vjek said:Respectfully, Kilsin, that tells us nothing. :) Every solution presented in any game to date has not stopped the problem outlined. (Except Instancing) If you have a silver bullet to this issue, why are you keeping it a secret?
There is no downside to alleviating potential customer concerns over such an enormous problem.
Also, your "sharding" solution is not a solution. Every competitive guild would invade those other shards specifically to prevent their competition from succeeding or progressing. "Shards" as you've outlined them are EQ1 picks. That's exactly what they are. And they are subject to all the same toxic behavior the open world produces. Next idea?
And before you play this particular card... presuming Customer Service /GM's can deal with these is just naivety personified. Having personally seen developers make claims such as this over the past 20 years, every single time a developer says things like "we have considered all possibilities when creating our game" that means you have considered all the possibilities your team can come up with, which, again, respectfully, is a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of evil people who will be your paying customers. In other words, your statement, in my experience, is the epitome of hubris.
Which is fine, if you actually have the solution. But you better have it. :)
Again, we won't reveal our methods, it is best to wait until you can test them first hand yourself.
Shards alone are not the answer but in unison with other systems like lockout timers etc. they can work every well and promote good interactions between guilds. I am not claiming we have all the answers but at least wait until you see what we have implemented and test them with us to help with feedback, people are in the habit of writing things off before ever trying them and it needs to stop ;)
BeaverBiscuit said:Can someone tell me how shards, and instances, are different? I thought instances were simply different "instances" of an area that have different people or details in them. Is there a more detailed definition?
A Shard is an open world copy of the same thing, like a Dungeon, so for arguments sake we could have a loading screen that lets you choose between 50 copies of the same dungeon and you guild could already up and jump into shard 47, other players could still come along and jump in there too as it isn't locked like a normal instance but it just provides more copies to help with overpopulation.
I hope that helps :)
I love the idea of variable difficulty encounters. One of the best raid designs, imo, that ever did this was WoW's Obsidium Sanctum in Wrath. The raid contained three drakes that were minibosses and dropped loot, of course, and then the main boss which was a dragon. The raid was an outer circle (with the three drakes evenly spaced) and then an island/penensula in the middle with the dragon.
However, if you didn't kill one of the drakes, they would, instead, join in the fight when you engaged the dragon. The resulting loot (if you could beat them) was a piece from each of their loot tables, but with a boosted item level. You could also engage the dragon with all three drakes up, leading to the most difficult encounter as well as a guaranteed rare mount drop and, of course, the highest boosted item level loot. You could vary which drake or drakes you left up so that you could practice the encounter (since the hardest mode you had to deal with all three drakes AND their associated mechanics during the dragon fight).
This, to me, was an extremely elegant way to make a raid. For super casual groups, they simply killed each of the drakes in a row and then the dragon. They got their raid clear, some loot, and were happy. For those interested in more of a challenge, they'd leave one drake up. Depending on their class makeup of their raid and their skill, they might find one to be easier than the others, or they might rotate it each week to get access to the full (boosted) loot tables over time. Likewise with two drakes, which was also useful for the more hardcore guilds to practice on before going for the encounter with all three up. This became known as 0D, 1D, 2D, and 3D for how many drakes you left up for the dragon fight. Leaving all three up would be the hardest encounter, but also gave you the most boosted item level loot AND the unique mount to show off.
This effectively made one raid work for four different groups of raiders: Super casuals, casuals, competitive, and hardcore raiders.
.
A lot of people point to Ulduar as WoW's variable difficulty done well, but I always like OS as an example as it shows how you can make an entire raid (or an individual encounter) have difficulty levels so that it can simulatensouly appeal to raid groups of all skill levels and class compositions.
.
In any case, I love the idea of variable difficulties to encounters. It can reduce the dev resources needed (since you aren't having to design separate raids) while allowing all of your raid players, regardless of skill, to be able to enjoy the content and the story/lore of the raids, but meanwhile the more skilled/competitive/hardcore have more difficult encounters they can go for with more rewards associated with it.
I honestly believe this is one of the better approaches to raiding.
.
EDIT: Oh, I should also note (regarding open world vs instancing), I tend to hold the same position on that that I do essentially everything in life:
All of the above!
Mix things up. Diversified portfolios are what people look for in investing for good reason. There's a certain wisdom to that old proverb about not putting all your eggs in a single basket...
Kilsin said:BeaverBiscuit said:Can someone tell me how shards, and instances, are different? I thought instances were simply different "instances" of an area that have different people or details in them. Is there a more detailed definition?
