You'll often discover that people who put in equal efforts (or more effort than others) that no,in real life there is no equal treatment Feyshtey
They will fail you because they can't stand you for either age,face,success,the thought that you might have a happier life than them
or simply who you are.Even when you are able to deliver better quality,devote more time(in which case they might just steal your work).
Neglecting the shameful bias people have towards people with certain view, sexual preferences,age groups,races,handicaps etc
Do you actually believe that any person who works for their hard-earned coin would ever get a severance pay of 822851.769 dollars ,like some of those politicians with blown up ego?
Thats why I said "what about equal treatment?" in that part you quoted from me.Because anyone in such position of power thinks they deserve more than "common people",or in this case "noobies".
When you want to compare that to real life;what if politicians,for example have to accept the same starvation wages they allow common civilians to have?
Wages would change overnight, because they wouldn't lift their asses for such wages.
And even with their scandalous wage they give themselves ,all they do is yawn and complain about others in the parlement ,fingerpointing to other innocent groups while
they themselves are the pests on our society.
if you think there is equal treatment in real life,you are kidding yourself.
Because you work all your life to earn what they make in a few months.
With individual progression,people compare themselves to others and the more personal power they gain,the more they look down on others.(just like these politicians)
"We have been here longer,we deserve more,we are better"
In an adventure, reward should be uncertain.As adventure is a risky undertaking.
That means that you sometimes have to appreciate the journey for what it was,the time you have put into it ,the friends you made
On an adventure people don't know which is the better or worse path to walk(none should be a "better" or "worse" choice either)
Any path would have challenges where players are required to put in an effort to get somewhere.And that is how we'd get rid of the *endgame* mentality
that more time spent means exclusive experiences that others can't have on an adventure.Anyone should be able to pick their path and that is why I believe content restrictions would just ruin the sense of adventure.Should there be challenges and efforts on the road,yes,for all players in Terminus regardless of level
You mention a bias of the "haves" to the "have nots". Isn't your entire position based on a bias against the "haves"? You consistently portray those with wealth as theives, biggots, and completely uncaring of the "have nots". This is as ludricrous a position as suggesting that the "have nots" are worthless, lazy or incompetent.
Likewise it's ridiculous to suggest that the newbies in an MMO feel cheated by the elites.
For what it's worth I agree that artificial roadblocks to access are mostly unnecessary. If a level 5 newbie finds a way to sneak past the level 50 orcs and get into the level 60 dungeon, let him have at. But let him deal with the consequences as well, and don't build easy recovery mechanisms to bail him out of the really ill-advised course he (or she) chose.
In the beginning, everyone started equal. (beginning of a new game). Over time, people who put more time and effort and were good at the game (the Top) , began to outlevel the general population (the Rest). Additionally, these people got bigger, better items and got bigger and better even faster themselves. Those, who weren't willing to spend the time or give the effort needed to be the best in the game, levelled slower and got fewer items. Over time the disparity of levels and items between the Top and the Rest was very noticable.
The Rest petitioned to have more restrictions put on the Top and themselves to be allowed to level faster and get better items for less effort. Their wish was granted. The Top realized that, while putting much more effort into the game, the items etc. they got weren't all that different from the items the Rest got and started complaining. The Rest, hearing the complaints, called the Top greedy and only out for themselves and not caring for the Rest.
No changes were made as there were more of the Rest than there were of the Top. Many of the Top decided to leave the game as the reward was no longer worth the effort. Since there were no more Top players, the game became boring as everyone was the same, looked the same, had the same abilities etc. People cancelled their accounts and due to the lack of income, no new expansions came out. That made the game even more boring and subscription got reduced even more. Soon, bug fixes and support stopped and eventually, the game got cancelled too.
-
I like to throw hoops. I really, really suck at it. Like, if I am lucky, I get 1 out of 10 hoops. But I practice every spare moment and do my very best to get more hoops. I spend at least 10 minutes a week on it, cause I am really busy with other stuff. Now I think if I practice a lot more, I could be NBA material. So, since I did my very best, I think that at least I should get a $10,000 sponsorship from Nike and a free, official, near-top-of-the-line basketball. Additionally, since I am 5'8", I can't get to the hoops as well as those people who are 6'7". Therefore, to make me more competitive, I think the hoops should be lowered by 11" just to make it fair for all people of my height. Also, I think that the players in the NBA are getting their money too easy and therefore suggest that they all should take a 30% salary cut and that the money saved by that cut should be given to aspiring basketball players like me.
