Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Engagement vs. Completionism vs. Diversity

    • 1785 posts
    January 7, 2020 7:55 AM PST

    As I was replying to another discussion a moment ago, I had a thought that maybe deserves its own discussion.

     

    I think that it's very important for Pantheon to foster gameplay that leads players to be engaged with the world - to explore, to discover, and to learn and acquire skills and abilities that help define their character.  By necessity, this means there need to be rewards for doing these things - otherwise only the pure explorers who just want to see and know everything will ever do it.

    However I think it's also very important that Pantheon's gameplay doesn't lead players into completionist behavior, where they feel compelled to go raise every faction, or complete every achievement, or acquire every Lore skill, or so on.  Some people will do that anyway because that's just what they enjoy, but the rewards should never be so great that people feel like they have to.

    Finally, I think that diversity is hugely important in terms of characters.  The game should naturally encourage players to take different paths, to grow in different ways, and thus to become unique from each other - even within the same race or class.

    How should Pantheon balance it's gameplay to achieve this?  If you consider any system that we as players find interesting - whether that's Perception, or factions, or quests, or lore skills, or collections, or whatever - where does it become too much?

    I realize this question is really broad, but I feel like it would be a good thing for us to all talk about.

    • 1273 posts
    January 7, 2020 8:22 AM PST

    WoW attempted something along these lines for exploration (giving players experience for exploring new locations) and putting certain crafting stations out in the wilderness.  I think adding something related to gaining skills/abilities for engaging the world is a cool idea too.  Seems easy enough to me as well.  As a very simplified example, maybe to learn a new spell that your class is able to learn you have to go meet someone in the wildnress and have them teach you that spell.  

     

    As far as diversity is concerned, I tend toward the diversity coming from the actual human behind the character.  I might have a very similar in-game skill set as another player but the way I play that skill set might differ slightly and the way I interact with other players will definitely differ.  I expect my uniqueness to come from my personality more than my characters abilities....with that said, I still think it's a good idea to allow multiple paths, I just don't want that to bog down the game.  

    • 1273 posts
    January 7, 2020 8:25 AM PST

    Possibly even "epic quests" to learn certain class abilities or spells...and maybe you're forced to choose a certain one out of a list of 3, or 4, or 5 options.  Dunno, just another thought.


    This post was edited by Ranarius at January 7, 2020 10:31 AM PST
    • 2756 posts
    January 7, 2020 9:36 AM PST

    Hmm. I think you answered your own questions: -

    "rewards should never be so great that people feel like they have to"

    and

    "The game should naturally encourage players to take different paths"

    I don't think there's any harm in putting lots of completionist-pleasing content in the game so long as it doesn't give anything too fantastic as rewards and when something *does* give really good rewards there should be several other ways to obtain different, roughly equivalent, rewards.

    I think VR has this well in hard, from the kind of things they have been saying. I think they realise that there needs to be plenty of content and a great variety of rewards to achieve diverse adventures and characters.  It also solves other problems like overly condensed population.

    Of course this means more time to design and produce content and items, but it's worth it for the reasons you highlight and many others.

    • 1247 posts
    January 7, 2020 9:37 AM PST

    Nephele said:

     However I think it's also very important that Pantheon's gameplay doesn't lead players into completionist behavior, where they feel compelled to go raise every faction, or complete every achievement, or acquire every Lore skill, or so on.  Some people will do that anyway because that's just what they enjoy, but the rewards should never be so great that people feel like they have to.

     

    I believe that Velious back in the day did some of what you describe. For example, a tremendous faction gain would very well be a tremendous hit as well. This had to do with the complex and different dragon, Coldain Dwarf, and giant factions of the continent where neither of them got along. Those weren't the only factions there of course, but they were the largest factions there. Faction could be raised but lost at the same time. Being able to even start complex quests were tied into such factions as well. Perhaps something along these lines could be inspiring to what you mention. And rare quests and very rare drops can help. I agree with you - extreme completionist behavior can be a negative thing to have in Terminus. I am excited to learn more about Pantheon's lore as it unfolds.

