philo said:Its not that big of a deal. its simply a common sense thing. If it isnt obvious why the numbers given arent relevant to what actual subscription numbers would be we can move on. I'm not going to go into any of the possible variables that would invalidate those numbers. Why the given data wouldn't equate to being close to accurate should be common sense to most people.
More logical fallacies. Completely consistent with your M.O. If you're going to claim mathematical fallacy then you need to substantiate why. Citing common sense is irrelevant and adds nothing to the discussion.
philo said:
I 100% have an opinion. Just like you but at least I'm not trying to hide behind some sort of false math that has no backing.
You're hiding behind false logic with no backing. You claim to have super obvious backing that supports your claim but can't be troubled to share it? Even after you go out of your way to invalidate what someone else is saying and accuse them of mathematical fallacy? You don't get the benefit of the doubt here. You're a hypocrite.
@ philo
I truly wish to understand. I don't believe I am twisting information to validate my own points. I may have some bias based on the fact that I personally would not pay for an EQ clone but when I try and solve a problem its my job (literally) to collect all the relevant data and make reasonable projections with both conservative and optimistic bounds.
I have not been able to come up with a better representation for the number of players that would be interested in an EQ clone then 10 times the number of current progression server unique players. Unfortunately Daybreak will not release that data publicly and the whole Kronos vs actual subs and 6 man boxed groups that will likely not function in Pantheon makes it hard to determine how many of the active subs are even unique users.
P99 on the other hand represents unique accounts and most of us have had account there at some point over the last 10 years. The launch of Green is likely to draw a lot of people out of retirement if they are still into that style of game at least until they realize how crowded launch EQ is with 10k people in the starting zones. If we get the number of unique accounts that try Green in the first 3 months then that is likely to be a good representation of the current niche market that would be interested in specifically an updated EQ clone.
There may be a chunk of players that are just not interested in playing such an old reboot but would at least try an updated version but there are also a chunk who will not transition back to a paying player. The question then becomes a balance between how many players transition from all their current time investment into a fresh clone, how long those players will stay active, how much will they be willing to pay if they can only play very casually as the 20 year old player in 1999 is now 40 with kids and a mortgage. That leads me back to the maximum number of users that connect to green in the first 3 months is likely to be a good representation of the diehard EQ fans that will be interested in that type of content and will actually subscribe for 5 years.
The 150k minimum subscribers is if anything a very conservative number of required active subscriptions to keep the company profitable. The game content will also only increase at the rate of what 20 people can do so for every 20 devs add another 150k subscribers. You can argue with my estimate on who would be interested in an EQ clone but my estimates on the cost to run the business are not up for arguments. These are business facts that are time proven across the industry and ignoring them is a short trip to bankruptcy court.
Without commenting on who said what to whom - perhaps we should go back to reasoned discussion of issues. VR cares about how the game should be designed not how well we write so a debate on the wording of eachother's posts is not productive.
If Pantheon is being designed as a game that can productively be played in one or two hour blocks I consider this almost self-evidently to be the right decision. Limiting your customer base to those with extensive time and few interruptions is far from wise.
Those who harken back to the times when they spent 4 or 8 or 12 hours in one session and want to relive those days of yore in Pantheon - all I can say is that *allowing* progress to be made in much smaller blocks of time does not prevent you and those that share the same approach to string blocks together and play for 12 hours at a sitting.
@Dorotea,
The issue with most things regarding Pantheon's annoucements of direction or development is nothing is concrete, so the phrase "two hour blocks" is completely open to interpretation and will be until it is clarified. Depending on how that 2 hour time block is realized could competely cause a ripple effect to those who are able to string together a 4 hour, 8 hour, or 12 hour play sessions. But, I don't think anyone has an issue with people accomplishing something within 2 hours, it's all about the implementeation which again, is still completely unknown.
So, I believe and have repeated it ad nasuem on these forums over the years that those who invest more time in Pantheon (all other variables the same) should be rewarded more than someone that invests less time (4-6 hour chunks versus 2). Time in and of itself is not challenging, but time is the mangnifier to all challenge as it is the only true finite resource we all have. But WAIT, I'm not saying those that play 2 hours can't obtain rewards, but it will not be at the same speed and its the players expectations that have to change if they have less time. No gameplay system can be designed to teach people to change expectations.
So, I think the main issue becomes how can you create a game that is meaningful, challenging, etc. that requires time and still be able to accomplish something in 2 hours that may take 12 hours (total) to accomplish without completely restructuring/reframing the game around the "2 hour mindset? that ultimately, if you did, would create a negative ripple effect for the player that is able to play 4, 8, or 12 hours? If you push to far to accomplish to design gameplay around the 2 hour concept you end up with WoW Dailies on a treadmill. For me, the solution like most things is keep it simple and let the players figure it out for the most part. However...
A few ideas have been discussed and I'll list the one's that I think would be sufficient:
1. Safe spots within dungeons - but with all things there should be risk/reward. It would be risky to login at that safe spot hoping that someone wasn't trying to pull mobs to that camp site upon the person's return, the group/guild may not be there when they log in, etc. But, I would imagine if it was an active dungeon they could /LFG for groups there - 15 Rogue LFG at Campfire 2. The other issue I always ran into in EQ that kept me wanting to play longer than I should have was the feeling of leaving the group without a replacement - especially as a tank. With the safe login/logout spots, it may help with that issue as well with players being able to be closer and replacements could be easier.
