I couldn't find any post regarding this but I just wanted to post something up which I think will be the biggest road block in for game once released for casual players & guilds.
I used to hate the idea of instancing until I started playing EQ on an instanced TLP server. The ability to schedule raids and take your time with targets has been very fun. I'll be honest, it isn't as rewarding as killing an open world target, but at least I get to kill some raid targets now without having to wake up at 3AM for my only chance at doing so. It definitely has its Pros and Cons. Open world raid targets and the competition for them is an adrenaline rushing & possibly rewarding experience (if you win). It also causes a lot of grief to the more casual player. This can be both good and bad and something difficult to balance.
One of the concerns brought up during some of the live streams was have guild "A" dominate all raid encounters to where guild "B" never has a shot at any raid encounters. The Devs states that they are aware of this potential issue and will ensure that there is so much content available, it shouldn't cause an issue. I played EQ back in the day. BoTs was on my server and I never saw an open raid target for a very long time, and when we did, we usually couldn't defeat it in time before another guild would come in and steam roll the target because of the gear difference. A lot of content isn't that great of a solution if guild "A" keeps all targets on lockdown. Don't downplay the hardcore players, they will find a way.
I also recall the Devs talking about the possibility to stop Zergs by having raid mobs retreat, or bring friends when a Zerg is attempted. I love this idea, and it sounds like it could be complicated to implement, but I think it's a start.
Guilds will always have characters standing by in zones tracking for targets and will bat phone at any time of the day to get it dead. While that may be fun for them and their guild, very few people find this fun or will be willing to do it, so the few that will, will have the shots at all the open world raid targets and dominate everything going forward in Pantheon.
Potential Problems:
Pantheon Solutions:
Remaining Problems:
Possible Solutions:
You can probably talk about this in circles. It may have been already, if so I apologize. I just wanted to share my one and only concern with not being able to hit raid targets. Raiding is one of the things I enjoy most but becomes difficult when players only have 3 hours to play on any given evening and no raid targets available.
Unfortunately, the current design goals are:
Limited/No instances (only for plot/solo scenes, iirc)
Competitive/shared loot (bring 23 or 71 friends, get 3 items)
Most damage wins/No encounter locking. (DPS races for looting rights)
Trains/Training will be in the game. (as demonstrated repeatedly in the videos thus far)
While those design goals remain true, all the toxic behavior you're describing and concerned about will be possible 24x7 in Pantheon.
For comparison, the solution to these toxic problems are:
Instances for raids.
Personal loot, especially for quest drops/updates.
Encounter locking.
No trains/training.
Which are the primary points of contention for the very small "hardcore" niche target audience that seems to be the most vocal on these forums to date. :)
Heya Insanez,
While its true that there wont be any intstancing, the way VG did overland raid targets was pretty neat. For example, all the overland zone raid targets i believe had a 1 day ish timer. However, if you ended up killing a target you would get "locked out" of engaging the encounter for x amount of time ( usually 3-5 days ). This allowed many guilds to still compete if their timers were up, but also allowed other guilds to still enjoy the raid content that was avail, but didnt get it first type of thing.
I agree this thread will likely get locked, but why not jump in before it does!
Gnog said: Lockouts of this kind totally destroy immersion. It's like every raid boss is an amusement ride that you just have to wait in line to ride. Might as well just instance if you're going to implement this kind of locking mechanism.
The devs have stated that lockouts are going to be part of their approach to solving the issues addressed. If your issue with them is from the immersion standpoint that I would expect (it's not explained in the world, just a timer your UI shows), then you might want to check out threads on soft-locking mechanisms that are more lore-friendly. Basically they're about taking the heart of the lockout system and building them into the story/mechanics of the world.
Gnog said: Lockouts of this kind totally destroy immersion.
Because killing the same giant/dragon/lich/god over and over and over is immersive? Raiding isn't an immersion retaining playstyle at all anyway so pls don't try to use immersion as a defense against measures to prevent farming a raid target :)
I would anticipate:
Player lock outs (no damage / benefitial spells within range)
Different spawn times with large time gaps
Boss mob behaviors get more drastic the larger the raid group (way tougher)
It is going to be hard for any guild or PU Raid to zerg considering player locks and random spawn rates... I am excited for something like this because the scouting classes will play a BIG role again.
Keep in mind that the focus of the game isn't on raiding, but grouping. While soloers and raiders can still survive and thrive in Pantheon, group content will be the majority in this game.
Instancing on TLP works well because EverQuest wasn't really designed with these kinds of problems in mind. This time around, Visionary Realms and the Pantheon development team are very aware of the issues at hand regarding overcrowding and monopolization of content. Expect some creative ideas and smart design decisions coming out from the team to deal with such problems. Just don't expect instancing to be that answer, as the obvious side effects of it ruin what this game is trying to be.
