I have mixed feelings about this game, assuming it actually gets made. I like some of what they want to do but on the other hand competing over prime camps can be a huge pain in the butt. If anyone doubts this just go play on the Project 1999 server. But....I absolutely hate being led around by quests so I would take the camping model over that.
But the thing that basically makes me write this game off as something to avoid is the likely nature of the end-game. Brad has always had this thing about massive (and long) raids. It seems to me his philosophy is that if a person can't do four or five 10 hour raid sessions with 60 other people each week and doesn't like being a peon in a massive guild then they don't deserve to have any way to progress in the end-game. I don't know if he has changed his thinking any but I remember his posts in which he said that people who couldn't do that sort of end-game or who simply didn't want to didn't deserve to progress past a certain point. I also remember him saying that the not-so-hardcore players who couldn't participate in the end-game would still be happy getting vicarious satisfaction by hearing about the stuff the hardcore types where doing and the scrubs would be thrilled to stand around and admire the hardcore players as they strutted by in their high end gear.
That sort of talk, and yes he did say stuff like that, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of why people like me got upset about the end-game in EQ. We didn't care what the hardcore types where doing we just wanted something to do at the end-game ourselves. Some way to continue playing that we had time for and might actually enjoy. Brad never did seem to get that.
Well, I hope I do get that now. We definitely are very aware that many in our audience have grown up, gotten married, had kids, have demanding jobs, etc. I will include myself in that audience. While I did participate in and enjoy long, involved raids back when I played MUDs and even EQ, it was even at that time very demanding on my life. It required not just a commitment to the game (which I think in general is fine), but specifically long play sessions, where I needed to be in-game and involved for often hours on end. We realize now that long contiguous play sessions limit how many people can enjoy the game, and we don't want those limits. We are designing content that may take quite some time to complete, but making sure that there are opportunities to safely log off with your friends, and then resume another day. There will still be, for example, epic dungeons that may take some time to fight to the bottom of, or to reach all of the mobs you want to defeat. But in most cases, you will not have to experience these environments all in one long play session. Epic is great, but epic shouldn't necessarily mean 8 hour contiguous play sessions. Frodo certainly didn't get to Mount Doom in one play session
There will be content for groups and for raids (of various sizes) hopefully not just at the 'end game', but throughout the game. Pantheon is not about solo, solo, solo, and then suddenly you are forced to raid. It's not even about group, group, group, and then at the end, you are forced to raid. It's mostly about group content (although there will be places to solo, with your skill and also the class you've chosen impacting how much you can solo). And there will be raids. We also realize that not everyone in our audience wants to raid a lot, so there will be plenty of group content, even at the 'end game'. The very best items will still mostly drop in raids, so if you have to have the very best, you'll need to raid a bit. If you are instead content with great gear, just not the absolute highest tier, and you don't care for raiding, you don't need to. I will say, though, that if you make the decision that you have to have the highest tier items (which will usually only be necessary in order to participate in raids -- in other words, you won't need top tier raid items to group at the 'end game'), but don't want to raid, you're going to have to find similar crafted items, or trade for the raid items, or something. I don't consider this 'forced raiding', just like I don't consider the game to be 'forced grouping'. But we realize not everyone will see it that way.
Post edited by Aradune on
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is a mistake to not have group instances. That was an evolution of grouping mechanics, designed to solve a massive problem that existed within Everquest.
EQ2 had a completely masterful solution, where there were instances within contested dungeons.
To me it seems like a great idea to have a huge contested Solusek's Eye, with dozens of dangerous and viable camps for full groups, or even partial groups... but then... in the depths, for those strong enough, an instance that took a group through the fire goblin castle; and another that took a raid party through the fire giant castle, all the way to Nagafen.
Yep, that is a major minus point for this game. I guess the devs liked the old EQ feature where all the bosses are camped ad infinitum.
It's not our goal to have every mob camped ad infinitum. But at the same time, Pantheon is not about Instancing everything, essentially guaranteeing you can go after any item you want, at any time. Some competition for content we feels adds to the game experience. Planning where you are going, what items you are after, will be important. Coordinating with the community is part of interacting with a community. Guaranteeing content by way of Instances lessens the importance of community interaction. Likewise, not having enough content, and that competition for content turning into a frustrating constant battle to access that content is not good either. The key is to have enough content and then to add new shards when a shards population rises to the point that there is too much conflict over a region or encounter.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
Instancing is not the worst idea ever but it is not a good idea ever,it is simply not needed.
If there is a problem example used was Wow,the problem is not too many people camping the same mobs,the problem is the game design,i have never said Wow was a good game design and never will.
Why are people all camping the same mob?The obvious reason is you have no game,that is because gamer's tend to play for ONLY one reason,to get the best loot.You need a versatile game and to have Bosses/named only spawn on rare occasions and NEVER in the same spot to allow bot camping or any kind of camping.
Most importantly you need a GAME,players should not be playing role playing games as nothing more than a repeating dungeon loot finder.Housing,building things,crafting things,discovering things,farming to craft,questing for various/many reasons not just to go find some boss for some loot.
Then you also want multiple class design,example like FFXI done near perfectly as a sub class design.This allows players to create versatile characters via many classes,keeps all zones looking busy gives players lots of choices in classes to play so they don't get bored etc etc.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
worst formatted web chat i have ever seen
Everyone has to add < p> themselves to form paragraphs,this site must have been real cheap to get,no wonder they switched.VERY poor decision and to think people were praising the loading times as well,not the case this site loads very slow as well.
I mentioned this because even Aradune doesn't know this as MOST posts will be one big wall of text.
I say LYNCH mob whomever picked this site,obviously not much testing was done before the selection or was simply a real cheap bargain site.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Interesting article...
Not sure as of yet how I'm feeling about this upcoming mmo. However, I would like to see how crafting will "play". Hopefully it will be important and not overlooked!
Alyn
All I want is the truth Just gimme some truth John Lennon
Well I am going to have to disagree about the instancing issue. Nope, I don't like them either, but the camped bosses was a huge issue in both UO and EQ. It was one of the major reasons that the Wow team went with instancing, they had bad experiences with the camping in EQ and I will second that viewpoint. UO did not have real boss issues, but the major loot areas were a real problem.
If this team can come up with a compromise that works, fine, willing to give it a try.
I think it is a mistake to not have group instances. That was an evolution of grouping mechanics, designed to solve a massive problem that existed within Everquest.
EQ2 had a completely masterful solution, where there were instances within contested dungeons.
To me it seems like a great idea to have a huge contested Solusek's Eye, with dozens of dangerous and viable camps for full groups, or even partial groups... but then... in the depths, for those strong enough, an instance that took a group through the fire goblin castle; and another that took a raid party through the fire giant castle, all the way to Nagafen.
I completely and whole heartedly disagree. Instances have been 1 of the banes of forming communities within a server as well as cross server instancing. I wouldn't necessarily even call it an "evolution" of the grouping mechanics. It completely disconnected you from the game world, immersion breaking, and the most important thing was that you would group with people for a short amount of time and not form any connection with them. You'd go on your marry way. THIS is what made EQ and Vanguard special, well one of the many things that made them special was that you built friendships, bonds with players because you got to know them, you spent time with them. You don't do that now with instances and it absolutely needs to go away. Hell, I could name a TON of players that I spent a lot of time with from EQ and Vanguard because there was an actual COMMUNITY in the game. I couldn't count on my fingers, names of players I've grouped with in the past x amount of years since instancing came into play.
If you weren't fortunate enough to get to dabble in Vanguard and play around in the dungeons they created then you wouldn't know just how massive they made their dungeons and how they could definitely house many groups within them. Vanguards dungeons alone made that game in my books, still one of the best mmo's to date regardless of all the bugs and issues the game had. The classes were all very different and unique in their own way and had flavor something missing from classes in the current iteration of mmo's. Another thing missing from today's mmo's is that sense of danger. You have zero of it, none, zip. Dying is not fearful in the slightest and needs to come back. That's what made adventuring "feel" like you were adventuring because you knew you had to be careful else you'd have to go retrieve your body. Now, you just die, release run back blah blah blah. No danger at all.
Mmo's are in a bad state right now and these that I mention above are only some of those aspects. I hope and many of my friends hope that Pantheon will bring back what mmos have been missing for many years.
Well it is a nice hello how are you article,it tells me nothing really.
It is nice he can work on the art and music and stuff but what is the game doing what is the information that matters to us the gamer?