    #communitymatters #makenightmatteragain #factionsmatter #riskvsreward #deathpenalty #HardRaiding #respectyourguild #HellLevels #worldsnotgames #aradune 


    This post was edited by Syrif at January 7, 2020 2:42 PM PST
    • 287 posts
    January 7, 2020 9:45 AM PST

    When I played ESO, there was a title that you could earn from getting every possible fish from every possible zone. It was a grind and a half, but that title was super rare because of it. I attempted it, but never got close. I did admire those that had the title though. I tend to be a completionist, and because of that, I agree that those "completionist" rewards shouldn't give much of an advantage, if any. It would be more rewarding for me if my completionist tendencies set me apart from most. Creating too much incentive will just make it seem "grindy" more than anything as everyone will want to do it and I won't be set apart after completion. 

    • 2756 posts
    January 7, 2020 10:56 AM PST

    randomrob82 said:

    When I played ESO, there was a title that you could earn from getting every possible fish from every possible zone. It was a grind and a half, but that title was super rare because of it. I attempted it, but never got close. I did admire those that had the title though. I tend to be a completionist, and because of that, I agree that those "completionist" rewards shouldn't give much of an advantage, if any. It would be more rewarding for me if my completionist tendencies set me apart from most. Creating too much incentive will just make it seem "grindy" more than anything as everyone will want to do it and I won't be set apart after completion. 

    This is true. As a completionist myself, the journey *is* the reward and all that is needed is the recognition. For things like exploration and the fish collection mentioned above, there should not be a 'significant' reward (like a powerful item) at all, but just a title or appearance item.

    This would make those completionist quests all the more exclusive because, without a powerful reward, most players won't want to bother.

    • 370 posts
    January 7, 2020 1:38 PM PST

    First off I don't think we need an achievement system that tracks what you've done like other MMO's have. I don't like the idea of some UI window tracking every location I've unlocked via a "10 Pantheon Points: Visit the Outhouse" style. If we must have an acheivement system make them private, no linking, no viewing.

     

    For factions I like what EQ did during Velious. You picked a faction and raising it with one would lower another. This makes it so people can't max everything. It also doesn't lock you into a choice and if you do change your mind, if you put in enough work, you can undo it and switch factions. 

    • 557 posts
    January 7, 2020 2:19 PM PST

    Some things should just be fun.  After all, this is a game, right?

    My favourite example of this is the "chicken quest" series in LoTRO.   You played a level 1 chicken that had 3 skills.  Feign Dead, Sprint and Evade.   There was a series of quests which started out simple enough - collect some worms, etc...   But then you had to visit zones where the mobs were 40-50 levels above you and looking for a tasty chicken to feast on.   So one by one you completed these tougher quests, as your level 1 adventuresome chicken.   Finally you could put them all together and run the complete set with an 8 hour timer.  If you died at any point, you failed and had to start the composite quest over.   Your reward?   You were given the dubious title  "Crosser of Roads".

    I had so much fun doing this quest that all of my alts had the title (and the cool chicken cloak that you were given earlier in the quest line).   I even ran one of my chickens to the gates of Isengaard - totally not part of the quest, but I have a great screen shot that I keep with all my character head shots from various games I've played over the years.

    Sometimes it's just fun or even silly - because this is a game.


    This post was edited by Celandor at January 7, 2020 2:36 PM PST
    • 1247 posts
    January 7, 2020 2:41 PM PST

    EppE said:

    For factions I like what EQ did during Velious. You picked a faction and raising it with one would lower another. This makes it so people can't max everything. It also doesn't lock you into a choice and if you do change your mind, if you put in enough work, you can undo it and switch factions. 

    Yeah that's true, I agree with you. I mentioned Velious for inspiration as well. I just want to add that if I remember correctly, a faction gain could very well mean two or more faction hits at the same time. 

    #communitymatters #makenightmatteragain #factionsmatter #riskvsreward #deathpenalty #HardRaiding #respectyourguild #HellLevels #worldsnotgames #aradune 

    • 238 posts
    January 7, 2020 11:45 PM PST

    I think it comes down to system balance and providing a player the ability to self-govern their own gaming experience. I find that anything that feels like a mandatory chore tends to draw more focus on it vs other areas of the gameplay. I think that there are right ways and wrong ways to implement certain systems and its only the bad implementation of those systems that end up creating forced pathways that feel like chores. Below are some examples

    1. Questing: Quests need to branch out into the world and this should be done in several ways. The first way is normal "I'm done with you you now go talk to X in this zone". The second way though is "o hey I heard about this cave in X zone on the other continent. This cave has been tied to the ancient dwarven history reloving around a specific artifact of interest. Go investigate and should you find anything "unique" bring it back and I will reward you". This type of quest actively promotes interest in a cave that the player has yet to discover and it also leaves the player thinking " I wonder if there are other caves out there in the world with hidden secrets".  The third way involves the player picking up a random item and noticing a perception ping that says something like "This item bears the mark of the royal family of Thronefast, maybe they can tell you more about the importance of this item.". This could lead the player into a long unexpected quest chain involving the history of the royal family of Thronefast. Questing systems that only remain local are poorly designed and really don't draw the player out of the bubble they create.  