A Shard is an open world copy of the same thing, like a Dungeon, so for arguments sake we could have a loading screen that lets you choose between 50 copies of the same dungeon and you guild could already up and jump into shard 47, other players could still come along and jump in there too as it isn't locked like a normal instance but it just provides more copies to help with overpopulation.
I hope that helps :)
It does, thanks!
BeaverBiscuit said:Kilsin said:BeaverBiscuit said:Can someone tell me how shards, and instances, are different? I thought instances were simply different "instances" of an area that have different people or details in them. Is there a more detailed definition?
A Shard is an open world copy of the same thing, like a Dungeon, so for arguments sake we could have a loading screen that lets you choose between 50 copies of the same dungeon and you guild could already up and jump into shard 47, other players could still come along and jump in there too as it isn't locked like a normal instance but it just provides more copies to help with overpopulation.
I hope that helps :)It does, thanks!
You're welcome my friend, excuse the auto corrects too, I just noticed them :)
A Shard is an open world copy of the same thing, like a Dungeon, so for arguments sake we could have a loading screen that lets you choose between 50 copies of the same dungeon and you guild could already up and jump into shard 47, other players could still come along and jump in there too as it isn't locked like a normal instance but it just provides more copies to help with overpopulation.
I hope that helps :)
I have a few serious questions, is it going to be based on number of players to force open a new shard? Are the shards going to have a shared spawn rate? Are the shards going to have a close out / merge system?
The reason I ask these are , what prevents a group of players opening a new shard for there guild by intentionally capping out the zone population?
What prevents a guild from jumping from shard to shard for contested spawns or named mobs? IE contested mob is up in shard 3 , we zone out and rezone into 3 for the kill? Or even multiple killls?
Also what will prevent players from owning shard 4 for example , once the population drops to only have 2 shards , this allows the shard 4 group the entire zone?
Also are shards going to be invite based , using the above situation . I am in shard 4 , the population to open a new shard has dropped to only able to have 2.. Will I be able to invite people into shard 4?
I have seen systems like this before , and these where some of the MAJOR issues.
Xxar said:
A Shard is an open world copy of the same thing, like a Dungeon, so for arguments sake we could have a loading screen that lets you choose between 50 copies of the same dungeon and you guild could already up and jump into shard 47, other players could still come along and jump in there too as it isn't locked like a normal instance but it just provides more copies to help with overpopulation.
I hope that helps :)
I have a few serious questions, is it going to be based on number of players to force open a new shard? Are the shards going to have a shared spawn rate? Are the shards going to have a close out / merge system?
The reason I ask these are , what prevents a group of players opening a new shard for there guild by intentionally capping out the zone population?
What prevents a guild from jumping from shard to shard for contested spawns or named mobs? IE contested mob is up in shard 3 , we zone out and rezone into 3 for the kill? Or even multiple killls?
Also what will prevent players from owning shard 4 for example , once the population drops to only have 2 shards , this allows the shard 4 group the entire zone?
Also are shards going to be invite based , using the above situation . I am in shard 4 , the population to open a new shard has dropped to only able to have 2.. Will I be able to invite people into shard 4?
I have seen systems like this before , and these where some of the MAJOR issues.
I just listed Shards and Lockouts as 2 options from many that we are considering, it doesn't mean that it is what we will do man, I can't answer those questions publicly yet, you will have to wait until testing to see what we have implemented and give feedback on it then, as with things like this, we will not be putting it up for public debate when no one has experienced it first hand, it is impossible to form an opinion of something that no one has tried yet. ;)
In regards to the Shard "cap" there is no "cap", it is an option, 5 guilds can all pile into 1 shard with multiple random players and all fight over mobs and muscle each other out until someone gets annoyed and moved to another Shard that is less populated, it is just a way to spread them out and give players an option, rather than just all stuck fighting together over content. The example I used with VG and APW, that dungeon had 6 Shards to choose from, you walked up to the huge double doors and clicked on them, a menu popped up and you choose Shard 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 and off you go, most guilds would organise a preferred Shard to meet in and other guilds would recognise that and pick another one if they raided at a similar time, it promoted interactions between guilds and gave an option for guilds who were in overcrowded Shards so they could keep raiding and not call it for the night or wait for long periods, coupled with Lockout timers, stopping guilds locking down entire Shards for large amounts of time.
But as I said, wait until you folks get in and can test what we have implemented first hand before trying to pull it apart and cast judgement over it because we would rather proper feedback and not just opinions on big systems like this, which is why you will rarely find me responding with information to threads like Death Penalty, Auction House etc.
Thanks from me too for the explanation of shards.
