Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Matchmaking

    • 610 posts
    April 26, 2016 5:10 AM PDT

    leafnin said:

    So the biggest negative I'm hearing is "I don't like it as it will allow others after me to level faster then I did and bypass content".  Ok so don't have the effect be anything xp related make it more a combat buff that gets overridden or stacks slightly in a full group (Multiple mentors don't stack beyond the one instance of the buff).  Also have a low level cap on being mentored there is a point where they are no longer 'new'.  Not going to touch the mentor bonus if any as the mentor should want to help just cause not to increase a bar.  Also no mentoring at launch for a bit no need as everyone is new at this point.

     

    Final note: We don't need community spliting 'veteran servers'. RP tag?  Sure,doesn't hurt anything but not interested in doing a FF14 Legacy server system.

    It has nothing to do with leveling faster and bypassing content....as I said in my other post EVERY game that has mentoring the high level is pretty much god mode. It breaks the game for both the one being mentored and anyone else in the area as the uber level toon pulls the entire zone and just slaughters everything, thanks but no thank.

    Final Note: So youre against a veteran rp server even though by your own admittance you dont think it will hurt anything but youre in support of a system that has been proven in other games to break the game?

    • 178 posts
    April 26, 2016 5:16 AM PDT

    I can understand the reasoning behind it, but I feel it will simple be used as "not intended." Unintended consequences and probably not in a positive way.

    I prefer the old ways of mentoring. You had a friend just introduced into the game - and I believe mentoring will mostly be between associates and friends and not with complete strangers - so you created a newbie in the same area to run alongside your friend. You leveled your newbie alt alongside with his "main." I prefer this method because the aspect of "run" and "train to zone!" is very real. The aspect of "corpse recovery" is very real. The mentoring aspect is in full force because you have knowledgae about the game or area and how to play - that is mentoring. Beyond that, everyone is equally crappy.

    Finally, having a character be sacled back in level is still a fully equipped character running alongside a naked character (or less equipped character). It's just another form of twinking. Twinking is still going to happen. So why even bother with the mentoring? Unless, the ability to create alternates will not be available - which I don't believe is the case.

    If the purpose is to somehow instill some form of reward to a higher level player who is helping a lower level player I don't think that is necessary. Enjoyment from the game is the reward. Playing with others in a group and social context is the reward. An in-game reward system is fraught with unintended consequences and probably still keeps the new player isolated and uninvolved.

    • 103 posts
    April 26, 2016 5:50 AM PDT

    Aena said:

    Well that's interesting! Sounds like OKCupid or Match.com!

    Yeah but with like 98% dudes..... oh wait, nvm.

    Im fine with mentoring. I liked it back in CoH so I dont see a problem with it here. Good for friends who bring in new players and I really dont think any of the "issues" brought up are a big deal. Or issues at all to be honest. Theres probably going to be plenty of camp grinding in this game, let people play with who ever they want.

    • 180 posts
    April 26, 2016 7:24 AM PDT

    Sounds fine as long as it is balanced correctly. One of the biggest reasons people power level is so they can play with their friends.  This would help and allow you to still advance your character.

     

    I'm willing to bet that any shards without this would see an increase in power leveling.


    This post was edited by Thanakos at April 26, 2016 8:17 AM PDT
    • 232 posts
    April 26, 2016 7:36 AM PDT

    Raidan said:

    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).  

    If mentoring had to be used, like Dullahan, I wouldn't want it to award any "normal" experience to the mentor who develed.  Now, I could see a mentor gain experience in a system similar to Everquest's leadership experience that gives very minor, nearly trivial bonuses - here's a link: http://strategywiki.org/wiki/EverQuest/AA_info/Leadership_AA or perhaps like some strategy game series, if a unit fights in close proximity enough with another they can form a "bond" which would provide small bonuses if grouped later (in close proximity).  Provide some small incentive, but nothing that is gamebreaking or necessary.

    As far as the mentor scaling back, I'd expand it on how EQ did it with weapon damage originally.  Weapon damage/AC/etc. could be scaled off of weapon/defensive skills and hp/mana items or hp/mana regen items could be scaled off of a item knowledge or recovery skill.  And, only the skills/spells available at that level could be used. 

    I've said it in other threads, mentoring could be a reversed twinking system, but, it shouldn't be able to be used to obtain normal experience or you'll get people abusing it.  But, if a max level character was scaled back, no matter what system is imposed, there will be some trivialization of content even with scaling as I'm sure they would be close to the damage/ac caps for that level range with their scaled "twink" gear in addition to having a knowledge of the game.  Either way though, even if an alt was used that's twinked, you experience the same trivialization as a scaled mentor.  The one main piece that would make mentoring different than twinking is a player would have to suspend disbelief of your character being able to magically scale back in levels.  I know for some that's a dealbreaker and I get it.  I'd be willing to test the system, if introduced properly, and I've usually been 100% aganist mentoring in any game.

    My fear of a mentor system even if introduced properly is it would negatively effect the grouping experience by having one new player that is getting power leveled basically by a guild of scaled mentors; whereas, it would be much less likely that a group of guild alts would be in the same level range.

    Or, I could see this conversation happening happening... "Hey guys, I see you have an open spot - mind if I join?  Sorry, have a guildie that's about ready to join after he scales back once he's done with his raid.  I'll let you know if we have an opening though."

    TLDR: I get why mentoring would try to be used, but I think there's more potential negatives than positives even if properly implemented.  I'd be willing to test it though.

    I agree with Raidan on this.  His post accurately sums up my fears with such a system.  Frankly, hearing this news was a bit of a gut punch.

    Every developer that has pushed out a mentor system did it with the best of intentions and to the best of their ability.  Yet time and time again, these systems continue to fall short and have a serious impact on the games we play.  As Brad said, the devil's in the details, but my faith and confidence in a mentor system - regardless of developer - is about as low as it gets.  

    • 112 posts
    April 26, 2016 8:08 AM PDT

    I have yet to try a mentoring feature myself.  That being said, I could see some appeal in the concept - but IMO it shouldn't downgrade someone to the cap at that level, but lower than that.  The person mentoring will in theory have plenty of experience and ability to play their character, and have less of a need to rely on gear/stats. 

     

    What's the need you are meeting with mentoring?  Someone needs others to group with?  A specific class?  So be it, but they don't need someone overpowered, they don't need someone even above average.  IMO a mentor should never be desired over another peer-player leveling up, otherwise you are taking away potential groupings/friends to be made.

     

    Reading others opinions on the matter, makes me wonder if there would be a better avenue to go down with this.  Stock stats instead of downgrading a higher level, for one.  Yes, you have an uber level 50, congrats - but why should that factor into this "mentoring" char you are playing?

     

     

    If done properly, I could see it is a non-issue.  But like others, if there's a different shard with it removed, I would just assume avoiding the potential issue entirely.

    • 1714 posts
    April 26, 2016 9:24 AM PDT

    muscoby said:

    I can understand the reasoning behind it, but I feel it will simple be used as "not intended." Unintended consequences and probably not in a positive way.

