Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Round 2 Developer Pod....So good

    • 77 posts
    March 4, 2015 9:46 AM PST

    Absolutely loved this pod.  I swear at some point I was almost hoping for them to say something I would disagree with, because come on... it was just sound all fantasy awesome, nothing can go wrong.

     

    Then - Brad drops the whole... raid size, being flexible, lower tier raids.  More talk about how gear really matters, and the SOCKS.  They discussed (half jokingly) about socks matter.  What this told me however is that the environment is a big, big friggin deal.  I could not encourage the VR team anymore to continue on this path.  To feel as if you are one with your environment sounds awesome, but its hard to carry out. 

     

    I am thinking of Games of Thrones whenever the Warriors are at the Wall (if you are familiar with the show), the pelts, the heavy gear they wear to survive the harsh cold weather.  However you then get to King's Landing, and their gear is much lighter, brighter, and cleaner.

     

    I hope the next pod you talk more controversial topics.  I say this in all honesty, because when I discuss this game right now with buddies I have a hard time selling it at times, because I sound like a 12 year old girl texting her friends from a Hannah Montanna concert. 

     

    The next pod is on classes, so I am sure to disagree on everything rogue, as I am super biased, and think Gnome Rogues should be able to steal your lunch, and stab you in the eyeball, all in 1 move.

     

    Great job team. 

     

    P.S.  Who was the Spanish guy asking the questions?

     

    -Fingurs

    • VR Staff
    • 246 posts
    March 4, 2015 10:42 AM PST
    Fingurs said:

    Absolutely loved this pod.  I swear at some point I was almost hoping for them to say something I would disagree with, because come on... it was just sound all fantasy awesome, nothing can go wrong.

     

    Then - Brad drops the whole... raid size, being flexible, lower tier raids.  More talk about how gear really matters, and the SOCKS.  They discussed (half jokingly) about socks matter.  What this told me however is that the environment is a big, big friggin deal.  I could not encourage the VR team anymore to continue on this path.  To feel as if you are one with your environment sounds awesome, but its hard to carry out. 

     

    I am thinking of Games of Thrones whenever the Warriors are at the Wall (if you are familiar with the show), the pelts, the heavy gear they wear to survive the harsh cold weather.  However you then get to King's Landing, and their gear is much lighter, brighter, and cleaner.

     

    I hope the next pod you talk more controversial topics.  I say this in all honesty, because when I discuss this game right now with buddies I have a hard time selling it at times, because I sound like a 12 year old girl texting her friends from a Hannah Montanna concert. 

     

    The next pod is on classes, so I am sure to disagree on everything rogue, as I am super biased, and think Gnome Rogues should be able to steal your lunch, and stab you in the eyeball, all in 1 move.

     

    Great job team. 

     

    P.S.  Who was the Spanish guy asking the questions?

     

    -Fingurs

     

    That is none other than our own Kilsin, mate. He is Australian. Did an incredible job.

     

    Thanks for the energetic, kind words. You all are so much of why we do this. Lunch-stealing-eye-gouging gnomes notwithstanding :)

    • 610 posts
    March 4, 2015 11:03 AM PST
    Istuulamae said:
    Fingurs said:

    Absolutely loved this pod.  I swear at some point I was almost hoping for them to say something I would disagree with, because come on... it was just sound all fantasy awesome, nothing can go wrong.

     

    Then - Brad drops the whole... raid size, being flexible, lower tier raids.  More talk about how gear really matters, and the SOCKS.  They discussed (half jokingly) about socks matter.  What this told me however is that the environment is a big, big friggin deal.  I could not encourage the VR team anymore to continue on this path.  To feel as if you are one with your environment sounds awesome, but its hard to carry out. 

     

    I am thinking of Games of Thrones whenever the Warriors are at the Wall (if you are familiar with the show), the pelts, the heavy gear they wear to survive the harsh cold weather.  However you then get to King's Landing, and their gear is much lighter, brighter, and cleaner.

     

    I hope the next pod you talk more controversial topics.  I say this in all honesty, because when I discuss this game right now with buddies I have a hard time selling it at times, because I sound like a 12 year old girl texting her friends from a Hannah Montanna concert. 

     

    The next pod is on classes, so I am sure to disagree on everything rogue, as I am super biased, and think Gnome Rogues should be able to steal your lunch, and stab you in the eyeball, all in 1 move.

     

    Great job team. 

     

    P.S.  Who was the Spanish guy asking the questions?

     

    -Fingurs

     

    That is none other than our own Kilsin, mate. He is Australian. Did an incredible job.

     

    Thanks for the energetic, kind words. You all are so much of why we do this. Lunch-stealing-eye-gouging gnomes notwithstanding :)

    We (I) want a Lore round table, mate!