I know this would probably impossible to do, but what if there were some dungeon that had special access to it.
In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the bridgekeeper at the Bridge of Death asks Lancelot and friends a series of questions in order to pass.
What if, to enter a dungeon, cross a bridge etc. , a series of questions could be asked in which the entire group would have to work together to answer? These questions would continually change as they are based on the groups makeup. The information could be retrieved from the members in the group's name,race, level, class, gear, deity, where they are bound, etc.
- edit: typos
Fluffy said:With individual progression,people compare themselves to others and the more personal power they gain,the more they look down on others.(just like these politicians)
"We have been here longer,we deserve more,we are better"
In an adventure, reward should be uncertain.As adventure is a risky undertaking.
That means that you sometimes have to appreciate the journey for what it was,the time you have put into it ,the friends you made
On an adventure people don't know which is the better or worse path to walk(none should be a "better" or "worse" choice either)
Any path would have challenges where players are required to put in an effort to get somewhere.And that is how we'd get rid of the *endgame* mentality
that more time spent means exclusive experiences that others can't have on an adventure.Anyone should be able to pick their path and that is why I believe content restrictions would just ruin the sense of adventure.Should there be challenges and efforts on the road,yes,for all players in Terminus regardless of level
I both strongly agree and disagree with you in the same post. I don't want a theme park style Quest Hub game either that presents linear golden paths, but, I want "Theme Park" elements in that there are mob levels that are static or at least within a few levels upon spawn versus having a continually dynamic world that changes to the player's level (or whatever progression is determined by) like Elder Scrolls Oblivion. I do think that players should be able to choose their path versus having a forced path, but in a world with finite possibilities, there will always only be a select number of progression paths.
Remove levels, then progression/content will be gated by gear. Remove Gear, progression/content will be gated by skill level. Remove skill levels, progression/content will be gated by a player's individual ability to be reactive, click buttons, etc. Remove all measures that indicate progress, then you eliminate all risk/challenge/purpose and you're playing with a /GM cheat code. No matter what occurs, there will be some competitive nature in a game, regardless of how the progression is measured, and no matter how you try to remove the measure, one will exist, and I'd argue, that it is absolutely necessary.
I also agree with you that it is 100% about the journey and not the endgame, and I'm good with horizontal progression to be included with the vertical, but the "journey" wouldn't even exist or be relevant without vertical progression - you'd merely be putting in time.
And, to be back on topic, content restrictions should exist. Even if you were to remove keyed, flagged, or similarly gated zones, zones would organically be gated by player level. Evoras's post earlier in this thread nails it - I'm all for equality of opportunity, but not outcome. I will not have nearly the time that I did at EQlaunch (I'm struggling to find time lately to even post), and, I shouldn't expect the same rewards at the same pace as someone who can dedicate more time in Pantheon, whether that time achieves more keyed access to zones, flagging, player level etc. (assuming all other similar variables).
And, one final point, I'm pro content restrictions that feel natural as I want the journey to last longer and as a side benefit allow developers the ability to outpace many of the players in developing content rather than be at end game within the first few weeks and I'm ultimately bored and /quitting.
Feyshtey said:You consistently portray those with wealth as thieves, biggots, and completely uncaring of the "have nots".
Its not about wealth at all;
Where power is focused,where it comes from and what it is associated with in these games
Trying to exert power onto others,trying to control,social bonds & community in these MMOs often become dysfunctional.
It is indeed ridiculous to suggest that newbies in an MMO feel cheated by the elites.That is misinterpretation.
We would,however,delude ourselves if we'd deny ourselves the game we all long for,
not able to put things into perspective because of the addictive egocentric desires that come with possession of power we've gotten used to last decade in these games.(and individual player's character progression as primary goal contributes to this problem)
When it comes to progression,Raidan one tenet that often appears overlooked:
*An assertion that player vs. environment should involve more than NPCs -- Engage the World!*
In order to make the content king,I believe environment is often forgotten as a crucial part to progression
Environment,the moment, could be the only progression with the purpose that allows adventure itself to matter,to make the 'content of the moment' matter.
