Yes.
Flip a coin and call the outcome. 50/50. Flipping 10 coins takes longer, but, of course, it's much much harder to predict the sequence.
Try and lift a weight. There's technique involved, but you can or you can't. Now hold it for a minute. Way, way harder.
Drive to the shops without hitting anything. No problem. Drive to the other end of the country in one go without getting tired and making a mistake. Much harder.
The question really is, do you find 'endurance' and 'attention span' and 'tenacity' and 'discipline' and those kind of long-term qualities enjoyable to develop and worthy of reward?
As long as time isn't the *only* 'difficulty' then, of course, time makes it harder and is a decent tool in the 'difficulty' bag.
Well this would be a dumb game design.
Bad design person who's in charge of something: Lets make it so increadibly boring that it's just plan hard to play.
Everyone on the forums: Haha...yes what a great idea. Thats what I've always wanted.
Any potential backer: Then no one will play your game.
Forums: But we'll remember you as the hardest game ever (although in truth it wasn't hard it was just boring).
Bad design person who's in charge of something: Well, we tried! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Kittik said:disposalist said:The answer is simple. Yes.
Flip a coin and call the outcome. 50/50. Flipping 10 coins takes longer, but, of course, it's much much harder to predict the sequence.
Try and lift a weight. There's technique involved, but you can or you can't. Now hold it for a minute. Way, way harder.
Drive to the shops without hitting anything. No problem. Drive to the other end of the country in one go without getting tired and making a mistake. Much harder.
The question really is, do you find 'endurance' and 'attention span' and 'tenacity' and 'discipline' and those kind of long-term qualities enjoyable to develop and worthy of reward?
As long as time isn't the *only* 'difficulty' then, of course, time makes it harder and is a decent tool in the 'difficulty' bag.
Well this would be a dumb game design.
Bad design person who's in charge of something: Lets make it so increadibly boring that it's just plan hard to play.
Everyone on the forums: Haha...yes what a great idea. Thats what I've always wanted.
Any potential backer: Then no one will play your game.
Forums: But we'll remember you as the hardest game ever (although in truth it wasn't hard it was just boring).
Bad design person who's in charge of something: Well, we tried! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
To use time as *part of* difficulty is dumb design? Lol, yeah, making *everything* quick to do would be fantastic design!
disposalist said: To use time as *part of* difficulty is dumb design? Lol, yeah, making *everything* quick to do would be fantastic design!
As WoW and Fortnite have shown, making *everything* quick to do is a viable business model, if your goal is to gather the largest possible demographic.
There's no doubt Pantheon is going to be a niche game, but if you make *everything* take too long, you won't even get a thousand daily customers, as Pathfinder Online, EQReborn, and Project Gorgon have demonstrated elegantly in the past few months/years.
Now, it's true, each of them dialed the temporal 'difficulty' up to 11 in different ways, but the end result was not enough paying customers, which I don't think anyone wants for Pantheon.
As others have stated, I agree that "longer" is only 1 part of making it harder (mainly because of the endurance factor).
Main reasons for timesinks = to give the community an opportunity to bond, to keep you playing until the new content is released and to act as a filter....
Most people that want the "quick" and "easy" mechanics are toxic and/or not interested in being part of a community.
vjek said:disposalist said: To use time as *part of* difficulty is dumb design? Lol, yeah, making *everything* quick to do would be fantastic design!As WoW and Fortnite have shown, making *everything* quick to do is a viable business model, if your goal is to gather the largest possible demographic.
There's no doubt Pantheon is going to be a niche game, but if you make *everything* take too long, you won't even get a thousand daily customers, as Pathfinder Online, EQReborn, and Project Gorgon have demonstrated elegantly in the past few months/years.
Now, it's true, each of them dialed the temporal 'difficulty' up to 11 in different ways, but the end result was not enough paying customers, which I don't think anyone wants for Pantheon.
That's why I suggested time as, technically, obviously a factor for difficulty, but one that should be only a part of the equation.
Yeah perhaps there should some encounters that are short. For example, the kind of enemy that can be soloed shouldn't auto-balance to make them just as long a fight for a group. You don't have 'long' encounters just for the sake of it.
But, on average, I believe most people here are all for the relatively long fights that we've seen in Pantheon (and used to see in games like EQ). Yes, there has been plenty of comment from those that see 'trash' monsters taking time to kill and having a moan, but I'd prefer Pantheon to lean that way rather than to pace it too quick and result in groups charging around the map/dungeon barely pausing to fight never mind talk/strategise/whatever.
I think there are enough people that want a slow-paced game to get enough paying customers. Pantheon has always been aimed at a niche and I believe slow pace is one big thing that defines that niche. We've been waiting a long time watching MMOs become FPSs and wanting it to go back.