One of the problems we see with games as they mature is that expansions have a way of marginalizing old world content.
From a developer's perspective planning for this in advance could help preserve the team's massive investment in original content.
From a player's perspective, this could mean that someone who joins Pantheon three or five years down the road could have much the same experience as those who joined at launch.
To be effective, this needs to be planned for from the outset.
The devs need a manifesto which includes a sacred code of principles which will never be broken: "The Law According To Arradune" would suffice nicely. We don't want the player community whining for a Luclin style portal system and pressure the devs into submission in a moment of weakness. If the decision is made to not have in-game maps, then don't add them down the road. If you do, level cap them so they're a reward appropriate to the expansion content and make the player quest for it.
No zone revamps. Preserve the quests and levels of all zones as they were introduced to the game. If the game needs a graphic face lift 10 years from now, do it without destroying pre-existing content. Oh SOE how I hated you for that.
The impact that high level players can have on low level players and content needs to be capped in several ways.
1. Restrict the effect of high level buffs and gear on low level players. An exponential scale is probably appropriate here. This isn't to say that high level chars shouldn't be able to buff or help younger players, but your presence in the zone shouldn't completely unbalance the camps. The key here is moderation and scaling. If you OP your friends, you're depriving them of terror which goes along with starting out in a big scary world. Everyone deserves the right to die horribly. No silver spoons in these babe's mouths. If I'm level 10, a buff from a level 70 shouldn't affect me much more than a buff from a level 50 or even a level 30. So far as equipment, let the twink gear be better than what I can get at level, but not much more.
2. Oh I hate to say these words, but implement trivial loot code. A level 70 farming a level 10 camp should get neither goods nor faction from this activity. If you need bear pelts or rat whiskers, buy them from someone who could get experience camping those mobs. This helps promote the economy and generate some wealth for new players. If you need to kill 500 orcs for faction, you'll need to find some that are level appropriate. Leave the low level camps for the low level players.
3. Restrict port travel by level and by fog of war. Pity the poor gnome who started out at level one at the gates of Akanon, was ported by some friendly druid to Freeport and never experienced the joys of boat travel nor learned the paths, rewards and hazards to travel along the way. If we're going to have classes who can port fellow adventurers, add a few rules to travel. First off, you must have traveled there by foot and know the destination before you can be ported there. This should apply to all levels, all destinations. The only exception would be something like raid zones which are only accessible by porting in. Second, to travel to a high level zone by porting, you need to be a certain level. As people have pointed out in other threads, porting and portals take the "Massively" out of MMORPG. When you're low level, the world should feel infinitely large and scary. Additional expansions should make the world feel even bigger than infinite, not the inverse.
So what are your thoughts? Should there be an effort to preserve the relevancy of original game content so that there's no need for someone to build a "classic Pantheon emulator"? How could this be accomplished?
Great post. A semi-related blog I did a while back:
https://www.pantheonrotf.com/blogs/151/70/twinking-good-or-evil-or-in
If Pantheon holds true to the core values similar to EQ I do not see expansion inflation as big of a problem as we see in a game like WoW. Non instanced contested content is the key controller of this along with the rate at which gear is inflated. Each expansion builds on the the previous content and gear and level progression. In Wow everything is essentially reset with each new expansion and that is a big reason content is kicked the way side. Let me explain for those who might not understand. Back in EQ on my server which was Mith Marr Afterlife was the top dog guild. They were the tip of the sword and they controlled much of the content spawns. There was a Euro guild named Forsaken Realms that rivaled them so they were pretty much the two top dogs. So a couple expansions deep in to EQ if you were not in one of those two guilds you typically were not seeing cutting edge raid content. Good or bad like it or not contested content establishes a pecking order among the community but that is not a bad thing with the way content was designed.
All of the content was built as a stepping stone for the next set of content. When the next expac was released those guilds who were doing cutting edge content moved on to the newest content which opened up the current content to the guilds who might not of been doing the content. Also it should be said that some guilds may have had chances at current content however they were unable to beat it. So when the next expac came out and they got 5 more levels it put them over that hump there were unable to crest. This then allowed them to gear up for the new content that just released. So while they were gearing up Afterlife was also gearing up on their new content so when the next content dropped each guild moved on according to the pecking order. Some may not like that system but raid content at least still had purpose. Eventually there does come a point X amount of expansions deep that some stuff does start to get kicked aside for various reasons. There does have to be a path for new players to catch up with in reason.
