AgentGenX said:My thoughts on raids. I'm not big on raiding, I'm more a pre-max level enjoyment type. But I think the game HAS to have max-level raids. There has to be something more to work towards - or you end up with utter crap like Guild Wars 2. No I don't care about 'fractals' or whatever lame stuff they have in at max levels. It sucks. And as far as raids - I don't like participation caps. I don't like them because it divides the population of guilds. If you are a guild, you should do things together, not "oh, we already have a 10-man squad, sorry! You'll need to start a second one." You can replace that 10 with a 25, 40 or whatever. No one should be left behind because of a lame cap.
As for lower level raids, I love that VR is going to add some pre-max level content in like this. I wouldn't consider it a 'waste of time and resources' like some are saying, unless those people plan on blitzing past all the content they can to get to that max level and start their uber elite 10-man group that no one else will be allowed in! So fun! And so not impressive. Lower level raids don't need to be anything complex....they could be just like Vox and Naggy were, two rare uber mobs deep in a dungeon that took a raid of people to take down. There's nothing hard about that, just make a mob spawn in an already existing place.
And this is using the word 'raid' as a noun, in EQ times it was used as a verb as well..it didn't have to be A RAID, it was, "hey, we're going to raid somewhere tonight as a guild, let's find a under populated dungeon and take it over!" As an example we did this in Clan Runnyeye once. Hell we even did it with the now defunct Pantheon Rising guild in p1999, when we 'raided' Najena, groups were formed based on level and assigned to camps they were able to handle, and we got numerous drops for the entire guild. It was a fun guild event. I bring these examples up because no special mob needs to be created to have a 'raid'. And when they do create one, they don't need to create an entire new area for it (we already know it won't be instanced (thank God)).
I don't like participation caps. I don't like them because it divides the population of guilds. If you are a guild, you should do things together, not "oh, we already have a 10-man squad, sorry! You'll need to start a second one." You can replace that 10 with a 25, 40 or whatever. No one should be left behind because of a lame cap.
I don't like participation caps. I don't like them because it divides the population of guilds. If you are a guild, you should do things together, not "oh, we already have a 10-man squad, sorry! You'll need to start a second one." You can replace that 10 with a 25, 40 or whatever. No one should be left behind because of a lame cap.
Sorry but this really needs to be stressed, it is nearly a game-breaker for me, and I could not agree more. I also really wish we could apply this to group sizes as well, if you want to bring 6 for a group in a dungeon, do it, if you want 8 or 9, that's great too. There should be consequences for doing this, like decreased exp gain, and the obvious, having to split loot with 8 or 9 instead of 6, but there is no reason if i have 10 friends on I shouldn't be able to play with all of them.
Wow. Yea and bringing in more people then content is designed for is not game breaking? The first words that come to my mind are easy mode, zergfest, and cheating, disrespectful, and borderlne trolling. I guess nobody wants challenge and would just prefer a 3d chat room? Also, what ever happened to guild management? Sounds like less of a mechanics problem and more of a guild leadership problem. Never had any problems with this in other games. You cant schedule 2 raids for the same night? Group X does raid A. Group Y does raid B. Simple as that.
Amsai said:Wow. Yea and bringing in more people then content is designed for is not game breaking? The first words that come to my mind are easy mode, zergfest, and cheating, disrespectful, and borderlne trolling. I guess nobody wants challenge and would just prefer a 3d chat room? Also, what ever happened to guild management? Sounds like less of a mechanics problem and more of a guild leadership problem. Never had any problems with this in other games. You cant schedule 2 raids for the same night? Group X does raid A. Group Y does raid B. Simple as that.
Cheating? Disrespectful? Trolling? Lets not get carried away.
You have to ask yourself whether the primary objective in an MMORPG should be mechanical challenge or it should be a mix of mechanic and social challenge. If they wanted to design Pantheon for strictly challenge, they would just make a multiplayer game like Borderlands, Warframe, or any MOBA where everything is controlled, and players have hardcoded limitations to the number of players in an instance. That design is the opposite end of the spectrum from games where the social aspect is meant to be prominent.
Its starting to sound more and more like you want a lobby game.
