However Imagine 60 people that do have the right lvl of gear. They would steam roll it.
Nope. It wasn't just about gear. Seen many raids where they had inflated numbers and well geared and watched them wipe over and over and over again. Also seen raids where the general consensus was that it took 50-60 and it was done with 30 in less than optimal gear.
Well they must have sucked because most things were tank in spank with a few big moves to worry about and adds maybe some tank swapping. I saw stuff like that on XI as well and it was because they weren't very good at their jobs or had no clue what they were doing.
So you are saying it was just simple "Tank and spank" and what you mean by that is there were other things like placement, adds, movements, class rotations and chains as well as situational skill uses to overcome a given boss feature, etc...
Sounds like most raids today, I guess all games are "tank and spank"?
The point is, the comment about EQ being just "tank and spank" is a lot of mistruth. If you dismiss all the responsibilities of the other raid members and only focus on that limited dealing with the mob, I guess you could say that to an extent, but then that would be a straw man as most games do the same thing.
EQ lacked one thing in its raids and that was all the extensive flashy action arcade based scripting that exists in most current raids these day (ie run here, jump here in time, fetch that, turn that on, turn that off, etc...), but even then there were many elements of such in various EQ raids, just not to the level of games like WoW. Sure, there were some simplistic "tank and spank" fights in EQ, but then so are there in Wow and just about any game out there.
This genre is stuck in a raiding rut. What's so sad is that it's such a niche play style, yet it gets top dog billing in virtually every MMO to date. When will some developer grow a pair and let another play style be elite for once. At least Camelot Unchained is probably going to give PvPers top billing, but I'm still waiting for a PvE game that doesn't settle for the raiding crutch.
More complaining without any suggestions as to alternatives. Raiding is top dog because its the best thing to do in an MMO endgame. PVP is not popular enough to sustain the majority of the MMO playerbase, so, thats out. They've already tried the solo on rails experience, and while somewhat popular it has no sustainability. So please, enlighten us as to these other awesome play styles that some of the best minds in gaming haven't been able to figure out are...
Oh, I don't know, how about the obvious, the same play styles that get you to end game to begin with. Group, solo, dungeons, questing, camping, crafting , gathering, mini games, platforming, exploration, puzzle solving, riddles, lore, pvp, faction, dynamic events, scripted events, alternate advancement, achievements...etc. How could rehashing all of that be any more boring than rehashing raids ad nauseum? The better question is why do we allow developers to be so lazy. They need to earn our money like any other business and that requires effort towards all of their audience, not just raiders.
However Imagine 60 people that do have the right lvl of gear. They would steam roll it.
Nope. It wasn't just about gear. Seen many raids where they had inflated numbers and well geared and watched them wipe over and over and over again. Also seen raids where the general consensus was that it took 50-60 and it was done with 30 in less than optimal gear.
Well they must have sucked because most things were tank in spank with a few big moves to worry about and adds maybe some tank swapping. I saw stuff like that on XI as well and it was because they weren't very good at their jobs or had no clue what they were doing.
So you are saying it was just simple "Tank and spank" and what you mean by that is there were other things like placement, adds, movements, class rotations and chains as well as situational skill uses to overcome a given boss feature, etc...
Sounds like most raids today, I guess all games are "tank and spank"?
The point is, the comment about EQ being just "tank and spank" is a lot of mistruth. If you dismiss all the responsibilities of the other raid members and only focus on that limited dealing with the mob, I guess you could say that to an extent, but then that would be a straw man as most games do the same thing.
EQ lacked one thing in its raids and that was all the extensive flashy action arcade based scripting that exists in most current raids these day (ie run here, jump here in time, fetch that, turn that on, turn that off, etc...), but even then there were many elements of such in various EQ raids, just not to the level of games like WoW. Sure, there were some simplistic "tank and spank" fights in EQ, but then so are there in Wow and just about any game out there.
Ok, there is more to boss fights in many games today and takes a lot more skill to beat. I could give examples but the point of I think is that with no cap a 100 man could come in and camp the crap out of said boss and smaller groups would have no chance. With it being open world contested content and if they do it like they did on EQ anyone can fight the boss but whatever group does the most damage gets the loot. You can see a reason for concern yes?
No they wouldn't. 100 people is a lot of mouths to feed, and even that many people does not guarantee they win contested content. As soon as 25 players roll through and start gearing out their guild, 50% of that 100 man guild will be putting applications in to that 25 man guild or breaking off to create a smaller "elite" guild.
Ok, there is more to boss fights in many games today and takes a lot more skill to beat. I could give examples but the point of I think is that with no cap a 100 man could come in and camp the crap out of said boss and smaller groups would have no chance. With it being open world contested content and if they do it like they did on EQ anyone can fight the boss but whatever group does the most damage gets the loot. You can see a reason for concern yes?
Name them, do a cross analysis and comparison of like raids in both EQ and the games you use example of, and then show me outside of some of the technological advances in play as to how that is more difficult than the many timing and coordination efforts of EQ.
I led many raids in over the 5 years of EQ I played since release, I led many raids in WoW, played in many raids in MANY of the MMOs over the years. If you are being honest in the comparison and evaluation (ie apples to apples), they are not more difficult, they just have different tools and mechanics.
I know many who claim what you do who never raided in EQ, or if they did their experience was greatly limited and narrowly experienced (ie they were a tag along and did a basic role) and had no real understanding of the various roles and functions of key classes and groups in the raid.
If you think EQ was nothing more than a DPS zerg, well... that sounds like someone who never played it.
Ok, there is more to boss fights in many games today and takes a lot more skill to beat. I could give examples but the point of I think is that with no cap a 100 man could come in and camp the crap out of said boss and smaller groups would have no chance. With it being open world contested content and if they do it like they did on EQ anyone can fight the boss but whatever group does the most damage gets the loot. You can see a reason for concern yes?
