vjek said:I don't think the target demographic is going to be large enough (by design) to attract shills and lobbyists in this fashion.
If it has/does, it would be a real compliment, though. hehehe.
Not all QOL features mean the end social interaction. A few do, but not all.
Most QoL features end social interaction. Not only a few. You have that backwards! The more QoL an MMO has the weaker it's community tends to be, I have yet to see one that bucks that trend. GW2 is a strange one in that the game design encouraged cooperative play yet still had so much QoL that the two sort of cancelled each other out. It's the only exception to the rule I can think of, and even in that case the community was weak compared to old school MMORPGs. As for shills and lobbyists I have no idea how many here are in that category but I know this much: there is a crowd here that wants an entirely different game from what I want. It's up to VR if they are gonna stick true to their original vision or not. I have zero interest in the fast food style MMO that's all I know.
Bringing in a replacement for your group if you're deep in a dungeon is pretty simple imo, you have a class with invis go and help the new member out. If it's in a place where invis won't work then hey, ya gotta go back to the entrance and help the new group member fight back to where you were. Going deep into a dungeon is supposed to be a big time investment with some big risk involved. Summoning stones are stupid, that should be strictly relegated to a class ability and it should have some severe limitations on top of that. Convenience is NOT what I am looking for with this game. It certainly isn't the impression I got from reading the game tenets etc.
The best way to "help keep groups together" as Brad puts it, is to design the game so that people feel responsible for the group they have joined. Any kind of replacement tool for groups serves to relieve players from that responsibility. In my world, before you join the group, if you know that you must leave in three hours time, you say so. Otherwise, you only leave if the house is on fire and the keyboard is melting. Long-time relations are built with this kind of mutual trust and commitment.
I think the one thing Brad has repeatedly said which worries me the most, is that "times have changed and people have grown older and have jobs and families and must be able to do something meaningful in a couple of hours" (paraphrased). When I played EQ2 and Vanguard, I was in my forties with a full-time job, a wife and two young sons, and it was my clear impression that most of the players were also adults with real-life responsibilities, at least in the guilds I joined. Still, we found ways to stick together for as long as it took, because we understood that commitment meant something.
Having said that, if there absolutely must be such a tool, I think the best option would be that certain classes have a spell with a long cooldown to summon a close-by character to the group. Here "close-by" means within or at an entrance to dungeon. If a way can be found to enable the newcomer to run to the group instead without opening an exploit, that would be even better. Or maybe a rogue could sneak out and bring her in, somehow.
But no long-distance teleporting of any kind, please.
As for the one leaving, she's on her own and must suffer the consequences if she cannot find her way out of the dungeon alive.
For the 8 or so years I played FFXI (pre-Abyssea, when traditional grouping was still the norm), replacing group members was never an issue, unless there simply was no one else available as a replacement.
Basically:
Someone would join the group.
If their time was limited in any way, they'd usually say so in advance.
When it was nearing time for someone to leave, they'd announce it to the group
Some Group Leads would occasionally ask if anyone needs to leave soon, so they could start looking.
The Party Lead and/or the departing member would search for someone to replace them
The replacement would arrive, the departing player would say {Thanks} for the group, the group would say goodbye
Departing player leaves, replacement joins
Replacement says {Hello!} to the group. Group {Welcomes} the new member.
Group continues leveling.
For the replacement player, they would be told what camp we were at, and would get there by Chocobo, or on foot using Sneak and Invis. Most players back then had the fore-thought and courtesy to be prepared for such situations.
This is how it worked in 9 out of 10 groups I was in. Occasionally you'd have the unexpected departure, but it was the exception, not the rule. In the event of an unexpected departure, we'd look for a replacement, and just continue xp'ing if we could, albeit at a slower pace, 'til a replacement arrived. I've been in groups that went almost literally all night, just replacing members as they had to leave.
No special tools or systems were required. Just basic human communication and decency. It worked just fine.
I personally see nothing wrong with that approach and think resources for some kind of "player replacement system" would be better used elsewhere.