I only need to know the basics to know of the game is worth waiting for.
Example ...I myself and the entire market does NOT need another auto generated game world with linear questing.We already have a plethora of those games,so does this game really bring something new to the table or is it going to be same old different skin?
Is it multi class or altaholic,is it a tree system or skill system.Do levels at any point in the game carry any meaning or yet another Wow clone with meaningless levels.That type of design is all aimed at some fake end game that really only comes off as a repeating loot dungeon finder.
Point being does the game have meaning,do players have a role in the world or is it just race through levels to get to yet another end game?
You should read the article again. Or, maybe read past the first paragraph? If you had continued, you would have seen information that you are blathering about.
For instance:
"We are trying to take the open world premise, modern games have conditioned players, we log into the game and we aren’t looking around, we aren’t looking to see what excites us or catches our eye. We are conditioned to log in and look at our minimap and look for arrows and we follow that. We may look up and see something cool on the horizon, but there are no flashing light that tell us to go there. We want to take that sandbox concept and renew a sense of story and quest contest."
You're welcome.
I utterly hate non-instanced MMO's but there are a few out there that have a soft spot in my heart - EQ1 is one of them. I dont like having to compete for spawns, named, or drops. Botting (not multiboxing) really ruins this kind of gameplay for others and it isnt fair to people who pay (in non-F2P games) the same amount to not be able to get a spawn or a boss or named because some jerk is camping it 24/7. This in a way is disruption, as it creates a situation on a player where certain content is "unavailable" or "unaccessable" for them at that time. Throw in the usual griefing and trains from troll players and it compounds the issue. I see where instancing can hurt games for some people but on the other side of the coin non-instanced dungeons/zones can be just as detrimental.
Aradune said: The very best items will still mostly drop in raids, so if you have to have the very best, you'll need to raid a bit. If you are instead content with great gear, just not the absolute highest tier, and you don't care for raiding, you don't need to. I will say, though, that if you make the decision that you have to have the highest tier items (which will usually only be necessary in order to participate in raids -- in other words, you won't need top tier raid items to group at the 'end game'), but don't want to raid, you're going to have to find similar crafted items, or trade for the raid items, or something. I don't consider this 'forced raiding', just like I don't consider the game to be 'forced grouping'. But we realize not everyone will see it that way.
Honestly, the crux of this issue isn't about who has better items. It all comes down to the motivating factor of playing. In a game of this sort the fundamental motivator is progression. Gaining levels and upgrading items. I often wish this wasn't the case but it is and we all know it.
So the problem arises if a person realizes that they can no longer progress in any significant way. It not an issue of logging in and seeing someone with better stuff than you have and getting all upset about that. It's logging in and standing around with nothing to do while the reality sinks in that you've hit a wall and can't go any further.
The anger and feeling of unfairness doesn't arise from knowing that other people have better stuff (there will always be people who are ahead of you) it comes from knowing that a select group is provided with the means to continue progressing while you are blocked off from continued advancement.
And you see Brad, you are still repeating some of your old lines for this sort of thing. Saying that top tier items are only necessary to participate in raids, ergo---people who don't raid don't need high end items. In other words, only hardcore raiders deserve to progress and anyone who doesn't fall into that group shouldn't be allowed to continue progressing.
This misses the whole point. The point is that everyone needs a way to continue progressing. Wherever they are at on the item curve they need a way to keep going.
The assumption in your thinking was, and apparently still is, that after a certain point only a certain subset of the player base should be allowed to continue advancing. You're not doing that content so you don't need that gear so just sit in a corner and be quiet. Well, sitting in a corner and being quiet isn't much fun. Not having any content which you can use to continue progressing at your own pace isn't fun. Your philosophy is that people like me aren't supposed to have fun after a certain point we're just supposed to sit there and watch others have fun.
Well, whatever, make the game as you please. But you still don't seem to understand the problem. I just wish you'd be a little more honest about it. If it's going to be a game to please the hardcore raiding subset of players that's fine, just be open about that. Don't try to con people into thinking it's anything else.
I have no problem with that subset of players getting a game they'll love. Good for them. I just don't want to waste my time with it.
I utterly hate non-instanced MMO's but there are a few out there that have a soft spot in my heart - EQ1 is one of them. I dont like having to compete for spawns, named, or drops. Botting (not multiboxing) really ruins this kind of gameplay for others and it isnt fair to people who pay (in non-F2P games) the same amount to not be able to get a spawn or a boss or named because some jerk is camping it 24/7. This in a way is disruption, as it creates a situation on a player where certain content is "unavailable" or "unaccessable" for them at that time. Throw in the usual griefing and trains from troll players and it compounds the issue. I see where instancing can hurt games for some people but on the other side of the coin non-instanced dungeons/zones can be just as detrimental.
Couple of responses/comments:
1. We think some competition is good, but it's something that we have to get right. We don't like the Instanced route where the player feels he is entitled to all items, and should be able to get at those items any time, with minimal effort. Rather, we feel the player is entitled to the opportunity to try to get the items.
2. Too much competition is bad. It becomes too frustrating for most players. There are two important ways to address this: have a lot of content (which is the plan) and launch a new shard (or more) when one shard becomes so populated that, even though there's a lot of content, there are so many people that the competition for items is too great. Watching server populations and being able to quickly and easily add additional shards is also part of our plan. If content and desired items are only obtainable by those who camp 24/7, then I agree, it makes the content and items unavailable to the majority of players who are neither willing nor able to commit to long play sessions. While Pantheon is going to be a very challenging game and a group-oriented game, we are doing quite a few things to make it such that you don't have to play long sessions in order to advance -- we realize our audience is older now, may have a spouse, kids, a demanding job, etc. In fact, I put myself into that audience.
3. We do realize that many players don't want any competition and do feel entitled to be able to obtain any item at any time. Important: we do not think negatively of that player, or look down upon them, or think 'casual' is a bad word. But we also feel strongly that MMOs need to be made with specific target audiences in mind. Too many recent huge $$ games have tried to appeal to everyone and fallen short. So while we respect the more casual player, we also realize there are many MMOs available to that person. But we don't think there are a lot (certainly no new MMOs) that target the player who doesn't mind some competition, who enjoys grouping and working with a community. So we're targeting this audience because we feel they have been orphaned in the last several years.
4. We will try to minimize botting. In fact, we've several ideas and are going to try hard to stop it. But I do use the word minimize because I am not going to promise you perfection when it comes to issues that are challenging for the developer to deal with. I will promise that we'll do what we can, but I also want to always be honest and up-front with you guys, and some of these things are easier said than done. I can say that combat will be very involved, with the player needing to monitor the battle carefully, using spells and abilities at the right times and not just spells and abilities to damage the other mob, but to heal your groupmates, to counter spells the mob is casting, etc. I think combat where you have to be very tactically aware will make it harder to bot and harder to multibox.
5. I will again be up front and honest with you -- we cannot promise there will be no griefers. But by making a game that is very social, group oriented, and with a huge emphasis on community, the goal is to thereby create an environment where griefers are identified by the community and hopefully shunned. In an MMO designed around community and designed to be played for months and even years, people get to know who is who. If someone is a griefer, that word will get around, and he won't get into groups, he won't have people trade with him, and he's going to find himself in a situation where advancement is extremely difficult. Hopefully he realizes his behavior just isn't compatible with a game like Pantheon and he re-rolls, makes a new character, and embraces the community and abandons his propensity to be a jerk. I've seen this happen and I know it can work.
It is true that Instances addresses some of the problems you bring up. But it also creates a very different environment and, at least for our audience, we feel more is lost by embracing Instancing than is gained.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
Aradune said: The very best items will still mostly drop in raids, so if you have to have the very best, you'll need to raid a bit. If you are instead content with great gear, just not the absolute highest tier, and you don't care for raiding, you don't need to. I will say, though, that if you make the decision that you have to have the highest tier items (which will usually only be necessary in order to participate in raids -- in other words, you won't need top tier raid items to group at the 'end game'), but don't want to raid, you're going to have to find similar crafted items, or trade for the raid items, or something. I don't consider this 'forced raiding', just like I don't consider the game to be 'forced grouping'. But we realize not everyone will see it that way.
Honestly, the crux of this issue isn't about who has better items. It all comes down to the motivating factor of playing. In a game of this sort the fundamental motivator is progression. Gaining levels and upgrading items. I often wish this wasn't the case but it is and we all know it.
