Dullahan said:
I'm not trying to knock Vanguard by any means, but I just don't think its realistic to compare Pantheon to a game that went 7 years without a major expansion. Those circumstances were considerably different, and it was necessary for different measure to be taken.
Just to clarify, my comparisons are in regard to game mechanics like lockout timers, instant boss respawns, instancing and the like. I'm not at all suggesting that there aren't things from Vanguard I would like to see in Pantheon, I just don't think many of the references being cited are particularly applicable to a modern EQ or VG with on-going content development. Since EQ had a great deal of expansions, especially early on, I felt like it was more relevant to use it as an example.
I think what Kilsin was referring to was your statement about VG where everyone was sitting in the same content for years and 90% of the player base being max level. The reason why VG went 7 years without a major expansion (although half of the final game was actually released after it was launched) was not because the game was bad or the systems and/or mechanics of the game like grouping, combat, raiding, etc were poor systems. Development came to a halt because that game was launched unfinished which caused it to lose a HUGE amount of its subs which ultimately led to the lack of content being released. If the VG that just closed its servers up would have been the VG that was launched I strongly believe it would still be flourishing today.
So I see no problem with making comparisons with Pantheon and VG because VG had a lot of great systems in play which I believe is the same reason Kilsin and others are making these references.
Kilsin said:
We do need to try and stop this EQ vs. VG mentality though (not calling you out just a general statement as I see this mindset a lot in people posts), they were both excellent games in their own right and each had its pros and cons, what we are trying to do is use as many pros from both games and blend them into our own style for Pantheon while we create new mechanics to mix well also, this game is not going to be an exact copy of EQ or VG and we really want to get the word out that it is a spiritual successor in its own right, but Pantheon is its own game that wishes to set itself apart from the others.
I read an article with Cliffy B. before the first Gears of War came out and he made a statement that stuck with me and will stay with me for the rest of my life and I will apply it to my writing (I'm an 'aspiring' author). He said when they were brainstorming for Gears 1 they took ALL the most popular shooters that were released before it and asked themselves what each one did WRONG. So while it's important to build on the pros of both EQ and VG I would think it great of you all to discover the true 'cons' of them both and either 'fix' or remove those issues.
...which I'm sure you already are. ;)
NoobieDoo said:
Dullahan said:
I'm not trying to knock Vanguard by any means, but I just don't think its realistic to compare Pantheon to a game that went 7 years without a major expansion. Those circumstances were considerably different, and it was necessary for different measure to be taken.
Just to clarify, my comparisons are in regard to game mechanics like lockout timers, instant boss respawns, instancing and the like. I'm not at all suggesting that there aren't things from Vanguard I would like to see in Pantheon, I just don't think many of the references being cited are particularly applicable to a modern EQ or VG with on-going content development. Since EQ had a great deal of expansions, especially early on, I felt like it was more relevant to use it as an example.
I think what Kilsin was referring to was your statement about VG where everyone was sitting in the same content for years and 90% of the player base being max level. The reason why VG went 7 years without a major expansion (although half of the final game was actually released after it was launched) was not because the game was bad or the systems and/or mechanics of the game like grouping, combat, raiding, etc were poor systems. Development came to a halt because that game was launched unfinished which caused it to lose a HUGE amount of its subs which ultimately led to the lack of content being released. If the VG that just closed its servers up would have been the VG that was launched I strongly believe it would still be flourishing today.
So I see no problem with making comparisons with Pantheon and VG because VG had a lot of great systems in play which I believe is the same reason Kilsin and others are making these references.
I also played Vanguard from launch throughout the first year and went back quite a few times after that, including just before it shut down. I am therefore well aware of the circumstances surrounding it.
The problem with comparing it, in this one regard, is you are talking about a static game with no on-going development. How you design your raid content depends largely on how much raid content exists, and how fast you can develop future content. Whether a mechanic like lockout timers even need exist then depends entirely upon how contested that content becomes. I just don't see any relevance between a new game with on-going development and a game with static content and no expansions for 7 years.
