1) "What obstacles can I create to overcome in play?"
or
2) "What cool things can I get/have/make to excel in play?"
Edit:
To clarify:
When you see VR talk about some feature, concept, or component of play... do you look at that feature in terms of your "suggestions" from a perspective of what cool new thing you think that should be a part of the game (2), or... how that feature should be balanced to insure it provides a proper obstacle in play to promote game play (1).
The reason I bring this question is because of my observations. What I see a lot of people comment on concerning various issues in play are features they think would be cool "ie the tools to overcome the obstacles... such flying, running faster, hitting harder, powers, abilities, bonuses, not specifically the obstacles they think should exist to impede their play or force them to overcome.
Tanix said:1) "What obstacles can I create to overcome in play?"
or
2) "What cool things can I get/have/make to excel in play?"
The short answer for me is 'yes.' Both points are goals and rewards for your time and brain power invested. I like figuring things out more than stuff collecting, but think they both have their place. Knowing your class and how it works is important (I think more important than gear, if that's what your getting at), but at some point the gear will have to come into play. You probably wouldn't be as effective at higher levels if you were still wearing the stuff you had at level 5. I don't chase stuff/gear/items, but I don't want to cheat my groupmates by not caring at all about it and not performing like I should to contribute like I should.
I like the obstacles of choosing the race and class I want, even if it does not make the "optimal" combo. Just being a good player and having sound tatics should be enough. I would rather be unique, than be 1 of 10000 Dwarf/Pallies or Halfling/Rogues.
It really depends on your definitions.
For instance....a warrior hits harder as he becomes more skilled. He becomes more skilled by smashing mobs and completing quests. So his obstacle is already built in.
So it really depends on the new content and how it fits in with what is already in game.
But no matter how you put it, from what I've observed VR has in place obstacles when needed. Walking to the tavern for a beer does not require an obstacle...well past being able to afford it.
The idea is the basis of ideaolgy.
If I say Travel as a concept in game, what is the first focus you consider?
Based on the discussions on these boards, I see the first consideration is "aids" to travel, how fast people can get places, the means to help them achieve faster travel, to get to places faster, more quickly, etc....
I see them view travel as a means to invalidate (ie how can I make travel less of an issue with cool abiliies so it limits my time in play and makes it so I can more easily achieve my goals because I work and have a family in RL!)
What I don't see very often in discussion is "how can I make travel an obstacle, somerthing I have to work to, something that makes my time in the world more meaningful"
This is the point I am making. Everytime a new topic comes up, I see tons of posts about how we should have this ability, this feature, this cheat, this aid, this convenience, etc.. but very "few" where the opposite is argued, how limitations, focuses on obstacles, difficulties, and hardships are key.
This is my worry because many of you may think this is not an issue, but I see this very "mindset" as to EXACTLY why modern MMOs exist.
I can browse every mainstream MMO out there and the bulk of the discussions will be about how the player can have MORE power, MORE abliities, MORE bling, MORE badaboom, MORE badabing! It isn't about "gameplay", it is about the emotional desire that a player has for the "play" in game.
That worries me greatly.
Well travel is quite easy. If going from city A to town B. Is there a road? Yes. Are there encounters on this road? No. No issue
City A to town B, road Yes, ecounter Yes.
In most games if you are using "enhanced" travel it is interrupted (in other words you are forced to dismount, your speed stops working) at first attack. In fact if you run/ride headlong into these encounters the enemy already gets a free shot before you can even see which way it came from. After that first shot if you try to "avoid content" you are doing so on foot...good luck with that. And in fact over on the class pages there are speed buffs that sepcifically state they die at first attack. So the only speed advantage out there are the few that can be used in combat....if there are any.
Also, most the time to resume your enhanced travel you HAVE to be out of combat.
So under the above circumstances I have no issue with enhanced travel as you can pay a heavy price if you use it at the wrong time.
Tanix said:The idea is the basis of ideaolgy.
If I say Travel as a concept in game, what is the first focus you consider?
*snip*
This is my worry because many of you may think this is not an issue, but I see this very "mindset" as to EXACTLY why modern MMOs exist.
I can browse every mainstream MMO out there and the bulk of the discussions will be about how the player can have MORE power, MORE abliities, MORE bling, MORE badaboom, MORE badabing! It isn't about "gameplay", it is about the emotional desire that a player has for the "play" in game.
