So something that I searched for and didn't readily find was a discussion on Open world dungeons I.E. Vanguard Style like Kheagors End (SP?) , and Persistent Dungeons Like EQ/EQ2 Where the dungeon is essentially its own zone, but not instanced off to just the active party so mobs respawn , and you actually get to see other people inside the dungeons.
This is something I feel most newer MMOs are missing out on as they just want to put everyone in their own instance to give instant gratification. I do understand that certain events are easier to do when it is instanced as it provides a pretty much structured environment and in some places yes it would be more appropriate to put in an instance say for a main story plot, but there is a certain feeling you get when you have been able to make your way in and then back out of a persistent dungeon. Finding all of the rare mobs, and clearing the quests from inside just has a certain level of satisfaction to it, and when you see that group coming back out as you are going in you think damn those guys must be bad ass . Then you might see a group trying to branch down a different path than you and they are having trouble or their healer has died. You then can go and save them which if you have been on the receiving side of the help this is always an awesome feeling since you are worried about death penalties, and working your way back down.
Personally as a healer I have always loved systems where I can rez people in the dungeon after they have died to get them back in place either via tombstone like VG, or by body/ spirit like EQ. It really sucks that most newer games are trying to move away from the Trinity in this aspect.
Anyway Let me know how you feel. What type of dungeons do you like? Instanced, Open world, persistent, or something I forgot to mention?
I can say with almost certainty, that Pantheon will not have instances... unless it is part of a character's story, or for lore. Bit most certainly not for Raids, etc. I am sure VRi will chime in here, but can't see the point to an instanced dungeon in Pantheon.
Open world dungeon just means it is not underground, like Crushbone.
What I like are non-instanced contested zones.
I would much rather have the option to work together or compete for kills, not having 1000 instances of the same zone going on at the same time.
It will be interesting to see exactly how this will be handled in Pantheon. It could be a good question for the next round table?
Wellspring said:
What I like are non-instanced contested zones.
I would much rather have the option to work together or compete for kills, not having 1000 instances of the same zone going on at the same time.
It will be interesting to see exactly how this will be handled in Pantheon. It could be a good question for the next round table?
Yeah I wanted to submit it for the next one, but have to wait for the thread.
It was stated that if there is instancing, it will be VERY limited. I feel like that will be a feature this team stays true to.
Some of my favorite un-instanced zones of past, from EQ are great. Replicating their concept of design would be awesome to bring back to open world dungeons and can be designed to separate groups with 'camping' spots. It keeps the whole dynamic with OOC/Shout chats interacting with each other as well.
Sebilis
Howling Stones
Unrest
The Hole
Guk
Icewell Keep
(Omens of War Era) Riftseekers Sanctum and Muramite Proving Grounds
Even Large open zones like the Karanas, Iceclad, Great Divide, and Oasis worked well and are great for easier filler. If you have the right mob placement, rarity, and encounters, I don't think the zones all have to be super detailed in design.
Add some zones where you need keys as well, allows for more time sink quests a la Vex Thal Keying (one of my favorite and most rewarding quests), and keeps relevance to many zones. That'll also help keep the raiding end segregated without having to go instance.
Pretty sure every time it's brought up they have stated they will only have instances in story-type settings where it makes sense for you to have your own place. Instancing is the most anti-social anti-community feature that has come around since the modern MMO. You won't find many nice words to be said about instancing in these forums or from any of the target audience of Pantheon.
Rallyd said:
Pretty sure every time it's brought up they have stated they will only have instances in story-type settings where it makes sense for you to have your own place. Instancing is the most anti-social anti-community feature that has come around since the modern MMO. You won't find many nice words to be said about instancing in these forums or from any of the target audience of Pantheon.
Agreed I'm all for a EQ style dungeon , even if I have to wait for the pops. It adds one more thing that can create a positive social interaction between players.