    I prefer the old ways of mentoring. You had a friend just introduced into the game - and I believe mentoring will mostly be between associates and friends and not with complete strangers - so you created a newbie in the same area to run alongside your friend. You leveled your newbie alt alongside with his "main." I prefer this method because the aspect of "run" and "train to zone!" is very real. The aspect of "corpse recovery" is very real. The mentoring aspect is in full force because you have knowledgae about the game or area and how to play - that is mentoring. Beyond that, everyone is equally crappy.

    Finally, having a character be sacled back in level is still a fully equipped character running alongside a naked character (or less equipped character). It's just another form of twinking. Twinking is still going to happen. So why even bother with the mentoring? Unless, the ability to create alternates will not be available - which I don't believe is the case.

    If the purpose is to somehow instill some form of reward to a higher level player who is helping a lower level player I don't think that is necessary. Enjoyment from the game is the reward. Playing with others in a group and social context is the reward. An in-game reward system is fraught with unintended consequences and probably still keeps the new player isolated and uninvolved.

    Very well said!

    • 769 posts
    April 26, 2016 9:46 AM PDT

    I've been swayed by the arguments here. Nicely done, internet.

    Pretty much following the consenus of "No Mentoring" system now. In a game that doesn't allow the amount of twinking that MMO's like EQ did, mentoring really has no place.

     

    Not that this would sway me from the game even a little bit if it was implemented. I would just rather mentoring be done with advice and handouts, ye olde way.

    -Tralyan

     

    • 105 posts
    April 26, 2016 9:52 AM PDT

    This thread makes me sad.

     

    There were plenty of ways to 'mentor' someone back in the early days of EQ without a system to do so.  I remember fighting outside the city gates close to the guards so that if I accidentally agro'ed two rats I could save my behind by running inside the city and letting the guards do their job. I remember being stopped by a higher level character who said, "Here, take this it will help."  and I got a rusty bastard sword handed to me and an old tattered piece of armor.  Wow, was I ever tough with those shoddy upgrades!  

     

    I got braver and ventured farther.  Still I'd run to the gates when I got into too much trouble.  But I didn't run fast enough and fire beetles were taking chunks out of my buttocks.  I was going to die but all of a sudden I felt my feet become faster and I ran like the wind as a passer-by cast SoW on me. Or I'd suddenly become magically armored or a well-timed full heal would land.  

     

    Because that's the kind of thing you did when you got the experience under your belt in EQ--you made some newbie's day by taking time to cast a buff or give away some vendor junk as you ran by on your business.  The world was built so that veterans had a reason to pass back through the newbie zones and people were so helpful back then.  When I reached maxiumum level I couldn't wait to make some newbie's day by dropping a buff as I went by on my business.

     

    I used to take lower level groups out and heal them on my high level cleric.  They did all the fighting and I healed from outside the group.  I didn't get any game reward for doing it.  I suppose there are those that will tell me how I was cheating the system or some such thing.  But there I was, taking time out to help some low levels out with nothing to gain for myself except companionship and goodwill.  

     

    Now everything I did has been deemed 'bad'.  You can't pass high level gear down to your alt or a low level player because twinking is bad.  You can't put high level buffs on random low levels you pass because it's unfair.  You can't heal outside of group because that's unfair.  You can't sit there and wait for a lowbie player or group to get the mob down to 49% and then one shot it so they can move to the next target because powerleveling is bad.  You can't sell dropped raid gear to people outside of the raid because people who are good at making plat but bad at raiding should never be price-gouged for gear that all the raiders already have and it's just going to rot since your raid force doesn't need it.  

     

    I am sorry to wax to pendantic here and I've meandered on subject but bear with me a bit longer.

     

    I don't need some system with a carrot-on-a-stick reward in order to help new players out.  I need a game-an online world- that rewards those that are social and cooperative with companionship, pestige, honor and pride in what they've accomplished.  An organic world.

     

    And before you think you know me--I actually liked mentoring in EQ2 and Rift.  Dropping down some levels and going back in to face-roll a zone that was tough is a very satisfying experience. 

     

     

     

     

     

     

    • 30 posts
    April 26, 2016 10:15 AM PDT

    I have not played a mmo before that had mentoring, so it’s something I have no experience with. But the idea of it really doesn’t appeal to me at all.

    I can understand that VR wants to implement a system to let friends play together even if they are different levels, but people here have brought up a lot of valid points against it. One point that was mentioned that concerns me is that many groups may prefer to have higher level friends or guild mates “scale down” and join their group as opposed to having someone else who is already the appropriate level range.

    For example, say I’m a level 15 tank with average level 15 gear, and I’m in a level 15 area looking for a group. People may have a tendency to choose their level 50 tank friend who is going to join and “scale down” to level 15, so they won’t need me at all.

     

    Aradune said:

    The 'catering' will mostly be to beginning players who are not used to a game that is about grouping and community.  If it annoys you, choose to play on a 'veteran' shard.  If you like the idea of helping newbies (and even being rewarded for doing so), then please play on the regular servers.  In any case the 'catering' will slowly but surely diminish as players advance in level.  

    The upside is that people who didn't experience the first generation of MMOs will be exposed to grouping, community, working together, forming friendships, and shared experiences as opposed to logging in, thinking they can do everything solo, running off and then dying repeatedly, ultimately leaving the game frustrated.

    I really don't see a downside to what you are refering to as 'catering'; I do, however, see a downside if we (the developers and the veteran gamers) do nothing to help out the new players.

    I was actually planning to play on a regular server that would have a lot of newbie players, possibly even volunteering to be a guide. The idea of a “veteran” only server seemed kind of snobbish to me. I like to help people and would usually spend time in EQ buffing lower level people, or pulling/camp breaking for them. I never got anything from it (except maybe some new friends who would remember my name after helping them) and I was okay with that. I didn’t do it to get something back, I did it just because that’s the kind of person I am : )

    But if this mentoring system is going to be causing problems finding groups or just doesn’t turn out to be what is being promised, I may just go with the “veteran” server at launch.

    • VR Staff
    • 587 posts
    April 26, 2016 10:30 AM PDT

    Some final notes, because really, until we are in early beta and can test such a system, it's all just theory crafting.

     

    1. Mentoring may only exist on certain servers.

    2. Mentoring will not enable higher level players to power level lower level players, nor is that the reason for such a system.

    3. There will likely be a level cap such that you can only mentor players, say, level 10 or below.  

    4. We will need to me more proactive in general helping acclimate players new to a social, cooperative, grouping MMO.  In general, some of you guys will just have to accept that.

    5. If the Mentor system proves to be a problem no matter our good intentions I will yank it out of the game during beta, just like I will any system that, regardless of good intentions, doesn't materialize into what we all truly wanted or were truly trying to address.  And by 'we all' I mean both us developers and you, the community.


    This post was edited by Aradune at April 26, 2016 10:38 AM PDT
    • 1778 posts
    April 26, 2016 11:22 AM PDT
    As usual clear over react from many in my opinion.
    • VR Staff
    • 587 posts
    April 26, 2016 2:21 PM PDT

    *warning* Long post ahead!

    So, I absolutely don't mind the questions, commentary, and concerns -- in fact, I welcome them.  I think there does come a time with certain proposed systems that discussion for now is done and like I said above just theory-crafting.  When it comes to that, while you guys are certainly free to continue to discuss, I'm not going to concern myself with it until it's implemented and testable and I can get real feedback.