No they wouldn't. 100 people is a lot of mouths to feed, and even that many people does not guarantee they win contested content. As soon as 25 players roll through and start gearing out their guild, 50% of that 100 man guild will be putting applications in to that 25 man guild or breaking off to create a smaller "elite" guild.
That's all assumption, different people will do different things and some people would take advantage of their numbers to take control of a camp spot. In XI who ever claimed it got the loot and others could not fight the enemy but that caused a hole other problem with claim boting.
Its a far bigger assumption that people will choose to zerg content in a slow paced game. That just makes the process slower, and without PvP, having 100 people will not prevent 30 more skilled players from sniping bosses.
As someone who played classic era EQ extensively (as well as private servers emulating the same), I can tell you it never works out the way you've described. In the long run, people are simply not willing to wait in line for months and years for what they could achieve in half the time with a smaller guild. That was the nature of a game like EQ.
Looking back at the most infamous guilds in EQ history, none of the most prominent zerged. http://legacyofsteel.net/#/archives - Just browsing through the screenshots I saw them talking about wiping to Gorenaire, probably the hardest dragon in Kunark, but one that could be killed by less than 3 groups if they all have the appropriate cold resist gear.
Even on the PvP servers where there was safety in numbers, the most productive guilds ran around with less than 30 people. If we wanted to achieve something that required more, we worked together with other guilds.
As someone who played classic era EQ extensively (as well as private servers emulating the same), I can tell you it never
works out the way you've described. In the long run, people are simply
not willing to wait in line for months and years for what they could
achieve in half the time with a smaller guild. That was the nature of a
game like EQ.
Exactly! Every time I see those types of arguments, it is always from people who never played EQ to any real experience. /shrug
Your premise was a fallacy, designed to force an outcome you desired. You didn't ask a legitimate question based on the discussion, you created a false summary fit in the form of a straw man so you could easily knock it down. /shrug
No offense, but if that is your method of discussion, I am not interested.
Edit:
Just in case you don't understand.
You stated the 30 man and 100 man were exactly equal (skill, gear, etc...), then claimed he said the 30 man would kill the mob faster than the 100 man.
This is a false summary. He did not state that.
He was saying there is no point to having a 100 man if a 30 man can do it because enormous amount of time it would take to gear up that 100 man would be far too long for most people to tolerate in gear chance.
So, as he said, this never happened as you think because most guilds tried to become as efficient as possible so they could reasonably upgrade the guilds gear. Seriously, do the math on distributing gear to a 100 man group to functionally progress in content that can be done with 30 when your boss spawns are contested on a 7 day spawn and the average number of loot that drops from a raid mob is around 5-7 items.
That 30 man group is going to be more mobile and better associated with the rest of the raid (ie a smaller more relational grouping experience to learn peoples habits and mannerisms) while the 100 man is going to be a bunch of strangers, heavily reliant on strong communication structures and organization.
Do you know anything about EQ at all?
Or.. are you saying the 30 man and the 100 man would be both killing the mob at the same time? That isn't going to happen without GM intervention. A guild does that on a PvE server (ie starts combat while another guild has initiated) and it is a good way to get banned. In EQ, it was first to start is the one who gets it, the other guild has to wait. (which is why the 30 man is better because they are more organized).
If you mean PvP, lol... that one is funny. It only takes a single player to wipe a raid. Size of the raid won't matter.
Your premise was a fallacy, designed to force an outcome you desired. You didn't ask a legitimate question based on the discussion, you created a false summary fit in the form of a straw man so you could easily knock it down. /shrug
No offense, but if that is your method of discussion, I am not interested.
So you won't at least answer the straight forward question of why they changed it if no capps wasn't a problem? Ok , let me ask like this. You have heard my fears, how would my fears not happen seeing how I haven't played before? I don't think that is a loaded question.
I don't know why they cut them, I stopped playing around the time GoD came out (though I have heard they cut them several times over the years) when raid sizes were still around 72. Up until I left, I never saw the "problems" you mentioned.
Why would they cut them? Well, there are numerous reasons, some technical as well as trying to appeal to raid sizes in other "popular" mainstream games. For instance, in 2008 they reduced it to 42 and what popular game at that time had 40 man raids? So we could guess all day long and make up all kinds of reasons that would make an argument seem valid. but I would just avoid such pointless speculating.
The fact remains that EQ had very large raid sizes for years before it was changed and like I said, in the years I played it, I never saw the problems you mentioned.
That good enough or do we have to take your lack of knowledge and experience with this issue and proclaim it valid over mine and others reasoned discussion based on actual experience?
If this game becomes all about Raiding,i am not stepping one foot in it ever.
I want a ROLE PLAYING world and a living world with realistic or plausible game play. I do NOT want a never ending cycle of instance.Some of those old EQ ideas are astoundingly BAD,they have no business being in a rpg game world,they are nothing more than simple mechanic ideas to support loot grinds.
If you were building a plausible world based on any kind of realistic thought,you would know that the ONLY reason people would go and kill dragons was out of fear or to defend their city.There would NEVER be a scenario where Joe Black says to Joe Dirt...."Hey you wanna get some other guys and go loot some Dragons,i am sure they will drop some shiny swords or plate armor".Nope not happening ever.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
If this game becomes all about Raiding,i am not stepping one foot in it ever.
I want a ROLE PLAYING world and a living world with realistic or plausible game play. I do NOT want a never ending cycle of instance.Some of those old EQ ideas are astoundingly BAD,they have no business being in a rpg game world,they are nothing more than simple mechanic ideas to support loot grinds.
If you were building a plausible world based on any kind of realistic thought,you would know that the ONLY reason people would go and kill dragons was out of fear or to defend their city.There would NEVER be a scenario where Joe Black says to Joe Dirt...."Hey you wanna get some other guys and go loot some Dragons,i am sure they will drop some shiny swords or plate armor".Nope not happening ever.
People hunted whales nearly to the point of extinction because their bodies could be processed into useful materials.