I prefer persistent for sure, and I had asked a similar question for the last Roundtable. I'm hoping it will be answered during Part II of the current Roundtable, or the following Roundtable. I pasted the question below:
Question 9: Dungeon Design - Camps vs Crawls
I know there has been discussion on little to no use of instances in Pantheon, so my question is related to dungeon design. In EQ, there were all mainly static dungeons with camps. Also, in EQ there were very few zone out points or multiple exits outside of the original zone line in Dungeons. Further, there were no boss mob ports a la WoW - where you ran through the dungeon, killed the boss mob, and you had a portal appear to warp you back to the start of the dungeon (or wherever your que point was). By my definition, WoW dungeons = Crawls.
I know there has been mention by Brad of Camp and Crawl type dungeons. But, my question is to have those two points defined and fleshed out for what they mean in Pantheon. As it stands, in my mind Crawl type = WoW Dungeons; Camp type = EQ dungeons. I'd be curious to hear developer thoughts.
One ending thought - I believed EQ mechanics added to the scope of the dungeons and it made them "feel larger" even if they were not huge in size.
Raidan said:
I prefer persistent for sure, and I had asked a similar question for the last Roundtable. I'm hoping it will be answered during Part II of the current Roundtable, or the following Roundtable. I pasted the question below:
Question 9: Dungeon Design - Camps vs Crawls
I know there has been discussion on little to no use of instances in Pantheon, so my question is related to dungeon design. In EQ, there were all mainly static dungeons with camps. Also, in EQ there were very few zone out points or multiple exits outside of the original zone line in Dungeons. Further, there were no boss mob ports a la WoW - where you ran through the dungeon, killed the boss mob, and you had a portal appear to warp you back to the start of the dungeon (or wherever your que point was). By my definition, WoW dungeons = Crawls.
I know there has been mention by Brad of Camp and Crawl type dungeons. But, my question is to have those two points defined and fleshed out for what they mean in Pantheon. As it stands, in my mind Crawl type = WoW Dungeons; Camp type = EQ dungeons. I'd be curious to hear developer thoughts.
One ending thought - I believed EQ mechanics added to the scope of the dungeons and it made them "feel larger" even if they were not huge in size.
That was a great question mate and I wanted to come back around to it (you even hear me say I wanted to come back to the dungeon ones after I read three or so of yours out) but we didn't get time, it went on for over 2 hours so we split it up and missed the dungeon questions sorry man.
We will have to try and get to it next time!
Kilsin said:
Raidan said:
I prefer persistent for sure, and I had asked a similar question for the last Roundtable. I'm hoping it will be answered during Part II of the current Roundtable, or the following Roundtable. I pasted the question below:
Question 9: Dungeon Design - Camps vs Crawls
I know there has been discussion on little to no use of instances in Pantheon, so my question is related to dungeon design. In EQ, there were all mainly static dungeons with camps. Also, in EQ there were very few zone out points or multiple exits outside of the original zone line in Dungeons. Further, there were no boss mob ports a la WoW - where you ran through the dungeon, killed the boss mob, and you had a portal appear to warp you back to the start of the dungeon (or wherever your que point was). By my definition, WoW dungeons = Crawls.
I know there has been mention by Brad of Camp and Crawl type dungeons. But, my question is to have those two points defined and fleshed out for what they mean in Pantheon. As it stands, in my mind Crawl type = WoW Dungeons; Camp type = EQ dungeons. I'd be curious to hear developer thoughts.
One ending thought - I believed EQ mechanics added to the scope of the dungeons and it made them "feel larger" even if they were not huge in size.
That was a great question mate and I wanted to come back around to it (you even hear me say I wanted to come back to the dungeon ones after I read three or so of yours out) but we didn't get time, it went on for over 2 hours so we split it up and missed the dungeon questions sorry man.
We will have to try and get to it next time!
You know what they say... Time flies when you're talking about a great MMO. : )
Kilsin said:
That was a great question mate and I wanted to come back around to it (you even hear me say I wanted to come back to the dungeon ones after I read three or so of yours out) but we didn't get time, it went on for over 2 hours so we split it up and missed the dungeon questions sorry man.
We will have to try and get to it next time!
No worries - I appreciate it :). I was just adding it to this thread so hopefully others could expand upon it/tweak it. You all had taken the time to answer three of mine, I'm not "that" greedy, haha.