    I also understand whenever something is brought up that a. wasn't in EQ or VG (seems to be primarily EQ, which is fine) or b. was implemented in another game but not well, that people raise red flags and concerns.  This happens internally too, and I totally understand.  Indeed, systems never tried before or that have been but poorly implemented in other games require additional scrutiny.

    All that said, we aren't making an EQ emulator, which I know all of you know, and we are in a different period (2016 and not 1999).   So there are some realities we have to deal with, one of the big ones is there will be a lot of people checking out Pantheon who aren't used to grouping/cooperative/social/community.  Some/many may end up trying it and not liking it, preferring instead one of the more single-player oriented MMOs that are prevalent right now.  And that's fine.  But as I've posted before, I truly believe a significant percentage who haven't experienced the magic of EQ and earlier games *will* love Pantheon, and it's important both to us and you all that we bring those people in and take care of them, at least short term, so they can acclimate.  

    One other thing I've talked about before is keeping the concepts of 'idea' and 'implementation' separate in our minds.  I know it's natural when you hear about a system that sounds similar (in name or description) to one that you've experienced in another MMO and didn't like to have some concern.  There's where we need to think deeper and come to the conclusion:  ok, was the idea a bad one, or was it the implementation of said idea?

    A perfect example was when I brought up that I really want some cool underwater zones in Pantheon, even coming up with an aquatic playable race.  When I first brought this up to the team, some were concerned... why?  After digging deeper it was because underwater zones in previous MMOs they'd been involved with and/or played was frustrating.  Either the controls were a pain, or the experience disorienting, etc.  Nobody really had a problem with the concept of exploring an Atlantis type zone underwater -- in fact, most thought that sounded pretty appealing.  Nobody really had an issue with trying to create a play experience underwater that was different than on ground, where you have to worry about being attacked from above or below, changing the physics a bit, etc.  

    The main concern was that, if we were going to tackle underwater zones, that we make sure they are as fun as regular zones, that players don't find out they want an item available only in an underwater zone and go 'ah man, I gotta endure underwater crappyness to get this item'.  Totally legit reaction and feedback, and important because when we do tackle it, we know how important the implementation is going to be!

    I really think this is the case for most of the other systems we are proposing that were not in EQ or VG.  And especially, again, if they sound similar to a system in another MMO that people didn't care for.  So again I encourage people to evaluate both the idea and the implementation.  If you really don't like the idea, that's fine, say so and why.  But if you don't have a problem with the idea or premise behind implementing such a system, but are rather concerned that it's implemented properly, not abused, not exploited, etc. then please make that clear as well.

    I know most of you don't want us to create an EQ or VG emulator (especially since other people are working on them anyway).  You want us to recapture the spirit, the magic, the x-factor and then bring it into a modern MMO and then also try some new ideas and attempt to move the genre forward in the direction we've all been dreaming about for years.  For us to do that, of course, we're going to have to implement and try out some systems that are totally new as well as implement and try out systems that are similar to ones tried in more recent games but to execute on them better.

    This will become even more true post-launch when ideas/systems/mechanics/content that belong to the Grand Vision become part of expansions and updates and such.  As I've posted before, there are a LOT of ideas I and others have wanted to get into MMOs but have never had the time.  If you look at EQ, most of the original team left after the first couple of expansions, then another team came in, changed things to their taste and vision, then they left, rinse repeat.  So while it is truly amazing and humbling that EQ is still going on 16 years after launch, I do look at the game and, with all due respect, it isn't the culmination of 16 years of consistent vision, evolving forward with each expansion.  A lot of that is my fault because for a variety of reasons I'm not going to dig into, I didn't stay with the game -- I left to start my own company after working on the game for 5 years (with only 2 of those years post-launch).  And even when I was there post-launch, I was in charge of other games as well and could not maintain my focus and involvement with EQ.  If I had a TARDIS I would probably go back in time and not sell Verant to Sony and stuck with EQ for years and years.

    But it is what it is, I don't have a TARDIS, dwelling on past decisions is only useful to a point, and my passion and joy is now Pantheon, and not just the Pantheon we will release, but the game Pantheon will become after launch as well.  An MMO launch is like a baby being born -- it's a wonderful event, a beautiful thing, but that baby is brand new to the world and has so much potential ahead of them in life.  

    So I guess it comes down to something like this:

    1. What systems and such do we want to take from the first generation of MMOs and bring them back because, especially for our target audience, they've gone missing from the newer MMOs.  I think we have a pretty clear picture of that, both from ourselves and from the community.

    1a. Which of these systems need some tweaking or adjustments based on what we've learned in the last 16+ years?  

    1b. Which of these systems need to be changed because many in our audience have jobs, spouses, responsibilities, etc. and cannot, for example, regularly play 8 hour contiguous sessions?  Again, their tastes in gaming haven't changed, but their situation in RL has.

    1c. Which of these systems do we NOT want to resurrect?  (e.g. staring at nothing while medding) Or which ones do we, but not to the degree or extent? (e.g. too much grinding or mindless repetition)

    1d. Which of these systems that we want to bring back may be alien and unfamiliar to younger MMO gamers who never experienced the first generation of MMOs?  And what should we do about that?

    2. What new systems/mechanics/ideas/etc. do we want to bring to the game... the genesis of these ideas could be ones that we've had in our minds for years but an opportunity has never arisen to actually execute on them.  Or they could be ideas we've seen in other MMOs that we liked, or that we think we'd like if they were implemented a bit differently.  Or they could be brand new ideas from some of our newer team members, or from the community, etc..  

    2a. Do we feel we need them because, again, we're not just making an emulator?  And because we want to move the genre forward?  I think most people would answer yes even though their first reaction might be skeptical because they're unfamiliar (were not in EQ or VG or earlier MMOs) or that, again, they've seen something similar in another game and not cared for the implementation.  

    2b. How do we address these concerns?  I think we can talk about them a bit, I can better try to explain them, how they'll work, how they are perhaps different than other prior implementations.  But, again, at some point, especially with systems that require critical mass (e.g. a sufficient number of people in-game testing them, experimenting with and experiencing) that explanations and theory-crafting can only go so far.  In those cases, at some point, I need to ask that you have patience and faith in the team and wait until beta.  And please always keep in mind my very real commitment to you all that I mentioned in the previous post:  if something doesn't work out when we actually have people playing with it, no matter how cool the idea sounded on paper, I will yank it.  We've built the game with a solid foundation and are building the newer systems on top of this foundation so that if we do yank one, the game still works, the core of the game isn't compromised, and it isn't like a house of cards -- the whole game doesn't come crumbling down because we yanked out, say, the Mentor system.  

    3. Related to previous points, do we need to proactively introduce and acclimate these newer players?  I strongly believe we do.  I understand that we are making a hardcore challenging game.  I understand that not everyone is going to like Pantheon, and we're ok with that.  But now that 15+ million people have been exposed to online gaming, it is a statistical certainty that some percentage of them would have loved EQ and other first generation MMOs had they been around and online back then.  So it only makes sense that we make Pantheon for them too, not just the old school who was around back then.  I know you guys know that just making a game *only* for the old school doesn't make sense.  It doesn't make sense for us financially.  And I think it doesn't make sense for you players either -- I think many of you are going to enjoy introducing a newer, younger generation into what made the early games so amazing and immersive.  

