@Kilsin & Convo
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have always been under the impression that one of the primary goals behind creating an open-world experience is to make it so resources and choices matter. It's broadly accepted that competition is inherent in an open-world MMO but the phrase "too much competition" is still hotly debated. When resources are finite, and players are left to their own devices (which is also pretty important if emergent player behavior and social constructs are part of the design goal) then it's inevitable that players will find themselves squared off, at times, for those same resources. This scenario is going to play out countless times across every single server and that's where things get tricky. Some people want a strictly enforced PNP that regulates camps and the phrase kill-stealing. Others want a FFA world where competition is truly embraced and designed to be part of the core experience. If competition is truly inevitable in an open-world MMO, and the development team wants it to be fun, then we really need to have a firm understanding of the rules and guidelines that will govern player behavior.
As it stands, it's my understanding that "kill-stealing" will be considered a minor offense but not be an activity that can be reported to GM's, as all NPC's are free for anyone to attack. VR has chosen to go with MDD (Most Damage Done) for their kill credit formula and at the end of the day, that formula is going to "settle" any contested engagements. At the same time, kill-stealing will be considered a punishable action if it's accompanied by other offenses such as an intent to grief, verbal abuse, etc. Therein lies the fine line. In one sense, MDD is going to be leveraged as the "kill credit formula" that settles "fun competition" (kill-securing) -- in the other sense, there is a preconceived notion that it can also be used to deny other players from content (kill-stealing). The only difference between the two is perception and that is something that is really hard to quantify. In any event, I suspect that there will be plenty of reports sent in for kill-stealing while citing an "intent to grief" -- that's going to put the CS team in a bind because they'll have to do their investigation and render a verdict that is somehow supposed to substantiate "intent."
To put things in perspective, imagine a scenario where a low-level group is fighting their way down to a boss. There just so happens to be a level 50 player already sitting at the spawn site, invisible. That player has been rotating around the dungeon camping various names for several hours. When the group gets to the spawn site, they watch the boss spawn right in front of them. The level 50 player is in the middle of typing a message to a friend as it happens so he doesn't engage it right away. The low level group engages the mob and then a few seconds later, the level 50 player also engages. Now we have a DPS race between both parties but plenty of uncertainty in how each party views what's going on. Since the level 50 player was already there, does that mean that he has "secured the camp" where this boss spawns, and that any other player is considered an "invader" of his space? The low level group were the first to engage the mob so they also feel a sense of ownership. Regardless of the outcome, I think it's important to establish a precedent on what is or is not considered acceptable gameplay.
If it's established that competition is inherent, and that all NPC's are free for any player to attack, I think the "kill credit formula" should be used the exact way it's worded. There shouldn't be a huge grey area where Player A claims that they are participating in what's supposed to be fun/open competition while Player B counter claims that Player A is "stealing their mob with an intent to grief." Again, I feel this scenario will play out countless times across every server and the CS team will be burdened with an overload of difficult tickets that require them to quantify intent. All of that said, I think it's important to create a "kill credit formula" that is designed to encourage fun/open competition. It's almost as if there are two separate entities that are constantly at odds with one another; kill credit and ownership. Kill credit is tangible and handled server-side. Ownership is clearly up for debate on whether or not it even exists. I don't see how it can when "all NPC's are free for any player to attack."
nexus said: Personally I would like to see all boss spawn random, have different spawn point and would perfer to see most bosses have pathing. I'm not a fan of camping in one specific place staring at the timing for the next spawn.
I strongly agree with this. Timed bosses create a hassle with people who camp those areas. I would love to see bosses that have different spawn points, contested area spawns, even spoawns affected by weather or world events.
Bosses should move with large paths that are slightly unpredictable and affected, again, by the world environment.