That worries me greatly.
I'll take this first part, in the interest of brevity. On the whole, the thing I loved more than anything in Everquest was that feeling of awe and the epic-ness of the journey. I've said more than once that the fun of games like this, for me, is the journey rather than the destination. Slow and obstacle ridden travel adds to that. For me, that's something I appreciate, to a point. As noted in another thread, once you've attained maximum level, I don't see any harm in having a means of faster travel. Do I want to wiggle my nose and be anywhere instantly? Not even. There is a great disparity of opinions simply because there's a great disparity among humans.
The purpose of these forums (unless I've seriously missed something) is for all of us to give opinions and feedback on various topics. In the above example, I don't see harm in a travel aid for players at max level. Others disagree and that's fine. We give our opinions and supporting arguments and VR sifts through it all. Ultimately, it's the development team who will make the final decisions.
These are good questions that I have to think about to answer as I see these from two perspectives: from a designer/VR perspective and from the player perspective.
This is my interpretation of the question and open to clarification or guidance if I am on the wrong track.
designer perspective:
1. what clever dynamics or scenarios can I create within the world to challenge the players of all skill levels given the current player palate of abilities across all classes and races (quite daunting)
2. What enhancemements can I make to existing buffs/armors/crafting recipes (without armor creep) or skill trees or living codex branches- OR NPC dispositions that will improve or excel play
Player perspective: or is this part of sandbox?
1.what can a player create as a obstacle to a game play dynamic to overcome that game play dynamic (FD pull, for instance, or Mage summoning throwing stars and dropping them one at a time on top of each other and discovering an accidental and eternal ladder if walking carefuly)
2. what can a player quest/craft/clicky fun/buff to boost game play?
Tanix said:What I don't see very often in discussion is "how can I make travel an obstacle, somerthing I have to work to, something that makes my time in the world more meaningful"
This is the point I am making. Everytime a new topic comes up, I see tons of posts about how we should have this ability, this feature, this cheat, this aid, this convenience, etc.. but very "few" where the opposite is argued, how limitations, focuses on obstacles, difficulties, and hardships are key.
Then I am curious how you feel about item decay, items having both volume and mass, and diminishing returns each level on player power growth such that a level 50 is not much more power than a level 40. Named items with set stats are also a form of easy mode. Its much harder to find a full set of gear with your prefered stats if each item has 4 enchantment slots each of which can be one of 36 different base enchantments per slot and 10 different magnitudes than it is to look up online where to get the 10 Named items your character wants on a third party site.
All of these are in my opinion are valuable hardships that will give the game meaning and depth as well as serve a system design function. That does not mean they improve the game play though and if memory serves you have strong expressed your opinion against all of them in previous threads. Each option needs to be weighed between the player enjoyment, player achievement, and player interest. Delay and challenge can add to the feeling of achievement but it can also decrease player enjoyment. After a certain point a player will loose interest in a challenge if there is not enough enjoyment if they are playing for relaxation reasons (Dark Souls) or not enough achievement if they are playing for recreation reasons (daily quests).
Both groups have money to spend on games and both groups are interested in Pantheon. The real question is not how to make travel faster or slower but rather how can travel be made meaningful and enjoyable enough for both relaxation and recreation.
Trasak said:Tanix said:What I don't see very often in discussion is "how can I make travel an obstacle, somerthing I have to work to, something that makes my time in the world more meaningful"
This is the point I am making. Everytime a new topic comes up, I see tons of posts about how we should have this ability, this feature, this cheat, this aid, this convenience, etc.. but very "few" where the opposite is argued, how limitations, focuses on obstacles, difficulties, and hardships are key.
Then I am curious how you feel about item decay, items having both volume and mass, and diminishing returns each level on player power growth such that a level 50 is not much more power than a level 40. Named items with set stats are also a form of easy mode. Its much harder to find a full set of gear with your prefered stats if each item has 4 enchantment slots each of which can be one of 36 different base enchantments per slot and 10 different magnitudes than it is to look up online where to get the 10 Named items your character wants on a third party site.