@Rivacom
Probably, but I argue that Brad's dislike for camping is wrong. One of the aspects that made the community in EQ great is EQ dungeons and the camping element of them (downtime that forced interaction), contested content, etc. I get his idea that he wants everyone to experience all the world, but it shouldn't be because forced game mechanics cheapen the experience.
And, his point awhile back about camping the same mob from 1-50, although I'm sure was a hyperbole to stress a point, was simply wrong. I did stay in Unrest with some characters (my alts mainly) from 12-35, but it was not camping the same mob, but rather, based off level, I would be able to travel further into the dungeon - the yard mobs until 17, first floor until low 20's, second floor mid 20's, 3rd floor/Basement high 20's, low 30's, etc. and you had a sense of achievement once you finally could conquer the dungeon like you had earlier stated. Even more than that, on my first character, I typically went to where I heard stories of good loot, or good exp, or even based off friends/guildmates recommendations etc. and I did experience much of the world, even if it was not every dungeon/area.
I like having different factions/races experience different sections of the world versus trying to force players to see all the world on the first play-through, it makes it seem more real, and makes the replay-ability better if you wanted to experience the world from a different race/perspective.
Bottom line, if you want players to experience the world, develop content that makes people want to go there, versus having forced mechanics (rights of passage steps, etc.) that bring you there. Because, even if it's just a quest step basically that brings you to the zone (and the zone is terrible), people will only complete that quest step and then go back to their favorite zones. If there's enough zones with viable content, loot, etc., I highly doubt one player will camp one mob/zone etc. only.
With that said... I could gush about this topic forever, and I will wait to expand on it more till I hear it answered in a future Roundtable :)
One mistake that I see in a lot of small, niche businesses is that owners/managers flood their inventory or offer services that are appealing to themselves, rather than listening to what their customer base are demanding. Hopefully, this wont happen.
With the advent of more than 5 Dungeons... bigger/deeper dungeons... and dynamic spawns....
Those 3 things alone^, will alleviate any of the EQ problems with "camping" that Brad disliked.
Then, add in faction dungeons(not all guilds can go) and other dynamic means, and you will have dungeons that are not full on Friday night.
8 months into EQ, these dungeons were packed, because there was so few of them. Better level design, and great depth to each dungeon will scatter hot spots. I doubt Pantheon will have the same problems EQ did with crowded dungeons. Therefore there would be no reason to "camp" them and lock-down a spot for your party/guild, etc.
Image original EQ, with just 2 more dungeons like Upper/lower Guk (or Sol A/B). How much foot traffic and camping it would've have stopped. Now picture 5 more dungeons... there would be no such things as "camps", if EQ's content wasn't so anemic upon release.
Raidan said:
@Rivacom
Probably, but I argue that Brad's dislike for camping is wrong. One of the aspects that made the community in EQ great is EQ dungeons and the camping element of them (downtime that forced interaction), contested content, etc. I get his idea that he wants everyone to experience all the world, but it shouldn't be because forced game mechanics cheapen the experience.
And, his point awhile back about camping the same mob from 1-50, although I'm sure was a hyperbole to stress a point, was simply wrong. I did stay in Unrest with some characters (my alts mainly) from 12-35, but it was not camping the same mob, but rather, based off level, I would be able to travel further into the dungeon - the yard mobs until 17, first floor until low 20's, second floor mid 20's, 3rd floor/Basement high 20's, low 30's, etc. and you had a sense of achievement once you finally could conquer the dungeon like you had earlier stated. Even more than that, on my first character, I typically went to where I heard stories of good loot, or good exp, or even based off friends/guildmates recommendations etc. and I did experience much of the world, even if it was not every dungeon/area.
I like having different factions/races experience different sections of the world versus trying to force players to see all the world on the first play-through, it makes it seem more real, and makes the replay-ability better if you wanted to experience the world from a different race/perspective.
Bottom line, if you want players to experience the world, develop content that makes people want to go there, versus having forced mechanics (rights of passage steps, etc.) that bring you there. Because, even if it's just a quest step basically that brings you to the zone (and the zone is terrible), people will only complete that quest step and then go back to their favorite zones. If there's enough zones with viable content, loot, etc., I highly doubt one player will camp one mob/zone etc. only.
