Cromulent said:The problem with P99 is that the server has a HUGE population. Many more than were on classic EQ servers back in 1999 so there are more people fighting for a lesser number of raid targets and the fact that they won't release any expansions past Velious just makes the problem even worse. Everyday more people sign up to P99 but the number of raid targets never increases with it. In classic EQ new expansions came out every 6 - 18 months and they added more raid content so that lower tiered guilds could go after the old expansion content while the high tier guilds could go after the current expansion. That way everyone had targets they could raid.
I doubt we will see the same problems that P99 experiences in Pantheon. I'm hoping that Pantheon will have regular expansions released for it and that those expansions will keep adding new raids so that the population always has something new to raid. Plus there are also level cap rises to take into account as well. So yeah I doubt we'll see the same problems as we do on P99.
Its not that p99s population is bigger than classic servers, its that its extremely top-heavy due to stagnation. Most live servers had 1500-2000 concurrent players at any time, but the vast majority were low to mid level players.
At any point in time on live EQ servers, a small fraction were max level and raid capable due to the slower rate of progression, more challenging content, death penalties, and faster rate of development.
Project1999 was in classic 3 times longer than live servers, kunark for 3x as long and will now sit in Velious permanently. That along with everyone already knowing everything about early EQ creates an environment that couldn't be more different from that of the original game.
Raidan said:At this point, I think everyone knows the pros and cons of instancing and/or lockouts and have drawn their line in the sand.
I have a few questions for those that want instancing or lockouts. The main one being why? If you love Pantheon (and hopefully the journey is that EQ great), wouldn't you want to always have that dangling carrot? Why would you want the journey to be over quicker? Why would you want to achieve everything and be effectively done?
Let's assume you are correct that 1 guild could lockdown everything, which, if Dullahan's suggestions were used, I don't think they would be. But, let's assume that the raids are. Why must you feel cheated that you're not part of the 1%? Why not just feel satisfied that you're playing a great game with depth, that include social challenges and competition, and there are people that have better gear than you and are able to lock down content because they have no external life. I'd arguy envy (and frustration) in an MMORPG is a good thing - it gives you something to continually strive for. Why do you look at this as a negative? Worst case scenario if you're correct that 1 guild is locking down all raid content is that the content won't open up till the following expansion. And, at that point, your guild (s) can have their fair share and be a part of the 10% that is locking out the other 90%. A bigger part of this scenario is that all past raid loot shouldn't be trivialized by new expansion gear and that itemization will be hugely important.
A final thought - Brad has been on record saying the game will be formed around the group, so, perhaps an additional option instead of instancing or lockouts would be to have smaller tier raid bosses within the raid dungeon itself be on a faster spawn timer than the main bosses so even if the "lesser guilds" that may only 2 groups who couldn't get to the main raid bosses could still have their fair share of raid loot.
The main reason for me is that i want to Experience everything the game has to offer when my guild is ready to get tot he point of us fighting certain content, not wait a whole expansion later for a guild to decide to stop killing it, i don't care about the loot, i don't care about anything else but experiencing the content at hand. It's part of the game and i want to be like yeah i did that when it was New, and not be like yeah i killed that dragon but i had to wait 1-2 expansions before i could do it because of competition. I know Competition breeds success and everything, but instead of cuasing all the competitin through raiding maybe there is something else to implement that is also challenging like some Hardcore Class Specific Quests, not just epic quests which shuld def be the hardest but like how EQ had armor of ro quests for pallies and things like that something to constant keep you busy and lets say theres a quest chain like there was for monk with the belt and it keeps evolving through quests, and mean there ton of things people can do, and im sure there a ton of quests out there for people to keep them busy you just have to explore the world and interact with it and im sure the whole 7day lockdown isnt a bad thing, there is so much this world has to offer, i am sure of it.
Vandraad said:/Raises hand remembering how fun racing other guilds to raid bosses, the adrenaline rush, the excitement, the joy of beating them..and the frustration of losing...but still it was fun.
