Aich said:Good Post Brad. I like timesinks in the groupign for social building etc. Bathroom break and drink break.
I have no problem with some time sinks to allow for social building and bathroom breaks. But if I have to wait 45 minutes for a boat to take me someplace thats a serious time sink that does nothing because I will have my screen minimuzed working on something else most likely. Long zones requiring stopping to recharge and things are great. There needs to be a balance between what was and what is
Aradune said:While not set in stone, here is how the Mentoring system might work: A higher level player (say level 45) chooses to group with and mentor a level 5 player. His power (dps, AC, etc) is scaled down to level 5. The group kills a mob. The level 5 player gets experience points. The mentor gets a special type of points (like in an AA system) that is useful to him as a level 45+ player.
While horizontal interdependence is the focus of Pantheon (traditional grouping, cooperation, shared experiences, community), vertical interdependence is going to be important as well.
The devil is in the details, as in most systems, but also something we can't really work with and test without critical mass (read: probably beta 1 or so).
Aradune,
I'm curious as to how you are thinking of dealing with the loot drops in this scenario? Will the higher level but scaled down player just get the same drops as though they are at the same level? Not get anything? Or have a chance to get something a little more special?
I like the thinking behind this, can't wait to test it out!
Also, I don’t want to see the scaled back player NOT receive any drops or loot as say other implemented systems have used, that would cause me to not be as motivated.
I’m under the assumption that the player would just get the same standard drops as any other player, but just want to see what the thought is if different …
Thanks!
Based on recent information being discussed, caravans and mentoring, I would love to see the normal vs veteran rulesets come out sometime soon-ish. The biggest divide I've seen so far on these boards is the group of old school gamers that would like to see a game that is a 80-90% EQ reskin with a little added innovation, vs the other group of old school gamers that want a harder game based on old school tenets, but that welcome the new systems being discussed. I don't think either group is wrong in what they want, but the divide is starting to derail a majority of the threads in recent weeks.
As I've said before, I would like to see both of the systems being discussed in place. They would both fit my group of real life friends, so I have no doubt there are loads of other players in the same position, and these systems could help make long term subscribership more realistic for the players that want to play, but inevebitly fall behind their group. Forcing people to group with people they don't know, when they purchase and pay for the game monthly in order to play with their group the majority of the time, would have the opposite effect. That's not to say those people aren't going to find and meet new players through pick-up groups, but that's not everyones preference all of the time and there should be alternatives. Just because Pantheon is going to be a social group based game does not mean that the only way to acheive that is through only running pugs. Incentives for guilds and real life groups of players who purchase this game with the hopes of spending a large majority of their time with their friends and guild members, can only be viewed as a good thing from my perspective. That being said, my personal group comes from back in the UO/EQ time and we all want an old school game that can chew you up and spit you out. However, having features that make grouping with friends and guild members more streamlined, does not mean it has to trivialize content. There is no reason to act like these things are mutually exclusive. I'm struggling to pass judgement on any system VR is talking about implimenting, since none of this has even been designed and fleshed out yet.
There is no simple solution here, but I think the normal servers vs vet servers is the most simplistic and obvious start. Once each group feels like they will have a home that aligns most closely with what matters to them, then I think a lot of this inter-Pantheon community division starts to die down.
Katalyzt said:Based on recent information being discussed, caravans and mentoring, I would love to see the normal vs veteran rulesets come out sometime soon-ish.
You do realise that the game won't be released for close to a year if not longer and we still have to test... well, everything?
so asking to have anything being set in stone now is a little naive
I think its fair to ask that they give us something a little more concrete regarding veteran servers, even if the game is 3 years from launch. The topics we're discussing have some pretty serious ramifications. Knowing how they may effect us could stand to improve the discussions, quality of feedback and atmosphere on these forums. It might even determine whether or not some people pledge to the game or continue following Pantheon altogether.