    Make it happen...

    Do It

    • VR Staff
    • 246 posts
    March 4, 2015 11:27 AM PST
    Sevens said:
    Istuulamae said:
    Fingurs said:

    Absolutely loved this pod.  I swear at some point I was almost hoping for them to say something I would disagree with, because come on... it was just sound all fantasy awesome, nothing can go wrong.

     

    Then - Brad drops the whole... raid size, being flexible, lower tier raids.  More talk about how gear really matters, and the SOCKS.  They discussed (half jokingly) about socks matter.  What this told me however is that the environment is a big, big friggin deal.  I could not encourage the VR team anymore to continue on this path.  To feel as if you are one with your environment sounds awesome, but its hard to carry out. 

     

    I am thinking of Games of Thrones whenever the Warriors are at the Wall (if you are familiar with the show), the pelts, the heavy gear they wear to survive the harsh cold weather.  However you then get to King's Landing, and their gear is much lighter, brighter, and cleaner.

     

    I hope the next pod you talk more controversial topics.  I say this in all honesty, because when I discuss this game right now with buddies I have a hard time selling it at times, because I sound like a 12 year old girl texting her friends from a Hannah Montanna concert. 

     

    The next pod is on classes, so I am sure to disagree on everything rogue, as I am super biased, and think Gnome Rogues should be able to steal your lunch, and stab you in the eyeball, all in 1 move.

     

    Great job team. 

     

    P.S.  Who was the Spanish guy asking the questions?

     

    -Fingurs

     

    That is none other than our own Kilsin, mate. He is Australian. Did an incredible job.

     

    Thanks for the energetic, kind words. You all are so much of why we do this. Lunch-stealing-eye-gouging gnomes notwithstanding :)

    We (I) want a Lore round table, mate!

    Make it happen...

    Do It

    We dip a toe into lore at the end of Part II, friend. But I think are more expansive version will come sooner than later.

    • 133 posts
    March 4, 2015 12:53 PM PST

    I love these as well.  It is great to hear the devs thoughts in their own words.  I am not always going to agree, or be happy about what is said, coming, or dreamed of.  But hearing it first hand also gives me an idea of why, and how and what.

     

    Please please please keep these coming, one of the huge things you guys have been doing right in these is taking the time to explain, not just state.  There is no value I can put on that as a perspective player with Pantheon.  I may not always like a choice, but undertsanding it in the developer context is huge, and goes along way for me to accept it, and move on.

     

    Or just adds fuel to my whinning.

     

    Either one.

    • 238 posts
    March 4, 2015 3:02 PM PST

    I was very happy to hear so many questions being answered.

    The things that shocked me and most of my friends were when Brad talked about needing to label items and having various raid sizes.

     

    Both of  these things really shocked us because they go in the opposite direction of what we all thought Pantheon was going.

     

    First, needing to label rarity on items? What… why?  Maybe I’ve been wrong all this time but I thought we were building a game that asked the player to make decisions on their own, to learn the game. The entire reason I asked this question was to persuade about a dozen people that Pantheon was not going to be hand holding and all Brads answer did was basically turn them off. (Was at the 24 min mark). I was literally shocked not just by his answer but by his tone that made it seem like it was such an easy strait forward response to something. I hope he realized how much weight his words had on this subject.

     

    Second, a fluid locking raid size is about the last thing raiding guilds want. As a previous raid leader the VERY, VERY, VERY worst thing was telling people they had to sit out because they were over the raid size cap. Having some raids LOCK at 15 people while other raids LOCK at 30 people is just cruel to a raiding guild. Imagine telling a guild they possible need 50 people for the hardest thing but then say some encounters can only use 20 people. “Sorry guild looks like for the next hour half of u are sitting out, but don’t log because after that target dies we need 35 of you for our third target.”

     

    I think I literally lost about a dozen hardcore gamers that where on the fence about this game from those two answers given in the round table.


    This post was edited by Xonth at March 6, 2015 4:58 PM PST
    • VR Staff
    • 246 posts
    March 4, 2015 3:20 PM PST
    Xonth said:

    I was very happy to hear so many questions being answered.

    The things that shocked me and most of my friends were when Brad talked about needing to label items and having various raid sizes.

     

    Both of  these things really shocked us because they go in the opposite direction of what we all thought Pantheon was going.

     

    First, needing to label rarity on items? What… why?  Maybe I’ve been wrong all this time but I thought we were building a game that asked the player to make decisions on their own, to learn the game. The entire reason I asked this question was to persuade about a dozen people that Pantheon was not going to be hand holding and all Brads answer did was basically turn them off. (Was at the 24 min mark). I was literally shocked not just by his answer but by his tone that made it seem like it was such an easy strait forward response to something. I hope he realized how much weight his words had on this subject.