All of these are in my opinion are valuable hardships that will give the game meaning and depth as well as serve a system design function. That does not mean they improve the game play though and if memory serves you have strong expressed your opinion against all of them in previous threads. Each option needs to be weighed between the player enjoyment, player achievement, and player interest. Delay and challenge can add to the feeling of achievement but it can also decrease player enjoyment. After a certain point a player will loose interest in a challenge if there is not enough enjoyment if they are playing for relaxation reasons (Dark Souls) or not enough achievement if they are playing for recreation reasons (daily quests).
Both groups have money to spend on games and both groups are interested in Pantheon. The real question is not how to make travel faster or slower but rather how can travel be made meaningful and enjoyable enough for both relaxation and recreation.
I think decayed items in a cRPG are of a specific genre of play, more akin to the "Rogue like" style of play. There is a time and place for such mechanics, but not in long term development games in my opinion. That is, to have a player spend tens or even hundreds of hours for a reward that will fade away is poor balance of risk vs reward. In "Rogue like" systems where items are decayable, were death is permante, where the concept of the game is cicular in nature, having a means to where a player loses an item makes sense because the balance of "time" within play to achieve those items is gauged to that level of play. Taking an EQ like game, having someone spend an ENORMOUS amount of hours to gain an item only to watch it degrade is counter to that style of play. This is why RNG generation loot systems I think fail in long term cRPG development systems.
It is not that I think such a system is invalid, rather it is improper placed in this setting. If you decay items, then you have to reduce time spent in play to achieve an item and then implement a more cyclical system of reward, lowering long term risk process in order to facilitate a short term risk aquisition. Point is, the systems are incompatible which is why games that attempt to implement them conflict and often fail because of it (ie lose a certain player base).
As for travel, you can not achieve what you see as to make travel meaningful (ie have weight, purpose, be an obstacle), you will have to make it less enjoyable to those who dislike time as an obstacle. The fact is, a true obstacle will not be "enjoyable" as a real obstacle will be a difficulty on some nature where the person will find it a hardship, even frustrating. Point to me a game where there are no frustrations in the obstacles and I point you to a game that is a waste of time.
That is not to say you can not put in features where the obstacle has purpose. A ship where the player boards and has to wait among various other game features isn't the problem, and that isn't the argument I am making. The argument I make is that when "Travel" comes up I don't see the majority go on about how it needs to meaningful by prologing it, insuring it is difficult and of a required process... what I see are suggestions on how that "travel time" can be made tolerable with numerous cheats and the like.
The entire point of this discussion was to see if people understood the positions they argume from, but by the general responses it appears I have yet again, misjudged my audience and ended up wasting my time.
I think it comes from what everyone thinks the baseline game will be. For example when it comes to travel, I assume I'll have the ability to walk from point A to point B. I don't need to advocate for the ability to walk because I assume it will be there. Then we move on to what were the draw backs of walking, and how to fix them. I don't have to again, advocate for a feature I already assume to be in place, I merely look for ways to improve upon the system.
I see two camps of people on these forums. Those opposed to any change past what EQ had at launch, and those who want the experience EQ but tailored to their current life style. I'd like to hope I'm somewhere in the middle. I believe some of the hardships in EQ were unnecessary and didn't add to the game, but I believe some did add to the game. If at the end of the day Pantheon is a game that requires more time than I'm able to give up I'm willing to accept that and walk away. I'm not going to advocate for the game to change in a way that fits my specific life style... that being said I think looking at how we can include people with various play styles is a better idea than just making EQ 3.
I want travel to be meaningful, not just because of the adventure aspect of it. Its short sighted to cite just one reason for a feature that adds to so many aspects of the game. Travel time adds to the death penatly by forcing you to take your time to get back to a spot. It adds to the "feel" of the size of the world. The faster you can travel across the world, by whatever means, the smaller it feels. All content between Point A and Point B is compleltly trivilized if you no longer have to travel between the two points other than a loading screen.
Now all of that being said I think there is a middle ground between hours to travel and seconds to travel. I think there is a benefit to allowing a group to maintain a flow of play be adding in replacement members in a reasonable amount of time and manner. With a game being marketed as a hard old school MMO I think its reasonable for people with less play time, or inconsistent play time, to be given content. I don't think we should taylor dungeons or end game content around their play time; but if someone is only able to accomplish exp progression on a 3-4 hour minimum play session I think that's going to be a problem. Many MMO gamers view character progression as earning EXP; I know people will say "do tradeskills" or alternate actitivites, but I dare say the vast majority of people who play MMO's don't find that meaningful. Some do, you may, but the majority of people I've seen in MMO's only do those things as side jobs. Its not "cheating" to want to play the game.