Who said anything about setting anything in stone? Some general understanding of what the differences will be would be fine. For you to assume people outside youself don't understand where the dev team is at in the development process, and make further assumptions that things are being called for to "be set in stone" was somewhat arrogant and better left unsaid.
Edit: Dullaham posted before me, but he echo's my thoughts exactly. It would help drive healthier dscussions if we had better parameters on server types. Each group would have less reason to panic, and just offer creative thinking to the mix.
Dullahan said:I think its fair to ask that they give us something a little more concrete regarding veteran servers, even if the game is 3 years from launch. The topics we're discussing have some pretty serious ramifications. Knowing how they may effect us could stand to improve the discussions, quality of feedback and atmosphere on these forums. It might even determine whether or not some people pledge to the game or continue following Pantheon altogether.
no, not fair to anyone but those asking for it and especially not the company actually making the game...
I'm really not up for the whole same ol same ol argument about how this stuff works and if they decide to implement something or don't and what that means in the opposite side of your request, it's been done and I really don't have the time.
Please stop being selfish and think about a foot further before you decide to comment and ask for the moon...Everything being discussed in this forum has serious ramifications, not just what you are crusading for today.
Katalyzt said:Who said anything about setting anything in stone? Some general understanding of what the differences will be would be fine. For you to assume people outside youself don't understand where the dev team is at in the development process, and make further assumptions that things are being called for to "be set in stone" was somewhat arrogantbetter and better left unsaid.
Edit: Dullaham posted before me, but he echo's my thoughts exactly. It would help drive healthier dscussions if we had better parameters on server types. Each group would have less reason to panic, and just offer creative thinking to the mix.
You are just trying to argue and I'm not much for it
Nuemcy said:Dullahan said:I think its fair to ask that they give us something a little more concrete regarding veteran servers, even if the game is 3 years from launch. The topics we're discussing have some pretty serious ramifications. Knowing how they may effect us could stand to improve the discussions, quality of feedback and atmosphere on these forums. It might even determine whether or not some people pledge to the game or continue following Pantheon altogether.
no, not fair to anyone but those asking for it and especially not the company actually making the game...
I'm really not up for the whole same ol same ol argument about how this stuff works and if they decide to implement something or don't and what that means in the opposite side of your request, it's been done and I really don't have the time.
Please stop being selfish and think about a foot further before you decide to comment and ask for the moon...Everything being discussed in this forum has serious ramifications, not just what you are crusading for today.
Is the money you used to gain access to these forums something you decided to pay so you would have people to agrue with? I don't think the development team needs you as their champion to filter out what ideas to use or not by trying to police what ideas other people post on these forums. Either add something constructive, or please move along.
Edit: The above post is hypocrisy at it's finest. Thanks for stopping by though. It's becoming evident why so many of these threads are unable to have healthy discussions.
Katalyzt said:Is the money you used to gain access to these forums something you decided to pay so you would have people to agrue with? I don't think the development team needs you as their champion to filter out what ideas to use or not by trying to police what ideas other people post on these forums. Either add something constructive, or please move along.
Edit: The above post is hypocrisy at it's finest. Thanks for stopping by though. It's becoming evident why so many of these threads are unable to have healthy discussions.
I only have to wipe my young sons butt, not yours...I'd like to be able to discuss, but folks such as yourself only want to jump to conclusions based on their myopic view of things
if you look just 7 or so post previously, you'll see that I did pose a quality question and then I think it degraded from there...not my fault or intention
Have a better one
Please stop the personal attacks and accusations guys or I will be forced to clean the thread up and delete anything off topic.
This thread is a discussion about Matchmaking, a system that is being discussed internally as an "idea" to be tested to see if it works in Pantheon, keeping that in mind, please continue the discussion :)
I think the matchmaking is a great idea. Maybe it could be implemented as a "potential friends list". It could present you with a list of people who are the highest percentage match and from there it's up to you to send them a tell. Maybe it could be an opt-in system so you won't get bothered if some evening you don't feel like receiving messages.
Of course, the questions in the survey and the matching algorithm will make or break this system.
