One of the things I really like about EQ was how the mobs SHOWED what weapons they would drop. I would like to see more of this. SHOW their armor too. Unfortunately this also shows players which mobs have the loot and which do not.
I think that quest starters should drop on grey conning mobs. So too their race drops (if they go by way of EQ2 Master system). I think some sort of system needs to be in-place to stop lvl 50 players from camping the lvl 20 mobs just to pick up and sell their goods. Maybe some code that can detect when someone kills too many low-levels in a row and then summons something that will kick his/her ass....
Aradune said:This is a tough one, as as already noted, also a controversial issue.
We are not fans of having higher level players go into lower level zones, disrupting the gameplay of the players that should be there, and then also trivially obtaining items that are supposed to be rare (for the intended level of that area).
But we are also not fans of creating rules and limitations that feel artificial. We want players to feel like Pantheon's world is theirs, that it is an open world, that it has sandbox elements, etc.
Other games have tried to address this issue indirectly, for example with loot that is no-trade or bind-on-equip. We're also not fans of those kinds of 'solutions' because we want an open player driven economy. Outside of specific quest items (e.g. items you obtain and then trade in to, say, complete a quest), we're not big on no-trade or bind-on-equip.
So the big question is, how could we achieve both? And is 'both' even achievable?
We have ideas on how to address this issue, I think they're pretty good. But we aren't going to discuss them yet because 1. it's early, and there's no reason to create controversy now and 2. because they are the types of ideas that should be tested in Beta, so we can get feedback from players, listen to their reactions and opinions, etc. Sometimes it's great to theorycraft, but when it comes to issues like these, it often just creates unnecessary drama and concern. The time to discuss this sort of topic is when people are in the game, in beta, where we can experiment and get feedback on the actual implementation.
-Brad
Maybe the the gods/dieties of Npc's in the dungeon would not allow higher level players to enter.....Kind of makes sense you wouldnt want your followers to just be slaughtered without a chance. Higher level players could enlist lower level players to retrieve the item(s) for a fee or trade. Would be like giving them a quest that came from a player.
Players could create alts or with progeny make sure they get items they missed the first run through.
Look forward to seeing how this is handled.
All I can recall is Everquest at level 50 camping mobs for: Glowing Black Stone, Fishbone Earring and I think Batskull Earring. All valuable items obtained from low level mobs.
/shrug
Can't wait to see what VR has in store from us, I have confidence with the amount of MMO experience from the dev's we will be satisfied.
I'm encouraged by Brad's post. There needs to be something to counter the farming (and twinking) that frequently adversely effects games. Even in EQ (gasp, no?!).
Maybe P99 is a 'special case' but farming is rampant there. It's regular to see solo high-level characters claiming camps that appropriately levelled groups would like to be in just because there's a saleable drop. It's regular to see rare items for sale cheap because there's so many high-level characters farming them that they are no longer 'rare'.
But it's good those powerful items are cheapened, because the level-appropriate magical items that you may have fought hard to get are nearly worthless when you come to sell them to try and buy upgrades.
In other words, the economy is badly skewed (and pretty screwed).
Also, twinked characters were commonplace and ruined groups because they made content that should have been challenging too easy.
This whole we must avoid "artificial barriers" is a bit of a silly argument: There are 'artificial barriers' all over where there's good reason, for example, it's a PvE game so players can't attack each other. Utterly and fundamentally artificial, but, yes please - I don't want PvP left up to some unofficial community decision.
Sure, it's not as important as disallowing players attacking each other, but I would like some mechanics to stop farming and subsequent twinking (and power-levelling, though off-topic). It is important enough to add some game mechanic rules (or 'artificial barriers' if you prefer).
As I said previously, I think the best way to prevent players from grossly abusing low level content is to create the proper incentives in level appropriate content.
Another way I think you could discourage players from farming low level content is by changing the mob AI in how they deal with players of a higher level. While mobs might normally fight a player that is closer to their level till the bitter end (or flee at low health), at some point I think mobs should begin to flee and shout for help immediately when a player moves into aggro range. Whereas mobs in most game would just attack you or defend themselves, I would like to see them open with impairment effects and find other mobs to assist them. Once they've found a few compatriots that would sufficiently provide the player with a fight, they should band up and mount an attack.
What I believe this would lead to is a scenario where most players couldn't easily solo low level content. This would mean they would need to be very careful or actually make a group. Chances are most players aren't going to want to group for low level content and it will more naturally encourage they move to a higher level area.
