Nanoushka said: While I can see your point Anticlergy, I'm not sure I agree with you. Gathering enough people for a raid is quite a challenge if you're talking 40+ geared and prepared raiders. And not just once but repeatedly, it takes something to build teams like that. Besides that, while it was mostly tank and spank, there was more to it. There was positioning of bosses and adds, cc, keeping an eye on patrols, watching aggro, as a healer keeping an eye on those getting aggro, the amount of 'check' macros (enchanters, other healers, off tank, target of raidtarget) I discovered on my cleric when I logged back in again for nostalgia's sake was staggering. To keep aggro as a tank was far trickier. To balance damage as a dps was trickier as well because of that. To watch your heal threat was a real thing. The difficulty wasn't the mob itself but the synergy of the fight as a whole. I haven't raided much after EQ, I only raided there because we had such a great guild and I loved spending time with those people. The raids I did do in WoW, esp in later years, to me felt far more like jumping around like a maniac and watching the floor non stop. I won't say that that isn't challenging, it demands a lot of focus and from your reflexes (and I'm old by now *grins*). I respect those who manage that, it just wears me out. I do think there was quite some challenge to the old EQ raids, even if one could stand still for most of the fight. To me it felt more strategic and fun, even tho I understand that how one perceives that depends on point of view.
Another variable was everyone stressing that there was another guild waiting in the wings ready to pounce if you failed. That type of pressure added a lot to the fight.
Another thing to note is that all of this coordination was done via text. Voice chat wasn't a thing back then. I think it will take voice chat to be able to figure out enviromental variables coupled with mob strats. I am super excited to fight a dragon that G-Flux's you and if you are not near the totem that snares you, you go flying off a ledge. What would take figuring out is that the totem doesnt snare you.. it makes you exponentially heavier.
I am super excited to see how they use the environment to put the E back in PVE.
Anticlergy said:Examples of what I feel had challenging raid mechanics would be raids in WoW, Rift, FF14 and Wildstar.
I've already given my opinion on instanced/sharded raid zones, so I won't restate, but I did want to comment on this. I played Rift for a few years, and the raids there were far, far, far more mechanically complicated than anything I ever saw in EQ (or EQ2 for that matter, although the difference between Rift and EQ2 raids is less dramatic than between Rift and EQ raids). Nearly every raid in Rift you have to balance doing a handful of things simultaneously, not just watching your own position behind a mob or watching health bars like a high portion of EQ raids were.
So I definitely agree with you on this.
Kalgore said:As for everyone else crying about smaller guilds having a shot please answer me one question.
WHY WHY do they deserve a shot?? Because they paid the prioce of the game I doubt that because otherwise they should just put all the loot in a crate you cana ccess 24/7
Is it because its fair?? Lifes not fair both virtual and RL
Is it because we want teamwork???? You have teamwork its called a guild you just choose a guild that isnt good at coordination.
In the end if your guild isnt giving you want you want you should leave and find one that does and not use the excuse but ive been in this guild for 2 years. It doesnt matter
I really don't want to sound harsh, but I think you need to practice a little bit of empathy man. Using "life is not fair" as an argument doesn't support your point more than anyone else's. Example: VR should give every starting player top tier raid gear so top raiders aren't special anymore. Why? Life isn't fair. Also, you are suggesting outright that EQ's method of separating the wheat from the chaff (probably not intentional in the first place) is the best way to say who wins and who loses. Let's try to see things from everyone's perspective here. On that note, how about we find some middle ground here!
Can we all agree on:
With all that being said, I would like to ask a simple set of questions to try and determine why you hold your stance so firmly. Why is time spent in a game and the ability to be quickly available the factor that wins you rights to the exclusive club? Must a player be ready to go at a moments notice to be a top tier player? What about an extremely skilled player/group who wants to move through content at a slower pace? Why is time/availability the chosen metric instead of skill, intelligence, planning, preparation, or something else entirely?
I believe people like Anticlergy are just arguing for some club which determines exclusivity by a metric other than raw time and availability. I'm not asking you to agree with him, but at least see that his opinion is just as valid as yours.
As we've discussed and I've explained on many occasions (probably in this thread) there are many components necessary to preserve both the challenge, the rarity and with it the exclusivity that makes content compelling and keeps people playing.