    *Repeatable VS daily quests: There is a difference between repeatable quests and daily quests and I feel like this needs to be stated in today's current MMO standards. Repeatable quests fall under player autonomy and can be completed at any point by the player. These quests promote the player's ability to self-govern themselves, their time, and their play session. Daily Quests, on the other hand, go aginst player agency. They are more like forced chores that act against the player's ability to self govern their time. In mild cases failure to complete these quests is a missed opportunity that requires a waiting period to experience again and in more severe cases failure to complete serves to act as a longer time gate to content. In short repeatable quests provide a good gameplay experience whereas dailies do not and understanding this difference is important in creating dynamic gameplay options. In order to promote exploration through these quests, some of these items should come from zones that are not remotely close to the turn in NPC.

    2. Reputation systems: Reputation systems are much like repeatable quests and having player agency is extremely important in making these not suck. Reputation turn-ins should also come from all over the world provided it makes sense for the given faction. For example, if you in Avendure's pass fighting the local bandits and gaining rep with local town's guard faction it doesn't make sense to have rep items located half the world away. On the other hand, if you are trying to rep up with a dragon-slaying clan then it makes sense that this rep would be found all over the world in locations with dragons. It also makes sense that there would be multiple rep turn-ins and special turn-ins based on the various global locations of the mobs. Reputations should not feel like a mandatory grind, but they should be rewarding to anyone who sticks out that grind. 

    3. Achievement systems: Achievement systems can be both good and bad for gameplay opportunities. For example, achievements that are tied to a singular boss kill or dungeon/raid completion can act as a community enforced player gate. These achievements can lock players out of content and may also end up cultivating an elitist mentality within the community. These achievements narrow the player's vision down to completing these dungeon/raid bosses as soon as possible so they won't be turned away from groups. Understanding this potential pitfall is important to create a system that doesn't force players into these zones just for the sake of completing an achievement for grouping opportunities.  

    4. AA systems: AA systems are a great way to keep leveling content relevant at the max level. However, when it comes to AA systems encounter balance is key. At least, in the beginning, encounters need to be balanced so that a new level 60 can complete the same content that a veteran level 60 player can. The difficulty of said encounter may vary between the two, but it should at least be doable by the new 60. Going into future expansions and content is where this balance becomes a lot more difficult. There also need to be multiple locations where experience gains are competitive with each other to make multiple zones appealing to the player. It might also be nice to see a way to synchronize level (for max level characters only) so experience gains could still apply to AAs while still giving players a reason to explore lower zones. 

    ***This is probably the best place to state this. There will always be a more preferred path either in terms of itemization, skills/abilities, AA's... etc. You can create all the options and paths in the world but there will always be one that stands out among the rest for any given situation you are in. Now that situation might refer to the actual encounter or it might refer to your group composition. For example, you could have two weapons and one provides a flat damage increase, while the other has a chance to curse the enemy with a damage reduction. Now say that you don't have a shaman who can cast weakness... maybe in that situation, the cursing weapon is better even though it does less damage. However, even in this situation, there is a more preferred option. With that being said NO option should ever feel like a forced requirement. 

    5. Lore: Lore ties in with everything and without it the world is meaningless. Even if you as a player don't care for the lore of a game, you would still be able to feel the lack of its presence. The best way to facilitate player interaction within the world is to give them a reason to want to interact with the world, a reason for why they are in that world, and a reason as to why they should care about what they are doing.  

    6. Rare mobs, Vistas, and Other Interesting Places:  Exploring, in general, should feel rewarding even if you don't have a quest for the location. The environment should naturally draw the player's eyes to things and peak curiosity. Cave systems, temples, and ruins should naturally inspire the player to wonder about what lies within. Vistas can be used in certain locations to allow the player to scout the area as well as potentially draw their eyes to other important locations. Rare mobs are just another to promote the natural curiosity to explore. Once you find one you should begin to wonder what other elusive creatures call this world home. 