Though you are viewing it as such, this is not a slight on Vanguard.
Dullahan said:
I also played Vanguard from launch throughout the first year and went back quite a few times after that, including just before it shut down. I am therefore well aware of the circumstances surrounding it.
The problem with comparing it, in this one regard, is you are talking about a static game with no on-going development. How you design your raid content depends largely on how much raid content exists, and how fast you can develop future content. Whether a mechanic like lockout timers even need exist then depends entirely upon how contested that content becomes. I just don't see any relevance between a new game with on-going development and a game with static content and no expansions for 7 years.
Keep in mind though that Vanguard had plenty of added and redesigned content over the years. Just because they didn't call it expansions and didn't charged extra for it doesn't mean that it was a static game with no new raid content.
Dullahan said:
Though you are viewing it as such, this is not a slight on Vanguard.
Nah, I didn't take it as a slight. I just wasn't sure if you had played VG or not. And I see where you are coming from. Maybe or maybe not can compare the two but I believe you can definitely reference VG because even with a game that is updated regularly with on-going content I believe lockout timers and short respawns are the way to go. At least a start in the right direction.
Dullahan said:
NoobieDoo said:If the VG that just closed its servers up would have been the VG that was launched I strongly believe it would still be flourishing today.
The problem with comparing it, in this one regard, is you are talking about a static game with no on-going development. How you design your raid content depends largely on how much raid content exists, and how fast you can develop future content. Whether a mechanic like lockout timers even need exist then depends entirely upon how contested that content becomes. I just don't see any relevance between a new game with on-going development and a game with static content and no expansions for 7 years.
I stated somewhere else that the final game VG closed up with was twice as much as content that it was launched with. So even though it didn't pump out content as fast as other MMO's and didn't release any 'expansions' it definitely did expand.
Even if Pantheon produces content and expansions at a fast clip I have every bit of faith the content will be difficult which will bottleneck even the most elite guilds (which in response gearing up will be ever more important). Which is why imo lockout timers and short respawns are the way to go so that elite guilds won't camp and others have a reasonable chance. Whether VG used that system or not it still applies. IF guilds were plowing through content and never looking back then yea I'd say VG's system may not be needed.
Basically what I'm trying to say is this, VG and Pantheon's raids shouldn't be compared because of on-going updated content vs slowly updated content. It should be compared because VG and Pantheon will share like-wise difficulty.
NoobieDoo said:
Kilsin said:
We do need to try and stop this EQ vs. VG mentality though (not calling you out just a general statement as I see this mindset a lot in people posts), they were both excellent games in their own right and each had its pros and cons, what we are trying to do is use as many pros from both games and blend them into our own style for Pantheon while we create new mechanics to mix well also, this game is not going to be an exact copy of EQ or VG and we really want to get the word out that it is a spiritual successor in its own right, but Pantheon is its own game that wishes to set itself apart from the others.I read an article with Cliffy B. before the first Gears of War came out and he made a statement that stuck with me and will stay with me for the rest of my life and I will apply it to my writing (I'm an 'aspiring' author). He said when they were brainstorming for Gears 1 they took ALL the most popular shooters that were released before it and asked themselves what each one did WRONG. So while it's important to build on the pros of both EQ and VG I would think it great of you all to discover the true 'cons' of them both and either 'fix' or remove those issues.
...which I'm sure you already are. ;)
Absolutely, great point! and you can bet that we are ;)
(good luck with the writing too!)
Dullahan said:
NoobieDoo said:
Dullahan said:
I'm not trying to knock Vanguard by any means, but I just don't think its realistic to compare Pantheon to a game that went 7 years without a major expansion. Those circumstances were considerably different, and it was necessary for different measure to be taken.
Just to clarify, my comparisons are in regard to game mechanics like lockout timers, instant boss respawns, instancing and the like. I'm not at all suggesting that there aren't things from Vanguard I would like to see in Pantheon, I just don't think many of the references being cited are particularly applicable to a modern EQ or VG with on-going content development. Since EQ had a great deal of expansions, especially early on, I felt like it was more relevant to use it as an example.
