I am very dismayed to see this 20-60-20. I think VR is making a huge mistake with this. Raiders play the most, pay the most and generally keep games alive.
Just to dissipate this urban legend .
1) Studies show that the raiding MMORPG population is only around 10 % of the player basis and the hardcore raiding population (several raids a week) even less . So the hardcore raiding players pay between 5%-10% of the fees what is very far from "paying most" . Those who pay most are the "casual" type of players who are the majority in MMORPGs .
2) The hardcore raiding players don't play the most either . They rush to the max level and then only log in for the (often mandatory) raids and log off after that . Here it is again the "casuals" who are those who provide most of the played hours .
3) Because of 1) and 2) it is also not the hardcore raiding players who "keep games alive" . On the contrary, it is mostly this raiding population which is very vocal on forums to demand new expansions because they are BiS everywhere, have seen and done everything and are bored . If you have played on an EQ TLP, you saw clearly that the top raiding guilds went MIA while waiting for the next expansion to open .
Personally I see raids just as an option to explore content which needs more than 1 group to be done . I have never understood why it is (implicitely) often supposed that raiding should provide the best items .
In all games I played since 99 and especially EQ, I have never found that raids were ESPECIALLY difficult . Of course the bosses have many HP, invoke adds, use different special abilities and resist well . This only means that it takes time to kill them but not that it is "difficult" . In many cases a pull in Karnor's castle would create a much more difficult situation for a group than a raid to routinely kill Venril Sathir . I think that VR understood all that hence the approximate often quoted 10/80/10 estimate and I am really curious to find out what they invented for the raids . I wouldn't even be surprised if it wasn't the raids which provide the best items but quests and (some) group content .
Deadshade said:
I am very dismayed to see this 20-60-20. I think VR is making a huge mistake with this. Raiders play the most, pay the most and generally keep games alive.
Just to dissipate this urban legend .
1) Studies show that the raiding MMORPG population is only around 10 % of the player basis and the hardcore raiding population (several raids a week) even less . So the hardcore raiding players pay between 5%-10% of the fees what is very far from "paying most" . Those who pay most are the "casual" type of players who are the majority in MMORPGs .
2) The hardcore raiding players don't play the most either . They rush to the max level and then only log in for the (often mandatory) raids and log off after that . Here it is again the "casuals" who are those who provide most of the played hours .
3) Because of 1) and 2) it is also not the hardcore raiding players who "keep games alive" . On the contrary, it is mostly this raiding population which is very vocal on forums to demand new expansions because they are BiS everywhere, have seen and done everything and are bored . If you have played on an EQ TLP, you saw clearly that the top raiding guilds went MIA while waiting for the next expansion to open .
Personally I see raids just as an option to explore content which needs more than 1 group to be done . I have never understood why it is (implicitely) often supposed that raiding should provide the best items .
In all games I played since 99 and especially EQ, I have never found that raids were ESPECIALLY difficult . Of course the bosses have many HP, invoke adds, use different special abilities and resist well . This only means that it takes time to kill them but not that it is "difficult" . In many cases a pull in Karnor's castle would create a much more difficult situation for a group than a raid to routinely kill Venril Sathir . I think that VR understood all that hence the approximate often quoted 10/80/10 estimate and I am really curious to find out what they invented for the raids . I wouldn't even be surprised if it wasn't the raids which provide the best items but quests and (some) group content .
Could you please post a link or reference point for these "studies" you speak of? I would very much enjoy taking a look at them. Here is a link I found which shows some data on how many people raid in WoW: http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/4924-Blackrock-Foundry-Stats-Blue-Tweets-Setup-of-the-Month-Symmetra-Gameplay
From what I can see, and this is using data from over 2.1 million accounts, it shows that between 50-60% of players had actually beaten all 3 wings and Blackhand. I think the "urban legend" out there is that only 10% of people raid. That's a joke. Granted those numbers include "Looking for Raid" participants, even the natural organic numbers are over 30% of players that have "beaten" at least the first raid boss. Until I see some sort of factual data that says "raiders are a very small minority" I think it's a complete and utter joke. Raiders make up a large chunk of the overall population and I think it's a huge copout to try and deny them that. Since achievements are account-wide in WoW, that data shows the percentage of "Players" that raid, not "characters." I will say without a doubt that I want no part of "LFR" in Pantheon but it does go to show that by making raiding more accessible, more than 60% of "PLAYERS" had successfully beaten some raid content. This is a huge difference from what I regularly see touted as the overall percentage of players that raid and it's really frustrating that we aren't getting credit where it's due.