You then take a game like WoW where content is reset every expansion. Also note I am referring to end game content for the most part. When each new expac drops every characters gear is essentially reset and there is no prerequisite for new content aside from questing and leveling up replacing raid gear with quest gear. A new player joining the game has no reason to go and see old content so it is then kicked aside. Sure people will go raid old content but it has no value and most of it is just plowed through as fast as possible. This concept has given Wow an incredible shelf life but hurt the game as a whole. You look at EQ in its current state a ton of stuff is outdated and kick to the curb. It is unavoidable as a game matures but you can control the rate at which it happens. WoW has chosen the path of once a year. I think the rate that EQ did it for the first 5 or 6 years was great.
The pecking order will be culture shock to most modern gamers probably even myself since I have been conditioned for so many years the other way. However I think it would be refreshing to experience it again.
Heya Raroic. I agree with everything you said regarding end game content. I'm all in favour of contested content at all levels. My concern was more about preservation of the legacy content. I'd suggest we could also preserve the "new player experience" and replay value for veterans who want to come back after taking a break from the game, etc...
I don't agree that there has to be a path for new players to catch up. In my world catching up means going through the same hard knocks everyone else did to get to end game content. If it took 8 months of regular play to hit level 50 in 2017, it should take 8 months to hit level 50 in 2025. One of the major issues I've had with past games is when they start adding experience potions, bonus exp quests and hot zones with major experience modifiers. This simply reinforces the idea that the low level content has expired. Nothing to see here, move along.
For end game content, there will be fewer people in your guild with 6 max level alts. This will encourage guilds to pull in more individual players and have fairly significant impact on how raid loot gets dispersed.
Sure there will be people who expected WoW and will move on to other games with instant gratification, but I think you'll find there's a lot of hard core and legacy gamers out there who are begging for something to sink their teeth into long term.
Marginalization of the games lower level content comes from the attitude that only the end game content matters. This would be true if leveling were just a grind and rite of passage, but in a game designed from the outset to be fun and challenging through all levels, this need not be true. As an example, setting minimum level requirements on drops and situational gear needs will mean that "uber shiny raid ring" doesn't necessarily displace "slightly tarnished quest ring".
Pantheon has a chance to reset gamer expectations. It's all about the journey, not rushing to the destination.
Celandor said:
Heya Raroic. I agree with everything you said regarding end game content. I'm all in favour of contested content at all levels. My concern was more about preservation of the legacy content. I'd suggest we could also preserve the "new player experience" and replay value for veterans who want to come back after taking a break from the game, etc...
I don't agree that there has to be a path for new players to catch up. In my world catching up means going through the same hard knocks everyone else did to get to end game content. If it took 8 months of regular play to hit level 50 in 2017, it should take 8 months to hit level 50 in 2025. One of the major issues I've had with past games is when they start adding experience potions, bonus exp quests and hot zones with major experience modifiers. This simply reinforces the idea that the low level content has expired. Nothing to see here, move along.
For end game content, there will be fewer people in your guild with 6 max level alts. This will encourage guilds to pull in more individual players and have fairly significant impact on how raid loot gets dispersed.
Sure there will be people who expected WoW and will move on to other games with instant gratification, but I think you'll find there's a lot of hard core and legacy gamers out there who are begging for something to sink their teeth into long term.
Marginalization of the games lower level content comes from the attitude that only the end game content matters. This would be true if leveling were just a grind and rite of passage, but in a game designed from the outset to be fun and challenging through all levels, this need not be true. As an example, setting minimum level requirements on drops and situational gear needs will mean that "uber shiny raid ring" doesn't necessarily displace "slightly tarnished quest ring".
Pantheon has a chance to reset gamer expectations. It's all about the journey, not rushing to the destination.
I agree it is about the journey but it is also about the destination. Leveling can be looked at as a grind and even a rite of passage but that doesnt mean it cant be fun along the way. When you reached max level in EQ you felt like you accomplished something and probably had a lot of fun doing it. Bringing back the almighty "Ding" is a great thing. At some point though the majority of the player base will be a the destination. So the shift then focuses to the experience at the destination and the journey after that.
I should have clarified when I mentioned players catching up I was more referring to catching up gear wise at max level. I have no issues with keeping a leveling curve the same way. It is inevitable though that low level content will expire as a game matures and people reach their destination. Some people will want to replay stuff on alts others like to just focus on one character.
If you want to preserve content and make it last longer release expacs that dont increase level caps as fast and keeps the player base closer together in levels. Let the gear and other aspects like AA' define the characters.