2. I wouldn't even be completely opposed to a recall type feature that Vanguard had to your bind point that could only be used every 24 hours or so. With VG you could only use it before logging in, but with Pantheon perhaps have something tied to the campfire in the Dungeon similar to how Dark Souls does it (maybe requiring some reagent etc.). That way, if the person was frustrated they couldn't find a group and were stuck within the dungeon they could go craft etc.
3. Pantheon has discussed briefly on the match-making system (but I think the generic LFG is fine). Again, I don't think you can create a system to "find groups." Ultimately finding groups often depends on the player itself. You can create all the systems in the world, but in a social world that forces/requires/recommends/promotes (insert word) for advancement and the best loot, it often is based on the players skillset/abilities/personality etc. for them to obtain groups and be sought after in groups when logging in. So, again, this is often within a player's control as cheesy as it sounds to try to be their best if leveling is what they want to do, or be nice to others, etc. If you're an a**, ninja looter etc. then you won't be invited. So, this is accomplished more to me in fostering a game world, virtual world where needing others is necessary and fostering that environment where true player reputation can be obtained.
I'll end here - the concern/fear of alienating player base due to the 2 hour play time has to be removed, and Pantheon just needs to be designed, and players will figure out their own two hour play sessions with enough meaningful content. The bigger issue to me is the creation of feature creep and paralysis by analysis by trying to constantly have that "fear" around all design decisions that does this fit within the 2 hour framework? Design the world and players will figure out their 2 hour play session.
Thought that was well put Raidan. That's generally my concern in a nutshell is that they are dumbing down the game to appeal to more people ala WoW. I don't believe folks need their hand held so that they can accomplish things in two hour chunks. Like you said though, they'll have to expand on this so that we understand their aim a little bit better. I'm firmly in the camp of treating Pantheon like EQ1, giant open sandbox world, lots to do, simply go do it at the pace you are able. If luck is on your side, maybe you can do things quickly, if not, maybe it takes a very long time. Regardless, you can always make progress, or try at least, for two hours and then stop. But, as a hardcore gamer, I definitely don't want to know that whatever I'm doing is designed to usually be knocked out in two hours. I think with the biggest issue in current MMOs being content gets chewed through too fast, the objective of design should be to make things take longer. You have to avoid tedium, but there's no way I'm designing anything to be finished in two hour windows unless its a WoW style "bear ass" type quest, and this game is not doing that.
I wouldn't even design a game with casuals and hardcores in mind. And EQ1 probably didn't. Make a world, have it full of adventure, many goals take a massive amount of time to achieve, and the pace at which people experience and chew through the content is up to them. Which is basically what you said Raidan, so we are in agreement there. Now, I would definitely focus on horizontal advancement and put some artifical restraints on vertical advancement, but that's a different discussion and that goal would be to prolong the time it takes to advance in the game for everyone. Anyway, looking forward to when VR really drills down on what they mean concerning their two hour design goal.
Mathir said:When I say an EQ clone, I don't mean that literally. I want 2020 graphics, the actual classes to be more engaging and interesting, newer systems like collections and Vanguard style crafting, etc.... Basically an updated EQ with 2020 technology and lessons learned. But the core game is what i want theoretically copied. LONG leveling, grindish, group focused, excellent lore, massive challenge, huge death penalties and corpse recoveries to make the reward of trying hard content all the more fulfilling and rare, specific class roles and individuality, completely unbalanced gameplay where some classes are just better in certain circumstances, lots of abilities but limited in how many you can use at once, a game with lots of strategy on how to tackle things, the ability to solo and camp and farm items starting early on that will last and make a differnece the duration of your character, and the list goes on.
What I don't want is instancing, frequent loot drops (I want everything worthwhile to be ungodly rare, so if you want to camp something, set aside a lot of time), no quest hubs, no maps, no teleports outside very limited druid and wizard ports, no summons at all, no bonus or rest xp, no caravan system, no mob locking, no quest journals, no shared first names, small raids (all raids 50+ people), no loot pinatas (limited drops on raid mobs so it takes a long time to gear up a guild), and the list goes on.
Essentially I want a game like EQ, so I say EQ clone. I don't mean that literally. But nobody has made a game like EQ since EQ, even though I loved WoW, it was far too easy. WoW Classic right now is ridiculously easy and too dumbed down, but still better than anything else out there. What I am worried about is VR talking about a 2 hour focus. GTFO with that. I want a game just like EQ1 that throws you into the world with unlimited things to do that take forever to do them. I want that overwhelming, no hand held feeling. By definition, I don't think you can have an open, sand box world and somehow say you're breaking it down into two hour play sessions. Makes zero sense and would be a massive mistake. If people want to play just two hours, they'll log off after two hours. Make a game for the people that will never log off, that covers everyone else in the process. EQ1 is the blueprint for this. Yes, we need graphics upgrades, and yes, some classes could use more oomph and strategy, and yes, there are some new features over the years not the least of which is indepth Vanguard crafting that should be included as well. But the core design, the core feel, the core concepts....EQ1 clone please. Noone else has ever done it and that's what everyone is waiting for. Newer players will fall in love with the challenge and scope as well. And the old EQ1 players all want something new to discover and explore, P99 and those types of Classic servers can never give that, which is why I never played on them. New, modernized version of EQ1 please.