Competition for spawns is a social component of the game. It fosters interaction between smaller guilds to work together and pits larger guilds against each other. You don't need complex lock-outs or other crutches. Random spawn timers fixes so many issues but better yet are X days +/- random Y hours. Basically if you want to kill raid bosses, put in the effort to watch for them yourself. If that means running by the spawn area several times a day every day then so be it. Guild leaders should be delegating these tasks and members should happily be doing this because the payoff is the betterment of your guild.
It wasnt fun oon most EQ servers 2 or 3 large guilds controlled most of the raids. If several smaller guilds teamed up and did kill a raid mob chances are it was a mob that has been farmed to death by the larger guild and they no longer waste the time. It was a horrible horrible thing for the vast majority of players and im speaking as someone that was in a large guild that controlled most of the raiding.
My only real raid concern is that Guild A spends weeks and weeks not to mention countless deaths to learn a mob Strat. Finnaly they pull it and they down that mob. In an instance that strat can remain secert. Out in the open they will see the guild joust AOE as well as other critical elements like Adds and Big damage hits. So guild B can stroll up spend a fraction of the time and kill it as well. I cant remember a mob we pulled in EQ or EQ2 that didnt have a Spy watching how we did it.
Imagine if the "Heads" dropped in EQ2 raids were only dropped the FIRST time a raid target was killed. Also, imagine if those heads could be placed in a meuseum in a main city with a plaque of who placed it.
Let's talk about some server drama the first time someone gets steamrolled.
I would say that the perfect balance between the two would be to have a couple of world bosses spawn that challenge the landscape around them and for actual raids, have them instanced. The competition is fun but when it comes to doing full raids, I wouldn't want to be pressured to pull quickly because other guilds are lined up for the "loot pinatas". Takes a lot of the fun out of raiding for me.
TL:DR
Maximis said:Imagine if the "Heads" dropped in EQ2 raids were only dropped the FIRST time a raid target was killed. Also, imagine if those heads could be placed in a meuseum in a main city with a plaque of who placed it.
Let's talk about some server drama the first time someone gets steamrolled.
Maybe the plaque could have something written on it by the guild.
Head of Tarinex
Killed by Whatever 2017.
On this day we rickrolled Reckoning and stole this mob.
Kalgore said:
Maybe the plaque could have something written on it by the guild.
Head of Tarinex
Killed by Whatever 2017.
On this day we rickrolled Reckoning and stole this mob.
I know you would have to handle it diffrently if it was a pickup or alliance raid that actually killed the MoB. That was why I was thinking it would be tagged by whomever actually placed it.
I'm in favour of some instanced raids for reasons already stated. Open world encounters should certainly be in the game as well.
~~~ <()> ~~~
Valor and virtue ride with me, my blade defends the helpless,
my might upholds the weak, my words speak only truth,
my wrath undoes the wicked!
<~ Vaultarn Stormborn ~>
From the FAQ:
Will the game have instances?
Pantheon will support instancing to a limited degree, using it primarily for storytelling in a linear fashion, perhaps at the end of an epic quest. The vast majority of content, however, will exist in non-instanced shared zones.
I don't want to be a smart ass but it seems pretty clear that there will not be instances of raids in Pantheon. If I am missing something please point me in the right direction. Thanks!
Jamie said:From the FAQ:
Will the game have instances?
Pantheon will support instancing to a limited degree, using it primarily for storytelling in a linear fashion, perhaps at the end of an epic quest. The vast majority of content, however, will exist in non-instanced shared zones.
I don't want to be a smart ass but it seems pretty clear that there will not be instances of raids in Pantheon. If I am missing something please point me in the right direction. Thanks!
Thank you Jamie :) It's hard reading peoples dispute over something that has already been answered by the Dev's. :) *cheers
Drull said:Wouldn't "at the end of an epic quest" infer a raid?
You could but I wouldn't. Even if that were the case it would be extremely limited.
I would say that it is a safe bet that the answer is refering to using instances in ways that make sense to help us experience the story.
To be honest with you if people were enjoying the instanced raiding crap (that most of us have beat to death six times over already) we probably wouldn't be in this forum anyway. We would be playing one of the crappy games that are out now.
Kalgore said:Vandraad said:/Raises hand remembering how fun racing other guilds to raid bosses, the adrenaline rush, the excitement, the joy of beating them..and the frustration of losing...but still it was fun.