What they could put in that would completely obliterate trival combat is overkill loot destruction. So you kill a mob before they get their second swing in (you way over power them), you have delt such massive blows or caustic magic damage to them that whatever they may have been wearing/weilding has a lower max durability (if they impliment durability) and if the max hits 0... well that is it for that item, no drops for you. but if you kill it with successive smaller hits (you and your group are working together to kill it), the items are kept moderately intact.
another alternative is modify drop rate based on number of aggressive targets. Since they are attempting to make it nearing on the impossible to proficiently box characters then saying something like "there is a 5% chance this item will drop for each active aggressor (active means your hate is not near 0)" could at least dissuade people from farming trivial camps alone :)
Raidan said:While I understand the point of a trivial loot code, I am against it. I would rather deal with the people farming a trivial item, than put in artificial restrictions. There were many times in EQ or VG that I enjoyed returning to old zones at higher levels.
Sometimes a light trivial code may be beneficial. Depends on the situation. It's one of those things that you need to keep areas a bit random and challenging for and maybe introduce some other things. I know in a few games in recent years that opted to bring back some open dungeons ended up with bots and high level groups just sitting there wiping things out and keeping other players from being able to really do anything. And by sitting there I mean literally for days at the time. Tricky subject to tackle to be sure.
@OP
I thought about something similar the other day. Instead of it being a item blacklist, it would be a reduced drop chance if you're too high level. Just as an example " super flaming swwrd X" drops from lvl 34 mob with a 3% drop chance, now if you're around the lvl of the mob it will have a 3% drop chance, but if you're a lvl 50 farming the mob because the sword is worth a lot of money the drop chance will be reduce to a really low drop chance let's say .01% because the mobs is so trivial, the drop chance can be restored to it's original value if you use the progeny system to scale you back down to the level of other players that are also farming or you can choose to spawn camp the mob with a really low drop rate. The really low drop rate will no doubt take a lot more time than the other option but it will also be safer.
EQ2 used TLC and it was really annoying. I remember wanting to work on lower level quests and having to rely on finding a low level person in the zone that I could mentor. I remember sitting in Thundering Steppes trying to work on the manastone quest and having the NPC right in front of me, but not being able to kill it because it was grey-con, or "trivial." I much preferred the way FFXI did their content ... they had rare spawns (Leaping Lizzy) for example ... a really low level mob that high level players would still attempt to camp. The boots dropped from this mob were extremely valuable, so much that a max level player would definitely have an interest in acquiring them.
There were other camps that high level players could farm that were more consistently rewarding, but any time you were in the area, you would always check on her to see if she was up. I always enjoyed that. I would much rather see players have the freedom to play as they choose, whether it's farming low level content or high level content. EQ2 would force players to mentor to change the color con of the mob but that didn't really encourage folks to play together. It was a quick one and done process ... they would join, mentor, get their kill and then leave. It got to the point where eventually people would just roll an alt on a secondary account and box them around so they could mentor their own account and bypass having to deal with others.
The easiest way to fix the problem of high levels camping low level content is to have enough content worthy of farming in the first place. The higher the level, and the more challenging ... the better the reward should be. At the same time, though, it's all about risk vs reward. There isn't much "risk" in farming lower level content beyond the fact that it would be contested. When something is really rare, and only spawns a few times per week, there is still a high level of risk in pursuing those mobs. If someone else tags the mob and gets the kill, you just wasted a bunch of time. I'm good with that. Change up the spawn locations to where it's somewhat randomized when possible and let people farm whatever their heart desires.
As far as souldbound and bind on equip gear goes ... I never really had an issue with it, but I would much prefer a world that didn't use those features. If it's a quest item then making it no-trade is fine. BoE can even serve a purpose to some degree but I would want to see it used sparingly. My understanding is that VR doesen't really like these kind of restrictions but at the same time we're going to see it when someone enchants their gear through crafting. My recommendation would be to allow players to "unattune" gear that they attune themselves to, but to make it costly. Also, when it becomes unattuned, you lose any of the enchantments that was on the gear. This allows you to preserve some of the value in all of your gear but there is still a sacrifice any time you unattune something. You can make good use of something until you no longer need it and then when you finally out grow the piece, you can unattune it and use the item in it's original form however you want.