So the problem arises if a person realizes that they can no longer progress in any significant way. It not an issue of logging in and seeing someone with better stuff than you have and getting all upset about that. It's logging in and standing around with nothing to do while the reality sinks in that you've hit a wall and can't go any further.
The anger and feeling of unfairness doesn't arise from knowing that other people have better stuff (there will always be people who are ahead of you) it comes from knowing that a select group is provided with the means to continue progressing while you are blocked off from continued advancement.
And you see Brad, you are still repeating some of your old lines for this sort of thing. Saying that top tier items are only necessary to participate in raids, ergo---people who don't raid don't need high end items. In other words, only hardcore raiders deserve to progress and anyone who doesn't fall into that group shouldn't be allowed to continue progressing.
This misses the whole point. The point is that everyone needs a way to continue progressing. Wherever they are at on the item curve they need a way to keep going.
The assumption in your thinking was, and apparently still is, that after a certain point only a certain subset of the player base should be allowed to continue advancing. You're not doing that content so you don't need that gear so just sit in a corner and be quiet. Well, sitting in a corner and being quiet isn't much fun. Not having any content which you can use to continue progressing at your own pace isn't fun. Your philosophy is that people like me aren't supposed to have fun after a certain point we're just supposed to sit there and watch others have fun.
Well, whatever, make the game as you please. But you still don't seem to understand the problem. I just wish you'd be a little more honest about it. If it's going to be a game to please the hardcore raiding subset of players that's fine, just be open about that. Don't try to con people into thinking it's anything else.
I have no problem with that subset of players getting a game they'll love. Good for them. I just don't want to waste my time with it.
You misunderstand what I've said, and I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough. We are NOT making an MMO where the 'end game' is all about raiding. In fact, the majority of content at the 'end game' will be group oriented. So the assumption that the higher level player who doesn't join a big raid will be sitting around, bored, with nothing to do is false. Our goal is to have plenty to do, regardless of what level you are. You should always have content to consume, items to obtain, and a way to progress your character (I will, however, add one caveat to that, because I am making a commitment to always be open and honest with you guys: even with plenty of grouping content at all levels, including the 'end game', there will always be the bleeding edge player who consumes all of our content before we can release an expansion or new module. No matter how hard we work at updating the game, keeping it fresh, and expanding it, a small group of hard core players will get through most things ahead of us). But for most players, this shouldn't be the case.
So, just to make sure I'm being as clear as possible, when you say "Your philosophy is that people like me aren't supposed to have fun after a certain point we're just supposed to sit there and watch others have fun" you are absolutely incorrect. That is most certainly *not* my philosophy nor my goal. Grouping content, raiding content, and even to some degree soloing content, will exist at ALL levels, including the 'end game'.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------- Brad McQuaid CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc. www.pantheonmmo.com --------------------------------------------------------------
I feel like I should add one more post here before I shut up.
The only reason I bothered replying to this at all is because I actually do long for a group oriented game again. Brad, I'll give you and the original EQ dev team credit for making the best grouping game I've ever played. I still say that EQ had the best group play I've ever experienced in any game.
However, I absolutely hated the end-game of EQ as evidenced by the fact that I'm still bitching about it after all these years. So, therein lies my dilemma. The thought of a new game with the group play of EQ excites me. But the thought of a new game with the end-game of EQ makes me want to smash something.
It really sucks that developers always tend to go the extremes. Make a MMO that's basically a single player game or make a MMO that forces people into a huge guild doing multi-group content.
There are other examples of devs going to the extremes that don't apply to this discussion. Like, for years any time anyone talked about making a sandbox game they thought it HAD to have unrestricted free-for-all PVP or else it wasn't really a sandbox game. It's crazy.
Well, I have no control over any of this. Developers will make the games how they want and we just have to look at what they made and decide if we want to play it. I have to say though that I honestly believe that an EQ style end-game will not work well today. I don't just say that because I don't like it, I genuinely think it wouldn't go over well. The target audience for that sort of thing does exist. But you can find them all in the top guilds on the project 1999 server. All three or four hundred of them. I'm sure that most people who remember EQ fondly have heard of the P99 server and if even 10% of them really and truly wanted to experience that type of end-game again the P99 devs would have had to open more P99 servers by now to handle the numbers. But they haven't had to.
The problem is that only guilds and power gamers are rewarded with games designed for open world camping. Not only is loot locked away behind a camping wall, but so is most of the worthwhile content. Dynamic spawns, high spawn rates, phasing, instancing, forced rotations and allowing other mobs the ability to drop good loot with less frequency than a named mob, helps with this problem. I like open worlds, but I despise having to deal with asshats who block loot and content and I despise developers who encourage that kind of negative behavior, especially with no consequences.
Loot that is easy to get hold no value, not as currency but more important neither as feeling of accomplishment. This is the essence of why current mmo's are boring and bland, nothing means anything to players. So, there is only one cure, make stuff matter again, and that is only done by making it requiring efford to get.
Dynamic spawns - yes very much in favor, moar rng concepts like .. less static loot tables, random stats on drops (d2 style), etc.
High spawn rates - no, that defies the idea of loot mattering and being hard to obtain.
Phasing - only necessary in heavy story based games, which Pantheon hopefully is not.
Instancing - I am fine with it as a means of allowing for procedural generated adventure, but with some kind of lockout timer system as to avoid heavy farming, or other measures.
Forced rotations - I bloody hate them in p99 and progression, it goes against the game ideas. Players blocking content needs to be handled by the game, by providing enough content, enough randomness or other means of dispersing the problem.
Other mobs having a chance to drop great loot - yes a small chance, Rngesus lives.
The effort should be through game play, not players ruining it for other players. If you are going to allow negative game play, then you need to allow players the tools to combat it, either with PvP or GM's to resolve camp locking.
I feel like I should add one more post here before I shut up.
The only reason I bothered replying to this at all is because I actually do long for a group oriented game again. Brad, I'll give you and the original EQ dev team credit for making the best grouping game I've ever played. I still say that EQ had the best group play I've ever experienced in any game.
However, I absolutely hated the end-game of EQ as evidenced by the fact that I'm still bitching about it after all these years. So, therein lies my dilemma. The thought of a new game with the group play of EQ excites me. But the thought of a new game with the end-game of EQ makes me want to smash something.
It really sucks that developers always tend to go the extremes. Make a MMO that's basically a single player game or make a MMO that forces people into a huge guild doing multi-group content.
There are other examples of devs going to the extremes that don't apply to this discussion. Like, for years any time anyone talked about making a sandbox game they thought it HAD to have unrestricted free-for-all PVP or else it wasn't really a sandbox game. It's crazy.
Well, I have no control over any of this. Developers will make the games how they want and we just have to look at what they made and decide if we want to play it. I have to say though that I honestly believe that an EQ style end-game will not work well today. I don't just say that because I don't like it, I genuinely think it wouldn't go over well. The target audience for that sort of thing does exist. But you can find them all in the top guilds on the project 1999 server. All three or four hundred of them. I'm sure that most people who remember EQ fondly have heard of the P99 server and if even 10% of them really and truly wanted to experience that type of end-game again the P99 devs would have had to open more P99 servers by now to handle the numbers. But they haven't had to.
You say you want a group focused game, but call it extreme that a small portion of the content will be for a raid? That honestly doesn't sound extreme to me. It sounds as balanced as one could hope for. The most enticing quality of EverQuest for me was the idea that there was still something out there I hadn't done, something unknown that people may not have discovered, even if they think they've seen it all. Having content that becomes progressively harder in all ways, including large scale cooperative efforts (raids), makes perfect sense in a massively multiplayer online rpg.
I feel like I should add one more post here before I shut up.
The only reason I bothered replying to this at all is because I actually do long for a group oriented game again. Brad, I'll give you and the original EQ dev team credit for making the best grouping game I've ever played. I still say that EQ had the best group play I've ever experienced in any game.
However, I absolutely hated the end-game of EQ as evidenced by the fact that I'm still bitching about it after all these years. So, therein lies my dilemma. The thought of a new game with the group play of EQ excites me. But the thought of a new game with the end-game of EQ makes me want to smash something.
It really sucks that developers always tend to go the extremes. Make a MMO that's basically a single player game or make a MMO that forces people into a huge guild doing multi-group content.
