Ranarius said:The problem with accessibility IS accessibility. Economies are built on accessibility. If everything is accessible to everyone as soon as they are ready for it then there really is no need for a market. My personal issue with this is that I was hoping for a game with a market. What feels inconsistent to me is the idea that specfiic raids or encounters should be instanced so that players can access them without worrying about other players or their personal schedule. This is incosistent with the rest of the world and feels off to me. It implies to me that there is a value assigned to these specific encounters that isn't assigned to other parts of the world.
Is crafting going to have value? Are the components required for crafting certain items going to be instanced so that I can access them when I'm ready?
Either these specific encounters are so valuable that VR feels that all players should have an opportunity at them, or they have very little value so it doesn't hurt to give all players an opportunity at them. Either way it feels off to me.
All I'm saying is that I just don't "get it" yet. Maybe I'll understand when I'm all grown up.
I dont believe that accessibility and having a market are mutually exclusive. I see 'gear' (and by gear I mean every worn, wielded and bag slots) coming from 3 sources Quests, Crafted and Looted. If you pick any point throughout the level range and it is impossible to have all your gear coming from a singular source then a market is still viable. Furthermore which slots come from which source should change throughout the levels so that, for example breastplates, are never always from looted sources. There is also the possibility that Crafting can be used to augment/adjust gear from all 3 sources through the addition of imbued/magical/infused gems or other materials.
I really want to have options, as many as possible, for what gear I want based upon the stats that I feel are important to me. If I can look at 3 bracers where one is quested, one crafted and one looted and decide which would serve me best is a win for the long term health of the game.
Jobeson said: What will be cheaper, the rare recipe from a rare open world named vs a rare recipe from an instanced boss farmed by tons of people every day?
I'm wondering if there is some technical limitation that I'm not aware of, that most others already know. I've seen numerous people that make the same assumption you do here.
Why can't Pantheon be coded so that whenever a group gets to the point of engaging a Boss, the Boss disappears into an instance as well as the group, thus leaving NO Boss (or a placeholder) behind? And if the group kills him, the Boss's respawn timer gets set for the same length as the open world Boss would have had.
It seems to me that whatever long-term spawn rate an open world Boss would have had could be easily enforced along with the player protections that come from having the Boss encounter happen in an instance. So I don't see why my group killing the Boss in an instance requires that Boss to be available in a limitless number of instances to any/every group that qualifies to fight it.
As jothany says - which recipe drops more often will depend pretty much on how VR chooses to make things work.
Suppose a "rare" open world boss spawns once a day. Now suppose you can always enter the instance but the chance of that boss being there is so small that on average it is killed once a day. Same number of recipes, no?
Suppose the rare open world boss always drops the recipe. Now suppose the boss is always in the instance but drops the recipe so rarely that on average it drops once a day. Same number of recipes, no?
This all ignores jothany's point that the instance very well may not be a classic type instance where the whole dungeon is instanced but rather only the boss fight becomes instanced after it is tirggered. Which is precisely what VR has suggested at various times over the years. The mechanic for the boss fight has no impact on the rarity of the recipe.
In other words at this point in the game's development we shouldn't get too happy if we see VR using words we like or too unhappy if we see them using words we dislike because implementation is 99% of how things wind up.
dorotea said:As jothany says - which recipe drops more often will depend pretty much on how VR chooses to make things work.
Suppose a "rare" open world boss spawns once a day. Now suppose you can always enter the instance but the chance of that boss being there is so small that on average it is killed once a day. Same number of recipes, no?
Suppose the rare open world boss always drops the recipe. Now suppose the boss is always in the instance but drops the recipe so rarely that on average it drops once a day. Same number of recipes, no?
This all ignores jothany's point that the instance very well may not be a classic type instace where the whole dungeon is instanced but rather only the boss fight becomes instanced after it is tirggered. Which is precisely what VR has suggested at various times over the years. The mechanic for the boss fight has no impact on the rarity of the recipe.
In other words at this point in the game's development we shouldn't get too happy if we see VR using words we like or too unhappy if we see them using words we dislike because implementation is 99% of how things wind up.