@Dullahan
I dont think Im really getting carried away? If thats how it makes me feel, then thats how it makes me feel. Im trying to put myself in the shoes of a 6 man group and how Id feel when some guild rolls up 40 deep on content designed for 6.
I dont want a lobby game and all my discussion has centered around an open world game. I defintely dont want everything controlled. Im asking for reasonable controls and very few of them. As for the games you mentioned? I hate Borderlands, Never even bothered to try Warframe, and never met a MOBA that I liked. Dont paint everything black and white, there are always shades of grey. You cant say that just because I want reasonable mechanics in place to improve Pantheon that Im all in for instanced, lobby multiplayer. And I agree with the social aspect to a degree, but what some people seem to be asking for isnt a mix of social and mechanics. Its seems heavily unballanced towards social. To the point I have to question the motives of it. Is it really just social interaction or is it for the ability to zerg over any content and anyone that gets in the way? You seem pretty sincere in your desire for social mechanics. But I cant help but feel most people want an "I win button". And as much as I love playing with a large group of people, I would never want to abuse it or turn everything into "Public Events" like in GW2.
Also, as Ive said Im a FFXI vet. Back in the day FFXI was an awesome game, not the crap that its turned into today. Yes even with instances it was still a great game. But despite that it was extremely group and social oriented. There was no LFG, there was no instant teleport to the dungeon. Open world or instance you had to physically go to the entrance, after you created a group from scratch. You couldnt do most things alone. The amount of social mechanics and interdependency in that game was just insanely wonderous. So it seems you might be OVERLY worried about the social aspect in my opinion.
Amsai said:Wow. Yea and bringing in more people then content is designed for is not game breaking? The first words that come to my mind are easy mode, zergfest, and cheating, disrespectful, and borderlne trolling. I guess nobody wants challenge and would just prefer a 3d chat room? Also, what ever happened to guild management? Sounds like less of a mechanics problem and more of a guild leadership problem. Never had any problems with this in other games. You cant schedule 2 raids for the same night? Group X does raid A. Group Y does raid B. Simple as that.
The number of players that content is designed for should not be so apparent as it has been in recent games, do you ever remember raiding Cazic Thule in Plane of Fear and thinking, man we shouldn't bring any more than 24 because that's what he's designed for? No, the amount of players you needed to kill him was an ever changing dynamic that was based on all kinds of factors, how many mobs did you leave up, how geared are your players, what is your class makeup, do you have a lot of hard dps, do you have enough tanks?
I think we have come to one of those issues that will test Brad's resolve to be a niche game or trying to make it all things to all players. I think capping raids/unlimited combatants will be an issue for many of us that will be a big one. For me, it's the difference between making a game to challenge us and one that hands out participation ribbons. I despise the thought of if you can't execute, just bring more people. Definately doesn't sound like a game I would want to play.
Filzin said:I think we have come to one of those issues that will test Brad's resolve to be a niche game or trying to make it all things to all players. I think capping raids/unlimited combatants will be an issue for many of us that will be a big one. For me, it's the difference between making a game to challenge us and one that hands out participation ribbons. I despise the thought of if you can't execute, just bring more people. Definately doesn't sound like a game I would want to play.
I guess EverQuest also sounds like a game you wouldn't want to play.
Everquest was better after instituting a cap on how many raid members could engage a target...
Groups need to be 6 man and I think I'll make a whole thread about this.
Raids should be 6 groups of 6 people IMO.
Raid content should take into account multiple raid groups competing or cooperating while engaging with it .
Risk vs Reward will never be balanced without caps on group and raid members.
Kiz~
Dullahan said:Filzin said:I think we have come to one of those issues that will test Brad's resolve to be a niche game or trying to make it all things to all players. I think capping raids/unlimited combatants will be an issue for many of us that will be a big one. For me, it's the difference between making a game to challenge us and one that hands out participation ribbons. I despise the thought of if you can't execute, just bring more people. Definately doesn't sound like a game I would want to play.
I guess EverQuest also sounds like a game you wouldn't want to play.
Fair point. I don't currently, but I can't say how much my tastes have changed in what, almost 15 years? Only thing I can say for certain, is I have participated in both capped and uncapped raids and certainly prefer capped. Sounds to me like you and I don't want to play the same type of game, no harm in that, just the way it goes.