Also remember, raiding is something that will not only happen at near max/max levels. There is also talk from the team of "mid level" raiding. I think there will be plenty of content for both grouping and raiding for players of all levels.
vjek said:Unfortunately, the current design goals are:
Limited/No instances (only for plot/solo scenes, iirc)
Competitive/shared loot (bring 23 or 71 friends, get 3 items)
Most damage wins/No encounter locking. (DPS races for looting rights)
Trains/Training will be in the game. (as demonstrated repeatedly in the videos thus far)
While those design goals remain true, all the toxic behavior you're describing and concerned about will be possible 24x7 in Pantheon.
For comparison, the solution to these toxic problems are:
Instances for raids.
Personal loot, especially for quest drops/updates.
Encounter locking.
No trains/training.
Which are the primary points of contention for the very small "hardcore" niche target audience that seems to be the most vocal on these forums to date. :)
It is this exact small hardcore niche target audience that pantheon is being made for...so what is the problem? Oh there isnt one, well then carry on
Jazhara said:Heya Insanez,
While its true that there wont be any intstancing, the way VG did overland raid targets was pretty neat. For example, all the overland zone raid targets i believe had a 1 day ish timer. However, if you ended up killing a target you would get "locked out" of engaging the encounter for x amount of time ( usually 3-5 days ). This allowed many guilds to still compete if their timers were up, but also allowed other guilds to still enjoy the raid content that was avail, but didnt get it first type of thing.
I really like that idea and never heard of anything like that.
Also, this post wasn't to say I the game needs instancing as it is not a true solution. This was more to just to talk about ideas about game mechanics around raiding and bring to the table potential issues and possible solutions if they do become really big problems. I know VR really wants the player to feel accomplished after defeating something, and if you just defeat your instance, it isn't that much of a defeat as a race to an open world target.
I just hope to be able to see and experience all content throughout the game.
In an immersion sense, what if as a "locked" player, on the respawn of that same raid boss you helped kill, you could not see it nor hear its cries or sounds either, as if it were not there at all. So you would not be sensing you are on an artificial timer because you would assume it was not there. This could apply to any and all "locked" scenarios. No one "flagged" could even scout that mob. The next time you could see it is if your locked timer is off and the raid boss is respawned.
I was just thinking that the world would seem a little less locked if you don't even know you are flagged because you do not have anything to interact with.. This would allow anyone not locked to naturally participate. I suppose if a guild were big enough, they could do this in two raid groups depending on spawn rate, random timing. Doubtful...
It would surely stop zerging and not make others feel like they are not articially stamped.
Nick said:Keep in mind that the focus of the game isn't on raiding, but grouping. While soloers and raiders can still survive and thrive in Pantheon, group content will be the majority in this game.
Instancing on TLP works well because EverQuest wasn't really designed with these kinds of problems in mind. This time around, Visionary Realms and the Pantheon development team are very aware of the issues at hand regarding overcrowding and monopolization of content. Expect some creative ideas and smart design decisions coming out from the team to deal with such problems. Just don't expect instancing to be that answer, as the obvious side effects of it ruin what this game is trying to be.
Also remember, raiding is something that will not only happen at near max/max levels. There is also talk from the team of "mid level" raiding. I think there will be plenty of content for both grouping and raiding for players of all levels.
Well said, Nick.
Well said, Nick.
Indeed, very well said. While I am a fan of instancing for raids as a way to allow guilds to compete with the environment and not with a large group of ass hats that can't play nice, I am all for alternatives. There just needs to be a solution to monopolizing of content. Lockouts, instancing, or something new. Using immersion as a defense for farming anything is silly. Farming loot is not immersive, period. Its not. Don't even try to play that card. The entirety of the spawn population mechanic is not immersive. As stated it, as well as some sort of anti-farming, play nice and share mechanic, is a require mechanic for a good game. Everquest was known for monopolization of content. Thats why Varant had to step in and force people to play nice and schedule rotations. VR would be insane to not include some type of system in the game to prevent this. They would else end up with the same situation and the same solution.
If there is no instancing, I really hope Pantheon can come up with something more interesting than "raid boss spawns in static location every 24/72 hours after last kill". I'm sure anyone who raided in EQ between 1999 and about 2003 had at least one time where they were either camping a boss's spawn point or got a phone call to log in after a boss spawned. Not only can this lead to frustrating gameplay, but it makes it near impossible to schedule raids. Some ideas I have:
1) More world bosses that can appear in all sorts of different locations rather than a static spawn point (even in multiple zones), which makes tracking/camping much more difficult.