While at the same time it has the risks,challenges and purpose that is most important.
Because environment has the ability to empower players .So the power is focused between players,so they encourage each other,want to work together.No longer try to control
and it associates with the tenets too
*A belief that the greatest sense of accomplishment comes when it is shared - and earned.*
*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.*
*A mindset that some degree of downtime should be part of a game, ensuring players have time to form important social bonds.*
*A sincere commitment to creating a world where a focus on cooperative play will attract those seeking a challenge.*
I kind of like Manouk her imagination about horzontal progression that "the newbie yard can still kill you, but at later horizontal levels you are more adept at avoiding or killing them so it is as if you are a higher level, but not.."
Would you count it as skill level? I think the challenges ,dangers and thought provoking puzzles within the environment should be primary focus in progression.
In order for it to be about journey ,it might be better to look past our bags of holdings
Indeed Evoras kind of nails that we could be working together in exciting ways to solve things ,empower each other to solve a language barrier for example.
Just to be clear, I want to play a game that is challenging and rewards players for working together and succeeding in overcoming the challenges presented by the content.
I have no interest in a social experiement to to appy the principles of socialism and communisim to MMOs. Equal opportunity. Not equal gain. Reward is based upon what one does and what one succeeds at doing. There is no other method of accomplishment in life. Group accomplishment is achieved because it isn't really workable to do it alone. Not at any reasonable pace anyhow.
There is no free lunch. Stop asking for it.
Lets cut to the skinny. You will Never, Ever have a game based on building community, where the players are segregated based upon stat values. Never happen. Hasn't worked in WoW. Hasn't worked in the WoW clones. Won't work here. The moment you segregate people based on stat values and prevent them from working together to accomplish a goal, you've introduced a cancer into the system that will not be survived. The only question becomes how quickly your game dies.
I'm quite sure those that are only out for themselves *LOVE* this system, because it can affirm that they are indeed better than others, and they can't find enough games willing to tell them that. But those people won't keep the lights on and pay the bills, they'll simply move to a new game for that 'You're the best' fix.
Everything should be about achieving goals as a community, if you're actually going to build a community. Assuming you accomplish this, the community keeps coming back to take on more challenges you provide together, and THAT pays the bills, because its something they can't get anywhere else. The rest is just Ego Stroking.
Quillim said:Lets cut to the skinny. You will Never, Ever have a game based on building community, where the players are segregated based upon stat values. Never happen. Hasn't worked in WoW. Hasn't worked in the WoW clones. Won't work here. The moment you segregate people based on stat values and prevent them from working together to accomplish a goal, you've introduced a cancer into the system that will not be survived. The only question becomes how quickly your game dies.
I'm quite sure those that are only out for themselves *LOVE* this system, because it can affirm that they are indeed better than others, and they can't find enough games willing to tell them that. But those people won't keep the lights on and pay the bills, they'll simply move to a new game for that 'You're the best' fix.
I've never seen a game that work with the systems that you are suggesting and I have seen plenty that have worked using the exact systems that claim "can't work". Everquest one is still making enough money to justify quite a few servers 18 years later. What was so wrong with that?
Similar logic much of this thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko
Wow... Fluffy...
I humbly ask that you please stop equating competitive gamers and their quite healthy desire to be the best at what they do with having addictive egocentric desires. Not everyone is like that as many have said over and over yet you continue to bang that drum. Why must you continually put down anyone with a competitive nature using demeaning comments like the one I mentioned above. Being the best and being powerful do not neccessarily equate to addictive egocentric desires and I would argue that they quite seldom do seeing that that type of personality woulld self destruct quite rapidly in any community.
Aatu said:Wow... Fluffy...
I humbly ask that you please stop equating competitive gamers and their quite healthy desire to be the best at what they do with having addictive egocentric desires. Not everyone is like that as many have said over and over yet you continue to bang that drum. Why must you continually put down anyone with a competitive nature using demeaning comments like the one I mentioned above. Being the best and being powerful do not neccessarily equate to addictive egocentric desires and I would argue that they quite seldom do seeing that that type of personality woulld self destruct quite rapidly in any community.