I think what Kilsin was referring to was your statement about VG where everyone was sitting in the same content for years and 90% of the player base being max level. The reason why VG went 7 years without a major expansion (although half of the final game was actually released after it was launched) was not because the game was bad or the systems and/or mechanics of the game like grouping, combat, raiding, etc were poor systems. Development came to a halt because that game was launched unfinished which caused it to lose a HUGE amount of its subs which ultimately led to the lack of content being released. If the VG that just closed its servers up would have been the VG that was launched I strongly believe it would still be flourishing today.
So I see no problem with making comparisons with Pantheon and VG because VG had a lot of great systems in play which I believe is the same reason Kilsin and others are making these references.
I also played Vanguard from launch throughout the first year and went back quite a few times after that, including just before it shut down. I am therefore well aware of the circumstances surrounding it.
The problem with comparing it, in this one regard, is you are talking about a static game with no on-going development. How you design your raid content depends largely on how much raid content exists, and how fast you can develop future content. Whether a mechanic like lockout timers even need exist then depends entirely upon how contested that content becomes. I just don't see any relevance between a new game with on-going development and a game with static content and no expansions for 7 years.
Though you are viewing it as such, this is not a slight on Vanguard.
Yeah, I hear you mate.
Bonadew and NoobieDo both touched on it but I wanted to also iterate the point that VG while it may have seemed to stagnate and not have any attention actually had a ton of content updates called GU's (Game Updates), so instead of releasing them like Expansions and charging for them, they were just released in GU form for free, which was still a considerable amount of content released every ~3-6 months for the entire 7 years (except for the developer drought from '09 to '11 roughly) where we went without even an update or patch.
A lot of people are in the same position as you though and think the same thing, unless you played the game for that entire time and were actively reading the forums and part of the community you would have missed the updates as no real media coverage was present for any of them, it was more word of mouth here and there, some of them were huge though releasing entire new zones, quest lines, weapons, armour, etc.
With the handful of Devs we had, they were passionate and loved the game as much as we did and did everything they could to help fix bugs and provide as much content and love to the game as SOE would allow.
IMHO you need to look at what the advantages are of each raiding system. If you believe a gaming company can keep ahead of players in regards to content you are sadly mistaken. HARDCORE guilds will have things on farm status well before most expansion or new content is released. Most Core guilds usually down most raid targets before expansions also. MMO players are way better and have way more tools to beat encounters vs. when EQ was released back in the day.
Poopsocking doesn’t = skill it only means you have more time to play the game. This will cause people to stop playing/paying.
Having raid mobs spawn at the same time prevents players who play at off hours from ever seeing encounters. This system will also cause people to stop playing the game. = less money for future content.
Lockouts prevent Hardcore guilds from destroying content 3-6 months before the game company can come up with new content. Without lockouts guild would kill everything in the game and become bored. Which equals lost players/money. Having lockout doesn’t equal everybody and their 3rd grandchild killing every raid target in the game weekly. If the raid targets are that easily killed then the game was a failure! Lockouts allow a gaming company time to work on future content at a pace they have establish is workable/acceptable. Lockouts also allow every tier of raiders to attempt raid targets. Hardcore/Core/casual. From my expierence in EQ/VG/EQ2/WoW/Rift and many other MMOs Lockouts have been the best solution for the majority of raiding encounters.
I believe you should have a mix style of raiding encounters.
Encounters with lockout timers
Some Raid targets without timers (special overland encounters that spawn randomly) drops great gear that everyone wants but not at the cost of if you haven’t killed this boss you can’t progress.
Have your APW type of raid zones that aren’t as bad as WoW or EQ2 instances.
Ten man type of raids
Most MMO after EQ allowed guilds to manage their time and not let the game manage their life.