There are other examples of devs going to the extremes that don't apply to this discussion. Like, for years any time anyone talked about making a sandbox game they thought it HAD to have unrestricted free-for-all PVP or else it wasn't really a sandbox game. It's crazy.
Well, I have no control over any of this. Developers will make the games how they want and we just have to look at what they made and decide if we want to play it. I have to say though that I honestly believe that an EQ style end-game will not work well today. I don't just say that because I don't like it, I genuinely think it wouldn't go over well. The target audience for that sort of thing does exist. But you can find them all in the top guilds on the project 1999 server. All three or four hundred of them. I'm sure that most people who remember EQ fondly have heard of the P99 server and if even 10% of them really and truly wanted to experience that type of end-game again the P99 devs would have had to open more P99 servers by now to handle the numbers. But they haven't had to.
You say you want a group focused game, but call it extreme that a small portion of the content will be for a raid? That honestly doesn't sound extreme to me. It sounds as balanced as one could hope for. The most enticing quality of EverQuest for me was the idea that there was still something out there I hadn't done, something unknown that people may not have discovered, even if they think they've seen it all. Having content that becomes progressively harder in all ways, including large scale cooperative efforts (raids), makes perfect sense in a massively multiplayer online rpg.
There is a difference. He is complaining about gear that is ONLY accessible through raids and no where else. This means gear that is only accessible to raiders and no one else who is not interested in raiding. Wild Star already tried this and failed miserably. I don't think most people will have anything against the best gear being acquirable through raids just as long as that same gear is also available through other means. I don't care if you make it twice or even three times as difficult to acquire through other means just as long as you make it equally available to players who do not care to raid. Like the poster said, if what you are designing is a game catering to raiders then just say it. Don't string everyone along leading them to believe that the game is on an equal level for everyone when the reality is that the game is a raiders paradise and only raiders will be walking around town with the best gear. If so, this is not the game for me and I will gladly stay far far away from it.
Aradune said: The very best items will still mostly drop in raids, so if you have to have the very best, you'll need to raid a bit. If you are instead content with great gear, just not the absolute highest tier, and you don't care for raiding, you don't need to. I will say, though, that if you make the decision that you have to have the highest tier items (which will usually only be necessary in order to participate in raids -- in other words, you won't need top tier raid items to group at the 'end game'), but don't want to raid, you're going to have to find similar crafted items, or trade for the raid items, or something. I don't consider this 'forced raiding', just like I don't consider the game to be 'forced grouping'. But we realize not everyone will see it that way.
Honestly, the crux of this issue isn't about who has better items. It all comes down to the motivating factor of playing. In a game of this sort the fundamental motivator is progression. Gaining levels and upgrading items. I often wish this wasn't the case but it is and we all know it.
So the problem arises if a person realizes that they can no longer progress in any significant way. It not an issue of logging in and seeing someone with better stuff than you have and getting all upset about that. It's logging in and standing around with nothing to do while the reality sinks in that you've hit a wall and can't go any further.
The anger and feeling of unfairness doesn't arise from knowing that other people have better stuff (there will always be people who are ahead of you) it comes from knowing that a select group is provided with the means to continue progressing while you are blocked off from continued advancement.
And you see Brad, you are still repeating some of your old lines for this sort of thing. Saying that top tier items are only necessary to participate in raids, ergo---people who don't raid don't need high end items. In other words, only hardcore raiders deserve to progress and anyone who doesn't fall into that group shouldn't be allowed to continue progressing.
This misses the whole point. The point is that everyone needs a way to continue progressing. Wherever they are at on the item curve they need a way to keep going.
The assumption in your thinking was, and apparently still is, that after a certain point only a certain subset of the player base should be allowed to continue advancing. You're not doing that content so you don't need that gear so just sit in a corner and be quiet. Well, sitting in a corner and being quiet isn't much fun. Not having any content which you can use to continue progressing at your own pace isn't fun. Your philosophy is that people like me aren't supposed to have fun after a certain point we're just supposed to sit there and watch others have fun.
Well, whatever, make the game as you please. But you still don't seem to understand the problem. I just wish you'd be a little more honest about it. If it's going to be a game to please the hardcore raiding subset of players that's fine, just be open about that. Don't try to con people into thinking it's anything else.
I have no problem with that subset of players getting a game they'll love. Good for them. I just don't want to waste my time with it.
You misunderstand what I've said, and I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough. We are NOT making an MMO where the 'end game' is all about raiding. In fact, the majority of content at the 'end game' will be group oriented. So the assumption that the higher level player who doesn't join a big raid will be sitting around, bored, with nothing to do is false. Our goal is to have plenty to do, regardless of what level you are. You should always have content to consume, items to obtain, and a way to progress your character (I will, however, add one caveat to that, because I am making a commitment to always be open and honest with you guys: even with plenty of grouping content at all levels, including the 'end game', there will always be the bleeding edge player who consumes all of our content before we can release an expansion or new module. No matter how hard we work at updating the game, keeping it fresh, and expanding it, a small group of hard core players will get through most things ahead of us). But for most players, this shouldn't be the case.
So, just to make sure I'm being as clear as possible, when you say "Your philosophy is that people like me aren't supposed to have fun after a certain point we're just supposed to sit there and watch others have fun" you are absolutely incorrect. That is most certainly *not* my philosophy nor my goal. Grouping content, raiding content, and even to some degree soloing content, will exist at ALL levels, including the 'end game'.
Brad, if you are going to be honest, then be bluntly honest. I doubt the issue is one where players just want to be kept busy at end game while the raiders acquire the best gear raiding. It is one of having equal access to the best gear at end game as the raiding crowd. If this is not the case, then just let us know now. There is no shame in that and I, for one, won't hold it against you. It is your game. If you want it to be a raiding game, then so be it. Letting it be known ahead of time will allow those of us who are not raiders to not waste our time with Pantheon and look elsewhere for our MMORPG fix.
I feel like I should add one more post here before I shut up.
The only reason I bothered replying to this at all is because I actually do long for a group oriented game again. Brad, I'll give you and the original EQ dev team credit for making the best grouping game I've ever played. I still say that EQ had the best group play I've ever experienced in any game.
However, I absolutely hated the end-game of EQ as evidenced by the fact that I'm still bitching about it after all these years. So, therein lies my dilemma. The thought of a new game with the group play of EQ excites me. But the thought of a new game with the end-game of EQ makes me want to smash something.
It really sucks that developers always tend to go the extremes. Make a MMO that's basically a single player game or make a MMO that forces people into a huge guild doing multi-group content.
There are other examples of devs going to the extremes that don't apply to this discussion. Like, for years any time anyone talked about making a sandbox game they thought it HAD to have unrestricted free-for-all PVP or else it wasn't really a sandbox game. It's crazy.
Well, I have no control over any of this. Developers will make the games how they want and we just have to look at what they made and decide if we want to play it. I have to say though that I honestly believe that an EQ style end-game will not work well today. I don't just say that because I don't like it, I genuinely think it wouldn't go over well. The target audience for that sort of thing does exist. But you can find them all in the top guilds on the project 1999 server. All three or four hundred of them. I'm sure that most people who remember EQ fondly have heard of the P99 server and if even 10% of them really and truly wanted to experience that type of end-game again the P99 devs would have had to open more P99 servers by now to handle the numbers. But they haven't had to.
You say you want a group focused game, but call it extreme that a small portion of the content will be for a raid? That honestly doesn't sound extreme to me. It sounds as balanced as one could hope for. The most enticing quality of EverQuest for me was the idea that there was still something out there I hadn't done, something unknown that people may not have discovered, even if they think they've seen it all. Having content that becomes progressively harder in all ways, including large scale cooperative efforts (raids), makes perfect sense in a massively multiplayer online rpg.
There is a difference. He is complaining about gear that is ONLY accessible through raids and no where else. This means gear that is only accessible to raiders and no one else who is not interested in raiding. Wild Star already tried this and failed miserably. I don't think most people will have anything against the best gear being acquirable through raids just as long as that same gear is also available through other means. I don't care if you make it twice or even three times as difficult to acquire through other means just as long as you make it equally available to players who do not care to raid. Like the poster said, if what you are designing is a game catering to raiders then just say it. Don't string everyone along leading them to believe that the game is on an equal level for everyone when the reality is that the game is a raiders paradise and only raiders will be walking around town with the best gear. If so, this is not the game for me and I will gladly stay far far away from it.