Well said. Just like when VR revealed they are removing zone lines, the argument many had was how much they hate leashing and how it was lazy programming and host of other things. Then VR explained how they will handle leashing. It has the potential to be more challenging than having zones lines and was a very evolutionary way of dealing with an old issue. The same thing can be done with instancing.
Just because our experience with instancing was problematic, does not mean that VR will implement any of their systems in the same problematic way. They have shown time and time again that they are attempting to evlove the way we have played before and even change the way we played before in some instances. I know it's challenging to see things that were known to be problematic in a different way, but VR has already shown that they are up to the task.
I just want to see more of it in the game...whatever it is.
Jothany said:Why can't Pantheon be coded so that whenever a group gets to the point of engaging a Boss, the Boss disappears into an instance as well as the group, thus leaving NO Boss (or a placeholder) behind? And if the group kills him, the Boss's respawn timer gets set for the same length as the open world Boss would have had.
That is entirely possible for some of the dungeons, but we know for a fact VR plans to use instances beyond that. I will gladly join you in saying VR should backtrack and use boss instances in this ideal way only. Sadly, VR has already talked about their 3 types of instances.
A key system, which is potentially exactly what you describe or potentially a generic weekly/daily timer.
A dungeon event system where every group in the entire zone gets to head over and get instances of the boss.
An open door system for "low level" where you have no real barrier to entry.
Instances as a whole are not some horrible thing, but as soon as you tie boss loot to instances you are going to be looked at like every single MMO that has done the same until you lay out a system counter to that. VR has not done this and in fact went pretty far into the idea of multiple instances at the same time.
Event instances on their own can be a cool idea. Instead of the event instances being individual private instances to get boss loot, they could be story focused, part of an in depth keying or keeper system or access to a crafting area or simply be a zone line you access and keep everything open world. The problem is we were told VR will use these event instances for boss loot.
The fact VR has the event option and the open door option means we are beyond your ideal scenario. It makes me think the odds of your ideal scenario for the key option is small. VR should talk about their planned system. Even simply committing that all instanced loot will be no trade is a step in the right direction to not ruining the economy of the game.
Jobeson said:... VR should talk about their planned system. Even simply committing that all instanced loot will be no trade is a step in the right direction to not ruining the economy of the game.
IMO:
Agreed, they should describe these fundamental/key systems, 8+ years in. They seem to be holding back, for whatever reason.
It's important to note that the economic issues are a solved problem, if desired. I'm definitely not saying they are going to use this design. Everything they've said to date guarantees MUDinflation, inflation, everyone-is-rich and every other eonomic MMO problem that's been demonstrated by history.
You're right to be concerned, Jobeson, based on what this team has said to date. But if they are inclined, they can create as much loot as they want, using any methods they want (with or without NO-TRADE), and there can be zero economic impact. It's a big IF, but it is possible.
I went to some effort to point out that jothany may well be right. But, and perhaps equally, jobeson may well be right. Talk at the 20,000 foot level "this is what we are thinking of" or even "this is what we are planning to do" can be highly misleading.
We are right to focus on it for two reasons. One, for entertainment as we await alpha and beta and release. Two. and far more important, to give feedback (yes VR reads these forums though they cannot and will not respond on every issue or even most issues). We simply shouldn't assume that the map (from 20,000 feet) is the thing. We won't have a very good idea of "the thing" until alpha and even then major elements may change - which is what testing *means*.
"Agreed, they should describe these fundamental/key systems, 8+ years in"
The fact that we are 8+ years in is beyond unfortunate but we are where we are. IMO the time when more detialed descriptions go from "we would like to know more" to "they should tell us more" is after pre-alpha is over and during the interregnum before alpha when they begin to finalize things. Finalize meaning finalize for alpha purposes. All Gods of Terminus willing they will not change anything truly fundamental after alpha begins unless they have a truly compelling reason or the change will not delay beta. Obviously many details - many really important details - will change as a result of testing and feedback.
