Trasak said: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.
You lifed "care bear" from my own posts as if I use the term? Care to quote me directly where I use such a term outside of anything other than to respond to someone who was in fact using the term negatively? Yeah, didn't think so.
You are too smart for me though, I think I will back out of discussion with you, I mean I wouldn't want to muddy your conversations with such lowly knowledge and foresight.
/bows deeply
Your lordship, please... carry on!
Iksar said: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.
You seem to think "meaningful" in terms of "entertaining", when I am using it as its definition of having purpose. Travel is an obstacle, if it is of note (ie it takes time), then it is of purpose, not some quick meaningless task to move around. That is, the run from Qeynos to Freeport is a meaningful run as it has purpose, length in time to give the sense of distance and that distance gives size and purpose to the world, to travel to the spells to travel the world. When PoP was released, travel became "meaningless" as it was quick, easy and the tools to which helped reduce travel time in the world became useless due to this. That is the concept of "meaningful".
So, when you argue for travel to take little time because you think travel is "meaningless" due to your "entertainment" requirement, then you are in fact arguing to make travel "meaningless" so you don't get bored in the process. That is, travel being "meaningless" is exactly what you are arguing for as anything less than that will be boring, tedious, etc...
Fact is no matter if you walk/run/speed buff or ride. The only real difference is the time sink involved. None of the mentioned modes of travel cause the scenery to blur, miss an encounter.
The only difference is how long you have to mash a button down and how long you have to take a bio break.
Now porting between towns would cause you to miss whatever was in between, so there you are 100% correct. BUt other then that your obstacle is just an excuse. And even if you could port more then likely you already made the trip once or twice so you're not missing a blessed thing.
DracoKalen said:Fact is no matter if you walk/run/speed buff or ride. The only real difference is the time sink involved. None of the mentioned modes of travel cause the scenery to blur, miss an encounter.
The only difference is how long you have to mash a button down and how long you have to take a bio break.
Now porting between towns would cause you to miss whatever was in between, so there you are 100% correct. BUt other then that your obstacle is just an excuse. And even if you could port more then likely you already made the trip once or twice so you're not missing a blessed thing.
Unless of course there are random bosses around :)
Tanix said:Trasak said: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.
You lifed "care bear" from my own posts as if I use the term? Care to quote me directly where I use such a term outside of anything other than to respond to someone who was in fact using the term negatively? Yeah, didn't think so.
You are too smart for me though, I think I will back out of discussion with you, I mean I wouldn't want to muddy your conversations with such lowly knowledge and foresight.
/bows deeply
Your lordship, please... carry on!
No, no, no. I can't just leave you hanging without continuing our discussion!!! Otherwise I might doom you to live in your little tea cup of a world in ignorance if I don't fully convince you that what I am trying to teach is the right and true way to think. (/end sarcasm)
(for quote reference https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/10370/bringing-in-a-replacement-to-your-group/view/post_id/200638)
It's not fun having someone demean your ideas or intelligence is it? Maybe you should stop doing it to everyone else.
Out of curiosity I went back to try and see where this thread went off the rails - despite all of the times we have been asked to keep personal attacks and arguments out of these threads.
I believe this was the line that did it.
((I think yours is skewed by your PvP mindset and childish slang. ))
Far from the worst I have seen on these forums but in context completely uncalled for. The posts being responded to simply argued legitimate (not necessarily correct but entirely reasonable) positions and neither used such slang nor were pvp-based even indirectly.
Maybe if we get back to topic and stop the attacks Kilsin will settle for removing the offending posts (including this one) and not wipe the entire thread.
Trasak said:Tanix said:Trasak said: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.
You lifed "care bear" from my own posts as if I use the term? Care to quote me directly where I use such a term outside of anything other than to respond to someone who was in fact using the term negatively? Yeah, didn't think so.
You are too smart for me though, I think I will back out of discussion with you, I mean I wouldn't want to muddy your conversations with such lowly knowledge and foresight.
/bows deeply
Your lordship, please... carry on!