in early 2016 I was bored and went back to EQ. It is nothing like the game as I remember it. Pick up groups rarely lasted 30 minutes. It was all dps, nothing else mattered. I played a Shaman; slowing mobs was considered a waste, and quickly I just played solo. I played all the old zones Everfrost, Kithicor, BW. It was easy and in its way fun, but lonely too. I farmed the old zones, there was no one there. No one cared if I was too high for a zone. When I got to Old Sebilis I soloed the zone from when the cons were yellow to green. I soloed old Planes content. I made good money (for me) and bought gear for my level. I soloed my epic 1. I met a couple of people along the way but not like the old days and not what I hope for in Pantheon. But there was a lot of once great gear that nobody cared about. That's what I think about when I read about TLC. Will VR let old zones fade away? Where the content falls behind, the loot is good vendor trash, but not even good for twinks. I know that's not exactly what the OP was talking about, but it's what I think about when people think of farming loot. How much effort will VR put into old zones when there are people clamoring for new content, new loot. The lure of the uber cape with rainbow sprinkles. Am I too maudlin?
Kayd said:Raidan said:With that said, why I believe the trivial loot code is artificial, is because once you hit X level which puts you into the trivial loot code range, the game places a restriction on you to no longer be able to obtain that item - a restriction that is not innate to the game that magically happens after leveling.I wasn't proposing that you not be able to get the item, just that you can't get it over and over. In this context I don't know how to view that as artificial or not.
What ends up happening , is the game turns into artifical tiers. A person will sit at the top of the level curve , with a mob that has the lowest level consideration and farm for drops or have multiple toons at different points of progression to cover multiple level gaps. TLC does nothing , but create a barrier to drops.
Aradune said:This is a tough one, as as already noted, also a controversial issue.
We are not fans of having higher level players go into lower level zones, disrupting the gameplay of the players that should be there, and then also trivially obtaining items that are supposed to be rare (for the intended level of that area).
But we are also not fans of creating rules and limitations that feel artificial. We want players to feel like Pantheon's world is theirs, that it is an open world, that it has sandbox elements, etc.
Other games have tried to address this issue indirectly, for example with loot that is no-trade or bind-on-equip. We're also not fans of those kinds of 'solutions' because we want an open player driven economy. Outside of specific quest items (e.g. items you obtain and then trade in to, say, complete a quest), we're not big on no-trade or bind-on-equip.
So the big question is, how could we achieve both? And is 'both' even achievable?
We have ideas on how to address this issue, I think they're pretty good. But we aren't going to discuss them yet because 1. it's early, and there's no reason to create controversy now and 2. because they are the types of ideas that should be tested in Beta, so we can get feedback from players, listen to their reactions and opinions, etc. Sometimes it's great to theorycraft, but when it comes to issues like these, it often just creates unnecessary drama and concern. The time to discuss this sort of topic is when people are in the game, in beta, where we can experiment and get feedback on the actual implementation.
-Brad
Personally I'm not a fan of TLC. If high level players are willing to spend their time in low level zones, I don't view that as an inherently bad thing. It all comes down to opportunity cost. FFXI had an amazing player driven economy and featured great items in all of the various level ranges. It was true FFA competition that was embraced by the players. At the same time, FFXI utilized FTE (First to Engage) which made it so the low level players actually had a chance to compete for loot rights (assuming they could beat the encounter) against the higher levels. With MDD (Most Damage Done) there isn't really much room for competition between high/low players (a single high player tends to dominate a full group of lowbies) so maybe a TLC (or other artificial mechanic) is in order. This exact scenario is one of the major reasons I have advocated for FTE. I don't like the idea that as a high level player farming a low level zone I'm "disrupting the gameplay of the players that should be there." Yet ... that's exactly how high/low player interactions will be perceived due to the massive advantage the higher level players have because of the MDD model.
"So the big question is, how could we achieve both? And is 'both' even achievable?"
FTE can help achieve both. High level players can't "trivially obtain items that are supposed to be rare" because of FFA competition -- lower level players actually have a chance to compete and this really plays into the opportunity cost I mentioned earlier. I know it's been stated that Pantheon will be utilizing MDD but maybe there could be exceptions to this when it comes to names? I know it's been stated that many of the zones will be multi-tiered ... as in having content for a range of levels. I think MDD is a bad ingredient in this recipe absent some sort of TLC implementation. The higher level players will be going about their business with their level-appropriate content and in the process attempt to "pick off" the lower level stuff with ease whenever they see it available. There really is no way around this. MDD is always going to heavily favor the higher level players and at the end of the day that is what creates this variable of "higher level players not belonging in the lower level areas." The opportunity cost is heavily in their favor in these scenarios because they can steamroll entire groups of low level players.