    3a. With so many more recent MMOs more single player oriented, what impact does that have on Pantheon?  And let me be more specific:  many of the more recent MMOs, in the attempt to be as mass market and accessible as possible, have removed anything they think might or could be a barrier to entry to an online gamer.  And I'm not posting this to criticize these games per se -- I understand their goals and where they were coming from.  But not only did it leave our audience orphaned, it also conditioned newer MMO gamers in terms of what to expect and how to play these games.  Some online gamers like a single player experience (e.g. they can solo through the game themselves) but having that experience in an online persistent world.  They like feeling part of a greater group of players, they like seeing other real people running around... it makes their experience deeper and more immersive.  But they don’t really want to interact a lot with other people, especially actually needing to cooperate with others and work as a team.  And that's fine.  But for those that do enjoy more social, team oriented, cooperative play, they've not really encountered that in an MMO (they do in some FPS games, MOBAs etc. but those games are more session based – they’re not about a persistent world and they’re not about building up a character for months and years and making a game a home).  I truly believe that when they *do* experience all of this in a persistent world they’re going to love it.

    But, and this is key, when they try out Pantheon, even those who end up loving the game, at first they're going to assume a gameplay style that they are accustomed to.  And if they do that in Pantheon, if they just run off solo and try to fight any mob they come across, things aren't going to go well.  And so, before they even experience the magic of shared experiences and a real community, there's the possibility they become frustrated and leave.  With EQ, we didn't really think about this much, MMOs were new, there were fewer choices, and so we just let people figure out that they needed to group up and work together organically.  But I strongly feel that we can't do that again -- this is 2016, not 1999.  Do you guys agree?

    3b. If you do agree, then what can we do about it?  First, I don't think there's a simple answer.  It's almost like a powerful bacterium that you have to attack with multiple antibiotics.  I think you veteran players will play a key role, especially those of you who enjoy taking a newbie under your arm and introducing an MMO to them.  But I think we need to go further -- I think we need to reward and actively encourage veteran players to help (again, this is what I call vertical interdependence).  An obvious approach is, of course, a Guide System -- these worked very well in the first generation of MMOs and they are arguably going to be even more important in Pantheon.  So that's the community side of things.

    3c. Next is what's caused the most commotion and concern amongst you, and that is systems in-game that exist specifically to introduce gamers new to the social, grouping experience or to help them make real, lasting in-game friendships, and generally to foster and promote community building.  Most of the concern I hear is that these systems could be looked at as 'easy-mode' or 'catering' to the new players.  Or, worse yet, that they could be abused and taken advantage of by more experienced players.  And I understand and hear that.  On one hand we're promoting Pantheon as a hardcore, challenging game, and then on the other hand, we're bringing up these ideas to make the newbie's experience 'easier', or at least more welcoming and less jarring.  I can see that, from a limited perspective anyway, those two goals could be seen as contradictory or at odds or even mutually exclusive.  And to a point I think those concerns are certainly valid to bring up, because we have to make sure they are NOT at odds.  But can we think of ways to gently bring in newbies, not scare them away, show them the magic of cooperative play and community while keeping Pantheon a hardcore, challenging game?  We've certainly thought about that a lot and the answer is 1. Yes and 2. We have to.  

    So again, please do discuss these things, express your concerns, etc., but also do so realizing the need that we accomplish both, and help us with solutions.  Something I've always stressed to my teams is that it's pretty easy for an intelligent developer or gamer to point out potential problems with a system.  But what does that really accomplish?  The true challenge is not just pointing out potential problems, but coming up with solutions, work arounds, different approaches, etc.  Yes, it's harder to do, but it is *so* much more useful to us and it's really a huge part of game development.  It's about smart and creative people coming together, recognizing problems and challenges, and then coming up with solutions.  And I'd like to (and do) include all of you in this as well.  I've seen a lot of not only great new ideas posted here and elsewhere, but also people thinking outside of the box and coming up with solutions and different approaches to address problems in MMOs, both the old ones and the new ones.  

    Anyway, long post, but I felt the need to really go into this, not just to address concerns about a Mentor system, but to try to address the big picture.  I hope that most of you understand where I'm coming from and that this is helpful.  The only people I think this truly won't resonate with would be 1. those who truly do just want us to make an EQ emulator and 2. those who really don't want any newbies in Pantheon, who would be content to have Pantheon merely be a haven for those of you who've felt abandoned and orphaned by the newer MMOs.  If you fall into one or both of those categories, then I'm going to have to be really straight up with you:  Pantheon isn't want you think or want it to be.  Hopefully you think about all of this more and change your viewpoint.  But I'm going to stand firm on those two statements:  not an emulator, and not only for the old school gamer.

    If you do agree, however, that Pantheon needs to move things forward, be a modern game, incorporate new ideas, then please consider those that we've revealed and talked about, and those we will in the future, keeping all of the above in mind.  And if you do agree or at least understand that having a financially successful game allows us to keep working on the game long term, please understand the need for us to reach some subset of the 15+ million online gamers out there.  And the need to proactively ease them into a game like Pantheon, the likes of which they've probably never experienced.  Pantheon is most certainly a product of passion -- we're not just doing this to make money -- if we were, there are *far* easier genres to tackle.  MMOs are hard, perhaps the hardest game genre.  You've got to really be in love with them to work on them.  But it's also about being profitable.  The members of this team have families and bills and RL to contend with -- our dream is to create a great MMO that remains popular for months and years and that brings in the money that allows us to pay people what they deserve, to build the team as necessary, to create a working environment where people can focus on creating a great game and then keeping it great after launch without worrying about how they're going to pay bills or make ends meet.  So the more people who end up playing and loving Pantheon the better.  No, we're not going to veer away from the Vision to try to make an extra buck.  No, we're not going to chase the wow-killer agenda that unfortunately a lot of MMOs did chase.  We're just fine making a fantastic game for our audience.  And that audience, when it’s made up of old school gamers as well as some percentage of newbies, is plenty large enough for Pantheon to be very profitable.  But I do have to keep both groups in mind -- I need to make sure you guys are getting the game you want, that we're listening to you all, etc.  But I also need to do whatever I can do make sure those who've never experienced the magic feel welcome and comfortable right away and aren't frustrated and chased away before they even have a chance to experience the magic we and you so dearly want to bring back to MMOs.  

    Anyway, 'nuff said, my verbose mode was certainly ON so hopefully you actually made it to the end of this post, but I wanted to cover it all and then bring it all together, so you guys understand why we're doing what we're doing.  I look forward to any comments, questions, etc.

     

    • 769 posts
    April 26, 2016 2:57 PM PDT

    Man, Brad, you're a helluva guy.

    It's interesting to note that no matter how we all espouse the golden days of EQ, and consider ourselves more "hardcore" than the rest due to our time in games like EQ, that we still all have very varying opinions on mechanics and implementations. Goes to show that even when you're catering to one particular group of people, and not to the masses, there are still going to be very different opinions.