    I think that it all boils down to give the player multiple gearing/ skill options, make sure the above systems /features are well designed and well-integrated with each other and make sure that players feel like they have the agency to play the game how they want without being penalized. Players are not idiots who need their hands held 24/7 in a guided theme park experience, but with that being said we are also capable of identifying the best paths to take. The developers need to make this scenario impossible to determine by making every path viable, just not homogenized in every situation.  

    • 124 posts
    January 8, 2020 1:51 AM PST

    Oef, good and hard question at the same time, as i enjoy multiple playstyles. So ill base my idea's / opinion on my own experiences.

    EverQuest 1 had zone specific drops, including group versions of spells. If you want to tie that into explorer, how about a variation to this? Say group aegolism (the base spell) drops in Sebillis. but if you want to make it stronger, you also need to find the upgrade in Neriak? Maybe a ground spawn in West Commonlands, and to make it of epic proportions you need to slay Lord Negafsen. This would sort of work like the Everquest2 system where you would start with an apprentice 1 and could upgrade it to apprentice 4, adept 1 - 3 or Master. but instead of having these upgrades being drops that can be sold, you actually need to visit the locations and do certain tasks or kills or something in these lines to upgrade the spell. This will not bring a great increase, it will not be mandatory (for most) but it will give you options other than loot or exp to venture to certain area's and explore them.

    • 287 posts
    January 8, 2020 7:30 AM PST

    decarsul said:

    This will not bring a great increase, it will not be mandatory (for most) but it will give you options other than loot or exp to venture to certain area's and explore them.

    Any increase is a great increase when you're talking about player skills and abilities.  Even a 1% increase will be chased after by the majority of the player population and it would be mandatory for any raid group that wants to be successful.

    • 3852 posts
    January 9, 2020 8:26 AM PST

    Choices, of course, will need to be made. One cannot accomodate both the completionist and the diversificationist in all respects.

    Thus - the debate on so-called AA type systems. If we have a system where a character can take one path or another but not simultaneously all of them - for examble a ranger that can specialize in bow or crossbow but not both - the completionist cannot have every ranger skill in the game on one character.

    Yet if that character can do everything, the diversificationist loses out because every ranger *is* a cookie cutter copy of every other - if enough time is spent to get every ability.


    This post was edited by dorotea at January 9, 2020 8:26 AM PST
    • 768 posts
    January 10, 2020 3:03 AM PST

    decarsul said: 

    Say group aegolism (the base spell) drops in Sebillis. but if you want to make it stronger, you also need to find the upgrade in Neriak? Maybe a ground spawn in West Commonlands, and to make it of epic proportions you need to slay Lord Negafsen. This would sort of work like the Everquest2 system where you would start with an apprentice 1 and could upgrade it to apprentice 4, adept 1 - 3 or Master. This will not bring a great increase, it will not be mandatory (for most) but it will give you options other than loot or exp to venture to certain area's and explore them.

    If something can be upgraded and the character becomes better from it, it will be set as a "must have/requirement". And players will follow the trafficline to grind through the different steps and collect the greatest upgrade possible. If that final upgrade is only within reach of 1% of your community, it's been a waste of resources and it loses its "raison d'être".

    If a spell is discovered during a gamesession, there could indeed be an incentive to go out and collect similar, but for the completionist it doesn't have to be an upgrade to the first. Just a trigger to look for lots more. Since not everyone is a completionist, another approach to make it engaging could be considered. However that's the tricky part.

    Perhaps the first spell, can only be used when the other places are visited, or depending on where you start or in which order you're doing them, the spell could have a different flavour to it? Be that particle effect or actual use. In most cases, players will cease after one completion and are satisfied. The completionist could go back and grind out all the different flavours. They might be able to switch between them all or have a combination of several, it would just not be better than one of a player that did only 1 run of this spell.

     
     
     
     

    This post was edited by Barin999 at January 10, 2020 3:12 AM PST
    • 1315 posts
    January 10, 2020 5:01 AM PST

    Without choice there can be no diversity.

    All forms of Vertical Progression must be pursued in order to have the maximum power character.

    There for anything with stacking Vertical Progression rewards will be viewed as required content to complete and over time everyone will have achieved it, removing any diversity temporarily created through individual speed of achievement.