     

    Second, a fluid locking raid size is about the last thing raiding guilds want. As a previous raid leader the VERY, VERY, VERY worst thing was telling people they had to sit out because they were over the raid size cap. Having some raids LOCK at 15 people while other raids LOCK at 30 people is just cruel to a raiding guild. Imagine telling a guild they possible need 50 people for the hardest thing but then say some encounters can only use 20 people. “Sorry guild looks like for the next hour half of u are sitting out, but don’t log because after that target dies we need 35 of you for our third target.”

     

    I think I literally lost about a dozen hardcore gamers that where on the fence about this game from those two answers given in the round table.


    Xonth,

     

    I'll let somebody else respond specifically to those two points, but please carry this understanding until then (& beyond): we aren't even in alpha yet. Almost nothing is settled, literally, in many critical areas. I'm a dev & I've had to learn this. Learn to gate my excitement or disappointment, because things inevitably change for one reason or another.

     

    Take the "3 Starting Cities" paradigm. That was a building block tenent of the game when I first came on. Now it's been drastically altered, from concept to lore through to relevance in the game world. You're totally right to voice your concerns, surprises, etc. But allow for some measured consideration of how much development is left. That's not a promise, of course--but hopefully some buoyancy.

     

    This is a risk & opportunity we handle by being so transparent, so early on. And I don't expect us to run from it, or hide our thoughts because of it. I think the tradeoff may be that we ask for some grace with this style of interaction. Again, that doesn't mean in the end we'll have everything just the way everyone likes it. But it does mean that, as we've shown, we listen. We consider. And thanks for taking your time to express what you've considered.


    This post was edited by Istuulamae at March 6, 2015 5:00 PM PST
    • 3016 posts
    March 4, 2015 3:26 PM PST

    yup at this point (pre-alpha) the mantra would be:  Nothing is written in stone,  all is subject to change. :)  

    And that will most likely continue on through the whole development cycle at least from what I have seen over the years.  

    • 288 posts
    March 4, 2015 4:26 PM PST
    Xonth said:

    I was very happy to hear so many questions being answered.

    The things that shocked me and most of my friends were when Brad talked about needing to label items and having various raid sizes.

     

    Both of  these things really shocked us because they go in the opposite direction of what we all thought Pantheon was going.

     

    First, needing to label rarity on items? What… why?  Maybe I’ve been wrong all this time but I thought we were building a game that asked the player to make decisions on their own, to learn the game. The entire reason I asked this question was to persuade about a dozen people that Pantheon was not going to be hand holding and all Brads answer did was basically turn them off. (Was at the 24 min mark). I was literally shocked not just by his answer but by his tone that made it seem like it was such an easy strait forward response to something. I hope he realized how much weight his words had on this subject.

     

    Second, a fluid locking raid size is about the last thing raiding guilds want. As a previous raid leader the VERY, VERY, VERY worst thing was telling people they had to sit out because they were over the raid size cap. Having some raids LOCK at 15 people while other raids LOCK at 30 people is just cruel to a raiding guild. Imagine telling a guild they possible need 50 people for the hardest thing but then say some encounters can only use 20 people. “Sorry guild looks like for the next hour half of u are sitting out, but don’t log because after that target dies we need 35 of you for our third target.”

     

    I think I literally lost about a dozen hardcore gamers that where on the fence about this game from those two answers given in the round table.

     

    I can't stress enough how much I was thinking of this very thing when I was listening to the pod... this is a very big deal that really could use some more talking about, adaptive raid sizes is fine, but capping the amount of people you can bring is a really really REALLY bad idea if you have adaptive raid sizes.

     

    The thing that was discussed on the round table was that players tend to bring more than is needed and trivialize an encounter, but my counter to this point is that there is a finite amount of gear/resources available and if you bring 40 people to kill a mob that you can kill with 20, you then need to feed 40 mouths rather than 20.  By bringing 40 you may guarantee the kill, but you disperse the gear more too, and if content is gated by tank and healer gear, as was Everquest, then the people who brought 40 to kill it will be worse off because they will take longer and many more kills to get the required gear to move on to harder content.  If a tank dies the mob should be able to wipe 100 people off the map in seconds if another tank isn't able to re-acquire the target before it's over.

     

    Raid caps are BAD BAD BAD news.