Competition for spawns is a social component of the game. It fosters interaction between smaller guilds to work together and pits larger guilds against each other. You don't need complex lock-outs or other crutches. Random spawn timers fixes so many issues but better yet are X days +/- random Y hours. Basically if you want to kill raid bosses, put in the effort to watch for them yourself. If that means running by the spawn area several times a day every day then so be it. Guild leaders should be delegating these tasks and members should happily be doing this because the payoff is the betterment of your guild.
It wasnt fun oon most EQ servers 2 or 3 large guilds controlled most of the raids. If several smaller guilds teamed up and did kill a raid mob chances are it was a mob that has been farmed to death by the larger guild and they no longer waste the time. It was a horrible horrible thing for the vast majority of players and im speaking as someone that was in a large guild that controlled most of the raiding.
I agree if their isnt something to stop the larger guilds from keeping all the raid spawns down they will simple just keep it in killed until it doesn't have anythig else to give them and than give other guilds a chance to have their chance, which honestly by than depending on the loot table could of alrdy killed like 1/2 the guilds/merge so they can have a chance to kill said raid targets. I know my saying of 1/2 the guilds is really high but im saying it will cuase this kind of thing, and that isn't what anyone would want. And also depending on how big/dominant the guild is on the server it could literally kill the server. It's happened on EQ so i know it can happen on Pantheon, for one we are smarter raiders than we were in EQ or at least when EQ came out if you didn't play it. We will look for mechanics, and avoid them to give us the bet chance of beating it. And once we figure out that mechanic they're isn't much the game can do to keep us from killing it, cept for maybe numbers. Also, The whole camping the target and trying to beat other guilds to a raid target doesn't even breed social interactions, I've seen nasty trains, cruel language spat out at each other, anger, and sometimes just guilds not grping with other guilds cuase of some bad blood they have had with them in the past. Which also, isn't something wanted in an mmo, we want at least something somewhat peacegul, i don't want guild's using General Chat calling out other Guild's saying things to each toher back and forth over and over again talking about Stop training us, Or trying to give another guild a Bad Rep for cuasing some grieveance that they might of cuase or not. All becuase of Open World Raiding. Unlike The person above i was in a smaller guild and it merged into a guild that didn't work out and it merged again and again until it finally met a decent size and even than we weren't at par cuase we had 2 guild that litterally controlled everything and if they didn't want us to kill the target they made sure it was dead within 30 minutes of it spawning. This doesn't prove anything as them as a guild cept for they Basically have no job and play endless hours to make sure they stop anyone from getting again unless they decide they don't care about it anymore
Jamie said:You could but I wouldn't. Even if that were the case it would be extremely limited.
I would say that it is a safe bet that the answer is refering to using instances in ways that make sense to help us experience the story.
To be honest with you if people were enjoying the instanced raiding crap (that most of us have beat to death six times over already) we probably wouldn't be in this forum anyway. We would be playing one of the crappy games that are out now.
Really I was just pointing out that we dont know whats up yet. Personally I dont like instancing (especially dungeons to a lesser extent raids) but there can also be problems with open world targets. If I was the game overlord I think I would go with a mixture of triggerring, lockout times and random locations but I guess we will see what happens.
Jamie said:Drull said:Wouldn't "at the end of an epic quest" infer a raid?
You could but I wouldn't. Even if that were the case it would be extremely limited.
I would say that it is a safe bet that the answer is refering to using instances in ways that make sense to help us experience the story.
To be honest with you if people were enjoying the instanced raiding crap (that most of us have beat to death six times over already) we probably wouldn't be in this forum anyway. We would be playing one of the crappy games that are out now.
I'm not saying for there to be instancing, i was before but I don't want Open World Targets either, they're has to be a equal medium, something that let's the smaller guild still have their raids without the bigger ones pushing them around and basically saying I don't think so. Like Have it to where the world in interactive with what you have completed certain content like ESO did with certain chain quest. Once you kill a Raid target the world around him looks different without him in it certain Quest giver's Spawn or a small hub is there in it's stead that supplies certain merchant with uncommon herbs and materials for improved potions or poisons, and another that does blacksmithing and such. That way you gain 2 things for killing raid targets one for the loot and that the interaction on merchants that weren't there before that might give you what you want. This also opens up the possibilty of Different and smaller guilds to kill the target while your enjoying making rare and unique items into the world that no one can make until they kill the raid target themselves.