No, no, no. I can't just leave you hanging without continuing our discussion!!! Otherwise I might doom you to live in your little tea cup of a world in ignorance if I don't fully convince you that what I am trying to teach is the right and true way to think. (/end sarcasm)
(for quote reference https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/10370/bringing-in-a-replacement-to-your-group/view/post_id/200638)
It's not fun having someone demean your ideas or intelligence is it? Maybe you should stop doing it to everyone else.
Ah, makes sense now. So, you emotoinally enter a discussion with a previous bias outside of the arguments being made in order to "teach" me a lesson?
How about you focus on the dicussions rather than emotionally white knighting all the social injustices you see.
Please grow up.
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?"
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.
I think that the way you're approaching this question is inherently flawed. You are presuming that people fall into "camps" that weight challenge over reward, or vice versa. The reality is much more nuanced. Many people rate challenge highly, but the nature of that challenge is where they will disagree. Likewise, many people want content to be rewarding, but the nature of those rewards is where they will differ.
Most players think in terms of experiences, not their component parts. So, for example, if you ask a player what he wants in a game, he'll say "I want X!", where X is the entire experience in his mind, and to anyone trying to be analytical, woefully devoid of any sort of detail. That doesn't make the player wrong, and it doesn't mean they only want part of the experience.
We see that all the time on these forums where people say things like "I want raiding in Pantheon!". Ok, great. But when you say that, what are you really talking about? Are you talking about EQ-style raids with large numbers of people fighting a giant boss where numbers were the key and actual strategy was fairly minimal? Are you talking about EQ2 where you had smaller numbers but where each person on the raid had to execute well in order for the raid to succeed? Are you talking about something like Vanguard where it wasn't as individually demanding as EQ2 raids, but where you had generally more mechanics to deal with than EQ raids? Something else?
Even if people are talking about the same game in the same era, they may see things very differently, because everyone's perception is colored by their own personal biases and experiences. I like to think I'm fairly objective about all the different ways you can do raiding, since I have raided in a large number of MMOs - but even saying that, I know that I'm still biased towards the ones that I personally enjoyed more. I didn't really find Wildstar's world bosses all that much fun, but when Naunet tells me how cool they were, I respect that maybe she experienced things differently than I did.
I have two points in saying all of this.
The first is that in software design, and especially in game design, you cannot approach concepts in a vacuum. Every piece of the experience is influenced by the other pieces around it. So, trying to say "we should do this part this way, and that part that way" doesn't work, unless you first truly understand the experience you're trying to drive for a player. If we want to talk about how things should potentially work for Pantheon, we need to first define the experience so we have some context to work within - and then, we need to respect that everyone here is going to define that experience a little differently, and everyone's viewpoints and ideas are equally valid.
The second is that we all need to recognize our own biases and try to be able to explain why we have them. Often, we have biases because of the games we played previously - we remember the ones we enjoyed, and we remember the ones we didn't. But we often don't stop to think about what we didn't like about the games that we enjoyed, or what we DID like about the games that we didn't enjoy. When we don't think about those things, it leads to tunnel vision, where we are trying to duplicate a specific experience from a previous game without consideration for anyone else's wants or needs, or if that would even work well with other components of the larger game.
So, my answer to your two questions? Both challenge and reward matter equally. I would wager that the vast majority of posters here are giving equal thought and priority to both aspects even if they're not being all that verbose about it.
Regardless, I do not think it's right, or a good idea to try and somehow divide the community into opposing camps here - because not only is that not accurate, it doesn't accomplish anything constructive at all. We are ALL here to support Pantheon. We should recognize that there's no single "righteous path" (to borrow a phrase from someone), and instead be willing to consider that it's the end experience that matters most, not how we get there.
You seem to be of the opinion that insulting and denigrating others views is an acceptable a means of having a “Discussion”. Of your 800+ posts I would be surprise if fewer than 750 included an insult or intentional slight to someone else in the thread. Pursuing discourse through intentional negativity is an infantile communication tool. Remember #communitymatters and everyone who participates on these boards knows exactly who you are and how you behave.