EppE said:I think it comes from what everyone thinks the baseline game will be. For example when it comes to travel, I assume I'll have the ability to walk from point A to point B. I don't need to advocate for the ability to walk because I assume it will be there. Then we move on to what were the draw backs of walking, and how to fix them. I don't have to again, advocate for a feature I already assume to be in place, I merely look for ways to improve upon the system.
I see two camps of people on these forums. Those opposed to any change past what EQ had at launch, and those who want the experience EQ but tailored to their current life style. I'd like to hope I'm somewhere in the middle. I believe some of the hardships in EQ were unnecessary and didn't add to the game, but I believe some did add to the game. If at the end of the day Pantheon is a game that requires more time than I'm able to give up I'm willing to accept that and walk away. I'm not going to advocate for the game to change in a way that fits my specific life style... that being said I think looking at how we can include people with various play styles is a better idea than just making EQ 3.
I thinky you are tying to argue a straw man that has already been established as false numerous times with your EQ position.
You do however make my point in your first comment. That is, you see an "obstacle" not as game play, but something that gets in the way of enjoyment. So your first evaluation of a given mechanic is not to establish it as an obstacle and expand on its purpose, but to come up with ways to make overcoming it enjoyable. That would place your position in number 2.
I think these differences are "key" to what is expected in game design and why there is a division between gamers today. One side sees the game as "fun", something to be "entertaining" and its entire purpose is to make the player happy and fullfilled in that session of play. The other sees the game as something to confound, confuse, provide an obstacle ot be overcome, and challenge them, even if it results in feelings of frustrations, failure or less than happy results of the player.
The former must keep the player happy, the latter is concerned that the player is playing a game and how one approaches their designs will differ, often greatly.
This is why player 1) will argue over a need for a certain level of obstacle, where it isn't invalidated, where it is continually kept at a level where it retains being an obstacle and why player 2) is more concerned about if they are having fun most of the time which is why the focus is on "cool" things to do while playing.
@Tanix
Here's my issue. You view anything other than the base game of EQ as a cheat or a removal of some core game defining feature. Advocating for improving on a feature is not the same as advocating for how to remove an obstacle and I think that is where you are having issues with other people here. You view any alteration from the core game of EQ as removing an obstacle, and thus making it easier. Until you admit that EQ wasn't perfect and game features can be improved upon you are going to constantly find yourself arguing against everyone.
It is both possible to want obstacles in the game and advocate for changes and improvements.
Tanix said:I think decayed items in a cRPG are of a specific genre of play, more akin to the "Rogue like" style of play. There is a time and place for such mechanics, but not in long term development games in my opinion. That is, to have a player spend tens or even hundreds of hours for a reward that will fade away is poor balance of risk vs reward. In "Rogue like" systems where items are decayable, were death is permante, where the concept of the game is cicular in nature, having a means to where a player loses an item makes sense because the balance of "time" within play to achieve those items is gauged to that level of play. Taking an EQ like game, having someone spend an ENORMOUS amount of hours to gain an item only to watch it degrade is counter to that style of play. This is why RNG generation loot systems I think fail in long term cRPG development systems.
It is not that I think such a system is invalid, rather it is improper placed in this setting. If you decay items, then you have to reduce time spent in play to achieve an item and then implement a more cyclical system of reward, lowering long term risk process in order to facilitate a short term risk aquisition. Point is, the systems are incompatible which is why games that attempt to implement them conflict and often fail because of it (ie lose a certain player base).
As for travel, you can not achieve what you see as to make travel meaningful (ie have weight, purpose, be an obstacle), you will have to make it less enjoyable to those who dislike time as an obstacle. The fact is, a true obstacle will not be "enjoyable" as a real obstacle will be a difficulty on some nature where the person will find it a hardship, even frustrating. Point to me a game where there are no frustrations in the obstacles and I point you to a game that is a waste of time.