Simply having hard encounters is not enough. More than that, by raising the bar too high on player skill, you actually alienate a comparable portion of your playerbase. Item and mob rarity is really necessary to preserve the prestige associated with player progression. Its also crucial for a realistic and healthy economy.
I've suggested several ways to give the less hardcore players opportunities at highly contested content and to prevent a monopoly, but it seems people would rather make alarmist posts rather than discussing solutions.
In the end though, time devotion should play a large part in a traditional mmorpg, and the most dedicated should be afforded more opportunities to advance. This is a genre founded on teamwork, roleplay, storytelling and immersion more than one that was meant to reward who can click their mouse most accurately or execute series of hotkeys the fastest.
Nanoushka said: I don't think it's a bad question. Should everything be accessible to everyone? If so, why? If not, why? I'm a bit undecided on it I've noticed. I doubt I'll raid this time, with a job, husband and daughter who want their fair share of my attention and the million other things that'll stand between me and a raidnight :D. For myself every solution will be fine in that sense, it won't affect me much. On the one hand I think it's awesome if everyone can get a taste of everything if they want to. On the other hand I think the social dynamics of EQ because of their raid system were interesting, far more interesting than what you'd get with instancing or lock outs. If everyone is pretty much guaranteed a chance at something (unless they avoid it of course) it loses something of its luster in my mind. Is exclusivity a bad thing? Tbh I don't think so, to me it adds a magic spark of possibilities to a game, even if I make no use of them. Just the fact that they are there, and people who dedicate their time and effort get to experience that is great to me. Exclusivity doesn't necessarily result in people being an arrogant douchebag because of it. It can, but it's not a given. Should we avoid everything that can (but not necessarily will) bring out the more base tendencies of human nature just to keep it fun? I have no answer, I've been contemplating these things for a while now since reading this topic and others. They are interesting questions tho.
This is just the problem we've had for years now. When everyone has everything and the player is never confronted with serious decisions on whether to be greedy or charitable, it makes for a dull world. In EQ, there were so many times when you had the opportunity to help a player or screw them over. A time to cheat someone or make a friend. Opportunities to be polite, or to be rude. That was largely the product of an environment with consequences,contested content and rare and valuable items.
The fact that you need other people for all manner of things to both survive, to recover or to progress is what makes everything interesting. Maybe you find a corpse to revive near at the feet of a rare mob. Maybe you revive the player and kill it together. Maybe you kill the mob and then revive the player. Or you could just kill the mob and go about your business. Heroes are awesome, but villans can be fun too. Without those choice and those circumstances that create them, an mmorpg is really not worth playing over any single player rpg.
Dullahan said:Simply having hard encounters is not enough. More than that, by raising the bar too high on player skill, you actually alienate a comparable portion of your playerbase. Item and mob rarity is really necessary to preserve the prestige associated with player progression. Its also crucial for a realistic and healthy economy.
If the two approaches alienate a comparable portion of the playerbase, then why is one inherently more valid than the other? I (and probably most here) agree with the vast majority of what you have said, but I do believe that the devs have a choice to make with how they handle this issue. I just can't believe that the EQ system (yes, I played it and loved it) got it perfectly right on the first go and that its mechanics are best way to do things.
Dullahan said:As we've discussed and I've explained on many occasions (probably in this thread) there are many components necessary to preserve both the challenge, the rarity and with it the exclusivity that makes content compelling and keeps people playing.
Simply having hard encounters is not enough. More than that, by raising the bar too high on player skill, you actually alienate a comparable portion of your playerbase. Item and mob rarity is really necessary to preserve the prestige associated with player progression. Its also crucial for a realistic and healthy economy.
I've suggested several ways to give the less hardcore players opportunities at highly contested content and to prevent a monopoly, but it seems people would rather make alarmist posts rather than discussing solutions.
In the end though, time devotion should play a large part in a traditional mmorpg, and the most dedicated should be afforded more opportunities to advance. This is a genre founded on teamwork, roleplay, storytelling and immersion more than one that was meant to reward who can click their mouse most accurately or execute series of hotkeys the fastest.
This wouldn't happen even on a non-instanced played based cuase people would just camp it and prevent people from ever seeing the MoB up, so techincally this would alinate more player base than the instancing with high diffculty would.