If this game becomes all about Raiding,i am not stepping one foot in it ever.
I want a ROLE PLAYING world and a living world with realistic or plausible game play. I do NOT want a never ending cycle of instance.Some of those old EQ ideas are astoundingly BAD,they have no business being in a rpg game world,they are nothing more than simple mechanic ideas to support loot grinds.
If you were building a plausible world based on any kind of realistic thought,you would know that the ONLY reason people would go and kill dragons was out of fear or to defend their city.There would NEVER be a scenario where Joe Black says to Joe Dirt...."Hey you wanna get some other guys and go loot some Dragons,i am sure they will drop some shiny swords or plate armor".Nope not happening ever.
In EQ up to Planes of Power, you could just do grouping and never worry about a single raid. It wasn't required or needed. There were tons of interesting dungeons to pass the time in.
Planes of power started "keying" zones which required players to kill raid mobs to move into further zones and this began EQs eventual progression to a raid game primarily.
The point is, even if there are raids, it isn't going to be like WoW and other games which have turned raiding into a marketing gimmick.
That said, fantasy can be made in any manner the writer wishes, it is not constrained to any form of required logic. /shrug
"Ultimately exp acquisition will determine the group size. So, what is
the ideal EXP in a dungeon of level for a group of players? At what
point do you say "Hey, you guys have too many people trivializing that
content, your exp is going to be reduced!"
That is why you have a
default group size to define what the content is optimally designed
for. Do it with less than 6, more exp, do it with more than 6 less exp.
This is a proper balance of risk/reward I think."
I didnt want to come to these damn forums but you managed to motivate me. And maybe Im just CooCoo for CoCo Puffs but do you not see the Irony of your post from the other thread? Pay attention to the bold portion. How can you be so right and so on target with the quote from above and yet not carry this line of thinking to its logical conclusion? I mean its almost hilarious if it wasnt for the fact that you are serious about uncapped group sizes. After reading this quote over and over I just dont get it? Are you trolling me? How did you come up with "This is a proper balance of risk/reward I think."? No its not....... its really not. The ease of exploitation and the lack of balance that this would bring to Pantheon are undeniable. And No, Dullahan, its not a stepping stone to the "evils" of Instancing :awesome:
And this little nugget: "That good enough or do we have to take your lack of knowledge and
experience with this issue and proclaim it valid over mine and others
reasoned discussion based on actual experience?"
So you claim to have absolute knowledge and completely reasoned discussion? So far it seems you dont focus on the questions and instead twist the argument into something else and completely miss the point. Also any lack of knowledge over a game doesnt mean he or I for that matter dont have good basis for our argument or that other experiences from old school games are not valid.
It seems entirely likely to me that your strong defense of the EQ approach to raids is from within the isolated depths of an echo chamber. I dont think you are properly taking into account how the mmo player mind-set has evolved (for good or bad). Im not talking about the newest generation of gamers. Im talking about the people that have been playing MMOs since Ultima, Asherons Call, and yes EQ. Not all ideas from newer games are better, but neither are all ideas from older games. And lets not forget that the swelling of the mmo player base and the increase of the me-first and screw everybody else attitude has help built an army of assholes playing out there in the mmo space. And VR wont have an army of GMs!
"As someone who played classic era EQ extensively (as well as private servers emulating the same), I can tell you it never
works out the way you've described. In the long run, people are simply
not willing to wait in line for months and years for what they could
achieve in half the time with a smaller guild. That was the nature of a
game like EQ."
This is wrong! Your experience in one game played in the past does no justify that it could be done in the present. Know why? Because it did work out the way he described in other oldschool games, and knowing gamers today you can be damn sure it would happen now. Have you been reading these forums at MMORPG.com at all the last couple of years? Have you played any of the newer MMOs at all? You seem like a smart guy Dullahan, but how can you be so blind and naive?
I didnt want to come to these damn forums but you managed to motivate me. And maybe Im just CooCoo for CoCo Puffs but do you not see the Irony of your post from the other thread? Pay attention to the bold portion. How can you be so right and so on target with the quote from above and yet not carry this line of thinking to its logical conclusion? I mean its almost hilarious if it wasnt for the fact that you are serious about uncapped group sizes. After reading this quote over and over I just dont get it? Are you trolling me? How did you come up with "This is a proper balance of risk/reward I think."? No its not....... its really not. The ease of exploitation and the lack of balance that this would bring to Pantheon are undeniable. And No, Dullahan, its not a stepping stone to the "evils" of Instancing :awesome:
Failure to state. Please, if you are going to claim I am wrong, make your case, don't just point at something and then expect me to figure out whats going on in your head.
We discussed why raid caps aren't that big of an issue as they tend to work themselves out due to the reasons discussed.
Group size, aka party size is a different issue. For instance, how do you disperse exp? Are you just going to equally give exp to everyone who hits the mob regardless if they are in the group or the effort they put forth? Will you allow an unlimited number of people to kill a mob and share the exp as if they were one, two, three or more? How will you differentiate between them for the sake of leveling? That is, if 15 people all group up in sit in a room and kill mobs without any effort, are you going to treat them the same in exp as you would a group of 6? Why?
How are you going to design the group content? Are you going to make a dungeon with solo mobs, duo mobs, trio mobs, etc... on up? How are you going to lay them out in the dungeon and how will you handle risk/reward? If the mob is designed to test a group of 6, then I am assuming your loot will match that with proper reward right? How are you going to accomplish that and how will a player know if they are fighting a solo mob or a raid mob in a dungeon? Will there be any sort of theme here, any logic to understand the mechanics or will every corner be some wild and crazy dice roll with solo mobs and then a mob designed for 20 people? How are you going to handle this, especially as it concerns progression? I mean, if you don't design for any specific size, how will you know? My points about group size has multiple purposes.