That is not to say you can not put in features where the obstacle has purpose. A ship where the player boards and has to wait among various other game features isn't the problem, and that isn't the argument I am making. The argument I make is that when "Travel" comes up I don't see the majority go on about how it needs to meaningful by prologing it, insuring it is difficult and of a required process... what I see are suggestions on how that "travel time" can be made tolerable with numerous cheats and the like.
The entire point of this discussion was to see if people understood the positions they argume from, but by the general responses it appears I have yet again, misjudged my audience and ended up wasting my time.
I don't think you have misjudged your audience. I think you have just misjudged the value of your own opinions and views.
You are one of many and everyone has their own interests. In my opinion having your hard earned reward have a chance of fading away over time is exactly what makes it exciting and interesting and keeps said item valuable. Wanting to get an item once and keeping it forever is CareBear just as much as instances, group finder and flying mounts.
Just by inflation models unless there is some involuntary way for an item to leave the game world then over time the inventory of the best items will over balance its reward and the item becomes cheap and common place. That being said a degradable item that takes 200 hours to get and is only usable for 50 hours is bad game design but an item that takes 50 hours to get and is usable for 200 hours is reasonable.
Both: what obstacles can be created to overcome in play AND what cool things can be done to navigate those obstacles?
Travel in particular has a high tendency to become nothing more than tedium/monotonousness/boring, it isn't genuinely a compelling feature for the majority of a journey as player level increases and they have explored much of the world plenty of times already. Plenty have shared their stories of how they had fun/meaningful journeys in games like EQ and that was all accomplished even with the availability of movespeed buffs and generous teleport placements. Even much of the "punishment" systems in games like EQ could be circumvented by player spells yet death still felt meaningful, the same I would say holds true for travel (which often isn't even the result of a punishment).
(Also: almost no one is asking for easy access instant travel to anywhere they want to be either so don't even bring out that straw man)
Travel should be a nice exploratory obstacle to look forward to, if there are enough random points of interest and rare spawns in little explored areas. Some people like to travel to explore, others to map and others for a specific purpose. The time frame should not be an issue if there is enough entertainment along the way.
Trasak said:Tanix said:I think decayed items in a cRPG are of a specific genre of play, more akin to the "Rogue like" style of play. There is a time and place for such mechanics, but not in long term development games in my opinion. That is, to have a player spend tens or even hundreds of hours for a reward that will fade away is poor balance of risk vs reward. In "Rogue like" systems where items are decayable, were death is permante, where the concept of the game is cicular in nature, having a means to where a player loses an item makes sense because the balance of "time" within play to achieve those items is gauged to that level of play. Taking an EQ like game, having someone spend an ENORMOUS amount of hours to gain an item only to watch it degrade is counter to that style of play. This is why RNG generation loot systems I think fail in long term cRPG development systems.
It is not that I think such a system is invalid, rather it is improper placed in this setting. If you decay items, then you have to reduce time spent in play to achieve an item and then implement a more cyclical system of reward, lowering long term risk process in order to facilitate a short term risk aquisition. Point is, the systems are incompatible which is why games that attempt to implement them conflict and often fail because of it (ie lose a certain player base).
As for travel, you can not achieve what you see as to make travel meaningful (ie have weight, purpose, be an obstacle), you will have to make it less enjoyable to those who dislike time as an obstacle. The fact is, a true obstacle will not be "enjoyable" as a real obstacle will be a difficulty on some nature where the person will find it a hardship, even frustrating. Point to me a game where there are no frustrations in the obstacles and I point you to a game that is a waste of time.
That is not to say you can not put in features where the obstacle has purpose. A ship where the player boards and has to wait among various other game features isn't the problem, and that isn't the argument I am making. The argument I make is that when "Travel" comes up I don't see the majority go on about how it needs to meaningful by prologing it, insuring it is difficult and of a required process... what I see are suggestions on how that "travel time" can be made tolerable with numerous cheats and the like.
The entire point of this discussion was to see if people understood the positions they argume from, but by the general responses it appears I have yet again, misjudged my audience and ended up wasting my time.
I don't think you have misjudged your audience. I think you have just misjudged the value of your own opinions and views.
You are one of many and everyone has their own interests. In my opinion having your hard earned reward have a chance of fading away over time is exactly what makes it exciting and interesting and keeps said item valuable. Wanting to get an item once and keeping it forever is CareBear just as much as instances, group finder and flying mounts.