Ainadak said:I believe people like Anticlergy are just arguing for some club which determines exclusivity by a metric other than raw time and availability. I'm not asking you to agree with him, but at least see that his opinion is just as valid as yours.
This is exactly correct. I just want people who are good to be rewarded as well. I don't think everyone should have everything. That is insane. But, I don't think that a person who can play 22 hours a day, but is the most awful player on earth should be allowed to kill a raid boss by being carried. Basically, the guild with the most players should not be considered the "best" guild. Skill and numbers are two different things.
P.S. Thank you for understanding. I am not asking people to agree, I just hope they can see that there really is a difference.
"This is exactly correct. I just want people who are good to be rewarded as well. I don't think everyone should have everything. That is insane. But, I don't think that a person who can play 22 hours a day, but is the most awful player on earth should be allowed to kill a raid boss by being carried. Basically, the guild with the most players should not be considered the "best" guild. Skill and numbers are two different things."
" I just want people who are good to be rewarded as well"
Thats kind of the crux here, on this topic of raiding, I think its clear that the goals of this game are to define "good" as a player who is social and engaged in a community, that collaboration and teamwork will be the the primary tools to acheive the hieghest levels of the game-- so "skill" at this game, like it's predecessors, might not be such an easily determined metric, because it will neccessarily incorporate how well a player comminicates, builds relationships, and organizes with other players.
Because of this, a guild with the most players is going to have a a clear advtange in so far that it becomes easier to organize and mobilize. So, in some way, it is lower risk to be in a massive guild. In DAoC, this was well known, and the way it was "balanced" was by the community. It just is known that being in one of those massive guilds wasn't as prestigious as the accomplishments of the smaller, argueably more tightnit engaged and talented guilds. So because of this, the acheivemnt of the small guild sat socially at a higher value.
I'm interested in the game formally rewarding players for running tightknit groups long term, but also not punishing a casual player who might need a large zergy guild to access all the content in the game. Something like rewards for raids, money or exp, that are static and dispersed to the WHOLE guild even those not participating, but that are divided equally, so it would behoove a guild to manage its population and keep its activity up to par with its population, wether small or large.
kefka said: Raid content should be based on the raid difficulty, not on who race to tag the boss faster. I'd rather have raids that are insanely hard so only a few good hardcore player will be able to defeat it than not being able to take a shot at the boss because another guild got the respawn on a timer.
Finally, someone thinking atleast a little bit outside the box! Good call kefka!
IMHO: I believe there are a lot of people here that are trying to put a band-aid over a bandaid, that is over another band-aid. Lets look at the root cause of the problem: The reason so many people want to take down end game targets is for high end gear. The devs want to slow this down so that the gear remains rare, as it is supposed to be for a number of resaons, many of which have been stated. To slow down the acquisition of this gear, the devs imposed a time lock on the boss mobs (band-aid). To deal with the over abundance of competition and generally jerky play of many players, rotaions were put into place. (another band-aid) And finally, everyone compained that they could not get ANY gear due to the competition so they made instances. (another band-aid)
The problems stem from itemization and the economy in general. Why is end-game gear sought after with such zeal? Well, over time the lower level equipment becomes so prolific that it almost completely loses it's value (part of mudflation). Due to an ever increasing cash supply, the little gear that remains that has any value (end-game) is worth a ridiculous amount of cash. However, if you dilute the server with to much of this great, end-game gear, you will completely destroy the economy and any incentive for anyone to seek wealth in the game. They will have to be satisfied with the Lore alone, which I know many players will not.
If VR does it's job, the itemization will be set up such that raid targets will be the richest targets. However, group content will provide good targets as well. I hope that group targets are not only good, but neccesary for players to advance significantly. There is no reason that group content could not be a barrier to entry or a bottleneck for awesome gear or progression. No one should be able to make it on raid loot alone. And as far as the cash issues, well, that's another story.
Boss mob difficulty will be irrelevant. I hope it is very challenging, but it's difficulty should not affect the economy too much.
Some brought up the fact that skills should be what you are rewarded for, not time put in. Well, I could be persuaded on both points and I think they should both factor in. However, the overall problem is the economy. VR has to make certain that end-game raiding is not an end in and of itself.
tl;dr It's the economy! End game raiding should not be an end in and of itself. The economy, itemization, and tradeskills should be complex enough to see to that.