Now lets consider all of that and my comments about raid sizes. We were talking about how people taking more than is needed to a raid won't cause issues. Why? because... Loot drops are limited, so the larger the raid, the more sharing, means slower raid gearing. So, if a group can handle a mob with less people, why would anyone in their right mind choose to do a raid mob with a ton of people they don't need knowing loot drops are limited?
So you claim to have absolute knowledge and completely reasoned discussion? So far it seems you dont focus on the questions and instead twist the argument into something else and completely miss the point. Also any lack of knowledge over a game doesnt mean he or I for that matter dont have good basis for our argument or that other experiences from old school games are not valid.
It seems entirely likely to me that your strong defense of the EQ approach to raids is from within the isolated depths of an echo chamber. I dont think you are properly taking into account how the mmo player mind-set has evolved (for good or bad). Im not talking about the newest generation of gamers. Im talking about the people that have been playing MMOs since Ultima, Asherons Call, and yes EQ. Not all ideas from newer games are better, but neither are all ideas from older games. And lets not forget that the swelling of the mmo player base and the increase of the me-first and screw everybody else attitude has help built an army of assholes playing out there in the mmo space. And VR wont have an army of GMs!
I did not state to be an absolute knowledge. That poster however specifically straw manned the argument. I explained that, go back and read since you are so adept at cut and pasting specifics, you might notice that part where I explain to him how used a false summary and straw man to establish a question that would produce a manufactured result.
That poster is ignorant on EQ features and mechanics and he was obtuse in his manner of claiming an outcome of those mechanics that has been proven wrong by historical fact. So please, don't get all arrogant coming here to white knight the guy because he didn't know what he was talking about. If you want to argue the flaws of EQ, then know EQ, don't argue it from an ignorant point of view and act like your game experiences are superior.
I played other games. In fact I played MUDs and MUSHs before most people knew what a network was. I played Meridian 59, EQ, EQ2, AC, AC2, AO, Lineage 1/2, Ultima, WoW, Rift, DDO, LoTRO, Horizons, Warhammer, Age of Wushu, Allods, Neverwinter, City of Heroes, Matrix Online, Champions, Firefall, Guild Wars, Perfect World, The Secret World, Pirates of the Burning Sea, Shadowbane, Vanguard and many others I can't remember at the moment. Not only did I play them, but many of them I alpha/beta tested.
Does that make me an authority? It does mean I am not some guy who is sitting in a hole who only played a single game and doesn't understand that there are some new fangled things that roll called "cars" out there! I have played most games, I am aware of different features, if you want to discuss something specific, in most cases I probably know what you are talking about and if I don't, I am sure I can understand with a very short explanation. The point is, when I make my arguments, they aren't from ignorance or stubbornness.
So, if you want to say the no raid cap thing is bad, argue it with points, examples, and understanding, don't just dismiss things, especially when you don't have any experience with the very thing you are dismissing.
As for the people today? Yes, I know. Thing is, they won't survive long in Pantheon if it is EQ like. They don't have the patients and they won't survive the reputations. Remember, the mainstream player we see today who is a social moron? They aren't new, they existed in EQ as well, I remember quite well seeing many of them sitting in the lower level zones whining about how they can't find a group because nobody wanted to be around the idiots. Some got through the cracks, some even became major guild leaders who threw tantrums like little brats (Furor, Thott, etc...), but even in all that, EQ did fairly well.
The last thing we need is to create a game where we tell players what they can and can't do at every turn. Rules are important, but I am talking about game rules and mechanics, not social engineering rules. Look, there are going to be some bad apples from time to time, but an open game, with strong social reliance and those folks will run for the hills. There was a reason name changes and server changes became big money makers in EQ at one point. It was because people who ruined their reputations couldn't find groups, couldn't do anything but solo. The average mainstream player won't survive Pantheon, but... it has to be an old school game. You put in all those social safety nets and the game will be just as bad as WoW.
Nope, not EQ, just a game being designed from the spirit of it and Vanguard to achieve that style and feel of play that people remember and enjoyed about those games. You aren't going to achieve that by coping a bunch of games that aren't EQ or Vanguard. If you have such serious problems with EQ features... well... kind of in the wrong game.
Apart from the group limits they can hardly go wrong wether they go more VGish or EQish. Both did it well, tho i prefer what EQ offered slighly.
I hate hard player limits tho... it was fun doing a Dragon with 120 undergeared people to get it down for the first time. Then coming back a year later, geared up more and being able to do it with 60 people or even less. Leaving behind people due to a hard raid size cap has never been fun in any game i have played since they started this crap.
Sure enoucnter are easier to balance, yadda yadda. Tell that the healer that has to sit out due to harsh DPS requirements, or the DD that has to sit out next fight due to needing an additional offtank this time. Did i mention the offtank is only needed for 2 out of 9 bosses? Yes, but it is warm outsite the instance!....
Seriously, i hate it.
This! Absolutely 100% agree.
MMORPG! Massively Multiplayer!!! Ever since WoW and the initial 40 man raids they just keep getting smaller. These are supposed to be Massively Multiplayer games where literally hundreds of players can adventure together.
A zerg is only a zerg until someone organises it. You can still have complex boss fights that require tactics and off tanks without imposing hard caps to raids. We know for a fact that encounters can be scaled in difficulty according to player numbers so why even bother to cap player numbers in raids? There's just no longer any need for this.
Man, I remember on the Prexus server (EQ) when some guild did Vox with 15 people. 15! Compared to the usual raid size of around 50+. When it's not imposed on the players, doing something like this is a massive achievement.
On the other hand there were the times when every mage on the server would go and raid the Plane of Sky for their rediculously rare Epic drop and you'd have 200 mages with pets tearing up the place. Absolutely hilarious but also fucking amazing.
These restrictions on player numbers attending raids need to go, period. They're supposed to be Massively Multiplayer. Let's bring the "Massively" back to MMO's!