The problem I have with capped raids, is that it ties the hands of the developers. Once you make a rule like that, they will be confined to them in everything they create.
In EQ, they had no such restrictions and the game that resulted has been unparalleled since (though some group content in Vanguard was on par). Some content took 1 person, some 3, some a full group. Some a couple groups. Other raids, 3-4 groups. Then there was content for 50 people, and even some mobs that could only be killed with 75 or more. That sort of variety and random nature made the game much more enjoyable, mysterious, and realistic to me. Whereas, knowing that all other content is tuned to be killed with exactly 6 or 32 player raids, really removes so much of that mystique.
On a side note, there were encounters in EQ that were thought to take 30-50 players, that I did with half those numbers. Then there were times when having more people on those same raids caused us to fail because of the complications associated with trying to keep undergeared players alive. The point is, if content is done right, merely having more players doesn't mean you win the fight.
I prefer the greater and more intimate social interaction of small groups and area chat. The only thing social about raids is the willingness of the participants to accept the commands of a few know-it-alls and the ranting and raving during loot distribution. I sure hope this game tries to be different than EQ when it comes to end game progression, rewards and which audience to focus on.
Angrykiz said:Everquest was better after instituting a cap on how many raid members could engage a target...
Groups need to be 6 man and I think I'll make a whole thread about this.
Raids should be 6 groups of 6 people IMO.
Raid content should take into account multiple raid groups competing or cooperating while engaging with it .
Risk vs Reward will never be balanced without caps on group and raid members.
Kiz~
Yet the majority of players on P99, and also nearly every soul who talks fondly of Everquest, says that the game basically died in their hearts after Velious, and those things were instituted after that point. If you think that Everquest was better after Velious, you're in an extreme minority.
Regardless of your stance on raiding, Pantheon has to have them, or it will not succeed. Using that as a given, it makes sense to me to progress in a discussion as to how to best design and implement raids. This is a discussion I would very much like to be a part of.
That said, this thread seemed to be asking a simple question at its start: what is raiding and why is it important?
For me, those answers are simple: raiding is about teamwork, strategy, tactics, coordination, communication, and socializing. It represents the pinnacle of social gaming in almost every aspect...and it seems obvious to me that an MMO is the pinnacle of social gaming (though I have to acknowledge my bias there).
Consider the issue as metaphor: One person in a room, solving a puzzle. Two people would make it easier, right? Right! Supposing they don't grab the same pieces all the time, or only see the same part of the puzzle, or that they speak the same language or have some other way of communicating effectively, or that they are both trying to assemble the puzzle, not disassemble it, etc, etc...
Raiding is, in this metaphor, using (x) number of people to solve increasingly complex and intricate puzzles within set parameters, and with each new person added, the solving gets a little bit more challenging.
Its not only fun, its rewarding in ways that some other parts of the game can't be!
Z
Well first of all, whoever said above that it sounds like less of a mechanics problem and more of a guild leadership problem; if you have 13 capable guildies pining to go on that raid - but it's only a 10-man raid - um yeah, that's a mechanics problem. But uh..that's just common sense. Anyway, I understand Filzin's concern about not wanting Pantheon raids to turn in to the type of raid where you just bring more people if you can't execute. I also think Rallyd brings up valid points as for why a larger amount of people could still fail due to several variables. I am still concerned with guildmates being cut out due to caps.
How would a capped encounter be done in Pantheon? We know there will be very few instances, so raids will probably be open world, and I think that's what most of us want. So if it's in the open world, and we have a cap - say 25 people are on this raid. How will it be handled as far as outside players affecting the fight? Is it a locked encounter? Does that mean non-raid participants would be able to be dancing amisdt the engaged raid group, with none of the raid mob's abilities affecting them?
Rallyd said:Angrykiz said:Everquest was better after instituting a cap on how many raid members could engage a target...
Groups need to be 6 man and I think I'll make a whole thread about this.
Raids should be 6 groups of 6 people IMO.
Raid content should take into account multiple raid groups competing or cooperating while engaging with it .
Risk vs Reward will never be balanced without caps on group and raid members.
Kiz~
Yet the majority of players on P99, and also nearly every soul who talks fondly of Everquest, says that the game basically died in their hearts after Velious, and those things were instituted after that point. If you think that Everquest was better after Velious, you're in an extreme minority.