What happened to just naturally meeting people in the game world? I know you're cool and have similar goals because we grouped and talked. I know you have a similar schedule because you're always on when I am. Clearly they want to attract people to the game, and obviously that is a necessity, but I hope there aren't too many of these layers that do things for players which players can do themselves.
Liav said:Krixus said:I hope there aren't too many of these layers that do things for players which players can do themselves.
Why? Of all the things, why would something that encourages people to socialize with like-minded people not be wanted?
Can they not both exist? I see no reason why they can't. Filter 1) is sorted by profile similarities - plus basic lfg criteria, and filter 2) is just sorted by basic lfg criteria. Even by programming standards it seems like it would be a minimal time investment between the two.
I suspect that as servers age the "profile similarities" will become close to irrelevant among lower level players, and the precedent will ultimately lean towards just the fundamental lfg classes/level standards for all mid/high level groups. Either way, the profile filter is ultimately a gift that has the potential to keep on give throughout all levels. If the profile system can match people together as low level players, and they mature together as long term guild mates/friends, then I think it was worth the time the dev team put it to develop it.
I've been thinking a lot about this (and other subjects). First off, I've played a lot of MMOs, and I have been a tester in most (in some, I was there very early on), execpt EQ - I started playing when Kunark came out. Examples of the other games are, and in no special order, D & D, WOW, SWG, EQ2, VG, LOTRO, Conan, Aion etc. The last MMO I tried was Wildstar.
For me, EQ stands out like no other game has since. I began to wonder why that is: is it the game only or is it about who I am? Or both?
To get to my point I need to say this, too. Please, bear with me. Once, I travelled to a third world country (Cambodia), which had totally chaotic traffic, no safety rails and (hardly any) warning signs anywhere. At first I was terrified. "Help! I'm gonna die!" - kind of thing. Being a Westerner, I've been lulled into having authorities pave the way for me, as it were. This means I don't have to rely on myself as much in my normal RL. In this 3rd world country I had to learn to rely on and trust myself as quickly as possible. After I had gotten used to taking care of myself on this whole other level over there, I honestly have never feelt as good about myself in RL as I did during my fairly brief visit. In short, I felt alive like never before or since. I mattered. What I did mattered. What I left undone came back to bite me. I also needed other people in a way I don't in my own country.
Here's the thing: EQ gave me a similar feeling, a similar pride over self-reliance and fun interdependence. In that game I had to be creative, had to interact with others to get by, had to learn what to do (on my own a lot, but also by what others told me), no safety rails etc. Nothing was handed to me. It made me feel awesome about myself once I learned the ropes. So yeah, this is me and what makes me tick; and why I loved the danger and freedom of EQ. That won't change.
This is the primary reason why I'm reluctant to cheer about new innovations that take away from my interdependent self-reliance, which are the two things I love most in life - yeah, those aren't mutually exclusive, but actually correlated, as EQ showed us. It's not rose-colored nostalgia; it's who I am and about a game that let me be me within a world that could breathe.
Now here's another catch. Panteon isn't designed for me. It's designed for people who are similar to me, in that we all want a social, harder game than ones we have seen lately. I get that and I'm on board with that. The world doesn't revolve around me; never has and never will.
That said, I prefer a game where I'm the one, who has to react, ask questions, discover how the world works and who my fellow players are. I prefer to rely on myself for that. In the greater scheme of things, my views probably don't matter much, since we all want Pantheon to succeed, which means to welcome new players, who need a greater helping hand, due to what they're used to. These new people might very well become great friends, too. So, I do want them to stay and get into the spirit of the acutal game before they become frustrated and possibly leave.
From my perspetive: no to matchmaking. For the health and future of Pantheon: yes to matchmaking of some type. I will also continue to bring my perspective to the table. Because I, the type of player and person that I am, matter, too.
@Zenya
That's all great and I agree to an extent, but I still can't help but point out that it's flawed in a way.
You can apply the same reasoning to every feature any video game has ever had, and at the end of the day, manage to say that none of those features or concessions were necessary because they took away from your independence.