I don't really want to send the topic off rail but Goofy brought up a great point in saying that it's really difficult to give an answer to the question while considering the unknown variables that will certainly come into play. Knowing whether or not lockout timers are still planned as a content accessibility feature is pretty important. Knowing whether or not competition is supposed to be embraced as part of the core experience or shunned is also pretty important. If we get to the point where camps are recognized and players are allowed to lock down content (claim ownership of an area and prevent competition) then I would rather see "random respawn timers and locations" for the vast majority of content. If we get to the point where mob-ownership and kill credit are synonymous, I would prefer more of a mixed bag approach. Either way, I definitely think it's important to include "triggered bosses" into the equation.
On that note, I think triggered mobs warrant an exception to the rule of "all NPC's are free for any player to attack." I think it's okay to assign ownership to the player/group/raid that force pops a mob, at least for a limited time (before it opens up to FFA), meaning they will receive full kill-credit for the mob once it's killed regardless of their contribution. There are some obvious drawbacks to something like this if we're talking about quest mobs because it would allow low level players to cheese their update with outside help. At the end of the day, though, isn't it safe to say that "outside help" is considered acceptable gameplay? If NPC's don't lock to a specific player/group then it should be considered perfectly acceptable/legal for players to power-level (deal 51% damage then have a higher level finish it off), cheese triggered quest mobs, zerg (kill something with more players than it was designed for) etc.
Again, I know this is venturing a little bit off-topic but still feel that it's mostly related. I don't know how triggered mobs worked in EQ but in my experience it usually involved the consumption of items/components. I think it would be pretty lame if a guild spent a weekend farming these components and then watched another guild kill their triggered mob after they spawn it in the name of "competition." I feel much differently when it comes to lottery spawns or place-holders. Camping an area and killing placeholders doesn't preemptively secure "ownership" of any boss that might spawn. I know there are plenty of people who will disagree with that and that's fine. If killing placeholders is supposed to signify any kind of ownership then they should be dropping a component that can be used to trigger the boss. In any event, I understand the argument for "ownership" -- I just feel that if it's actually going to be recognized as a thing, then we need to define it so it can be tangible.
In a nutshell ... I think "kill-credit" should be used to settle the outcome of all FFA contests, but also think it's important to recognize ownership whenever an NPC is triggered by a player. Visually, whenever an NPC is "owned" (I think "claimed" is a better word) it will simply grey out to anybody that isn't grouped with the player that spawned it. (They could engage it but they will know ahead of time that they won't receive any type of reward or credit.) If those two things are true then I think it will be much more feasible for fun/open competition to exist. Rather than relying on perception to determine who owns what, it's clearly indicated, and that should eliminate any/all "kill-stealing" tickets that would have been bogging down the CS team. I think it would also allow the development team to better execute their vision when it comes time to determine what "too much competition" actually means. It's too subjective of a term to leave it up to the players to figure out.
I prefer variance. IE raid boss respawns in 18 hours +/- 3 hours.
I'm against fixed timers as one guild is capable of locking down a raid mob for it's entiriety, especially if it gets stuck at an odd hour when only one or two guilds have a raid force on line. With variance it still gives the guild that killed it last the minor advantage of knowing the window in which it will spawn again (once the windows are figured out), without giving the overwhelming advantage of knowing exactly when it's going to spawn next.
I also like the idea of world boss mobs that spawn in several different locations and roam as well.
I would like to see both depending on the encounter. Like a dungeon/castle should have a static boss, perhaps the boss could depend on the time of day or other events happening in the world (like the leader being away on business leaving their heir in their stead). But I don't like the super static/rare spawns that force high level players to camp a low level area just to get a specific item... Like the frenzied ghoul being a rare spawn in a VERY specific spot. If the frenzy was a random/rare spawn throughout the dungeon it would've allowed for more players to get to experience the NPC even if the FBSS didn't drop.
Kilsin said:Community Debate - Random Boss Spawns vs Fixed/Timed Boss Spawns, which do you prefer and why? #PRF #MMORPG #MMO #communitymatters
Both can be useful. Fixed boss spawns can be fun if you're at a dungeon camp, but it might be just as fun to have a random chance for several bosses to spawn at various locations rather than remaining fixed. Random may be better in some cases because if there is one unfortunate thing I've learned in the multitude of years playing MMOs, it's not uncommon for a spawn to just become monopolized by bots. So hopefully there will be things to prevent that, but it's something that still happens today.