Your premise was a fallacy, designed to force an outcome you desired. You didn't ask a legitimate question based on the discussion, you created a false summary fit in the form of a straw man so you could easily knock it down. /shrug
No offense, but if that is your method of discussion, I am not interested.
Edit:
Just in case you don't understand.
You stated the 30 man and 100 man were exactly equal (skill, gear, etc...), then claimed he said the 30 man would kill the mob faster than the 100 man.
This is a false summary. He did not state that.
He was saying there is no point to having a 100 man if a 30 man can do it because enormous amount of time it would take to gear up that 100 man would be far too long for most people to tolerate in gear chance.
So, as he said, this never happened as you think because most guilds tried to become as efficient as possible so they could reasonably upgrade the guilds gear. Seriously, do the math on distributing gear to a 100 man group to functionally progress in content that can be done with 30 when your boss spawns are contested on a 7 day spawn and the average number of loot that drops from a raid mob is around 5-7 items.
That 30 man group is going to be more mobile and better associated with the rest of the raid (ie a smaller more relational grouping experience to learn peoples habits and mannerisms) while the 100 man is going to be a bunch of strangers, heavily reliant on strong communication structures and organization.
Do you know anything about EQ at all?
Or.. are you saying the 30 man and the 100 man would be both killing the mob at the same time? That isn't going to happen without GM intervention. A guild does that on a PvE server (ie starts combat while another guild has initiated) and it is a good way to get banned. In EQ, it was first to start is the one who gets it, the other guild has to wait. (which is why the 30 man is better because they are more organized).
If you mean PvP, lol... that one is funny. It only takes a single player to wipe a raid. Size of the raid won't matter.
"As someone who played classic era EQ extensively (as well as private servers emulating the same), I can tell you it never
works out the way you've described. In the long run, people are simply
not willing to wait in line for months and years for what they could
achieve in half the time with a smaller guild. That was the nature of a
game like EQ."
This is wrong! Your experience in one game played in the past does no justify that it could be done in the present. Know why? Because it did work out the way he described in other oldschool games, and knowing gamers today you can be damn sure it would happen now. Have you been reading these forums at MMORPG.com at all the last couple of years? Have you played any of the newer MMOs at all? You seem like a smart guy Dullahan, but how can you be so blind and naive?
P.S. This is not supposed to be EQ.
I'm not sure how you are unable to make the connection between encounter lockouts/raid caps and instancing. Both were created to limit the number of people who could experience content at one time. Both compromise realism and the unrestricted nature of an open world in favor of controlling gameplay with hardcoded restrictions.
No, what I said regarding raid sizes is definitely not wrong (nor am I naive or blind). I've played every major MMO release in the last 2 decades and I can tell you zerging happens only when the game encourages it. Outside of PvP titles, zerging is counter productive, especially when dealing with contested content and a slower rate of progression (which very few titles have had other than EQ). All it takes is for smaller guilds to nab contested targets a few weeks in a row, and the zerg falls apart at the seams. I've been on both sides of that scenario on both live PvE, PvP and Project1999 servers. Honestly, I need not say any more, Sinist covered this fully, much to your disdain.
I'm actually glad you stopped by here so I could tell you to stop being so emo, without the repercussions on the official forums. Every time someone shuts down your arguments, you throw a tantrum and ad hominems ensue.
@Sinist and Dullahan I still am not confident in anything either of you are saying. It really sounds like wishful thinking to me. But Ill be honest I dont have the energy or desire to argue much more. But Sinist, maybe I didnt explain things for you well enough or provide enough examples? Go to the other thread on the official forums for examples. That being said you are very articulate and good at breaking things down. But you still arent answering questions. Straw man? Manufactured result? Fuck dude just answer the goddamn questions. Please? Do I have to beg? I dont have time for bullshit games. I just want you to give me straight answers. You knew full well what his intentions were when he asked that question.
Now if you care so much about the way questions are phrased why not give me a scenario and I tell you what I think? Or ask me a specific question and Ill try to sum up my thoughts. And I dont have superior knowledge and didnt claim to, but if I am ignorant of EQ that somehow makes me unqualified to question it? I dont believe that either. I have almost 30 years of gaming experience, which includes mmos, and the "evils" of human nature. It doesnt make me more qualified than you, but I think I have a good handle on things. So fire away?
Thanks for being so blunt. I guess I know where I stand with you. I dont think Ive ever been emo or have thrown a tantrum? I just disagree with things sometimes. But hey dont worry, Ill keep it civil over on the official site, friend. And you will never know how much restraint I have to practice on those forums, but ill endure it for the hope of an awesome MMO. Wish we could come together on some issues. But the most frustrating thing is that you guys wont even meet in the middle.
There are so many other alternatives to caps that could be pursued, its a little baffling that people are already begging for artificial limitations instead of freedom to do as you please. After 10 years of that shit, haven't you had enough?
For instance, a particular raid could take roughly 30 players. If a guild brings more than 30, the encounter could dynamically scale to maintain that same level of challenge. Why not ask for that instead of pleading for developers to interfere with your virtual world via hardcoded restrictions.
As for group content, say you are in an area designed for less than 10 people, and 20 people are present. Scripts could be put in place to detect the number of players within a 50 meter radius and react accordingly. Harder mobs could spawn. More roamers could spawn at a less predictable rate. Maybe instead of fighting, mobs flee and bring back more allies. There are other options.
I just came off EQ2 for the second time (TLE) and I just couldn't take any more. Everything about the game felt so restricted and artificial. I go to heal someone, I can't because they aren't grouped. I go to attack something, I can't assist because I'm out of the raid. Fast travel and instancing everywhere. Its just a joke. Then before that I was playing FFXIV enjoying all the beautiful scenic areas that I could not actually explore due to invisible walls. Does no one miss games that actually let you go anywhere and do anything you want?
These may seem like little things, but they are a symptom of a bigger problem. The people making these games just don't get it, and now when someone finally wants to rectify the problem you ask to be placed back into bondage to those same bad mechanics. Its like you have stockholm syndrome.