With that said... I could gush about this topic forever, and I will wait to expand on it more till I hear it answered in a future Roundtable :)
I have to say I agree with this. Modern games all have dungeons that are built to be experienced in a single go. All of the "goodies" are held by a handful of select NPCs. You churn through armies of meaningless trash (usually in a set path) to encounter some or all of these NPCs for a chance at *something* and then you leave and do it all over again. This I view as mentioned somewhere above as a "crawl" style dungeon. You make your way through to a set end as a complete experience and you can come back as often as you like to experience it again. They were also not typically the main means of making experience though some diehard dungeon lovers and quest haters like myself would at times suffer the inferior experience gain to level in this fashion.
EQ had dungeons that could be crawled but typically for the sake of efficiency were divided up among all interested parties and each group killed mostly within their own little area. The crawling only occurred when moving between locations. While this on the surface seems super boring, it for some reason didn't usually feel that way in game unless the group was super slow at pulling. As mentioned above, this stationary camping scenario combined with game play that didn't require nonstop button pushing to be efficient allowed for the vast majority of the friendship making and community building that led to EQ having such an amazing community. Camping something is where you spent the majority of your time interacting with those around you as you leveled up.
I would not say I hate dungeon crawls as an experience. They can be pretty fun the first few times through as you notice new things. That said they pretty much REQUIRE instancing or some means of artificially dividing the number of available NPCs so that everyone has a chance (like how raid mobs worked in Vanguard). I think non-instanced dungeons will invariably lead to camping otherwise. Why crawl over and over through trash mobs when you can sit on the Boss's throne waiting for him to get back from lunch so you can snatch his ass in a bear trap CRACK.
That said while the act of camping is pretty lame in appearance, why NOT have a camping game now? No one really does it anymore. This is supposed to be a fairly niche game. This is supposed to be a spiritual successor to EQ and VG from my understanding. So why not have EQ style dungeons with EQ style camping? You'd have no competition outside of emulated EQ servers.
I have said it a million times to friends, on various forums, across the web, to complete strangers even... I would (and I know lots of other people who would) TOTALLY pay full retail price plus subscription for a completely reskinned vanilla EQ. I am not suggesting Visionary Realms tries to buy out EQ and do so. My point was simply that there is no need to reinvent the wheel here to have a successful niche game. There are people who want EQ just like EQ was way back when with all its flaws and clunky mechanics. Deviating extensively from that will not please this crowd.
Most people I know have minimal interest at best at THE NEXT REVOLUTIONARY STEP IN MMOS. I've heard it and seen it now dozens of times and been disappointed just as many times. I'd rather deal with every flaw in vanilla EQ than play even one more WOW LITE PLUS SOME AMAZING FEATURE THAT NEVER PANS OUT. I'm bored with it. No one is going to make a better WoW than Blizzard. If I want that kind of game I'll just play WoW. Make me a completely new style of game or make me EQ with present day graphics.
Raidan said:
@Rivacom
Probably, but I argue that Brad's dislike for camping is wrong. One of the aspects that made the community in EQ great is EQ dungeons and the camping element of them (downtime that forced interaction), contested content, etc. I get his idea that he wants everyone to experience all the world, but it shouldn't be because forced game mechanics cheapen the experience.
And, his point awhile back about camping the same mob from 1-50, although I'm sure was a hyperbole to stress a point, was simply wrong. I did stay in Unrest with some characters (my alts mainly) from 12-35, but it was not camping the same mob, but rather, based off level, I would be able to travel further into the dungeon - the yard mobs until 17, first floor until low 20's, second floor mid 20's, 3rd floor/Basement high 20's, low 30's, etc. and you had a sense of achievement once you finally could conquer the dungeon like you had earlier stated. Even more than that, on my first character, I typically went to where I heard stories of good loot, or good exp, or even based off friends/guildmates recommendations etc. and I did experience much of the world, even if it was not every dungeon/area.
I like having different factions/races experience different sections of the world versus trying to force players to see all the world on the first play-through, it makes it seem more real, and makes the replay-ability better if you wanted to experience the world from a different race/perspective.