I think we could talk about the Pro/Con of each system until we turned blue and honestly I just hope the team figures out the best system that allows more than a small portion of the community enjoying the encounters they created.
Kilsin said:
One thing I loved doing after raid was still having so many people online we would break off and do thing in smaller groups, have fun and generally hang out, implementing a mechanic to drain our characters of something or exhaust them would ruin that fun and essentially render our character useless after a few hours gameplay.
Why would you limit this to raiding? Groups, Dungeons, running across the map, crafting for hours. if you are going to include realism you need to include all of the game, raiding in some cases is less intensive than doing a group dungeon, just because there are more people does not always mean more energy exerted, a lot of the time raiding is about managing all of those people and getting them to do something specific at the right time, many raiders have important but fairly effortless roles for some fights, so why would the game force an exhaust mechanic on them to just for participating?
I like the effort you have put into this but for me as a raider and raid leader this just wouldn't work and would end up making me log off instead of playing with my friends and guildies. The raid lockout solution from VG worked very well in my opinion.
Groups to me are the main focus of MMORPGS because when I want to hang out with my friends I normally get groups going to just chat and hang out. Most people do not count grouping when it comes to the "measuring stick" of the game.
What I am talking about is making it so that there is a "raid flag" in Pantheon kind of like a lockout from VG. Once a character has that raid flag then there are distinct disadvantages to doing more than one or two raids during that specified time. I am not talking about grouping or dungeons or the like I am specifically talking about raid targets. I don't know about you but when I led raids in EQ I was mentally and emotionally exhausted and I personally didn't want to do anything more difficult than just fight/kill something. I didn't even want to pull as a monk because I was so exhausted. I am specificly targeting raids because those tend to be the "most valuable" targets in MMORPGS and normally become the default measuring sticks to the community.
Anasyn said:
IMHO you need to look at what the advantages are of each raiding system. If you believe a gaming company can keep ahead of players in regards to content you are sadly mistaken. HARDCORE guilds will have things on farm status well before most expansion or new content is released. Most Core guilds usually down most raid targets before expansions also. MMO players are way better and have way more tools to beat encounters vs. when EQ was released back in the day.
Poopsocking doesn’t = skill it only means you have more time to play the game. This will cause people to stop playing/paying.
Having raid mobs spawn at the same time prevents players who play at off hours from ever seeing encounters. This system will also cause people to stop playing the game. = less money for future content.
Lockouts prevent Hardcore guilds from destroying content 3-6 months before the game company can come up with new content. Without lockouts guild would kill everything in the game and become bored. Which equals lost players/money. Having lockout doesn’t equal everybody and their 3rd grandchild killing every raid target in the game weekly. If the raid targets are that easily killed then the game was a failure! Lockouts allow a gaming company time to work on future content at a pace they have establish is workable/acceptable. Lockouts also allow every tier of raiders to attempt raid targets. Hardcore/Core/casual. From my expierence in EQ/VG/EQ2/WoW/Rift and many other MMOs Lockouts have been the best solution for the majority of raiding encounters.
I believe you should have a mix style of raiding encounters.
Encounters with lockout timers
Some Raid targets without timers (special overland encounters that spawn randomly) drops great gear that everyone wants but not at the cost of if you haven’t killed this boss you can’t progress.
Have your APW type of raid zones that aren’t as bad as WoW or EQ2 instances.
Ten man type of raids
Most MMO after EQ allowed guilds to manage their time and not let the game manage their life.
I think we could talk about the Pro/Con of each system until we turned blue and honestly I just hope the team figures out the best system that allows more than a small portion of the community enjoying the encounters they created.
This entire post is blasphemy IMHO. When you make a claim that no developer can ever stay ahead of hardcore players in content, you are looking at that statement through a world of warcraft lens, where the content itself takes little to no effort. The rate at which players consume content is directly related to the difficulty and time that the content requires from the players.
