I would like to hear the opinion of other players when it comes to recycling zone/dungeon designs. This is usually done with instancing, but I'm sure there are ways to work around this. Maybe create a separate island or continent that is a melting pot of other places in the game. The primary benefit of recycling zone/dungeon designs is the idea that we would have more content to play through. A great example of this was the Spirits of the Lost raid in EQ2. The development team basically took the entire Cazic Thule dungeon and created a separate raid instance. The zone was virtually identical, but instead of being populated with group content, it was a pure raiding zone. This was my favorite raid from T5 in EQ2. Another great example would be Dynamis from FFXI. They basically took an in-game zone such a major city and recreated a "haunted" version where it was populated with raid content.
I am not advocating that every single raid zone would be the recycled product from another area of the game. I do know, however, that creating new zone layouts or dungeons can be very demanding on development resources. As a player who loves more content, I would love to see this approach utilized as much as possible.
How do others feel? Would you feel like you were getting robbed because the zone looked similar to another area of the game? Or would you be happy that you have more content to enjoy? Let's use this as an example:
Development team wants to work on raid content. They can either spend their time/resources creating 1 unique zone, or use the recycling method and create 2 raid zones. What would you rather have? Personally I would like to see a blend on both, but leaning more towards recycling ... especially if the game ever gets to the point where people are really hard pressed for more end-game raid content. I'd rather get 2 recycled zones than 1 unique one. Would love to hear the opinion of other players ... particularly players focused on raiding because that seems like the easiest way to utilize recycled content without taking time away from other areas of the game.
I like to see recycled content with some changes based on events in lore, such a two cities now fighting a war. The overall zone would similar, but slightly destroyed, with different mobs based on the event. Then, after the event, it could be restored, maybe with a few items left to mark the occasion.
Zones, dungeons, creatures, and other art assets are content. There's nothing inherently wrong with re-using or remxing them. In fact, there are plenty of examples where re-used or remixed content enhanced world-building, story-telling, immersion, and the overall player experience. However, re-use can devalue content when overused or used in the wrong way and there are lots of ways to do re-use wrong; some obvious, some subtle. In the end, re-use is fine but needs to be used with caution. Regardless it has to be believable, consistent within context, and should enhance world-building rather than detract from it.
Just depends on how and how often really. For instance there is nothing wrong with a few different quests that all involve going back to an early dungeon. But Id have a problem with copy/paste quests or dungeons or landscapes right and left. Using something like Dynamis a couple of times wouldnt be bad either, but again in limit it. Overall Id much rather see original places and things when expansions come out. Or at the very least adding new areas to existing places like a new section of dungeon uncovers in an old dungeon.
I think this idea is good in some instances. In VG there were a decent number of people that would have liked to see APW recreated as a 55 dungeon since there wasnt alot of development being done on that game after the 1st couple years. But I would also hope that they would tweek the layout and mobs enough so it would be newish, but keep that familiar feeling. Instead of guardian A23 and B27, something like C25 and D29 series and so on.
I do not mind content that is re-used provided it makes sense to do so. Goblins are goblins..whever they are they should share those characteristics that denote 'goblin-ness' or else they aren't goblins. So I would expect, if not require, that wherever Goblins show up they should be similar. There is a limit though and that is when you throw Goblins into every expansion, even when that expansion is on the moon or another dimension making you wonder just how the hell the stupid goblins could even get there.
So I suppose where I object to recycled content is as a cost cutting measure and nothing more. EQ1 pulled this garbage starting with Gates of Discord and onwards, using many of the same models over and over even though the expansions were in no way related to each other. "Oh, we need a mob here?, go get that golem model and put it there and give it a different name..problem solved." That is garbage.
Wonder where revamps count for everyone. EQ saw a couple different styles. I liked the redux of Droga/Nurga in EQ but didn't like the revamp of North Ro/Oasis/South Ro. With Droga/Nurga the dungeon was the same but had higher level monsters which made sense from a lore perspective. The changing of the terrain to higher detail didn't jive with the monsters/npcs/pcs having an older look.
When I played EQ2, I frequently sent letters to the development team asking them to create a raid version of Solusek's Eye. It was by far the largest dungeon in the game and it really bothered me that the zone basically become irrelevant after the first expansion other than needing to speak to Nagafen for various quest lines. To this day I wonder why they didn't recycle that zone and make a raid version like they did with Cazic Thule / Spirits of the Lost. I think it would have been one of the coolest raid zones ever. It was so cool of a dungeon that I would rather have seen a raid version of that zone created than a brand new zone altogether. That's the main point I'm trying to drive home. I know that Amberfaet looks extremely cool from what I have seen and it could be a prime example of zone design that could be recycled somewhere else in the game.