JDNight said:Finally, someone thinking atleast a little bit outside the box! Good call kefka!
IMHO: I believe there are a lot of people here that are trying to put a band-aid over a bandaid, that is over another band-aid. Lets look at the root cause of the problem: The reason so many people want to take down end game targets is for high end gear. The devs want to slow this down so that the gear remains rare, as it is supposed to be for a number of resaons, many of which have been stated. To slow down the acquisition of this gear, the devs imposed a time lock on the boss mobs (band-aid). To deal with the over abundance of competition and generally jerky play of many players, rotaions were put into place. (another band-aid) And finally, everyone compained that they could not get ANY gear due to the competition so they made instances. (another band-aid)
I disagree with your premise. For many the purpose of end game raiding is the experience of defeating the mob and the prestige of being able to say you did defeat the biggest baddy on the block. the gear is just a means to an end.
zedicus said:"This is exactly correct. I just want people who are good to be rewarded as well. I don't think everyone should have everything. That is insane. But, I don't think that a person who can play 22 hours a day, but is the most awful player on earth should be allowed to kill a raid boss by being carried. Basically, the guild with the most players should not be considered the "best" guild. Skill and numbers are two different things."
" I just want people who are good to be rewarded as well"
Thats kind of the crux here, on this topic of raiding, I think its clear that the goals of this game are to define "good" as a player who is social and engaged in a community, that collaboration and teamwork will be the the primary tools to acheive the hieghest levels of the game-- so "skill" at this game, like it's predecessors, might not be such an easily determined metric, because it will neccessarily incorporate how well a player comminicates, builds relationships, and organizes with other players.
Because of this, a guild with the most players is going to have a a clear advtange in so far that it becomes easier to organize and mobilize. So, in some way, it is lower risk to be in a massive guild. In DAoC, this was well known, and the way it was "balanced" was by the community. It just is known that being in one of those massive guilds wasn't as prestigious as the accomplishments of the smaller, argueably more tightnit engaged and talented guilds. So because of this, the acheivemnt of the small guild sat socially at a higher value.
I'm interested in the game formally rewarding players for running tightknit groups long term, but also not punishing a casual player who might need a large zergy guild to access all the content in the game. Something like rewards for raids, money or exp, that are static and dispersed to the WHOLE guild even those not participating, but that are divided equally, so it would behoove a guild to manage its population and keep its activity up to par with its population, wether small or large.
Amazing post. There is a balance in there, but you captured the importance of a social teamwork driven game. That doesn't mean guilds should be able to skate by with dead weight or skill shouldn't enter the equation, but that its only one factor and competition and dedication should still be important.
It will balance out in the end and guilds will aim for efficiency because trying to mobilize and gear a zerg will always put you at a disadvantage against a smaller but skilled and coordinate group of players.
Jamie said:I have to agree the gear is just a means to and end and will be replaced eventually. Nothing to get excited about other then how much farther it can bring the guild and how long it remains useful.
If this is the case, then why worry about guilds monopolizing a raid target? I would think if the prestige is all that maters they would be like... one and done.
Maximis said:JDNight said:Finally, someone thinking atleast a little bit outside the box! Good call kefka!
IMHO: I believe there are a lot of people here that are trying to put a band-aid over a bandaid, that is over another band-aid. Lets look at the root cause of the problem: The reason so many people want to take down end game targets is for high end gear. The devs want to slow this down so that the gear remains rare, as it is supposed to be for a number of resaons, many of which have been stated. To slow down the acquisition of this gear, the devs imposed a time lock on the boss mobs (band-aid). To deal with the over abundance of competition and generally jerky play of many players, rotaions were put into place. (another band-aid) And finally, everyone compained that they could not get ANY gear due to the competition so they made instances. (another band-aid)
I disagree with your premise. For many the purpose of end game raiding is the experience of defeating the mob and the prestige of being able to say you did defeat the biggest baddy on the block. the gear is just a means to an end.
Let me re-phrase that then: The reason so many high end, boss mob monopolizing guilds take down end game targets is for the high end gear.
I should have written that more clearly. Thank you.
EDIT: Also I should note that many people who are for instances are not all wanting to engage targets for gear, but simply the chance to engage the epic targets even once for the experience of doing it.