Discussion of difficulty levels reminds me of SWTOR. At least at first, and maybe to this date but I have long since left, the endgame consisted of a raid. Then the same raid at higher difficulty. Then the same raid at even higher difficulty. AAAArghhhhhhhh!!!!!!!
I suppose that is better than the endgame being one raid without any changes in difficulty but ...not all that much better.
I have been more positive than some about the concept of having a way to make certain limited encounters vary in difficulty but it is still an approach I view with limited enthusiam at best.
I just listed Shards and Lockouts as 2 options from many that we are considering, it doesn't mean that it is what we will do man, I can't answer those questions publicly yet, you will have to wait until testing to see what we have implemented and give feedback on it then, as with things like this, we will not be putting it up for public debate when no one has experienced it first hand, it is impossible to form an opinion of something that no one has tried yet. ;)
That tells us nothing , so I understand you can not answer it.
In regards to the Shard "cap" there is no "cap", it is an option, 5 guilds can all pile into 1 shard with multiple random players and all fight over mobs and muscle each other out until someone gets annoyed and moved to another Shard that is less populated, it is just a way to spread them out and give players an option, rather than just all stuck fighting together over content.
I never asked about a "cap" . I asked if it was triggered by the number of people in a zone being present to create a additional shard , also if it is population based will the number of available shards go up and down? That question still has not been answered.
This also goes into the second and third question I asked. Are the shards linked in spawn times on contested mobs and if it is population based will the shards merge if the population dwindles?
The example I used with VG and APW, that dungeon had 6 Shards to choose from, you walked up to the huge double doors and clicked on them, a menu popped up and you choose Shard 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 and off you go, most guilds would organise a preferred Shard to meet in and other guilds would recognise that and pick another one if they raided at a similar time, it promoted interactions between guilds and gave an option for guilds who were in overcrowded Shards so they could keep raiding and not call it for the night or wait for long periods, coupled with Lockout timers, stopping guilds locking down entire Shards for large amounts of time.
Unless we are designing VG or APW , I do not see how this relates? Unless you are going back on the previous statment and saying this is the design system you are using.
But as I said, wait until you folks get in and can test what we have implemented first hand before trying to pull it apart and cast judgement over it because we would rather proper feedback and not just opinions on big systems like this, which is why you will rarely find me responding with information to threads like Death Penalty, Auction House etc.
Yes, we can not wait either.
Several people in this thread expressed skepticism of the ability to have open world raid content that is not dominated by a single guild. I continue to believe that raid content can be open world, without lockouts, through good design mechanics like the ones listed below. I reiterate them here, at the risk of Kilsin's ire, because the notion that instances are the only solution to the content-domination problem is just wrong.
------------------
Lockouts are really just a different flavor of instance. Instead of each guild having its own instance, each guild has its own window in which to kill the open world raid target while other guilds are locked out. It's just sequenced instancing.
Giving every guild its own shard is really not very different either. The space between "shard" and "instance" approaches zero as shards become commonplace, rather than an exceptional, last resort remedy to overcrowding.
Real solutions that don't compromise the open world are:
1. Prevent ShowEQ functionality and implement other mechanics that make it hard to determine whether a raid target is up. Make raid bosses see through invisible and FD. Make raid bosses untrackable or trackable only within a small radius.
2. Limit call of the hero, dramatically. Prohibit it in certain areas. Or dramatically increase the cool down on call of the hero. Make it a one-hour cooldown--useful for calling a group member, but not for warping an entire raid force to the doorsteps of a raid boss. If a guild can't coth quickly in large numbers, it can't batphone nearly as effectively.
3. Protect most raid targets better, with quickly re spawning guardians. It's hard to steal a raid kill when you need to clear fast spawning guardians to get there. If another guild gets a head start, there's no point to batphoning.
4. Random respawn locations and timers. Simultaneous spawns of multiple similarly difficult raid encounters. A guild can't be everywhere at once.
5. For most raid encounters (excepting a few truly open world targets a la gorenaire), require a long trash clear (with fast respawns). If it takes, say, two hours to clear to a raid encounter (and only limited coths are available) then a guild takes itself out of the open world competition for other targets whenever it commits to one. If other targets spawn at the same time, they are available to other guilds who act quickly.
6. Make it harder to grief on raid content. Guardians that see through invis, see through FD, and summon at 100% health would go a long way to preventing griefing of another guild that's progressing toward a target.
I'm sure there are other ways to make open world raiding competitive but not monopolized, without resorting to lockouts.
Real solutions that don't compromise the open world are:
1. Prevent ShowEQ functionality and implement other mechanics that make it hard to determine whether a raid target is up. Make raid bosses see through invisible and FD. Make raid bosses untrackable or trackable only within a small radius.