One way to accomplish this would be to create a crystal somewhere in the zone that transports players to a raid version. I don't have a complete understanding of how the zones will work ... like if a zone gets super populated, will a second instance of the same zone open up? I remember seeing (Enchanted Lands 1, Enchanted Lands 2, Enchanted Lands 3) at different points. I'm pretty sure the game will have an open world, but if the game is divided up by zones, would it be possible to have a separate instance of the same zone but have it populated with difference NPC's? I am a firm believer of quality over quantity, but when it comes to making new raid zones ... to me, you can achieve both by recycling the zone and making a raid version. If I had to choose between 4 completely unique raid zones, or 5 raid zones where 2 are recycled from other areas of the game ... I'll take the 5 raid zones.
Will something like this even be possible in Pantheon, or will the open-world layout prevent it? Even in a truly open world, wouldn't it still be possible to create a seperate island or continent that's basically a giant melting pot of other areas of the game, with the only difference being that everything is designed for a raid force?
I believe every zone in Pantheon is technically "instanced", it's just that every zone will be a singleton instance. But, that would potentially allow for spinning up new zone instances if population becomes an issue. I would file that under the wait-and-see column of VR's current development priorities.
As far as reusing content goes, it's fine as long as it done in moderation and done properly. In EQ2 they started rehashing a whole bunch of old world zones, and often would re-tune the encounters for max-level with little testing. As a result we would spend hours banging our collective heads against a mob that was to all intents and purposes impossible to kill. Fabled Deathtoll pretty much was the last straw for our guild.
An ongoing problem for any game is the pace of development vs the players rate of eating content! Keeping up is, I am sure, a veritable nightmare! Reuse of content is a sensible idea ... if it is done well!
Take some scenarios :
1. THE RAVAGING LORD's MIRROR:
Artifact revealed ... if you are high enough level, or any other criteria decided on, you can go through the mirror (click it). It takes you into (what appears to be) an existing zone, but the zone is imhabited by mobs etc as if The Ravaging Lord had won. I.e. an 'Evil' what-if version of that zone.
2. WORLD/SEASONAL EVENT:
Like many commonplace seasonal events, but perhaps one zone (or part of it) may be very different in content, or level of it. Eg: During Halloween, undead may all get +50% to +200% level boost (dependent on day/night). During easter, perhaps, a zone with a 'bad temple' may have that temple just 'missing'. It *might* however be located elsewhere for that week .....
3. APOTHEOTHIS GATE:
A single created raid zone, representing a chain of raid content leading towards 'access' of a much higher raid zone. The trick here is that the 'start' or entry-way of this zone is a created ethereal bridge ... once whose position moves from time to time. Thus, it might start at the end of LGuk, then later be at the end of Seb ... the week after it may even be in a city (faction issues!!). Thus, the 'single raid zone' is the same, but *getting* to it is the problem! It should be a long chain of sub-zones so that any raid force will need several raids to gain access to the very end. All the while, they have to go hunting for it, then clear whatever zone it is in, just to get to the start! Skip content .... I think not!
4. ALICE:
By (removed for spoilers) you end up 'back' in your current zone (or another), but shrunk to a 20th of your original size. (Average human is now under 4 inches tall - about 9 cm) making the zone seem more formidable!! Everthing in the zone is scaled UP .... MASSIVELY! Same models/content, but the scale is a serious issue ... plus those pesky rats are now the size of horses!
So, there are (I hope, creative) ways to re-use much content in imaginative ways to provide new challenges and experiences while minimising content creation.
Possibly :)
Maximis said:If you are referring to reusing mobs it makes sense. Reusing terrain/ dungeon layouts is more tricky. We need to stop thinking in an "instanced" mind set. Almost all of the described examples sound like zoneing into a new instance to me instead of an open world zone.
Not sure if you knew but every zone will technically be a zone. So if you have to click on something to get there, that doesn't mean instance it simply means you zoned. It can still be open world. Although it does seem like a couple are thinking instancing which isn't likely outside of story.
Shai said:I am speaking in terms of architecture, not common MMO parlance. I should have probably clarified that. Like, in EQ2, even the open contested dungeons and overland zones were instanced, it's just that 99% of the time there is only ever one instance that everyone shares.itvar said:I believe every zone in Pantheon is technically "instanced"This is news to me. Do you have any links handy for where I can read more?
Still pure speculation on my part tho.
itvar said:Shai said:I am speaking in terms of architecture, not common MMO parlance. I should have probably clarified that. Like, in EQ2, even the open contested dungeons and overland zones were instanced, it's just that 99% of the time there is only ever one instance that everyone shares.itvar said:I believe every zone in Pantheon is technically "instanced"This is news to me. Do you have any links handy for where I can read more?