I think there are a lot of players who would agree with me that Planes of Power was the height of EQ1...
Kiz~
AgentGenX said:Well first of all, whoever said above that it sounds like less of a mechanics problem and more of a guild leadership problem; if you have 13 capable guildies pining to go on that raid - but it's only a 10-man raid - um yeah, that's a mechanics problem. But uh..that's just common sense. Anyway, I understand Filzin's concern about not wanting Pantheon raids to turn in to the type of raid where you just bring more people if you can't execute. I also think Rallyd brings up valid points as for why a larger amount of people could still fail due to several variables. I am still concerned with guildmates being cut out due to caps.
How would a capped encounter be done in Pantheon? We know there will be very few instances, so raids will probably be open world, and I think that's what most of us want. So if it's in the open world, and we have a cap - say 25 people are on this raid. How will it be handled as far as outside players affecting the fight? Is it a locked encounter? Does that mean non-raid participants would be able to be dancing amisdt the engaged raid group, with none of the raid mob's abilities affecting them?
Just like they did it in Vanguard imo...
Kiz~
Id like to hear how they did it in VG. In XI you had max alliance being 3 partys of 6. But if you were skilled/geared well enough you could go with less. Just not more. Also anyone not in the aliance that had claim on a mob could still take damage if they were too close. And yes it was locked to that group once engauged and until they killed mob or were wiped. No outside help was a command. But everyone had it enabled. Skills couldnt target mob or players. Except raise, but thats shouldnt have been allowed til a full wipe imo.
Also, have some compromise suggestions. But I was waiting to see ifthe other side of this discussion eould even come to middle ground.
Soloing, grouping and raiding are competing play styles. How can Brad shut down soloers and not raiders? Both are counterproductive to the intended content and audience. That he is even waffling over raiding has me greatly troubled and as a fan of both soloing and grouping, it also has me more than a bit pissed. There is no middle ground given to soloers, I see no reason to do so for raiders. There will be token solo content according to him, there should only be token raiding content as well. Group content and rewards should be the pinnacle of achievement in this game and that means crafting should be a group effort for their best products too.
In Vanguard you simply got locked out if you weren't in the raid group that engaged the raid mob.
In addition to this if you killed said raid mob you were flagged for 3-5 days and this flag would prevent you from engaging this mob again until it was gone.
Guilds that had 2 full raid groups would strategically divide so that they would get 2 kills out of their flags or even log in alts to fill in a second raid.
Very high end encounters would straight up banish you if you were not in the raid and you engaged the raid mob... this was mostly saved for ring events or other multi part battles.
Raid mobs had specific circumstances that if met would reward you with a better loot table.. this always involved a more difficult strategy for beating said mob.
I'm sure there is more I'm missing but that is the basics of it,
Kiz~
P.S. This topic has more to do with that feeling of epicness that raid targets bring to a game... How are you gonna fight gods and dragons with just one group, to me that sounds absurd. How boring would a game be that doesn't have these massive boss at the end of the progression. If you take raids out of these old school mmo's their longevity drops sharply. I know that personally without huge raid bosses to look forward to I won't have much motivation to even level up to the endgame.
Vorthanion said:Soloing, grouping and raiding are competing play styles. How can Brad shut down soloers and not raiders? Both are counterproductive to the intended content and audience. That he is even waffling over raiding has me greatly troubled and as a fan of both soloing and grouping, it also has me more than a bit pissed. There is no middle ground given to soloers, I see no reason to do so for raiders. There will be token solo content according to him, there should only be token raiding content as well. Group content and rewards should be the pinnacle of achievement in this game and that means crafting should be a group effort for their best products too.
Raid content is group content, just multi-group content. Soloing...well, it's not group related in any way.
I'm representing myself and the way I think here. That is my opinion and I don't expect every gamer to hold to my opinion. Bristlebane's whiskers how boring a world that would be!
My opinion is also such: I can't imagine an epic world where the most epic fight is tailored for just a single group to conquer. It is too foreign a concept for my particular gaming tastes. That doesn't make you wrong. That doesn't make me right. That just makes us individuals with individual hopes for this virtual world.