    • 238 posts
    March 4, 2015 4:55 PM PST

    I really hope people relies that every word you say holds huge weight. I’m all for brainstorming and discussing topics but that not how these were portrayed.  Coming out and saying this is what we want or are thinking then back peddling and saying after the fact those are just thought is the wrong approach. I mingle with allot of gamer from allot of games and this round table did more harm than good to a lot of them that consider raiding as their holy grail, especially for those that  are not here every day reading forums. I urge future talks to be more mindful that some issue is not to be taken lightly.

     

    To simple mention raid caps as a possibility….


    This post was edited by Xonth at March 4, 2015 9:57 PM PST
    • 8 posts
    March 4, 2015 5:06 PM PST
    Xonth said:

    I was very happy to hear so many questions being answered.

    The things that shocked me and most of my friends were when Brad talked about needing to label items and having various raid sizes.

     

    Both of  these things really shocked us because they go in the opposite direction of what we all thought Pantheon was going.

     

    First, needing to label rarity on items? What… why?  Maybe I’ve been wrong all this time but I thought we were building a game that asked the player to make decisions on their own, to learn the game. The entire reason I asked this question was to persuade about a dozen people that Pantheon was not going to be hand holding and all Brads answer did was basically turn them off. (Was at the 24 min mark). I was literally shocked not just by his answer but by his tone that made it seem like it was such an easy strait forward response to something. I hope he realized how much weight his words had on this subject.

     

    Second, a fluid locking raid size is about the last thing raiding guilds want. As a previous raid leader the VERY, VERY, VERY worst thing was telling people they had to sit out because they were over the raid size cap. Having some raids LOCK at 15 people while other raids LOCK at 30 people is just cruel to a raiding guild. Imagine telling a guild they possible need 50 people for the hardest thing but then say some encounters can only use 20 people. “Sorry guild looks like for the next hour half of u are sitting out, but don’t log because after that target dies we need 35 of you for our third target.”

     

    I think I literally lost about a dozen hardcore gamers that where on the fence about this game from those two answers given in the round table.

    I am confused.  I heard Brad say gear would be tiered, meaning common, rare, epic, mythic.  I didn't hear him say it would be color coded so that people could say only all in (insert color here) gear need apply to this guild like in some other games.  Did I misunderstand someone's intent here?

     

    I also heard what seemed like a discussion optimizing raid size.  To me that meant how to keep an encounter geared towards a certain number of players to give more options for raid content.  I heard mention of if it was optimized for 20 and 40 show up that the mob might call in some friends or turn tail and run for the hills when it sees itself so outnumbered.  Wouldn't having say 10 mans as well as 20 mans give raiding guilds MORE options than just a few 20 man raid dungeons that can only be run once a week.  That gives your guild activities on off raid nights.....which as I recall was good thing in Rift at least.  That way at least a few folks log in somewhat regularly.

     

    Would love some clarification here.......


    This post was edited by Quesera at March 4, 2015 5:09 PM PST
    • 3016 posts
    March 4, 2015 5:11 PM PST
    Xonth said:

    I really hope people relies that every word you say holds huge weight. I’m all for brainstorming and discussing topics but that not how these were portrayed.  Coming out and saying this is what we want or are thinking then back peddling and saying after the fact those are just thought is the wrong approach. I mingle with allot of gamer from allot of games and this round table did more harm than good to a lot of them that consider raiding as their holy grail, especially for those that  are not here every day reading forums. I urge future talks to be more mindful that some issue is not to be taken lightly.

     

    To simple mention raid caps as a possibility….

     

    At this stage...things can be removed from the current game..they  VRI can change things up to and including open beta.     Things that might look good on paper..may not be that good when when actualized...that's all that means.  

     Its not back peddling...this is a work in progress, not cooked, not baked, not finished.     Perhaps another green name can come on and clarify this for the people in this thread?

    • 999 posts
    March 4, 2015 5:15 PM PST
    Quesera said:
     

    Would love some clarification here.......


    I appreciate the Roundtable as well - it was a good one.  But, I'll try to clarify Xonth's points as I understand them, which I also agree with (at least in my interpretation).  In Everquest, there was no designation for gear - no color coding, no labeling by epic/mythic status, no gear score, etc.  The player found out if the item was an upgrade by using it, or later on, based off experience gained from playing the game (i.e. mainhand weapons typically needed a different type of damage/delay ratio than offhand).  Basically, it lets the player decide what weapon is better, and there were some truly massive arguments in Everquest on which weapons were better - especially with proccing weapons.  The alternative system, with color coding, labeling, gear scores etc. removes the unknown and basically informs the player which item to upgrade to, or which item is better.

     

    Also, in early Everquest, there was no restrictions on raid size, which resulted in some truly epic raids.  His point would be that if you had a guild of 50 players, and the raid size only allowed 24 with most likely a raid lockout timer of a day/week, etc. then some of the guildies are going to be getting screwed.  And, more than likely, it will be the classes that aren't "needed" as much on raids and will be continually getting screwed over and over again as they may only take 1 necromancer versus 5 clerics, 5 enchanters, 5 warriors, etc.