Exactly what I meant as well (ESPECIALLY Vanguard style crafting), minus the strikethroughs which I do not agree with. Don't think anyone LITERALLY wanted an actual EQ clone. Other than the 2 things I lined through, this post is literally 10000% what I want. WORD FOR WORD.
Also, you think this game will need a consistent 150k subs to stay afloat? Then it is dead right now in that case I would think.
I could see a two hour play session type of exp bonus being implementd in like the rest exp bonus that was in VG, everyone gets it and once it runs out then its back to normal exp grinding, no one is punished and if you only play once or twice a week at least during the time you play the exp bonus would make a decent contributon to your advancement.
antonius said:Mathir said:...What I don't want is instancing, frequent loot drops (I want everything worthwhile to be ungodly rare, so if you want to camp something, set aside a lot of time), no quest hubs, no maps, no teleports outside very limited druid and wizard ports, no summons at all, no bonus or rest xp, no caravan system, no mob locking, no quest journals, no shared first names, small raids (all raids 50+ people), no loot pinatas (limited drops on raid mobs so it takes a long time to gear up a guild), and the list goes on...
Exactly what I meant as well (ESPECIALLY Vanguard style crafting), minus the strikethroughs which I do not agree with. Don't think anyone LITERALLY wanted an actual EQ clone. Other than the 2 things I lined through, this post is literally 10000% what I want. WORD FOR WORD.
What you say highlights why this is a complex and emotive issue though. The stuff you have struckthrough will be a slightly different list to what others might strikethrough and to satisfy everyone's idea of EQ-but-with-their-favourite-stuff-added, VR will have to add everything and, voila, we risk having another modern MMORPG with all the modern conveniences that ruin them.
Now, I am not saying I want *just* EQ and that every addition has been to the detriment of the genre, *but* I *am* saying it is understandable that some feel that way and that with every departure from that old school formula we risk diminishing Pantheon until it isn't what us old-school players want anymore.
That being said, I believe just about any modern convenience can be approached and developed in such a way as to not mess things up. There can be fast travel and auction houses and group finders and soloing etc etc as long as the way they are implemented is in a limited and sensible way.
I trust VR to have the experience and the vision to add these things (and know what not to add) in a sensitive manner. Also I'm happy to discuss them, no matter what. Some seem to think that even talking about them might bring about the further doom of the genre.
i shall share a dream i had last night:
i was in a raid group and the boss was an ancient beholder. there were several groups of casters that combined to cast some super tier fireballs. we enter a phase where a ghost called celestia would spawn. needless to say i have a instinctual reaction with her spawning right next to me and launch a super tier fireball at her, causing a guild wiped.
one of my guild members said that i essentially threw away 2 billion(i forgot the currency, but it's a lot XD i suppose it's like 200 mil usd)
i go on to say that there's got to be a reason why the ghost is part of the encounter other than not to spam aoe-lots of adds would spawn at the celestia phase, which would kill every raid group that has tried. also killing celestia causes the mobs to despawn, but the beholder would enrage. so it was common knowledge not to kill her.
(i really don't know why my guild had put up with me at this point because we were doing all kinds of stupid suggestions i was throwing out in regards to celestia)
after lots of trials and errors and months of arguing goes by, we finally figured out that we must mind control the adds and have them kill celestia.
at that point the beholder lets out a bellow of sorrow then turned all the spawns to dust and debuffed the entire raid group turning us all into 9 year old children.
the story ends here cuz i woke up XD
i somehow think it relates to what's going on in this thread so i'll let the dream analyst and the sigmund freud figure this one out >.>
stellarmind said:i shall share a dream i had last night: -
...
i somehow think it relates to what's going on in this thread so i'll let the dream analyst and the sigmund freud figure this one out >.>
That definitely means something to someone and, yes, probably an analyst X^D
disposalist said:stellarmind said:i shall share a dream i had last night: -
...
i somehow think it relates to what's going on in this thread so i'll let the dream analyst and the sigmund freud figure this one out >.>
That definitely means something to someone and, yes, probably an analyst X^D
it's probably just a crazy dream, but it was pretty vivid so it would be fun to share with people that understands fantasy, raids, mmos.
Raidan said:
A few ideas have been discussed and I'll list the one's that I think would be sufficient:
I just wanted to say thank you for an excellently written and constructive post :) I agree with your three suggestions, they all seem feasible to me.
@disposalist
Perhaps it is just my optimism but when I look at what many people say they *actually* want out of the game, the vast majority of people here land pretty close together. Sure, there might be a few details that we all differ on, but they're small details - not the big stuff. If you look at what Mathir and antonius both said, as well as what others have said, you can see a lot of commonality.
Where we get into trouble is when people over-generalize. I think it's on all of us to try not to do that when we post.
Nephele said:Raidan said:A few ideas have been discussed and I'll list the one's that I think would be sufficient:
I just wanted to say thank you for an excellently written and constructive post :) I agree with your three suggestions, they all seem feasible to me.
@disposalist
Perhaps it is just my optimism but when I look at what many people say they *actually* want out of the game, the vast majority of people here land pretty close together. Sure, there might be a few details that we all differ on, but they're small details - not the big stuff. If you look at what Mathir and antonius both said, as well as what others have said, you can see a lot of commonality.