I think a better question is whether most gamers enjoy raiding at all. Pretty much everyone only does them for the gear no matter what game it is. No one I know does them out of pure enjoyment. If raids didn't give the best rewards no one would do them and I think that says a lot about how necessary raiding really is.
I raid in every MMO I play and i would be perfectly happy if Pantheon deleted raids forever and just made a plethora of end game group dungeons instead.
Comments
Sounds like most raids today, I guess all games are "tank and spank"?
The point is, the comment about EQ being just "tank and spank" is a lot of mistruth. If you dismiss all the responsibilities of the other raid members and only focus on that limited dealing with the mob, I guess you could say that to an extent, but then that would be a straw man as most games do the same thing.
EQ lacked one thing in its raids and that was all the extensive flashy action arcade based scripting that exists in most current raids these day (ie run here, jump here in time, fetch that, turn that on, turn that off, etc...), but even then there were many elements of such in various EQ raids, just not to the level of games like WoW. Sure, there were some simplistic "tank and spank" fights in EQ, but then so are there in Wow and just about any game out there.
Oh, I don't know, how about the obvious, the same play styles that get you to end game to begin with. Group, solo, dungeons, questing, camping, crafting , gathering, mini games, platforming, exploration, puzzle solving, riddles, lore, pvp, faction, dynamic events, scripted events, alternate advancement, achievements...etc. How could rehashing all of that be any more boring than rehashing raids ad nauseum? The better question is why do we allow developers to be so lazy. They need to earn our money like any other business and that requires effort towards all of their audience, not just raiders.
Name them, do a cross analysis and comparison of like raids in both EQ and the games you use example of, and then show me outside of some of the technological advances in play as to how that is more difficult than the many timing and coordination efforts of EQ.
I led many raids in over the 5 years of EQ I played since release, I led many raids in WoW, played in many raids in MANY of the MMOs over the years. If you are being honest in the comparison and evaluation (ie apples to apples), they are not more difficult, they just have different tools and mechanics.
I know many who claim what you do who never raided in EQ, or if they did their experience was greatly limited and narrowly experienced (ie they were a tag along and did a basic role) and had no real understanding of the various roles and functions of key classes and groups in the raid.
If you think EQ was nothing more than a DPS zerg, well... that sounds like someone who never played it.
As someone who played classic era EQ extensively (as well as private servers emulating the same), I can tell you it never works out the way you've described. In the long run, people are simply not willing to wait in line for months and years for what they could achieve in half the time with a smaller guild. That was the nature of a game like EQ.
Looking back at the most infamous guilds in EQ history, none of the most prominent zerged. http://legacyofsteel.net/#/archives - Just browsing through the screenshots I saw them talking about wiping to Gorenaire, probably the hardest dragon in Kunark, but one that could be killed by less than 3 groups if they all have the appropriate cold resist gear.
Even on the PvP servers where there was safety in numbers, the most productive guilds ran around with less than 30 people. If we wanted to achieve something that required more, we worked together with other guilds.
Exactly! Every time I see those types of arguments, it is always from people who never played EQ to any real experience. /shrug
No offense, but if that is your method of discussion, I am not interested.
Edit:
Just in case you don't understand.
You stated the 30 man and 100 man were exactly equal (skill, gear, etc...), then claimed he said the 30 man would kill the mob faster than the 100 man.
This is a false summary. He did not state that.
He was saying there is no point to having a 100 man if a 30 man can do it because enormous amount of time it would take to gear up that 100 man would be far too long for most people to tolerate in gear chance.
So, as he said, this never happened as you think because most guilds tried to become as efficient as possible so they could reasonably upgrade the guilds gear. Seriously, do the math on distributing gear to a 100 man group to functionally progress in content that can be done with 30 when your boss spawns are contested on a 7 day spawn and the average number of loot that drops from a raid mob is around 5-7 items.
That 30 man group is going to be more mobile and better associated with the rest of the raid (ie a smaller more relational grouping experience to learn peoples habits and mannerisms) while the 100 man is going to be a bunch of strangers, heavily reliant on strong communication structures and organization.
Do you know anything about EQ at all?
Or.. are you saying the 30 man and the 100 man would be both killing the mob at the same time? That isn't going to happen without GM intervention. A guild does that on a PvE server (ie starts combat while another guild has initiated) and it is a good way to get banned. In EQ, it was first to start is the one who gets it, the other guild has to wait. (which is why the 30 man is better because they are more organized).
If you mean PvP, lol... that one is funny. It only takes a single player to wipe a raid. Size of the raid won't matter.
Why would they cut them? Well, there are numerous reasons, some technical as well as trying to appeal to raid sizes in other "popular" mainstream games. For instance, in 2008 they reduced it to 42 and what popular game at that time had 40 man raids? So we could guess all day long and make up all kinds of reasons that would make an argument seem valid. but I would just avoid such pointless speculating.
The fact remains that EQ had very large raid sizes for years before it was changed and like I said, in the years I played it, I never saw the problems you mentioned.
That good enough or do we have to take your lack of knowledge and experience with this issue and proclaim it valid over mine and others reasoned discussion based on actual experience?
I want a ROLE PLAYING world and a living world with realistic or plausible game play.
I do NOT want a never ending cycle of instance.Some of those old EQ ideas are astoundingly BAD,they have no business being in a rpg game world,they are nothing more than simple mechanic ideas to support loot grinds.
If you were building a plausible world based on any kind of realistic thought,you would know that the ONLY reason people would go and kill dragons was out of fear or to defend their city.There would NEVER be a scenario where Joe Black says to Joe Dirt...."Hey you wanna get some other guys and go loot some Dragons,i am sure they will drop some shiny swords or plate armor".Nope not happening ever.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Planes of power started "keying" zones which required players to kill raid mobs to move into further zones and this began EQs eventual progression to a raid game primarily.