For the record though having a preconceived notion that X travel mechanic is better than Y mechanic and asking for Y mechanic is “cheating” or is asking for “easy mode” is making judgements without enough information to make an informed analysis. Your OP shows your obvious bias that looking for challenges to overcome is far superior to looking for tools to defeat said challenges. Nothing exists in a vacuum and must be considered as part of a whole. Any challenge has to have solutions otherwise it is just a roadblock.
As we have already discussed in this thread you view item decay as an unacceptable challenge and I have pointed out that view that it is based on applying item decay directly to the EQ item drop rate, itemization, and item access. It is a very limited assumption to make that any of those factors will be remotely the same in Pantheon as it was in EQ. Therefor you are the one having an emotional response to an otherwise effective item inventory control system that has been very effective in other MMOs and not a logical objection.
Now this is where are different. I think its fine that you have an emotional response to item decay. Its ok that you don’t LIKE item decay and you do not find it fun. It sounds like currently both Brad and Chris agree with you that it is not fun and they are certain that they have other tools to control item inventories. Ultimately for the good of the game and the good of the company, that must stay profitable to keep running, a choice must be made that keeps the game system running while remaining acceptable to the greater majority of their target focus group.
Feel free to feel how you want to about ideas. Some of your ideas and objections are valid and definitely worth considering but they are packed in so much negativity that few will empathies with you and that includes which ever developer may be reading these boards. If you want to have actual discourse with other members of the community then learn to be a good community member and not a pariah.
*edit* bugger Nephele stole my vacuum reference before I could post it
Nephele said:
Regardless, I do not think it's right, or a good idea to try and somehow divide the community into opposing camps here - because not only is that not accurate, it doesn't accomplish anything constructive at all. We are ALL here to support Pantheon. We should recognize that there's no single "righteous path" (to borrow a phrase from someone), and instead be willing to consider that it's the end experience that matters most, not how we get there.
It isn't about dividing them, the community is already divided on this. It is about understanding the positions that both sides have and why they have them.
First off, this isn’t about difficulty, it is about balance in game play and focus.
The two questions:
1) "What obstacles can I create to overcome in play?"
or
2) "What cool things can I get/have/make to excel in play?"
are specifically to see where someone approaches a given issue. Are they concerned about the balance of game play? Or… are they concerned about how entertaining the game will be?
I used travel as an example of an obstacle. Travel is an element of time in play it has nothing to do with “difficulty” or “challenge”, rather it is a concept that gives depth to game systems and the world. So when I ask what approach do you take, I am asking what is the first thought you have to the systems?
Do you think of travel as an important obstacle in play and consider how to achieve keeping that obstacle relevant for game play, or… do you immediately jump to how travel is an obstacle that needs to be overcome and focus on solutions to limit or eliminate it?
See, as I said, this is key to what we want in a game and there is a trend between people here in this. My comments are not meant to attack, or to alienate, but to get people to look at it a bit more analytically as to the issue. I did this because in all of my discussions about the importance of retaining the “obstacle” in play (be it travel, death consequence, combat time, down time, etc…) some people tended to misunderstand the core points I was getting at thinking my point was shallow or stereotypical.
Without an obstacle, you have no real game and if you look to many of the mainstream games, the obstacles have been removed, limited, or contained to the point where people lack interest because there is no longer really “Game play”, just random tasks and actions. Pantheons tenants specifically attend to these very points and that was the theme I was getting at.
There is nothing wrong with people considering interesting features in play, but I think the core of this game is founded on the very thing I am getting at, the very thing that is missing in games today and that is the “obstacles” in play. That “meaningful” game play is reliant on the obstacles, not the rewards. This is the concept of proper risk vs reward balance I am getting at and how a person views issues will define what they expect in play.