Quillim said:DragonFist said:A lot worked in WoW. I never particularly liked the game, but claiming that it didn't succeed as a game is clearly not true.When WoW succeeded as a game and built community... it didn't have Stat and 'Gear Level' value Segregation.
I for one like content restrictions. A lvl 1 newbie shouldnt be running through the zone, that is ment for a lvl 100 with high end gear. It only creates griefing issues.
I also like the fact you have to Time sync your character, spend the time questing or obtaining to move forward with progression.
This is where friends are made, and a social network is made, when you have a few people asking if you need xxx item so you can group with us.
I have to say i think it should be kept.
Personally,
I just do not want to see "item level". I despise this concept as it basically says "wear this" and is used in many cases to gate players and inevitably breaks apart groups.
If someone wants to carry their friends the way I see it one of two things will happen...
1. They will wait for thier friend which means those players will likely play less as they are waiting
2. They will cease playing with thier friend.
Either of those outcomes are deterimental in my opinion.
If I carry my friend then I will be doing what I enjoy...playing with my friend.
They will get stronger and essentially I will be "giving them" some of my playtime; this equals out because of the fact that myy job will be harder with my brother in this case as a carry, but he will be getting a way better return on his time because it will catch him up much faster.
Players playing with thier friends play longer; this is that whole social MMO thing. I find item-level just says "Im strong" and becomes the deciding factor on playing with others and it feels too dumbed down and mechanical.
To cite a recent thing in FF 14 where Tanks were running with lower Ilvl strength jewelry; it caused a bit of a ruckus because of the Ilvl was percieved as "always better" to the point where they just nerfed +STR return for tanks. Essentially discarding some knowledge of tanking and removing the option for people to apply what they learned.
Also FF having the "must have a full static" to run content due to the Ilvl restriction actually stopped me from playing; because my wife was going to take a long time to get there and frankly we could have worked to build a static team; but at the end of the day we decided to just stop paying SE.
TSW Legends is also becoming this way with Ilvl becoming the sole arbitrator in doing elitesl despite the fact there are very good players who do not have the time to grind gear hardcore.
In short my experiences tell me that Item Level is just bad; it overrides many peoples judgement and reduces the oppertunity for co-operative play,
A game that is challenging and rewarding for players working together
Success depending on overcoming the challenges presented by content is indeed what is needed.Equal opportunity.Not equal gain.I agree there.
But these artificial restrictions based on level and gearscore support equal gain,makes progression a certain outcome no matter what with experience gain
A failproof system where players do not have to deal with the consequences.Because that zone is their safe playground to progress +easy recovery/respawn mechanics
I guess by now there is proof enough to see that,in these MMO's,actions have no consequences,you are never really in danger
Level zones take most of the risk out of adventure.You can solo everything and progress all by yourself because you get the same exp as everyone else for the respected content you go through.The only interaction on most of the journey comparable with other people in traffic,each going their separate ways.There is no reason staying together because environment has no power on progression.While it is what you've been through together that forges meaningful relations.
The problem is also ,in some degree,because our own character progression is the primary goal
But the way zone levels are segregated in ,the artifical roadblocks segregated in level zones ultimately support equal gain and are in my view handholders that prevents players from really messing up enough to need other players
Indeed,group accomplishments are achieved because things aren't workable to do alone
And ,as we've witnessed in recent MMOs,the way level progression and gear score works.It makes most of the game workable alone.
Still the biggest blunder of these games is focus on individual gain/character progression.
It is important to analyze what competition does to people Aatu.It is not an attack on competitive players at all.
You would often find that these personalities do not self destruct at all,you'll find them as your leaders.
A sense of power causes them to indulge in egocentric desires & engage in behavior that is morally wrong.
It is just the nature of power and competition.No personal attacks at all
I'm not at all trying to campaign for a game without gear or progression
But as I said earlier.It is where power is focused ,what it associates with in these games that makes all the difference
Empowerment is good,so in my opinion the power should be focused between players and the challenges the environment provides with as few restrictions as possible to keep the sense of adventure alive.As Evoras mentioned,a language,physical barrier etc can empower people to work together to solve something together that feels rewarding and fun.So if impossible to avoid restrictions ,it is worth investigating how it can bring players together,how it can be made fun.
