There is hope they won't cater to the elitists that think that lots of competition for a raid mob is healthy for the community as a whole (it basically makes the end game PvE into a form of PvP). It's really just for those that want to lord over others and massive guilds to circlejerk over. The raid itself should be difficult enough to leave the rewards as a sign of prestige. If the hard part of raiding is tagging the mob then that's a really bad joke.
Arardune said:Unfortunately, in the past, raiding has been considered the ultimate risk vs. reward scenario, or even the 'only' high risk vs. reward scenario. So the best loot has traditionally been obtained by raiding, and raiding only. We do feel that raiding is (or at least should be) challenging. Not only are the encounters more difficult, but bringing in and organizing large groups of players, orchestrating the battle, making sure people are doing what they are supposed to, etc. is challenging to manage. So we do think the rewards should reflect that.
That said, data says that only 10-15% of players actively raid. So while, as stated, we will have raid encounters, and we will reward players for beating raid encounters with some nice drops, if that was the only way to get the best loot we would be going against our vision of creating a game mostly about grouping, with solo and raid content secondary. So one of the many things we are thinking through and theory crafting about is how to create group encounters that drop great loot as well. Crafting will play a part, and we have other ideas too, many of which will need to be tested and tweaked with during alpha and beta.
.........................................
Our ideal goal, as I've posted before, is to have *some* competition for resources but not too many.
One potential thing to be glad about is that raiding looks like it won't be the be all end all of end-game content and gearing up.
Kilsin said:We have in fact discussed this is great detail many ideas were put forward to mitigate this including one that I mentioned about lockout timers, which were used in VG to allow huge open world raiding and still control over raiding or camping boss mobs, it worked very well.
Basically, if your guild kills a mob, you are locked out from killing it again for 7 days, it respawns either instantly or within an hour and then the next guild can kill it, this way, multiple guilds can work out schedules to kill the boss without interfering with each others raiding schedule and it stops mobs from being over camped for their gear, removing the overcrowding issue between guilds, having multiple raiding mobs on these lockout timers allows guilds to communicate with each other and assign certain days/raids to kill specific mobs, once you get the first week or two down it becomes a normal raiding schedule with little to no interference from other guilds and solves many problems.
........................................
Yeah, I agree with you completely, no one should be blocked from content because of someone else or another group/guild (unless it is PvP which is completely different and part of the strategy in most cases), there are many ways to handle this, the lockout is one I have seen work well but if there is something better suited for Pantheon then we will definitely investigate.
You're very welcome :)
So luckily it seems like the devs know the issue and, as they have said many times in the past, will try to find the middle ground to best satisfy both ends of the spectrum.
That said, data says that only 10-15% of players actively raid. So while, as stated, we will have raid encounters, and we will reward players for beating raid encounters with some nice drops, if that was the only way to get the best loot we would be going against our vision of creating a game mostly about grouping, with solo and raid content secondary.
I think this really says it all .
Raiding will not be the end of everything and I would bet that there will be some kind of lock out for the raids anyway even if it concerns only a very small minority of the players . And the already mentionned "no lifers" are a minority of this minority . So I am sure that VR is well aware of potential problems and will not allow a minority of a minority (say 1 % of the player basis) to ruin the fun for the other 99 % of the players .
I agree with both Iksar and Deadshade as well. I also would like to thank Iksar for posting what Brad and Kilsin said too. That does help some. Like I mentioned earlier, it's nice to see a few people who are level headed in these forums as opposed to those that pray this is EQ, with all it's tediousness, all over again.
98 Mage 104 necro 82 mage. Was full group. Burnyai camp in EoK.
We conferred, thinkng it impossible. grabbed 87 shaman. We died.
We did not think our 4 would pack up and go elsewhere as there was no instance, no spawn timer.
We died again
Moved to harder sarnak fort.
Held camp- even double pulls, goodness, for an afternoon, 98 mage became 104 mage. 82 mage became 99 maybe 100. 104 necro became 105.
Rare raid items dropped....twice.... and it was a hot potato whenever cohorts armor dropped- as they were lore.
104 mage and 105 mage, then. Held. Sarnak fort .
200?
"tell them at lacadeamon, passerby. That here, unto our word, we died"
Thank you Iksar for keeping a cool head and posting the quotes and helpful information from Brad and myself, it is appreciated. :)
I am going close this now, this information was easily found by using the search function for different keywords. Please don't fall into the trap of lowering the quality and integrity of your posts because someone else does, we are a better community than that.