     

    I get Brad's point on zerging the raid mob though; however, I would much rather Brainstorm around finding an alternative method/mechanic to preventing zerging rather than restricting raid sizes.


    This post was edited by Raidan at March 6, 2015 6:03 AM PST
    • 238 posts
    March 4, 2015 5:21 PM PST
    Quesera said:
     

    I am confused.  I heard Brad say gear would be tiered, meaning common, rare, epic, mythic.  I didn't hear him say it would be color coded so that people could say only all in (insert color here) gear need apply to this guild like in some other games.  Did I misunderstand someone's intent here?

    Brad says “there defiantly be, absolutely ,different rarities on items, you know, common, uncommon, rare, mythic, what have you. How we show that in the UI whether its color coded or not, that’s UI detail. But certainly items will have rarity associated with them”.

     

    So instead of EQ’s way where an item dropped and you have to study it and decided if its good or not, based on what you have learned you just see what it’s rarity. Then down the road when you will have all rare items and then the term rare will become meaningless. Calling it rare or coloring it purple to mean rare is the exact same thing. If I had to the time I could link all the pages of forum post that talked about how this was one of the VERY EASY ways to improve Pantheon that newer games get absolutely wrong.

    So either Brand and Co are thinking differently than us here or they are not aware of some of the bigger issues we have with current games.

     


    This post was edited by Xonth at March 4, 2015 9:58 PM PST
    • VR Staff
    • 176 posts
    March 4, 2015 5:56 PM PST
    Raidan said:
    Quesera said:
     

    Would love some clarification here.......


    I appreciate the Roundtable as well - it was a good one.  But, I'll try to clarify Xonth's points as I understand them, which I also agree with (at least in my interpretation).  In Everquest, there was no designation for gear - no color coding, no labeling by epic/mythic status, no gear score, etc.  The player found out if the item was an upgrade by using it, or later on, based off experience gained from playing the game (i.e. mainhand weapons typically needed a different type of damage/delay ratio than offhand).  Basically, it lets the player decide what weapon is better, and there were some truly massive arguments in Everquest on which weapons were better - especially with proccing weapons.  The alternative system, with color coding, labeling, gear scores etc. removes the unknown and basically informs the player which item to upgrade to, or which item is better.

     

    Also, in early Everquest, there was no restrictions on raid size, which resulted in some truly epic raids.  His point would be that if you had a guild of 50 players, and the raid size only allowed 24 with most likely a raid lockout timer of a day/week, etc. then some of the guildies are going to be getting screwed.  And, more than likely, it will be the classes that aren't "needed" as much on raids and will be continually getting screwed over and over again as they may only take 1 necromancer versus 5 clerics, 5 enchanters, 5 warriors, etc.

     

    I get Brad's point on zerging the raid mob though; however, I would much rather Brainstorm around finding an alternative method/mechanic to preventing zerging rather than restricting raid sizes.

     

    This is a fair stance. Some thoughts:

     

    1) I personally do not like color-coded gear, not even slightly. I also don't like gear scores, and you won't see them in Pantheon. I also understand where you all are coming from with the classification of common, rare, legendary, etc. Everquest did have some light classification (MAGIC ITEM, LORE ITEM, etc.), but certainly not in line with the common, modern approach. I understand the magic you're trying to preserve by eliminating any and all classification. It's something that needs more internal discussion for sure.

     

    2) See above for raid size/capping.

     

    3) I don't want you all to miss the fact that this exact conversation and discussion is part of the purpose of Round Tables. RT's aren't for us to talk at you for an hour with set-in-stone, immovable plans. They are meant to give you a very clear picture of our current plans and ways of thinking, but also to invite you in to those so we can hear this very kind of feedback. If you guys don't like/have concerns about something, you're not going to know to be concerned and we're going to have a harder time hearing you if we don't have exchanges like this.

     

    Keep the feedback coming - we're listening.

    • 148 posts
    March 4, 2015 6:32 PM PST

    When listening to the round table I didn't really take either of these two as negatives, though after reading this post I can see the argument.

     

    However from playing WoW, I can tell you that just because something is purple / epic does not mean its better than what you have. You still need to know what stats your class / role needs and how changing out pieces will affect you. Now moving from the current contents tier 1 epic to tier 2 epic is almost always an upgrade. But even if the items aren't marked with rarity, most would assume that harder raid mobs drop better gear. 