Mod Edit: Removed political link
Again, I don't think there should be artificial roadblocks. But I do think that if a low level player, or hell, a team of 20 level 5 characters goes into an area designed for level 50 characters, the level 5's should be piles of smoking ash within a few moments.
And the progression of content is only logical and sensible. You don't want players to feel discouraged and quit because a dragon is charring them to cinders near a starting city. It would make no sense to start with, because an established community center isn't going to tolerate dragons torching the nearby countryside. They would deploy their strongest defenders. And it is only logical that the further from major cities one goes the less tamed the environment becomes.
You need to give players a reason to move further and further out into the world as they progress, and the dangers as they move further out should increase. It is exactly that way in our real world. The further you move away from controlled areas the more danger you find yourself in. Hell, the further into controlled areas of factions that dislike you the more danger you're in. And there needs to be these areas of control and personality, or lack of control, to give a sense of a living breathing world. We experience that in our world, and a lack of that same paradigm in a gameworld would be illogical. You would disbelieve in it if even subconciously and it would detract from your ability to associate with it.
The simple fact is that people want to accumulate power, and they want to assert it upon the gameworld. It doesnt mean that they are purposefully holding anyone else back. It doesnt mean that they are corrupted morally, and it doesnt mean that they desire to make things more difficult for anyone else. It simply means that they want the gameworld to have significant challenges that must be overcome (and in this particular game audience they want that to require allies), and they want everyone to have to overcome the same obsticles to reach the same power progressions.
You might not like that kind of game, but the vast majority of gamers do.
I agree that environment needs to be feared.But regardless of level in my opinion.
Because when you segregate content into level zones,every zone below your level becomes cake and the sentiment of fear disappears.
Even in *starting areas* ,players that have been around a long while should repect environment;It should still be dangerous ,otherwise players would not respect it.(nor respect the players that brave the challenges that are trivial to your power level ,no ,danger should apply to all.Never should your power place you above others and those dangers of the environment)
That is another problem with level zones.If you belong* in a high level zone,there is no fear and respect anymore for "low" level zones.It feeds the endgame mentality.
Environment should always have significant challenges to overcome,otherwise we would no longer respect and fear the environment.That is why it would be for the better if zones remained untamable.
There always need to be obstacles to overcome
In order to have content as our king.So players want to spend meaningful time in all areas .The segregation in level zones sets the focus to endgame and power
The idea of untamable areas must be the reason why Manouk her vision about horizontal progression where the "noobieyard can still kill you" seems so appealing to me.
Horizontal levels where you get more adept in dealing with the harsh environment ,but never able to get on top of things,controlling .
When people try to control things it is often at the expense of others their enjoyment and quality of game.
Your example of the dragon has little to do with respecting environment,more with build up of an adventure and climax
"A knight went on an adventure and was eaten by a dragon-the end" Ofcourse that would not be satisfying
I agree that allies should be required to overcome obstacles to progress .Not agree that progression should focus on power.
Progression in my view is nothing more than how the adventure shapes up your character ,and in order to gain those awesome exotic and rare things,you need to contend with the world itself.And work together in order to get there.
If however max level players have no need to contend in "low level zones" ,content no longer remains king
As only the zone that provides the most power is worthy to venture in.The playground gets very small indeed
VR has mentioned in their streams that zones will contain varying levels content as they want players of different levels in zones together at times.
VR has also mentioned in streams that a level 10 player can use a level 50 sword but that due to the level of the player's skills it will not hit for the same damage. As I mentioned earlier to me this means yes you can use it but it wont be any different than any of the other top end swords you can get for your level so you may well have a level 50 sword or BP but they will only protect you at a level 10 level because of your toon's skill level and for me it doesnt get any more realistic that that. Yes a 10 year old can pick up his father's sword but there is no way he will have the skill or strength to use it at his father's level.
Im all for this. If a level 40 and his/her friends of the same level want to go and attempt a level 50 encounter by all means do so. I really hope you enjoy your CR. I am really starting to hope that when certain people do wipe and have a nearly impossible CR that, if they ask a higher level group to help, that group refuses. Everyone here seems to agree that they should be allowed to enter these areas including me because of the challenge. They themselves however should be left to deal with the consequences. You want realism and consequences for your actions... you got it. Now deal with it. I have always been willing to help individuals who make honest mistakes or push their limits and fail. I even take the time to show them some things or give them tips.