IMO, the push to replace "community interaction" with "convenience tools" in the genre has made people reliant on them. Now many think they're necessary. They aren't. Humans have everything they need to organize, maintain, participate and enjoy group activity.
Jabir said:The best way to "help keep groups together" as Brad puts it, is to design the game so that people feel responsible for the group they have joined. Any kind of replacement tool for groups serves to relieve players from that responsibility. In my world, before you join the group, if you know that you must leave in three hours time, you say so. Otherwise, you only leave if the house is on fire and the keyboard is melting. Long-time relations are built with this kind of mutual trust and commitment.
I think the one thing Brad has repeatedly said which worries me the most, is that "times have changed and people have grown older and have jobs and families and must be able to do something meaningful in a couple of hours" (paraphrased). When I played EQ2 and Vanguard, I was in my forties with a full-time job, a wife and two young sons, and it was my clear impression that most of the players were also adults with real-life responsibilities, at least in the guilds I joined. Still, we found ways to stick together for as long as it took, because we understood that commitment meant something.
Having said that, if there absolutely must be such a tool, I think the best option would be that certain classes have a spell with a long cooldown to summon a close-by character to the group. Here "close-by" means within or at an entrance to dungeon. If a way can be found to enable the newcomer to run to the group instead without opening an exploit, that would be even better. Or maybe a rogue could sneak out and bring her in, somehow.
But no long-distance teleporting of any kind, please.
As for the one leaving, she's on her own and must suffer the consequences if she cannot find her way out of the dungeon alive.
I never got the whole "People are older now" arguement. I was married with a teenager when we played EQ, EQ2, WoW, SWG, DAoC, etc. Got my step-son into playing, in fact we actually started years before playing Diablo online.
We played in the evenings, after dinner. I made him log off and go to bed at 10 on school nights, I would play until about 12 or so, a little later if I needed to extend a session for the group or an accomplishment.
Now, I probably would play even less though, maybe log in 8:30 or 9ish, and play until 12ish, but I don't want the game to cater to my play or provide concessions because of my play limits.
Fulton said:I never got the whole "People are older now" arguement. I was married with a teenager when we played EQ, EQ2, WoW, SWG, DAoC, etc. Got my step-son into playing, in fact we actually started years before playing Diablo online.
We played in the evenings, after dinner. I made him log off and go to bed at 10 on school nights, I would play until about 12 or so, a little later if I needed to extend a session for the group or an accomplishment.
Now, I probably would play even less though, maybe log in 8:30 or 9ish, and play until 12ish, but I don't want the game to cater to my play or provide concessions because of my play limits.
Fulton said:I never got the whole "People are older now" arguement. I was married with a teenager when we played EQ, EQ2, WoW, SWG, DAoC, etc. Got my step-son into playing, in fact we actually started years before playing Diablo online.
We played in the evenings, after dinner. I made him log off and go to bed at 10 on school nights, I would play until about 12 or so, a little later if I needed to extend a session for the group or an accomplishment.
Now, I probably would play even less though, maybe log in 8:30 or 9ish, and play until 12ish, but I don't want the game to cater to my play or provide concessions because of my play limits.
When I was younger I played with a lot of guys that were married or had families. I would agree it's probably a bit overblown. In fact, many of those guys back then are now empty nesters and have even more time to play.
Fulton said:Jabir said:
I never got the whole "People are older now" arguement. I was married with a teenager when we played EQ, EQ2, WoW, SWG, DAoC, etc. Got my step-son into playing, in fact we actually started years before playing Diablo online.
We played in the evenings, after dinner. I made him log off and go to bed at 10 on school nights, I would play until about 12 or so, a little later if I needed to extend a session for the group or an accomplishment.
Now, I probably would play even less though, maybe log in 8:30 or 9ish, and play until 12ish, but I don't want the game to cater to my play or provide concessions because of my play limits.
Well it's great your child was self-sufficient and didn't need monitoring and your house work got down. But the fact is not everyone is that lucky.
Tanix said: In fact, I think it should be HARD to replace a group member specifically because grouping in a dungeon is not some common easy thing, it is a difficult task.