Bottom line, if you want players to experience the world, develop content that makes people want to go there, versus having forced mechanics (rights of passage steps, etc.) that bring you there. Because, even if it's just a quest step basically that brings you to the zone (and the zone is terrible), people will only complete that quest step and then go back to their favorite zones. If there's enough zones with viable content, loot, etc., I highly doubt one player will camp one mob/zone etc. only.
With that said... I could gush about this topic forever, and I will wait to expand on it more till I hear it answered in a future Roundtable :)
Oh I agree, but Brad and other developers have said that his is where a few of them have a difference in opinions. But I couldn't recall if it was strictly for certain items in game or as a whole.
Hieromonk said:
With the advent of more than 5 Dungeons... bigger/deeper dungeons... and dynamic spawns....
Those 3 things alone^, will alleviate any of the EQ problems with "camping" that Brad disliked.
Then, add in faction dungeons(not all guilds can go) and other dynamic means, and you will have dungeons that are not full on Friday night.
8 months into EQ, these dungeons were packed, because there was so few of them. Better level design, and great depth to each dungeon will scatter hot spots. I doubt Pantheon will have the same problems EQ did with crowded dungeons. Therefore there would be no reason to "camp" them and lock-down a spot for your party/guild, etc.
Image original EQ, with just 2 more dungeons like Upper/lower Guk (or Sol A/B). How much foot traffic and camping it would've have stopped. Now picture 5 more dungeons... there would be no such things as "camps", if EQ's content wasn't so anemic upon release.
Not sure if this is the angle you were going for but. This is what kinda made the EQ Camping barable is that, because of different things like mana regen, health regen, cooldowns, deaths. It sometimes didn't make sense to even venture into the whole dungeon in 1 sitting. Take crushbone for example(Not really a dungeon but) You go in and check camps, no one has TR, sweet, lets head there. TR leaving soon? or Looking for a Druid? It created interaction and the bigger these dungeons are, the more players we can fit in to experience the same content. Definately fills in the empty feeling of a zone.
I always had the very most fun in a group camping situation. One where you fight to your “room” or “area” and then the puller just brings things back to your group. I am always surprised why people like (even Brad) talk about it as something to improve upon. I think it’s already been beaten to a death why instance running is so, so, so boring after the first time so doesn’t really need to go over its problems again. Just thinking about it makes me miss it.
Rivacom said:
Well would that be related to Brad's dislike of camping for objects/items? Would the same apply to Dungeons? My guess it's probably a pretty hot topic at the HQ.
I felt like who was mainly talking about overland mobs, but I could have taken that the complete wrong way. Camps I feel like are a part of mmo culture. It wouldn't make sense for said guy to always be up, or trigger. Sometimes he just needs to randomly pop, or pop after people do X so many times etc. Like how FFXIV has a rare spawn that needed so many people in the zone cooking at one time.
Raidan said:
@Rivacom
nd, his point awhile back about camping the same mob from 1-50, although I'm sure was a hyperbole to stress a point, was simply wrong. I did stay in Unrest with some characters (my alts mainly) from 12-35, but it was not camping the same mob, but rather, based off level, I would be able to travel further into the dungeon - the yard mobs until 17, first floor until low 20's, second floor mid 20's, 3rd floor/Basement high 20's, low 30's, etc. and you had a sense of achievement once you finally could conquer the dungeon like you had earlier stated. Even more than that, on my first character, I typically went to where I heard stories of good loot, or good exp, or even based off friends/guildmates recommendations etc. and I did experience much of the world, even if it was not every dungeon/area.
Now this is something I really like and it prevents zones and dungeons from getting old, stale and abandoned. I really like the fact that there used to be multi tiered off dungeons/ group content that would encourage people to come back. This for me does 2 things. 1 it keeps the game from looking dead down the road, and 2 it gives new players something to hope and wish for to be like wow I cant wait to go down into the slops, or jail here in the castle. Then on top of that you get moderately geared or fully geared people running through the zone and you can ogle over their gear and bad assness ( just made that a word ) I really hope they add these into some of the zones in the game.