This is already a real thing , from my understanding with the client side sending little information. Make raid bosses see through invis and FD ... this does nothing. I will have multiple disposable alts at every known spawn point. This will turn into a count down based spread sheet , once a known spawn timer is established.
2. Limit call of the hero, dramatically. Prohibit it in certain areas. Or dramatically increase the cool down on call of the hero. Make it a one-hour cooldown--useful for calling a group member, but not for warping an entire raid force to the doorsteps of a raid boss. If a guild can't coth quickly in large numbers, it can't batphone nearly as effectively.
Once again , depending on the level of COH . This just limits the use , now COH is reservered for guild form up or contested or we are now camping alts with COH at targets.
3. Protect most raid targets better, with quickly re spawning guardians. It's hard to steal a raid kill when you need to clear fast spawning guardians to get there. If another guild gets a head start, there's no point to batphoning.
This now just adds in additional members to my raid , that sits outside the main raid force on add duty .. I hope you are not second string.
4. Random respawn locations and timers. Simultaneous spawns of multiple similarly difficult raid encounters. A guild can't be everywhere at once.
I think you underestimate the powers that be here. I will give you that random respawn locations are a cool concept , except I do not think its feasable in a overall sense. Also yes , highly dedicated guilds can be every place at once :)
5. For most raid encounters (excepting a few truly open world targets a la gorenaire), require a long trash clear (with fast respawns). If it takes, say, two hours to clear to a raid encounter (and only limited coths are available) then a guild takes itself out of the open world competition for other targets whenever it commits to one. If other targets spawn at the same time, they are available to other guilds who act quickly.
How are you going to put two hours of content in a "open" world enviroment to clear to a raid encounter?Aso the entire concept you said , defeats itself. Is there two hours of trash mobs or is there a mob that is based on acting quickly?
Are all the mobs in the zone raid based ? If so seems like alot of wasted content , unless there is raid level rewards involved. Also what prevents us from dropping the mob one time , and chain COH the entire raid ahead next time?
6. Make it harder to grief on raid content. Guardians that see through invis, see through FD, and summon at 100% health would go a long way to preventing griefing of another guild that's progressing toward a target.
I think we already discussed this in #1 and #3 :/
The reality is in a open world content , unless there a encounter lock based system or a "lock out" based on time killed. I do not see how you can really prevent us poo socking , call listing , sm messenger or even mobile discording for form up and execution. I know for example in FF XI , EQ1 , EQ2 we had mobs on farm status pulled and or killed 90 % of the time inside of 5 mins of spawn.
If Instancing/Shards/Lockouts are introduced into the game it should only be considered for PvE servers. PvP servers should be left as completely open world. No shards, no instances, and no lockouts.
People play PvP in a game like this for the ability to compete over content and to attempt to control it. If a raid target is always up via lockouts, or several copies are available at all times it completely breaks the realism and immersion that a PvP server offers.
Completely understand the frustration from a PvE perspecitve. I know it's a PvE game first, I just don't want our niche to be completely swept under the rug again like it was in EQ and VG.
You guys are stressing out too much. The solution to the problem, which has been said over and over, is content. There is no way a single guild will be able to stay on top of every single raid encounter... especially if they are difficult and challenging. That is why Brad keeps saying repeatedly that the easy solution is CONTENT. But no matter what game there will always be those groups of hardcore gamers who are dedicated to their guilds and to raiding. They will sport all the best shinies and lots will be jealous of it. It is just the way it is. However, its not everyones goal to do this nor is the developers intention. There is no such thing as ''beating the game.'' There is one specific goal for the developers of Pantheon and they have said it many many times on these forums, the streams, and everywhere else... '' For everyone to have fun.'' Fun means different things to different people in that it is not everyone's goal to raid 7 nights a week. Would everyone like to have all the best items in the game? Of course they would but its not going to be handed to you. And thats ok!! This game is about allowing everyone to have fun doing whatever it is that they enjoy doing but at the same time challenging in that you are rewarded for the amount of effort you put in. This is what allows them to cater to everyone and why they have chosen open world. It is no different than everyday life. You get in where you fit in and I am glad this is their approach. They are not catering to any specific type of gamer. It is a world where there will be something for everyone to do based on their own specific goals and capabilities. I feel like I could go on and on about this and some people will just not understand or accept it no matter how clear and definitive anyone makes it. There will always be those that feel its not fair they cant have glowing swords and staves because they cant play as much as the ones who do have them and worked to get them. My advice to you is that you should set goals for the things that you CAN get and have fun in doing so. There is no such thing as beating or winning the game. Have fun and enjoy what the developers have spent all this time creating for us. Envy people and congratulate them on their accomplishments. I promise if you take this approach rather than jealousy and anger you will have a much better experience.