oneADseven said:Could you please post a link or reference point for these "studies" you speak of? I would very much enjoy taking a look at them. Here is a link I found which shows some data on how many people raid in WoW: http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/4924-Blackrock-Foundry-Stats-Blue-Tweets-Setup-of-the-Month-Symmetra-Gameplay
From what I can see, and this is using data from over 2.1 million accounts, it shows that between 50-60% of players had actually beaten all 3 wings and Blackhand. I think the "urban legend" out there is that only 10% of people raid. That's a joke. Granted those numbers include "Looking for Raid" participants, even the natural organic numbers are over 30% of players that have "beaten" at least the first raid boss. Until I see some sort of factual data that says "raiders are a very small minority" I think it's a complete and utter joke. Raiders make up a large chunk of the overall population and I think it's a huge copout to try and deny them that. Since achievements are account-wide in WoW, that data shows the percentage of "Players" that raid, not "characters." I will say without a doubt that I want no part of "LFR" in Pantheon but it does go to show that by making raiding more accessible, more than 60% of "PLAYERS" had successfully beaten some raid content. This is a huge difference from what I regularly see touted as the overall percentage of players that raid and it's really frustrating that we aren't getting credit where it's due.
But when you limit it to the hardest mode, the number drops to around 3.5% and around 20% for the mode below that. The numbers for the overall amount of players is very skewed, of course people will do them when they are little more than a glorified instance dungeon (LFR + Normal mode).
There is the problem though, there is a rather vocal number of people here who are not in favor of having raiding be accessable in Pantheon (which I don't agree with). The number of raiders in this game is likely to be 10% or less if they get their way of keeping raids highly contested and limited to only the best/top/fastest guilds. The reason you see so many raiders in a game like WoW is A) they have all the difficulty options, but MOST importantly: B) People can raid on their own schedule.
So unless we end up with fast raid respawns and lockout timers or something similar, raiders will be a small percentage of the player base.
Iksar said:oneADseven said:Could you please post a link or reference point for these "studies" you speak of? I would very much enjoy taking a look at them. Here is a link I found which shows some data on how many people raid in WoW: http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/4924-Blackrock-Foundry-Stats-Blue-Tweets-Setup-of-the-Month-Symmetra-Gameplay
From what I can see, and this is using data from over 2.1 million accounts, it shows that between 50-60% of players had actually beaten all 3 wings and Blackhand. I think the "urban legend" out there is that only 10% of people raid. That's a joke. Granted those numbers include "Looking for Raid" participants, even the natural organic numbers are over 30% of players that have "beaten" at least the first raid boss. Until I see some sort of factual data that says "raiders are a very small minority" I think it's a complete and utter joke. Raiders make up a large chunk of the overall population and I think it's a huge copout to try and deny them that. Since achievements are account-wide in WoW, that data shows the percentage of "Players" that raid, not "characters." I will say without a doubt that I want no part of "LFR" in Pantheon but it does go to show that by making raiding more accessible, more than 60% of "PLAYERS" had successfully beaten some raid content. This is a huge difference from what I regularly see touted as the overall percentage of players that raid and it's really frustrating that we aren't getting credit where it's due.
But when you limit it to the hardest mode, the number drops to around 3.5% and around 20% for the mode below that. The numbers for the overall amount of players is very skewed, of course people will do them when they are little more than a glorified instance dungeon (LFR + Normal mode).
There is the problem though, there is a rather vocal number of people here who are not in favor of having raiding be accessable in Pantheon (which I don't agree with). The number of raiders in this game is likely to be 10% or less if they get their way of keeping raids highly contested and limited to only the best/top/fastest guilds. The reason you see so many raiders in a game like WoW is A) they have all the difficulty options, but MOST importantly: B) People can raid on their own schedule.
So unless we end up with fast raid respawns and lockout timers or something similar, raiders will be a small percentage of the player base.
It all depends on just how much emphasis they want to put on raiding. If you go in with the mentality that only 10% of players enjoy raiding and then only make 10% of the game raid content, then yes, raiding will suffer in this game. I would prefer that VR embraces raiding as another outlet on how they can "evolve" the MMO genre. It shouldn't be placed on the backburner. I agree with your assessment on respawns and lockout timers. I am not in the camp that wants to see raiding only be possible for the most high-end of guilds. To that end, I have proposed the following on another thread (will share here as it's relevant):
Raiding in Pantheon
We already know that Pantheon will be an open-world game that rarely uses instancing. Many of us have been able to enjoy a variety of raid systems over the years but who can truly say that any one in particular would be ideal for Pantheon? My personal favorites were from EQOA and FFXI where the raid environments were purely contested. I enjoyed this style of raiding because I place an enormous value on the thrill of fierce competition. While there are many others out there who share this sentiment, we're definitely the minority. For every 1 player that is able to experience killing a contested raid spawn, there are dozens out there who wanted the same but ultimately would not get to. Because of this, a truly contested FFA environment with long respawn timers will always promote more bad than good as the majority of players will feel like they are on the outside looking in. Because of this, contested content began to slowly dissipate as the MMO genre continued to evolve.