First, if you aren't interested in raiding, then don't. From what they've told us, there will be many ways to advance your character outside of raiding. If you don't want to do the content that calls for a larger cooperative effort in a massively multiplayer game, why would you expect the best reward?
He also said the gear from raids was tradeable, so hypothetically a player could farm or craft and accumulate enough wealth to buy raid gear. Theres really no comparing Wildstar, as it was fundamentally, from the ground up, a different game than what they are proposing with Pantheon. The game was marketed as a hardcore raiding game with rush to end game and tons of other casual appeal. That is basically the polar opposite.
Calling for the removal of all content requiring large scale cooperative efforts in an MMORPG is not so different from those who say everything should be solo friendly on the other end of the spectrum.
I feel like I should add one more post here before I shut up.
The only reason I bothered replying to this at all is because I actually do long for a group oriented game again. Brad, I'll give you and the original EQ dev team credit for making the best grouping game I've ever played. I still say that EQ had the best group play I've ever experienced in any game.
However, I absolutely hated the end-game of EQ as evidenced by the fact that I'm still bitching about it after all these years. So, therein lies my dilemma. The thought of a new game with the group play of EQ excites me. But the thought of a new game with the end-game of EQ makes me want to smash something.
It really sucks that developers always tend to go the extremes. Make a MMO that's basically a single player game or make a MMO that forces people into a huge guild doing multi-group content.
There are other examples of devs going to the extremes that don't apply to this discussion. Like, for years any time anyone talked about making a sandbox game they thought it HAD to have unrestricted free-for-all PVP or else it wasn't really a sandbox game. It's crazy.
Well, I have no control over any of this. Developers will make the games how they want and we just have to look at what they made and decide if we want to play it. I have to say though that I honestly believe that an EQ style end-game will not work well today. I don't just say that because I don't like it, I genuinely think it wouldn't go over well. The target audience for that sort of thing does exist. But you can find them all in the top guilds on the project 1999 server. All three or four hundred of them. I'm sure that most people who remember EQ fondly have heard of the P99 server and if even 10% of them really and truly wanted to experience that type of end-game again the P99 devs would have had to open more P99 servers by now to handle the numbers. But they haven't had to.
You say you want a group focused game, but call it extreme that a small portion of the content will be for a raid? That honestly doesn't sound extreme to me. It sounds as balanced as one could hope for. The most enticing quality of EverQuest for me was the idea that there was still something out there I hadn't done, something unknown that people may not have discovered, even if they think they've seen it all. Having content that becomes progressively harder in all ways, including large scale cooperative efforts (raids), makes perfect sense in a massively multiplayer online rpg.
There is a difference. He is complaining about gear that is ONLY accessible through raids and no where else. This means gear that is only accessible to raiders and no one else who is not interested in raiding. Wild Star already tried this and failed miserably. I don't think most people will have anything against the best gear being acquirable through raids just as long as that same gear is also available through other means. I don't care if you make it twice or even three times as difficult to acquire through other means just as long as you make it equally available to players who do not care to raid. Like the poster said, if what you are designing is a game catering to raiders then just say it. Don't string everyone along leading them to believe that the game is on an equal level for everyone when the reality is that the game is a raiders paradise and only raiders will be walking around town with the best gear. If so, this is not the game for me and I will gladly stay far far away from it.
First, if you aren't interested in raiding, then don't. From what they've told us, there will be many ways to advance your character outside of raiding. If you don't want to do the content that calls for a larger cooperative effort in a massively multiplayer game, why would you expect the best reward?
He also said the gear from raids was tradeable, so hypothetically a player could farm or craft and accumulate enough wealth to buy raid gear. Theres really no comparing Wildstar, as it was fundamentally, from the ground up, a different game than what they are proposing with Pantheon. The game was marketed as a hardcore raiding game with rush to end game and tons of other casual appeal. That is basically the polar opposite.
Calling for the removal of all largescale content in an MMORPG is not entirely unlike calling to drop the first M from MMORPG.
I already made it perfectly clear that if its a raiding game I will not play. I am now merely attempting to get a confirmation from the developer if this is, in fact, the case because he he wasn't being totally clear on that point. And no I don't want to buy the best gear from you that you acquired in a raid. I want to acquire my own gear.
To repeat, and you can re-read my post because you obviously missed it ... I am not asking for a removal of anything. The game is what it is. If it is a raiding game, then so be it. Just let it be clearly known ahead of time ... and its all good. You can have your raiding game.
I feel like I should add one more post here before I shut up.
The only reason I bothered replying to this at all is because I actually do long for a group oriented game again. Brad, I'll give you and the original EQ dev team credit for making the best grouping game I've ever played. I still say that EQ had the best group play I've ever experienced in any game.
However, I absolutely hated the end-game of EQ as evidenced by the fact that I'm still bitching about it after all these years. So, therein lies my dilemma. The thought of a new game with the group play of EQ excites me. But the thought of a new game with the end-game of EQ makes me want to smash something.
It really sucks that developers always tend to go the extremes. Make a MMO that's basically a single player game or make a MMO that forces people into a huge guild doing multi-group content.
There are other examples of devs going to the extremes that don't apply to this discussion. Like, for years any time anyone talked about making a sandbox game they thought it HAD to have unrestricted free-for-all PVP or else it wasn't really a sandbox game. It's crazy.
Well, I have no control over any of this. Developers will make the games how they want and we just have to look at what they made and decide if we want to play it. I have to say though that I honestly believe that an EQ style end-game will not work well today. I don't just say that because I don't like it, I genuinely think it wouldn't go over well. The target audience for that sort of thing does exist. But you can find them all in the top guilds on the project 1999 server. All three or four hundred of them. I'm sure that most people who remember EQ fondly have heard of the P99 server and if even 10% of them really and truly wanted to experience that type of end-game again the P99 devs would have had to open more P99 servers by now to handle the numbers. But they haven't had to.
You say you want a group focused game, but call it extreme that a small portion of the content will be for a raid? That honestly doesn't sound extreme to me. It sounds as balanced as one could hope for. The most enticing quality of EverQuest for me was the idea that there was still something out there I hadn't done, something unknown that people may not have discovered, even if they think they've seen it all. Having content that becomes progressively harder in all ways, including large scale cooperative efforts (raids), makes perfect sense in a massively multiplayer online rpg.
There is a difference. He is complaining about gear that is ONLY accessible through raids and no where else. This means gear that is only accessible to raiders and no one else who is not interested in raiding. Wild Star already tried this and failed miserably. I don't think most people will have anything against the best gear being acquirable through raids just as long as that same gear is also available through other means. I don't care if you make it twice or even three times as difficult to acquire through other means just as long as you make it equally available to players who do not care to raid. Like the poster said, if what you are designing is a game catering to raiders then just say it. Don't string everyone along leading them to believe that the game is on an equal level for everyone when the reality is that the game is a raiders paradise and only raiders will be walking around town with the best gear. If so, this is not the game for me and I will gladly stay far far away from it.
First, if you aren't interested in raiding, then don't. From what they've told us, there will be many ways to advance your character outside of raiding. If you don't want to do the content that calls for a larger cooperative effort in a massively multiplayer game, why would you expect the best reward?
He also said the gear from raids was tradeable, so hypothetically a player could farm or craft and accumulate enough wealth to buy raid gear. Theres really no comparing Wildstar, as it was fundamentally, from the ground up, a different game than what they are proposing with Pantheon. The game was marketed as a hardcore raiding game with rush to end game and tons of other casual appeal. That is basically the polar opposite.
Calling for the removal of all largescale content in an MMORPG is not entirely unlike calling to drop the first M from MMORPG.
I already made it perfectly clear that if its a raiding game I will not play. I am now merely attempting to get a confirmation from the developer if this is, in fact, the case because he he wasn't being totally clear on that point. And no I don't want to buy the best gear from you that you acquired in a raid. I want to acquire my own gear.
To repeat, and you can re-read my post because you obviously missed it ... I am not asking for a removal of anything. The game is what it is. If it is a raiding game, then so be it. Just let it be clearly known ahead of time ... and its all good. You can have your raiding game.
Except he said plainly, multiple times, it isn't a "raiding game." Pantheon is predominantly for group content with some raiding and even some content that can be done solo.
I already made it perfectly clear that if its a raiding game I will not play. I am now merely attempting to get a confirmation from the developer if this is, in fact, the case because he he wasn't being totally clear on that point. And no I don't want to buy the best gear from you that you acquired in a raid. I want to acquire my own gear.