Real solutions that don't compromise the open world are:
1. Prevent ShowEQ functionality and implement other mechanics that make it hard to determine whether a raid target is up. Make raid bosses see through invisible and FD. Make raid bosses untrackable or trackable only within a small radius.
Xxar said:
This is already a real thing , from my understanding with the client side sending little information. Make raid bosses see through invis and FD ... this does nothing. I will have multiple disposable alts at every known spawn point. This will turn into a count down based spread sheet , once a known spawn timer is established.
--- Prevent camping within tracking range of the raid targets. Or, if you camp, you get relocated to the zone line after 10 minutes of logout time. Thus, when a raid target is within window (according to your spreadsheet), your alt logs into the zone line, where it cannot see or track the raid target.
2. Limit call of the hero, dramatically. Prohibit it in certain areas. Or dramatically increase the cool down on call of the hero. Make it a one-hour cooldown--useful for calling a group member, but not for warping an entire raid force to the doorsteps of a raid boss. If a guild can't coth quickly in large numbers, it can't batphone nearly as effectively.
Xxar said:
Once again , depending on the level of COH . This just limits the use , now COH is reservered for guild form up or contested or we are now camping alts with COH at targets.
--- You seem to have misread this one. I'm suggesting limitations on Coth so strong that they prevent your guild from bypassing preliminary content. You would need to camp one Coth alt per guild member at every target to make this work. If there are 10 relevant targets, you'd need 10 Coth alts per raider. Good luck with that. And Moreover, your camped Coth-bot will be swept to the zone line after camping for 10 minutes. See #1.
3. Protect most raid targets better, with quickly re spawning guardians. It's hard to steal a raid kill when you need to clear fast spawning guardians to get there. If another guild gets a head start, there's no point to batphoning.
Xxar said:
This now just adds in additional members to my raid , that sits outside the main raid force on add duty .. I hope you are not second string.
-- I would never be your second string. Nor would any respectable player. Good luck holding together a guild that has second stringers on add duty at other raid targets. Those players will be recruited to another guild. Or your guild will be so big it would resemble multiple guilds. And in that case, there's not really a single guild monopolizing content.
4. Random respawn locations and timers. Simultaneous spawns of multiple similarly difficult raid encounters. A guild can't be everywhere at once.
Xxar said:
I think you underestimate the powers that be here. I will give you that random respawn locations are a cool concept , except I do not think its feasable in a overall sense. Also yes , highly dedicated guilds can be every place at once :)
--- You have basically given no response here. Highly dedicated guilds, however dedicated, are bound by the same space time as the rest of us. Saying you can be every place at once in force is laughable. If there is enough content, and the bulk of your raid force is being devoted to target #1, another raid force will have at least a major advantage on target #2 that's also spawned at the time.
5. For most raid encounters (excepting a few truly open world targets a la gorenaire), require a long trash clear (with fast respawns). If it takes, say, two hours to clear to a raid encounter (and only limited coths are available) then a guild takes itself out of the open world competition for other targets whenever it commits to one. If other targets spawn at the same time, they are available to other guilds who act quickly.
Xxar said:
How are you going to put two hours of content in a "open" world enviroment to clear to a raid encounter?Aso the entire concept you said , defeats itself. Is there two hours of trash mobs or is there a mob that is based on acting quickly?
--- You're misreading again. Fast respawning guardians that must be killed to access a raid encounter = two hours of clearing content. They respawn quickly so that if you're the first to start the clear, another guild will also have to clear to catch up. So you get first mover advantage, but you can't be in-and-out in a matter of minutes, as would be required to run around monopolizing content.
Xxar said:
Are all the mobs in the zone raid based ? If so seems like alot of wasted content , unless there is raid level rewards involved. Also what prevents us from dropping the mob one time , and chain COH the entire raid ahead next time?
--- As I said in point 2, Coth should be limited so you can't Coth your raid force past this kind of clearing content. As for "wasted"content, trash mobs could drop useful loot (perhaps with a small drop rate), as they are raid difficulty.
6. Make it harder to grief on raid content. Guardians that see through invis, see through FD, and summon at 100% health would go a long way to preventing griefing of another guild that's progressing toward a target.
Xxar said:
I think we already discussed this in #1 and #3 :/
---- No, we didn't. Unless you mean your "second string" idea, which I've addressed. If you can't grief on raid content, and you can't Coth to a target, it means that other guilds can go after raid content whenever your raid force is tied up. You can't delay others through griefing while you batphone.