I personally think the issue we have in a lot of these discussions is that some tend to think the obstacle is the problem in play and so focus on solutions to remove or limit the obstacle (ie quick travel, dungeon finders/fast group aids, etc…) rather than seeing that the obstacle is the entire point of the game in the first place, that if you remove it, there is no point in play. The obstacle is needed and that is the very thing that was removed from games like EQ and why there are no games like it today.
Trasak said:You seem to be of the opinion that insulting and denigrating others views is an acceptable a means of having a “Discussion”. Of your 800+ posts I would be surprise if fewer than 750 included an insult or intentional slight to someone else in the thread. Pursuing discourse through intentional negativity is an infantile communication tool. Remember #communitymatters and everyone who participates on these boards knows exactly who you are and how you behave.
Thank you for setting me straight.
I see the same talking points being move from one thread to another. I guess that is ok, based on the fact that we are not "in the know". The only thing you can really do is speculate and push your POV. Because we don't know specific details on how VR plans to meet the challanges. So we get to continue to smash the same ideas of convenience around....back and forth.. If every person got that one little convenience option they wanted, (because it just this one thing, and no big deal) the sum of it's parts equals failure. It VR responsibilty to stop this from happening. Are they? I don't know I am not in Pre-Alpha.
Alot a time players talk about "end game", Why? It's the end. You are standing around waiting for the developer to design more content, Then you grind through that in three weeks, then cancel your sub for a few months and play some other game.
I totally understand why Pantheon should be with out maps; Have real fear when traveling. If you are a hardcore adventure and push outward into the world, I want the Pantheon world to push back.
We already have games with all the conveniences...and we are ignoring them. So why advocate more of the same? 4k Elder Scrolls Online Yeah great!, I love the lore, but can't stand the ingame store, the F2P, that lack of levels monsters; the dungeon designs and the instant groups. They would need to redesign the game for me to play it.
VR should design this world like a PvE survival game. Every zone should have a monster level range from 1 to 50. If you level 35, you should still be wary of traveling in the first zone outside your starting city. Don't think your going to run along the boundaries of the zone either. Force people to negotiate terrain every day. Force players to avoid danger, but also offer opportunity, luck and chance to capitalize on situations that arise.
I expected so much from the MMORPG industry. I was so excited about the future when playing EQ thinking "man 32 years old, I only have like 50 years to play these types of games". With the possible exception being early SWG and Vanguard, every other MMO was less fun to play, even though technology and graphics got better.
Caine said:
Alot a time players talk about "end game", Why? It's the end. You are standing around waiting for the developer to design more content, Then you grind through that in three weeks, then cancel your sub for a few months and play some other game.
I wanted to specifically address this. At the time EQ was out end game content was not over and done with in a few weeks. Even into their second expansion, Luclin, raid mobs from the previous expansions were being killed since they dropped upgrades. End game is discussed a lot because its static. In theory its what everyone reaches, or atleast its the point at which you stop surpassing content. Something that is designed for a level 20 character will only be useful for a short period while content designed for max level will be used for a much longer period of time.
Other than that I mostly agree with you. We don't know since we're not in Pre-Alpha and if we were we couldn't shed light on these conversations.
Caine said:I see the same talking points being move from one thread to another. I guess that is ok, based on the fact that we are not "in the know". The only thing you can really do is speculate and push your POV. Because we don't know specific details on how VR plans to meet the challanges. So we get to continue to smash the same ideas of convenience around....back and forth.. If every person got that one little convenience option they wanted, (because it just this one thing, and no big deal) the sum of it's parts equals failure. It VR responsibilty to stop this from happening. Are they? I don't know I am not in Pre-Alpha.
The point some of us are getting at is that it isn't as black and white or this side vs that side, there is far more nuance or shades of gray. For example: there is so much room to discuss convenience between walking everywhere in the world and instant teleportation wherever one can think of, yet somehow any attempts to talk about that massive middleground seem to quickly devolve into centering around the instant travel anywhere that almost no one is even asking for.