Vorthanion said:Soloing, grouping and raiding are competing play styles. How can Brad shut down soloers and not raiders? Both are counterproductive to the intended content and audience. That he is even waffling over raiding has me greatly troubled and as a fan of both soloing and grouping, it also has me more than a bit pissed. There is no middle ground given to soloers, I see no reason to do so for raiders. There will be token solo content according to him, there should only be token raiding content as well. Group content and rewards should be the pinnacle of achievement in this game and that means crafting should be a group effort for their best products too.
First, it makes total sense to shut down soloing in a massively multiplayer online rpg. By definition, its being created to be multiplayer, and soloing is the antithesis of that. Raiding on the other hand, is very much a massively multiplayer form of gameplay.
I'm not sure why you keep harping on this as if the dev team didn't come out and say grouping is their first priority. They understand that raiding, especially in a non-lobby game, will be something only a small minority engage in.
Aradune said:
That said, data says that only 10-15% of players actively raid. So while, as stated, we will have raid encounters, and we will reward players for beating raid encounters with some nice drops, if that was the only way to get the best loot we would be going against our vision of creating a game mostly about grouping, with solo and raid content secondary. So one of the many things we are thinking through and theory crafting about is how to create group encounters that drop great loot as well. Crafting will play a part, and we have other ideas too, many of which will need to be tested and tweaked with during alpha and beta.
Perhaps you should do a little more reading before making doom and gloom posts.
Rallyd said:Good lord don't bring WoW into the discussion in any way shape or form of how raiding is to be done, it was horrible in comparison to EQ1. And Diablo 3 is a lobby based hack and slash, we want none of this in a good community driven MMORPG.
Thanks for the hysterical removal of context reply. :rolleyes:
Did I say WoW "raids"? No. I said look at heroic instances and the challenge system for how to have superior rewards for superior difficulty without resorting to the raid model of throwing 70+ bodies at the problem. Oh wait, wasn't that kinda borne from the EQ1 uber guild's competing over who could kill RaidBoss_01 with the fewest people, just for bragging rights? First to put RaidBoss_01 on farm. First to kill RaidBoss_01 without using Slow? Fewest clerics invited when killing RaidBoss_01. Before devs were putting it into games, guilds were putting it in their meta for forum superiority. That's where the heroic instance, challenge and achievement systems came from. Coding the bragging rights meta.
Now, why I mentioned Diablo 3, KNOWING FULL WELL IT IS A LOOT PINATA, ARPG LOBBY GAME, NOT AN MMO, THANKS FOR BEING SO LITERAL, CAPTAIN SANCTIMONY, is because the difficulty settings and greater rift system are ways to push the difficulty to justify pushing the rewards, all while keeping the body count fixed at a max of 4 players. In an MMO, it's quite simple to replicate by locking max players in an instance to a single group, but having absurdly difficuly content. At first blush, maybe the first year, everyone says "impossible!!" Eventually, someone will have the right gear, the right skills, the right cooperative gameplay and synergy, and what was impossible is now possible, and a month later is on farm. With a single group.
I was in no way suggesting replicating all of the actual raid mechanics of Wow, although many of those mechanics work very well for adding difficulty and fun in all sorts of creative ways. What I was suggesting is that raids are just one way to crank difficulty, but other games with other mechanics have shown plenty of other ways to skin the "hardest possible content" cat without throwing bodies at it.
Maybe a raid is the classic "bring 71 friends, hope for the best" kinda thing. Maybe it is open world, let's zerg that fool kinda thing. Or maybe, you take a page from other games and do something like putting a raid level mob in a single group challenge arena or something, and should they ever manage to pull it off, they get raid level loot for accomplishing the darn near impossible. Having played all sorts of games in all sorts of genres where difficulty can indeed be realized without the need for 72 players tackling it, there's lots of solutions and they do not have to fit some cookie cutter MMORPG mold.
Personally, I'd be happier with insanely difficult single group challenges as "raid" content, but the game will have no sense of wonder if there isn't some massive dungeon with some massively hard entrance requirements, and some massive, "bring a hundred pals to help you raid" level nonsense going on inside that zone, with a super huge "pan your mouse look vertical just to see its head" boss mob. You gotta have those zones of super massive, mega awesome, pure wonder. Have to have them in a proper MMO.