    I started playing MMOs with EQ so I get where your coming at with having to figure out which items were better, but it really wasn't that hard. Making judgement calls based off stat changes and then trying it out. So I don't really see an issue with item rarity being labeled in the UI, you'll still have to decide if that new item is best for you or not.

     

    As for the raid discussion, I must have heard that part wrong. What I took out was that they want raids for varying level ranges not only max level, and that boss encounters would be structured around X amount of people. But assuming I heard it wrong I may go back and listen to it again. 

    As for the raid member amount lock outs, it would be odd to say that in the same raid different bosses will only allow different amounts of people to face them. If a raid is geared towards 20 people then no boss should only need 10. The only way I could see something like that working would be to say the raid is geared towards 20 people , this particular encounter has 2 bosses in two different rooms / areas that each will need 10 people.

     

    Bringing 40 people to a raid that is designed for 20 people just trivializes the content, now what they could do is say this raid requires at least 20 people and the encounters scale up to match how many you bring in 10 member increments. So if you bring 21 - 30 people the difficulty goes up a level , and so on until the max raid member limit. With this system the guild could create its own challenges on top of the raid itself.


    This post was edited by Nailuj at March 6, 2015 6:09 AM PST
    • 378 posts
    March 4, 2015 6:45 PM PST

    Anyone seen that Spanish guy around ? 

    • 9115 posts
    March 4, 2015 7:16 PM PST
    Zandil said:

    Anyone seen that Spanish guy around ? 

    A buen entendedor, pocas palabras bastan.

    • 378 posts
    March 4, 2015 7:21 PM PST

    Australian, Spanish easy mistake lol 

    • 318 posts
    March 4, 2015 7:23 PM PST
    Zandil said:

    Australian, Spanish easy mistake lol 

    Let's put another burrito on the barbie?

    • 9115 posts
    March 4, 2015 7:33 PM PST

    Hahaha Fingurs is a fellow Rogue and knows me from VG, it would of been tongue in cheek to stir me up I am sure ;)

    Sneaky Rogues, can't use distraction techniques on a fellow Rogue but nice try punk! :)

     

    P.S. I love nearly all things Spanish!


    This post was edited by VR-Mod1 at March 6, 2015 5:08 PM PST
    • 77 posts
    March 4, 2015 7:45 PM PST
    Kilsin said:

    Hahaha Fingurs is a fellow Rogue and knows me from VG, it would of been tongue in cheek to stir me up I am sure ;)

    Sneaky Rogues, can't use distraction techniques on a fellow Rogue but nice try punk! :)

     

    P.S. I love nearly all things Spanish!

     

     

     

    I'm not going to apologize.  According to my wife I am funny.

     

    It was just cool to see Kilsin in his role.  This dude ran raids .... in the most dire circumstances with any/all people.  I mean you ever been in an MMORPG and see one of those 'family and friends...blah blah everyone can join raids'?  Sounds awesome right?  Then you show up and its all unorganized mess, and half the time you want to rip your hair out, other half you're laughing.  Kilsin did those a lot, except it was NOT like that.  I joined one of those (1am PST raids!)  Patience, class, and overall good culture were always to be found at those raids, and it started with him.  I believe he will add the same here as a community manager.

     

    As for the rest of this thread... hell yeah.  Love the passion.  I am sure the team loves it too.  Excited for the next installment when they discuss classes.  VERY excited to hear about that.


    This post was edited by Fingurs at March 6, 2015 5:09 PM PST
    • 999 posts
    March 4, 2015 7:48 PM PST
    Joppa said:

    This is a fair stance. Some thoughts:

    1) I personally do not like color-coded gear, not even slightly. I also don't like gear scores, and you won't see them in Pantheon. I also understand where you all are coming from with the classification of common, rare, legendary, etc. Everquest did have some light classification (MAGIC ITEM, LORE ITEM, etc.), but certainly not in line with the common, modern approach. I understand the magic you're trying to preserve by eliminating any and all classification. It's something that needs more internal discussion for sure.

    2) See above for raid size/capping.

    3) I don't want you all to miss the fact that this exact conversation and discussion is part of the purpose of Round Tables. RT's aren't for us to talk at you for an hour with set-in-stone, immovable plans. They are meant to give you a very clear picture of our current plans and ways of thinking, but also to invite you in to those so we can hear this very kind of feedback. If you guys don't like/have concerns about something, you're not going to know to be concerned and we're going to have a harder time hearing you if we don't have exchanges like this.

    Keep the feedback coming - we're listening.


    To clarify, I don't view either as huge negatives or even close to being deal breakers - I just agree with Xonth that I would prefer personally not to have either.