The opposite side of the spectrum is instanced content . We already know that we won't be seeing much of it in Pantheon, but it's important to note why it has been viewed so favorably by a large portion of the raiding community. When a raid is instanced, all players have their fair chance to experience it. There is no way for a competing guild to monopolize the content and this is a great way to ensure that less competitive guilds have their fair shot at experiencing all that the game has to offer. While there are definitely some positives to be had here, there are also some consequences. First off, it ruins social immersion. Instancing content removes players from the world and prevents the opportunity for us to interact with each other while we play. Considering that Pantheon is an "intensely social group-centric" game, instancing simply does not make sense. VR wants the world to be bustling with social activity and creating a bunch of instanced content will prevent that from happening.
So how do we get to a fair middle ground? A world that allows the hardcore folks to enjoy the thrill of competition without blocking other guilds from important end-game content? My proposed solution is to implement a hybrid of FFXI / Vanguard raiding systems. In FFXI there were raid bosses called "Hyper Notorious Monsters" and I would like to use Behemoth / King Behemoth as an example. In FFXI, all raids bosses were contested -- Behemoth would spawn every few days or so, and had about a 20-35% chance of spawning as King Behemoth. King Behemoth was basically a harder version of Behemoth that also happened to drop more/better loot. In Vanguard, when a raid boss was killed, it would respawn as a toned down "ghost" version after a short period of time. This allowed all guilds to have a chance at learning the encounter and to reap the rewards of victory should they beat it.
When you blend these two concepts together, I believe we have an ideal scenario that can/will cater to the entire raiding community. Let's say, for example, that the first spawn of every raid boss is considered a "hyper" version or "King Behemoth" from the above reference. It should be so difficult that only the most experienced/coordinated raid forces will be capable of beating it. It should drop 3-4 pieces of loot, with 1-2 of those pieces being exclusive to the "hyper" version loot table. Once killed, the standard version, or "Behemoth" would spawn about an hour later. This version would be less difficult and only drop 1-2 pieces of loot. Players who kill the standard version would receive a "lockout" on the mob to prevent over-farming and loot saturation. The standard version would continue to respawn approximately once per hour after being killed until finally evolving into the "hyper" version 3-5 days later. Due to the nature of this lockout, raid teams would be inclined to try and beat the encounter with the fewest amount of members possible. This would allow a great sense of progression because as our characters grow in power, what once took 24 players to kill may now only take 18, and eventually 12. This would be very exciting from a raid leader perspective as it would be an ongoing challenge to try and beat content with the smallest force possible. It would also provide more flexibility when it comes to scheduling primetime hours and being able to accommodate all of the players who want to raid.
My understanding is that raiding will only be a small fraction of the content that we can look forward to in Pantheon. If the above solution were to be implemented, I think the amount of naysayers opposed to raiding would start to fade away. Rather than being frustrated by the uber guilds and their fierce competitive ways, they would actually look at them as a necessary component to the raid environment as a whole. Instead of the top guilds "robbing" other guilds from content, they could help with enabling it. The ultra competitive guilds would have their "hyper" bosses to battle for and also play a vital role in the raid community for their server as their ability to progress could create a chain reaction of positivity. It would be absolutely amazing if the hardcore guilds could be viewed as the hero rather than the villain for a change. Those fortunate enough to lay waste to the hyper bosses would be rewarded with some extra higher quality loot and praise from their peers. Those who missed out still have their chance to get some awesome loot from the regular version and try for the hyper kill again in a few days.
*Edit -- Keep in mind that there could still be other raid content that doesen't necessarily adhere to the "hyper/ghost" concept. I would just want to see this used on the really hard contested encounters so that the entire raiding community would have the opportunity to do battle with the encounter. The ghost version would obviously be toned down some, but it should still be very difficult in it's own right. By no means would the ghost versions be easy. I just know that in all my years of playing, my guild was able to lock down the majority of contested content. That meant that the most challenging/interesting fights for the entire expansion were literally only enjoyed by a tiny fragment of the overall population. With this idea, everybody with an interest in raiding would have a chance to experience the content. The ghost versions would be toned down some, yes, but that's fine as it would allow the non-hardcore guilds a chance to learn the encounter and get a good understanding of how to fight it. Then, when the hyper version spawns, they at least have a basic understanding of how the encounter works and should have a chance to beat it. Any guild who does their research should be able to identify the differences between ghost/hyper and would need to prepare for those differences if they try to engage the hyper version. I believe this is a great compromise in the grand scheme of things because it makes the content accessible without removing the competition factor for the uber-competitive guilds. I always thought it was a damn shame that the development team went out of their way to design truly epic/amazing raid encounters that could only be experienced by a small fraction of a small fraction of the overall server population.
Deadshade said:
Personally I see raids just as an option to explore content which needs more than 1 group to be done . I have never understood why it is (implicitely) often supposed that raiding should provide the best items .
This is exactly what I was trying to say as well. Raiding is just another playstyle and deserves the same quality of rewards as another playstyle, no better and no worse.