Where we get into trouble is when people over-generalize. I think it's on all of us to try not to do that when we post.
Agreed. Also, I trust the vision of VR, so there is always the fallback that it doesn't matter if we argue here, our opinions *may* be of interest to them, but they will pursue their vision in the end.
Trust In Pantheon (TM)
((The issue with most things regarding Pantheon's annoucements of direction or development is nothing is concrete, so the phrase "two hour blocks" is completely open to interpretation and will be until it is clarified. Depending on how that 2 hour time block is realized could competely cause a ripple effect to those who are able to string together a 4 hour, 8 hour, or 12 hour play sessions. But, I don't think anyone has an issue with people accomplishing something within 2 hours, it's all about the implementeation which again, is still completely unknown.))
Agreed.
((So, I believe and have repeated it ad nasuem on these forums over the years that those who invest more time in Pantheon (all other variables the same) should be rewarded more than someone that invests less time (4-6 hour chunks versus 2). Time in and of itself is not challenging, but time is the mangnifier to all challenge as it is the only true finite resource we all have. But WAIT, I'm not saying those that play 2 hours can't obtain rewards, but it will not be at the same speed and its the players expectations that have to change if they have less time. No gameplay system can be designed to teach people to change expectations. ))
Agreed with the caveat that size of chunk is distinct from amout of time spent. Someone spending 8 hours once a week (their only available day to play) has invested far less time than someone that comes on two hours a night every single day.
((So, I think the main issue becomes how can you create a game that is meaningful, challenging, etc. that requires time and still be able to accomplish something in 2 hours that may take 12 hours (total) to accomplish without completely restructuring/reframing the game around the "2 hour mindset? that ultimately, if you did, would create a negative ripple effect for the player that is able to play 4, 8, or 12 hours? If you push to far to accomplish to design gameplay around the 2 hour concept you end up with WoW Dailies on a treadmill. For me, the solution like most things is keep it simple and let the players figure it out for the most part. However...))
Agreed. May all Gods forbid that we wind up with a series of two hour dailies instead of dungeons where you *can* play for an hour or two but also can play for 10 hours at a sitting. I am not at all worried that this will happen. More likely are a larger number of smaller dungeons that one can finish in two hours. My guess is that there will be some like that - but will also be some that are quite large
((1. Safe spots within dungeons - but with all things there should be risk/reward. It would be risky to login at that safe spot hoping that someone wasn't trying to pull mobs to that camp site upon the person's return, the group/guild may not be there when they log in, etc. But, I would imagine if it was an active dungeon they could /LFG for groups there - 15 Rogue LFG at Campfire 2. The other issue I always ran into in EQ that kept me wanting to play longer than I should have was the feeling of leaving the group without a replacement - especially as a tank. With the safe login/logout spots, it may help with that issue as well with players being able to be closer and replacements could be easier.))
I agree there should be safe spots. Safe meaning not on the planned paths of any mobs. Obviously one could arrive there and have nothing to do because the spot is taken. Obviously one could log on to find a train killing all in sight.
((2. I wouldn't even be completely opposed to a recall type feature that Vanguard had to your bind point that could only be used every 24 hours or so. With VG you could only use it before logging in, but with Pantheon perhaps have something tied to the campfire in the Dungeon similar to how Dark Souls does it (maybe requiring some reagent etc.). That way, if the person was frustrated they couldn't find a group and were stuck within the dungeon they could go craft etc.))
Perhaps, as discussed in other threads a while back, a campfire that you could get to only from within the dungeon. Perhaps an exit ability to take you only to the start of the dungeon. To keep these abilities from being used to shrink the world.
((3. Pantheon has discussed briefly on the match-making system (but I think the generic LFG is fine). Again, I don't think you can create a system to "find groups." Ultimately finding groups often depends on the player itself. You can create all the systems in the world, but in a social world that forces/requires/recommends/promotes (insert word) for advancement and the best loot, it often is based on the players skillset/abilities/personality etc. for them to obtain groups and be sought after in groups when logging in. So, again, this is often within a player's control as cheesy as it sounds to try to be their best if leveling is what they want to do, or be nice to others, etc. If you're an a**, ninja looter etc. then you won't be invited. So, this is accomplished more to me in fostering a game world, virtual world where needing others is necessary and fostering that environment where true player reputation can be obtained.))
Agreed if I read you correctly. A LFG tool should put people that want groups in touch with people forming groups, and vice versa, rather than automatically grouping people.
(( I'll end here - the concern/fear of alienating player base due to the 2 hour play time has to be removed, and Pantheon just needs to be designed, and players will figure out their own two hour play sessions with enough meaningful content. The bigger issue to me is the creation of feature creep and paralysis by analysis by trying to constantly have that "fear" around all design decisions that does this fit within the 2 hour framework? Design the world and players will figure out their 2 hour play session.))
There should be things that can be finished in two hours. There should be larger things that can conveniently done in *either* two hour intervals or longer sessions. There should be few if any dungeons where you have two choices. Go in for an 8 hour session or do not bother to go in. I believe this entire discussion is based on Aradune saying that the game will not *require* committment of very long blocks of time although it will *permit* such and if so I agree with him.