Maybe a different kind of leveling. Like age takes a long time, but the skills can be highly developed. (Terry Practhett's, Old barbarian horde "when younger and stronger opponent lunged the blade, they simply were, where the blade was not" as a reasoning for how the barbarian horde became an old barbarian horde) . Banded armor, is repaired as maintenence. Or can be recrafted like metalurgy through the ages, tin, brass, Iron, steel, folded steel. Likewise silk, padding, arrow-proof "sandwiching" of cloth and hide (Asia-Pacific influence). The discovery in Peru of an ancient culture, that had no textiles at a time when everyone had textiles but the stone they had was beyond others. I appreciate the distinction you mention between raid targets vs dungeon/boss encounters.
I'm of the mindset that having some imbalances while at times annoying, actually make RPGs much more interesting and enjoyable. Hear me out here, if you have all those artificial safeguards in place to keep players at the same "power" you end up losing alot of the creativity and imagination that goes into finding what makes you the best of the best. I agree it would be more balanced, but it would make everyone more of the same which in my opinion hasn't ever been a successful formula for an MMO.
If you don't believe me name ONE MMO that was great that didn't have some imbalances(sometimes even major ones), and furthermore pretty much any great MMO that has been heavily tinkered with in the name of fairness and balance has lost its charm and spirit.(EQ, WoW, UO, VG all were great early on and were also very imbalanced in some areas, after many updates which made them all unquestionably more fair and balanced they all lost their "magic".) Like it or not, I think it's just one of those necessary evils, you'll never have perfect balance without sacrificing individuality. Because if you are able to have the freedom to set yourself apart, you're always going to end up with a few who outshine everyone else, and you're always going to upset someone because of it.
In my opinion high levels should be able to buff low levels, anyone should be able to loot anything and gain rep just like anyone else(because why wouldn't they? in the eyes of the commonlands folk a dead orc is a dead orc no matter who kills it ya know?) while those things do present some problems at times balance wise, any RPG can't be totally and completely fair and balanced without being watered down with abunch of invisible walls and training wheels.
Stats should have diminishing returns though, especially stats that are on equipment so items from 2 or 3 expacs ago still remain relevant.
But then again this is all just my opinion based on my history with MMOs, Pantheon might just find some perfect balance whilst still keeping the "magic" and shut me right up, and I hope it does, but I'd rather it be imbalanced and memorable than balanced and bland.
Heya Happytrees.
I see forcing players to kill level appropriate content to get rewards as the opposite of "training wheels". It removes a crutch (or two).
One thing that's always going to exist and I think devs are always going to be tweaking are class imbalances. I see balancing classes not so much about shutting up whiners who complain that some other class is OP, but rather about ensuring that the player population distributes itself somewhat across the available classes. Let's pick a random imaginary class: Rangers. Let's say they die first in every raid. They don't contribute anything that couldn't be done by other classes and their abilities don't complement other classes well for duoing. They level more slowly, they have a hard time soloing and they have to wear funny hats. One could argue they're badly designed as a class and grossly imbalanced. Why have rangers in game at all then? So somewhere between this extreme and a perfectly balanced set of classes is the reality and what arguably should be the target. Some classes are going to be better in solo situations, others duoing, others in full groups or raiding.
I would certainly agree that many games have been essentially ruined by tweaking the crap out of them, but I don't think we can blame this entirely on rebalancing so much as bowing to popular demand from the masses to make the games easier: adding portal systems, fast leveling mechanisms and trivializing content.
Pantheon promises to have a wide range of gear and a very horizontal set of situational requirements. There's going to be ample opportunity to min/max, explore the subtleties of your class and distinguish yourself based on your skills as a player. Depending on how you play, what gear and training you take on, you're going to be better set up for soloing, duoing, grouping or raiding. No matter how great you are, there's always going to that other guy who makes you look like a noob. He's going to do it based on skill, not because he's got gear that give his level 10 character the power of a level 30.
You make some really good points, I guess I'm just of the opinion that shutting off options of what you can do in the game or where you can go will never sound good to me.
But I guess we'll see how it turns out, I trust the guys at Visionary with it and have high hopes for the game either way.
I think we all agree that we want an MMO that expands over time. In fact, being able to expand a virtual world is one of the qualities of MMOs that draws me to both want to play and create them. Having new lands to explore, mobs to battle, and items to acquire is what keeps us around. Knowing that an MMO is never truly finished, that you can never truly complete it, is a quality that separates this genre from many others, and I think in a very good way. It's the 'never ending story'.
So we definitely plan on having expansions, and those expansions would likely include new areas to explore, new loot to acquire, new stories and quests, and even new game mechanics.
There's definitely a challenge in creating and then maintaining an MMO with these goals, and many of you have cited good examples of problems that can arise. But we're up to that challenge, trust me, otherwise we'd really be making games for a different genre.