And no, raiding is not just "another playstyle." Risk vs Reward is supposed to be a major factor for loot. What's more risky than taking 50+ players into a dungeon where trash mobs can 1 shot someone even if they are decked out with top tier gear? What is more risky than tackling content that has a 3-5 day respawn that could take hours of concentrated effort from a huge raid team just to get to? The day that soloing a hatchling is considered the same risk as downing The Mother of Dragons will be the end of risk vs reward as we know it.
While I like to raid and have done so in every MMO I've hit cap in from EQ onward, I won't if I am treated as less than. The "experience" of doing the raid is great the first couple times or so but it's all about the loot in the end. Limited to only a lesser version of a raid with worse loot, not for lack of skill but because a handful of others want to have status over everyone else for having more time to sit on spawns? I'll pass.
Deadshade said:
I am very dismayed to see this 20-60-20. I think VR is making a huge mistake with this. Raiders play the most, pay the most and generally keep games alive.
Just to dissipate this urban legend .
1) Studies show that the raiding MMORPG population is only around 10 % of the player basis and the hardcore raiding population (several raids a week) even less . So the hardcore raiding players pay between 5%-10% of the fees what is very far from "paying most" . Those who pay most are the "casual" type of players who are the majority in MMORPGs .
2) The hardcore raiding players don't play the most either . They rush to the max level and then only log in for the (often mandatory) raids and log off after that . Here it is again the "casuals" who are those who provide most of the played hours .
3) Because of 1) and 2) it is also not the hardcore raiding players who "keep games alive" . On the contrary, it is mostly this raiding population which is very vocal on forums to demand new expansions because they are BiS everywhere, have seen and done everything and are bored . If you have played on an EQ TLP, you saw clearly that the top raiding guilds went MIA while waiting for the next expansion to open .
Personally I see raids just as an option to explore content which needs more than 1 group to be done . I have never understood why it is (implicitely) often supposed that raiding should provide the best items .
In all games I played since 99 and especially EQ, I have never found that raids were ESPECIALLY difficult . Of course the bosses have many HP, invoke adds, use different special abilities and resist well . This only means that it takes time to kill them but not that it is "difficult" . In many cases a pull in Karnor's castle would create a much more difficult situation for a group than a raid to routinely kill Venril Sathir . I think that VR understood all that hence the approximate often quoted 10/80/10 estimate and I am really curious to find out what they invented for the raids . I wouldn't even be surprised if it wasn't the raids which provide the best items but quests and (some) group content .
All the top raiding guilds I have ever been in virtually all the members had multiple accounts they boxed when not raiding. We also spent a lot on cash shop items like appearance gear and mounts (im not saying others didnt). It was actually a favorite past time of ours to raid on our alts to see how far we could get on off nights for fun and loot.
I dont know where you got this idea that the top raiding guilds disapear after clearing the game. Some people may have on the TLP server but the guilds were far from a ghost town. If a raiding guild clears content that fast then thats the fault of the developer(obviously not in EQ because all starts are already known)
it may be anecdotal but people in top raiding guilds seemed to play far more than casuals, not just logging on for raids.
Iksar said:While I like to raid and have done so in every MMO I've hit cap in from EQ onward, I won't if I am treated as less than. The "experience" of doing the raid is great the first couple times or so but it's all about the loot in the end. Limited to only a lesser version of a raid with worse loot, not for lack of skill but because a handful of others want to have status over everyone else for having more time to sit on spawns? I'll pass.
Time commitment is and always will be a major factor when it comes to power progression for our characters. You think it's a matter of a handful of players just wanting to hold status over others ... how about no? Why can't some people accept that others may want something more than you? You aren't "limited" to the lesser version unless you limit yourself. I'm sure there are plenty of people who wish they had more time to play, but alas, such is life. People need to accept the amount of progression they can achieve relative to their playtime and if they aren't satisfied with it, they need to play more. It's really as simple as that.
Please see the following tenet:
"An understanding that player involvement is required for progression. All actions (or lack thereof) should have consequences. Positive actions should be rewarded. Apathy or lack of action should not be rewarded with bonuses."
If you can't keep up with the demands of playing in the confines of a competitive raid scene, so be it. But don't blast others because they have more time than you. You think it would fly if there was a boxer out there who said "I have the same skill as that guy but he has more time to train than me ... him and all that training, it's all because he wants to have status over me!" How about the students who study their tails off to ensure they pass a test ... do you think the kid who decides to spend his time doing something else can make a logical argument of "Damn those kids for spending more time studying than me! They only want to pass the test so they can get a better grade than me and use it as a status symbol over others who aren't as dedicated!" You either commit to your craft or you don't ... but to just lump all of the people who ARE committed into a single pot and then assume that they are only more committed for the sake of holding status over you? Hah. If you train harder and work harder than the next guy then yeah, it should be expected that you'll be in a greater position to succeed. If that weren't the way of life then your average human being would have a doctorates degree.
oneADseven said:Time commitment is and always will be a major factor when it comes to power progression for our characters. You think it's a matter of a handful of players just wanting to hold status over others ... how about no? Why can't some people accept that others may want something more than you? You aren't "limited" to the lesser version unless you limit yourself. I'm sure there are plenty of people who wish they had more time to play, but alas, such is life. People need to accept the amount of progression they can achieve relative to their playtime and if they aren't satisfied with it, they need to play more. It's really as simple as that.