I want to comment on this statement to just point out the 'why' VR makes dungeons a 'difficult task' as Tanix put it.
They are not making dungeons difficult simply because they want to make a very challenging game. The goal is not to make it difficult... making it difficult is how they reach their goal.
The real Goal VR is trying to achieve is to make a game where people socialize with each other and play together and make meaningful connections with other players. Making dungeons difficult is one of the ways they encourage players to reach out and get to know each other and form lasting friendships as they work to overcome these challenges.
In this latest VIP Developer Roundtable released April 6th 2019: at (15:35)
Ben Dean said: We are taking a look at the fundamental design and we are trying to provide the opportunity to get to know people.
He goes on to talk about other features of the game they are still discussing like tradeskills and auction type systems, with this same goal in mind. To help people to get to know each other and make friends and play together.
Both Chris Perkins and Brad McQuaid have used the same phrase: "Meaningful connections" many times in the various streams and interviews they have done.
This thread is all about Brad saying that he wants there to be systems in place to help keep people playing together even when one player needs to leave. He doesn't want the loss of one player to upset the real vision of the game, which is to keep people playing together with the friends (or potential friends) they are currently with.
So the question posed was... how do they keep the group adventuring by allowing that group to bring in a new player, without it being a feature that could be abused like many of you have pointed out that spells like Call of the Heroes were abused in the past.
Now Tanix obviously feels like this should be difficult, but Brad McQuaid really wants it to be doable for almost all groups in most situations. That doesn't mean it has to be a magic button that just brings the player to your group, but it does need to be something that almost everyone will be able to accomplish without causing the group to fail and fall apart.
Perhaps my previous idea of a 'swap player' feature is too 'magic buttony', but I did try to come up with a solution that would keep the group going, but with restrictions that tried to prevent ways people might try to abuse it for other purposes than it's intention of replacing a member who has to leave while your deep in a dungeon.
Jabir said: In my world, before you join the group, if you know that you must leave in three hours time, you say so. Otherwise, you only leave if the house is on fire and the keyboard is melting. Long-time relations are built with this kind of mutual trust and commitment.
This would be fine if we lived in Utopia where everything worked out exactly as we want it too. But you know as well as I do that this is a dream and not reality. In reality, people have reasons that they need to leave before they were expecting, and not just because the house is on fire. Life happens to all of us, and to some more often than others.
Not everyone can say "I can commit to 3 hours, and nothing short of a house fire will prevent me from living up to that commitment."
More often it's "I have 3 hours to play... unless my mom/dad or wife/husband comes home early, at which point all bets are off!"
or perhaps "I just put Jr down for his nap so I have 2 hours to play... unless a police car goes past with it's siren blasting waking Jr up crying... at which point I will need to go rock him back to sleep."
Do you really expect your group to notify you of all the 'potential' reasons they might need to leave early before they join the group with you?
Jabir said: Having said that, if there absolutely must be such a tool, I think the best option would be that certain classes have a spell with a long cooldown to summon a close-by character to the group.
Due to the purpose of this 'tool' it should be something that is available to ALL groups and not be tied to specific classes. Otherwise only groups with that class(es) along would be able to replace a player. So what happens if none of your friends play the class(es) that have this... your groups always have to fail while other groups who do have the right class(es) get to keep going.
Jabir said: Here "close-by" means within or at an entrance to dungeon. But no long-distance teleporting of any kind, please.
I agree. The player should still be required to make it at least to the general area the group is adventuring in.
Jabir said: As for the one leaving, she's on her own and must suffer the consequences if she cannot find her way out of the dungeon alive.
This seems rather petty. "You're abandoning us, so you're on your own sucker!"
If a group treated me like that when I had to leave, I'd probably think twice about joining those players again in the future. Which of course would be counter to VR's goal of 'Meaningful connections' and as such I would think that VR might want any feature they add to also assist the one who might have to leave for their real world obligations.
Which is why my suggestion was a 'swap player' feature.