Still, fixed bosses have their uses and it's nice to know where you can check for a chance at some good loot once in a while.
I would like to see some random and some fixed boss spawn timers.
But also that the spawn points themselves are random and limited to a level appropriate area with possible overlaps in their roaming pattern into the edges of higher or lower level areas. .Added to this I would like to see these randomly spawning bosses roam in a random way but are naturally inclined to stay within a certain area. They can be pulled out of an area- like trained to Zone- but generally they would stay in their level area if not bothered.
Raid targets would be tricky, as the idea would be how to make them not unfairly monopolized or loop-locked into a certain timezone but I like oneAD7's ideas although I feel they may be too mechanically challenging to produce in game.
oneADseven said:I prefer a mixed bag approach for all content: Random/Fixed/Triggered/Hyper/Ghost
When it comes to raiding, specifically, I'm going to share my thoughts from a previous post on what I think an ideal raiding environment would look like in Pantheon:
I've played plenty of games over the years and if there was one thing I noticed getting more and more popular, it was the use of "instanced raiding." Why did this become so popular? The short answer is simple ... supply vs demand. When it comes to contested content that operates on a 3-5 day respawn cycle, it's accessibility is extremely limited. Generally speaking, the first couple guilds to reach max-level would be in the best position possible to learn and master the encounter mechanics of any given fight. While the majority of a server is still leveling up, there are always a select few that are already pushing the limits of end-game content. There is always a race to see who will conquer the biggest and baddest bosses in the game.
What ends up happening is these select few players end up beating the content and putting it on farm status. Eventually, the rest of the server will catch up ... and when it comes time for them to attempt this "contested content" they quickly learn that their chances are slim to none. As soon as these encounters spawn, several competing guilds will attempt to down them. This isn't always in an effort to "block" other guilds from experiencing the content (sometimes it is, depending on what the rivalries look like between various guilds), but rather to lay claim to the awesome rewards that are so commonly associated with high-end contested raid content. So for all the other guilds out there that would like to eventually take a crack at these encounters, the opportunities will be few and far between. Even if you are lucky enough to get a couple pulls in, the encounters are so tough that they usually require dozens of pulls to master the mechanics.
So after your pull is over, the competing guilds step in and attempt to down the boss using the tactics that they came up with weeks or months ago while practicing freely against the boss. Soon enough, it's laying on the ground dead and those same players are jumping with joy as they distribute the uber loot they just obtained. So where does this leave you? You really want to attempt that same boss ... you want that same loot ... but how will you get it? Do you abandon your current guild and move on to greener pastures, increasing the likelihood of you experiencing that content? Do you hold a pep rally and tell your members you'll get it next time? Well, many will be quick to remind you that you might get it next time if only you actually had the chance to battle the encounter in the first place and get those darn mechanics down. This is where the Hyper/Ghost concept comes into play.
I'm going to provide an explanation here to make sense of it. Basically, the hyper/ghost concept is something that allows competitive guilds the opportunity to compete for contested content, but also allows others to attempt that same fight afterward. Here is how it works:
"True Hyper Dragon"
Respawn: 3-5 days.
Lockout: None.
Loot: 4-6 pieces from the "Dragon Loot Table" -- 2 to 3 of which are exclusive to the "True Hyper Loot Table""Ghost Dragon"
Respawn: 30-60 minutes after any version of the "Dragon" is killed.
Lockout: 3-5 days.
Loot: 2-3 pieces from the "Dragon Loot Table" and 1 "Hyper Dragon Essence""Hyper Dragon"
Respawn: Force popped by using 3 "Hyper Dragon Essences"
Lockout: 3-5 days, shared with the "Ghost Dragon."