Gadgets said:
One mistake that I see in a lot of small, niche businesses is that owners/managers flood their inventory or offer services that are appealing to themselves, rather than listening to what their customer base are demanding. Hopefully, this wont happen.
This is both good and bad. You dont always want to cater to what people are saying as you will end up mainstreaming something rather than creating something unique, but to an extent you are right they do need to listen as long as it flows with the original concept of the game.
jezebel said:
I would not say I hate dungeon crawls as an experience. They can be pretty fun the first few times through as you notice new things. That said they pretty much REQUIRE instancing or some means of artificially dividing the number of available NPCs so that everyone has a chance (like how raid mobs worked in Vanguard). I think non-instanced dungeons will invariably lead to camping otherwise. Why crawl over and over through trash mobs when you can sit on the Boss's throne waiting for him to get back from lunch so you can snatch his ass in a bear trap CRACK.
Now while I agree this is an issue there are ways to combat it. Such as forcing people to leave the area or the mobs wont re spawn is a player is X distance away.
The best way I have seen to do this is oddly enough one of the least camped bosses in EQ2 which is the main Orc in Wailing caves that uses a ring event down in the bottom past the wailing souls. He was safe guarded in a few ways.
1- He was a ring event that would not resent until everyone had left out of his chambers, and the hallways if they had been flagged for just killing him.
2- He was a ring event so there was more to him than just killing him.
3- He was only accessible through a 1 time use consumable key that sometimes dropped from a prior named mob further back in the dungeon.
I really felt like this is a great way to prevent direct camping as it allowed other people to essentially get in line by performing various steps beforehand. Not to mention that section of the dungeon was also keyed, but it was keyed with a 1 time flag from killing a named guard protecting the secret entrance.
I would love to see mechanics like this employed to prevent direct mob camping instead of just forcing things to trigger and having no camp, or pop times. There NEEDS to be downtime in the game to force a social aspect. More over there needs to be more to any MMO than just the combat because that is the nail in the coffin for most mmos that release today. Even simple things such as the music system in LOTRO would be great to have in the game to help pass time and its fun to do.
This is an interesting topic given the spiritual roots of the game and its secondary influence, the already mentioned EQ and VG.
EverQuest:
EQ had very much camp style dungeons, no matter the intent each dungeon had sections of named all accessible by pulling them to a safe spot. Of course some players choose to "crawl" but most wanted specific loot and it was better to just sit and pull. 90% of the time you fought down to a locale and pulled to a Safe Spot, even early raid zones like Hate were like this; run to SS, pull to clear new SS then move to SS rinse and repeat. As an aside, Fear was my fav raid zone in EQ ever, fighting multi single group breaks, no true SS, love it! Also biggest headache for RL lol.
Vanguard:
VG was the exact opposite due to sheer size, you really couldn't just sit and pull named after named to any one place in most VG dungeons, a few of the smaller ones like Grotto of the sea hags or Hilsbury Manor were rather EQish in size and were better camped. However taking in ones like the afore mentions Khegors End, Hive of Zhurr, Vol Tuniel or Thelassen you really were rewarded for the crawl, rather than the camping. The sheer size of thse premier dungeons in VG were too big to offer multi named camps. For those that never experienced them, no game I have ever played before or since even comes close, EQ2 and Solsueks Eye was closest and thats one dungeon, Vanguard had 144 dungeons from level 1 to raid (I have them all recorded in a spreadsheet, some were still closed at shut down sadly).
Pantheon:
I think a mix of both types is fine, there is nothing wrong with mixing dungeon sizes up, having some so big you may never find the bottom like Hive of Zhurr (to this day I know I am one of a short list that made it there at proper level) and a nice camp dungeon like Sebilis where you can camp and pull 3 or 4 named for loots. Both have their place and both will please a different demographic.
Personally Dungeons like Vol Tuniel where 6 or more groups can get lost and never see each other is truely awe inspiring. But not everyone likes to play that way, or all the time. I am lucky, I play MMOs with a set weekly play group, so no dungeon is too big or requires too many returns to finish. We have set characters just for the group, in VG we choose each dungeon after we completed another, based on level and what we had not seen. I have seen to the end almost all of the 110ish open dungeons in VG that were solo/group based.