Please see the following tenet:
"An understanding that player involvement is required for progression. All actions (or lack thereof) should have consequences. Positive actions should be rewarded. Apathy or lack of action should not be rewarded with bonuses."
If you can't keep up with the demands of playing in the confines of a competitive raid scene, so be it. But don't blast others because they have more time than you. You think it would fly if there was a boxer out there who said "I have the same skill as that guy but he has more time to train than me ... him and all that training, it's all because he wants to have status over me!" How about the students who study their tails off to ensure they pass a test ... do you think the kid who decides to spend his time doing something else can make a logical argument of "Damn those kids for spending more time studying than me! They only want to pass the test so they can get a better grade than me and use it as a status symbol over others who aren't as dedicated!" You either commit to your craft or you don't ... but to just lump all of the people who ARE committed into a single pot and then assume that they are only more committed for the sake of holding status over you? Hah. If you train harder and work harder than the next guy then yeah, it should be expected that you'll be in a greater position to succeed. If that weren't the way of life then your average human being would have a doctorates degree.
Content is king, not competition. I would be actively involved in progressing the content...if other players weren't blocking me out playing gatekeeper. Therefore the time thing? Doesn't check out here. I could have the same 1,000 hours invested into the game as a "hardcore" raider while being just as skilled an focused on my character, just at different times, and not reach the same level because he was in a "top" guild and phone tree'd every raid.
"How about the students who study their tails off to ensure they pass a test"
It's more like being in a class of 1000 students but there are only 50 tests available, and the same 50 students are huddled around the spot the teacher distributes the tests blocking anyone else from taking it every single time the teacher hands them out. Or as if there are 1,000 students trying to take a swim test but the same 50 students keep taking all the slots every time the test opens up every three to five days, denying everyone else a chance to take it. The number of days between the tests is pointless for anything other than trying to play gatekeeper. In all likelihood the odds there are better swimmers in the denied 950 is much better. But those 50 who take the test over and over parade around like they are the best swimmers.
In keeping with the spirit of the OP, to me the only way to extend the longevity of end-game is fun and continual progression. The key ways of accomplishing this:
1) Slow levelling to elongate the procession of players to max level. Slower consumption of content allows for better development and more meaningful content. Of course, this requires the redundant activites such as combat, crafting, etc are engaging and fun. As VR has stated their plan, this one should be fine.
2) Multiple meaningful activities at end-game. To be specific, group progression is as important as raiding/crafting/trading/etc. I'm all for tough, difficult raids that drop great (if not the best) loot. I'm all for them being only experienced by dedicated players who put in the time. The failure of modern MMOs is not in this regard It's the content provided for all the other players. It's too easy to get to end-game, blow your way through the non-raid content and be stumped in your progression. Since the content is ultra-redundant and the gameplay not that engaging, "casual" players tend to leave the game for something else.
It is key that Pantheon provide a great end-game experience for those who can't (for whatever reason) raid. This should take nothing away from those who can. I think we're getting too caught up in the 20-60-20 discussion and not realizing there's room for both. I fully expect from all that VR has stated that we will see fantastic, tough raids and engaging progressive end-game for non-raiders as well.
3) Non-raid content that provides awesome loot. This is kind of in tandem with #2. If the only way to get great loot is raiding, then it will receive too much focus from the player-base. A good mix of different activities that provide great loot is important and from definitely doable.
4) Meaningful non-combat content. A good crafting/trading/exploration system that continues at max-level would go a long way to extending the game-play and expanding the nature of Pantheon. Too many games become about the raid-culture and nothing else at end-game. Other system need just as much "focus" to keep the culture diversified and the world feeling wide-open and exciting.
For some reason this thread took a really weird turn a few pages back. Not sure why all the animosity between those who want tough raids/loot and those who want the same for group focused content. Plenty of room for both. In fact, the best game will gladly provide both. There's nothing that I've seen so far either in the forums, the myriad posts, or the streams that indicates VR isn't aware of this. In fact, most of what they've said about this topic expressely addresses this problem.
Best idea i an come up with when it comes to this sencario is that we let the Devs see what is approtaite for raid content and based off what is happening on the servers as in guild clearing raid bosses, than in the next expansion they either increase or decrease raid content, my honest opinion raid content will increase but im also not a dev so i have no say here, but i also want the devs to push out what they have in mind right now becuase almost everything about the game seems a little bt challenging andi can cant to see it, so if they figure out 10% raid focused content isnt't enough than they could increase it with the group centric still in mind but not want to make pople mad but technically 10% solo, 60% group 30% raid is still a group centric game, just saying
I am very dismayed to see this 20-60-20. I think VR is making a huge mistake with this. Raiders play the most, pay the most and generally keep games alive.