I might be referencing posts between this thread and the similar one on the “News and Announcements” forum, but this seemed like the more relevant place to post. I think people are really jumping to extreme conclusions with concerns and threats to not even play if Pantheon targets 2-hour sessions.
I find it highly unlikely VR would implement anything that would cap or reduce individual XP as your rolling play time increases; that would obviously not sit well with most people, including the 2-hour target audience when they want an 8-hour weekend session.
I don’t personally have an issue with other approaches (besides reducing xp after a daily target) to encourage a target session length and think they can be categorized into a few broad categories. Some examples I don't think were mentioned in the other posts above:
1) Travel based like caravans, fast travel, ports, bind points. There has been lots of discussion on the merits of systems like this but I don’t see the major drawback in placing limited options for reducing travel time. Logged-out caravans do nothing to hurt those logged in (and it’s perfectly reasonable to compare to RL options like overnight trains, ships, roadtrips, etc). Same with fast travel like mounts. While I have a hard time sticking to WoW for other gameplay reasons, I really liked their flight path feature and boats/zeppelins. It’s a good compromise that could have difficulty or restrictions added to make Pantheon more “old-school” while reducing down time between camps, dungeons, raids, or grinds. Hard-core players would benefit from this as well. The most common argument against systems like this is they let you bypass content, but the developers could add restrictions to limit usage and force manual travel for a target percentage of time. (ie the stable had a disease and horses are sick, or you got lost while navigating and are dumped halfway thru the zone, or an enemy faction attacked the boat, or the boat/stable/caravan master won’t go out because of approaching bad weather…etc)
2) XP bonuses – not restrictions. I personally like features like resting bonuses that temporarily boost xp from kills. Again, it has a RL parallel – you are more proficient at learning/improving if you are well rested and alert.
3) Time sinks and survival elements. Returning to town for repairs, selling loot, eating food, sleeping. Players could do all of these things in the field but be incentivized to return to town for better effectiveness. If you’re a blacksmith, you could make field repairs but maybe only to 80% max. If you repair in town you get 100% and maybe 2 hours of reduced armor damage, or 2 hours of slightly increased melee dmg due to a honed blade. For casters, maybe you can get 2 hours of increased spell damage from meditating. If you eat beef jerky in the field you get some health back, but if you eat a hearty meal in the inn you get an xp bonus for an hour, or a hp/mana bonus for an hour. It may not be worth the time for a hardcore player to go back to town for things like this, but they could if they chose to, and a casual player will probably go back to hubs more often.
4) XP from quests. I share the majority opinion on the forums that quests should be limited and more grand in nature and personally don’t like daily quests that just throw xp at you, so would rather not see something like this.
5) Others?
On a slightly different slant, I’d be curious to hear thoughts on overall time to max. Someone in one of the threads said they game ~100 hours a week, which is just about every waking hour not spent on other critical activities like eating. If we pick a target date for max level that a hardcore player might settle for, let’s say 20 days /played, and run with the idea:
20 days playtime is 480 hours. Someone playing 80-100 hours a week would take 1.5-2 months to hit level cap. Someone playing on the medium band of what I think is casual would play 20 hours per week (~2 hours avg per work night and ~5 hours/day weekend). That would take 6 months to hit level cap.
As a casual player myself, I don’t mind needing 6 months to hit cap but that’s approaching the upper limit of what I would find fun and engaging for just one character (to reiterate, I mean 6 months grinding, not other stuff like quests, crafting, trading etc). Once you add crafting and endgame on top of that a casual player might work on just one toon, not alts, for a whole year or more. This would give developers plenty of time to work on post-launch content with a smaller team, but also goes to show how much content (and hence the development time before launch we like to complain is ever-exceeding) needs to be in the base game to keep people entertained and engaged for a year.
Someone also mentioned they should just focus on a content stream to satisfy the hardcore elite and let casuals catchup, as opposed to gearing content to the casual playerbase and letting elites get bored sitting at max level. Continuing with the 20 days /played idea, if people blew through level cap in 2 months and spent 2-4 months raiding/crafting before exhausting content then the devs have max 6 months post-launch to create new content, only to have that consumed even more rapidly (since it’s expansion/addon and not a whole new game). The amount of dev resources (creation, implementation, testing, balancing) required to keep the elite player base fed with new content would be staggering, and if they did somehow manage that, the content would rapidly eclipse what a casual player could ever hope to finish.
The real answer for content length and /played time is obviously a compromise somewhere that will get refined during alpha and beta. There are plenty of ways to “softly” encourage session lengths without penalizing people who want to play 12 hours a day. I think some of those methods are necessary to balance keeping hardcore players engaged and boosting causal players so they don’t feel like they’re falling further and further behind.
To reiterate the original point, I think threatening to stop supporting VR because hardcore players will be disadvantaged if two-hour sessions are encouraged is an extreme opinion, especially at this stage. If we keep open minds and continue to discuss the game productively, I still have faith we’ll end up with a game everyone on the forums will enjoy playing.
Good post Wilsef :)
This is just me, but I would like to challenge you (and everyone else) to stop thinking about character progression in terms of level alone. There have been a lot of conversations over the years about how fast people should level, or how long it should take to get to the maximum level. I get it because in most games, your level determines what you can do - in fact in many games it's the ONLY thing that really matters.
I expect however that Pantheon will be different. I think that level, by itself, isn't going to matter very much. Sure, we'll get more hp and mana and so forth, but in terms of enabling us to do more difficult things? There's going to be a lot more to it than that.