    That's both pretty cool, and probaby a little annoying for ya'll.

    We're all very passionate and excited about the prospect of this MMO. I truly hope our discussions and even sometimes childish arguments don't deter you from being passionate yourself. When it comes down to it, I think we're all just intensely glad you and your team are here, listening and working to make this game for all of us. Sometimes we just show that gratitude by being, y'know ...MMO nerds. And MMO nerds don't know how to be adults in forums sometimes.

    Beers all around.

    -Tralyan

    • 428 posts
    April 26, 2016 3:12 PM PDT

    Aradune said:

    *warning* Long post ahead!

    So, I absolutely don't mind the questions, commentary, and concerns -- in fact, I welcome them.  I think there does come a time with certain proposed systems that discussion for now is done and like I said above just theory-crafting.  When it comes to that, while you guys are certainly free to continue to discuss, I'm not going to concern myself with it until it's implemented and testable and I can get real feedback.

    I also understand whenever something is brought up that a. wasn't in EQ or VG (seems to be primarily EQ, which is fine) or b. was implemented in another game but not well, that people raise red flags and concerns.  This happens internally too, and I totally understand.  Indeed, systems never tried before or that have been but poorly implemented in other games require additional scrutiny.

    All that said, we aren't making an EQ emulator, which I know all of you know, and we are in a different period (2016 and not 1999).   So there are some realities we have to deal with, one of the big ones is there will be a lot of people checking out Pantheon who aren't used to grouping/cooperative/social/community.  Some/many may end up trying it and not liking it, preferring instead one of the more single-player oriented MMOs that are prevalent right now.  And that's fine.  But as I've posted before, I truly believe a significant percentage who haven't experienced the magic of EQ and earlier games *will* love Pantheon, and it's important both to us and you all that we bring those people in and take care of them, at least short term, so they can acclimate.  

    One other thing I've talked about before is keeping the concepts of 'idea' and 'implementation' separate in our minds.  I know it's natural when you hear about a system that sounds similar (in name or description) to one that you've experienced in another MMO and didn't like to have some concern.  There's where we need to think deeper and come to the conclusion:  ok, was the idea a bad one, or was it the implementation of said idea?

    A perfect example was when I brought up that I really want some cool underwater zones in Pantheon, even coming up with an aquatic playable race.  When I first brought this up to the team, some were concerned... why?  After digging deeper it was because underwater zones in previous MMOs they'd been involved with and/or played was frustrating.  Either the controls were a pain, or the experience disorienting, etc.  Nobody really had a problem with the concept of exploring an Atlantis type zone underwater -- in fact, most thought that sounded pretty appealing.  Nobody really had an issue with trying to create a play experience underwater that was different than on ground, where you have to worry about being attacked from above or below, changing the physics a bit, etc.  

    The main concern was that, if we were going to tackle underwater zones, that we make sure they are as fun as regular zones, that players don't find out they want an item available only in an underwater zone and go 'ah man, I gotta endure underwater crappyness to get this item'.  Totally legit reaction and feedback, and important because when we do tackle it, we know how important the implementation is going to be!

    I really think this is the case for most of the other systems we are proposing that were not in EQ or VG.  And especially, again, if they sound similar to a system in another MMO that people didn't care for.  So again I encourage people to evaluate both the idea and the implementation.  If you really don't like the idea, that's fine, say so and why.  But if you don't have a problem with the idea or premise behind implementing such a system, but are rather concerned that it's implemented properly, not abused, not exploited, etc. then please make that clear as well.

    I know most of you don't want us to create an EQ or VG emulator (especially since other people are working on them anyway).  You want us to recapture the spirit, the magic, the x-factor and then bring it into a modern MMO and then also try some new ideas and attempt to move the genre forward in the direction we've all been dreaming about for years.  For us to do that, of course, we're going to have to implement and try out some systems that are totally new as well as implement and try out systems that are similar to ones tried in more recent games but to execute on them better.

    This will become even more true post-launch when ideas/systems/mechanics/content that belong to the Grand Vision become part of expansions and updates and such.  As I've posted before, there are a LOT of ideas I and others have wanted to get into MMOs but have never had the time.  If you look at EQ, most of the original team left after the first couple of expansions, then another team came in, changed things to their taste and vision, then they left, rinse repeat.  So while it is truly amazing and humbling that EQ is still going on 16 years after launch, I do look at the game and, with all due respect, it isn't the culmination of 16 years of consistent vision, evolving forward with each expansion.  A lot of that is my fault because for a variety of reasons I'm not going to dig into, I didn't stay with the game -- I left to start my own company after working on the game for 5 years (with only 2 of those years post-launch).  And even when I was there post-launch, I was in charge of other games as well and could not maintain my focus and involvement with EQ.  If I had a TARDIS I would probably go back in time and not sell Verant to Sony and stuck with EQ for years and years.

    But it is what it is, I don't have a TARDIS, dwelling on past decisions is only useful to a point, and my passion and joy is now Pantheon, and not just the Pantheon we will release, but the game Pantheon will become after launch as well.  An MMO launch is like a baby being born -- it's a wonderful event, a beautiful thing, but that baby is brand new to the world and has so much potential ahead of them in life.  

    So I guess it comes down to something like this:

    1. What systems and such do we want to take from the first generation of MMOs and bring them back because, especially for our target audience, they've gone missing from the newer MMOs.  I think we have a pretty clear picture of that, both from ourselves and from the community.

    1a. Which of these systems need some tweaking or adjustments based on what we've learned in the last 16+ years?  

    1b. Which of these systems need to be changed because many in our audience have jobs, spouses, responsibilities, etc. and cannot, for example, regularly play 8 hour contiguous sessions?  Again, their tastes in gaming haven't changed, but their situation in RL has.

    1c. Which of these systems do we NOT want to resurrect?  (e.g. staring at nothing while medding) Or which ones do we, but not to the degree or extent? (e.g. too much grinding or mindless repetition)

    1d. Which of these systems that we want to bring back may be alien and unfamiliar to younger MMO gamers who never experienced the first generation of MMOs?  And what should we do about that?

    2. What new systems/mechanics/ideas/etc. do we want to bring to the game... the genesis of these ideas could be ones that we've had in our minds for years but an opportunity has never arisen to actually execute on them.  Or they could be ideas we've seen in other MMOs that we liked, or that we think we'd like if they were implemented a bit differently.  Or they could be brand new ideas from some of our newer team members, or from the community, etc..  

    2a. Do we feel we need them because, again, we're not just making an emulator?  And because we want to move the genre forward?  I think most people would answer yes even though their first reaction might be skeptical because they're unfamiliar (were not in EQ or VG or earlier MMOs) or that, again, they've seen something similar in another game and not cared for the implementation.  