2) Raid bosses having much faster respawn timers and putting a lockout on people when they kill it so they can't kill it over and over again.
3) More raid zones where trash itself is a raid, and killing bosses isn't even necessary (ie, Plane of Fear, Hate, Growth, Kael arena, ToV east and west).
4) Simply make the number of available raid bosses much larger to spread out the competition. Included in this would be to spread them out so one guild can't knock out a bunch right in a row (less zones like VT where one guild basically takes over and clears the entire zone).
I am certainly a fan of getting rid of instancing, but at the same time, there's a reason instancing was adopted in the first place. Losing out on a boss because another guild mustered their raid quicker sucks. Having one or two guilds monopolize all raid bosses sucks. This is why people say P99 is fun as long as you don't want to raid. But if they are creative, I think these problems can be greatly mitigated.
Jazhara said:Heya Insanez,
While its true that there wont be any intstancing, the way VG did overland raid targets was pretty neat. For example, all the overland zone raid targets i believe had a 1 day ish timer. However, if you ended up killing a target you would get "locked out" of engaging the encounter for x amount of time ( usually 3-5 days ). This allowed many guilds to still compete if their timers were up, but also allowed other guilds to still enjoy the raid content that was avail, but didnt get it first type of thing.
I think having a lockout measure like this could still be exploited by a power guild. I have always been a power gamer ... and if a system like this were to be implemented, I would try to get a super guild going that could lock down each of the different respawns. Let's say they use this, and there is a 5 day lockout. What if my guild has 5 raiding divisions, each capable of beating the content? Each division could shift their focus on a different day and still be able to lock down all of the targets. Now instead of there being 1 guild that locks down the once per week contested, we have 1 super guild that locks down all 5 versions of the contested content that are on separate timers. This keeps more loot in house (for super guild) and spreads the gap even further between the super guild and regular guilds in loot acquisition/distribution. As others have mentioned, power gamers will always find a way. If the solution is to just create more spawns on having a lockout, why wouldn't we just build a larger roster that is capable of killing all of the different spawns? The only way to stop this idea would be to have no lockout whatsoever on the contested ... but then they aren't really contested, are they?
Sevens said:... It is this exact small hardcore niche target audience that pantheon is being made for...so what is the problem? ...
What is the problem? That "small hardcore niche target audience" is not large enough to sustain the game financially, in the long term, in my opinion. But we shall see. :)
Or put another way, if it has those same design goals & features as EQ1, and not 17 years of EQ1 content, why play Pantheon? I'll stick with EQ1 if all the toxic behavior is the same and it has less content. /shrug
Sevens said:... It is this exact small hardcore niche target audience that pantheon is being made for...so what is the problem? ...
Thing is, I am one of those niche gamers this game is for. I want to see competition for spawns and targets. I do not want to see one guild monopolize all content because they have no life and can bat phone 300 people at any given time to come and steal targets from everyone. DPS racing is bull ****. If you get there before me and engage, cool, you won. If I get there before you and engage, cool I won. If I get there and engage and you show up with 300 people which is 250 more than is needed and steal the target, then you didn't win, your just a dick. Thats not competition.
It really goes for group content as well, though on a smaller scale. I just hope to find a server with a lower amount of idiots determined to be jerks. Thats what we had to do in EQ. I will still play Pantheon no matter the outcome, but it will be much less enjoyable if I have to constantly fight off these jackasses out to ruin people's good times.
oneADseven said: .. I think having a lockout measure like this could still be exploited by a power guild. I have always been a power gamer ... and if a system like this were to be implemented, I would try to get a super guild going that could lock down each of the different respawns. Let's say they use this, and there is a 5 day lockout. What if my guild has 5 raiding divisions, each capable of beating the content? Each division could shift their focus on a different day and still be able to lock down all of the targets. Now instead of there being 1 guild that locks down the once per week contested, we have 1 super guild that locks down all 5 versions of the contested content that are on separate timers. This keeps more loot in house (for super guild) and spreads the gap even further between the super guild and regular guilds in loot acquisition/distribution. As others have mentioned, power gamers will always find a way. ...
Given the current design goals, tenets, and features, this is exactly my expectation for Pantheon at launch, with respect to open world raiding.
kellindil said:Sevens said:... It is this exact small hardcore niche target audience that pantheon is being made for...so what is the problem? ...Thing is, I am one of those niche gamers this game is for. I want to see competition for spawns and targets. I do not want to see one guild monopolize all content because they have no life and can bat phone 300 people at any given time to come and steal targets from everyone. DPS racing is bull ****. If you get there before me and engage, cool, you won. If I get there before you and engage, cool I won. If I get there and engage and you show up with 300 people which is 250 more than is needed and steal the target, then you didn't win, your just a dick. Thats not competition.