So, instead of asking the question "how long should it take to get to max level", maybe we should ask the question "how much and what kinds of things should people need to do in the game to progress as far as they can?"
Just off the top of my head, that's:
- 50 levels of experience
- Pursuing equipment upgrades, whether purchased, looted from very challenging encounters, or found via long and complicated quests.
- Learning new abilities, whether those are looted, found in the world from hard-to-get-to trainers, or earned via quests or the perception system.
- Acquiring artifacts that enable you to operate in different atmospheres, which presumably will not be easy.
- Acquiring mitigations for different extreme climates, whether those are glyphs or gear, giving you the chance to survive in different areas of the world.
- Gaining faction standing with different NPC groups, to help enable you to accomplish all of the above.
- Completing rites of passage in whatever form those may take, also enabling you to accomplish all of the above.
So, how many hours should it take a player to do all that? Maybe instead of "max level", it's the entire journey we should be thinking about :)
Nephele said:This is just me, but I would like to challenge you (and everyone else) to stop thinking about character progression in terms of level alone. There have been a lot of conversations over the years about how fast people should level, or how long it should take to get to the maximum level. I get it because in most games, your level determines what you can do - in fact in many games it's the ONLY thing that really matters.
Thanks Nephele for the counterpoint, I went off on a tangent a bit in my post but couldn't agree more in terms of what you said - I'm really excited to see the different content that Pantheon will bring to the table that isn't just a series of grinding spots to max level. I am a bit concerned that ultimately people will see all side or horizontal content, even what you listed, just as time sinks to move on to the "more important" vertical content like the next level, but here's to hoping that isn't the case :) To a certain extent I guess some people desire (and enjoy) the competitive race to whatever Pantheon's finish line will be. I know I'll be going slow anyway so plan to enjoy whatever horizontal content I find along the way.
Nephele said:Good post Wilsef :)
This is just me, but I would like to challenge you (and everyone else) to stop thinking about character progression in terms of level alone. There have been a lot of conversations over the years about how fast people should level, or how long it should take to get to the maximum level. I get it because in most games, your level determines what you can do - in fact in many games it's the ONLY thing that really matters.
I expect however that Pantheon will be different. I think that level, by itself, isn't going to matter very much. Sure, we'll get more hp and mana and so forth, but in terms of enabling us to do more difficult things? There's going to be a lot more to it than that.
So, instead of asking the question "how long should it take to get to max level", maybe we should ask the question "how much and what kinds of things should people need to do in the game to progress as far as they can?"
Just off the top of my head, that's:
- 50 levels of experience
- Pursuing equipment upgrades, whether purchased, looted from very challenging encounters, or found via long and complicated quests.
- Learning new abilities, whether those are looted, found in the world from hard-to-get-to trainers, or earned via quests or the perception system.
- Acquiring artifacts that enable you to operate in different atmospheres, which presumably will not be easy.
- Acquiring mitigations for different extreme climates, whether those are glyphs or gear, giving you the chance to survive in different areas of the world.
- Gaining faction standing with different NPC groups, to help enable you to accomplish all of the above.
- Completing rites of passage in whatever form those may take, also enabling you to accomplish all of the above.
So, how many hours should it take a player to do all that? Maybe instead of "max level", it's the entire journey we should be thinking about :)
Exactly. When I talk about "The Journey" being important it's this. All the other things you do besides leveling that round out your character, as well as, immerse you in the world, that give your character a reason for being beyond gaining levels. That hopefully is a lot of content and should take a very long time. The more time we get to spend in a place, the more opportunity we get to explore its mysteries, the more we begin to feel we are not playing a game but living in another world. This is part of the immersive magic that made EQ so loved and I think an experience many of us are hoping for again. The chance to go forth and write your own adventure story.
WILFSEF SAID:
On a slightly different slant, I’d be curious to hear thoughts on overall time to max. Someone in one of the threads said they game ~100 hours a week, which is just about every waking hour not spent on other critical activities like eating. If we pick a target date for max level that a hardcore player might settle for, let’s say 20 days /played, and run with the idea:
20 days playtime is 480 hours. Someone playing 80-100 hours a week would take 1.5-2 months to hit level cap. Someone playing on the medium band of what I think is casual would play 20 hours per week (~2 hours avg per work night and ~5 hours/day weekend). That would take 6 months to hit level cap.
Response:
6 months for the hardest of the hardcore crowd to hit max level, obtain all necessary horizontal progression, and defeat all raid content. Another 3 months at least of farming that content to outfit the guild. 9 months total before the content is mastered, farmed, and trivialized requiring a new expansion. Double everything for extreme casuals, so 1.5 years before an expansion is needed. The reality is most people fall in between somewhere.
And to be honest, if they can keep me from being at end game content for two months, that's far better than any other game has done in a long time, so that would be a win in my book. But 6 months would be ideal. And as I funnel down loot and guides, it will inevitably speed up the casual pace to much faster than twice as slow.
Nephele said:Good post Wilsef :)
This is just me, but I would like to challenge you (and everyone else) to stop thinking about character progression in terms of level alone. There have been a lot of conversations over the years about how fast people should level, or how long it should take to get to the maximum level. I get it because in most games, your level determines what you can do - in fact in many games it's the ONLY thing that really matters.