     

    Some additional thoughts in response to Joppa/jimm0thy:

     

    1.  I didn't even think of the Magic / Lore item etc., but I always felt that the magic item was more of a game mechanic in saying the weapon could hit magical mobs versus actually assigning any sort of classification to the item.  Could you have removed that designation and make the same argument to let the player figure it out if a weapon could hit a mob?  Sure, but the magic designation really didn't rank the magical weapons, it just simply indicated a function of that weapon.    Further, with the lore item, the term "lore" didn't truly mean anything related to the lore of the game or the strength of the weapon, outside of the fact you could carry only one of that item and a few of the lore weapons were identifiable weapons.  With that said, both fair points that I overlooked.

     

    And to jimm0thy, you are correct - it wasn't too difficult in EQ to figure out which item was better or which one was more "epic" with minimal game experience (outside of some proccing weapons), which is exactly the point - the players are smart enough to figure it out without being told it's an epic item.  Again, a pretty trivial detail, but many of these trivial details in one game start adding up to viewing the players in a less intelligent light that need hand-holding.

     

    2.  After thinking about the raid size/capping a bit more, it is more of a minor concern to me as I often can't commit the necessary time to raiding often; however, for those that can, much like the grouping mechanics, if raid sizes are restricted, there needs to be some utility that all classes can bring to a raid to make having more than 1 on a raid viable.  For example, in early EQ, necromancer dots didn't stack, but it didn't matter due to not restricting the raid sizes.  If raid sizes had been restricted, I would bet there would have been a lot of frustrated necromancers as having multiples would have been a wasted raid slot.

     

    Also, I do like the idea of scaling encounters too jimm0thy; however, I'm not sure how feasible that would be to implement.  If it was simply mob hps vs player size, perhaps, but if you start taking into account damage/armor class etc. you may get to a raid mob that would be too powerful for the current players to keep up.  I'd be curious though if this would even be possible in practice to test as it is a best of both worlds mentality.

     

    And... I appreciate the reply/clarification Joppa regarding the RT and brainstorming element of them.


    This post was edited by Raidan at March 6, 2015 5:11 PM PST
    • 88 posts
    March 4, 2015 8:28 PM PST

    From a friend named "Demethir."

    I think the deviation from the early EQ model of raiding is a result of three things:

    1 - The learning curve was a lot smoother.  In the early days of EQ1, most players were comfortable with their toons by they time they reached a raiding level.  The game was hard enough and challenging enough that by the time a player reached level 50, he/she was mostly accustomed to playing with other people and contributing as a piece of the puzzle.  Most games today allow players to get to "Raid" level without ever grouping at all.  The learning curve is very shallow below 50, and then suddenly prohibitively abrupt.  Vox and Naggy were easy raid mobs in retrospect, but they served as good intro mobs.  I actually got most into raiding in Vanguard's APW zone because the mobs taught you how to raid as you progressed.

    2 - Contested mobs dropped a set quantity of Raid loot.  In the early days, you could raid a dragon with 50 people, but only 4 or 5 would get anything.  However, it behooved you/your guild to bring fewer because your chance of getting loot was better, and your entire team would be geared up faster.  Thus, "hardcore" raiders progressed faster because they were more skilled/organized.  The "casual" raiders were still able to defeat these mobs, but typically only after the more structured crews had farmed what they needed, and then more slowly as they pulled more players through.  Once games changed to instanced or lockout raids, the mob itself was no longer a bottleneck, which meant the loot-to-player ratio had to be more carefully ballanced.  This led to set numbers of players per raid.

    3 - Developers now design encounters around margin for error.  In early EQ raids, lack of skill could be overcome with sheer numbers.  Once the raid size was standardized, the measure of a successful raid shifted from how quickly you could field a large force to how well you understood the mechanics of the encounter.  Theory crafters and max/min players became king.  Thus began the cat-mouse game between players and devs as the devs scrambled to make content that could keep players occupied just a little longer, requiring certain levels of dps, healing, crowd control, and so on - all balanced just under what was available at that tier.  Each new encounter took more time to develop and more testing to ensure that everything was balanced.  The top 5% of players are now so skilled at reverse engineering new content that a developer is lucky to see a mob survive the first week in game.  However, the GAP between these players and anyone less than completely dedicated to raiding has grown wide as a result.

    What does this mean for us?  I think it means we need to look at the REQUIREMENTS or MOTIVATORS that made developers think raiding was a good idea in the first place...

    Raiding meets players needs for:
    - Teamwork
    - Achievement
    - Mechanics
    - Social Atmosphere
    - Progression

    Raiding meets developers needs for:
    - Progression Control
    - Item/Loot metering
    - Lasting (repeatable) content

    The current raiding model evolved as these requirements surfaced over time.  Each time a new problem arose, a "fix" was implemented to address that one new problem.  No developer has ever taken a holistic look at raiding and how it fits within the overall game in the context of these requirements because they assume the current equation is correct.  Ironically, each time a "fix" is added to the raiding beast, it becomes more monsterous and unwieldy, more daunting for new players to try out.

