raelsmar said:I was/am under the same impression Crom and I think you hit the nail on the head with rare loot. To me, those type items are meant (or should be meant) to put people in awe of their awesomeness and give them a sensation of wonder and amazement. It should make them want to find out where it came from, search for it themselves and put the time/effort into getting it.
If everyone is able to camp/slay Aradune and acquire his awesome flaming sword with little to no time/effort/challenge involved, then all of a sudden Aradune and his flaming sword don't seem quite as cool anymore. :)
As has been said, having extra shards for gaining exp is pointless. May as well not have shards at that point and just take your group somewhere else to get exp. The point of shards is to share access to these items so they don't get monopolized by guilds/groups nearly as easily. They can adjust the drop rates to whatever feels right in terms of what comes into the economy, but again I think people are seriously overlooking the augmentation/enchant aspect of these drops and whatever possible incentives to sacrifice/destroy items outright will be. With augments/enchants it means any gear you plan on using at higher levels you will want to customize / add some bonus to it so you are top notch, which then means you can't sell it later. If they have a steady flow of content then none of this flooding of items will be an issue.
For all we know named mobs will have large loot tables, in EQ most dungeon named had 2 maybe 3 drops but usually just one rare and a common drop. If named in Pantheon have a loot table of 5 or 6 items then I don't think there is anything to worry about here with a reasonable spawn rate attached. If Frenzied Ghoul had 5 or 6 possible drops then you might go a couple days without seeing a FBSS drop.
As for the being riled up bit I was referencing this:
Krixus said:That can't be real. I want my money back if it is. WTH. That is beyond messed up. That is NOT what we were sold this game would be.
...
That is sickening. Say goodbye integrity of the items and the world. That is a straight up dealbreaker for me and something they said OVER AND OVER would NEVER be a thing.
Beefcake said:raelsmar said:Beefcake said:raelsmar said:Another idea/possibility if it did end up coming down to sharding/instancing being implemented, and this might be more difficult to program than is justifiable, is to make it where the rares/named mobs only drop loot in the main shard/instance of a zone, or make it where they are much less likely to drop loot in the non-main shards/instances. That way people could still camp spots for experience and/or for the challenge, but would not be able to flood the economy with rare drops.
The whole point to a shard system is to give multiple people access to the same content simultaneously. Making named mobs only appear in a prime shard defeats the entire purpose of a shard system.
Re-read what I typed.
I never said make named mobs only appear in the prime shard. I suggested those named mobs spawn in all shards, but only drop loot in the prime shard or have much a smaller chance of dropping loot in the non-primary shards. I said they could still spawn in the non-primary shards so people could still camp them for experience and/or camp them for the challenge/achievement of defeating them and at the same time not flood the economy with drops off of them.
Same thing. It's the loot people kill names for. Get real.
And it's the value of said loot that makes it desirable. The harder it is to get the loot, the more valuable it is. If sharding in any way shape or form allows people to bypass any degree of challenge / risk / luck with the item economy, it will feel watered down to me. That would be disappointing. I'm really looking forward to seeing exquisite items and being overcome with joy when I hit big on the risk vs reward grind. It's a ton of fun and thankfully all of these things appear to be aligned with the core tenets of the game. I have seen "sharding" work quite well in EQ2 minus a few random issues but that item economy could never compare to what FFXI had. I'm sure VR has something clever up their sleeve with all of this and I'm looking forward to testing it.
It would be nice if people came to terms and accepted that some content will not be available to their group on demand, the point of an open world game with no instancing/shards is creating a dynamic world populated by the players and your adventuring decisions result from dealing with the adversity that an open world game creates, searching for a camp/group, interacting with players, asking for help etc.
If VR delivers on what they promised (multiple options of content and zones for all level ranges, and no clear BIS items) , there will be no problem if one zone is camped, because another one will allways be available and give you rewards that are relevant to your character proggression.
Now there's allways the possibility of a group stealing your camp/spot, that's just rude and their being dick heads, but I don't think that will happen many times. Except on the PVP server that's going to be fun :)
Rallyd said:Shards are nothing more than selective instances. I think what VR are talking about when speaking of shards/servers is just using the term "shard" to describe "server". They have clearly stated there will NOT BE INSTANCES. Instances = any copy of a zone that is created in ANY WAY.