    2b. How do we address these concerns?  I think we can talk about them a bit, I can better try to explain them, how they'll work, how they are perhaps different than other prior implementations.  But, again, at some point, especially with systems that require critical mass (e.g. a sufficient number of people in-game testing them, experimenting with and experiencing) that explanations and theory-crafting can only go so far.  In those cases, at some point, I need to ask that you have patience and faith in the team and wait until beta.  And please always keep in mind my very real commitment to you all that I mentioned in the previous post:  if something doesn't work out when we actually have people playing with it, no matter how cool the idea sounded on paper, I will yank it.  We've built the game with a solid foundation and are building the newer systems on top of this foundation so that if we do yank one, the game still works, the core of the game isn't compromised, and it isn't like a house of cards -- the whole game doesn't come crumbling down because we yanked out, say, the Mentor system.  

    3. Related to previous points, do we need to proactively introduce and acclimate these newer players?  I strongly believe we do.  I understand that we are making a hardcore challenging game.  I understand that not everyone is going to like Pantheon, and we're ok with that.  But now that 15+ million people have been exposed to online gaming, it is a statistical certainty that some percentage of them would have loved EQ and other first generation MMOs had they been around and online back then.  So it only makes sense that we make Pantheon for them too, not just the old school who was around back then.  I know you guys know that just making a game *only* for the old school doesn't make sense.  It doesn't make sense for us financially.  And I think it doesn't make sense for you players either -- I think many of you are going to enjoy introducing a newer, younger generation into what made the early games so amazing and immersive.  

    3a. With so many more recent MMOs more single player oriented, what impact does that have on Pantheon?  And let me be more specific:  many of the more recent MMOs, in the attempt to be as mass market and accessible as possible, have removed anything they think might or could be a barrier to entry to an online gamer.  And I'm not posting this to criticize these games per se -- I understand their goals and where they were coming from.  But not only did it leave our audience orphaned, it also conditioned newer MMO gamers in terms of what to expect and how to play these games.  Some online gamers like a single player experience (e.g. they can solo through the game themselves) but having that experience in an online persistent world.  They like feeling part of a greater group of players, they like seeing other real people running around... it makes their experience deeper and more immersive.  But they don’t really want to interact a lot with other people, especially actually needing to cooperate with others and work as a team.  And that's fine.  But for those that do enjoy more social, team oriented, cooperative play, they've not really encountered that in an MMO (they do in some FPS games, MOBAs etc. but those games are more session based – they’re not about a persistent world and they’re not about building up a character for months and years and making a game a home).  I truly believe that when they *do* experience all of this in a persistent world they’re going to love it.

    But, and this is key, when they try out Pantheon, even those who end up loving the game, at first they're going to assume a gameplay style that they are accustomed to.  And if they do that in Pantheon, if they just run off solo and try to fight any mob they come across, things aren't going to go well.  And so, before they even experience the magic of shared experiences and a real community, there's the possibility they become frustrated and leave.  With EQ, we didn't really think about this much, MMOs were new, there were fewer choices, and so we just let people figure out that they needed to group up and work together organically.  But I strongly feel that we can't do that again -- this is 2016, not 1999.  Do you guys agree?

    3b. If you do agree, then what can we do about it?  First, I don't think there's a simple answer.  It's almost like a powerful bacterium that you have to attack with multiple antibiotics.  I think you veteran players will play a key role, especially those of you who enjoy taking a newbie under your arm and introducing an MMO to them.  But I think we need to go further -- I think we need to reward and actively encourage veteran players to help (again, this is what I call vertical interdependence).  An obvious approach is, of course, a Guide System -- these worked very well in the first generation of MMOs and they are arguably going to be even more important in Pantheon.  So that's the community side of things.

    3c. Next is what's caused the most commotion and concern amongst you, and that is systems in-game that exist specifically to introduce gamers new to the social, grouping experience or to help them make real, lasting in-game friendships, and generally to foster and promote community building.  Most of the concern I hear is that these systems could be looked at as 'easy-mode' or 'catering' to the new players.  Or, worse yet, that they could be abused and taken advantage of by more experienced players.  And I understand and hear that.  On one hand we're promoting Pantheon as a hardcore, challenging game, and then on the other hand, we're bringing up these ideas to make the newbie's experience 'easier', or at least more welcoming and less jarring.  I can see that, from a limited perspective anyway, those two goals could be seen as contradictory or at odds or even mutually exclusive.  And to a point I think those concerns are certainly valid to bring up, because we have to make sure they are NOT at odds.  But can we think of ways to gently bring in newbies, not scare them away, show them the magic of cooperative play and community while keeping Pantheon a hardcore, challenging game?  We've certainly thought about that a lot and the answer is 1. Yes and 2. We have to.  

    So again, please do discuss these things, express your concerns, etc., but also do so realizing the need that we accomplish both, and help us with solutions.  Something I've always stressed to my teams is that it's pretty easy for an intelligent developer or gamer to point out potential problems with a system.  But what does that really accomplish?  The true challenge is not just pointing out potential problems, but coming up with solutions, work arounds, different approaches, etc.  Yes, it's harder to do, but it is *so* much more useful to us and it's really a huge part of game development.  It's about smart and creative people coming together, recognizing problems and challenges, and then coming up with solutions.  And I'd like to (and do) include all of you in this as well.  I've seen a lot of not only great new ideas posted here and elsewhere, but also people thinking outside of the box and coming up with solutions and different approaches to address problems in MMOs, both the old ones and the new ones.  

    Anyway, long post, but I felt the need to really go into this, not just to address concerns about a Mentor system, but to try to address the big picture.  I hope that most of you understand where I'm coming from and that this is helpful.  The only people I think this truly won't resonate with would be 1. those who truly do just want us to make an EQ emulator and 2. those who really don't want any newbies in Pantheon, who would be content to have Pantheon merely be a haven for those of you who've felt abandoned and orphaned by the newer MMOs.  If you fall into one or both of those categories, then I'm going to have to be really straight up with you:  Pantheon isn't want you think or want it to be.  Hopefully you think about all of this more and change your viewpoint.  But I'm going to stand firm on those two statements:  not an emulator, and not only for the old school gamer.

    If you do agree, however, that Pantheon needs to move things forward, be a modern game, incorporate new ideas, then please consider those that we've revealed and talked about, and those we will in the future, keeping all of the above in mind.  And if you do agree or at least understand that having a financially successful game allows us to keep working on the game long term, please understand the need for us to reach some subset of the 15+ million online gamers out there.  And the need to proactively ease them into a game like Pantheon, the likes of which they've probably never experienced.  Pantheon is most certainly a product of passion -- we're not just doing this to make money -- if we were, there are *far* easier genres to tackle.  MMOs are hard, perhaps the hardest game genre.  You've got to really be in love with them to work on them.  But it's also about being profitable.  The members of this team have families and bills and RL to contend with -- our dream is to create a great MMO that remains popular for months and years and that brings in the money that allows us to pay people what they deserve, to build the team as necessary, to create a working environment where people can focus on creating a great game and then keeping it great after launch without worrying about how they're going to pay bills or make ends meet.  So the more people who end up playing and loving Pantheon the better.  No, we're not going to veer away from the Vision to try to make an extra buck.  No, we're not going to chase the wow-killer agenda that unfortunately a lot of MMOs did chase.  We're just fine making a fantastic game for our audience.  And that audience, when it’s made up of old school gamers as well as some percentage of newbies, is plenty large enough for Pantheon to be very profitable.  But I do have to keep both groups in mind -- I need to make sure you guys are getting the game you want, that we're listening to you all, etc.  But I also need to do whatever I can do make sure those who've never experienced the magic feel welcome and comfortable right away and aren't frustrated and chased away before they even have a chance to experience the magic we and you so dearly want to bring back to MMOs.  