Just by inflation models unless there is some involuntary way for an item to leave the game world then over time the inventory of the best items will over balance its reward and the item becomes cheap and common place. That being said a degradable item that takes 200 hours to get and is only usable for 50 hours is bad game design but an item that takes 50 hours to get and is usable for 200 hours is reasonable.
I recognize the style of play you advocate for, even stated it has merit in its intended design. My contention is applying it in long term development systems like EQ as such invalidates the risk vs reward model. Expecting someone to spend days, weeks, months searching for an item only to have it degrade away over a period of time makes that effort extreme. I know not only for myself, but my friends as well if we were to have our items degrade as you suggestion in EQ, we would have quit EQ long before we did as the value in such play would be imbalanced. You may ejoy such, I don't deny, just as you betray your position through your language and word selection. No doubt we have completely different expectations in play and I think yours is skewed by your PvP mindset and childish slang.
Iksar said:Both: what obstacles can be created to overcome in play AND what cool things can be done to navigate those obstacles?
Travel in particular has a high tendency to become nothing more than tedium/monotonousness/boring, it isn't genuinely a compelling feature for the majority of a journey as player level increases and they have explored much of the world plenty of times already. Plenty have shared their stories of how they had fun/meaningful journeys in games like EQ and that was all accomplished even with the availability of movespeed buffs and generous teleport placements. Even much of the "punishment" systems in games like EQ could be circumvented by player spells yet death still felt meaningful, the same I would say holds true for travel (which often isn't even the result of a punishment).
(Also: almost no one is asking for easy access instant travel to anywhere they want to be either so don't even bring out that straw man)
Nobody is saying that but then their very arguments promote such? It isn't a strawman, people claim they want such to be meaningful then go on to argue every point to make it not so.
You saying that is like saying you do not advocate violence while you are beating the crap out of someone. It is that obvious of a conflict in your reasoning (look at the very basis of your start position on Travel which is to claim it is "tedium/monotonousness/boring". Your very start to the position is to advocate your bias, but then you claim you really are interested in meaningful play. /shrug
EppE said:@Tanix
Here's my issue. You view anything other than the base game of EQ as a cheat or a removal of some core game defining feature. Advocating for improving on a feature is not the same as advocating for how to remove an obstacle and I think that is where you are having issues with other people here. You view any alteration from the core game of EQ as removing an obstacle, and thus making it easier. Until you admit that EQ wasn't perfect and game features can be improved upon you are going to constantly find yourself arguing against everyone.
It is both possible to want obstacles in the game and advocate for changes and improvements.
EQ isn't the only game that had similar features, so it isn't about EQ, it is about a core design concept of that era in play. When your suggestion of improvement is to eliminate time, reducing travel as an obstacle, you are attempting to remove the obstacle and when you reason the need for that reduction as needed because travel is boring, tedious, etc.. then yes... you are asking for a cheat.
Regardless, the main point was how people approach a given design. As many have shown in numerous threads, the first response, the first focus is on "how to make overcoming the obstacle easier". This is the difference in what is expected in game play. It is also what shapes what is expected in the game and why there is a division between certain groups here.
Tanix said:
EQ isn't the only game that had similar features, so it isn't about EQ, it is about a core design concept of that era in play. When your suggestion of improvement is to eliminate time, reducing travel as an obstacle, you are attempting to remove the obstacle and when you reason the need for that reduction as needed because travel is boring, tedious, etc.. then yes... you are asking for a cheat.
First off I haven't really advocated for reducing travel as an obstacle. I'm for a system that allows people to get into groups faster, but not instant travel. Second how much time something should take is relative. One person can consider 3 hours of travel an obstacle another person 30 minutes. Third, that's not a cheat. You should really stop throwing that word around. Using a feature, or advocating for any feature to be added to a game, is in no way a cheat or does it make someone a cheater. You continue to use that word in an effort to smear other peoples ideas.
Tanix said:Nobody is saying that but then their very arguments promote such? It isn't a strawman, people claim they want such to be meaningful then go on to argue every point to make it not so.
You saying that is like saying you do not advocate violence while you are beating the crap out of someone. It is that obvious of a conflict in your reasoning (look at the very basis of your start position on Travel which is to claim it is "tedium/monotonousness/boring". Your very start to the position is to advocate your bias, but then you claim you really are interested in meaningful play. /shrug
Way to completely misrepresent what I said I guess?