I expect however that Pantheon will be different. I think that level, by itself, isn't going to matter very much. Sure, we'll get more hp and mana and so forth, but in terms of enabling us to do more difficult things? There's going to be a lot more to it than that.
So, instead of asking the question "how long should it take to get to max level", maybe we should ask the question "how much and what kinds of things should people need to do in the game to progress as far as they can?"
Just off the top of my head, that's:
- 50 levels of experience
- Pursuing equipment upgrades, whether purchased, looted from very challenging encounters, or found via long and complicated quests.
- Learning new abilities, whether those are looted, found in the world from hard-to-get-to trainers, or earned via quests or the perception system.
- Acquiring artifacts that enable you to operate in different atmospheres, which presumably will not be easy.
- Acquiring mitigations for different extreme climates, whether those are glyphs or gear, giving you the chance to survive in different areas of the world.
- Gaining faction standing with different NPC groups, to help enable you to accomplish all of the above.
- Completing rites of passage in whatever form those may take, also enabling you to accomplish all of the above.
So, how many hours should it take a player to do all that? Maybe instead of "max level", it's the entire journey we should be thinking about :)
Agreed, we're on the same page with horizontal progression, but it has be almost mandatory for people to actually do it. Some of the most effective and time intensive examples of horizontal progression from EQ1 were the dungeon keying events (Veeshan's Peak, Sebilis, Vex Thal) and trade skills/harvesting. Even Warcraft did a fine job with tradeskills and harvesting, farming rare recipe drops and having the actual recipes be so intensive but often times necessary to your effectiveness made that entire endeavor a massive horizontal progression time sink. The fact you Pantheon is requiring acclimation gear and will have rare artifacts is an excellent horizontal timesink, especially since it sounds like some will be borderline mandatory to progress doing vertical progression. Traveling the world to sell at regional markets and spam goods like in the East Commons is even a form of horizontal advancement due to needing to make money to progress vertically. Finding trainers and all that, another great form of horizontal advancement. If VR combines the things it has talked about with how EQ1 did things, there will be a ton of horizontal advancement necessary for any end game raider. VR has to make it important though. A lvl 50 max character that just rushed to level should be powerful, but maybe only half as strong as a level 50 that did all the horizontal stuff along the way, and the guy that raced to max should only be able to get into about half the end game areas as well. If they can do that and slow xp gain through artifical means for power gamers, now we're talking. I know that if my xp is cut off for the day, but I have a bazillion things to camp, obtain, and key for on the side, the lack of gaining xp doens't even matter because I'm still progressing doing the other super important things. Hopefully VR can harness this.
Mathir said:Nephele said:Good post Wilsef :)
This is just me, but I would like to challenge you (and everyone else) to stop thinking about character progression in terms of level alone. There have been a lot of conversations over the years about how fast people should level, or how long it should take to get to the maximum level. I get it because in most games, your level determines what you can do - in fact in many games it's the ONLY thing that really matters.
I expect however that Pantheon will be different. I think that level, by itself, isn't going to matter very much. Sure, we'll get more hp and mana and so forth, but in terms of enabling us to do more difficult things? There's going to be a lot more to it than that.
So, instead of asking the question "how long should it take to get to max level", maybe we should ask the question "how much and what kinds of things should people need to do in the game to progress as far as they can?"
Just off the top of my head, that's:
- 50 levels of experience
- Pursuing equipment upgrades, whether purchased, looted from very challenging encounters, or found via long and complicated quests.
- Learning new abilities, whether those are looted, found in the world from hard-to-get-to trainers, or earned via quests or the perception system.
- Acquiring artifacts that enable you to operate in different atmospheres, which presumably will not be easy.
- Acquiring mitigations for different extreme climates, whether those are glyphs or gear, giving you the chance to survive in different areas of the world.
- Gaining faction standing with different NPC groups, to help enable you to accomplish all of the above.
- Completing rites of passage in whatever form those may take, also enabling you to accomplish all of the above.
So, how many hours should it take a player to do all that? Maybe instead of "max level", it's the entire journey we should be thinking about :)
Agreed, we're on the same page with horizontal progression, but it has be almost mandatory for people to actually do it. Some of the most effective and time intensive examples of horizontal progression from EQ1 were the dungeon keying events (Veeshan's Peak, Sebilis, Vex Thal) and trade skills/harvesting. Even Warcraft did a fine job with tradeskills and harvesting, farming rare recipe drops and having the actual recipes be so intensive but often times necessary to your effectiveness made that entire endeavor a massive horizontal progression time sink. The fact you Pantheon is requiring acclimation gear and will have rare artifacts is an excellent horizontal timesink, especially since it sounds like some will be borderline mandatory to progress doing vertical progression. Traveling the world to sell at regional markets and spam goods like in the East Commons is even a form of horizontal advancement due to needing to make money to progress vertically. Finding trainers and all that, another great form of horizontal advancement. If VR combines the things it has talked about with how EQ1 did things, there will be a ton of horizontal advancement necessary for any end game raider. VR has to make it important though. A lvl 50 max character that just rushed to level should be powerful, but maybe only half as strong as a level 50 that did all the horizontal stuff along the way, and the guy that raced to max should only be able to get into about half the end game areas as well. If they can do that and slow xp gain through artifical means for power gamers, now we're talking. I know that if my xp is cut off for the day, but I have a bazillion things to camp, obtain, and key for on the side, the lack of gaining xp doens't even matter because I'm still progressing doing the other super important things. Hopefully VR can harness this.