JDNight said:Jamie said:I have to agree the gear is just a means to and end and will be replaced eventually. Nothing to get excited about other then how much farther it can bring the guild and how long it remains useful.
If this is the case, then why worry about guilds monopolizing a raid target? I would think if the prestiege is all that maters they would be like... one and done.
I am not sure why people are worried about it. I am only going to be killing a boss so long as it is giving upgrades to the raid team. After that it is up for grabs other then the occasional alt run.
Honestly whatever mechanics are used we are going to get around them for the most part to do exactly that. If that means having two mains or progeny characters three times over or whatever then that's what the requirements will be and that's what we will do. Whatever it takes to win.
I doubt more than 5 guilds in any server will have the dedication to finish every raid or boss enough to lock it on farm so this is more of a perceived problem then a real one. I think people need to be honest with themselves about why they may or may not have a achieved all that they wanted to in previous games.
Jamie said:I am not sure why people are worried about it. I am only going to be killing a boss so long as it is giving upgrades to the raid team. After that it is up for grabs other then the occasional alt run.
I doubt more than 5 guilds in any server will have the dedication to finish every raid or boss...
I think this is what people are concerned about. 5 Guilds x 80 people per guild x 2 (alt) x 2 (2 items per boss) = a whole lot of items needed to fill the need of those guilds. Throw in a 7 day spawn timer and well, anyone else can look to even attempt that boss mob some time in 2021.
My hope is that there will be no desire to pursue this type of behavior. I hope that gear is situational enough, diverse enough, and comes from a variety of sources such that locking down a mob will be, well... overly focused on one thing. You can do it if you really want to, but... why?
I do expect great competition. I do expect people will find ways to outshine others and even give themselves strategic advantages in ways we can't even imagine right now. However, I hope locking down a single boss mob will not be an overly profitable way of securing those advantages. Maybe, just maybe it could be for a short duration.
Jamie said:JDNight said:Jamie said:I have to agree the gear is just a means to and end and will be replaced eventually. Nothing to get excited about other then how much farther it can bring the guild and how long it remains useful.
If this is the case, then why worry about guilds monopolizing a raid target? I would think if the prestiege is all that maters they would be like... one and done.
I am not sure why people are worried about it. I am only going to be killing a boss so long as it is giving upgrades to the raid team. After that it is up for grabs other then the occasional alt run.
Honestly whatever mechanics are used we are going to get around them for the most part to do exactly that. If that means having two mains or progeny characters three times over or whatever then that's what the requirements will be and that's what we will do. Whatever it takes to win.
I doubt more than 5 guilds in any server will have the dedication to finish every raid or boss enough to lock it on farm so this is more of a perceived problem then a real one. I think people need to be honest with themselves about why they may or may not have a achieved all that they wanted to in previous games.
This whole thing about your only going to be killing a raid target til it doesn't give anymore upgrades statement means that you'll probably means if your raiding with lets say 40 people which wouldn't be to hard, you would be killing it at least 100 times so everyone has what they want from it, and by just your guild alone that would ruin the game for most of the server and would cuase a ton of them to quit, so thank you so realizing you brought this up and how bad i just made it sound when it comes to non-instanced raids if they don't cuase a lock-out timer or anything to prevent a guild from permacamping these raid targets.
Dullahan said:zedicus said:"This is exactly correct. I just want people who are good to be rewarded as well. I don't think everyone should have everything. That is insane. But, I don't think that a person who can play 22 hours a day, but is the most awful player on earth should be allowed to kill a raid boss by being carried. Basically, the guild with the most players should not be considered the "best" guild. Skill and numbers are two different things."
" I just want people who are good to be rewarded as well"
Thats kind of the crux here, on this topic of raiding, I think its clear that the goals of this game are to define "good" as a player who is social and engaged in a community, that collaboration and teamwork will be the the primary tools to acheive the hieghest levels of the game-- so "skill" at this game, like it's predecessors, might not be such an easily determined metric, because it will neccessarily incorporate how well a player comminicates, builds relationships, and organizes with other players.