To repeat, and you can re-read my post because you obviously missed it ... I am not asking for a removal of anything. The game is what it is. If it is a raiding game, then so be it. Just let it be clearly known ahead of time ... and its all good. You can have your raiding game.
Except he said plainly, multiple times, it isn't a "raiding game." Pantheon is predominantly for group content with some raiding and even some content that can be done solo.
The beating around the bush and word semantic play is exactly why I am attempting to get matter of fact clarification. We all know that even in games that are clearly defined as "raiding centric" that there is a lot more to do before end game than raid. The point being is that if once at end game the only means by which to acquire the "best in slot" end game gear is by raiding, then it is by every definition a "raiding game."
No more word play and beating around the bush please. Plain English. Will the "best in slot" end game gear be only accessible to those raiding at end game?
Simple question.
When I get the plain answer, preferably from Mr. McQuaid or one of his developers, no response from me will be forthcoming and I will quietly exit the thread.
The beating around the bush and word semantic play is exactly why I am attempting to get matter of fact clarification. We all know that even in games that are clearly defined as "raiding centric" that there is a lot more to do before end game than raid. The point being is that if once at end game the only means by which to acquire the "best in slot" end game gear is by raiding, then it is by every definition a "raiding game."
No more word play and beating around the bush please. Plain English. Will the "best in slot" end game gear be only accessible to those raiding at end game?
Simple question.
When I get the plain answer, preferably from Mr. McQuaid or one of his developers, no response from me will be forthcoming and I will quietly exit the thread.
This thread is like a blast from the past for me. I used to argue about this crap all the time and here I am doing it again. It's amazing that after all this time it's still the same old thing going around in circles.
The thing is, and I'm sure you know this Lacedopium and Brad knows it and anyone with at least average intelligence knows it----the thing is that there simply aren't enough people who want a hardcore raiding game to support and keep viable a game of that sort. That's why they will try to sucker in people who don't want that type of game so that they can pay the bills for the handful of people the game is actually being made for. And just to be clear when I talk about raiding in this thread I'm talking about multi-group content not some five man dungeon.
When it comes to item quality some people think it's reasonable to say that the best stuff should come from raiding. They think that sounds reasonable and fair. But to make a game that way it means that advancing your items through small group content or any other means MUST stop at some point. If you are going to reserve the highest advancement for raiding it logically follows that advancement through other means must come to an end. This means there will be a progression wall which people will hit.
You could make the same argument about a game centered around small group (4,5, or 6 people) content versus solo content. But a game focused on small group content might actually be able to survive on it's own merits. There might be enough of us to support that type of game without having to trick more solo oriented players into supporting it for us. The same is simply not true of a game focused on an EQ style raiding end-game.
Making a game focused on that type of end-game actually is reasonable and fair IF and only if it is presented that way upfront. This game is focused on large multi-group raids and if you don't like that sort of thing don't play it. But people know that if you present a game that way it's basically a death sentence for it.
I already made it perfectly clear that if its a raiding game I will not play. I am now merely attempting to get a confirmation from the developer if this is, in fact, the case because he he wasn't being totally clear on that point. And no I don't want to buy the best gear from you that you acquired in a raid. I want to acquire my own gear.
To repeat, and you can re-read my post because you obviously missed it ... I am not asking for a removal of anything. The game is what it is. If it is a raiding game, then so be it. Just let it be clearly known ahead of time ... and its all good. You can have your raiding game.
Except he said plainly, multiple times, it isn't a "raiding game." Pantheon is predominantly for group content with some raiding and even some content that can be done solo.
The beating around the bush and word semantic play is exactly why I am attempting to get matter of fact clarification. We all know that even in games that are clearly defined as "raiding centric" that there is a lot more to do before end game than raid. The point being is that if once at end game the only means by which to acquire the "best in slot" end game gear is by raiding, then it is by every definition a "raiding game."
No more word play and beating around the bush please. Plain English. Will the "best in slot" end game gear be only accessible to those raiding at end game?
Simple question.
When I get the plain answer, preferably from Mr. McQuaid or one of his developers, no response from me will be forthcoming and I will quietly exit the thread.
The reason you don't have a straight answer is because you are asking 2 different questions because YOU believe them to be the same. Is it a raiding game? By most people's standards it does not sound like it, thouh there are raids.
Will raids give BiS? Yes. So, if that makes a game a raiding one to you, then this won't be for you. It's the nature of the beast, grouping will get you access to better gear than solo, raiding will get better gear than grouping. If that is not acceptable then so be it. Harder content = better gear needed and earned.
The difference between the gear could be miniscule, and the time it takes to get the Best gear you can via groups may take a long time (and likely the hardcore players will finish the raids before you get your stuff) so the end result is both you and the raiders run out of content at the same time and have to wait for more content and therefore better gear which again will have different tiers. I don't see how this results in it being a raiding game, but everyone has their opinions and it sounds like this won't suit you.
I actually think you may want to try ESO though, raiding gives you some of the worse gear in the game and only a couple items need grouping to get, so you can get everything you want. Word of warning though, there isn't really much to do because raids are pointless as are dungeons...course, ironically that is one of the consequences of BiS being available to all - everyone can get it but have nothing to do with it.
I do not subscribe to, or understand for that matter, the mentality that raiding is the hardest or most challenging MMORPG combat mechanic and should therefore justify the acquisition of the best and greatest loot/gear rewards. Hard or challenging content can be just as equally achieved in 5 man groups and even 3 man groups. Heck, it can even be achieved in solo game play just as long as the developers tailor the NPC AI to that encounter. Although admittedly the solo option is not a desirable option since it would not accomplish the desired community objective.
That said, I believe that Pantheon has the capability to advance the genre by providing more inclusive game play in the form of allowing all game play preferences an equal opportunity to obtain the best gear. This can be achieved by instituting different levels of difficulty depending on how the player decides to acquire the BiS gear. For example, BiS gear would also be able to be obtained via 5 man group dungeons but the difficulty level would be increased to that of the raid difficulty level. BiS gear could likewise be obtained via crafting but the process of acquiring and crafting the mats would be even more onerous than acquiring them via raids or dungeons. This would allow for crafters and the economy to play an equal role in the game.
While there are some, like the above poster, that are of the belief that raiding is the most difficult and challenging combat mechanic in the game thereby justifying the best gear rewards, not all of us share that sentiment. Being the most time consuming and pain in the butt option to organize does not make it the hardest or most challenging. As a matter of fact, a good argument could be made that raids are easier for the individual since some in a large raid group can literally afk macro their way through a raid. In my personal experience, I have experienced much more challenging encounters in 5 man dungeons than I have ever experience in raids. Raids are just a convoluted mess of confusion most of the time.
As stated in the above paragraph, there are other options that would succeed in advancing and innovating the genre rather than maintain the status quo and ignoring the conveniences brought about by necessity simply because some choose to look at the genre through rose colored glasses. The objective should be to innovate and push the genre forward instead of choosing to take the easy way out by going back to 1990's game play standards.
Being time consuming and a pain to arrange and coordinate is all part of raid challenge. Yes, you can have difficult group content, but by only needing a small number of people it is easier to get the group together to regularly take on the challenge and therefore it becomes achievable more quickly and easy. Also, you only need a small number of decent players which is also easier to do. Sure, some raids are overly large and therefore people can slack, but plenty need everyone on top of their game - more people involved, more chance for errors to occur.
The fact it is not your playstyle does not mean it should have its rewards diluted. If you feel the future is all inclusive BiS gear in the form of a communistesque style of gameplay, again, look no further than Elder Scrolls Online. It has what you wish for.
But removing raid BiS won't magically provide more content for non raiders, it simply means there is no content for raiders, the result being less content for people overall with no benefit other than small content players being able to have BiS.
Now, does that mean raid gear should be obscenely better? Or that every single slot of gear must be BiS? No, the power differential can be small and there iss no reason why other aspects of the game cannot provide some BiS - afterall, I believe one should have to embrace all aspects of a game to be in full BiS, not pick and choosing what they decide they like and expecting everything. A mentality that plagues the modern MMOer 'I exist, thereforeI deserve'. If a game has PvP/pve one should expect some BiS from both areas rather than bitch that because they dislike one area they still deserve to get all the best. If a game has raids, you bet your ass at least some slots of gear will have BiS. If there is group content, the gear will be better than what a solo player can get - and in my opinion should be able to get some BiS too. But if you want it all, do it all or make do with gear good enough.