    For a game to be truly diverse the game needs to have multiple paths to reach maximum power within each sphere of game play.  The underlining game system needs to be complex enough for more than one path to be equally viable.

    Rigid class based games with a high level of item dependency are notorious for lacking diversity.  The more important items are then the more important it is to make sure all of your gear is in the highest tier (specific pieces being swapped out does not count as diversity as the mathematical total is likely similar within the same tier).  If there is no choice other than the order you grind out gaining abilities within the class builds then over time everyone of same class will be cookie cutters of each other.

    Frankly I do not think Pantheon’s game design will ever be diverse.  It wasn’t designed for it. It is not the niche it was originally targeting to fill in the MMO market.  There is a possibility that VR will be able to add new spheres of game play like housing, advanced crafting, politics and commerce that could be in themselves diverse but the base Adventuring Game will not be without a major rewrite.  So the best we can hope for is adding in new spheres of gameplay that perhaps have non-stacking vertical progression rewards with other spheres.

    By non stacking I mean mutually exclusive choices that may favor one type of play for a specific class but ultimately create a similarly powerful character.  It is also inherently important for there to be multiple paths to gain non stacking options within a group of options.  For example an enchanter could go really far in the political tree to specialize in NPC interactions, the commerce tree to attract customers, the combat tree to be better at dominating monsters or an increase in the number of targets they can mez at one time.  Within the game play of adventuring there would need to be opportunities to have heightened NPC interactions, better ways to attract targets, mobs that are stronger or weaker to base dominate monster and play styles that favor pulling groups.  Which non-stacking option the enchanter picked will encourage one style of combat over another.

    VR is also small enough that they are going to have trouble making enough Adventuring Content to even begin to put serious man hours into significant non-combat content.

    • 768 posts
    January 10, 2020 6:01 AM PST

    I like the concept of looking at a picture, discussing it and looking at the same picture with different eyes. Or looking at the same picture but searching for something different within that picture. This could be the case in Pantheon. A simple example is the discovery of an overlook of the landscape or a detailed statue/wall sculpture/depiction. The way to that specific location might not have been highlighted or very obvious, so discovering this location on its own might be a worthwhile experience. (I'll continue with the overlook example.) Standing at the overlook will give you a nice view over the surrounding area. You take a few moments to enjoy and move on. As you run around the area, lore, quests or npc's bring up various topics, you didn't know that were there. It might require you to go back to the overlook and with this new information in mind (different factors can influence the situation at the same location, thereby rendering a different viewing experience), you take a second look and process this additional information.  This is a very simple way of adding variety to the same thing. You discover or learn more about the surroundings and how it all came to be. 

    When thinking about diversity but equality, fun spells pop into my mind. A more dignified setting could be; stylized characteroutput. A simple change of color or particle effect could already represent two druids in a different way. Think about the end effect when a spell is cast. Perhaps just that final touch could be different. Both druids cast an SoW for example but the first druid has a white ghost wolf displaying at the end of its cast, and the other druid might have the sound of a howling wolf at the end of the same spell.  How can you explain that? Let's say the spell needs to be learned, quested, or simply bought. Each could have some very minute options, but you can't have them all active at the same time. Meaning, one druid prefers the sound at the end of his spell and another enjoying the ghostwolf appearing. It's just fluff, but it is already a different kind of experience for the players alongside that druid. Imagine this stylized spelloptions building up as the character grows and learns more spells. The player can either choose to keep the same fluff theme or they can pick and choose which they prefer on which spell as they learn/obtain them.  Now this brings a lot of potential flavour to the character and it allows the player to express them even more uniquely. Of course you have the option to choose neither fluffs and keep it hard core.

    A lot of work to design all this fluff? Ok, let's take the wolf howling; if the devs choose that only sound is an option (which is already in the game (spell sound effect)) then they could create X amount of different wolf sounds. That on its own could be enough to provide diversity potential, how long would that take them? You could apply similar scenario if colouration or particle effects are chosen. Images on the other hand, could indeed be more demanding, however possibly still worthwhile.

     

     
    • 768 posts
    January 10, 2020 6:18 AM PST

    Trasak said:

     

    Rigid class based games with a high level of item dependency are notorious for lacking diversity.  The more important items are then the more important it is to make sure all of your gear is in the highest tier (specific pieces being swapped out does not count as diversity as the mathematical total is likely similar within the same tier).  If there is no choice other than the order you grind out gaining abilities within the class builds then over time everyone of same class will be cookie cutters of each other.