The point is, even if there are raids, it isn't going to be like WoW and other games which have turned raiding into a marketing gimmick.
That said, fantasy can be made in any manner the writer wishes, it is not constrained to any form of required logic. /shrug
"Ultimately exp acquisition will determine the group size. So, what is the ideal EXP in a dungeon of level for a group of players? At what point do you say "Hey, you guys have too many people trivializing that content, your exp is going to be reduced!"
That is why you have a default group size to define what the content is optimally designed for. Do it with less than 6, more exp, do it with more than 6 less exp. This is a proper balance of risk/reward I think."
I didnt want to come to these damn forums but you managed to motivate me. And maybe Im just CooCoo for CoCo Puffs but do you not see the Irony of your post from the other thread? Pay attention to the bold portion. How can you be so right and so on target with the quote from above and yet not carry this line of thinking to its logical conclusion? I mean its almost hilarious if it wasnt for the fact that you are serious about uncapped group sizes. After reading this quote over and over I just dont get it? Are you trolling me? How did you come up with "This is a proper balance of risk/reward I think."? No its not....... its really not. The ease of exploitation and the lack of balance that this would bring to Pantheon are undeniable. And No, Dullahan, its not a stepping stone to the "evils" of Instancing :awesome:
And this little nugget:
"That good enough or do we have to take your lack of knowledge and experience with this issue and proclaim it valid over mine and others reasoned discussion based on actual experience?"
So you claim to have absolute knowledge and completely reasoned discussion? So far it seems you dont focus on the questions and instead twist the argument into something else and completely miss the point. Also any lack of knowledge over a game doesnt mean he or I for that matter dont have good basis for our argument or that other experiences from old school games are not valid.
It seems entirely likely to me that your strong defense of the EQ approach to raids is from within the isolated depths of an echo chamber. I dont think you are properly taking into account how the mmo player mind-set has evolved (for good or bad). Im not talking about the newest generation of gamers. Im talking about the people that have been playing MMOs since Ultima, Asherons Call, and yes EQ. Not all ideas from newer games are better, but neither are all ideas from older games. And lets not forget that the swelling of the mmo player base and the increase of the me-first and screw everybody else attitude has help built an army of assholes playing out there in the mmo space. And VR wont have an army of GMs!
"As someone who played classic era EQ extensively (as well as private servers emulating the same), I can tell you it never works out the way you've described. In the long run, people are simply not willing to wait in line for months and years for what they could achieve in half the time with a smaller guild. That was the nature of a game like EQ."
This is wrong! Your experience in one game played in the past does no justify that it could be done in the present. Know why? Because it did work out the way he described in other oldschool games, and knowing gamers today you can be damn sure it would happen now. Have you been reading these forums at MMORPG.com at all the last couple of years? Have you played any of the newer MMOs at all? You seem like a smart guy Dullahan, but how can you be so blind and naive?
P.S. This is not supposed to be EQ.
Failure to state. Please, if you are going to claim I am wrong, make your case, don't just point at something and then expect me to figure out whats going on in your head.
We discussed why raid caps aren't that big of an issue as they tend to work themselves out due to the reasons discussed.
Group size, aka party size is a different issue. For instance, how do you disperse exp? Are you just going to equally give exp to everyone who hits the mob regardless if they are in the group or the effort they put forth? Will you allow an unlimited number of people to kill a mob and share the exp as if they were one, two, three or more? How will you differentiate between them for the sake of leveling? That is, if 15 people all group up in sit in a room and kill mobs without any effort, are you going to treat them the same in exp as you would a group of 6? Why?
How are you going to design the group content? Are you going to make a dungeon with solo mobs, duo mobs, trio mobs, etc... on up? How are you going to lay them out in the dungeon and how will you handle risk/reward? If the mob is designed to test a group of 6, then I am assuming your loot will match that with proper reward right? How are you going to accomplish that and how will a player know if they are fighting a solo mob or a raid mob in a dungeon? Will there be any sort of theme here, any logic to understand the mechanics or will every corner be some wild and crazy dice roll with solo mobs and then a mob designed for 20 people? How are you going to handle this, especially as it concerns progression? I mean, if you don't design for any specific size, how will you know? My points about group size has multiple purposes.
Now lets consider all of that and my comments about raid sizes. We were talking about how people taking more than is needed to a raid won't cause issues. Why? because... Loot drops are limited, so the larger the raid, the more sharing, means slower raid gearing. So, if a group can handle a mob with less people, why would anyone in their right mind choose to do a raid mob with a ton of people they don't need knowing loot drops are limited?
I did not state to be an absolute knowledge. That poster however specifically straw manned the argument. I explained that, go back and read since you are so adept at cut and pasting specifics, you might notice that part where I explain to him how used a false summary and straw man to establish a question that would produce a manufactured result.
That poster is ignorant on EQ features and mechanics and he was obtuse in his manner of claiming an outcome of those mechanics that has been proven wrong by historical fact. So please, don't get all arrogant coming here to white knight the guy because he didn't know what he was talking about. If you want to argue the flaws of EQ, then know EQ, don't argue it from an ignorant point of view and act like your game experiences are superior.
I played other games. In fact I played MUDs and MUSHs before most people knew what a network was. I played Meridian 59, EQ, EQ2, AC, AC2, AO, Lineage 1/2, Ultima, WoW, Rift, DDO, LoTRO, Horizons, Warhammer, Age of Wushu, Allods, Neverwinter, City of Heroes, Matrix Online, Champions, Firefall, Guild Wars, Perfect World, The Secret World, Pirates of the Burning Sea, Shadowbane, Vanguard and many others I can't remember at the moment. Not only did I play them, but many of them I alpha/beta tested.