    I often wonder if the raiding "sphere" could exist more tangentially to adventuring, crafting, etc.  Is there a way to integrate raiding into world progression, without forcing it upon individuals (or if it must do, somehow accessible with appropriate rewards)?  Guild Wars 2 has taken an extreme approach to this by introducing "Open" raids, but they seem to ignore social organization, challenge, and long-term teamwork.  I would love to see a dialogue that looks at the MMO as a whole to try to understand how raiding could synergistically fit into the overall world.


    This post was edited by Haseno at March 6, 2015 5:15 PM PST
    • 318 posts
    March 4, 2015 9:03 PM PST
    Haseno said:

    From a friend named "Demethir."

    I think the deviation from the early EQ model of raiding is a result of three things:

    1 - The learning curve was a lot smoother.  In the early days of EQ1, most players were comfortable with their toons by they time they reached a raiding level.  The game was hard enough and challenging enough that by the time a player reached level 50, he/she was mostly accustomed to playing with other people and contributing as a piece of the puzzle.  Most games today allow players to get to "Raid" level without ever grouping at all.  The learning curve is very shallow below 50, and then suddenly prohibitively abrupt.  Vox and Naggy were easy raid mobs in retrospect, but they served as good intro mobs.  I actually got most into raiding in Vanguard's APW zone because the mobs taught you how to raid as you progressed.

    2 - Contested mobs dropped a set quantity of Raid loot.  In the early days, you could raid a dragon with 50 people, but only 4 or 5 would get anything.  However, it behooved you/your guild to bring fewer because your chance of getting loot was better, and your entire team would be geared up faster.  Thus, "hardcore" raiders progressed faster because they were more skilled/organized.  The "casual" raiders were still able to defeat these mobs, but typically only after the more structured crews had farmed what they needed, and then more slowly as they pulled more players through.  Once games changed to instanced or lockout raids, the mob itself was no longer a bottleneck, which meant the loot-to-player ratio had to be more carefully ballanced.  This led to set numbers of players per raid.

    3 - Developers now design encounters around margin for error.  In early EQ raids, lack of skill could be overcome with sheer numbers.  Once the raid size was standardized, the measure of a successful raid shifted from how quickly you could field a large force to how well you understood the mechanics of the encounter.  Theory crafters and max/min players became king.  Thus began the cat-mouse game between players and devs as the devs scrambled to make content that could keep players occupied just a little longer, requiring certain levels of dps, healing, crowd control, and so on - all balanced just under what was available at that tier.  Each new encounter took more time to develop and more testing to ensure that everything was balanced.  The top 5% of players are now so skilled at reverse engineering new content that a developer is lucky to see a mob survive the first week in game.  However, the GAP between these players and anyone less than completely dedicated to raiding has grown wide as a result.

    What does this mean for us?  I think it means we need to look at the REQUIREMENTS or MOTIVATORS that made developers think raiding was a good idea in the first place...

    Raiding meets players needs for:
    - Teamwork
    - Achievement
    - Mechanics
    - Social Atmosphere
    - Progression

    Raiding meets developers needs for:
    - Progression Control
    - Item/Loot metering
    - Lasting (repeatable) content

    The current raiding model evolved as these requirements surfaced over time.  Each time a new problem arose, a "fix" was implemented to address that one new problem.  No developer has ever taken a holistic look at raiding and how it fits within the overall game in the context of these requirements because they assume the current equation is correct.  Ironically, each time a "fix" is added to the raiding beast, it becomes more monsterous and unwieldy, more daunting for new players to try out.

    I often wonder if the raiding "sphere" could exist more tangentially to adventuring, crafting, etc.  Is there a way to integrate raiding into world progression, without forcing it upon individuals (or if it must do, somehow accessible with appropriate rewards)?  Guild Wars 2 has taken an extreme approach to this by introducing "Open" raids, but they seem to ignore social organization, challenge, and long-term teamwork.  I would love to see a dialogue that looks at the MMO as a whole to try to understand how raiding could synergistically fit into the overall world.

    Very well thought out post. I always liked the early EQ1 model for raiding.

     

    Now that you stated it like that, I totally agree with your points.

     

    I had never thought about why I liked EQ1 raiding more than other games, but this post pretty much sums up why. Because of this, EQ1 raiding has left a lasting and positive impression with me.


    This post was edited by Wellspring at March 4, 2015 9:08 PM PST