    Anyway, 'nuff said, my verbose mode was certainly ON so hopefully you actually made it to the end of this post, but I wanted to cover it all and then bring it all together, so you guys understand why we're doing what we're doing.  I look forward to any comments, questions, etc.

     

    Well said and about time.  To many people want the old grind that required hours upon hours of staring at nothing to do something.  They wanted massive time sinks for no other reason then because that was in the old days.

    Well I loved playing those games but I am also in charge of a computer network for a multi national investment firm and I have a wife and kids on the way.  I cant spend 8 hours reliving the old days.  Certain elements can be added to the game or things changed that doesnt take away the core tenets but allows for a better experaince or trim down the time sink.

    They also need to do something to get new players into playing the game.  The bigger success the game is while following the core tenets the more content we can expect as players.  The more staff VRI can hire to make the magic.  But if they have an updated EQ knock off it will fail to all but the oldest of MMO players.  Somethings need to change.  Somethings need to be added and some things need to be ignored. 


    This post was edited by Kalgore at April 26, 2016 3:18 PM PDT
    • 288 posts
    April 26, 2016 3:21 PM PDT

    Totally disagree on trimming down time-sinks.  When we grew up playing Everquest in 1999, our former selves would slap us for saying something like this.  I do not disagree that myself and most of my friends and the people who played Everquest in 1999 do not have the time to be hardcore anymore, mostly.  But I also do not think that just because thats the case, that we should remove the hardcore time sinks present in Everquest, just so us older folk can achieve everything we did in Everquest in 1999 in 2 hours instead of 8.

     

    How unfair is that to the new generation of ourselves (the younger gamers) who may want to experience what we experienced in 1999, that we decide arbitrarily that since we can't do it anymore, nobody should be able to.  I am perfectly fine with not being on the cutting edge anymore because well, I am older and can't be sometimes.  I think people who think otherwise should ask themselves whether they are making this game so they can attempt to relive their younger glory days, or whether they'd like to show the young generation what games were like when we were kids, and why we loved them so much.

     

    There is nothing wrong with decreasing session time size, but the risk and reward should match Everquest IMO.  Risk = Time.


    This post was edited by Rallyd at April 26, 2016 3:24 PM PDT
    • VR Staff
    • 587 posts
    April 26, 2016 3:24 PM PDT

    Rallyd said:

    Totally disagree on trimming down time-sinks.  When we grew up playing Everquest in 1999, our former selves would slap us for saying something like this.  I do not disagree that myself and most of my friends and the people who played Everquest in 1999 do not have the time to be hardcore anymore, mostly.  But I also do not think that just because thats the case, that we should remove the hardcore time sinks present in Everquest, just so us older folk can achieve everything we did in Everquest in 1999 in 2 hours instead of 8.

     

    How unfair is that to the new generation of ourselves (the younger gamers) who may want to experience what we experienced in 1999, that we decide arbitrarily that since we can't do it anymore, nobody should be able to.  I am perfectly fine with not being on the cutting edge anymore because well, I am older and can't be sometimes.  I think people who think otherwise should ask themselves whether they are making this game so they can attempt to relive their younger glory days, or whether they'd like to show the young generation what games were like when we were kids, and why we loved them so much.

    While we're trying to make it so, on average, a play session would last around 2 hours, and that the average group should achieve and feel a sense of accomplishment after that session, there's nothing stopping people from playing longer sessions.  There will always be those who can put in more time than others.  I don't see this as problematic either.

    • 1714 posts
    April 26, 2016 3:45 PM PDT

    A mentoree level CAP goes a long way, imo. 

    We all have to compromise, but to me the core tenet of EQ, however that was achieved, was that things mattered. Be it loot, or levels, or your status or reputation, every last little thing mattered. And a huge part of that was the time required to invest in the game to achieve something meaningful. 

     

     


    This post was edited by Keno Monster at April 26, 2016 6:37 PM PDT
    • 999 posts
    April 26, 2016 5:48 PM PDT

    @Aradune

    I had a whole novel of a post written, re-wrote it several times, then deleted it altogether.  Soo... I made it as short and sweet as I could instead.

    We're all a passionate bunch here, and I appreciate you taking the time to express your thoughts.  Your posts are always a great read that peak our excitement for Pantheon.  I don't think any of us (or nearly any of us) wouldn't want to help out new players, some of my greatest experiences came from helping others, but rather are aganist artificial systems that are necesary to require/promote it.  It makes me think of "What's in it for me" versus truly helping someone.  Granted, I get it that's more of a subjective stance, which is why I usually throw in the disclaimer that I'm willing to "test" a system before fully dismissing it.

    As far as the discussions go, if the think tanks/polls etc. could be brought back whether it be on this site or when the new Vbulletin forums are released that are strictly locked down to developer led think tanks/polls you'll be able to get a lot more fruitful discussions that are you seeking.  My recommendation would not be to wait till the testing period, but start at the brainstorming period, you may obtain several good ideas to test that you (developers) never thought about. 

    Anyhow, thanks again for even attempting to make the game that so many of us have been seeking for years.

    • 1434 posts
    April 26, 2016 6:02 PM PDT

    If there is a way to make mentoring work, it will involve limitations to the system so that it won't be abused. The risk I feel we run with a mentoring system, much like other convenience systems, is that it could ultimately trivialize progression. A level-cap on mentoring is just one of the things that might make such a system work.

    In the past, problems with mentoring were mostly the result of mentors exceeding the power of normal characters. However, that was not the only drawback as I mentioned earlier in the thread. What it also did was trivialize the social aspect of the game. Instead of players needing to get out there and meet people, they were able to ignore the general populus and rely on their preexisting community - their guilds or their real life friends. It promotes a policy of exclusion rather than inclusion. Some people will think, "Well what is wrong with that? Shouldn't I be able to play with whomever I want, whenever I want?" Yes, to some degree, but if there is a level disparity, the rules of the world should not bend to accomodate you.

    When you bend those rules, you do so at the peril of others. You see, a large portion of the playerbase of any given server will be randoms. New players, casual players or those who have no in game affiliations; they need the affiliated and unaffiliated alike.

    Players must need each other. Its not just a matter of creating group-only content. Its a matter of encouraging players to look among their peers for people to play with. That means not giving them a way to circumvent such social challenges by allowing them to group with only those they're already affiliated with. When there is no 'easy out', "random" players become a valuable commodity and a good reputation, of great importance. Mark my words, people will take the path of least resistance. Especially when it comes to finding the fastest and most efficient ways to progress in an MMORPG.