There used to be more room for discussion over implementation on these forums but as time has gone by things seem to have degraded more toward black/white or yes/no circular bouts of attacking/defending the basic premise of any given feature/mechanic. Hard to bring about new ideas or discuss possible new ways to innovate/implement old ideas while maintaining the Pantheon feel when any attempt just becomes a shouting match of extremes or repeated attempts to shut down any conversation about a topic considered remotely "threatening" to ones own desires for the game.
Caine: "I totally understand why Pantheon should be with out maps; Have real fear when traveling. If you are a hardcore adventure and push outward into the world, I want the Pantheon world to push back."
What I'm used to is the "fog". Your map is one big piece of fog except the city where you start. Then as you adventure it clears little by little until you have finally explored every corner and there is no fog left.
And I'd like to take that one step further. The terrain clears as you move through it but if you don't search and find things like dungeon/cave entrances and other important points they don't show on your map either.
DracoKalen said:Caine: "I totally understand why Pantheon should be with out maps; Have real fear when traveling. If you are a hardcore adventure and push outward into the world, I want the Pantheon world to push back."
What I'm used to is the "fog". Your map is one big piece of fog except the city where you start. Then as you adventure it clears little by little until you have finally explored every corner and there is no fog left.
And I'd like to take that one step further. The terrain clears as you move through it but if you don't search and find things like dungeon/cave entrances and other important points they don't show on your map either.
I don't hate your idea, I just don't think it solves the issue. There will be online maps that I can use so I know where to go to unlock my map. However there will be online maps so I will be able to know where to go.
I think the big thing about maps is that if they are added, I do not want them to show my location. I think that's the key to me. If the map doesn't show my location I'm all for your idea, though I don't think it really makes the game any more mysterious by having a fog, it atleast requires people to travel.
DracoKalen said:Fact is no matter if you walk/run/speed buff or ride. The only real difference is the time sink involved. None of the mentioned modes of travel cause the scenery to blur, miss an encounter.
The only difference is how long you have to mash a button down and how long you have to take a bio break.
Now porting between towns would cause you to miss whatever was in between, so there you are 100% correct. BUt other then that your obstacle is just an excuse. And even if you could port more then likely you already made the trip once or twice so you're not missing a blessed thing.
Time is the issue. Time is what makes travel "meaningful" (ie with purpose). For something to have "purpose" it must be of an obstacle to which you must recognize. It isn't about encounters, it isn't about anyhthing other than the "time" it takes to get from point A to B. Travel has no purpose if it does not take time. Spells that aid travel have no purpose if travel does not take time.
Lets look at something else. How about leveling? How long should it take to get to 50? 10 mins? Too short? Why? Is it because if you could level to 50 in 10 mins, leveling would serve no purpose, no meaning? Some argue it should take a very long time? Why? Is it not because they think it should have meaning? See the point I am making here?
So many things in modern games today have no real meaning, no real purpose. You level ridiculously fast, you travel quickly across the world, you excel to your "win" consistently and quickly. Is it because the winning is the point? I mean, that is why we play right? To win? To suceed? So tell me, how much value is success when there is little to no risk of failure, when the road to success is no road at all?
Do you understand my point now? The "obstacle" is process of time in the case of travel. You may think it "boring" that you have to run all that distance to get to the next town. I mean, it may be a major drag and get in the way of your "fun", but its purpose is to give meaning to the world, to the size of it, to the tools a character or class may have in travel. It is all part of the process of game play.
Does that make sense? Anything at al? Can you understand or do you just not care and if you don't care... why are you here, I mean.. after reading the tenants, and understanding what this game was being developed for?
DracoKalen said:Caine: "I totally understand why Pantheon should be with out maps; Have real fear when traveling. If you are a hardcore adventure and push outward into the world, I want the Pantheon world to push back."
What I'm used to is the "fog". Your map is one big piece of fog except the city where you start. Then as you adventure it clears little by little until you have finally explored every corner and there is no fog left.
And I'd like to take that one step further. The terrain clears as you move through it but if you don't search and find things like dungeon/cave entrances and other important points they don't show on your map either.
