It's nothing more than a variable that can be applied on a per-mob basis. It's way better than "picks" or "shards" which are basically the same thing as instancing. Rather than duplicating entire zones, the dev team can pick and choose which mobs they want to be accessible. If they decided to go with pure open-world FFA competition while utilizing random spawn timers/locations I would be perfectly fine with that ... but there seems to be some sort of expectation that they will be actively trying to avoid "too much competition." The hyper/ghost concept is a compromise ... it offers the "competitive nature for raid bosses" with the THV, and content accessibility with the other versions.
oneADseven said:there seems to be some sort of expectation that they will be actively trying to avoid "too much competition."
I know they have made these type of statements in relation to standard item camps (the fbss was used as an example and the solution Brad gave was to itemize the game better/differently).
I don't ever remember hearing that they were trying to avoid competition as far as raid mobs. Did I miss that somewhere? Can you share any official statements on that?
philo said:I don't ever remember hearing that they were trying to avoid competition as far as raid mobs. Did I miss that somewhere? Can you share any official statements on that?
By creating plenty of content, a large world, not allowing shards to become overpopulated (for example, by quickly launching new shards), possible systems and rules within specific shards, and if things get out of hand to involve Customer Service (GMs). Above all, we want to use positive reinforcement by making sure that there is enough content and an epic enough world to minimize these issues.
We also want to make sure there will be plenty of great items and choices for adventuring all over the world – for example, we want to avoid there being just a single sought-after item for a specific class at a specific level. Similarly powerful and valued items will be available elsewhere in the world.
Overcrowding and too much competition are indeed problems that have plagued both MMOs with and without instancing. If there are not enough players around, it can be hard to group and socialize. But if there are too many people around, the world feels crowded and people have to wait for encounters or spawns, or even compete for them. Our answer to this issue is twofold: first, primarily during the later phases of beta, we will determine how many people online at one time in our game world feels right -- neither under-crowded nor overcrowded. Second, if and when a server’s/shard’s population grows too large, we will launch a new shard with incentives for players to spread out. And with our harnessing of cloud hosted servers/shards, this is actually something we can do dynamically, easily, and quickly.
The FAQ doesn't spell out raid mobs specifically but the language used in the FAQ clearly suggests that too much competition is a problem that has plagued MMO's. To be fair, the "solution" seems to center more around managing server populations and item diversity ... but it's also been hinted that they are considering using lockouts/picks/shards. I would definitely prefer some sort of lockout system to picks/shards for the exact reason I mentioned earlier ... it allows the dev team to better control their vision of "too much competition" by assigning the lockout variable to specific mobs rather than duplicating entire zones (and all associated content) with picks/shards.
"But if there are too many people around, the world feels crowded and people have to wait for encounters or spawns, or even compete for them." **Gasp**
The phrase "too much competition" is obviously subjective so there are plenty of ways to interpret that message. Some people view competition as an inherent trait of open-world gaming and would have it no other way. Others view it as an issue that has plagued MMO's. This is one of those topics that is blog-worthy ... would be nice to know how standard open-world FFA competition does or does not fit into the grand vision.
oneADseven said:@Kratuk -- here is a quote from Aradune that touches on the AES you are referring to:
I must have missed that one. Thanks for the heads up there oneADseven.
MauvaisOeil said:Let's just hope the raid scene isn't everything the endgame has to offer, even if it's more than 30% it will be too much. A game can be designed around so many features and sizes, making everything about 20+ man's game is just.. wowish.
I hope that too.... I want to being a lot of dungeon crawling.... I like going where only a few dare to go
Nytman said:MauvaisOeil said:Let's just hope the raid scene isn't everything the endgame has to offer, even if it's more than 30% it will be too much. A game can be designed around so many features and sizes, making everything about 20+ man's game is just.. wowish.
I hope that too.... I want to being a lot of dungeon crawling.... I like going where only a few dare to go
Mauvais and Nytman, what other kinds of endgame stuff would you like to see? I always liked raiding because it took teamwork from a large group of people to defeat a tougher enemy and in return get better rewards. I like pvp sometimes as an endgame option, but often find it is too hard to balance classes for pvp and pve, so when games don't offer it I am not overly concerned. Anyway, I was curious what endgame options intrigued you both. Anyone else is free to reply too, they just happened to mention it recently in this thread. :)
Each of the Epic 1.5 and Epic 2.0 weapon quests in EQ1 had at least one triggered group/raid mob that always dropped one item from a shared loot pool in addition to the quest item itself.
Sorry this is a little off topic, but having "epic" armour quests for each class (i.e., seven or so for each class, one for each visible slot), with each of these quests involving at least one triggered raid mob that also dropped an additional item would be very cool indeed. It would offer a casual raid option for guilds uninterested or unprepared to compete for the non-triggered stuff.