Players do want to keep progressing. So yes, level limits will be raised and better, more powerful items obtained. This does create a situation that can lead to what has been for years called MUDflation (and I talk about that a bit in my blog about twinking, etc.). We do have lots of ideas on how to slow MUDflation, but we don't think it's necessary to stop MUDflation. In fact, stopping it would mean content stagnation, or a more closed or controlled economy, both of which we want to avoid.
The other problem that can occur, as many of you pointed out, is the 'old world' becoming obsolete and empty. This is definitely not desirable, neither for the player nor for the developer. Believe me, we don't want to pour a bunch of work into a zone or region, only to have it completely empty and ignored a few years later. Some older MMOs do in one sense have very large worlds and a ton of content, but then, if you look closer, 98% of the players are only playing in 5% of that world. For me, this really means that your world truly isn't *that* big. The challenge, then, is to keep the 'old world' interesting and have compelling reasons to visit those regions, even if they were introduced years ago.
I did see some comments against the 're-vamping' of zones, but I actually think it's essential to do so. I think if we're going to make a game that continues to expand, and if we're going to create new regions to explore and mobs to defeat that are interesting and compelling, then we also need to not abandon the older regions of the world. Indeed, we have a responsibility to revisit those areas, add and change the content (including the items that drop), and even tie in newer regions with older regions (say, with a quest line).
Another thing to keep in mind is that we're big on player driven economies. That means we want people to buy, sell, and trade items. That means that most items will not be no-trade, or even bind-on-equip (the obvious exceptions being quest items and the like). As I mentioned in this post and also talk about in my Twinking Blog, this will lead to some MUDflation, resulting in, eventually, lower level players having more powerful gear on a server that is a year old vs. a newly launched shard. In general, as long as it doesn't get too extreme, we're ok with this. We will have lots of reasons not to 'twink' your gear down, like needing to turn in an older item in a quest to get a newer item, having situational gear and therefore needing to hold onto more items in general, sacrificing no longer needed items at temples in exchange for beneficial long-term buffs, and more.
But, no matter what, eventually, as time passes, lower level players will have easier access to more powerful gear. And that is another reason older zones and regions need to be re-vamped on occasion. As lower level players become more powerful, so too should content meant for them become more challenging. And rewarding.
Again, all of this is certainly easier said than done, and there are many challenges, and making an MMO that lasts for years, that is fun to play for years, needs to expand, horizontally and vertically. And while I hope I've answered some questions and concerns posted in this thread, I'm sure I didn't get to all of them. Some of these challenges we are still working out, or involve some cool new mechanics that we're not ready to announce. That said, I'll check on this thread for a few days and try to answer your questions if I can.
In response to one particular post, yes we will likely limit how much a higher level player can buff a lower level player. We won't prohibit it, but the efficacy of the buff will likely be scaled. We really like the idea of a kind-hearted high level player passing by and buffing you, making your character a bit more powerful for a while. That's good stuff. Done right, that can even lead to some vertical interdependence. That said, without scaling it, you end up with high level players buffing low level players, turning them essentially into gods, allowing them to rip through content with no risk. That, we don't want. While it's probably impossible to totally stop 'power leveling', we also don't need to make it easy. In fact, I remember when I became disenchanted with a certain MMO. I had found a good group to play with, we were going through the content, my character was becoming more powerful, leveling up, and getting better gear. I was having fun. Then one day a leader in our guild told us lower level players to head to a certain dungeon. I thought to myself, oh, cool, let's hit this dungeon. But when we got there, we were told to wait. So we waited, and I wondered why we weren't fighting our way into it. Then suddenly a high level member of the guild appeared. He told us, hey, stay right there, don't move. He then went and slaughtered everything in the dungeon with ease. And since we were grouped with him, my experience skyrocketed. I leveled several times in a matter of minutes. Well, that's when I quit that game. Now my accomplishments had been trivialized. I discovered the 'right' way to play that game wasn't to engage level appropriate content and to level up enjoying that content, but rather to, by any means necessary, get myself as fast as possible to a level where I could participate in the 'end game'. Not my idea of fun.
But, what if you want to group with a friend, but that friend can play more than you, so he out-levels you, and now you can't group with him anymore. That sucks. One of the many things that keep people playing an MMO is because they enjoy interacting with their RL friends. So we have some ideas to address this too, some of which were tried to some degree in Vanguard. But our specific mechanics here may be a bit different, so all I'm going to say at this point is we're going to try to make it so people can keep grouping with their friends, but also avoid the experience in that other game that I described above. Can't be more specific at this point, though -- too early. We have some keen ideas, but some that also need to be tested in alpha and beta.