Still pure speculation on my part tho.
Thanks for clarification on that, and yes, that's what I was talking about as well. Even the open "contested" zones in EQ2 were still considered an instance. On top of that, they had your standard "dungeon" instances like you see in WoW all the time where you zone in and the dungeon is "reset" every time you go in, and it's exclusive for your group. I was asking whether or not the "open" zones would also be considered an instance or not, and if there was a chance we would see multiple instances of those open zones due to population. If that's the case, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to create a raid version of these same open zones without messing up the flow of the open world concept.
oneADseven said: ... How do others feel? Would you feel like you were getting robbed because the zone looked similar to another area of the game? Or would you be happy that you have more content to enjoy? Let's use this as an example:Development team wants to work on raid content. They can either spend their time/resources creating 1 unique zone, or use the recycling method and create 2 raid zones. What would you rather have? Personally I would like to see a blend on both, but leaning more towards recycling ... especially if the game ever gets to the point where people are really hard pressed for more end-game raid content. I'd rather get 2 recycled zones than 1 unique one. Would love to hear the opinion of other players ... particularly players focused on raiding because that seems like the easiest way to utilize recycled content without taking time away from other areas of the game.
How do I feel? I feel it's an entirely unnecessary mechanic. Why? Because of two things:
1) You can dynamically adjust the difficulty of content, per encounter, per group, per raid, at any time, today, in the shared open world. You can even make it so no-one outside the groups involved can help the groups involved. It's just a feature set the devs have to commit to, if it's a design goal to have such a thing.
2) You can procedurally generate dungeons trivially if you want content that has the same goals & milestones (or if you prefer, lieutenants and bosses), but a different path to get there. Sword Coast Legends (iirc) has this feature, for comparison. If not, another very similar game to SCL has the same procedural dungeon generation option, made in the past few years, in Unity. The lore used to describe an ever changing maze, keep, grounds, tunnels or dungeon is far older than computers.
It is worth noting that recent public posts on these forums and on reddit have re-confirmed that Pantheon will be a game with primarily group content, rather than primarily raid content. Extremely challenging group content, to me and mine, is far more rewarding than bringing 20, 40 or 60 friends to squabble over 3 no-trade pieces of loot after hours of getting no XP (killing trash). That model of "challenge" needs to diaf, imo.
Put simply, there is no technical need to re-use zones, but I don't care in the slightest if they do. There are, however, much more elegant, precise, and sophisticated ways of meeting the same design goal without rolling out that old chestnut. =) Hopefully VR avails themselves of those better options.
vjek said:oneADseven said: ... How do others feel? Would you feel like you were getting robbed because the zone looked similar to another area of the game? Or would you be happy that you have more content to enjoy? Let's use this as an example:Development team wants to work on raid content. They can either spend their time/resources creating 1 unique zone, or use the recycling method and create 2 raid zones. What would you rather have? Personally I would like to see a blend on both, but leaning more towards recycling ... especially if the game ever gets to the point where people are really hard pressed for more end-game raid content. I'd rather get 2 recycled zones than 1 unique one. Would love to hear the opinion of other players ... particularly players focused on raiding because that seems like the easiest way to utilize recycled content without taking time away from other areas of the game.
How do I feel? I feel it's an entirely unnecessary mechanic. Why? Because of two things:
1) You can dynamically adjust the difficulty of content, per encounter, per group, per raid, at any time, today, in the shared open world. You can even make it so no-one outside the groups involved can help the groups involved. It's just a feature set the devs have to commit to, if it's a design goal to have such a thing.
2) You can procedurally generate dungeons trivially if you want content that has the same goals & milestones (or if you prefer, lieutenants and bosses), but a different path to get there. Sword Coast Legends (iirc) has this feature, for comparison. If not, another very similar game to SCL has the same procedural dungeon generation option, made in the past few years, in Unity. The lore used to describe an ever changing maze, keep, grounds, tunnels or dungeon is far older than computers.
It is worth noting that recent public posts on these forums and on reddit have re-confirmed that Pantheon will be a game with primarily group content, rather than primarily raid content. Extremely challenging group content, to me and mine, is far more rewarding than bringing 20, 40 or 60 friends to squabble over 3 no-trade pieces of loot after hours of getting no XP (killing trash). That model of "challenge" needs to diaf, imo.
Put simply, there is no technical need to re-use zones, but I don't care in the slightest if they do. There are, however, much more elegant, precise, and sophisticated ways of meeting the same design goal without rolling out that old chestnut. =) Hopefully VR avails themselves of those better options.