Xxar said:
The reality is in a open world content , unless there a encounter lock based system or a "lock out" based on time killed. I do not see how you can really prevent us poo socking , call listing , sm messenger or even mobile discording for form up and execution. I know for example in FF XI , EQ1 , EQ2 we had mobs on farm status pulled and or killed 90 % of the time inside of 5 mins of spawn.
---- If you do not see how these and other mechanics would prevent your guild from monopolizing content, you are not as smart as you think you are, and I'm not concerned about your guild's supposed forthcoming domination.
Re:
--- Prevent camping within tracking range of the raid targets. Or, if you camp, you get relocated to the zone line after 10 minutes of logout time. Thus, when a raid target is within window (according to your spreadsheet), your alt logs into the zone line, where it cannot see or track the raid target.
You added that information bit, after the fact. Also why have the alt log in on a zone line. I am going to be standing on its spawn point. Who cares , if it dies? As for the spread sheet , it is a simple time based count down based on spawn data... Ie mob is due in 1 hour for example with a ratio of error.
--- You seem to have misread this one. I'm suggesting limitations on Coth so strong that they prevent your guild from bypassing preliminary content. You would need to camp one Coth alt per guild member at every target to make this work. If there are 10 relevant targets, you'd need 10 Coth alts per raider. Good luck with that. And Moreover, your camped Coth-bot will be swept to the zone line after camping for 10 minutes. See #1.
That is taking into consideration that multiple raid mobs are on the same timer, I highly doubt that will be the case.
Also the comment on bypassing preliminary content , I do not seem to get the point you are making here. That is the entire point of a COH type of spell to go from point A to point B. What are you suggesting to not trivialize the entire point of the spell or make it entirely useless?
Also you stated make it like a 1hr cool down , I am addresssing that .. the answer you come up with does nothing but limit the spell . If you do not think it will be reserved , you are kidding yourself.
If that is the case there designated based on either A> Progression kill or B. Loot either way it still defeats the entire point of the ability. If you want open world and contested mobs , that is part of it .. I guess we just have to disagree here. I want encounter locks and kill timers just to be safe. I guess my point being is we can say this or that and the reality it will more then likely be done , if there not a mechanic in place to prevent it.
-- I would never be your second string. Nor would any respectable player. Good luck holding together a guild that has second stringers on add duty at other raid targets. Those players will be recruited to another guild. Or your guild will be so big it would resemble multiple guilds. And in that case, there's not really a single guild monopolizing content.
This is just a fact of contested style raiding with a high number of respawns, the concept you have suggested is nothing new. Perfect examples of this is Divine Matron in everquest 2.
-- You have basically given no response here. Highly dedicated guilds, however dedicated, are bound by the same space time as the rest of us. Saying you can be every place at once in force is laughable. If there is enough content, and the bulk of your raid force is being devoted to target #1, another raid force will have at least a major advantage on target #2 that's also spawned at the time.
I will give you this , if you are considering all guilds are playing at the same time frame . Lets take a EU guild , that is on US server for a example. The above situation allows them to have multiple raid targets up hours , before the next guild. I guess what im saying is the solution , adds additional problems. This will be compounded by once again , if there is no raid lock out / kill lock .. The US guild in this situation will probably never see the raid targets alive just due to the time diffrence.
-- You're misreading again. Fast respawning guardians that must be killed to access a raid encounter = two hours of clearing content. They respawn quickly so that if you're the first to start the clear, another guild will also have to clear to catch up. So you get first mover advantage, but you can't be in-and-out in a matter of minutes, as would be required to run around monopolizing content.
I sort of see the point you make here , but to play devils advocate ... So you are willing to raid 2 hrs clearing crap , to find out the targets not even up ? You realize how demoralizng that will be?
--- No, we didn't. Unless you mean your "second string" idea, which I've addressed. If you can't grief on raid content, and you can't Coth to a target, it means that other guilds can go after raid content whenever your raid force is tied up. You can't delay others through griefing while you batphone.
I will once again say , I do not see the need to even address griefing on a target . I think there needs to be encounter locks / kill lockouts. Why , interfer at all if you can not even engage the mob ?
I think we just have diffrent views on the subject, I think there needs to be a basic system in place to prevent it from the start. Why even make it a issue , if there is not need ?
Also what is wrong with batphones?
Xxar said:
I just listed Shards and Lockouts as 2 options from many that we are considering, it doesn't mean that it is what we will do man, I can't answer those questions publicly yet, you will have to wait until testing to see what we have implemented and give feedback on it then, as with things like this, we will not be putting it up for public debate when no one has experienced it first hand, it is impossible to form an opinion of something that no one has tried yet. ;)
That tells us nothing , so I understand you can not answer it.