So scaling buffs, not getting experience when someone much higher in level is grouped with you... you will likely see some sort of these restrictions in Pantheon. Now this line of thinking then sometimes leads to the infamous 'trivial loot code', where a high level player killing a much lower level mob, with no risk whatsoever, still gets what that mob normally drops. This often leads to high level players disrupting lower level players experiences. It also means that if you want a certain item, you might be able to just level up enough, and then go back and get it, but at no risk.
Ok, but this is a tough one. What if you outleveled an area but never experienced it and want to go back to do so? Should we absolutely try to stop this with TLC or some other mechanic? I'll be honest with you -- we don't know yet. What we do know, is we're not fans of creating artificial limitations... we want a more open world, a more sandboxxy world. So flat out TLC we have issues with. But we will likely have to address the issue somehow. And that's why we depend on our creativity and ideas as well as yours and love to read brainstorming on this issue. It's also why beta testing is so important -- it allows us to try some new ideas out, some perhaps to address some of these controversial issues, and then either keep them if they work and players like them, or yank them and try another idea. So there are definitely ideas we have, some of which we're going to hold close and experiment with in beta. And there are some controversial issues that we're not going to announce this early on what our solution is, and set that into stone. And, in general, we're more fond of positive reinforcement than negative.
Well, that's plenty enough said for now. If you got this far, thanks for reading :)
Two ideas/suggestions;
I think preventing early world content from becoming ghost towns is practically impossible. You can not keep your subscription base level one forever. Even if your combat is fun and your classes are amazing (which EQ and VG IMO have the best of both out of all MMOs) players can only reroll so many characters and even then they have to go adventure back through those early areas and how many times can they do that before they get tired of the zones. The good news is, Pantheon will not have the swiss army character class system where it's one class to rule them all. If you want to play a healer and a tank you will have to create two separate characters which is good for keeping players active in those early zones. If you can roll ONE character that can be all roles then there is never a need to be a low level again therefore never needing to go back through those earlier areas. One idea mentioned elsewhere was a player sacrificing their high level character to the digital gods and in return getting some kind of, dare I say it, 'prestige' ability for a brand new character. This isn't a bad idea at all and would encourage players to become level 1 again and remain active in those early zones.
Another idea, when first creating the game's zones/areas, or even when creating new areas down the road in an expansion or update or what-not, create the zones with the intent to build on them down the road. Pantheon is a group oriented MMO from the beginning so there will need to be hefty zones/areas early on. Build these zones with an end goal for low level players but then with areas that low level players can not enter.
Instead of explaining the idea I'm just going to give an example. You are level 10 and decide to get into a group and you all decide to adventure within that castle we seen the other day in the screen shot. You traverse the entire castle and finally make it to the final area being the throne room and defeat the lich lord undead warrior wizard king. Upon leaving the room you notice some levers and switches that do not react to your tugs and pulls. So you leave with not only the wizard king's amulet of hawtness but with also the memory of those weird switches and levers.
Now what the devs did here was create a zone from the beginning and planted TWO seeds here. ONE, the seed that will remain within your head for your lifespan in Pantheon of what the hell was that throne room about. TWO, the seed that is the catacombs that they will implement later on in an expansion. All they have to do in the beginning is give themselves the means to come back to it later at another time. When the 3rd expac is being created 2 years down the road, the devs can design a catacomb system underneath the castle that is designed for a raid force of max level players.
Now, years down the road this low level castle still has low level players adventuring it's upper levels while higher level players are traversing to it's lower level raid zone. This also encourages interaction with the lower levels and the higher levels.
What if low level mobs remained dangerous to some extent for high level players ?
What if a mob that was severely outleveled would be more likely to call for help or quickly try to run away when attacked.
In most games low level mobs can't even touch a high level character but what if a group of low level mobs could still do some good damage to a high level.
If there wasn't huge differences between the hit points of a low level character and a high level one then mobs of all levels could remain a threat.
Speaking of hit point numbers I'd like to see lower the better over all... it really gets stupid when a tank has 10,000 hps imo... Would be nice if a max level tank had like 1000 hps or something...
dps doesn't need to be in the thousands either like doing 30dps should be pretty darn good...
Sorry it was a bit jumbled ... not fully awake...
Kiz~
Thanks for the response Brad.
I like the notion of keeping players coming back to lower level zones for quests or what not. They can even pull a Kithicor Forrest where during the day time it was lower level then at night it became a higher level zone. That will keep lower and high level players bumping into each other. Like another person posted as well putting a high level castle in the middle of lower level zone will keep players crossing paths.