Instancing is the debil and except where it makes perfect sense (final quest fight, final raid rights, epic lore/story) it should be kept out of an MMO, I mean why have the Massively in MMO if we all have our own instance? Very stringent use of instancing however can be beneficial, in Vanguard they instanced off the Ancient Port Warehouse due to the amount to guilds needing to partake in its grandeur, as it was at one point the only post 50 serious raid content, and so it had "shards" so more than one or two guilds could raid. There is also nothing wrong with fighting down to the final fight of a final epic dungeon with an epic quest, to have the final fight instance to ensure no outside interference ruins it. As much as I love contested content, lets face it, when your at that point to have it all ruin my one jerk*** would really suck, I hate greifing more than instancing as a matter of fact. Dargun's Tomb comes to mind in VG, the final event was awesome fun, but buggy as hell, even a group not intending on griefing could inadvertanly affect the outcome, thus ruining any chance of the best weapon in the game at level.
I have faith our Dev team can and will use instancing in very stringent places, for very stringent reasons. It is impossible to recapure the old school MMO feel when your playing alone in an instance. The best part of the old school feel is the community, games like ESO are truly massive, but they lack the best parts of VG and EQ servers, the feeling of being part of a real community. Everyone knew the movers and shakers on Morrell-thule server in EQ, as well as the griefers. This was mirrored in VG from the early days of many servers to the final years of the single server Telon.
Can't recapture those days with out mimicing the environment that breed them.
I suspect this was one of the core discussions before even forming the game.
I haven't personally had any experience with open dungeons, having never made it to "raiding" level in EQ (or been social).
I imagine that when we hit the point where the players have conquered the entire open dungeon and are waiting on mobs, something didn't work. In comes First To Engage, pull trickery, petitionquest, etc.
The only true issue I had with WoW's instanced content is the pathetic design of it. In Vanilla it was acceptable, even fun, if rather brainless and easy. I think as long as we avoid poor design in the instance, which is the entire point of Pantheon, either instanced or open would work.
ImmerseMe said:
I suspect this was one of the core discussions before even forming the game.
I haven't personally had any experience with open dungeons, having never made it to "raiding" level in EQ (or been social).
I imagine that when we hit the point where the players have conquered the entire open dungeon and are waiting on mobs, something didn't work. In comes First To Engage, pull trickery, petitionquest, etc.
The only true issue I had with WoW's instanced content is the pathetic design of it. In Vanilla it was acceptable, even fun, if rather brainless and easy. I think as long as we avoid poor design in the instance, which is the entire point of Pantheon, either instanced or open would work.
You didn't really have to raid to experience it. Even normal leveling zones were an example of higher level dungeons(like crushbone). Players would look for groups, find a camp of their level, and start leveling.
I think what I really worked with EQ's system was the simplicity of it. All NPCs were set to respawn either as the same thing over and over or with a random chance of being something different or they were triggered spawns by turning in something, killing something else, etc. I know NPCs respawning 15 minutes after you kill them is somewhat unreleastic or immersion breaking for some but to me it always felt way less artificial than having wonky mechanics in place to gate your ability to do what you wanted to do.
Making the NPC standing directly in front of you unkillable, having it invisible to you but visible to others, or having it flagged so you could only get loot from it say once a day/week/whatever always feels so incredibly artificial for me. I cannot stand daily quests for this very reason. Why can't I play for 4 hours in a single day and accomplish as much or more than someone who plays 1 hour a day for 4 days? I've done some EQ camps for upwards of 24 hours before and as boring as that was I'd still take it over any of the systems I mentioned above. More complex mechanics where people have to leave the area or worse get teleported into a limited access instance are even worse.
I also simply do not believe that without the type of slow paced camping style advancement of EQ will you ever really be able to recreate that sort of community. I have played way too many other games and the only other places I have ever found anything to compare are in sandbox style games usually with either a heavier PvP focus (Shadowbane) or a heavy crafting focus (SWG). Theme Park style games (EQ, WoW, what I think this will be) never seem to recapture that and the further away from EQ you get the less of it you see.