     

     

    A gnome, human and dark myr wizard can have the same level and possibly even very similar if not the same stats, could still have gotten to this point in vary different ways. They might not have been in the same places or their gear might not look the same. As they grew and killed more dangerous mobs progressively, their factions got influenced. Again, the outcome might be different when looking at the end result of the three wizards. Their place in the world and how the world reacts to them could very well be different as wel. So from that perspective the player's experience could still be very different, eventhough statwise and levelwise those three wizards are equal or close to. 

    Now if you abandon factions and put every wizard no matter where they are, onto the same threadmill, then yes you'll have the same end results. (see many other mmo's) You still could say, well you just created smaller cookie cutters. The optimist could say, at least now it's plural instead of just the one cookie cutter.  As we know, many players will look to copy and follow the path best traveled, there is just no stopping that.

     
    • 81 posts
    January 10, 2020 2:50 PM PST

    Nephele said:

    I think that it's very important for Pantheon to foster gameplay that leads players to be engaged with the world - to explore, to discover, and to learn and acquire skills and abilities that help define their character. By necessity, this means there need to be rewards for doing these things - otherwise only the pure explorers who just want to see and know everything will ever do it.

    However I think it's also very important that Pantheon's gameplay doesn't lead players into completionist behavior, where they feel compelled to go raise every faction, or complete every achievement, or acquire every Lore skill, or so on.  Some people will do that anyway because that's just what they enjoy, but the rewards should never be so great that people feel like they have to.

    Finally, I think that diversity is hugely important in terms of characters.  The game should naturally encourage players to take different paths, to grow in different ways, and thus to become unique from each other - even within the same race or class.

    How should Pantheon balance it's gameplay to achieve this?  If you consider any system that we as players find interesting - whether that's Perception, or factions, or quests, or lore skills, or collections, or whatever - where does it become too much?

    I realize this question is really broad, but I feel like it would be a good thing for us to all talk about.

    I am sorry if I am misreading your post here but honestly it sounds like you are saying you want rewards only for what you want to do and how you want to play and anyone with a differing mindset should not be rewarded for that playstyle because then they would get a reward for playing their way while you would have to play against your preferred playstyle to get the same reward.

    Again I apologize if I am reading more into this than you meant but honestly I am tired of this mindset.  Everyone wants to be equal in a game without doing the same things.  Some do not like to raid so they want to get the raid gear without raiding.  Others want to solo only so want to be able to solo the whole game.  The more devs actually listen to this and try to cater to people the more they ruin games.  If you dont want to explore every inch of the game,  don't.  But do not expect to get that killer title for exploring,  or that uber item found only in the remotest place.  Work how you want and expect rewards for the work you do but stop trying to minimize or neutralize other people's playstyles.

    In my opinion the more a game offers the better.  Even if I do not want to participate in whatever it is,  it is still good it is in the game as someone else will love it and play because of it. 

    And if someone else's possession, title, or whatever makes you feel you have to do something you do not want to just to obtain the same thing then I think you need to look inward instead of at the devs.


    This post was edited by KatoKhan at January 10, 2020 2:53 PM PST
    • 1785 posts
    January 10, 2020 3:34 PM PST

    KatoKhan said:

     

     

    I am sorry if I am misreading your post here...

    You did misunderstand what I was driving at - but in responding you also provided some great points of conversation, so no worries.  My goal with this thread was to start a discussion about what the right balance is in terms of making things compelling and meaningful vs. making people feel like they are required to do things.  For example, how do you make raiding meaningful and valuable for people that really enjoy it, without making everyone who doesn't raid feel like they are second-class citizens?  Come at it from that perspective instead.

    • 81 posts
    January 11, 2020 7:23 AM PST

    Ok,  I understand your point more clearly now but in all honesty my answer remains the same,  just with less cynicism.

    Yes, I do understand the need for balance and while I do agree that the Devs are slighty responsible for the balance,  IMO it should just be in making sure that one aspect of the game is not game breakingly out of sync with the rest.

    Explanation of my statement by example:  Head Slot item for Cleric.

    If there is a Best item in game for this slot then the devs have already failed because it means that all clerics are the same and if that is the case then why bother to begin with.