This is a subscription game - everyone pays the same. Regardless of the time played. Someone who maintains a subscription and plays 24 hours per day pays the same as someone who plays 24 minutes per day. Perhaps there are people who maintain more than one account in which case the amount an individual person pays is directly scalable - but this is also true for someone who maintains multiple accounts for members of their family (four family members and four accounts). It's disingenious to lay ownership of game sustainability by declaring Raiders play the most and pay the most and keep games alive.
Subscriptions keep the game alive - regardless of the type of player. The longevity of the game requires a certain amount of new players coming into the game to offset the number of players leaving the game (new subscriptions to offset expired subscriptions). I am assuming, of course, cash flow is king when it comes to the longevity of Pantheon.
My supposition is that what makes a subscription game attractive such that subscriptions are maintained over the course of years is that there is no "end game." There just needs to be enough content to keep subscriptions alive including new subscriptions replacing expired subscriptions. This is regardless of whether content takes months to experience or a matter of days. Everyone will experience content differently and probably in a manner that suits their playstyle. Since this is a group-centric game, it is imperative that new subscribers will be able to group since it is a given that existing subscribers will be able to group or else there will be attrition to an extent that the game reaches a level for which the subscription base cannot keep the game alive.
Iksar said:oneADseven said:Time commitment is and always will be a major factor when it comes to power progression for our characters. You think it's a matter of a handful of players just wanting to hold status over others ... how about no? Why can't some people accept that others may want something more than you? You aren't "limited" to the lesser version unless you limit yourself. I'm sure there are plenty of people who wish they had more time to play, but alas, such is life. People need to accept the amount of progression they can achieve relative to their playtime and if they aren't satisfied with it, they need to play more. It's really as simple as that.
Please see the following tenet:
"An understanding that player involvement is required for progression. All actions (or lack thereof) should have consequences. Positive actions should be rewarded. Apathy or lack of action should not be rewarded with bonuses."
If you can't keep up with the demands of playing in the confines of a competitive raid scene, so be it. But don't blast others because they have more time than you. You think it would fly if there was a boxer out there who said "I have the same skill as that guy but he has more time to train than me ... him and all that training, it's all because he wants to have status over me!" How about the students who study their tails off to ensure they pass a test ... do you think the kid who decides to spend his time doing something else can make a logical argument of "Damn those kids for spending more time studying than me! They only want to pass the test so they can get a better grade than me and use it as a status symbol over others who aren't as dedicated!" You either commit to your craft or you don't ... but to just lump all of the people who ARE committed into a single pot and then assume that they are only more committed for the sake of holding status over you? Hah. If you train harder and work harder than the next guy then yeah, it should be expected that you'll be in a greater position to succeed. If that weren't the way of life then your average human being would have a doctorates degree.
Content is king, not competition. I would be actively involved in progressing the content...if other players weren't blocking me out playing gatekeeper. Therefore the time thing? Doesn't check out here. I could have the same 1,000 hours invested into the game as a "hardcore" raider while being just as skilled an focused on my character, just at different times, and not reach the same level because he was in a "top" guild and phone tree'd every raid.
"How about the students who study their tails off to ensure they pass a test"
It's more like being in a class of 1000 students but there are only 50 tests available, and the same 50 students are huddled around the spot the teacher distributes the tests blocking anyone else from taking it every single time the teacher hands them out. Or as if there are 1,000 students trying to take a swim test but the same 50 students keep taking all the slots every time the test opens up every three to five days, denying everyone else a chance to take it. The number of days between the tests is pointless for anything other than trying to play gatekeeper. In all likelihood the odds there are better swimmers in the denied 950 is much better. But those 50 who take the test over and over parade around like they are the best swimmers.
Perhaps you would feel better if all forms of competition were removed. Using your analogy, I would say it's more like a teacher handing out a test to everybody who showed up on time and instructing them that the first team of 50 to ace the test would receive a reward. There are no limited "slots" in an open-world game. Everybody has the same chance if they show up on time.
There will be something for everybody, regardless of their playstyle.
*Edit -- removed quote as it was from the VIP forum. I felt it applied to this thread but I'll leave that up to Kilsin if he feels like echoing the sentiment here or saying something else. Either way, I am bowing out of this thread as it's been confirmed that there will be content for everybody and there is no point in arguing over it.
oneADseven said:Perhaps you would feel better if all forms of competition were removed. Using your analogy, I would say it's more like a teacher handing out a test to everybody who showed up on time and instructing them that the first team of 50 to ace the test would receive a reward. There are no limited "slots" in an open-world game. Everybody has the same chance if they show up on time.
Or more like a teacher handing out a test to everybody who happens to be there at an undisclosed time regardless of anything else they have to do in their lives and rewarding the first 50 to finish before disappearing until another random time.