Very wrong. Shards are not servers. They are copies of busy zones.
Beefcake said:Rallyd said:Shards are nothing more than selective instances. I think what VR are talking about when speaking of shards/servers is just using the term "shard" to describe "server". They have clearly stated there will NOT BE INSTANCES. Instances = any copy of a zone that is created in ANY WAY.
Very wrong. Shards are not servers. They are copies of busy zones.
Some games do in fact call servers shards. Rift for one so the definition is not unheard of.
Edit: This seems to suggest that calling servers shards has been a thing for a long time.
Rallyd said:Shards are nothing more than selective instances. I think what VR are talking about when speaking of shards/servers is just using the term "shard" to describe "server". They have clearly stated there will NOT BE INSTANCES. Instances = any copy of a zone that is created in ANY WAY.
Unfortunately, this is incorrect. Servers are servers. What VR is referring to as shards are what I like to describe as "multi-group instances" which will be added automatically when population becomes an issue. There is not instancing in the traditional sense that each group will get their own copy of the dungeon, but VR has stated many times that additional "shards" will be added if the population becomes too high in that zone. I don't agree with this method, and I also consider it instancing even if it is shared by multiple groups, but it is the reality for Pantheon. Here is a quote from Kilsin, explaining this.
Kilsin 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 :)
NEXTLEVL said:Rallyd said:Shards are nothing more than selective instances. I think what VR are talking about when speaking of shards/servers is just using the term "shard" to describe "server". They have clearly stated there will NOT BE INSTANCES. Instances = any copy of a zone that is created in ANY WAY.
Unfortunately, this is incorrect. Servers are servers. What VR is referring to as shards are what I like to describe as "multi-group instances" which will be added automatically when population becomes an issue. There is not instancing in the traditional sense that each group will get their own copy of the dungeon, but VR has stated many times that additional "shards" will be added if the population becomes too high in that zone. I don't agree with this method, and I also consider it instancing even if it is shared by multiple groups, but it is the reality for Pantheon.
Whenever VR said they would add additional shards I always read it as them adding additional servers. No where have they said that they would have any kind of instancing at all and in fact in quite a few places they have said that they absolutely won't have any instancing whatsoever. So I don't really understand why they would suddenly change their mind. Call it what you like but having multiple versions of the same zone that people can go in is instancing in my eyes and many other peoples eyes.
In fact I watched the December stream agin yesterday and one of the questions was about instancing and they specifically stated that all the dungeons would be open world. That seems to be pretty clear to me as to what their intentions are.
Cromulent said:NEXTLEVL said:Rallyd said:Shards are nothing more than selective instances. I think what VR are talking about when speaking of shards/servers is just using the term "shard" to describe "server". They have clearly stated there will NOT BE INSTANCES. Instances = any copy of a zone that is created in ANY WAY.
Unfortunately, this is incorrect. Servers are servers. What VR is referring to as shards are what I like to describe as "multi-group instances" which will be added automatically when population becomes an issue. There is not instancing in the traditional sense that each group will get their own copy of the dungeon, but VR has stated many times that additional "shards" will be added if the population becomes too high in that zone. I don't agree with this method, and I also consider it instancing even if it is shared by multiple groups, but it is the reality for Pantheon.
Whenever VR said they would add additional shards I always read it as them adding additional servers. No where have they said that they would have any kind of instancing at all and in fact in quite a few places they have said that they absolutely won't have any instancing whatsoever. So I don't really understand why they would suddenly change their mind. Call it what you like but having multiple versions of the same zone that people can go in is instancing in my eyes and many other peoples eyes.
In fact I watched the December stream agin yesterday and one of the questions was about instancing and they specifically stated that all the dungeons would be open world. That seems to be pretty clear to me as to what their intentions are.
I added a quote from Kilsin to my post, please go read it because they have stated what a shard is to them. I know VR sees things differently than you and I, as I also consider their shards as instances, but the distinction is that multiple groups are allowed per shard.