    If the Best item for this slot for Wisdom bonus is obtained by defeating Ariduk the Chasm Crawler Prince via a 24 man raid then so what ?  If you don't want to raid then don't but if that is the case do you really deserve to obtain the same item by grinding out 50 kill 25 Chasm Crawlers quests ?  Should you be able to obtain a different head slot item with the same bonuses by exploring 75 different POI's ? In my opinion the answer should be a resounding NO.  Should you be able to obtain a less powerful version via a different method ?  Absolutely.  Should the Devs make sure that the balance is not overwhelming ?  Absolutely,  but only to that extent.  One piece of gear should never tip the scales in any direction.  But in my opinion if the devs do their job correctly,  if someone asks in world chat, "What's the best head slot item for a 30 cleric" the answer should always be "Depends..."  

     

    And to specifically answer your question about raiders vs non raiders and gear, My answer would be kind of biased because my personal beliefs about gear, drops, and crafting in an MMO always leans toward the same thing....  It is my personal belief that the ideal MMO would not have NPCs that buy and sell gear and would have very little gear as actual drops but rather almost everything in the game should be crafted and almost every item of loot should be crafting materials or Game Items such as items for quest turn ins, items delivered for faction or favor etc etc.  Now before this derails the thread into dissecting that statement, let me summarize my answer by saying every crafting material and crafted item should be tradeable so everyone has the choice of doing what they want and how they want and trading their loot to people that want that loot but dont want to do whatever or however to obtain it. 

     

    • 520 posts
    January 13, 2020 3:03 AM PST

    Achievements should be personal - it's a great way to monitor specific char in-game progress. It may be irrelevant to people which play without longer breaks from the game and have only one or two avatars, but for people that love alts and for those that may take a year long break, it can help re-remember what progress different characters have done.

    As for completionist and collectors - reward is exploration itself, being able to see and unlock secrets of the world. Additional reward would be lore pieces (stories) available. Maybe even unlocking some quest chains in the process.

    • 9115 posts
    January 13, 2020 3:32 AM PST

    This topic has been promoted as part of my CM content to keep the discussion going and hear the communities thoughts, please continue to keep this on topic and adhere to the guidelines :)

     

    Hot Topic - Engagement vs. Completionism vs. Diversity, what are your thoughts on this? https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/11519/engagement-vs-completionism-vs-diversity #MMORPG #CommunityMatters

    • 52 posts
    January 13, 2020 4:46 AM PST

    I think there should be some kind of reward for completing items in the game, but it shouldn't be something that is needed or desired to complete content.  A cosmetic look or a title is appropriate for someone who just feels compelled to do everything.

     

    Engagement is harder because we are all different and have different goals.  I played EQ to challenge myself to be good at fighting.  I would two and three box different fights and quests to test my skill.  I learned to pull as a Paladin and CC and be far more effective than just a tank because I wanted to see what I could do.  Keeping me engaged required challenging content that could be solo'ed or completed with a partial group.  Content that required a full group didn't interest me as much because then I'm relying on other people instead of myself.

    I think the key to keeping players engaged is creative and diverse content.  Having a zone of just undead can be interesting for awhile but it doesn't have long term engagement.  Having areas with undead can be more engaging because the fights can be changed and adjusted with new behaviours.  Having areas that shift to undead and then go back to live mobs is even better becuase it affords for more involved goal chains that provide varied fights.  For example Kithicor forest was a good idea of an engaging zone but it didn't rely on player engagement.  The problem with Kith was having a set time cause the undead to show up.  Instead there should be a quest chain within the zone that caused undead to spawn in place of live mobs.  To revert the area back to live mobs there would be a different quest chain.  Such a design would allow for several different "invasion" events to happen in a zone.  Each type of monster could have it's own behaviors and fighting style.  

    And that's just one zone's worth of engagement for mobs.  There are all kinds of ways to script events and quests to keep the game fresh and interesting without having to constantly expand the world.

     

    The last one is diversity and it's the hardest of all.  The reason it's the most difficult is because balancing character skills and abilities is the most difficult thing to do in a game.  There can be a large, branching skill tree and players will usually take the skills that provide the best advantage in most situations.  A skill based on close in fighting becomes more valuable than a ranged skill simply because the class is usually played up close rather than at distance.  Focusing on 2hd axes for a melee fighter can lead to not being grouped when content is focused on melee fighters needing a shield and sword in order to have enough defense to be competitive in a fight.  If a melee fighter can do as much damage as a ranged caster then why bother with the caster at all?