In regards to the Shard "cap" there is no "cap", it is an option, 5 guilds can all pile into 1 shard with multiple random players and all fight over mobs and muscle each other out until someone gets annoyed and moved to another Shard that is less populated, it is just a way to spread them out and give players an option, rather than just all stuck fighting together over content.
I never asked about a "cap" . I asked if it was triggered by the number of people in a zone being present to create a additional shard , also if it is population based will the number of available shards go up and down? That question still has not been answered.
This also goes into the second and third question I asked. Are the shards linked in spawn times on contested mobs and if it is population based will the shards merge if the population dwindles?
The example I used with VG and APW, that dungeon had 6 Shards to choose from, you walked up to the huge double doors and clicked on them, a menu popped up and you choose Shard 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 and off you go, most guilds would organise a preferred Shard to meet in and other guilds would recognise that and pick another one if they raided at a similar time, it promoted interactions between guilds and gave an option for guilds who were in overcrowded Shards so they could keep raiding and not call it for the night or wait for long periods, coupled with Lockout timers, stopping guilds locking down entire Shards for large amounts of time.
Unless we are designing VG or APW , I do not see how this relates? Unless you are going back on the previous statment and saying this is the design system you are using.
But as I said, wait until you folks get in and can test what we have implemented first hand before trying to pull it apart and cast judgement over it because we would rather proper feedback and not just opinions on big systems like this, which is why you will rarely find me responding with information to threads like Death Penalty, Auction House etc.
Yes, we can not wait either.
Look, it doesn't seem like you understand what I am saying so let's just wait until you can experience it first hand so then you won't have any problems knowing what the system is and how it works, relating it to other games and basing an opinion or forming a judgement before even trying it won't help anyone.
Hane said:If Instancing/Shards/Lockouts are introduced into the game it should only be considered for PvE servers. PvP servers should be left as completely open world. No shards, no instances, and no lockouts.
People play PvP in a game like this for the ability to compete over content and to attempt to control it. If a raid target is always up via lockouts, or several copies are available at all times it completely breaks the realism and immersion that a PvP server offers.
Completely understand the frustration from a PvE perspecitve. I know it's a PvE game first, I just don't want our niche to be completely swept under the rug again like it was in EQ and VG.
Shards are open world, I literally just explained this above in my post lol, even in VG PvPers would jump into APW Shards and train entire raids at specific fights, 2-3 PvPers could wipe a raid easily and for that reason, PvP guilds used to place small teams of scouts and lookouts to stop these people before they got to the main raid party.
Kilsin said:Hane said:If Instancing/Shards/Lockouts are introduced into the game it should only be considered for PvE servers. PvP servers should be left as completely open world. No shards, no instances, and no lockouts.
People play PvP in a game like this for the ability to compete over content and to attempt to control it. If a raid target is always up via lockouts, or several copies are available at all times it completely breaks the realism and immersion that a PvP server offers.
Completely understand the frustration from a PvE perspecitve. I know it's a PvE game first, I just don't want our niche to be completely swept under the rug again like it was in EQ and VG.Shards are open world, I literally just explained this above in my post lol, even in VG PvPers would jump into APW Shards and train entire raids at specific fights, 2-3 PvPers could wipe a raid easily and for that reason, PvP guilds used to place small teams of scouts and lookouts to stop these people before they got to the main raid party.
Pyde said:SMH :) Poor Kilsin.
Sir, you are a Saint !!! Your patience and understanding are legendary.
haha, thank you Sir, if I didn't love this community so much and my role as the CM, it may be a different story but I always try to give as much information as I can so others can make an educated and informed decision, sometimes it doesn't always work, but always I try! :)
vjek said:Respectfully, Kilsin, that tells us nothing. :) Every solution presented in any game to date has not stopped the problem outlined. (Except Instancing) If you have a silver bullet to this issue, why are you keeping it a secret?
There is no downside to alleviating potential customer concerns over such an enormous problem.
Also, your "sharding" solution is not a solution. Every competitive guild would invade those other shards specifically to prevent their competition from succeeding or progressing. "Shards" as you've outlined them are EQ1 picks. That's exactly what they are. And they are subject to all the same toxic behavior the open world produces. Next idea?
And before you play this particular card... presuming Customer Service /GM's can deal with these is just naivety personified. Having personally seen developers make claims such as this over the past 20 years, every single time a developer says things like "we have considered all possibilities when creating our game" that means you have considered all the possibilities your team can come up with, which, again, respectfully, is a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands of evil people who will be your paying customers. In other words, your statement, in my experience, is the epitome of hubris.