Drull said:Wouldn't "at the end of an epic quest" infer a raid?
i dont feel they mean a raid at all i think this is more of like a cutscene of talking to an npc and turning in the things for your epic so only you can see it and not ruin it for everyone else who hasnt got theirs yet
Kalgore said:Vandraad said:/Raises hand remembering how fun racing other guilds to raid bosses, the adrenaline rush, the excitement, the joy of beating them..and the frustration of losing...but still it was fun.
Competition for spawns is a social component of the game. It fosters interaction between smaller guilds to work together and pits larger guilds against each other. You don't need complex lock-outs or other crutches. Random spawn timers fixes so many issues but better yet are X days +/- random Y hours. Basically if you want to kill raid bosses, put in the effort to watch for them yourself. If that means running by the spawn area several times a day every day then so be it. Guild leaders should be delegating these tasks and members should happily be doing this because the payoff is the betterment of your guild.
It wasnt fun oon most EQ servers 2 or 3 large guilds controlled most of the raids. If several smaller guilds teamed up and did kill a raid mob chances are it was a mob that has been farmed to death by the larger guild and they no longer waste the time. It was a horrible horrible thing for the vast majority of players and im speaking as someone that was in a large guild that controlled most of the raiding.
This in a nutshell. If you want to chase people away have your game committed to spending huge chunks of its resources making content that only a small percentage of the players are allowed to enjoy. I know this is the reason I said screw it to EQ and left.
It is so hard for me to tell you the truth and not sound like a jerk. I really don't mean to come off as argumentative so please do not take this personally.
Regardless if it is open world, instance, a mix of both or ten other things mentioned in this post, end game raiding guilds will dominate end game content. If you want to do the very end game and own it you will probably need to get in an organized guild. If you want to play in a middle of the road guild then the rewards you get should equal the effort.
There are many games on the market right now that have everything attainable by everyone. From my understanding the very point of this project is not to make another crappy wow clone but to return to the spirit of EQ and Vanguard that started it all.
This may not appeal to every player and I get that but I do not think it is going to change the current direction. Day dreaming about mechanics to thwart the progression of dedicated players will not bring the end game any closer to mediocre guilds.
So what you're saying is that rather than thwarting the progression of dedicated players lets instead CB the progression of "mediocre" players?
Edited to add: I want to be certain that you understand I'm not asking for anything to be easy. What I'm saying is that a small group of players should not, under any circumstances, be able to block or otherwise deprive other players from enjoying content. It sounds like you want Guild A to be able to cblock Guild B from killing Mob X. That might bring a great deal of enjoyment to Guild A but it's doubtful that Guild B is going to have any fun. What I'm saying is that both Guild A and Guild B should be able to have the opportunity to freely slaughter Mob X. And it doesn't matter if either Guild is spectacular or mediocre - if they can't kill the mob then they aren't going to reap the rewards.
Benezetta said:So what you're saying is that rather than thwarting the progression of dedicated players lets instead CB the progression of "mediocre" players?
Edited to add: I want to be certain that you understand I'm not asking for anything to be easy. What I'm saying is that a small group of players should not, under any circumstances, be able to block or otherwise deprive other players from enjoying content. It sounds like you want Guild A to be able to cblock Guild B from killing Mob X. That might bring a great deal of enjoyment to Guild A but it's doubtful that Guild B is going to have any fun. What I'm saying is that both Guild A and Guild B should be able to have the opportunity to freely slaughter Mob X. And it doesn't matter if either Guild is spectacular or mediocre - if they can't kill the mob then they aren't going to reap the rewards.
they do have the same opportunity in fact everyone on the server does but you have to be organized and get thier first
Lodgedogg said:Benezetta said:So what you're saying is that rather than thwarting the progression of dedicated players lets instead CB the progression of "mediocre" players?