Here is the problem with "maps" as you describe it.
Lets say there are NO maps.
If I have you run through an entire zone once, do you think you can easily get through it again if I put you anywhere in the zone and say go?
I can promise you that you can't, so.. a map with a fog only is an issue once, then after that it is a hint map where anytime you are ever in question to where you are, you look at the map and all is well.
Now that is if it shows you on the map. Lets say it does not. You still have a reference created for you the first time and all you did was run through it. Not very interactive.
See, without a map... you will get lost, over and over again. In fact, even with a hard map like this:
You will still get lost many times as while the map may show you the basics, it won't explain the details of your surroundings and so you will still have a lot of difficulty getting around UNTIL you LEARN the zone yourself. Once you learn the zone, then a hard map will help as a reference. Even still... from time to time you may get turned around.
Do you see why this is important? See how dangerous a zone becomes when you can not easily identify where you are? What happens if you agro something? Lets... consider that as well...
So, remember how we talk about leashing? Now... consider you can easily get lost in because you have no auto map, you have no easy reference to your location, you are lost if you rush somewhere without having a solid knowledge of the area. Ok... so... you agro a mob that YOU CAN NOT KILL (because the zone is also populated with mobs of much higher level). What do you do? You run right? Where? Remember, you don't have time to check an easy route, your understanding of the zone is limited, you are looking at some hard map online and you have only been to this zone once or twice. You can get around, but... you need time to keep your landmarks in check right? NO... You have to run... you are being chased, you must escape or you will DIE! You can't just dumbly point in a direction and run the mob off, it will chase you until you zone and if you don't know where the zone lines are.. you are dead.
See the layers of play here? See how each element of systems are creating an element of risk, danger, urgency, and even NEED for certain abilities? See how having invis becomes AWESOME in a situation like this (you know, so you don't agro that mob in the first place), see how having run speed is majorly important? See how KNOWING WHERE YOU ARE GOING becomes a very important skill? See how travel as a time element becomes a risk?
Welcome to EQ, weclome to the numerous subtle elements of systems to which when all brought together created the "feeling" of the game.
The reason people can't find that "feeling" they had in EQ today is because none of these features exist in games today because to have them would anger and frustrate many mainstream players. They see this as "bad" game design, but people like me see this as why we loved EQ.
This is the point, this is why all these "aids" are bad.
Can you at least understand this perspective?
DracoKalen said:Fact is no matter if you walk/run/speed buff or ride. The only real difference is the time sink involved. None of the mentioned modes of travel cause the scenery to blur, miss an encounter.
The only difference is how long you have to mash a button down and how long you have to take a bio break.
Now porting between towns would cause you to miss whatever was in between, so there you are 100% correct. BUt other then that your obstacle is just an excuse. And even if you could port more then likely you already made the trip once or twice so you're not missing a blessed thing.
In an open world you can't say that unless travel that path again. I met several friends and guild member while simply traveling, happining to be heading the same way, I found Nullalia sitting on a roof of a building when running threw Butcher Block looking for a Dock to get to Freeport, she showed me the way and then joind me in my travels. We then a few days later found a Euridite named Ivanavin stranded in Freeport not knowing how to get to home. Helping Ivana while waiting for Daylight at the entrance for Kithcore to calm down a high level Warrior heading the same way offered to escort us we all died but it was fun.
Yes, 9 times out of 10 it will be the same, I'll be happy to run those 9 if I can meet one good friend on one of those journeys.
There are several ways to blend rapid travel and making travel meaningful so that you can get the best of both without eliminating either.
The basis of this is the concept of trade routes. Between the Racial capitals there would inevitably be a safest route for both trade and travel. The NPCs (in other words the game designers) would make a primary path from one capital to another sometimes through neutral trade cities where multiple trade routes join with low level villages along the safe roads.