If the game is primarily going to be group-focused, but everything dynamically scales to the size of your group or raid, wouldn't that cause some serious issues? For example ... let's say Amberfaet is a group zone. But because everything scales for a raid (loot too or people wouldn't raid it), wouldn't that encourage a raiding party or multiple raiding parties to come into the zone and kill everything? Now all of the groups in the zone are in direct competition with raiding parties. I can see that being a major issue.
My idea was to create a separate version of the same zone that's designed specifically for raiders. That way, when the raid party sets out to hit up the "Amberfaet Raid" they aren't going to interfere with the standard "group" version or any of the players trying to experience the normal content of that zone. They would be in a separate version of "Amberfaet" that's fine-tuned for raiding purposes. The other cool thing is that there could be multiple raiding parties in that version of the zone. You still get to keep the "contested open-world" feeling, and that was always my favorite kind of raid anyway. There were a few instances I enjoyed in my days, but the contested raid zones were my favorite. Isle of Dread from EQOA was amazing. Plane of Sky from EQOA was awesome. Sky from FFXI was awesome. Silent City from EQ2 was great. Rahz Inkur from Vanguard was great.
My idea of recycling content would technically yield MORE content without taking away from the original form that it was recycled from. If you recycle the Amberfaet (group) zone, but create an Amberfaet (raid) zone, both versions would co-exist. The raiding parties would be able to focus on the raid version without ever interfering with the group version ... and that seems pretty important to me. I'm not saying that recycling content is technically necessary, but rather, it could be more cost effective and less draining on the development teams resources. If that cost-effectiveness can end up yielding an extra raid or 2, that would be my goal. I understand raiding will not be a major focus of the game ... and in saying such, I'm suggesting ... instead of creating only 3 unique raid zones, maybe create 2 unique raid zones and recycle 2 regular zones but create separate raid versions. In the end, we would have 4 raid zones instead of 3. Amberfaet comes to mind because it's a really beautiful zone ... and I'm getting the itch to raid it! I want to see that zone populated with the baddest of baddies. Maybe the "forge" in the raid version could have a different functionality than that of the group version. Just an idea.
Pantheon does use a modular approach to building the game assets, so you will see textures reused around the world for different buildings. If you want every single building to be unique, the art cost would skyrocket.
I would expect certain type of architectures and animals/mobs are going to appear at different spots around the world. Mobs travel and building materials and practices are similar. I think there are good roleplaying reasons for this.
As long as unique areas have unique assets then I am comfortable with reusing assets in other areas that make sense (roleplaying wise) and can help save the team money.
oneADseven said: ...If the game is primarily going to be group-focused, but everything dynamically scales to the size of your group or raid, wouldn't that cause some serious issues? For example ... let's say Amberfaet is a group zone. But because everything scales for a raid (loot too or people wouldn't raid it), wouldn't that encourage a raiding party or multiple raiding parties to come into the zone and kill everything? Now all of the groups in the zone are in direct competition with raiding parties. I can see that being a major issue. ...
Your concern is based on a flawed premise, that being that it's automatic, or that 'everything' dynamically scales, which isn't required. It could in fact be entirely optional, and set per group or raid, as a group or raid feature. If desired, for example, you could have between 1 and 10 different ranks of difficulty that each group or raid sets, with commensurate rewards for each rank. Defeat it on the lowest rank, get the lowest rank of rewards. Defeat it on the highest rank, get the highest rank of rewards.
If the zone is large enough, there's no issue with combining group and raid content in the same zone. Permafrost and Nagafen's Lair being two classic examples. Direct competition isn't always a bad thing, either. It depends on what target demographic VR is trying to attract.
It's also important to note that you can't mix instancing and open world, and have the exact same design goals achieved and target demographic attracted. So far, VR has said instancing, if used at all, will be extremely rare. As such, the theorycrafting solutions I'm considering keep that in mind, rather than having varying versions of entire instances. (which is incredibly easy/trivial to implement, has been done before, and is not a publicly stated design goal, currently)
EDIT: Yay, more typos.
There are many things that can be recycled or better sayed reused.
The same game sound could be used in similar situations/regions (dangerous situation/desert region).
The same sound effects e. g. for a NP dying could be used more than once.
On the graphic side, 3D models and textures can be reused. Wall textures do not need to be different everywhere and just change the coloring a bit to have for example fire and ice spiders.
NPCS not only can look similar, they could also have the same skills and could share their behaviour (AI).
This works even in a bigger scope. Complete dungeons or zones could be more or less reused.