Edited to add: I want to be certain that you understand I'm not asking for anything to be easy. What I'm saying is that a small group of players should not, under any circumstances, be able to block or otherwise deprive other players from enjoying content. It sounds like you want Guild A to be able to cblock Guild B from killing Mob X. That might bring a great deal of enjoyment to Guild A but it's doubtful that Guild B is going to have any fun. What I'm saying is that both Guild A and Guild B should be able to have the opportunity to freely slaughter Mob X. And it doesn't matter if either Guild is spectacular or mediocre - if they can't kill the mob then they aren't going to reap the rewards.
they do have the same opportunity in fact everyone on the server does but you have to be organized and get thier first
Actually it kinda isn't we alrdy know if they're isnt a way to keep people from camping raid targets they will simple just sit a character by his spawn point and wait for him to spawn and call evryone in their guild to log on and kill him within 30 minutes. it happened o EQ it will happen on pantheon, that's why there has to be something to stop this. or the only people enjoying themsleves are the top guild maybe 2. Basically again like i said the people with no jobs/ or retirement will be owning the server not because they are the best but because they have the most time to play to keep the raid targets camped.
Jamie said:It is so hard for me to tell you the truth and not sound like a jerk. I really don't mean to come off as argumentative so please do not take this personally.
Regardless if it is open world, instance, a mix of both or ten other things mentioned in this post, end game raiding guilds will dominate end game content. If you want to do the very end game and own it you will probably need to get in an organized guild. If you want to play in a middle of the road guild then the rewards you get should equal the effort.
There are many games on the market right now that have everything attainable by everyone. From my understanding the very point of this project is not to make another crappy wow clone but to return to the spirit of EQ and Vanguard that started it all.
This may not appeal to every player and I get that but I do not think it is going to change the current direction. Day dreaming about mechanics to thwart the progression of dedicated players will not bring the end game any closer to mediocre guilds.
Okay, i understand your point kind of hear but let's remember something here Vanilla WoW was actually extremely diffcult, and even some of the oldest guilds back when then wasn't able to defeat all content until BC came out. So that in itself proves Instancing actually can work. I'm not saying to go instancing but im also saying i want a way from only 1 or 2 guilds stopping anyone else from doing anything and getting bored with the game or frustrating and quitting due to lack of progressoin of their own guild due to the more powerful guild from stopping them to do so.
Benezetta said:So what you're saying is that rather than thwarting the progression of dedicated players lets instead CB the progression of "mediocre" players?
Edited to add: I want to be certain that you understand I'm not asking for anything to be easy. What I'm saying is that a small group of players should not, under any circumstances, be able to block or otherwise deprive other players from enjoying content. It sounds like you want Guild A to be able to cblock Guild B from killing Mob X. That might bring a great deal of enjoyment to Guild A but it's doubtful that Guild B is going to have any fun. What I'm saying is that both Guild A and Guild B should be able to have the opportunity to freely slaughter Mob X. And it doesn't matter if either Guild is spectacular or mediocre - if they can't kill the mob then they aren't going to reap the rewards.
You and many like you are seeing this as a black and white issue; "If there's no instancing, then big guilds will CB eveyone else and I'll never even get my epic."
While I agree that this is the case in past MMO's, that is to me a product of short-sighted design and not an element attributable to a lack of instancing alone. As I've pointed out many many times there are ways to curb or even eliminate this issue. Contested raid mobs can be a great thing for competitive contests between guilds but inherently tying them to unlocking additional content needn't be (and shouldnt be) oneo f them. It can be overcome.
Instancing is the easy way out for developers that don't want to think the issues through and make sure that there's a balance. And it introduces a host of other issues that most people who loved EQ despise.
This idea depends on whether or not there are enough raid targets. When a guild kills a raid target, or completes a raid event, the server would check to see if there is a "respawn pool" for it. If there is not, it creates a respawn pool. If there is already a respawn pool, and the respawn pool is less than 6 hours old, then the mob or event would be added to the respawn pool. The respawn pools would have set timers, and when those timers expired, all of the mobs or events tied to them would become available. This would prevent a single guild from being able to kill all of them before any other guild had a chance.
Of course, sometimes mobs or events have different respawn timers due to controlling how much of the results of completing them (loot, new skills, or whatever else you could get from them) is entered into the world. The respawn pools could also only accept certain mobs depending on the minimum respawn time. In which case a new pool with that new minimum respawn time would be created.