In regards to the catching up of younger players the more I ponder it having a way for higher level players to group/interact with lower level players is pretty important. Simply put if I am max level 2 years into a game I can tell my buddy Joe hey you need to try this game. He then picks it up and wants to play in the same group. If I tell him I cant group with him for 8 months due to level difference he might not stick with the game. Some people will say just roll an alt to play with them and thats great but not everyone likes playing alts. I am not opposed to high levels sitting outside the group of lower levels helping them get exp. This does two things. One it allows my buddy Joe and I to still hang out and it makes him look a rockstar because his high level buddy came and helped out some lower levels. Yes, Yes, I know this can be exploited and be turned into powerleveling but I also know you can moderate it. I am sure they will flush out the ideas and figure out the ways for high and low levels to interact with out it being game breaking. Anything and everything has the potential of being exploited by someone. Its a matter of finding what is acceptable and what isnt.
I like the idea of a trivial loot code from the farming prevention aspect, but I understand the hindrance from a level-range/old zone perspective. The only idea I can come up with is a kind of "loot lock out" where the player can only loot said special item a certain number of times (5?) to allow human mess-ups in quest order (it happens) but still allow achievement, since once obtained there would be no reason to re-obtain it 4 times. it might carry over to raid targets as well.
Also I think Cities and towns should be natural starting points/jumping off points. As someone mentioned earlier, I also like seeing higher level players there, perhaps on to some place else, or as someone mentioned earlier, running past me to a deeper place in the dungeon. At a higher level the travel is not so bad from a city hub since you know the way, but for a younger player, just getting and staying in the hills is quite the something. and starting or gathering there, also allows the higher level players to drive-by buff while waiting or make space in their packs. Along with some reason to be there, along a quest line or harbringer of new expansion, or needed flag/hail/intel for an advanced raid target that all the younger players with big ears can overhear maybe and wonder.
I, too was outleveled by some initial friends, and it took a while before I found new friends who were on the same sort of schedule and play habits. Yes I did feel I may not be "doing it right" and was sensitive to snarky criticism in groups from- oddly usually from necro's. Although I did relish the shadenfreud of seeing 55 level necro's having to learn group dymanics like a level 5, so they could group and even get in raids. oh how the self proclaimed mighty have fallen. I would always role play them an "out" by saying things like " well go easy on him, I mean, he has mostly dealt with dead things and here we are, the living!" The cool ones would catch on and it helped defuse things. It is necessary to appease those that may not be able to stick with it until they get in that "groove" like I did? Sometimes it is at that point, that people join guilds. ON top of that, it is then the pain of "backflagging" when all are that level in the guild.
*confesssion*
*sigh* . Ok, regarding TLC on EQ1 the mages had a trick. Say you were level 60, and you discovered a nice long quest for a rice robe that involved alot of travel and crafting of unigue items, and it was an upgrade (Grand robe of the oracle) but some of the drops needed were on level 40 monsters. Under TLC, it would never drop. So...what we learned was, we would summon an elemental at that age range 36-40, and then arm it with all the summoned gear for elementals obtained at higher levels- essentially twinking the elemental but with summoned gear(eyebrows and index finger pointing up implying justification of being just over the right side of the grey moral line)- and of course fire shield and send it off against said beasty. Then the mage would run far far away to be out of something range and wait, floating, watching the health bar of elemental. Said mage would then watch for the young elemental at low-health running back to the mage. Mage would then search for where the battle was fought, find the corpse of the beasty, and voila, behold the "trivial" item. I only did it a few times and only when no none else as in the zone or if no one was going after that particular monster.
sorry.
What I find most encouraging is seeing that the developers are reading the comments and suggestions on this forum and seriously considering all options.
If I learned anything from Brad's post it's that we're not all going to get what we want but we're going to have a blast for years to come reaping the benefits of the vision and skills of the VRI team. Brad, Chris, et al recognize that building a game like this is a partnership between the developers and the player community. Unlike politicians, they are making long term decisions for the benefit of the game with an eye to where it's going to be five or even ten years from now.
Like an excited puppy, I pee a bit in my chair when I read posts like that. Good thing I still have my old supply of adult diapers from EQ1 raiding days.