It also makes it harder to use it to camp a character deep into the dungeon and then logging them in the next night to summoning the group in past all the content. Since you would need to remove a player for every player you bring in.
DracoKalen said:Fulton said:Jabir said:
I never got the whole "People are older now" arguement. I was married with a teenager when we played EQ, EQ2, WoW, SWG, DAoC, etc. Got my step-son into playing, in fact we actually started years before playing Diablo online.
We played in the evenings, after dinner. I made him log off and go to bed at 10 on school nights, I would play until about 12 or so, a little later if I needed to extend a session for the group or an accomplishment.
Now, I probably would play even less though, maybe log in 8:30 or 9ish, and play until 12ish, but I don't want the game to cater to my play or provide concessions because of my play limits.
Well it's great your child was self-sufficient and didn't need monitoring and your house work got down. But the fact is not everyone is that lucky.
My point was, that the game itself should not change to cater to any individuals life responsibilities. Whether it's people with small children, odd work schedules, crappy internet connections, or whatever it is that makes thier abilitity to play different than others.
I much prefer a game that will last me a long time. I'd rather take 2 years to get to max level and enjoy the game, than to level out in 3 months and be bored. If someone can put in 12 hours of playtime a day, that's thier life, not mine, but I'm not going to ask VR include systems or change thier vision because I can only play 2-3 hours a night, a couple nights a week.
Yes, I said 8:30-9ish to midnight, but most week that will not be a nightly thing, more like 2 maybe 3 nights in a week, and more on weekends. I may have a grown child who has moved out, but I still have a full time job with overtime, home responsibilities, projects at my mothers house, church events, family events, car maintence, yard work, etc.
My wife and I actually joke about the fact we seem to be very busy for people with nothing to do. :)
@ Fulton
Haha your wife seems like an enjoyable character with witty remarks like that.
But I do agree and this has been said multiple times that people back then had a lot of responsibilities. It really is a non-arguement lol. I've met several people on EQ who owned businesses and worked their asses off and still managed a good 3-4 hour session of gameplay most nights. My parents played EQ with me and they are still working. Some people strangely only need 4-5 hours a sleep a night and can fit a good play session in even though they work 60 hours a week, Most people back then probably worked longer hours than most people do now TBH. But anyoo if your life can't sustain playtime in an MMO that is satisfactory to you in getting things done, then that's your problem and not mine. Don't drag us down with your needs and either fix your real life situation or learn to time manage better.
I am planning on playing a lot in the beginning and then probably go to more casual hours later on with the hopes of raiding. Depending on what I do in the near future I will probably also have crappy hours because I might be in another country. Doesn't mean I am going to complain about the population of the people not being on when I am on.
Fulton said:DracoKalen said:Fulton said:Jabir said:
I never got the whole "People are older now" arguement. I was married with a teenager when we played EQ, EQ2, WoW, SWG, DAoC, etc. Got my step-son into playing, in fact we actually started years before playing Diablo online.
We played in the evenings, after dinner. I made him log off and go to bed at 10 on school nights, I would play until about 12 or so, a little later if I needed to extend a session for the group or an accomplishment.
Now, I probably would play even less though, maybe log in 8:30 or 9ish, and play until 12ish, but I don't want the game to cater to my play or provide concessions because of my play limits.
Well it's great your child was self-sufficient and didn't need monitoring and your house work got down. But the fact is not everyone is that lucky.
My point was, that the game itself should not change to cater to any individuals life responsibilities. Whether it's people with small children, odd work schedules, crappy internet connections, or whatever it is that makes thier abilitity to play different than others.
I much prefer a game that will last me a long time. I'd rather take 2 years to get to max level and enjoy the game, than to level out in 3 months and be bored. If someone can put in 12 hours of playtime a day, that's thier life, not mine, but I'm not going to ask VR include systems or change thier vision because I can only play 2-3 hours a night, a couple nights a week.
Yes, I said 8:30-9ish to midnight, but most week that will not be a nightly thing, more like 2 maybe 3 nights in a week, and more on weekends. I may have a grown child who has moved out, but I still have a full time job with overtime, home responsibilities, projects at my mothers house, church events, family events, car maintence, yard work, etc.