LucasBlackstone said:Nytman said:MauvaisOeil said:Let's just hope the raid scene isn't everything the endgame has to offer, even if it's more than 30% it will be too much. A game can be designed around so many features and sizes, making everything about 20+ man's game is just.. wowish.
I hope that too.... I want to being a lot of dungeon crawling.... I like going where only a few dare to go
Mauvais and Nytman, what other kinds of endgame stuff would you like to see? I always liked raiding because it took teamwork from a large group of people to defeat a tougher enemy and in return get better rewards. I like pvp sometimes as an endgame option, but often find it is too hard to balance classes for pvp and pve, so when games don't offer it I am not overly concerned. Anyway, I was curious what endgame options intrigued you both. Anyone else is free to reply too, they just happened to mention it recently in this thread. :)
Long quests, tedious quests, dungeon crawling (6 man content). Raiding was nothing at the release of EQ classic, it expanded with RoK where they added a few raid bosses and zones, some beeing affordable for a single group with the right gear (venril sathir), but the more the game expanded, the more it became.... raidfest. Velious was a raid centered expansion, PoP as well, and in all that you had little choices if you weren't on the raiding scene : Farming AA and if possible, plats, for gear. Then wow took the raid scene of EQ and made it, at first, a goal. Then a norm.
I find this a bit sad to reduce the game to large groups fighting large ennemies, sharing little loot before parting away. The group size of 6 players offers a lot of hard content and crawling, quests requiring specific mob spawns that are hard to beat. Also, why should everything be broken down to "Large guilds" only. I don't enjoy them, and their impersonal taste, but should that mean I can't play some end game at all ?
I like fixed/timed. I like knowing that if I put in enough time and effort I will get what I want rather than just hope and pray. Granted I wouldn't expect the random to be so varied that it feels like a gatcha game, but still... Also, in EQ I often camped things and knew the spawn timers, this meant I could just loosely pay attention til near time and take care of other things in the meanwhile. I don't have too many things to deal with outside of work, but I do still have some things to do occasionally.
I guess it depends on the type of Boss? Are you referring to Raid mobs? Overland bosses? Dungeon bosses?
For overland / dungeon bosses, I would like to see a blend really. Random times, random spawn locations, some random pathing, etc. Maybe some limited static ones. I still expect there to be pull camps based on what we've seen so far, but by randomizing their spawn and location a bit, this will help spread the wealth around a bit. Players will figure this out to some degree and set up in an area and pull for xp and hope they get a rare spawn in the process, as opposed to the other way around.
Poop socking for days is not something I want to see.
For raid targets, some of this could apply, but not sure how you could do this without sacrificing some environmental mechanics, or apply it to an entire zone. Dynamic lockouts with sophisticated mob engagement tracking are my preferred way to tackle this. Whatever you have to do to prevent raid monopolization and batphone pressure and I'll be a happy "camper". There have been exhaustive discussions on this already though.
It kindof depends. Raid zones should probably have more structure with spawn locations than exp zones. I would expect exp zones to have random bosses depending on the zone layout. Again, it is all very situational - perhaps plateau bosses? Certain geographical zone layouts can provide opportunities for random boss mob locations. I would prefer specific location/geographic random spawns over specific static spawns. If the area is a enemy city then perhaps its best to spawn bosses within buildings and not have wandering mobs outside as spawn locations? But mix-up which building they spawn in. I prefer the guessing game. And random chance that this building will spawn boss and finding out the group down the road spawned him in their building.
Dragon Necropolis Vaniki spawn locations come to mind.
Solo-boss (if any such exist) random spawn or triggered by perception clues or item triggered. With fixed spawn region, not the exact spawn spot.
Group-boss open world: random spawn please, even location can be different (within lore-reason)
Group-boss dungeon: a mixture of all three A) random spawn, so it could happen you venture in a dungeon and miss the bossfight B) quest or item triggered and C) timed respawn at key location within that dungeon. So you don't have groups running beyond a "check-point" (be that dps check, hp check or mitigation check)
Raid-boss open world: timed spawn at fixed or random locations, itemtriggered WITH actual DESPAWN-timer if not killed within X time. So it makes sense for him to wonder off if there is no real danger (raidgroup) challenging him.
Raid-boss dungeon: locked zones with scripted spawns. Obviously no respawns. With Locked-out timers and fail condition-lock outs.
Define boss. The frenzied ghoul is not a boss. Nagafen is a boss. You will destroy a core foundation of what made a game like EQ great if regular rare spawn mobs are random. Mobs, and areas of the game had status, they were symbols. Don't ruin that by making things random or by making groups do dungeon runs like instances in wow. We need to make a connection to the world by spending time in specific places, many of which are prestigious and desired by other people.