FTE gives the advantage to the group because they have more chances to win the engage. This is an interesting dynamic because the higher level players will generally avoid competing with a full group of lowbies because the odds are stacked against them. If there isn't any competition then the higher level player has an opportunity cost in their favor, which is fine. If there is competition the higher level player will "naturally" decide that they should probably be spending their time elsewhere where there is less competition (like a higher level zone) -- I have seen many people cite FTE as an "artificial mechanic" but so is MDD. It's completely arbitrary. If you want to do things the "organic way" then it becomes a competition of who can loot the item the fastest when the NPC is dropped because "loot rights" and "credit" are clearly video game mechanics.
FTE is superior to MDD in every way but one ... it prevents players from helping each other mid-combat unless they are grouped. That isn't a bad thing, in my opinion. It prevents zerging ... it prevents higher level players from dominating low level content, and it preserves meaningful risk vs reward. FTE is clearly better for a player-driven economy as well, particularly if there is an emphasis on the inclusion of meaningful/memorable items being available in the lower level ranges. It seems really interesting to me that Pantheon is being built from the ground up to have low/high level players interacting in the same zones while simultaneously utilizing MDD. Vanguard leveraged FTE and it's a head scratcher for me when I think about why VR would be deviating from that. Oh well ... I'll be copy/pasting plenty of feedback when we eventually get to beta.
I know I commented on this thread a long time ago and my stance hasn't really changed. The only difference is that MDD has been confirmed since then which rules out this aspect of my original post:
"The easiest way to fix the problem of high levels camping low level content is to have enough content worthy of farming in the first place. The higher the level, and the more challenging ... the better the reward should be. At the same time, though, it's all about risk vs reward. There isn't much "risk" in farming lower level content beyond the fact that it would be contested. When something is really rare, and only spawns a few times per week, there is still a high level of risk in pursuing those mobs. If someone else tags the mob and gets the kill, you just wasted a bunch of time. I'm good with that. Change up the spawn locations to where it's somewhat randomized when possible and let people farm whatever their heart desires."
I know you are aware they have talked about utilizing what I'm going to call "creative" trivial loot code.
Things like, if your group is either to high of a lvl or there are to many people in your raid a named boss may call for friends to assist it or even run away (aka despawn).
I believe that ^ is what Brad is referring to when he talks about that he has "ideas on how to address the issue" (it's an old post).
Personally, I don't really care either way as far as most dmg dealt vs first to engage.
I can see how mdd would be the one that is less of an issue though. First to engage leads to a lot of people tagging and kiting a mob in circles until their friends get there (which in actuality, works in "most dmg done" scenarios as well because people won't mess with someone elses mob 99% of the time) or in FTE people will tag and kite a mob or move it to another location just so someone else cant have it, whether they can kill it or not. At least MDD keeps it a little more honest where they have to be able to actually kill it to get the loot. It also makes it so people cant tag everything and drag it to a busy area like east commons tunnel and yell "help" where someone else might kill it for them so they can get the loot.
Actually, as I talked it out maybe I think MDD is better, I dunno. It doesn't make that much difference. It is just so easy to exploit first to engage.
If people can tag bosses and kite them in circles for extended periods of time then the game isn't challenging enough. I have seen that exact argument used plenty of times but that's really just an example of bad gameplay in my opinion. Boss mobs should run at you with increased speed and have heavy resistance to snares/slows. There should also be diminishing returns on CC or anything that incapacitates them for extended periods of time. Don't get me wrong ... what you are saying is completely valid if the game is easy and players can trivialize encounters by running in circles. That shouldn't be possible in Pantheon.
As far as the "creative trivial loot code" where NPC's run when they are overwhelmed, or call for assistance, I think that idea died awhile ago. We haven't heard anything about that in ages and a feature like that could end up being used as a griefing tool. If you see a rival guild getting ready to engage a premium boss ... just overwhelm it with numbers (to make it scale/flee/call adds) without having any intention of doing anything in combat. Players could block others from attempting standard versions of content by imposing their presence and their presence alone.