    I think diversity in a game hinges on utility and the little things a character can do rather than diversity in the big things.  Tanks should all have the same basic core abilities so they can be competitive as tanks.  There should be diversity in weapon selection so that someone who prefers a 2hd weapon can still tank but maybe they do it through a high parry rate while the shield guy has a high block rate.  As long as block and parry both have the equal damage reduction then there can be diversity.  If block is superior than parry the diversity is gone and tanks will end up being sword and board fighters.

    The big focus on diversity should be in the support skills.  Pulling, healing, buffing, interacting with the world, movement, and CC should provide a lot of options for every class so there can be diversity in builds.  That way a paladin can be well rounded for every situation or be a pocket healer if the player prefers the combat medic role.  An enchanter can be the master of CC or they can provide CC while also offering some heals and a solid pet attack.

    Just because each class should have something they are the best at doesn't mean they should have the monopoly on that thing.  Healers should be the best at healing but every class should be able to provide some backup heals if that is what the player wants to focus on doing.  A mage should have the options to increase their melee defense and reduce their cast time by giving up range so they could fight at melee range.  It just requires being creative in the design and allowing a lot of access to most skills instead of limiting skills to specific builds.


    This post was edited by Ruar at January 13, 2020 4:49 AM PST
    • 643 posts
    January 13, 2020 5:37 AM PST

    1) on character skills and gameplay

    Not skill trees!   In WoW, every character type had basically sub-character types that they specialized in.   If, for example, there were 12 classes, and each had three skill trees to follow - all this did was make 36 very linear classes.   Instead everything should be open world and totally free-form.   Let people pick whichever skills they want and if their choices make them weak at some, then that's the challenge.  Don't make it a fixed linear path choice.   Those suck the life out of character freedom.

    In every new group I've played in (even recently on progression servers) I was told that I was "the best Enchanter" they played with.   I was Enchanter class correspondent.   I'm not being arrogant - I was actually really, really good.   But I chose to play my character as crowd control, buffing and debuffing.   I was really good - I even did the pulling, lined up mobs in camps sequentially slowed and released them from mezz to start the next chain pull fight.     My specialty was saving a group/raid from wipe from disastrous pulls, etcetera.   That said.....For the first 10 years of EQ, I never charmed for DPS.   Never.   I hated being a DPS Enchanter.   The game changed and on prog servers the risk is trivial so I got good at charming.   

    But (here is the important point) by that time, everyone EXPECTED enchanters to charm for DPS and you were told, in no uncertain terms, that you SUCK as an Enchanter if you aren't adding DPS.   I don't want to play my class by someone else's standards of expectation.   I want to pick what I am really good at and play the life out of it that way.   i don't want some one-size-fits-all expectation of what a "well-played" class is or what a "suck" played class is.   

    Similarly, when I played my Druid, I was a traditional quad kiting solo druid and then at high levels, with AA's, I became a substantial healer  so my role in the world changed.   Some druids were just dot-DPS, some nuking, I was healing.    I don't want one definition.   

    "jack of all trades but master of none" is a valid path for those that WANT to play that way.

     

    2) on exploration and experience

    I think it's critical to not have zones become ghost towns - some of the best zones in EQ are empty all the time because everyone moves to the higher zones where higher mobs are.    And then players catching up skip through those empty zones and never see them.    I think zone mobs should level up as well - in some way.   I mean if Fippy Darkpaw had really battleed a million noobs, you would think eventually he would ding.  

    Also quest givers, class trainers, merchants etc. should wander more  - make people go lookig for them.   They shouldn't just stand at a counter and never move 24 hours a day.    Make it more realitic by having them have a schedule - maybe they go home at night.  And if you go to them at their home and disturb them, maybe their perception system plays into whether they deal with you or get angry at you.

    Foraging items should move around as well - create more randomness in spawn locaitons so people HAVE to go exploring zones.

     

    3) on character information management

    I agree there should not be a visual checklist showing what you've done/explored - those are akin to punctuation marks over quest mobs.

    Also, the real human players will learn something and then share it on the Internet so the joy of discovery will be only for those first finders.   But, if someone goes to a quest giver and learns something that "leanring" needs to be part os (a step) in the quest so it can't be bypassed.