Loot: 3-4 pieces from the "Dragon Loot Table" 1 to 2 of which are exclusive to the "True Hyper Loot Table."As you can see, the "True Hyper" or "THV" version is basically a bonus kill. This is the contested version that all competing guilds will be striving to conquer. After it's killed, though, it will later respawn as the "Ghost Version." This version is toned down some, both in difficulty and the quality of loot that is rewarded. Nonetheless, the ghost version is still incredibly difficult and it's loot highly desirable. Upon killing the ghost version, players involved in the raid receive a lockout that prevents them from continually farming the mob as it respawns every 30-60 minutes. This gives other guilds an opportunity to experience that same content. On the flip side, successfully killing the ghost version will also reward your raid with a "hyper essence" that can be used to force pop a "Hyper Version." Once you accumulate 3 of these essences, you can transform the ghost version into the hyper version. The hyper version is nearly identical to the "True Hyper" version except for a couple small differences. The first is that it has a lockout, and it's shared with the ghost version. The second is that the loot is slightly toned down from the true hyper version. Other than that, the encounter is the exact same.
The benefits of a system like this are abundant. Competitive guilds still have a "bonus kill" that they can compete for each and every week. Those who miss out still have the opportunity to experience the encounter and obtain some loot with the ghost version. This is invaluable as the experience is necessary if they ever want to compete for the contested version, and they still get some loot to ensure that their characters are progressing enough to have a chance to beat it. After downing the ghost version a few times, guilds then have the option to force pop the hyper version. This drops better loot and allows guilds the opportunity to experience the full version of the encounter. The more guilds who are able to kill the ghost version, the more there will be who can kill the hyper version. The more who can kill the hyper version, the more that can "compete" for the true hyper version. Not only does this make the competitive raid scene more broadly competitive (it diminishes the insurmountable power gap that can be achieved by rushing to end-game), but it also serves as a platform to keep the "gear gap" in check. It won't close the gap completely, and it shouldn't ... risk vs reward is important, and those who kill the contested version should receive their appropriate bounty. But at the end of the day, a system like this will help facilitate competitive raiding on every server while also making it more accessible to the masses.
One issue I always had with competitive raiding is that these encounters have generally been the funnest encounters in the game. There are so many interesting and clever mechanics that me and my guild were able to enjoy over the years, but while we were farming these bosses, we were inadvertently preventing others from ever having a chance to experience that content, not to mention how it thwarted their ability to progress/compete. The gear gap continued to broaden and our "encounter mastery" continued to grow stronger. While we still had alliances on our server with other guilds, they were generally non-competitive raiding guilds. When it came to competition, heated rivalries ensued. I remember hearing and seeing plenty of unpleasant messages while participating in the hardcore raid scene and that's something I hope to avoid this go around. Rather than competitive guilds being viewed as the villain ... how about they get to play the role of hero for a change? How exactly could that work?
It starts with the competitive guilds taking out the "True Hyper Version." At that point, it's a free for all. Anybody and everybody can attempt it. More likely than not, there will be a few guilds who just aren't prepared for a fight of that magnitude. After the uber guild downs the true hyper version, it opens up the ghost version to everybody else. Now the guilds who couldn't necessarily kill the true hyper version might have something that they can kill. They get to learn the ropes of the fight and eventually acquire some loot that will help them grow stronger for next time. Rather than feeling "robbed" of content from another guild, they are "enabled" -- and not just for the "easy version" as some people might think. The ghost versions would still be incredibly difficult. But now they get to practice the encounter, accumulate some loot that will help them grow stronger ... and eventually have a chance to compete. I can't stress enough how important it is that guilds have the opportunity to at least experience the content. When content is purely contested, it's almost impossible for most players to learn the mechanics.