VR has been quite clear on their intensions regarding game mechanics in this regard.
I just dont like to hear people grumble because a level 50 group wont take your level 45 or 46 or maybe even level 47 toon on a raid or your level 50 toon who is undergeared on a raid. Now I do not agree with this mentality of exclusion all the time but it is up to that particular community (group or raid) to decide who they will and will not take. You may not agree with the outlook or rules of that particular community and I may not make the same choice but it is their choice to make. Do not expect all communities to have the same goals or play the game the same as you do and to expect the greater server community as a whole to play by the same rules... well... your dreaming.
As I mentioned earlier if I join a raid or group I play by their rules unless asked to help. When I run my open raids or groups I may listen to your input but in the end it will be my decission that stands and there are very few, if any, on these forums who would do it any differently if they plan on being successful.
Agreed Aatu. I believe you are correct on your reference to VR saying that zones will have varied level ranges. There may well be a level 50 mob or group in an area of a generally lower level zone. There may even be random level 25 mobs roaming notable portions of zones meant mostly for levels 1-15, for example. However, I do not foresee VR scattering level 50 mobs throughout the newbie zones who random wander up to the city gates and paste brand new characters. To do so would be counterproductive to striking a balance between a sense of danger, and a sense of complete helplessness and belief that the devs are just plain cruel. The same philosophy scales throughout the rest of the content.
It'd be an interesting thing to have a level 50 boss at the throne of a keep, with level 40 gaurds in the anti-chambers, level 30 grunt soldiers at the gates, and level 20 scouts patrolling the surrounding areas. On its face it presents the kind of scenario that Fluffy is, I think, envisioning. But it presents a host of social issues which devs can easily predict and why the wouldn't normally take such an approach. If you have a raid force of 30 people marching thru the level 20, 30, and 40 creatures to get to the level 50 boss, they would necessarily wipe out everything there intended for lower level players and disrupt the gameplay of multiple tiers of players. If you have the warm and fuzzy hope that they'd recruit the lower levels to do what they themselves could do in a fraction of the time then you're being optomistic. If you co-mingle the 20's, 30's and 40's mobs throughout the region then 20's and 30's arent likely to hunt there because they'd get randomly pulverized by the 40's, and would instead go to areas with mobs that are in the 10's, 20's and 30's, and slaughter the lower of the mobs in order to safely consume the higher; some would define this as bottom-feeding, others something else. But the reality of impact is that the lowest of the characters would be the most significantly impact for the worse.
If you argue that such a setup encourages 20's to group with 40's and 50's, then you also present the social and structural confusion and impact of 20's being in attendance when level 50 equipment drops. Do they have an equal right to loot it? If yes, and if at level 20 you are able to obtain a notable percentage of your inventory with higher more difficult to achieve equipment, then why keep playing? What are you then striving for in your 30's, 40's or 50's? This is beside the point of the higher levels of the group being the only reason that a person could be there at all, let alone the gameplay limitations that would necessitate the removal of combat functions like AOE's or traps that would instantly destroy such a low level character. If your design goals state that you want low levels to work directly with high levels in adventure scenarios that it dictates you design your combat mechanics to the lowest common denominator.
I understand the impulse to pat ourselves on the back for showing how compasionate we are, and giving and caring and cooperative and noble and just and charitable. But the reality is that there are 1000's of hard-coded mechanics and social mechanics that have to be considered, and there are paths that have to be designed. I'm not talking about leading characters thru content, but instead the number crunching behind the scenes, and incentive rewards dangled so players actually want to keep fighting forward.
As a side note, generally I agree with your assessment of the scaled gear as well. But I'm not sure that it would scale to the point that a level 50 weapon would only be as good as the top end of swords a level 10 could obtain in a normal group. I'm still holding out hope that twinking is a bit more viable but agree with the notion that it should not be game-breaking.
DragonFist said:Then I misunderstood your statement. I thought you were jumping in on Fluffy's campaign for a game with no gear and level progression. I retract my statement in that regard then. I am not for preventing zone entry based on stat and gear level values. I am, however, completely okay with better rewards for higher risk, including better gear and I thought you were referring to that side of things. I can see now what you were talking about.For those that are trying to get a game with no gear/level progression or to somehow make everybody equal no matter the effort/time put in, my statements still stand regarding that.