My wife and I actually joke about the fact we seem to be very busy for people with nothing to do. :)
Its not changing for an individual, but a large group of individuals.
Fulton said:DracoKalen said:Fulton said:Jabir said:
I never got the whole "People are older now" arguement. I was married with a teenager when we played EQ, EQ2, WoW, SWG, DAoC, etc. Got my step-son into playing, in fact we actually started years before playing Diablo online.
We played in the evenings, after dinner. I made him log off and go to bed at 10 on school nights, I would play until about 12 or so, a little later if I needed to extend a session for the group or an accomplishment.
Now, I probably would play even less though, maybe log in 8:30 or 9ish, and play until 12ish, but I don't want the game to cater to my play or provide concessions because of my play limits.
Well it's great your child was self-sufficient and didn't need monitoring and your house work got down. But the fact is not everyone is that lucky.
My point was, that the game itself should not change to cater to any individuals life responsibilities. Whether it's people with small children, odd work schedules, crappy internet connections, or whatever it is that makes thier abilitity to play different than others.
I much prefer a game that will last me a long time. I'd rather take 2 years to get to max level and enjoy the game, than to level out in 3 months and be bored. If someone can put in 12 hours of playtime a day, that's thier life, not mine, but I'm not going to ask VR include systems or change thier vision because I can only play 2-3 hours a night, a couple nights a week.
Yes, I said 8:30-9ish to midnight, but most week that will not be a nightly thing, more like 2 maybe 3 nights in a week, and more on weekends. I may have a grown child who has moved out, but I still have a full time job with overtime, home responsibilities, projects at my mothers house, church events, family events, car maintence, yard work, etc.
My wife and I actually joke about the fact we seem to be very busy for people with nothing to do. :)
i agree with your disposition. it's like the body builder who trained day in and day out vs the guy who just got plastic surgery to look ripped. it cheapens the value of doing something.
MauvaisOeil said:Honestly I think CotH fits the summoner's kit, the main problem is that it will make the summoner a must have in any deep dungeon to seek out replacement, just like Warlock in early wow were mandatory for dungeon runs (or close to) because they allowed to summon other players and made moving to the entrance easier.
I'm not against a class having an edge over something, that's part of having a non neutered game overall, but I fear it will be way too much of a benefit and duplicating this skill to different classes will make it feel far less "unique".
That makes the choice simple :
1) Have the summoner beeing the only one summoning players, making it the defacto DPS in dungeon depths, raid attempts, quick relocation.
2) Give a summoning spell to different classes, breaking the uniqueness and making it baseline to some roles for the sake of equality.
3) Not making a summoning spell, keeping the vertical progression in a dungeon real and cautious.
I would prefer 3 to every other solution.
Although I see exactly where you are coming from with the statement of the summoner being a "must have" in a group, the same can be said for several classes but it won't be so. I think it will be a "nice to have" more than a "must have". Like a Warrior tank, or Cleric healer, or Monk puller, or an Enchanter, or a teleporter... they would be very nice, but not necessarily game ending if you don't have one.
If there is NO class with a CotH type of spell/skill then they will eventually have to implement a type of summoning or mass teleporting mechanic as they create more content. When this day does eventually come again I was ok with The Nexus (even having a Wizard alt) since it was basically a wizard teleport that you had to wait 2 hours for and have reagents on your person to use.. They saw that they created 8 continents with no way to get directly from one to the other without relying on 1 of 2 classes... I personally thought The Nexus was sufficient and not game breaking... once there were literally other worlds and continents to travel to that weren't raid zones (Gimling, Twilight, Dawnshroud, Kunark, Faydwer, Velious, Odus, Antonica). You could still get somewhere WAY faster with a teleporter, but you no longer had to spend 6 hours waiting for 3 boats (and maybe missing one because you had to use the bathroom at some point during those 6 hours).