Imagine a system where even when you're in a raid, you need to take breaks between pulls in a raid zones because your resources need time to regenerate. As well as boss fights lasting 30m-1hour rather than 5 minutes. I don't think 1 person making a mistake in a raid should cause a wipe, instead it should require a tactical error over a long period of time that isn't corrected, or a poor strategy that in the end leaves your resources consumed and your raid runs out of gas.
This is intended to illustrate that I don't believe a developer will fall behind in content, if that content takes long enough to accomplish. The counter to this idea would be that it puts casual players who don't have a lot of time at a disadvantage, however I contend that casual players should be at a disadvantage, because they are in fact casual, and Pantheon isn't trying to cater to convenience.
Lockouts are pointless, players will just make 2nd accounts/characters+ to farm it when they are locked out on their main, especially if items are all tradable. You said it yourself, if the raid targets were that easily killed, the game was a failure. Well we don't expect Pantheon to be a failure, so let's stop using remedies that were intended for failure games.
Some people posting here seem to have gotten the idea in their head that they are entitled to any encounter in the game at least once a week, this mindset is one that World of Warcraft has instilled in the MMORPG population, and it has been a plague. Entitlement needs to stop.
Ya know, this makes me think of something else... there is one tenet that I would like to see added to the game, that no content will ever be dumbed down or nerfed so others can do it easier. If something is impossible.
Flat. out. can't. be. done. by. anyone.
Then maybeeee. But that's a steep maybe.
Sogotp said:
Kilsin said:
One thing I loved doing after raid was still having so many people online we would break off and do thing in smaller groups, have fun and generally hang out, implementing a mechanic to drain our characters of something or exhaust them would ruin that fun and essentially render our character useless after a few hours gameplay.
Why would you limit this to raiding? Groups, Dungeons, running across the map, crafting for hours. if you are going to include realism you need to include all of the game, raiding in some cases is less intensive than doing a group dungeon, just because there are more people does not always mean more energy exerted, a lot of the time raiding is about managing all of those people and getting them to do something specific at the right time, many raiders have important but fairly effortless roles for some fights, so why would the game force an exhaust mechanic on them to just for participating?
I like the effort you have put into this but for me as a raider and raid leader this just wouldn't work and would end up making me log off instead of playing with my friends and guildies. The raid lockout solution from VG worked very well in my opinion.Groups to me are the main focus of MMORPGS because when I want to hang out with my friends I normally get groups going to just chat and hang out. Most people do not count grouping when it comes to the "measuring stick" of the game.
What I am talking about is making it so that there is a "raid flag" in Pantheon kind of like a lockout from VG. Once a character has that raid flag then there are distinct disadvantages to doing more than one or two raids during that specified time. I am not talking about grouping or dungeons or the like I am specifically talking about raid targets. I don't know about you but when I led raids in EQ I was mentally and emotionally exhausted and I personally didn't want to do anything more difficult than just fight/kill something. I didn't even want to pull as a monk because I was so exhausted. I am specificly targeting raids because those tend to be the "most valuable" targets in MMORPGS and normally become the default measuring sticks to the community.
I understand mate, I just don't think restricting or limiting raids is a good idea, it is essentially punishing them for being at their best, it will not go down very well among the raiding guilds, I can assure you, my guy's would not be happy if we were limited to one or two raids when we planned hardcore raid for hours. This mechanic would also restrict player interaction at a raiding level, if I finished up a raid with my guild, then went with a few guildies to help a lesser developed guild take down som entry level raids, I would be restricted under your mechanic and not able to help, this would divide a lot of raiders and that isn't a good thing for any game or community.
A lockout would stop me from killing the same mob again and loot farming but would allow me to continue raiding other mobs or helping other people/guilds with other targets (if my guild allowed me to do that).
Reverence is a very well respected guild that was hugely community driven and we used to host a weekly PUG raid, those raids would be affected badly by this exhaustion mechanic and while I like your thinking behind it, I just do not think it would work well in this game with this community.
Lokkan said:
Ya know, this makes me think of something else... there is one tenet that I would like to see added to the game, that no content will ever be dumbed down or nerfed so others can do it easier. If something is impossible.