It really goes for group content as well, though on a smaller scale. I just hope to find a server with a lower amount of idiots determined to be jerks. Thats what we had to do in EQ. I will still play Pantheon no matter the outcome, but it will be much less enjoyable if I have to constantly fight off these jackasses out to ruin people's good times.
So much hostility. As a former raid leader that always focused on monopolizing content, I can tell you that griefing other players was never an objective. If you truly embrace competition, you should let it play out without resorting to calling the competition profane names. I am a true competitor. If you beat my guild to the punch every time, good for you. You're doing what you need to be doing to have the one-up on what we're competing for. I'll do my best to try and overcome the odds ... because just like you, I want a piece of that pie for my guild. That's what competition is. There is 1 pie, split among those most capable of grabbing it. I envision contested raiding as more of an open buffet with no refills -- first come, first serve ... not a handholding thanksgiving dinner where everybody is expected to get a piece of the pie. You don't sit at the dinner table with your competition. In your short post you referred to the competition as "no lifers, dicks, jerks, idiots and jackasses" -- and that's not being a good sport at all. It all depends on what systems the game has implemented. If people are hacking, cheating, exploiting, whatever ... obviously, that isn't cool. But if they play the game within the confines of established rulesets, it's fair game. I can sense that you have a lot of frustration about this topic but again, I just want to share my perspective. As someone with experience leading guilds/raids that locked down 95%+ of contested content for entire expansions, I promise you ... it was never to grief the competition. May the best man win, was the mindset. We wanted the goodies more than the other guy and were willing to go above and beyond to get them. That's all it comes down to. It's less about "ruining your good times" and more about "maximizing the quality of our time spent playing the game." Hope that makes sense.
**Edit -- to be clear, I would advocate for a system that allows more players to experience higher end content. While it always felt good to enjoy killing the majority of contested, it's also a breeding ground for animosity. It was very hard for members of my guild to have friendships with people in our competing guilds, and that sucked. This is where instanced content was a good thing. No matter how bad we monopolized the contested, the competition still had their opportunity to experience end-game content and remain in the conversation of being competitive. If the game is designed in a way where it's kill or be killed, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. That's an unfortunate byproduct of competition ... I happen to love the devils crumb donuts at my grocery store. Whenever I am lucky enough to see them, I make sure I grab 3+ boxes to stock up. This isn't because I'm being a greedy bastard and I don't want anybody else to have them ... it's because I know they have a limited supply, and if I don't grab them while they are available, they will be gone next time I come to the store.
Easy solution without instances.
Option #1.
Guild 1 Defeats a boss. The boss respawns 30 minutes to several hours later in a holographic state to anyone who has beaten him in the past week. Holographic state means they can't be aggroed or hit by anyone who has previously beat him in the last week.
Option #2.
Guild 1 defeats a boss. The boss respawns 30 minutes to several hours later. If anyone from Guild 1 touches the boss, they are instantly teleported to the zones entrance. (A la Nagafen)
Option #3.
Guild 1 defeats a boss. The boss respawns 30 minutes to several hours later, but is invisible to anyone who previously killed him in the last week.
It isn't really hard to come up with solutions.
Dhampir said:Easy solution without instances.
Option #1.
Guild 1 Defeats a boss. The boss respawns 30 minutes to several hours later in a holographic state to anyone who has beaten him in the past week. Holographic state means they can't be aggroed or hit by anyone who has previously beat him in the last week.
Option #2.
Guild 1 defeats a boss. The boss respawns 30 minutes to several hours later. If anyone from Guild 1 touches the boss, they are instantly teleported to the zones entrance. (A la Nagafen)
Option #3.
Guild 1 defeats a boss. The boss respawns 30 minutes to several hours later, but is invisible to anyone who previously killed him in the last week.
It isn't really hard to come up with solutions.
I could live with all of these but it would reduce the overall sense of competition. It's a catch 22. The one positive I see to this would be trying to kill the encounters with the least amount of people possible. I imagine my guild rolling tons of alts. If a system like this was implemented, we would try and find a way to get the most amount of loot possible distributed amongst the smallest group possible. In that sense, there is still competition in regards to how fast people can gear up. I think it's definitely worthy of consideration. I would probably tell the guild that our goal is to have 2 max level characters for every player, with 1 being a "main" that we intend to gear up. The other one would be more of a placeholder used to fill up a raid spot and help us down the bosses. But by having 2 full raids, we would be gearing our mains twice as fast.