If this game will be as large as we are hoping future expansions will make it, then there will be a need for classes with summoning and teleporting or the devs will be forced to look at alternative options... or maybe the game won't grow at all and everyone will group in the same handful of end game areas not requiring any mobility... ever.
you know what i really enjoyed for traveling in wow? the tram from stormwind to ironforge. that was a really fun way to travel. too bad portals ruined it. it reminds me of the days i sat at the train stations waiting and seeing all the ppl standing around waiting too. then the horde terrorist came...
I haven't voiced my personal opinions in the thread yet but I think there's been enough others that have posted their thoughts that I can safely do that now :)
As usual, I think the best approach to this concept is probably a combination of things. That way, no one ability or system has to be overpowered to the point of causing problems. Here's what I would propose:
1) Direct player summoning from within the same zone, with restrictions that help mitigate potential abuse
- Example: Summoners get the "Summon companion" ability, but:
- It can only be used once per game day
- It requires an expensive material component
- It only works within the same zone, and only if neither party is in combat.
My reasoning: It's true that this ability could be used for other purposes than simply backfilling a slot in a group, but the restrictions make it something that your average summoner probably wouldn't use unless they really needed to. I also think that this ability would add some pretty cool utility to the summoner class. Imagine summoning in a healer to help recover from a failed boss fight, or using the ability to rescue someone that's stuck deep inside a dungeon. Again, the material component and cooldown restrictions would be there to try and prevent it from being abused by players.
2) In dungeons, the option for zone designers to place a "Waystone" that can be attuned to and used as a short distance teleport from the dungeon's entry point. For example, in Halnir's Caves, there might be a waystone about halfway down into the cave complex. How it would work:
- Players would have to reach the waystone and "attune" with it in order to use it. So, if the group has people new to the dungeon, they have to fight down to the waystone rather than being able to port right into the middle of the dungeon.
- The waystone room provides a staging ground/fallback location for groups that are headed into the deeper areas of the dungeon. So for example, if you're down at the bottom of Halnir's Caves fighting the boss there, and your healer has to go, you can fall back to the waystone room to get another healer. You might lose the boss camp (or you might not), but you didn't have to leave the dungeon entirely and start all the way back at the beginning.
- The waystone can potentially take some sort of reagent or material component to use, as a money sink in exchange for the convenience.
- Waystones don't have to be in every dungeon - only "long" dungeons with branching paths where it might make sense for there to be a midpoint. If a dungeon has several entrances/exits, or if the branching paths happen right near the entrance, it probably doesn't make sense to have a waystone. However, if you have a dungeon like Splitpaw in EQ, where there's only one entrance that everyone has to go through, and the branching happens further down, then a waystone room might make sense, because it helps spread people out throughout the dungeon better, and prevents bottlenecks at the entrance where everyone is trying to clear down to their camps on top of each other.
3) 'Evac' type spells that pull the group to a safe point (which could be the entrance or the waystone room). We don't think of evac as being a way to get someone else into the party easily and stay in the dungeon, but allowing the group to quickly hop back to the entrance to pick up a new member, and then work their way down again, is a lot faster than "ok, everyone gate out, and we'll reform outside and come back".
In all cases, I think the person joining the group should have to get TO the dungeon on their own, so nothing should work across zone lines. Any methods that are in the game should only allow people to link up with their group quickly once they're already in the dungeon.
Those are my personal thoughts. I acknowledge that there may still be some potential for abuse in the options I've presented, but I think it's fairly minimal as long as there are restrictions/requirements/costs in place. I understand why many people feel that any form of this might be too much, but I think there is a balance that needs to be struck here if we want dungeons to be as big, challenging, and complex as we all seem to hope they will be.
Nephele said:I haven't voiced my personal opinions in the thread yet but I think there's been enough others that have posted their thoughts that I can safely do that now :)
As usual, I think the best approach to this concept is probably a combination of things. That way, no one ability or system has to be overpowered to the point of causing problems. Here's what I would propose:
1) Direct player summoning from within the same zone, with restrictions that help mitigate potential abuse
- Example: Summoners get the "Summon companion" ability, but:
- It can only be used once per game day
- It requires an expensive material component
- It only works within the same zone, and only if neither party is in combat.