Beyond that, it's possible that downing the true hyper version has other perks and these would be temporarily accessible to everybody in the area. These wouldn't take shape as loot, but rather have an impact on the immediate territory and the NPC's who occupy it. Perhaps after a mighty dragon is killed, a new path to a nearby zone is opened up. With another boss, maybe it's the only path to a certain area that opens up. Another idea is that after a certain boss is killed, a nearby town temporarily decreases the "city tax" that is imposed on the sale of any goods purchased in the area. Maybe the local inn or tavern offers a small discount to everybody in the area as a gesture of appreciation for "Guild X" who killed the monster that was plaguing the neighborhood. Imagine the following:
Server Impact
What if killing raid bosses had an impact on the world our characters live in? Rather than being limited to shuffling more loot into the world, why couldn't downing a pesky dragon have a noticeable impact on the immediate area nearby? Loot acquisition will always be important as it plays a vital role in power progression for our characters, but wouldn't it be cool if the impact of downing these beasts could actually make a difference in how various NPC's interact with you / each other in the world?
Opportunistic TradesmenWhen a THV raid boss is killed, opportunistic tradesmen seek to grow their fortunes by setting up shop in an area that was otherwise too dangerous while the raid boss was roaming around. These merchants could sell unique crafting components or other desirable goodies that are only accessible for a limited period while the THV bosses are dead. Other merchants such as repair vendors, ammo vendors, or food/drink vendors could also sell their wares in convenient locations now that the territory is less hostile.
Kings Reach ExtendedWhat if, every time a raid boss is killed in a certain area, there is a sense of "server progression" that takes place in the background? Perhaps there are Kings or Tribal Leaders that are looking to expand their territory and with every THV boss that is vanquished, they get one step closer. Maybe this could turn into a new tavern, inn, or outpost. Perhaps a shortcut is eventually opened up (a bridge built, tunnel excavated, etc) or elements of the faction system are adjusted. After expanding their territory, Tribe X now views kobolds as a pest to their operations, and killing them now grants faction with that tribe whereas before, they didn't.
Perhaps these contested raid bosses drop some sort of building material (rare ore, metal, wood) that is highly sought after by local authorities who are trying to build a teleportation spire in the area. Let's say it requires 100 of these items to build the spire -- the guild who turns in the most can have a monument built in their name, or perhaps they could name the spire itself?
Intensely SocialAfter a guild kills an obnoxious hill giant known for pillaging fields and slaughtering cattle, word starts to spread of their good deed. Local citizens in a nearby town are more amicable and promote the reputation of the guild who came to save the day. Perhaps the taverns/inns offer a temporary discount to any/all patrons in the area, but their text dialogue now includes a shout out for the guild who killed the hill giant. "Thanks to Guild X, we were able to enjoy a full harvest this month. Please enjoy a 10% discount on our wares."
Likewise, perhaps the king in the area is willing to temporarily reduce certain fees. Whether it's sales tax, property tax, broker fees, passage fees, etc ... perhaps there can be a mildly noticeable decrease to various fees in an area after certain contested raid bosses are killed. The king could put up message boards to announce such an event "Due to Guild X vanquishing Big Bad Red Dragon, we've had many more visitors and our mercantile district is thriving. We are temporarily reducing taxes/fees until further notice."
ColiseumDoubling down on accessibility, what if, after any guilds kills a certain THV encounter, gnome scientists are able to extract samples and reproduce mechanical versions of the same encounter and allow challengers to do battle with them in their arena, for sport? They wouldn't drop the same loot of course ... but perhaps challengers would be willing to pay a fee to test these hyper versions in a neutral, more accessible location? Killing them could perhaps reward some sort of faction or token that could be exchanged with coliseum vendors to provide some sort of reward. This could be scaled to whatever feels appropriate ... but the point is to make the encounter accessible. Allow guilds to challenge themselves by doing battle with these mechanical constructs. Perhaps there could a leader board system of sorts that track various efficiency metrics such as time, death tally, DPS measurables by archetype, etc?
These are just a few ideas on how raiding can evolve in Pantheon. We can take the tried and true methods of the past, but reshape them in a way that make them more accessible and desirable. I firmly believe that there is a prime opportunity to capture the "raid audience" from the MMO genre and lure them to Pantheon. Most of the issues that have plagued the MMO genre over the years really come down to the following variables: "Hardcore vs Casual" / "Forced vs Optional" / "Fun vs Tedious" -- I think an ideal raiding system would feature gameplay aspects that could include both hardcore and casual, be truly optional, and reinforce the idea of having fun with friends.