Flat. out. can't. be. done. by. anyone.
Then maybeeee. But that's a steep maybe.
This was the case in VG and I hope we see entire zones and raid/group encounters and dungeons that are just too difficult for some people too :)
Kilsin said:Lokkan said:
Ya know, this makes me think of something else... there is one tenet that I would like to see added to the game, that no content will ever be dumbed down or nerfed so others can do it easier. If something is impossible.
Flat. out. can't. be. done. by. anyone.
Then maybeeee. But that's a steep maybe.
This was the case in VG and I hope we see entire zones and raid/group encounters and dungeons that are just too difficult for some people too :)
NoobieDoo said:
Kilsin said:
Lokkan said:
Ya know, this makes me think of something else... there is one tenet that I would like to see added to the game, that no content will ever be dumbed down or nerfed so others can do it easier. If something is impossible.
Flat. out. can't. be. done. by. anyone.
Then maybeeee. But that's a steep maybe.
This was the case in VG and I hope we see entire zones and raid/group encounters and dungeons that are just too difficult for some people too :)
One thing to remember is that with lockout timers there has to be plenty of content for players to fall back on. And again difficulty helps with bottlenecking guilds. The Griffon questline in VG has got to be one of the hardest things I've ever done in an mmo. I finished it before the level cap was raised to 55 and at times I felt it was damn near impossible but I'd have it no other way, I LOVED it! Not only was it hard but it also contained a lot of steps to it which gave players a lot to do with just that one single questline. Hopefully Pantheon contains content like this because this is what keeps players from plowing through content and getting bored.
Exactly and the Griffon quest line is a perfect example of the difficult content I was referring too. I loved that quest line and completed it in it's hardest form before the level cap increase also. Akande the Butcher still brings good memories mixed with frustration and nightmares lol, but I would also have it no other way, the sense of achievement I felt after finally getting past the OT Knights part of the quest and then eventually obtaining my first ever Young Griffon was incredible, so much hard work, teamwork, effort, patience, time put in for such an excellent and convenient reward was really well done.
TLDR: Have bosses spawn rarely but also have farmable items spawn the same bosses but make it hard to get them etc.
I am a fan of the old school hardcore game mechanics but playing EQ1 on the progressive servers it brings to light issues that cannot be ignored. Unfortunately so much has changed in gaming that content is crushed and the traditional things in EQ1 are no longer challenging for anyone. Top that off with the gaming population being hundreds of times larger than when EQ1 launched and you are going to have major issues.
I have brainstormed a few ideas. Lets assume we don't instance.
Now the first thing to decide is whether loot will be bound or available to anyone who gets it. I am against bound loot but a good balance to keep items in demand is bind on equip.
So lets says these bosses only drop BOE items the next step is to decide if the boss is going to be very rare or fairly common and the drop rate of his items.
I think we need to have a balance here and we can do BOTH.
First lets make the loot very rare. Lets put say a 2% chance of him dropping an item from his pool of items people want. So 2% chance of dropping 1 type of weapon or armor etc. This encourages sales and trading. It may seem low but if you take into account the possibility of the enemy being killing hundreds of times weekly it makes sense as multiple items a week will be introduced.
Now on to how we fix spawning and fairness issues.
Lets have the best of both worlds.
So step 1. Have the boss set to spawn very rarely maybe once or twice a week.
Step 2. This is the better option for most people have items that spawn the bosses (its flagged to spawn team). Make it so farming the items also requires a group effort and make the items rare but not so rare that you can farm up enough to do it maybe 5-6x weekly. Secret World did this and made a game out of it where puzzle pieces were dropped and had to figure out the boss it belonged to then properly assemble it and it took forever to complete one.
This may sound crazy but its needed in games and it also helps prolong content. Another thing that is sorta off topic is never ending leveling. Say the cap is 50 once you hit it you can still increase your stats but make it take years upon years to do and have small effects only.