    Having established that players should need each other, and the importance of preventing players from easily circumventing the general population, I put forth the following as a way to make mentoring viable (per Brad's request):

    There should be a level-cap on mentoring

    The early content and level range usually becomes the least populated. That is where new players will need Mentors and Guides (I like guide better) the most. Beyond the early levels when exp has slowed down significantly, you begin seeing more players. Ideally, at that point, where ever it may be, you would want players to no longer rely on a guide. That point will likely change as time goes on and new content and levels are introduced, but I would guess around level 20 at the start (assuming a max level of 50)

    There should be a limit to the number of mentors per group

    To prevent players from never needing to seek out random players in the world, I think the number of guides per group should be limited to 2 at most. That will encourage a player to still rely on their peers for filling the remaining spots in a group. Pretty straight-forward.

    Finding a mentor

    You could add mentors to LFG boards posted in cities and outposts with the additional "guide" tag so players know they are available to mentor to your level. Like players looking for group can use the /lfg command, players looking to mentor could use something like /lfm.

    Enabling and disabling mentor status

    When possible, everything should have some form of other-worldly rationale. I personally cannot stand altering my character by way of context menus in the UI. Its also important that mentoring not be something you can do at any place and any time. Like all things in a good virtual world, it should require forethought.

    If someone becomes a mentor, it should be done via spell, probably an npc or an object in the world, which casts a spell on the character reducing them to their desired level. It should also summon an item that will allow the mentor to dispel the buff (so you don't just accidently click it off).

    Optional: Cool down on mentoring

    I personally think there should be a limit to how often a player can serve as a guide. I think upon removing the guide buff, you should gain a debuff that will remain for as long as you were mentored, up to maybe 2 hours. If you have the buff for less than 10 minutes, you should be able to remove it and get the buff again immediately in the event that you mentored to the wrong level or plans changed.

    The reward or incentive for being a mentor

    This should never be raw experience towards player level. Level appropriate content should be required, imo, for you to gain "experience." Allowing someone to gain exp in a high level for content below their level, even while mentored, is contrary to the concept of gaining experience.

    An alternate advancement could be a solution. Players looking for AA exp, especially at high levels, will often find high level content crowded. Allowing players to mentor could alleviate some of the crowding that will occur.

    The reward for mentoring should NOT be something gained exclusively from mentoring. If you extort player participation in the mentor system, the experience will probably be less enjoyable for both the mentor and mentees.

     

    I believe such a system would serve the purpose of helping others, with enough incentive to make it worth their while, and still encourage affiliated players to work with the unaffiliated. It would make it a system of inclusion rather than exclusion.


    This post was edited by Dullahan at May 17, 2016 7:19 AM PDT
    • 59 posts
    April 26, 2016 6:28 PM PDT

    Aradune said:

    *warning* Long post ahead!

    [...]

    Anyway, 'nuff said, my verbose mode was certainly ON so hopefully you actually made it to the end of this post, but I wanted to cover it all and then bring it all together, so you guys understand why we're doing what we're doing.  I look forward to any comments, questions, etc.

    /applaud

    Mind if I ask how long that took you to write?  I'm thinking 2.5-3 hours.

    Guys, you know you have a guy that loves what he's doing and trying to bring to everyone putting that much time and passion in to a posting.

    • 180 posts
    April 26, 2016 7:16 PM PDT

    Aradune said:

    Rallyd said:

    Totally disagree on trimming down time-sinks.  When we grew up playing Everquest in 1999, our former selves would slap us for saying something like this.  I do not disagree that myself and most of my friends and the people who played Everquest in 1999 do not have the time to be hardcore anymore, mostly.  But I also do not think that just because thats the case, that we should remove the hardcore time sinks present in Everquest, just so us older folk can achieve everything we did in Everquest in 1999 in 2 hours instead of 8.

     

    How unfair is that to the new generation of ourselves (the younger gamers) who may want to experience what we experienced in 1999, that we decide arbitrarily that since we can't do it anymore, nobody should be able to.  I am perfectly fine with not being on the cutting edge anymore because well, I am older and can't be sometimes.  I think people who think otherwise should ask themselves whether they are making this game so they can attempt to relive their younger glory days, or whether they'd like to show the young generation what games were like when we were kids, and why we loved them so much.

    While we're trying to make it so, on average, a play session would last around 2 hours, and that the average group should achieve and feel a sense of accomplishment after that session, there's nothing stopping people from playing longer sessions.  There will always be those who can put in more time than others.  I don't see this as problematic either.

     

    Having much less time to play than I used to, I can appreciate this   The total time to achieve something doesn't have to be less, just broken into more smaller pieces, so to speak.

    • 2138 posts
    April 26, 2016 8:07 PM PDT

    Frustration. I remember frustration and die-ing. I almost never left Erudin because I was scared but mostly because I did not think I was good enough.

     

    I see the mentoring idea sort of along those lines, more so to bolster the new player and ease over the frustration- I would suggest in beta testing you have one batch of testers play up to a certain level then open it up to a new batch of testers so when the mooks come in, the first group can be there to mentor down and say" there's a camp of three orc over that hill, good spot" and in so doing....ease the frustration- share some success/knowledge.   

    Eventually, you get intuitive for "re-pops",  and learn to shut-up in chat. And learn another vocabulary; Spawn, MOBs, Re-pop, Invis, Buffs, Mez, FD, Add(!)

     

    I remember frustration.

    Then some random Newbie erudite started talking to me - we were the only two there- and I was expressing dangers, she jumped into the bay and she died. I tried to warn her, I asked if the shark got her- she said.. " a fish!" and... I started laughing in RL. When I finally went to Qeynos, someone showed me a place in the sewers-accessible from the safety of town near bank and we had a blast binding wounds from bandages I summoned and hungting jell- cubes (oddly when I later went to that sewer entrance in town, it was closed) I did get the bloodied doll for the quest. And also when older a female Erudite paladin RP'd me and a young Erudite chanter and she was 3 levels older and helped us complete some Prexus quests for Kobold Shaman's paws who were too hard for us at the time in Toxx.

    Oh, how I latched on to those people, I wanted to group with them tomorrow and tomorrow, friend listed them instantly, because there was success!. Yes some danger, but more success than danger- but they did not seem to come back on. I did get a core group eventually and latched on to them- I get the impression many people here did that also in their travels. I see mentoring as described being along those lines.

    /agree Aradune (maybe instead of "likes" have an agree button)

    • 287 posts
    April 26, 2016 9:04 PM PDT

    Great post Brad! And thank you for taking the time to post thorough replies.  I loved EQ and would get so immersed in norrath that I would play for 10 hours on my days off.  Now with children and a fulltime job, those days are long gone.  So a 1 - 2 hour play session sounds great to me.  I have quit EQ about 4 different times and came back because I haven't found a game to replace it and my kids love playing EQ together.  I know pantheon will be the next game for me.  I am okay helping new people experience a group centered game. And while I am an old school EQ junkie, I don't want all those systems to carry over to pantheon.  I am excited for the new ideas and the grand vision.  Keep up the hard work.

    • 179 posts
    April 27, 2016 6:57 AM PDT

    From the article: http://massivelyop.com/2016/04/25/brad-mcquaid-pantheon-pax-east-2016/

    Players are given a profile to fill in which includes not just playstyle and play time preferences but also interests, hobbies, and so forth; the idea is that the game will help introduce you to other players with similar interests and goals.

     

    I'm looking forward to this option and any other option that helps increase my enjoyment of playing the game.