Pretty much what he said especially in the begining about there are just people and or guilds that go through content faster and get to practice and learn fight so when you get a chance and fail by the time you get back its dead.........
Thats not fun
For the most part? Fixed spawn timers, though possibly random spawn locations for some named. Raids/top end challenging content? Fixed timers, preferably fast respawns with lockouts and/or means to trigger encounters.
NO to variable/random spawn timers. Those almost entirely benefit the powerful/top guilds and groups at the cost of everyone else.
This feels like we are revisiting MMO History 101 when we should all have our PhDs. These are just my perceptions and experiences from Everquest as an Enchanter before I was "re-balanced".
I have no problem for low and medium level gear being on a spawning mechanism or really quick spawn time. We all need gear that will allow us to go into higher level group areas which leads to bigger raid encounters. Especially at the lower levels I think it is awesome to have multiple avenues to gear up. However, when it comes to epic loot the last thing I want is the peice of loot trivialized. What good is it when every enchanter has a snake stick or every cleric has a water sprinkler? It deminishes the game and for me this is what killed EQ post PoP.
Not everyone gets an epic weapon. Not everyone gets a PhD. Not everyone gets to slay the dragon. Not everyone gets a $300,000 salary. Most of us will make less than $60,000 a year and many of us won't have a four year degree. Some of us may go back to night school in our 30s and 40s and get a masters... some may ascend higher. We may all think in our own entitled minds we deserve the huge salary from Harvard but the reality is most of us went to junior college.
It takes a lot of effort (and time) to line up groups and raids to accomplish tasks that lead to epic rewards. There were very long and painful spawn rates. Pain for the sake of pain is stupid. However, enduring to achieve the goal makes it so much more worth it.
...and some of us even hit the lotto.
Algrinon said:Not everyone gets an epic weapon. Not everyone gets a PhD. Not everyone gets to slay the dragon. Not everyone gets a $300,000 salary. Most of us will make less than $60,000 a year and many of us won't have a four year degree. Some of us may go back to night school in our 30s and 40s and get a masters... some may ascend higher. We may all think in our own entitled minds we deserve the huge salary from Harvard but the reality is most of us went to junior college.
It takes a lot of effort (and time) to line up groups and raids to accomplish tasks that lead to epic rewards. There were very long and painful spawn rates. Pain for the sake of pain is stupid. However, enduring to achieve the goal makes it so much more worth it.
...and some of us even hit the lotto.
I don't understand this analogy...
Sure, no one should just get an epic weapon (or much of anything for that matter) for free but for those that put in the effort it should be achieveable without the chance of being permanently blocked by others.
To add to my last post - I'd support predictable conditions for spawns if we're talking about more conditions than just time.
For example:
There are four orc camps around an ancient shrine. In each camp, an Elementalist (named orc) can spawn randomly anywhere in the camp. Elementalists all drop various elemental cloaks with nice effects.
If all four elementalists and up, and if it's a full moon and the sky is clear, then at midnight the four elementalists will all proceed to the top of the shrine to conduct a ritual together.
If they complete that ritual successfully, the Demon Lord Bhazra is summoned into being at the top of the shrine and the four Elementalists will despawn. At dawn, Bhazra will proceed to path towards the human village nearby, attacking any non-orc NPCs in his path (as well as any players).
Players wishing to get items from the Elementalists just need to look for them in the orc camps and get lucky. Players wanting to get Bhazra's loot somehow need to be there at the right time (full moon, clear sky, midnight) and hope that no one else has killed the elementalists recently. Then Bhazra spawns and they can either fight him at the shrine, OR try to catch him on his way to the village before he runs into an army of NPC guards that would effectively steal the kill.
But anything less complex than that? Keep some randomness to it please, both in terms of time and location.
Iksar said:I don't understand this analogy...