I’m okay with and want instancing of anything that is a bottleneck or end game content. I come from the EQ days, and I saw firsthand how top tier guilds controlled/blocked content. If you were not in the top two or three guilds, you were basically blocked from current raid content often for a year! I’m okay with content being as hard as it wants to be. I’m not okay with the few dictating what my experience will be.
dorotea said:
While I want an open world game - I have always seen value in using instances under very limited circumstances. To allow a story to be told without interference. To cope with overcrowding in starter areas for the first weeks or months. To prevent certain especially important content from being blocked from the rest of the server by one or two aggressive (and not very nice) guilds.
Dikenzu said:
One of the many reasons given is that some former EQ players were concerned about large guilds monopolizing all of the raid content.
StoneFish said:
A free-for-all environment is nice in the abstract, but it fails once the practical reality hits: this is a game where the vast majority of subscribers will NOT be dedicated 'live in the world' clan members. Pantheon absolutely has to find a way to ensure that the dominant clans can not monopolize a feature/area/engagement. Instances are the most cost effective solution. It's not a debate, it's a reality of the current economy and tools available.
Larirawiel said:
Maybe some people do not know it. But the earlier alpha versions WoW did not have instanced content and it was also not planned. They made it after some EQ1 hardcore players joined the game designer team. They were in a guild, which locked other players away from non instanced content with batphone calls at 3:00 am etc. They have done it and they saw which effects it has to the game. And they decided, that it is a bad idea. Because if you give the players the opportunity to troll other players then they will do it without an exception.
Sarim said:
I personally do not want a completely open world. In my experience that approach leads to frustration and disappointment for many players, while only a lucky few can enjoy all the game has to offer. And in most of these cases, it's not that the "losers" have to "git gud": Most probably could take on those difficult encounters and win, if only they got a chance to try.
IMO (and I think it was said already somewhere above): In today's world, people expect to be able to plan their playtime. If the game demands however that you have to be online and ready at a moments notice or lose out on any interesting encounter, because everything is open world and contested, then many potential players will not play Pantheon. I think it is as simple as that. So yes, please use instancing, especially for raids and other content that takes more preparation.
Fight [https://www.firesofheaven.org/threads/history-of-foh.9934/page-2] said:
I have written about this many times, but Celestial Tomb were the kids in school that got bullied till they hit a breaking point and basically snapped. Xanupox did some dastardly ****, but you are a fool if you think he did it unprovoked. CT were the dogs under the table that occasionally got a scrap that fell off the table of FOH gluttony. They would monopolize entire expansions until every member and their 3rd alt had whatever the **** they wanted.
FOH created such an elitist bottle neck at the top of the server, that all the left overs got crammed into CT. It was a revolving door of people in and out of the guild. Leadership at that time thought numbers (zergs) were the answer to competing with FOH and there were plenty of zerg's to scoop up. CT spent almost entire year in the Plane of Growth gearing up it's zergs, because FOH wouldn't let us into Temple of Veeshan. Then, we spent an entire year in ToV, while FOH raped the Luclin expansion. It was so mind numbing, that the guild must have turned over 3x's. Drama like Mecha-Cazic, the Airforce parachuting down on Krurk's roof, and the Cleric Epic stealing were all happening during this time.
Let's get one thing straight though. FOH was the "best" because they had the "best" poopsocking-neckbeards, most likely living at home on disability. Success in EQ came down to one thing, time. When you have basically given up on life and can live in Norrath 24 hours a day, you are probably going to be the "best".
Jobeson said: Poopsockers are the extreme end of being the best for putting in that 24 hours a day, it's not healthy, but the idea of rewarding time in game is the core to open world games. Why not cap every aspect of the game if you need people to be equal?
Artificial easy access goes against the open world idea.
When did I ever say I want to be, or I want everyone to be equal? Let me quote myself...
NegativeNRG said: I’m okay with content being as hard as it wants to be. I’m not okay with the few dictating what my experience will be.
What I’m saying is that I want to have access to raid content and keying. Is your assumption that if someone has access to raid content, then they can complete it? Those are two completely different points.
I don’t want a few elite guilds farming/blocking the current raid content and key mobs from the moment they spawn. I want to be able to have the ability to try it too. Could I fail? Absolutely. VR can tune the difficulty as much as they like. I just don’t want to be blocked from doing a raid because my guild does not want to forfeit real-life activities for a game.