Cromulent said:In fact I watched the December stream agin yesterday and one of the questions was about instancing and they specifically stated that all the dungeons would be open world. That seems to be pretty clear to me as to what their intentions are.
Why are people so intent on ignoring VR?
"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 "
Also it should be cleared up that shards are not necessarily confirmed. What IS confirmed is the issue is not up for public debate:
Kilsin 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. ;)
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.
Iksar said:Cromulent said:In fact I watched the December stream agin yesterday and one of the questions was about instancing and they specifically stated that all the dungeons would be open world. That seems to be pretty clear to me as to what their intentions are.
Why are people so intent on ignoring VR?
"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 "
Also it should be cleared up that shards are not necessarily confirmed. What IS confirmed is the issue is not up for public debate:
Kilsin 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. ;)
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.
That quote was from almost 2 months ago and on a different thread ... not sure why you would think anybody is "ignoring" it. When the new forums come out and we can track dev comments, it might be easier for people to find all of these nuggets of information in a consolidated area. Until then, debates will continue to run rampant as they have been. Old topics will keep getting rehashed as new players join the community. We're talking about a company called "Visionary Realms" that is putting together a fantasy MMO ... of course people are going to debate things! There is no need to try and silence the imagination ... let the creative juices flow and let people voice their opinions. I could provide several quotes from devs that encourage free thinking but at the end of the day it isn't necessary. This is a development forum, after all, and the collective wisdom from those who participate on it can be inspiring.
it's also worth to mention, that overcrowding was mainly a problem of original EQ, after kunark release it was less an issue and with velious none at all. yes there was competition for camps (as it should be in non-instanced shared zones (quoting the FAQ)), but you didn't have to wait for hours to get any camp for your group anymore. so - as VR has stated in the FAQ - it's totally possible to avoid the problem by making the world big enough.
Balance the drops around the idea of shards and you won't even know the difference item wise. One shard, rare drop has a 30% drop rate. Two shards, each shard has a 15% drop rare for rare item. In the event of three shards each has a 10% chance. Alternatively: All shards have the 30% drop rate for rare loot pool - One shard, 1 hour spawn time on named. Two shards, 2 hour spawn. Three shards, 3 hour spawn.
This would also reduce incentive to try to create more shards beyond having two and make people think more about trying other dungeons/areas.
Guys this thread was about "will camps be enforced, it had nothing to do with shards so will you guys please get back on the topic ans stop mentioning shards for it had almost nothing to due with camps but maybe a lil but not to be blown up in this proportion to where camps aren't talked about at all.
well, if there's instances there's no need to enforce camps, solving the question of this thread. so i'd say this discussion is on topic.
dividing drops by the number of shards would lead to lots of negative feelings in the game, from frustration because you don't find anything to hate vs the people who start a new shard.
letsdance said:well, if there's instances there's no need to enforce camps, solving the question of this thread. so i'd say this discussion is on topic.
dividing drops by the number of shards would lead to lots of negative feelings in the game, from frustration because you don't find anything to hate vs the people who start a new shard.
More negative feelings than no shards and content being monopolized?
Oh well, this is going in circles. VR is going to do whatever they think is best for their game and the community as a whole. I trust that.
Ok folks, this is way off-topic and will now be closed.
For clarification, camps won't be enforced, that will purely be a community policed thing, it will rely on common courtesy and etiquette within the community but no one will own the mobs of the camp spot and have any authority over it.
Shards can be Servers or Copies/Mirrors of zones/dungeons etc. for example, many older games referred to their Servers as Shards, some call them Realms. In Vanguard: Saga of Heroes, Ancient Port Warehouse (APW) was a huge level 50 raiding dungeon that often got overcrowded so the developers added 6 shards, which were mirror images copying the same dungeon 6 times, they were all un-instanced and open to anyone at any time and were coded to go to "sleep" when not in use for any amount of time.
When we talk about Shards we mean the possibility of copying caves/dungeons to deal with overcrowding and sometimes Brad uses the word Shard to speak about a server because eh is old school and played games with that word used instead of servers lol :P
I hope that clears things up.