I'd prefer competition be kept to a minimum, yes. No problem with regular group camps for spawns every few hours. I don't play on PvE servers to get bamboozled into it becoming PvP for an entire type of content that supposidly has the (at least a fair portion) best rewards.
Skill should be the gatekeeper. If the raid is truly hard then let anyone throw themselves upon the rocks and only the strongest/best will rise to the top to reap the rewards. I'm fine with it being your way if the rewards are lesser than other content, but if you want to play gatekeeper on PvE servers by making it PvP and excluding players that have jobs/family or otherwise limited play time then I'd say it is a terrible mistake. Make the it accessable to attempt, but so difficult that only those dedicated to learning and working out out as a team can complete.
jpedrote said:Is the 20-60-20 confirmed?
Direct ratios, no... but the idea, yes. It is a "group centric game". Here it is from the FAQ (it's been repeated/elaborated on through streams and other posts):
9.1 Will you be able to raid in Pantheon?
Yes, there will be Raid content in Pantheon. That said, the majority of content is being designed for grouping, with the remainder for soloing or raiding.
oneADseven said:Iksar said:oneADseven said:Time commitment is and always will be a major factor when it comes to power progression for our characters. You think it's a matter of a handful of players just wanting to hold status over others ... how about no? Why can't some people accept that others may want something more than you? You aren't "limited" to the lesser version unless you limit yourself. I'm sure there are plenty of people who wish they had more time to play, but alas, such is life. People need to accept the amount of progression they can achieve relative to their playtime and if they aren't satisfied with it, they need to play more. It's really as simple as that.
Please see the following tenet:
"An understanding that player involvement is required for progression. All actions (or lack thereof) should have consequences. Positive actions should be rewarded. Apathy or lack of action should not be rewarded with bonuses."
If you can't keep up with the demands of playing in the confines of a competitive raid scene, so be it. But don't blast others because they have more time than you. You think it would fly if there was a boxer out there who said "I have the same skill as that guy but he has more time to train than me ... him and all that training, it's all because he wants to have status over me!" How about the students who study their tails off to ensure they pass a test ... do you think the kid who decides to spend his time doing something else can make a logical argument of "Damn those kids for spending more time studying than me! They only want to pass the test so they can get a better grade than me and use it as a status symbol over others who aren't as dedicated!" You either commit to your craft or you don't ... but to just lump all of the people who ARE committed into a single pot and then assume that they are only more committed for the sake of holding status over you? Hah. If you train harder and work harder than the next guy then yeah, it should be expected that you'll be in a greater position to succeed. If that weren't the way of life then your average human being would have a doctorates degree.
Content is king, not competition. I would be actively involved in progressing the content...if other players weren't blocking me out playing gatekeeper. Therefore the time thing? Doesn't check out here. I could have the same 1,000 hours invested into the game as a "hardcore" raider while being just as skilled an focused on my character, just at different times, and not reach the same level because he was in a "top" guild and phone tree'd every raid.
"How about the students who study their tails off to ensure they pass a test"
It's more like being in a class of 1000 students but there are only 50 tests available, and the same 50 students are huddled around the spot the teacher distributes the tests blocking anyone else from taking it every single time the teacher hands them out. Or as if there are 1,000 students trying to take a swim test but the same 50 students keep taking all the slots every time the test opens up every three to five days, denying everyone else a chance to take it. The number of days between the tests is pointless for anything other than trying to play gatekeeper. In all likelihood the odds there are better swimmers in the denied 950 is much better. But those 50 who take the test over and over parade around like they are the best swimmers.
Perhaps you would feel better if all forms of competition were removed. Using your analogy, I would say it's more like a teacher handing out a test to everybody who showed up on time and instructing them that the first team of 50 to ace the test would receive a reward. There are no limited "slots" in an open-world game. Everybody has the same chance if they show up on time.
They already said they don't want DPS races and KSing, so there ain't no competition then. IIIRC Brad even mentioned a first to engage mechanic at some point possibly early in development, though I think that was quite sometime ago.
Which I'll admit for the game that's probably best, but on a personal level I quite dislike that.
In which case if I have no means to either disrupt your attempt via training or outright steal it, your competition argument doesn't really hold water.
So given a sterilized raiding environment like that, I am inclined to agreee with Iksar. BFD if you can show up right on pop, if don't have any active detriments from other players that's hardly what I would call competitive.
Granted my opinion is probaably very much in the minority on that particular aspect.
Sunmistress said:oneADseven said:Iksar said:oneADseven said:Time commitment is and always will be a major factor when it comes to power progression for our characters. You think it's a matter of a handful of players just wanting to hold status over others ... how about no? Why can't some people accept that others may want something more than you? You aren't "limited" to the lesser version unless you limit yourself. I'm sure there are plenty of people who wish they had more time to play, but alas, such is life. People need to accept the amount of progression they can achieve relative to their playtime and if they aren't satisfied with it, they need to play more. It's really as simple as that.