"Travel in particular has a high tendency to become nothing more than tedium/monotonousness/boring, it isn't genuinely a compelling feature for the majority of a journey as player level increases and they have explored much of the world plenty of times already. "
In what game is the above not true? The "meaningful" or compelling/engaging aspects of travel in the long run tend to end up being the tail end of the journey, the part where a player is faced with non-trivial mobs where avoidance is no longer a simple sidestep/detour. Traveling through zones A, B, C, D, and E for the 30th time just to get to zone F where your goal awaits is far less meaningful. As such I have no issue if one could teleport (being a class with or finding one who can cast) from zone A to zone D or E and then mount up and/or get movespeed buffs to reduce the time to reach F but not completely negate the travel.
What is "meaningful" differs person to person. Crazy notion, I know.
I'm sure the devs are still hard at work making a game that aligns with the principles set forth in the website's Game Tenets, and any arguments we make here won't have any bearing on that, so there's no need for concern about player mindsets. It's great that we can share our ideas and opinions on the forums, but at the end of the day VR is going to stay true to their vision...which is what is going to make Pantheon so great. :)
Tanix said:I recognize the style of play you advocate for, even stated it has merit in its intended design. My contention is applying it in long term development systems like EQ as such invalidates the risk vs reward model. Expecting someone to spend days, weeks, months searching for an item only to have it degrade away over a period of time makes that effort extreme. I know not only for myself, but my friends as well if we were to have our items degrade as you suggestion in EQ, we would have quit EQ long before we did as the value in such play would be imbalanced. You may ejoy such, I don't deny, just as you betray your position through your language and word selection. No doubt we have completely different expectations in play and I think yours is skewed by your PvP mindset and childish slang.
MMOs are the intended design implementation of item decay. Other than EQ every MMO that I have played had either item decay or a very high level of bound equipment. Pantheon will only be the second MMO I will have played without item decay and I still hope they will get into Beta and realize it needs to be added otherwise the economy will become flooded with +5 vorpal swords so no one even bothers to pick up +2 swords or have anything crafted.
It's not about “enjoying item decay” its about needing an involuntary item removal system loop in the game system to prevent server inventory overload. Item decay is and obstacle and challenge that you must learn to deal with. Saying that you and your “friends” (are we talking about righty or lefty this time?) would not play EQ if it had item decay is quite literally a “straw-man” argument. Frankly it only encourages to keep giving feedback that highlights the value of item decay in a persistent MMO.
Any game system that had item decay would of course have different drop rates than the drop rates than EQ had due to the permanency of items. So your statement item decay would make the game “imbalanced” indicates that you lack the basic understanding of simple game design and input/output mathematics and so your statement was utterly worthless.
My position is that my knowledge and foresight is several orders of magnitude more developed than yours and have in fact been using “childish slang” lifted directly from your own posts. I happen to hate PVP so your observation are right on track with the rest of your opinions, destined for the square receptacle.
*edit* last paragraph was in sarcasm, thought it was obvious but . . . . *end edit*
EppE said:Tanix said:
EQ isn't the only game that had similar features, so it isn't about EQ, it is about a core design concept of that era in play. When your suggestion of improvement is to eliminate time, reducing travel as an obstacle, you are attempting to remove the obstacle and when you reason the need for that reduction as needed because travel is boring, tedious, etc.. then yes... you are asking for a cheat.
First off I haven't really advocated for reducing travel as an obstacle. I'm for a system that allows people to get into groups faster, but not instant travel. Second how much time something should take is relative. One person can consider 3 hours of travel an obstacle another person 30 minutes. Third, that's not a cheat. You should really stop throwing that word around. Using a feature, or advocating for any feature to be added to a game, is in no way a cheat or does it make someone a cheater. You continue to use that word in an effort to smear other peoples ideas.
That is, I specified that if a person argues as such:
When your suggestion of improvement is to eliminate time, reducing travel as an obstacle, you are attempting to remove the obstacle and when you reason the need for that reduction as needed because travel is boring, tedious, etc.. then yes... you are asking for a cheat.
So my point is contingent though on those arguments made. As for how long it should take, I have always stated that travel should be an obstacle, even for high levels in order to retain value in the various abilties that are used to reduce travel time.