These primary trade routes are patrolled by NPC guards and kept relatively safe for foot traffic (read no zone wall hugging required, it’s a stupid mechanic anyway that is a symptom of mobs following you forever). Additionally there would be a paid transit system that travels between the trade locations. If you had the money you could buy a ticket to one of the trade locations and get on the next coach that leaves. You would then sit in the coach as it took. The transit would run at say 4 times walking speed and would kick you out when you got to your ticket location. This could even function while offline but there is no way to speed it up. Note that the trade routes could in fact be river boats or ocean boats.
These trade routes would only pass through level 1-25 areas within zones and these areas would have very little of value to represent both the safety of the zone and the fact that everything has already been picked clean.
The next tier is foot traffic on paved roads to secondary cities. I would give a general movement bonus while traveling on foot on a paved road. Its kind of odd but realistic and allows for getting to your adventuring node of choice relatively quickly but not trivially and will funnel people along roads making the world feel fuller.
These secondary cities can be the starting points to adventure out from and each could have a targeted level range based on the content within a 10-20 minute walk from the town tavern and it would encourage players to head to X city if they want to group up in the level range that was surrounding the city (other than the small channel of trade route heading to the city that was relatively safe).
Over all these secondary cities would still represent mid game areas. From the secondary cities would then be Frontier towns. There would be paths from the secondary cities to the Frontier towns which while only giving a small movement bonus would still represent the “safest” way to get to the frontier town. The biggest benefit of these paths would be to avoid true hazards while also avoiding movement impairing areas. Going from secondary cities to frontier cities would not be safe however as those roads will not be patrolled. The Frontier towns will be the nodes for late game content.
All this being said I would actually like to see a lot of movement impairing effects out in the wild be that low or high level zones. Walking through a field is much different then along a beach, around scrub brush, up a steep incline, through a swamp or in an old growth forest. (ironically from personal experience bushwhacking through an old growth forest is the easiest due to the thick canopy killing off the underbrush). Once you start adding in magical environments and the need to actually climb certain areas that VR has already stated they are implementing you end up with a real gradient of relative travel speed from fairly rapid public transit to hauling your butt over an alpine scramble.
The biggest issue with my design is size and complexity. To have 8 Capitals, 8 Major trade cities, 32 secondary cities and 64 Frontier towns and to have a minimum 15 minute walk before speed modifiers between each one is a pretty big world. I would actually even like to separate the nodes by an unmodified 30 minute walk so each town has its own 15 minute walk radius of influence/service. I would have to confirm walking speeds vs zone sizes but that would be at least 102 zones roughly the size of Warslik woods or larger. Needless to say you would not need to have an even spread across the trade routes or a fully developed progression from each starting city but you would still need at least half of those cities to make it work.
The second technical challenge is that every surface in the game will need its own movement modifier, either positive or negative. This may actually be very simple or horribly complicated. Once you apply movement modifiers by terrain type you also open the opportunities for both mobs and effects to have movement bonuses or negatives when in a specific terrain type. Again this adds massively to the possible world complexity and opportunities for tactical play.
Not certain if this concept can be applied to Pantheon at this stage of the game. Not being part of PA I have no idea the size of zones or the disposition of the content. With only 1/8th of the game content being mapped out I believe there is still plenty of time to implement it, or at least test it to see if it adds to game play.
Tanix said:
Time is the issue. Time is what makes travel "meaningful" (ie with purpose). For something to have "purpose" it must be of an obstacle to which you must recognize. It isn't about encounters, it isn't about anyhthing other than the "time" it takes to get from point A to B. Travel has no purpose if it does not take time. Spells that aid travel have no purpose if travel does not take time.
*snip*
I disagree with you here. Time is one of the things that makes travel meaningful, but making things take time just for the sake of taking time is only tedium. Those long boat rides in EQ were pretty boring if you were the only passenger. Yes, they added to the feeling of a huge world, but after a few dozen times, it was just boring. Based on what we've seen so far (admittedly limited), the perception system (and exploration, in general) will also make travel meaningful, particularly for those who choose to be a Keeper. Helping others along the way also makes travel meaningful. Can't tell you the number of times I've been running through somewhere and buffed lowbies/newbies as I went, or saved a couple of players who got way too many roaming adds.