Please see the following tenet:
"An understanding that player involvement is required for progression. All actions (or lack thereof) should have consequences. Positive actions should be rewarded. Apathy or lack of action should not be rewarded with bonuses."
If you can't keep up with the demands of playing in the confines of a competitive raid scene, so be it. But don't blast others because they have more time than you. You think it would fly if there was a boxer out there who said "I have the same skill as that guy but he has more time to train than me ... him and all that training, it's all because he wants to have status over me!" How about the students who study their tails off to ensure they pass a test ... do you think the kid who decides to spend his time doing something else can make a logical argument of "Damn those kids for spending more time studying than me! They only want to pass the test so they can get a better grade than me and use it as a status symbol over others who aren't as dedicated!" You either commit to your craft or you don't ... but to just lump all of the people who ARE committed into a single pot and then assume that they are only more committed for the sake of holding status over you? Hah. If you train harder and work harder than the next guy then yeah, it should be expected that you'll be in a greater position to succeed. If that weren't the way of life then your average human being would have a doctorates degree.
Content is king, not competition. I would be actively involved in progressing the content...if other players weren't blocking me out playing gatekeeper. Therefore the time thing? Doesn't check out here. I could have the same 1,000 hours invested into the game as a "hardcore" raider while being just as skilled an focused on my character, just at different times, and not reach the same level because he was in a "top" guild and phone tree'd every raid.
"How about the students who study their tails off to ensure they pass a test"
It's more like being in a class of 1000 students but there are only 50 tests available, and the same 50 students are huddled around the spot the teacher distributes the tests blocking anyone else from taking it every single time the teacher hands them out. Or as if there are 1,000 students trying to take a swim test but the same 50 students keep taking all the slots every time the test opens up every three to five days, denying everyone else a chance to take it. The number of days between the tests is pointless for anything other than trying to play gatekeeper. In all likelihood the odds there are better swimmers in the denied 950 is much better. But those 50 who take the test over and over parade around like they are the best swimmers.
Perhaps you would feel better if all forms of competition were removed. Using your analogy, I would say it's more like a teacher handing out a test to everybody who showed up on time and instructing them that the first team of 50 to ace the test would receive a reward. There are no limited "slots" in an open-world game. Everybody has the same chance if they show up on time.
They already said they don't want DPS races and KSing, so there ain't no competition then. IIIRC Brad even mentioned a first to engage mechanic at some point possibly early in development, though I think that was quite sometime ago.
Which I'll admit for the game that's probably best, but on a personal level I quite dislike that.
In which case if I have no means to either disrupt your attempt via training or outright steal it, your competition argument doesn't really hold water.
So given a sterilized raiding environment like that, I am inclined to agreee with Iksar. BFD if you can show up right on pop, if don't have any active detriments from other players that's hardly what I would call competitive.
Granted my opinion is probaably very much in the minority on that particular aspect.
The encounter locking mechanic was used in EQ2 and I assure you, it can lead to a very competitive raid scene. It isn't a matter of who can do the most DPS. By locking the encounter, it ensures that that the raid who is fighting the mob is capable of killing it by themselves. No outside help. The competition comes in the form of "Which guild can mobilize the fastest and put together a team that is capable of downing the mob." I recall hundreds of OTM "On The Move" raid calls. As soon as something spawned everybody would drop what they were doing and rush to the contested raid mob. Getting there was half the battle sometimes. You could have a spotter deep in a dungeon but you still need to get a full raid party there ... so everybody gathers at the entrance and starts making their way down. Other guilds would likely be gathering as well, and even if they didn't have enough people to clear the way down, they would follow the guild that did.
If you wipe against the mob, don't expect a rez from the competing guild. While your team tries to rez and buff up, it's their turn to engage the mob and try to defeat it. It often came down flawless execution. If you wipe and give the other guild a shot, it's quite possible you will lose out on it. So it wasn't just a matter of "who gets there first." There were plenty of times where I watched other guilds engage the mob before mine did and they would end up wiping. That's where competition comes into play. You have to make sure you have the right setup when you engage. If you pull too early ... without the right raid composition or buffs, it could spell disaster. Anyway, I'm bowing out again ... but I wanted to make it clear that the raid scene can still be competitive without adding "PVP" into the mix via KS'ing, training, etc. Putting together a capable raid force, mobilizing them to a specific location, and then flawlessly executing the raid strategy ... which ever guild can do those 3 things best will end up winning the "competition."
Archaen said:jpedrote said:Is the 20-60-20 confirmed?
Direct ratios, no... but the idea, yes. It is a "group centric game". Here it is from the FAQ (it's been repeated/elaborated on through streams and other posts):
9.1 Will you be able to raid in Pantheon?
Yes, there will be Raid content in Pantheon. That said, the majority of content is being designed for grouping, with the remainder for soloing or raiding.
It was the numbers I wal talking about, for a game with a group centric focus, 20% of the overall content going for soloer doesn't seem right. Thes best would be 10% solo 15% raids, 75% group