Does that make me an authority? It does mean I am not some guy who is sitting in a hole who only played a single game and doesn't understand that there are some new fangled things that roll called "cars" out there! I have played most games, I am aware of different features, if you want to discuss something specific, in most cases I probably know what you are talking about and if I don't, I am sure I can understand with a very short explanation. The point is, when I make my arguments, they aren't from ignorance or stubbornness.
So, if you want to say the no raid cap thing is bad, argue it with points, examples, and understanding, don't just dismiss things, especially when you don't have any experience with the very thing you are dismissing.
As for the people today? Yes, I know. Thing is, they won't survive long in Pantheon if it is EQ like. They don't have the patients and they won't survive the reputations. Remember, the mainstream player we see today who is a social moron? They aren't new, they existed in EQ as well, I remember quite well seeing many of them sitting in the lower level zones whining about how they can't find a group because nobody wanted to be around the idiots. Some got through the cracks, some even became major guild leaders who threw tantrums like little brats (Furor, Thott, etc...), but even in all that, EQ did fairly well.
The last thing we need is to create a game where we tell players what they can and can't do at every turn. Rules are important, but I am talking about game rules and mechanics, not social engineering rules. Look, there are going to be some bad apples from time to time, but an open game, with strong social reliance and those folks will run for the hills. There was a reason name changes and server changes became big money makers in EQ at one point. It was because people who ruined their reputations couldn't find groups, couldn't do anything but solo. The average mainstream player won't survive Pantheon, but... it has to be an old school game. You put in all those social safety nets and the game will be just as bad as WoW.
MMORPG! Massively Multiplayer!!! Ever since WoW and the initial 40 man raids they just keep getting smaller. These are supposed to be Massively Multiplayer games where literally hundreds of players can adventure together.
A zerg is only a zerg until someone organises it. You can still have complex boss fights that require tactics and off tanks without imposing hard caps to raids. We know for a fact that encounters can be scaled in difficulty according to player numbers so why even bother to cap player numbers in raids? There's just no longer any need for this.
Man, I remember on the Prexus server (EQ) when some guild did Vox with 15 people. 15! Compared to the usual raid size of around 50+. When it's not imposed on the players, doing something like this is a massive achievement.
On the other hand there were the times when every mage on the server would go and raid the Plane of Sky for their rediculously rare Epic drop and you'd have 200 mages with pets tearing up the place. Absolutely hilarious but also fucking amazing.
These restrictions on player numbers attending raids need to go, period. They're supposed to be Massively Multiplayer. Let's bring the "Massively" back to MMO's!
No, what I said regarding raid sizes is definitely not wrong (nor am I naive or blind). I've played every major MMO release in the last 2 decades and I can tell you zerging happens only when the game encourages it. Outside of PvP titles, zerging is counter productive, especially when dealing with contested content and a slower rate of progression (which very few titles have had other than EQ). All it takes is for smaller guilds to nab contested targets a few weeks in a row, and the zerg falls apart at the seams. I've been on both sides of that scenario on both live PvE, PvP and Project1999 servers. Honestly, I need not say any more, Sinist covered this fully, much to your disdain.
I'm actually glad you stopped by here so I could tell you to stop being so emo, without the repercussions on the official forums. Every time someone shuts down your arguments, you throw a tantrum and ad hominems ensue.
I still am not confident in anything either of you are saying. It really sounds like wishful thinking to me. But Ill be honest I dont have the energy or desire to argue much more. But Sinist, maybe I didnt explain things for you well enough or provide enough examples? Go to the other thread on the official forums for examples. That being said you are very articulate and good at breaking things down. But you still arent answering questions. Straw man? Manufactured result? Fuck dude just answer the goddamn questions. Please? Do I have to beg? I dont have time for bullshit games. I just want you to give me straight answers. You knew full well what his intentions were when he asked that question.
Now if you care so much about the way questions are phrased why not give me a scenario and I tell you what I think? Or ask me a specific question and Ill try to sum up my thoughts. And I dont have superior knowledge and didnt claim to, but if I am ignorant of EQ that somehow makes me unqualified to question it? I dont believe that either. I have almost 30 years of gaming experience, which includes mmos, and the "evils" of human nature. It doesnt make me more qualified than you, but I think I have a good handle on things. So fire away?
Thanks for being so blunt. I guess I know where I stand with you. I dont think Ive ever been emo or have thrown a tantrum? I just disagree with things sometimes. But hey dont worry, Ill keep it civil over on the official site, friend. And you will never know how much restraint I have to practice on those forums, but ill endure it for the hope of an awesome MMO. Wish we could come together on some issues. But the most frustrating thing is that you guys wont even meet in the middle.
For instance, a particular raid could take roughly 30 players. If a guild brings more than 30, the encounter could dynamically scale to maintain that same level of challenge. Why not ask for that instead of pleading for developers to interfere with your virtual world via hardcoded restrictions.
As for group content, say you are in an area designed for less than 10 people, and 20 people are present. Scripts could be put in place to detect the number of players within a 50 meter radius and react accordingly. Harder mobs could spawn. More roamers could spawn at a less predictable rate. Maybe instead of fighting, mobs flee and bring back more allies. There are other options.
I just came off EQ2 for the second time (TLE) and I just couldn't take any more. Everything about the game felt so restricted and artificial. I go to heal someone, I can't because they aren't grouped. I go to attack something, I can't assist because I'm out of the raid. Fast travel and instancing everywhere. Its just a joke. Then before that I was playing FFXIV enjoying all the beautiful scenic areas that I could not actually explore due to invisible walls. Does no one miss games that actually let you go anywhere and do anything you want?
These may seem like little things, but they are a symptom of a bigger problem. The people making these games just don't get it, and now when someone finally wants to rectify the problem you ask to be placed back into bondage to those same bad mechanics. Its like you have stockholm syndrome.
I raid in every MMO I play and i would be perfectly happy if Pantheon deleted raids forever and just made a plethora of end game group dungeons instead.
Nobody forces you to enter raids, but if you dont, you wont have access to the best items.