An idea to prevent high level characters from camping low level areas for loot is to procure a high level 'exchange' vendor that exchanges high level loot for mass quantities of low level loot. An example;
First tier of blacksmithing requires iron ore to create a set of armor. Fifth tier of blacksmithing requires mithril ore to create a high level set of armor. If a high level player needs iron ore for whatever reason instead of them camping a low level area for a mass amount of iron, they can camp the high level zone to get mithril ore and then exchange it at the vendor. The vendor could exchange 1 mithril ore for 10 iron ore or some other number. Or if they needed leather they could exchange their high level rhino iron hides for a multitude of wolf hides. A number of items could be exchanged in this fashion I'm sure.
This also opens up options for players. You can go harvest your own mats and exchange them or just buy them off another player via auction house or what-have-you. As long as the exchange system has a proper rate it should not be able to be exploited. Well, at least not exploited very easily...
On the topic of keeping low level areas alive: One of the more incredible newbie zone experiences I've ever had was in ArcheAge. I know its a considerably different game, but having areas throughout each zone where players can build and engage in activities (farming/crafting) on a daily basis really brought the world to life and created one of the most immersive experiences to date. I say this not as a fan of ArcheAge, because despite some really great ideas, the game fell way short of its potential; yet I still have to give credit where its due. There was hustle and bustle and people of all levels around every dock (trade routes), every lake (fishing), and throughout every zone going to and from the main city.
Regarding trivial loot code, I don't think there's ever an appropriate time for that. Lower level items, whether crafting materials or rare items, should always be less expensive than higher level materials or items. Thus, organically a higher level player is encouraged by the reward of higher level content rather than to waste exorbitant amounts of time in low level areas.
Dullahan said:
On the topic of keeping low level areas alive: One of the more incredible newbie zone experiences I've ever had was in ArcheAge. I know its a considerably different game, but having areas throughout each zone where players can build and engage in activities (farming/crafting) on a daily basis really brought the world to life and created one of the most immersive experiences to date.
I really like this idea. And I would handle it as such;
Using starting cities, or mid level cities, to facilitate the housing system (IF Pantheon has housing for players). These starting cities are BIG and have lots of vacant plots of land and NPCs who own plots of land. These NPCs have the option to sell their deeds to players where the players can either keep the house as is or tear it down and build their own OR players can just buy a plot of land. The housing system details is another discussion but can have all sorts of cool features like crafting stations, farming area or resources, and NPC's that act as vendors or even player owned quest giving NPCs.
Players can craft away and place their items for sale on their 'vendor' NPCs. OR they can set their 'quest' NPCs to ask low level players to kill X amount of wolves and return 20 wolf pelts. The player sets his quest NPC to whatever mats or resources he needs and sets a reward amount for completion, 50 gold for 20 pelts. The lowb kills 20 wolves, brings back the pelts (while also gaining xp), and collects the reward that the high level player set their quest NPC at. I LOATHE kill/fetch quests but utilizing them in this fashion wouldn't be so bad and as long as I'm not doing a fetch quest within the main storyline (or any dev made questline) it's all good.
All of this helps populate the starting cities, and even mid level cities, helps interaction between low level and high level players, helps avoid high level players camping low level areas for mats/resources, and helps promote commerce and economy.
Aradune said:Now this line of thinking then sometimes leads to the infamous 'trivial loot code', where a high level player killing a much lower level mob, with no risk whatsoever, still gets what that mob normally drops. This often leads to high level players disrupting lower level players experiences. It also means that if you want a certain item, you might be able to just level up enough, and then go back and get it, but at no risk.
Ok, but this is a tough one. What if you outleveled an area but never experienced it and want to go back to do so? Should we absolutely try to stop this with TLC or some other mechanic? I'll be honest with you -- we don't know yet. What we do know, is we're not fans of creating artificial limitations... we want a more open world, a more sandboxxy world. So flat out TLC we have issues with. But we will likely have to address the issue somehow. And that's why we depend on our creativity and ideas as well as yours and love to read brainstorming on this issue.
I'm glad to see you and your team are against flat our TLC. It would break my heart if you guys had awesome items like in Everquest (Mask of Deception comes to mind specifically) and yet only let people within a certain level range acquire that item. I honestly think that being forced to stop my leveling in order to acquire a specific item I want before it is unavailable (Due to TLC) is much more disruptive than a high level coming back and camping the rare spawn at no risk.
To be perfectly honest, (perhaps I'm alone in this regard) but I never had a problem when a specific item was camped by a higher level. If anything, when I was leveling up and saw a higher level in the zone, it gave me a sense of adventure. That a higher level is coming back to this zone specifically for an item that has value... I wonder what he could be after!
More often than not these higher levels were pleasant people who offered buff to all of us lowbies in-between their spawn timers. If anything, that created more social dynamics than it took away from.