Very true.
Mathir said:When I say an EQ clone, I don't mean that literally. I want 2020 graphics, the actual classes to be more engaging and interesting, newer systems like collections and Vanguard style crafting, etc.... Basically an updated EQ with 2020 technology and lessons learned. But the core game is what i want theoretically copied. LONG leveling, grindish, group focused, excellent lore, massive challenge, huge death penalties and corpse recoveries to make the reward of trying hard content all the more fulfilling and rare, specific class roles and individuality, completely unbalanced gameplay where some classes are just better in certain circumstances, lots of abilities but limited in how many you can use at once, a game with lots of strategy on how to tackle things, the ability to solo and camp and farm items starting early on that will last and make a differnece the duration of your character, and the list goes on.
What I don't want is instancing, frequent loot drops (I want everything worthwhile to be ungodly rare, so if you want to camp something, set aside a lot of time), no quest hubs, no maps, no teleports outside very limited druid and wizard ports, no summons at all, no bonus or rest xp, no caravan system, no mob locking, no quest journals, no shared first names, small raids (all raids 50+ people), no loot pinatas (limited drops on raid mobs so it takes a long time to gear up a guild), and the list goes on.
Essentially I want a game like EQ, so I say EQ clone. I don't mean that literally. But nobody has made a game like EQ since EQ, even though I loved WoW, it was far too easy. WoW Classic right now is ridiculously easy and too dumbed down, but still better than anything else out there. What I am worried about is VR talking about a 2 hour focus. GTFO with that. I want a game just like EQ1 that throws you into the world with unlimited things to do that take forever to do them. I want that overwhelming, no hand held feeling. By definition, I don't think you can have an open, sand box world and somehow say you're breaking it down into two hour play sessions. Makes zero sense and would be a massive mistake. If people want to play just two hours, they'll log off after two hours. Make a game for the people that will never log off, that covers everyone else in the process. EQ1 is the blueprint for this. Yes, we need graphics upgrades, and yes, some classes could use more oomph and strategy, and yes, there are some new features over the years not the least of which is indepth Vanguard crafting that should be included as well. But the core design, the core feel, the core concepts....EQ1 clone please. Noone else has ever done it and that's what everyone is waiting for. Newer players will fall in love with the challenge and scope as well. And the old EQ1 players all want something new to discover and explore, P99 and those types of Classic servers can never give that, which is why I never played on them. New, modernized version of EQ1 please.
Amen to that!
Mathir said:Thought that was well put Raidan. That's generally my concern in a nutshell is that they are dumbing down the game to appeal to more people ala WoW. I don't believe folks need their hand held so that they can accomplish things in two hour chunks. Like you said though, they'll have to expand on this so that we understand their aim a little bit better. I'm firmly in the camp of treating Pantheon like EQ1, giant open sandbox world, lots to do, simply go do it at the pace you are able. If luck is on your side, maybe you can do things quickly, if not, maybe it takes a very long time. Regardless, you can always make progress, or try at least, for two hours and then stop. But, as a hardcore gamer, I definitely don't want to know that whatever I'm doing is designed to usually be knocked out in two hours. I think with the biggest issue in current MMOs being content gets chewed through too fast, the objective of design should be to make things take longer. You have to avoid tedium, but there's no way I'm designing anything to be finished in two hour windows unless its a WoW style "bear ass" type quest, and this game is not doing that.
I wouldn't even design a game with casuals and hardcores in mind. And EQ1 probably didn't. Make a world, have it full of adventure, many goals take a massive amount of time to achieve, and the pace at which people experience and chew through the content is up to them. Which is basically what you said Raidan, so we are in agreement there. Now, I would definitely focus on horizontal advancement and put some artifical restraints on vertical advancement, but that's a different discussion and that goal would be to prolong the time it takes to advance in the game for everyone. Anyway, looking forward to when VR really drills down on what they mean concerning their two hour design goal.
I would agree in reference to casual/hardcore in EQ design, which, is arguably why it worked so well. They designed a game world - "You're in Our World now" - and it was punishing and players adapated, not the other way around. I had plenty of friends that played 2 hours or less, and, they ultimately lasted longer than me as they did not experience the burnout I did (and usually had endless content as they would never reach the level cap). And, as I've repeated numerous times on these forums - a 2 hour session will be obtaininable; however, it's players expectations of leveling pace, "finishing the game", being the best, etc. that needs to change, not the game design itself. Don't selfishly cheat someone of the experience since they have more time and let them experience the inevitable burnout to follow. I'll be on my rocking chair enjoying my slower pace. Another side aspect that is often overlooked is the person that is playing 2 hours or less may be winning or achieving more in real life also - there needs to be differentiators to time played and rewards obtained.
Also, obviously Pantheon has 20+ years of gameplay/class design to have room for improvement from EQ, but as you stated in this thread - that core EQ Vision can still exist, with modern technology/enhancements improving on that original framework - not altering it. And, from reading your postings, I'd think you and I would agree - I am all for new ideas/innovations that improve/expand on that style of gameplay, but am more dismissive on new ideas that counter the vision (often for the sake of convenience).