The answer to all of these questions comes down to pragmatism. Some problems, and in this instance, problems of how information is conveyed, simply aren't practical in such a detailed, "interactive" way. There are limitations of the game engine, to begin with. There are limitations of the types of communication available. There's the fact that humans can't employ all of their bodily senses in a video game.
Maybe in 30 or 50 years when virtual reality very closely conforms with reality we could expect things like this to not be necessary. At the end of the day though, Pantheon's game world is going to be huge and it would only be depriving people of opportunities to socialize if some concessions were not made to "artificially" foster that process. We're already artificially fostering socialization by playing a video game on the internet.
Furthermore, I also disagree with the assessment that EQ is a "harder" game. EQ is a very simple game with an above-average burden of knowledge. The only reason EQ was the way it was, in my opinion, hinges on the time that it was made. I think an overwhelming majority of the alleged "challenge" of the game came from the fact that MMO design as a field was in its infancy, and a lot of those elements arose from omission (either due to technical limitations or just having not been considered at all due to how new the genre was).
So in summary, I believe that the proposed feature couldn't really harm the game at all. I think EQ could have benefitted from a feature like this in 1999, or 2001, or whenever. I don't think the fact that features like this were omitted from EQ (either due to technical limitations or just having not been considered at all due to how new the genre was) has any relevance to the efficacy of the feature.
Aena said:I think the matchmaking is a great idea. Maybe it could be implemented as a "potential friends list". It could present you with a list of people who are the highest percentage match and from there it's up to you to send them a tell. Maybe it could be an opt-in system so you won't get bothered if some evening you don't feel like receiving messages.
Of course, the questions in the survey and the matching algorithm will make or break this system.
I agree with Aena great examples that i've brought up along time ago. It's basically like (warrior) living a mile away from the perfect woman (cleric) that you just happen to never run across. With a system like this if both members decided to opt-into in it would let them know that if either of them wanted to they could send a tell to that perfect match and see if they are compatable.
Unfortunately when I hear "matchmaking" I think of that creepy old guy that stalks young women to tell them of his dating site. Blech. (If it weren't for my love of watching live sports I'd never see a commercial.)
I gotta say that I'm having trouble seeing how this fits into a game. I feel that "matchmaking" (I'm sorry, the term really doesn't sit so well with me, but that's just me) is a natural by-product of grouping and social interaction. I've met people in real life and made life long friends from the games I've played and I wouldn't classify myself as a social butterfly type.
That's not me saying "hell, no!" at all. The problem with discussing many of these ideas on these forums is that we're given only a half-baked notion of what a system being considered is meant to do. Some times Brad pops in to try and give a summation of his thought process but not being able to just sit there and pick his brain for clarifications is maddening. I want to know and understand things.
I am a displaced MMORPGer. I have no home at the moment. I can't even get into single player games any more because MMORPGs have destroyed them for me. I am hoping Pantheon meets my gaming needs and I will opinionate on it as long as the forums are open to do so. Dissenting and contrasting opinions are what makes the world go 'round (or we'd all be using iPhones instead of Android, no?).
Passionate opinions on a subject are good. When it devolves into name calling and telling people that opinions are wrong then it polarizes the forums. That's sad because I really do think we're all on the same team here.
Liav said:Krixus said:I hope there aren't too many of these layers that do things for players which players can do themselves.
Why? Of all the things, why would something that encourages people to socialize with like-minded people not be wanted?
Many reasons, which I have detailed, as you know, in many places. For starters, this one is not a big deal, as I've already said.
How does one define "like minded"? Just because I am an unrepentant power gamer does not mean I don't LOVE grouping with role players and "casuals". Making friends OUTSIDE of your normal comfort zone can lead to amazing things. Why pigeon hole ourselves into match making? This type of layer on the game will prevent organic interaction. Will it also bring a postiive? Perhaps. But, again, too many of these layers on the game which do things for the players that they can already do, organically, and for themselves worries me.