My reasoning: It's true that this ability could be used for other purposes than simply backfilling a slot in a group, but the restrictions make it something that your average summoner probably wouldn't use unless they really needed to. I also think that this ability would add some pretty cool utility to the summoner class. Imagine summoning in a healer to help recover from a failed boss fight, or using the ability to rescue someone that's stuck deep inside a dungeon. Again, the material component and cooldown restrictions would be there to try and prevent it from being abused by players.
2) In dungeons, the option for zone designers to place a "Waystone" that can be attuned to and used as a short distance teleport from the dungeon's entry point. For example, in Halnir's Caves, there might be a waystone about halfway down into the cave complex. How it would work:
- Players would have to reach the waystone and "attune" with it in order to use it. So, if the group has people new to the dungeon, they have to fight down to the waystone rather than being able to port right into the middle of the dungeon.
- The waystone room provides a staging ground/fallback location for groups that are headed into the deeper areas of the dungeon. So for example, if you're down at the bottom of Halnir's Caves fighting the boss there, and your healer has to go, you can fall back to the waystone room to get another healer. You might lose the boss camp (or you might not), but you didn't have to leave the dungeon entirely and start all the way back at the beginning.
- The waystone can potentially take some sort of reagent or material component to use, as a money sink in exchange for the convenience.
- Waystones don't have to be in every dungeon - only "long" dungeons with branching paths where it might make sense for there to be a midpoint. If a dungeon has several entrances/exits, or if the branching paths happen right near the entrance, it probably doesn't make sense to have a waystone. However, if you have a dungeon like Splitpaw in EQ, where there's only one entrance that everyone has to go through, and the branching happens further down, then a waystone room might make sense, because it helps spread people out throughout the dungeon better, and prevents bottlenecks at the entrance where everyone is trying to clear down to their camps on top of each other.
3) 'Evac' type spells that pull the group to a safe point (which could be the entrance or the waystone room). We don't think of evac as being a way to get someone else into the party easily and stay in the dungeon, but allowing the group to quickly hop back to the entrance to pick up a new member, and then work their way down again, is a lot faster than "ok, everyone gate out, and we'll reform outside and come back".
In all cases, I think the person joining the group should have to get TO the dungeon on their own, so nothing should work across zone lines. Any methods that are in the game should only allow people to link up with their group quickly once they're already in the dungeon.
Those are my personal thoughts. I acknowledge that there may still be some potential for abuse in the options I've presented, but I think it's fairly minimal as long as there are restrictions/requirements/costs in place. I understand why many people feel that any form of this might be too much, but I think there is a balance that needs to be struck here if we want dungeons to be as big, challenging, and complex as we all seem to hope they will be.
your number 2 was the way I think it will be, only I would add level restrictions. That way a group of 30th levels could fight their way through the dungeon and at the last waystone would not be able to swap out with a more level appropriate group (say 15th levels, which are level approriate for the dungeon). In fact players more then a few levels above the dungeon level cannnot use the waystones at all.
That would help keep people from skipping content or skirting a challenge.
Back playing EQ in most dungeon zones on 7th Hammer we would hop scotch from "live guard 1" to "live guard 2" and so on. This was communicated via OOC or Shout. When I received a tell while LFG standing at zone in I would /ooc permission to run from zone in to live guard 1 goal being Spiders or whatever.
Alot of the time I would receive a invite to "hang out" at "Camp Name" as their (insert class) has 30 minutes left. So you'd make your way down past each camp along the way once they were cool with you passing through (waiting on mob respawns was when you'd pass thru).
Once zones are Old and not visited much maybe then, for ease of grouping, allow some form of magical call?
How would you feel about an out of combat group teleport to the zone entrance? Since it is out of combat you can't use it as an evac. It takes the whole group to the zone and allows them to swap people out and reclear back to where they were.
It seems like an easy solution that also doesn't remove the investment of crawling through the dungeon.
GoofyWarriorGuy said:...