As example I would name Naxxramas in WoW. The first version was not seen by many people, because it was pretty hard, even to get in. Then they later released an easier version, where more or less everyone could finish the dungeon. This was instanced content, but I'm pretty sure, the same could be done with open world content as well.
vjek said:oneADseven said: ...If the game is primarily going to be group-focused, but everything dynamically scales to the size of your group or raid, wouldn't that cause some serious issues? For example ... let's say Amberfaet is a group zone. But because everything scales for a raid (loot too or people wouldn't raid it), wouldn't that encourage a raiding party or multiple raiding parties to come into the zone and kill everything? Now all of the groups in the zone are in direct competition with raiding parties. I can see that being a major issue. ...
Your concern is based on a flawed premise, that being that it's automatic, or that 'everything' dynamically scales, which isn't required. It could in fact be entirely optional, and set per group or raid, as a group or raid feature. If desired, for example, you could have between 1 and 10 different ranks of difficulty that each group or raid sets, with commensurate rewards for each rank. Defeat it on the lowest rank, get the lowest rank of rewards. Defeat it on the highest rank, get the highest rank of rewards.
If the zone is large enough, there's no issue with combining group and raid content in the same zone. Permafrost and Nagafen's Lair being two classic examples. Direct competition isn't always a bad thing, either. It depends on what target demographic VR is trying to attract.
It's also important to note that you can't mix instancing and open world, and have the exact same design goals achieved and target demographic attracted. So far, VR has said instancing, if used at all, will be extremely rare. As such, the theorycrafting solutions I'm considering keep that in mind, rather than having varying versions of entire instances. (which is incredibly easy/trivial to implement, has been done before, and is not a publicly stated design goal, currently)
EDIT: Yay, more typos.
I see what you're saying. I guess I'm just not sure that the dynamic scaling would still provide the same type of raid theme I was looking for. When EQ2 recycled Cazic Thule and made the raid version Spirits of the Lost, the zone layout was the same, but the NPC placement was different. They added more bosses, changed the pathing for roamers, and also included various other changes that were unique to the Spirits of the Lost raid. For example, both Cazic Thule and Spirits of the Lost had Venekor, a X4 Epic dragon. In the Spirits of the Lost raid, however, when you defeated Venekor, it would cause another raid boss to pop. It was a giant golem that ended up becoming the final boss of the zone. If everything is just scaled dynamically, things like that wouldn't be possible. I would like to see the raid zones to be made more difficult with extra traps or other features/content that you might not see in the regular group version.
I do like the idea of allowing content to be scaled, however. I'm just having a hard time understanding exactly how it would work. If a raid full of epic geared toons decide to raid a regular zone, are you saying that the entire zone would be scaled for that raid? The "common sewer rat" would now be epic, and also have a chance to drop epic loot? It seems like that would be impossible to control ... otherwise the entire game could just end up being a mix of solo/group/raid content depending on how your party was put together. I like the idea of it because it sounds like it would lead to even more raid content, and that was my primary goal for this post. I know they aren't going to make it a major focus, and I just want to sound off in saying "The more content, the better." Content is king, after all. And I would be perfectly fine with having more content even if the design/layout/zone structure of that content is recycled from other areas of the game. The larger the progression wheel, the better. The bigger the world loot table, the better. Ideally, I would like to see some raid content directly associated with every resist in the game.
I've been kinda trying to digest this thread for a while now and decide how I wanted to respond. There's a lot going on here, and a few tangents. But here's my initial take: My kneejerk reaction is to say "**** that.".
For me, spawning off a new alternate iteration of an existing zone or scaling a zone for a particular level or number of participants in an encounter is like going back and rewriting the character Samwise in the Lord of the Rings. MMOs are, again for me, a story. They are an adventure that results in a rich history. Rewriting history just completely throws believability out the window, and the game becomes disjointed. Lore becomes dissassciated with the reality of the gameworld, familiarity becomes meaningless, and continuity is shot right between the eyes with a bazooka. I really have no desire to play a game that dynamically alters its presentation based on some desire to be inclusive in as many ways as possible to as many people as possible at any given stage of their story. That kind of thinking leads to the lowest common denominator IMO, and is in essence equally placating and patronizing.
Now, that being said, I don't have a problem when a developer recognizes that a zone is being wholly ignored by pretty much everyone because it has fundimental gameplay issues that people just dont enjoy. Fixing that black hole of entertainment absolutely has its place, and when done thru a storyline and thru a lore-driven redevelopment I'm good with it. But not if it means I can still go to the old version.
I'm not interested in some interdemensional timewarp game. I'll accept a new chapter to the story, but dont rewrite history.