Because of this, a guild with the most players is going to have a a clear advtange in so far that it becomes easier to organize and mobilize. So, in some way, it is lower risk to be in a massive guild. In DAoC, this was well known, and the way it was "balanced" was by the community. It just is known that being in one of those massive guilds wasn't as prestigious as the accomplishments of the smaller, argueably more tightnit engaged and talented guilds. So because of this, the acheivemnt of the small guild sat socially at a higher value.
I'm interested in the game formally rewarding players for running tightknit groups long term, but also not punishing a casual player who might need a large zergy guild to access all the content in the game. Something like rewards for raids, money or exp, that are static and dispersed to the WHOLE guild even those not participating, but that are divided equally, so it would behoove a guild to manage its population and keep its activity up to par with its population, wether small or large.
Amazing post. There is a balance in there, but you captured the importance of a social teamwork driven game. That doesn't mean guilds should be able to skate by with dead weight or skill shouldn't enter the equation, but that its only one factor and competition and dedication should still be important.
It will balance out in the end and guilds will aim for efficiency because trying to mobilize and gear a zerg will always put you at a disadvantage against a smaller but skilled and coordinate group of players.
Honestly, the things people are forgetting is that People have families and jobs to feed and look after them as a whole, this means for some doing an 8 hour job 5-7 days a week, and than there are people who have no jobs and can camp a target for there guild 22 hours straight if they wanted too, and if your saying that the guy with no job should be the better raider/player of Pantheon, than we seriously have our preceptive of a good player completely different here as a whole. I could care less how much time you have in a game, if you put worth the effort to gear yourself to be raid worthy in a game by putting weeks/months into gearing your character on or days off/after work and joins a guild that is looking to start raid content, who are we to say they can't raid just becuase a another guild is hogging all the glory for themselves. Yes Dul i understand that you want it non-instanced but you have to understand that the main raiding guild will be most likely calling people at any time of the day when the raid target pops up so they can get them there and kill it. before anyone even realize that he was even up to attempt it, this is what i am trying to prevent. It doesn't have to be instanced but it does have to be something in place to prevent them from doing this. And i say abslutely NO, NO, NO to zerging raid targets, this is a poor way of acceptence in raids i say there in a something in place to prevent this either by once you hit a population cap it sends the extra players safely out of reach and a decent way to travel to raid target like Lady Vox and Naggy did when you past lvl 52 or something, Zerging isn't an answer when it comes to raiding.
I used to raid (hardcore) back in the day - but simply cannot do so any more (work / life / family commitments etc).
This does not mean that I do not have the same desire to experience raid content - and with the evolution of my gaming style / time investment, so too am I looking for an evolution to the EQ that I loved when I was younger
If I and my guildies can dedicate 3-4 hours a night (or some nights) to gaming, I desperately want to be able to experience the raiding environment / content. I am happy to give up on the best of the best gearing, in exchange for the opportunity to face the challenges, frustrations and accomplishment of defeating raid bosses with my friends.
There were guilds in EQ that would deliberately lock down the raids / targets, and I understand this for a competitive stanndpoint. But if I am in a purely PvE game (or server ruleset), I don't really want to compete with these other players / guilds for a chance to exprience this content.
I also respect that the hardcore raiders / guilds still want recognition and rewards surpassing those that the casuals receive (they definately make sacrifices to compete at that level) and the game should reward them accordingly - beit in terms of achievements (online and in-game reputation), or gearing that is proportionately better (stats and maybe even appearance).
I'm even happy to wait x number of months after a non-instaced boss is killed for the instanced version to be made available. As long as the raid or boss is still relevant to the expansion - ideally, I do not want to face the challenge several epansions later (when the content is trivialised through gear / level etc).
Yes, I also admit that this is a selfish desire - I want to experience content without the extreme restrictions that were in place in EQ with non-instanced bosses. I am not sure what the best implementation is - but am hopeful that the community / devs can come up with something that satisfies both sides / types of raiders.
I am curious if many of our concerns of casual players not being able to experience raid content due to poop-socking extremeists will be solved simply by the leveling curve. If I play 2 hours a day and it takes me a year to get max level maybe the folks playing 10 hours a day will have lost interest in those mobs.
I don't envy any developer trying to create enough content to keep both Hardcore and casual players who want to raid happy. I just hope there is enough grouping content to keep me busy and able to do an occasional raid when I want a change of pace.
I think where you run into trouble is when a large portion of the player base is funneled into raiding to further improve their characters.