I'm all for obstacles if there's a purpose to them. What I'm not for are timesinks just for their own sake.
If the basis for an argument is "its boring", "not fun", etc... then there is no argument to be had. It is a purely subjective evaluation that ignores the elements of the points I am making.
This is why there is a difference between a person looking to play a game, and one looking to be entertained.
All of those things I explained about travel are what make it fun. It is not the "time" itself that is supposed to be fun, you aren't supposed to be entertained at every angle. In fact, it is the things that do annoy you, frustrate you, or make things seem like a major task that provide the sense of accomplishment in overcoming them, give sense of value to the aids that help you reduce them, etc...
This is why there is a division that VR can not branch here.
Now don't think that I am dismissing your arguments, I respect that you view the game in a manner that it should entertain you at all times and that if there is anything in the game that seems "borning", that it should be viewed as bad and removed, I do understand, but this is EXACTLY why we ended up with mainstream games.
Either you want a game (where the rules, obstacles, etc... may not be "fun" for you at some times) or you simply want to be entertained. This expectation is the division I see between many people. One can not accept any feature of a game not being fun, the other expects elements of it because the obstacle was never supposed to be fun, it was the eventually overcoming it that gives joy to the play.
There can be no common ground when the core elements of disagreement are at complete odds. This is why people go in circles on these issues.
Riqq said:i sit here and read all these posts and can only come to the conclusion of why would a person indulge themselves in a DnD world and expect to be able to teleport at will wherever they want.....Why are you even interested in this game?
Well speaking for myself this seems like an overblown statement. I played D&D for decades, as a DM and as a player. Horses were an integral part of the game. But riding a horse from one town to another was just a scenic journey with the exception of obstacles I put in the parties path. Teleport existed but was rare and limited to the parties mage and access to high end dungeons.
Traveling as in just putting one foot in front of the other may be challenging to some of you, but it's mundane to many and certainly doesn't provide any real obstacle.
Tanix said:Now don't think that I am dismissing your arguments, I respect that you view the game in a manner that it should entertain you at all times and that if there is anything in the game that seems "borning", that it should be viewed as bad and removed, I do understand, but this is EXACTLY why we ended up with mainstream games.
No, I view the game in that it shouldn't unnecessarily cause me to take X% of the time allocated to play every day just to get where I'm going for the sake of taking time. And the argument that this is the reason we ended up with our current selection of mainstreams games, imo, is only partially correct. If you remember, in EQ tradeskills were instant. Once you had the materials, you had a 'click & done' product, but I've never heard anyone say that this was bad or was the forerunner to what we have now.
Tanix said:
Either you want a game (where the rules, obstacles, etc... may not be "fun" for you at some times) or you simply want to be entertained. This expectation is the division I see between many people. One can not accept any feature of a game not being fun, the other expects elements of it because the obstacle was never supposed to be fun, it was the eventually overcoming it that gives joy to the play.
There can be no common ground when the core elements of disagreement are at complete odds. This is why people go in circles on these issues.
I'm perfectly fine with both rules and obstacles. I expect this game to challenge us and I expect it to take quite a while to level. 25 minute boat rides, however, aren't a challenge to overcome, they're simply a timesink. Yes, they're great if you want to grab food, bio, etc., or if there are others along for the ride. I don't think we disagree on the principle, I think we disagree on the degree.
In the travel example, we could take it to the extreme. No player may move beyond walking speed. As you walk, you lose stamina and must rest every 4 steps. If you go beyond 4 steps, you fall unconscious and must wait 15 minutes before you revive (and hope a mob doesn't aggro and kill you in the interim). Once you revive, you may only take 2 steps before needing to rest until 30 minutes have passed. This type of movement would, by all definitions, be a serious obstacle. Do you think even the most hardcore person would play (let alone subscribe and pay for) this experience? I doubt I would.
So, there it is. We'll agree to disagree on the degree!