Sure, no one should just get an epic weapon (or much of anything for that matter) for free but for those that put in the effort it should be achieveable without the chance of being permanently blocked by others.
I think what he is saying is that is part of the challenge. You as a player have options.
1)"If you can't beat em, join em" is one option.
2)Another option is to "beat em".
3)Another option is to wait until the competition has changed so that you can compete.
4)Another option is to go without because you can't or don't want to put forth the effort that is required.
All of those are perfectly acceptable solutions.
philo said:I think what he is saying is that is part of the challenge. You as a player have options.
1)"If you can't beat em, join em" is one option.
2)Another option is to "beat em".
3)Another option is to wait until the competition has changed so that you can compete.
4)Another option is to go without because you can't or don't want to put forth the effort that is required.
All of those are perfectly acceptable solutions.
Agree to disagree, all four of those were the solutions offered by early EQ and none of them were good nor enjoyable. If the only way to maintain rarity or prestige is by player gating then it's a game design failure. Unless I the goal is to return to catering the end-game and content design for the top 1% of players who have endless hours to sock/batphone.
philo said:Iksar said:I don't understand this analogy...
Sure, no one should just get an epic weapon (or much of anything for that matter) for free but for those that put in the effort it should be achieveable without the chance of being permanently blocked by others.
I think what he is saying is that is part of the challenge. You as a player have options.
1)"If you can't beat em, join em" is one option.
2)Another option is to "beat em".
3)Another option is to wait until the competition has changed so that you can compete.
4)Another option is to go without because you can't or don't want to put forth the effort that is required.
All of those are perfectly acceptable solutions.
I would say that at least #4 (probably #3 as well) is not a perfectly acceptable solution in the eyes of the devs because it often leads to option 5:
5) quit the game and rant to your friends that it is all c-blocked garbo...
A big part of the fun in an MMO is progressing through the content. When you are denied access to the content you generally stop having fun and most will just unsub until there is new content to progress through (see the last few WoW expansions where subs plummet every raid cycle as people finish gearing).
Not being good/geared enough to beat the encounter won't generally drive people to quit. They can work on getting better gear and perfecting their approach to a fight. Not being able to even try? That's an entirely different story.
Zyellinia said:A big part of the fun in an MMO is progressing through the content. When you are denied access to the content you generally stop having fun and most will just unsub until there is new content to progress through (see the last few WoW expansions where subs plummet every raid cycle as people finish gearing).
Playing through meaningful content is great. I don't really understand how your citation of WoW relates to the idea of being "denied access to content." The problem with WoW is that everybody has access to everything at all times and that's exactly why they run out of things to do so quickly. The content is exhausted infinitely faster because everybody gets their own private little dimension where they don't have to worry about dealing with other real players or finite resources. All of this plays into what I brought up earlier in the thread -- some people view open-world FFA competition as "content denial" when they don't win. That's a player issue, not a game issue.
Zyellinia said:Not being good/geared enough to beat the encounter won't generally drive people to quit. They can work on getting better gear and perfecting their approach to a fight. Not being able to even try? That's an entirely different story.
Correct. Seeing top skill players with the fancy items they earned inspires awe unless the only reason they have them or that they are rare is due to them blocking others from ever even trying, then it just breeds resentment and feeds toxicity among guilds/players.
oneADseven said:Playing through meaningful content is great. I don't really understand how your citation of WoW relates to the idea of being "denied access to content." The problem with WoW is that everybody has access to everything at all times and that's exactly why they run out of things to do so quickly. The content is exhausted infinitely faster because everybody gets their own private little dimension where they don't have to worry about dealing with other real players. All of this plays into what I brought up earlier in the thread -- some people view open-world FFA competition as "content denial" when they don't win. That's a player issue, not a game issue.
That's misguided. The problem in WoW is they have easy/normal/hard mode raids where people can do the easy/normal and get most (if not all) the gear (just lower stats) and see everything the areas/bosses have to offer. So they burn out because they have no desire (or maybe lack the skill) to bang their heads trying to beat the hard versions, so they feel like they did all there is.