I'm sure I'll take some grief for this comment, but if one individual is going out of their way to camp specific mobs for items for their alt, that in essence decreases the overall supply (Since it's for personal use and not public distribution) therefore, the demand for those items goes up. Ultimately, this also increases the "awe" factor of rare items, because now they're even more rare. Not to mention, this gives those who have achieved maximum level something to do.
In short, I would be fine if there was no TLC and no system was implemented to stop higher levels from camping rarer lower level items at no risk. I think if you do try to implement something (Which I am not necessarily against either) it would simply have to be done well.
@Furor - nope, you're not alone. I never minded the high level player camping specific items. There were cases where it was farming for in game coin (FBSS, GEBs etc spring to mind) but there was plenty of times where it simply ended up as guilds farming a specific item for higher end content (Froglok crown in UGuk, fishbone earring, Lodizal shell, etc) because of specific buffs, resists, etc. I always thought that was cool. Golden Efreeti Boots and the Shining Metallic Robe both come to mind, and I waited my turn for weeks to get in on those camps. That wait made those items more meaningful.
And the TLC was always a horrid idea. Never liked it. If the game distributes loot properly, makes quest loot specific to the class/quest, NO DROP, etc...then the times where a high level would even be camping low level items would likely be fewer and farther between anyway, and in reality, they were pretty rare in EQ1. There's honestly no need for the trivial loot code.
Not for nothing, but competition for spawns and camps in the open world was part of the game's charm and community. Building the game to limit that makes no sense in a game that is trying to be all about community.
Aradune said:Ok, but this is a tough one. What if you outleveled an area but never experienced it and want to go back to do so? Should we absolutely try to stop this with TLC or some other mechanic? I'll be honest with you -- we don't know yet. What we do know, is we're not fans of creating artificial limitations... we want a more open world, a more sandboxxy world. So flat out TLC we have issues with. But we will likely have to address the issue somehow. And that's why we depend on our creativity and ideas as well as yours and love to read brainstorming on this issue. It's also why beta testing is so important -- it allows us to try some new ideas out, some perhaps to address some of these controversial issues, and then either keep them if they work and players like them, or yank them and try another idea. So there are definitely ideas we have, some of which we're going to hold close and experiment with in beta. And there are some controversial issues that we're not going to announce this early on what our solution is, and set that into stone. And, in general, we're more fond of positive reinforcement than negative.
Well, that's plenty enough said for now. If you got this far, thanks for reading :)
Not being able to get back and explore and area because I was interested in a different area and chose to explore there instead was of no end of a frustration and completely diminished my in-game experience.
I wanted to have some sort of flag to either stop or slow down my leveling accent in order to be able to explore all areas possible, or plateau my experience in order to see all the content available to my level.
Then when I chose to, I could then turn this flag off and start the experience growth back up and get to a whole new level of exploration.
To me, this is the game I wanted and would enjoy
So glad to see the teams views on TLC and I can’t wait to find out what is the result!
I also hated zone revamps. I think Freeport and the new Bazaar are the worst zone-things to ever happen to EQ. That said, I hate when zones we loved and cherished become trivial. I would prefer that mobs also gain experience and level up. I mean the world makes more sense that way. I know it wouldn't really work but I think mobs should age and level up. So, for example, we could fight in our beloved zones a little longer.
It wouldn't really work but I miss some of those old zones that are just ghost towns these days.
fazool said:I also hated zone revamps. I think Freeport and the new Bazaar are the worst zone-things to ever happen to EQ. That said, I hate when zones we loved and cherished become trivial. I would prefer that mobs also gain experience and level up. I mean the world makes more sense that way. I know it wouldn't really work but I think mobs should age and level up. So, for example, we could fight in our beloved zones a little longer.
It wouldn't really work but I miss some of those old zones that are just ghost towns these days.
If your idea of mobs leveling up were applied, how would new players who joined the game a year or more later ever manage to survive when the newbie zones are filled with lvl 30+ mobs? Just as you enjoyed leveling through those zones other joining the game later or even existing players wanting to experience low-level zones they didn't experience the first time by playing alts should also be able to enjoy those zones. If you do not keep a solid 'New Player Experience' focus on the game your game will eventually wither and die. No new blood will quickly kill a game.
That said, I felt the revamp of Freeport was great. Why shouldn't a city grow over the years? This update doesn't invalidate or even contradict my initial statement. Various races and class can still start in the city as the newbie areas around it are still there. Kelethin could have grown in size. Where I had issues with EQ1 zone revamps was their poor implementation blending the new graphic style with the old graphics. Don't half-ass a graphic overhaul by only updating a few zones. Do it all at one time even if you have to wait.