The simple point is I don’t want to be unreasonably blocked from content because other players are controlling access to the content. If I’m blocked from content because of VR design and I’m not good enough yet, that is totally fine.
NegativeNRG said:When did I ever say I want to be, or I want everyone to be equal? Let me quote myself...
NegativeNRG said: I’m okay with and want instancing of anything that is a bottleneck or end game content.
FTFY
Everything is a bottleneck when you are in open world. The camp sites are a bottle neck. The auction house is a bottleneck, masteries on the AH are a bottleneck. The time to max level is a bottleneck. The time needed to farm a boss key should be a bottleneck too. The time needed to farm or buy gear to survive the boss is a bottleneck as well. IDC if the key is consumed on a failure or not, keep trying. I only care if the keys are super common and every one shows up for the instanced boss that is on a timer for guaranteed access to the fight because they waited a day from the last time they killed the boss. I don't want an artificial timer system making everyone equal. "Apathy or lack of action should not be rewarded with bonuses"
If your guild only plays enough to earn a key a month you can only raid the boss once a month. If your guild plays enough or is lucky enough to farm a key a week then raid every week. If your guild is full of poopsocks who play 10 hours a day then raid it twice a week. The time investment should exist.
We don't need the new MMO standard of daily dungeon boss and weekly raid boss timers to remove the bottleneck and make everyone equal. VR can spread the raid keys out over a large raid dungeon. VR can create a bottleneck in line with the rest of the game that cannot be owned by a single guild or two just as they can spread dungeon boss keys across countless rare spawns in the dungeon without making a boss easy access.
jobeson and NegativeNRG I do not think you are disagreeing with each other so much as talking about different things. As far as I am concerned you are both right.
NegativeNRG's point is that bottlenecks and limitations are fine if built into the game by design. Either in terms of availability of bosses (spawn rate) or availability of drops (RNG) or ability to do the content prior to getting necessary gear or character abilities. But bottlenecks caused by other players at least on a PVE server are not fine. This is an oversimplification of the position - any time I have a quest to kill a mob or want to harvest a node and another player gets to it first that is a bottleneck caused by another player and I am sure NegativeNRG wouldn't want the game to be totally instanced to prevent this any more than you or I do. NegativeNRG's concern is with significant content being more than very temporarily blocked. A boss and not a node of copper or one of hundreds of wolves. A block for weeks or months or a full year not just 3 minutes until it respawns or one can find another one in all respects the same as the one that one was beaten to.
jobeson's point is that bottlenecks are both necessary and desirable and there is nothing wrong with people that play more or are better getting more. I agree. NegativeNRG agrees. Nothing wrong with someone that plays more or is better being able to do the content more often, faster and more successfully. The point at issue is whether those other players should be able to not just do the content more often and more successfully but should be able to keep anyone else from doing it.
The guts of this debate is whether VR should do something to keep a guild of 100 people that all have beepers or pagers or phones set to get them to a raid on 5 minutes notice the second it spawns from preventing a guild of 20 people with lives from ever even seeing if they are good enough to beat the content. Yes, I am exaggerating a bit here but maybe not so much. Instancing is one way to deal with the issue. There may be better ways. No one here is saying they prefer instancing to any other ways. The point is that some protection for the "little guy" is desirable. Not against every form of competition that may delay or prevent him or her from progressing but against the extreme conditions cited in several posts above.
Obviously you both know what you were trying to say better than I do - apologies if I got either position wrong.
dorotea, great job on summing up both our points! You understand my viewpoint. You clarified my opinion with a different perspective and examples to paint a fuller picture of my point of view. Much appreciated!
A point I didn’t make clear, but dorotea was able to infer correctly, is that I don’t care if instancing is the solution that is used. I just want a solution. Instancing just seems to be the most cost effective and simple solution.
Not going to lie, but with how some bosses are created mechanically or even just to be viable to certain guilds, i think some do need to be instanced, it might seem like a tough pill to swallow for some, but believe me i can think of many mechanics that if they were in the OW you would wish they weren't.