Which is fine, if you actually have the solution. But you better have it. :)
I have to say, this is probably the ugliest comment I've ever read in my time with gaming websites. And to top it off, you complain that 1000s of Pantheon's paying customers will be EVIL. I would find this insulting and should be insulting to many people but I laugh at it because it's absolutely ridiculous. This whole comment is just sad and angry and it all has to do with raiding inside of a video game. You even went as far as to threaten the man, like seriously??
It's strange too because with all this anger you have at the evil people coming to ruin your fun with raiding the 'problem outlined' was non-existant in VG and VG had ZERO instancing. Which by your expertise is the ONLY method of protecting against this 'problem outlined'. I and many others raided in VG for many hours upon hours over the span of a few years and with the methods Kilsin has already mentioned it was a VERY toxic free environment. So your claims that sharding is not a solution is WRONG and your claims that instancing is the only solution is WRONG.
I honestly can NOT believe I read this response. It absolutely floors me. I think it's time somebody does some growing up.
My two copper on a topic that has been hashed and rehashed too much already.
In several games that included open world raids I've seen the problem deal with itself.
You have your top tier, hardcore, play 18 hours a day guilds. There's a handful of them, and they all get to the finish line around the same time, usually there's one stand-out guild that gets there well ahead of the rest, but the others are soon to follow. At that point there's some competition, however, in due time they all end up progressing beyond the first raid. For a brief period you have them competing with one another, but as each guild gets more of what they need from that raid, they move on, and the others have more access, as they have more access they finish farming the raid faster, and poof, they're moving on and competiing for the next raid. It should be noted here that due to competition the ones that were ahead pull further ahead, and everyone ends up a little more spread out and staggered as they move into the next raid.
After that you have the casual-core (or competative). Those folks who aren't quite as hardcore as the hardcore, but not really casual. There are usually several more of them than there are of the hardcore, but the same basic thing happens here. They make it to the end-game and start raiding and by the time they get there the hardcore guilds have moved on. They compete with one another for raids and bosses and gear, but over time find themselves geared out, they aren't getting any benefit from that raid, and they move on.
After that you have "casual raiding," you'll see a poopton more of these guys than you saw of either of the first two categories. These guys are casuals, but they try to raid about once a week. On a good week maybe twice, and when time constraints come in maybe only once every two weeks. They tend to take the longest with gearing themselves, as they generally attract more guild members, and progress through the content more slowly. They also pass through whatever the first raid is more slowly because they have more guilds to compete with. This is where that whole instance/shard/lockouts/etc could come in to play. Of course it's also where your community comes more into play as well. If you have two guilds who have huge player bases half of whom aren't equipped for raiding yet, what you'll find is alliances being made for raiding together. Or things where one guild will clear one side of the raid, and the other guild the other side. Maybe work together on the boss, maybe random the boss, maybe agree that it boils down to who gets there first. In the end, these more casual guilds tend to find ways to work together. Why? Because they're casual. They're not competing, or at least not competing as hard as the first two groups. (It should be noted however, I've seen a few games where by the time the first few casual raiding guilds start raiding tehre are some stragglers from the competative guilds still finishing out their gearing process, however, that overlap doesn't tend to last long, and after that it goes down to just the casuals).
Finally, you have the last group, the ultra casual, they kinda don't plan on raiding ever anyway, but if it happens, well that'll be cool. These guys get there dead last, if they ever get there at all, and by the time they do get there everyone else is gone. While the ultra casuals are pretty numerous (though not as numerous as the "casual raiding" guilds) there is almost never competition for loot by the time they get there. Everyone else has moved on, and the ultra casuals tend to progress at such different rates that they aren't often in the same place at the same time.
I remember in original EQ, it was a thing with Naggy/Vox Hate/Fear. For a brief period there was intense competition to be the guild clearing out a plane or killing a dragon as soon as the servers came up from maintenance, usually within an hour or so the dragons would both be dead, and within a couple hours of that both planes would be clear. However, that was only a brief period, after that, you could walk up and give Vox a hug almost anytime you wanted, because she wasn't farmed nearly as much. Okay, you tried hugging her at your own risk, but you know what I mean.
My entire point here is that competition isn't as bad as folks want to make it out to be, and if VR has any sort of plan in place (or maybe several plans they want us to test and discover which is best) that reduces competition at all, it'll work out. Perfectly? Maybe, maybe not, but the problem wasn't that huge to begin with, and with any system it'll be even less of a problem. Meaning, it might be a minor annoyance, but I doubt it'll be any sort of major hinderance.