Comments
There will be content for groups and for raids (of various sizes) hopefully not just at the 'end game', but throughout the game. Pantheon is not about solo, solo, solo, and then suddenly you are forced to raid. It's not even about group, group, group, and then at the end, you are forced to raid. It's mostly about group content (although there will be places to solo, with your skill and also the class you've chosen impacting how much you can solo). And there will be raids. We also realize that not everyone in our audience wants to raid a lot, so there will be plenty of group content, even at the 'end game'. The very best items will still mostly drop in raids, so if you have to have the very best, you'll need to raid a bit. If you are instead content with great gear, just not the absolute highest tier, and you don't care for raiding, you don't need to. I will say, though, that if you make the decision that you have to have the highest tier items (which will usually only be necessary in order to participate in raids -- in other words, you won't need top tier raid items to group at the 'end game'), but don't want to raid, you're going to have to find similar crafted items, or trade for the raid items, or something. I don't consider this 'forced raiding', just like I don't consider the game to be 'forced grouping'. But we realize not everyone will see it that way.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
If there is a problem example used was Wow,the problem is not too many people camping the same mobs,the problem is the game design,i have never said Wow was a good game design and never will. Why are people all camping the same mob?The obvious reason is you have no game,that is because gamer's tend to play for ONLY one reason,to get the best loot.You need a versatile game and to have Bosses/named only spawn on rare occasions and NEVER in the same spot to allow bot camping or any kind of camping.
Most importantly you need a GAME,players should not be playing role playing games as nothing more than a repeating dungeon loot finder.Housing,building things,crafting things,discovering things,farming to craft,questing for various/many reasons not just to go find some boss for some loot.
Then you also want multiple class design,example like FFXI done near perfectly as a sub class design.This allows players to create versatile characters via many classes,keeps all zones looking busy gives players lots of choices in classes to play so they don't get bored etc etc.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I mentioned this because even Aradune doesn't know this as MOST posts will be one big wall of text.
I say LYNCH mob whomever picked this site,obviously not much testing was done before the selection or was simply a real cheap bargain site.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
John Lennon
If this team can come up with a compromise that works, fine, willing to give it a try.
Honestly, the crux of this issue isn't about who has better items. It all comes down to the motivating factor of playing. In a game of this sort the fundamental motivator is progression. Gaining levels and upgrading items. I often wish this wasn't the case but it is and we all know it.
So the problem arises if a person realizes that they can no longer progress in any significant way. It not an issue of logging in and seeing someone with better stuff than you have and getting all upset about that. It's logging in and standing around with nothing to do while the reality sinks in that you've hit a wall and can't go any further.
The anger and feeling of unfairness doesn't arise from knowing that other people have better stuff (there will always be people who are ahead of you) it comes from knowing that a select group is provided with the means to continue progressing while you are blocked off from continued advancement.
And you see Brad, you are still repeating some of your old lines for this sort of thing. Saying that top tier items are only necessary to participate in raids, ergo---people who don't raid don't need high end items. In other words, only hardcore raiders deserve to progress and anyone who doesn't fall into that group shouldn't be allowed to continue progressing.
This misses the whole point. The point is that everyone needs a way to continue progressing. Wherever they are at on the item curve they need a way to keep going.
The assumption in your thinking was, and apparently still is, that after a certain point only a certain subset of the player base should be allowed to continue advancing. You're not doing that content so you don't need that gear so just sit in a corner and be quiet. Well, sitting in a corner and being quiet isn't much fun. Not having any content which you can use to continue progressing at your own pace isn't fun. Your philosophy is that people like me aren't supposed to have fun after a certain point we're just supposed to sit there and watch others have fun.
Well, whatever, make the game as you please. But you still don't seem to understand the problem. I just wish you'd be a little more honest about it. If it's going to be a game to please the hardcore raiding subset of players that's fine, just be open about that. Don't try to con people into thinking it's anything else.
I have no problem with that subset of players getting a game they'll love. Good for them. I just don't want to waste my time with it.
1. We think some competition is good, but it's something that we have to get right. We don't like the Instanced route where the player feels he is entitled to all items, and should be able to get at those items any time, with minimal effort. Rather, we feel the player is entitled to the opportunity to try to get the items.
2. Too much competition is bad. It becomes too frustrating for most players. There are two important ways to address this: have a lot of content (which is the plan) and launch a new shard (or more) when one shard becomes so populated that, even though there's a lot of content, there are so many people that the competition for items is too great. Watching server populations and being able to quickly and easily add additional shards is also part of our plan. If content and desired items are only obtainable by those who camp 24/7, then I agree, it makes the content and items unavailable to the majority of players who are neither willing nor able to commit to long play sessions. While Pantheon is going to be a very challenging game and a group-oriented game, we are doing quite a few things to make it such that you don't have to play long sessions in order to advance -- we realize our audience is older now, may have a spouse, kids, a demanding job, etc. In fact, I put myself into that audience.
3. We do realize that many players don't want any competition and do feel entitled to be able to obtain any item at any time. Important: we do not think negatively of that player, or look down upon them, or think 'casual' is a bad word. But we also feel strongly that MMOs need to be made with specific target audiences in mind. Too many recent huge $$ games have tried to appeal to everyone and fallen short. So while we respect the more casual player, we also realize there are many MMOs available to that person. But we don't think there are a lot (certainly no new MMOs) that target the player who doesn't mind some competition, who enjoys grouping and working with a community. So we're targeting this audience because we feel they have been orphaned in the last several years.
4. We will try to minimize botting. In fact, we've several ideas and are going to try hard to stop it. But I do use the word minimize because I am not going to promise you perfection when it comes to issues that are challenging for the developer to deal with. I will promise that we'll do what we can, but I also want to always be honest and up-front with you guys, and some of these things are easier said than done. I can say that combat will be very involved, with the player needing to monitor the battle carefully, using spells and abilities at the right times and not just spells and abilities to damage the other mob, but to heal your groupmates, to counter spells the mob is casting, etc. I think combat where you have to be very tactically aware will make it harder to bot and harder to multibox.
5. I will again be up front and honest with you -- we cannot promise there will be no griefers. But by making a game that is very social, group oriented, and with a huge emphasis on community, the goal is to thereby create an environment where griefers are identified by the community and hopefully shunned. In an MMO designed around community and designed to be played for months and even years, people get to know who is who. If someone is a griefer, that word will get around, and he won't get into groups, he won't have people trade with him, and he's going to find himself in a situation where advancement is extremely difficult. Hopefully he realizes his behavior just isn't compatible with a game like Pantheon and he re-rolls, makes a new character, and embraces the community and abandons his propensity to be a jerk. I've seen this happen and I know it can work.
It is true that Instances addresses some of the problems you bring up. But it also creates a very different environment and, at least for our audience, we feel more is lost by embracing Instancing than is gained.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
So, just to make sure I'm being as clear as possible, when you say "Your philosophy is that people like me aren't supposed to have fun after a certain point we're just supposed to sit there and watch others have fun" you are absolutely incorrect. That is most certainly *not* my philosophy nor my goal. Grouping content, raiding content, and even to some degree soloing content, will exist at ALL levels, including the 'end game'.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brad McQuaid
CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
www.pantheonmmo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
I feel like I should add one more post here before I shut up.
The only reason I bothered replying to this at all is because I actually do long for a group oriented game again. Brad, I'll give you and the original EQ dev team credit for making the best grouping game I've ever played. I still say that EQ had the best group play I've ever experienced in any game.
However, I absolutely hated the end-game of EQ as evidenced by the fact that I'm still bitching about it after all these years. So, therein lies my dilemma. The thought of a new game with the group play of EQ excites me. But the thought of a new game with the end-game of EQ makes me want to smash something.
It really sucks that developers always tend to go the extremes. Make a MMO that's basically a single player game or make a MMO that forces people into a huge guild doing multi-group content.
There are other examples of devs going to the extremes that don't apply to this discussion. Like, for years any time anyone talked about making a sandbox game they thought it HAD to have unrestricted free-for-all PVP or else it wasn't really a sandbox game. It's crazy.
Well, I have no control over any of this. Developers will make the games how they want and we just have to look at what they made and decide if we want to play it. I have to say though that I honestly believe that an EQ style end-game will not work well today. I don't just say that because I don't like it, I genuinely think it wouldn't go over well. The target audience for that sort of thing does exist. But you can find them all in the top guilds on the project 1999 server. All three or four hundred of them. I'm sure that most people who remember EQ fondly have heard of the P99 server and if even 10% of them really and truly wanted to experience that type of end-game again the P99 devs would have had to open more P99 servers by now to handle the numbers. But they haven't had to.