Ya.. haven't even bothered to read Fluffy's posts. I'm all for gear/level progression, so long as they don't segregate people based on gear stats. The moment you make it hard for players to play and group with each other, particularly when they're of the same level, community goes out the window. At that point, you're left with having to go with random cross-server LFG groups(and often even random LFR) to catch up.. which last as long as the instance does. It inevitably devolves into a glorified single-player game, which makes it fairly easy to quit.
If you want to build a community, that isn't the way to do it.
Honestly, i wonder how viable guild-based progression for end-game zones would be? The guild keys via some mechanism(kill X/Y/Z, farm A/B/C), and then anyone who joins the guild is keyed for the areas that they've finished progression in. That makes the guild work together to accomplish the goal, available to all(even new people) once complete.
Sorry Feyshtey I should have been more clear on my reference to different levels playing together. If Im not mistaking there were 2 references to it. The first was in a low level outdoors area where while running along they commented that as a low level player was exploring the zone they may come across a higher level group engaging a mob or encounter of some kind. What I took from it was that they wanted a reason to have higher level players come back to lower zones for some content. I would think it would be easy for lower levels to skirt around this content and avoid it if they are playing smartly.
The second reference to it was when they were in an underground tunnel system and they mentioned that there may be different levels to it with each holding progressively more difficult mobs.
This was also the stream and place where they mentioned the idea of having random named encounters roaming the corridors at random times and in random places as a surprise for anyone at any time.
Lastly in reference to locked zones or encounters. For me this was referenced in the stream where they asked Cohh to cross the bridge leading to another level or maybe even raid encounter without any resists set. I may be wrong but it seemed to me he was not going to make it across without the proper acclimatization gear. I have no issues with these types of keying mechanisms as well.
I really think they have made it very clear where they are going in these regards.
In regards to your views on the scaling of weapons. I agree here as well. I was just using random numbers to show what I was getting at.
Folks, it is perfectly fine to have a different opinion and to discuss the differences but let's not make it personal or move into arguments over those opinions, if the discussion is going nowhere, agree to disagree and move on, please, continuing these types of arguments creates other arguments, keeps others from interacting out of fear of being attacked or caught up in the mix and it is completely unnecessary as it sets a very negative tone for the whole thread/topic.
@Aatu, I think we're almost entirely on the same page. I was trying to dovetail into some of the ideas that Fluffy has been promoting as a contrast and didnt do a good job at all differentiating. Sorry about that.
And I agree with your interpretation of locking out content, just like the case of Cohh crossing the bridge. That is technically a lockout of content, and it could potentially lead to the kinds of community splits that you talked about. I'm trying to balance my opinion here on my absolute love of the designed hazard of environments, and a distaste for articial blocks. I really embrace the idea that you should be properly equipped to enter some environments, and I like that being inforced. So as far as barriers go at least that one has a logic behind it. I put it somewhat in the same category as content requiring your ability to fly to get to it. These kinds of things don't give me a lot of heartburn because it seems more a right of passage than an arbitrary "you shall not pass".
I really could not stand the EQ PoP era design of access only available to a handful of zones, and dozens more that could only be accessed thru raiding bosses. I have no issue at all with there being mobs that require large raid forces to tackle, or even the best gear rewards being available from those encounters. I do have a big problem with paying for an entire expansion which I will never experience the vast majority of unless I engage in one particular type of gameplay and that one type being the one requiring the largest contiguous play sessions.
I'm even fine with keyed progression to access a limited count of zones meant specifically and entirely for raiders. If they want to key to get there, great. No skin off my back. (I'm thinking EQ zones like Vex Thal or Dragon Necropolis.) But entire expansions with this being the predominant philosophy are just asinine to me.
More on the topic of splitting up groups; This is the reason that I finally put my foot down and stopped paying for WoW. While I pretty much always felt that game was a themepark monty haul free ride, and played with friends and family for quite a while because they loved it, and I wanted to play with them. But when it became apparent that they moved deeper and deeper into the embrace of phased content in which you and those in your group had to all be at the exact same point of progression or they couldnt even see each other the game was dead to me.