The pinnacle of the original EQ mobs were two dragons, Nagafen and Lady Vox. To get there, adventures would battle their way through a variety of enemies; some threatening, others less so. What struck me however was how each zone was able to develop that air of threatening ambience despite what called it home. For example:
Later we were graced with the Planes, battling stronger and more (lore affinity) deadly foes. But the pathway to that journey was paved with run-of-the-mill adversaries, and the occasional surprise; a griffon, hill giant, spectre, something unexpected.
Don't get me wrong, Dragons and the sort are special. But to get there we still battled through what arguably many would consider fodder. A rat, a bat, a skeleton, the staple Orc and Goblin. But was it these normal experiences that made the dangerous ones more special? Was slaying a Dragon or forcing a Djinn back into its bottle more memorable because they stood out amongst the crowd of other enemies? Should a high level adventurer still be afraid of a spider, dwelling deep in a cave, than they should to a magical being? Do we want to be downing dragons left, right and center, a week or so after being born into Terminus?
For me, I hope Pantheon does not trivilize enemies. The slaying of a Dragon should be seen as a heroic deed and not a run of the mill experience. And likewise, why shouldn't a spider be a worthy adversary to a seasoned warrior?
It was the progression from rats, bats, beetles and orc pawns to the dragons and planes which made it all memorable. You received so many confirmations of your character's growth and progression because the NPCs were, for the most part, changing as were the zones themselves. Because the vast majority of your experiences were the normal experiences, because they were ever changing made each time they did change quite exciting. That movement from Orc Hill in Gfay into Crushbone had a sense of graduation about it. As did going from Qeynos Hills into Blackburrow, or Lavastorm into SolA then SolB.
What I find so disappointing about EQ1 now is that, 27 expansions later, you're still fighting rats and goblins. Sure, they are level 100+ now, and drop blue diamonds, emeralds and other gems like a Tiffany pinnata, but that has made them boring. Can you imagine what that level 1 rat outside the gates of Freeport might think of its level 110 brethern showed up? They would worship it as if it were a god, which it is to them.
VR needs to take note that different zones need to be filled with difference NPCs, not just a retexture/resizing of existing models, especially if there is a marked difference in levels.
One place where I hope VR takes a page out of WoW's book (gasp!) is in slower expansion releases.
Less frequent expansions gives them time to make new models, rather than retexture existing ones, and to create whole entire unique experiences rather than simply "adding content." It will make it easier to contextualize the new experience within the world and to make everything that's new make sense. Even when they do retexture and resize existing models, taking the time to add context makes all the difference.
Byproducts I agree - especially since VR lacks the huge teams of developers possessed by games with a player base in the millions that can afford such teams. One of the more important benefits of slow leveling has nothing to do with the player experience - significant though that obviously is. It means the day when a large percentage of players are at maximum level and the pressure for an expansion becomes overwhelming is deferred for quite a few months - even years. Both giving more time to work on the expansion and meaning that release of the game can be faster because maximum level content doesn't have to be ready at release. Not if very few players will get there for 6 months.
Vandraad I agree in large part. But one reason to welcome more prosaic mobs even at maximum level is the belief that almost all of us share that our characters should not be superheros around whom every significant event centers and destined to fight the Gods themselves - and defeat them. That we should be exploring a world not dominating a world as in MMOs like SWTOR or LOTRO or Rift or other such games. Normal adventurers - even very skilled ones - travel the world and fight creatures that the locals are having problems with. Not Gods or demons or dragons. Well, not often. This is a reason why humanoids are good enemies - I suspect that while hordes of level 110 rats gets your attention in a negative way you wouldn't even blink at going from level 1 bandits to level 110 bandits. We are all used to enormous diversity in the danger and abilities of sentients.
I would like to see not only monsters but also lore or history driven environments based on character decisions that you have to discover. Like, as an erudite you were limited to the deitys you could choose from depending on your class. Coming in for the first time, this made me think deity selection was important and played a factor in faction maybe (and it did, somewhat)
But imagine being a young non-evil erudite and finally figured out how to get outside the palace only to be quickly dispatched and rudly outclassed by an NPC called a Heretic...a Heretic?! immediately I thought, oh no, now I have to deal with dogma?! I hardly know the tennents of my so-called religion!. I thought I had to - do something- more involved to learn about the deity I chose to be protected from heretics or to be able to better handle them. But such was not the case, they were just NPC's from Paineel.
No other city had such a clear statement about opposing religious factions. Qeynos had some nice quest interaction betweem corrupt guards/Kayne bayle/ bloodsabres and Antonius Bayle/ good guards and it was nice to try to balance faction between the two without going too far in one direction. That was nice but short lived. and no other city had such clear interactive internal faction issues except maybe freeport that I can remember. But in Odus, it was just, they are heretics, you;re not. But if you think about it I would be considered a heretic to them, right? I thought maybe something could be played along those lines.
dorotea said:I suspect that while hordes of level 110 rats gets your attention in a negative way you wouldn't even blink at going from level 1 bandits to level 110 bandits. We are all used to enormous diversity in the danger and abilities of sentients.