As far as dragging it to another area and asking for help ... that doesn't work with FTE. The encounter becomes locked (meaning outside players can't help you kill it) unless you "yell for help." That's an actual feature that breaks combat and allows outside assistance but also makes it so the NPC doesn't give experience or loot. Finally ... as far as MDD being the better option "because you actually have to be capable of killing it." That's false. You just have to do the most damage. So you can have 6 groups of players engage and as long as you do 1% more than second place you get full credit. With FTE, you truly have to be able to defeat the encounter from 100-0.
MDD is what allows the level 50 wizard to trivially camp a low level zone. The low level group can deal the first 40% damage and then the wizard one shots it to finish it off and receive full credit. MDD is far easier to exploit, in my opinion, especially if they utilize any sort of lockout mechanic.
FTE/MDD isn't only about bosses though. Or do you mean any named, or any mob that might drop loot, when you are saying bosses?
edit: and btw, I have played games where FTE doesn't mean the encounter locks to others. But even if it does lock, isn't that worse? Then you lead to the scenario of every contended mob someone sees they can tag and run in circles while they regen mana just so someone else can't have it?
I think FTE would be better for bosses specifically. I understand that people want to interact with each other while out in the field and that's fine -- MDD can be used for the vast majority of content. When it comes to bosses though, (Names, whatever you want to call them) I think the challenge should be defeating the encounter from beginning to end. 100-0.
Response to edit: Again ... players kiting "bosses" around in circles shouldn't be possible. If that's possible in Pantheon then they will have failed in their goal of making a "truly challenging game." That's one of their game tenets and it would be a huge flop if players are running circles around mobs to regen HP. Players should have to plan their encounter engages wisely. Challenging games usually require some sort of countdown where players time their pre-wards, aggro buffs, positioning, etc. If players are greedily tagging everything and running around with impunity the game would be a joke.
Ya but again, reputation matters. By the time someone reaches lvl 50 it actually will matter. It's those lower lvl players like Fansy that can tag and kite mobs away who don't care about reputation that would be a greater concern. There are more of them. They are easier to build etc.
It is a glass half full/half empty thing though. For every lvl 50 wizard who steals a camp from a low lvl group in MDD there are 10 or 100x more low lvl characters that can steal any mob they are faster then...from any other player...with no consequences because they are low lvl and can just restart because rep doesn't matter in FTE.
Ah so are you saying FTE for raid mobs and MDD for everything else? I could get behind that maybe. As long as they aren't open world raid mobs that can be tagged and ran around (even if they summon).
If they were mobs like we saw that the room locked when they were engaged I think that might work for FTE if you get locked in anyway (not that it was a raid mob but)...anything with that type of scenario where you are locked into a single area, almost instance like, could work i think?
Reputation doesn't matter when it isn't possible. I don't know what games you played where low level players could tag/kite bosses around but that isn't something I would associate with Pantheon seeing that VR is intent on building a truly challenging game. EQ2 is a great example of a game where this wasn't possible. If you didn't time your pre-engage routine perfectly you would watch your entire raid be slaughtered in less than 10 seconds. I'd like to see a similar level of preparation be required for group bosses as well. EQ2 saw plenty of that but eventually characters got to the point where they were so strong that they could tackle plenty of group bosses without doing a countdown. I think it's super important that players only pull when they are ready. If it's a "race to tag the mob" there is an issue. Back in EQ2 raiding we used to try and bait other players into just that. The game was so difficult that if you pulled without a clean countdown, buff rotation, etc, you would just end up dying. It wasn't uncommon for players to feign like they were going in for a pull just to cause the rival guild to make a desperation play and pull it without being completely ready. This would result in them wiping and the original team having more time / less stress to manage a clean pull of their own.
oneADseven said:Reputation doesn't matter when it isn't possible. I don't know what games you played where low level players could tag/kite bosses around but that isn't something I would associate with Pantheon seeing that VR is intent on building a truly challenging game. EQ2 is a great example of a game where this wasn't possible. If you didn't time your pre-engage routine perfectly you would watch your entire raid be slaughtered in less than 10 seconds. I'd like to see a similar level of preparation be required for group bosses as well. EQ2 saw plenty of that but eventually characters got to the point where they were so strong that they could tackle plenty of bosses without doing a countdown.
Any low lvl character with speed boost faster than the mob can kite any non summoning melee mob. Fansy was the example as Bards were fast but could also utilize the lvl 4 "no attack" function on a pvp server but that part doesn't really matter as far as the conversation.