The effort should be through game play, not players ruining it for other players. If you are going to allow negative game play, then you need to allow players the tools to combat it, either with PvP or GM's to resolve camp locking.
There is a difference. He is complaining about gear that is ONLY accessible through raids and no where else. This means gear that is only accessible to raiders and no one else who is not interested in raiding. Wild Star already tried this and failed miserably. I don't think most people will have anything against the best gear being acquirable through raids just as long as that same gear is also available through other means. I don't care if you make it twice or even three times as difficult to acquire through other means just as long as you make it equally available to players who do not care to raid. Like the poster said, if what you are designing is a game catering to raiders then just say it. Don't string everyone along leading them to believe that the game is on an equal level for everyone when the reality is that the game is a raiders paradise and only raiders will be walking around town with the best gear. If so, this is not the game for me and I will gladly stay far far away from it.
Brad, if you are going to be honest, then be bluntly honest. I doubt the issue is one where players just want to be kept busy at end game while the raiders acquire the best gear raiding. It is one of having equal access to the best gear at end game as the raiding crowd. If this is not the case, then just let us know now. There is no shame in that and I, for one, won't hold it against you. It is your game. If you want it to be a raiding game, then so be it. Letting it be known ahead of time will allow those of us who are not raiders to not waste our time with Pantheon and look elsewhere for our MMORPG fix.
He also said the gear from raids was tradeable, so hypothetically a player could farm or craft and accumulate enough wealth to buy raid gear. Theres really no comparing Wildstar, as it was fundamentally, from the ground up, a different game than what they are proposing with Pantheon. The game was marketed as a hardcore raiding game with rush to end game and tons of other casual appeal. That is basically the polar opposite.
Calling for the removal of all content requiring large scale cooperative efforts in an MMORPG is not so different from those who say everything should be solo friendly on the other end of the spectrum.
I already made it perfectly clear that if its a raiding game I will not play. I am now merely attempting to get a confirmation from the developer if this is, in fact, the case because he he wasn't being totally clear on that point. And no I don't want to buy the best gear from you that you acquired in a raid. I want to acquire my own gear.
To repeat, and you can re-read my post because you obviously missed it ... I am not asking for a removal of anything. The game is what it is. If it is a raiding game, then so be it. Just let it be clearly known ahead of time ... and its all good. You can have your raiding game.
The beating around the bush and word semantic play is exactly why I am attempting to get matter of fact clarification. We all know that even in games that are clearly defined as "raiding centric" that there is a lot more to do before end game than raid. The point being is that if once at end game the only means by which to acquire the "best in slot" end game gear is by raiding, then it is by every definition a "raiding game."
No more word play and beating around the bush please. Plain English. Will the "best in slot" end game gear be only accessible to those raiding at end game?
Simple question.
When I get the plain answer, preferably from Mr. McQuaid or one of his developers, no response from me will be forthcoming and I will quietly exit the thread.
This thread is like a blast from the past for me. I used to argue about this crap all the time and here I am doing it again. It's amazing that after all this time it's still the same old thing going around in circles.
The thing is, and I'm sure you know this Lacedopium and Brad knows it and anyone with at least average intelligence knows it----the thing is that there simply aren't enough people who want a hardcore raiding game to support and keep viable a game of that sort. That's why they will try to sucker in people who don't want that type of game so that they can pay the bills for the handful of people the game is actually being made for. And just to be clear when I talk about raiding in this thread I'm talking about multi-group content not some five man dungeon.
When it comes to item quality some people think it's reasonable to say that the best stuff should come from raiding. They think that sounds reasonable and fair. But to make a game that way it means that advancing your items through small group content or any other means MUST stop at some point. If you are going to reserve the highest advancement for raiding it logically follows that advancement through other means must come to an end. This means there will be a progression wall which people will hit.
You could make the same argument about a game centered around small group (4,5, or 6 people) content versus solo content. But a game focused on small group content might actually be able to survive on it's own merits. There might be enough of us to support that type of game without having to trick more solo oriented players into supporting it for us. The same is simply not true of a game focused on an EQ style raiding end-game.
Making a game focused on that type of end-game actually is reasonable and fair IF and only if it is presented that way upfront. This game is focused on large multi-group raids and if you don't like that sort of thing don't play it. But people know that if you present a game that way it's basically a death sentence for it.
Is it a raiding game? By most people's standards it does not sound like it, thouh there are raids.
Will raids give BiS? Yes. So, if that makes a game a raiding one to you, then this won't be for you.
It's the nature of the beast, grouping will get you access to better gear than solo, raiding will get better gear than grouping. If that is not acceptable then so be it. Harder content = better gear needed and earned.
The difference between the gear could be miniscule, and the time it takes to get the Best gear you can via groups may take a long time (and likely the hardcore players will finish the raids before you get your stuff) so the end result is both you and the raiders run out of content at the same time and have to wait for more content and therefore better gear which again will have different tiers.
I don't see how this results in it being a raiding game, but everyone has their opinions and it sounds like this won't suit you.
I actually think you may want to try ESO though, raiding gives you some of the worse gear in the game and only a couple items need grouping to get, so you can get everything you want. Word of warning though, there isn't really much to do because raids are pointless as are dungeons...course, ironically that is one of the consequences of BiS being available to all - everyone can get it but have nothing to do with it.
I do not subscribe to, or understand for that matter, the mentality that raiding is the hardest or most challenging MMORPG combat mechanic and should therefore justify the acquisition of the best and greatest loot/gear rewards. Hard or challenging content can be just as equally achieved in 5 man groups and even 3 man groups. Heck, it can even be achieved in solo game play just as long as the developers tailor the NPC AI to that encounter. Although admittedly the solo option is not a desirable option since it would not accomplish the desired community objective.
That said, I believe that Pantheon has the capability to advance the genre by providing more inclusive game play in the form of allowing all game play preferences an equal opportunity to obtain the best gear. This can be achieved by instituting different levels of difficulty depending on how the player decides to acquire the BiS gear. For example, BiS gear would also be able to be obtained via 5 man group dungeons but the difficulty level would be increased to that of the raid difficulty level. BiS gear could likewise be obtained via crafting but the process of acquiring and crafting the mats would be even more onerous than acquiring them via raids or dungeons. This would allow for crafters and the economy to play an equal role in the game.
While there are some, like the above poster, that are of the belief that raiding is the most difficult and challenging combat mechanic in the game thereby justifying the best gear rewards, not all of us share that sentiment. Being the most time consuming and pain in the butt option to organize does not make it the hardest or most challenging. As a matter of fact, a good argument could be made that raids are easier for the individual since some in a large raid group can literally afk macro their way through a raid. In my personal experience, I have experienced much more challenging encounters in 5 man dungeons than I have ever experience in raids. Raids are just a convoluted mess of confusion most of the time.
As stated in the above paragraph, there are other options that would succeed in advancing and innovating the genre rather than maintain the status quo and ignoring the conveniences brought about by necessity simply because some choose to look at the genre through rose colored glasses. The objective should be to innovate and push the genre forward instead of choosing to take the easy way out by going back to 1990's game play standards.
The fact it is not your playstyle does not mean it should have its rewards diluted. If you feel the future is all inclusive BiS gear in the form of a communistesque style of gameplay, again, look no further than Elder Scrolls Online. It has what you wish for.
But removing raid BiS won't magically provide more content for non raiders, it simply means there is no content for raiders, the result being less content for people overall with no benefit other than small content players being able to have BiS.
Now, does that mean raid gear should be obscenely better? Or that every single slot of gear must be BiS? No, the power differential can be small and there iss no reason why other aspects of the game cannot provide some BiS - afterall, I believe one should have to embrace all aspects of a game to be in full BiS, not pick and choosing what they decide they like and expecting everything. A mentality that plagues the modern MMOer 'I exist, thereforeI deserve'. If a game has PvP/pve one should expect some BiS from both areas rather than bitch that because they dislike one area they still deserve to get all the best. If a game has raids, you bet your ass at least some slots of gear will have BiS. If there is group content, the gear will be better than what a solo player can get - and in my opinion should be able to get some BiS too. But if you want it all, do it all or make do with gear good enough.