Actually I would mind greatly if we see the same Gadai Bandits at the highest levels that we saw in the earliest, especially if they are visually the same. There should be quite a bit different, visually, between a level 50 Gadai Bandit than a level 7 Gadai Bandit. I don't even think that 'bandit' should apply to a level 50 Gadai either. A greater differentiation between tiers of NPCs that, sadly, share a model is a definite expectation of mine.
Vandraad said: ... A greater differentiation between tiers of NPCs that, sadly, share a model is a definite expectation of mine.
IMO:
Regarding "the bar", why did you excavate the bar, Vandraad? You bury that bar 10 feet underground where it should be! ;)
New World couldn't even raise the bar on model variation. And they had Amazon money. heheh. Same NPC enemy models for 60 levels. woo. fun!
A lot of things about New World amazed and confused me and not in a good way. But reusing the same enemy models over and over was high on the list.
To the OP I agree a dragon should be rare encounter to keep them exciting. Rat and bats etc. I would rather they are not an enemy worth fighting at all or if they are only at the lowest levels. It is a fantasy world let the monsters be something new and interesting and for heaven’s sake something that looks like it could put up a fight. At least make it a R.O.U.S (Rodents of Unusual Size) or mutated and breath fire or something. I really never want to be fighting an ordinary large rat at any level let alone max.
I have wonder this often when it comes to designing models is it easier or harder to make a model of something completely new that dose not exist in our world? I could see it requiring more imagination and you might end up making something that functionally would not work. On the other hand, you have no limitation and could just go wild. Ether way please no enemies that a 9-year-old might have as a pet.
Susurrus said:A lot of things about New World amazed and confused me and not in a good way. But reusing the same enemy models over and over was high on the list.
I get the feeling that Pantheon is not going to have this issue. It does seem like having a variety of enemies is important to them. I fully expect this game to be fleshed out with a lot of enemy types at launch.
Vandraad said:That movement from Orc Hill in Gfay into Crushbone had a sense of graduation about it. As did going from Qeynos Hills into Blackburrow, or Lavastorm into SolA then SolB.
Well said, I especially like the usage of graduation.
But even those Orcs in the hill were a challenge and had surprises. A wondering Centurion or those pesky Oracles casting blind; I was fascinated by them, even though many would consider them your run of the mill high fantasy mobs.
Ah, good memories.
And whenever I think of Orc Hill, I think of the mix of races a newbie may first encounter there. A high elf cleric, a dwarf paladin, a gnome enchanter, a human monk, and perhaps even a daring troll shaman! Ahh, but I digress.
While I would like to see visually enhanced mobs as players level, I could live with the same model or reskins of existing models. What I can't live with is when a level 50 mob has the same mechanics as a level 10 mob. New World was referenced above and one of my biggest issues with the mobs in that game is that they lacked ability progression. Most level 50-60 mobs would have the same basic mechanics as their level 10 counterparts. The only difference was the amount of damage they did and the health they had.
I would hope that mobs in Pantheon would experience skill progression. There are multiple ways to advance even the most basic creatures' toolsets to have them be a more challenging encounter than their lower-level counterparts.
I take it that this is the point of the traits & disposition system, but also should be part of the mobs toolkit based on class and level.
Take that Orc Oracle I mentioned earlier. So at the low levels he can cast Blind, but at higher levels he may be able to stun or cast a continuous heal. It's what we expect from our characters, so why not mobs?
I can't comment on NW but if their mobs are so similar irrespective of level then that's a significant shortcoming.
Vandraad said:dorotea said:I suspect that while hordes of level 110 rats gets your attention in a negative way you wouldn't even blink at going from level 1 bandits to level 110 bandits. We are all used to enormous diversity in the danger and abilities of sentients.
Actually I would mind greatly if we see the same Gadai Bandits at the highest levels that we saw in the earliest, especially if they are visually the same. There should be quite a bit different, visually, between a level 50 Gadai Bandit than a level 7 Gadai Bandit. I don't even think that 'bandit' should apply to a level 50 Gadai either. A greater differentiation between tiers of NPCs that, sadly, share a model is a definite expectation of mine.
This little sucker has ruined many a pickup group because the puller didn't recognize or remember there was a significant difference, having no visible cues other than the name which isn't much to go on compared to other ratmen in the vicinity. So sameness isn't always bad, but I do agree that additional touches do something more for the overall world that makes combat an exploration of its own. Take classic EQ again, for example. The majority of mobs are males, often without any female models. Giants, centaurs, goblins, orcs, desert madmen, even most city guards. Not a single female among them. This is without question bad for immersiveness. And then there are the children NPCs, which are just slightly smaller adult models. Le sigh. If these differences were included and influenced NPC behavior/abilities, it would have forced players to pay closer attention to what they were killing, beyond just looking at the NPC's name and/or spell particles.