Which is why my suggestion was a 'swap player' feature.
It also makes it harder to use it to camp a character deep into the dungeon and then logging them in the next night to summoning the group in past all the content. Since you would need to remove a player for every player you bring in.
Great post, GoofyWarriorGuy. I agree that a swap player ability might be the best solution, it helps groups to go on when a player has to leave, and prevents abuse by parking "CoTH" characters.
But how would the ability work in practice? Just trying to think how this could work with targeting the correct player etc.
Maybe like this: The group window could get a "swap" slot? Then you can invite one more player than the normal max group size, to this swap slot. The player there would not gain any exp etc. But if a player with a "swap" ability targets an active group member and casts the ability, the active group member and the swap slot character would swap their positions (both need to be in zone/range of the spell of course).
GoofyWarriorGuy said:Jabir said: In my world, before you join the group, if you know that you must leave in three hours time, you say so. Otherwise, you only leave if the house is on fire and the keyboard is melting. Long-time relations are built with this kind of mutual trust and commitment.
This would be fine if we lived in Utopia where everything worked out exactly as we want it too. But you know as well as I do that this is a dream and not reality. In reality, people have reasons that they need to leave before they were expecting, and not just because the house is on fire. Life happens to all of us, and to some more often than others.
Not everyone can say "I can commit to 3 hours, and nothing short of a house fire will prevent me from living up to that commitment."
More often it's "I have 3 hours to play... unless my mom/dad or wife/husband comes home early, at which point all bets are off!"
or perhaps "I just put Jr down for his nap so I have 2 hours to play... unless a police car goes past with it's siren blasting waking Jr up crying... at which point I will need to go rock him back to sleep."
Do you really expect your group to notify you of all the 'potential' reasons they might need to leave early before they join the group with you?
Jabir said: Having said that, if there absolutely must be such a tool, I think the best option would be that certain classes have a spell with a long cooldown to summon a close-by character to the group.
Due to the purpose of this 'tool' it should be something that is available to ALL groups and not be tied to specific classes. Otherwise only groups with that class(es) along would be able to replace a player. So what happens if none of your friends play the class(es) that have this... your groups always have to fail while other groups who do have the right class(es) get to keep going.
Jabir said: Here "close-by" means within or at an entrance to dungeon. But no long-distance teleporting of any kind, please.
I agree. The player should still be required to make it at least to the general area the group is adventuring in.
Jabir said: As for the one leaving, she's on her own and must suffer the consequences if she cannot find her way out of the dungeon alive.
This seems rather petty. "You're abandoning us, so you're on your own sucker!"
If a group treated me like that when I had to leave, I'd probably think twice about joining those players again in the future. Which of course would be counter to VR's goal of 'Meaningful connections' and as such I would think that VR might want any feature they add to also assist the one who might have to leave for their real world obligations.
Which is why my suggestion was a 'swap player' feature.
It also makes it harder to use it to camp a character deep into the dungeon and then logging them in the next night to summoning the group in past all the content. Since you would need to remove a player for every player you bring in.
You chose to comment on a selection of my sentences individually, which -- admitted -- made some of them come through less than nuanced.
However, my overall message was that a convenience tool implemented to help players get into and out of groups deep in dungeons without risk would be counter-productive to the stated goal of keeping people together. Of course, situations will arise where somebody unexpectedly has to leave, but if it's dangerous for that character and inconvenient for the group, there's a much greater chance that the aledged situation is very real and cannot be remedied. In which case a decent group will of course try to help the leaving character to safety before they figure out how to solve the arised problem. "One for all and all for one".
It's obvious that sometimes you'll have to moderate your commitment up front as in your examples with the parents and the baby (so will I), and that's perfectly okay. But then it's also okay that the group leader declines your request to join because the purpose of this group is to do something that must be expected to take many hours with little or no chance of success if somebody leaves. You can then try to find a group on a less demanding mission where no convenience tool is needed to pull in replacements. The assumption is that both types of content will be abundant.
What I don't want to see is that everything in the game can be accomplished in 2-3 hour sessions.