I am sure this topic has been brought up about 100 times.
But I was watching the twitch video and Brad mentioned once again the game will not have instance zones and will be completely open. The host started to get into other groups coming in and KSing boss mobs, and it seemed to just get kind of blown over. I know every person on this forum has had this done to them, or did to someone else. In EQ1 back in the day they had online support, or as we call them GMs that would deal with this a little, and as time went on they kinda of ignored it. To me any time you put too much of the game in players hands, a group of players will ruin it for the others. Has anything been said to this age old issue, or is it left up to the players as mentioned in the video?
We have talked about it extensively. There's no consensus.
I'm of the opinion that I don't want to play a PvE game where I have to view other players as enemies. If I wanted to do that I'd just play PvP. I'm also of the opinion that community enforcement is a joke and will not be enough to deter the worst types of players from trampling the entire server to get their way if they are capable of doing so.
The consensus seems to be that players will mostly police themselves and that reputation will matter so that will minimize the shenanigans. I'm skeptical.
I'd like to make a prediction...
The first 6 months or so its going to be bad...there will be a lot of players who have never played a game where reputation matters who aren't courteous toward fellow players. Once some time passes those players who aren't dedicated will drop out and the community will become noticeably stronger. Give it a handful of months and we will lose many of those flash in the pan players that are only used to "today's" mmos.
Hopefully they don't scare others away in the meantime.
Liav: I'm also of the opinion that community enforcement is a joke and will not be enough to deter the worst types of players from shitting on the entire server to get their way if they are capable of doing so.
I am mostly of the same opinion. Community enforcement should be used at the outset of problem players, but it can only go so far. The fact that people who set out to disrutpt the fun of others and will eventually be forced to band together (as they will run out of guilds willing to take them) and will probably end up forming guilds of their own, will make community policing virtually impossible. As I have alluded to in other threads, I feel VR will have to take an active role in policing toxic players for the good of the game, whether they want to or not. This also leads on to the ability to swap servers if things become too bad, I havent read any threads to that affect yet? Will this be easy, cost, time restricted, etc?
Back to the main point though, KSing will be a factor in the game, whether liked or not. If a mob becomes a focal point of one or more quests, then those not willing to wait will attempt exactly this. I remember the days back in EQ when I knew a mob was about to pop and I had waited (often in line) for the chance to take it down, and the adrenelin kicked in as I readied myself, hoping I would get the first shot in. It was a rush, but it was a rush I didnt like.
The only way around this that I can see is to make quests completable in a number of different ways, by different mobs or give everyone involved in a quest mob a kill credit. But that then leads to multiple groups farming quest mobs. :-s I know VR have said that bosses will react to attacks in different ways when being attacked by numbers greater than intended (i.e. running away, calling for help, gaining abilities), maybe they should expand that to quest mobs too, that might prove to be interesting.
All in all, there is only so much VR can do to stop/discourage KSing and less so what community policing can do to stop people who set out to do just that. We will have to suck it and see. I just hope that bottlenecks are far and very few between and that VR would be willing to address those that do occur, quickly.
Since it's an open world with other people I take this as part of the package. It's never nice but someone dangerously cutting in front of me on the motorway is also not nice. It just happens.
I gather collecting materials will be just as bad. Can only hope they have a robust CS/Gm system.
The more I think about it community policing was a cornerstone of EQ. You got to know the players not to invite. But this is a different time with different attitudes and a society that demands instant gratification. I honestly think (if I remove my rose-tinted glasses) it won't work in today's gaming environment. Every game is just a couple of hours of diversion and players demand they are entertained for that time and they get "Phat loot". Companies have catered to this attitude and type of player. Which helped the emergence of P2W. With Pantheon eschewing P2W and players encountering a challenging game maybe (hopefully) it will not be as big an issue as we think.
I personally would like to see a tag system for mobs even though this can be exploited. If a mob is tagged it is grey to others for a certain time and if the mob is not killed in that time period it is open to being attacked by other groups. The reason for the time limit is so players cannot hold a mob for other people or even demand cash to release it. Then again every system can be exploited.
I think we shall have to see how the dice land and deal with it. Not perfect but players will have complaints no matter system is used but I don't want to see instancing of any kind. I guess KS is the price we pay for that.
Competition for spawns will be a real thing - unless spawn rates are proportional to their death rates, and even then, the area can still be monopolized by an AOE type group. And why not. Incentivize grouping so that the killer 3 man tank/heal/aoe group wants to fill those last three spots. Incentivize changing camps from time to time - diminishing returns on camp xp bonus perhaps, or drop bonuses that reduce over time, or the opposite if the drops are why everyone is there in the first place.
A smart player would get out ahead of the crafting world - and fill that un-met demand for items with their products.
The size of the world, lack of fast travel, and the different paths of early level play, coupled with built in down time of training, selling or crafting should limit the practicality of locking down an area.
Attractive alternative ways of play - crafting - gathering - etc etc, can give a supply of gameplay that doesn't necessarily involve slaughtering the local pack of boars over and over.
Since races are described as a set of evil and a set of 'good', then we can assume at least two starting areas. Perhaps each race will get it's own starting area, with areas in between that are tuned for combinations of those race's class set.
Size size size. And the inevitability of and consequences of death should force competing players to stagger their activities sufficiently. Obviously a server population cap makes sense - there have to be different servers right? At what level the pop cap is set at will be indicative of how large the world is. I would expect the pop caps to grow as the population on average progresses through content, as it should.
All of this competition is what makes this type of game great! Same principle as in the real world - your wealth is only meaningful as compared to the next persons. There have to be winners and losers. Personally, I will be a winner. ;-)
Wandidar said:Liav said:Wall said:Same principle as in the real world - your wealth is only meaningful as compared to the next persons. There have to be winners and losers. Personally, I will be a winner. ;-)
Capitalism is a disease.
No politics, please.
I wouldn't call it politics. Realistically, just disgusted with the idea of playing a PvE game in an adversarial fashion.
I don't want to force equality on all players, but I also don't want to give them the tools to dumpster other players because they will do so. It's the mentality that bothers me.
Bring on the open world. Competition for resources is one of those things from early MMO's that I miss dearly. It's almost as if every player out there is a prospector looking for their chance to strike it rich. Not everybody needs to be classified as friend or foe ... if someone beats you to the punch on tagging a boss, it might be time to /salute and move on. I want supply vs demand to be meaningful in this game and the easiest way to achieve that is by limiting the supply. It's far easier to limit the supply of goods in an open world game than it is with instances. Rare spawns should be valuable, not just wham bam whack a mole one after the next. Certain NPC's might only spawn once or twice a day -- finding these rare mobs and learning their spawn patterns should be a challenge in and of itself.
Like Wall mentioned, there will be winners and there will be losers. Everybody will have a chance to lay stake to the world and claim their share of the bounty. Learn the lay of the land ... that knowledge, especially early on, could be the difference maker that sets you apart from other people around your level. Find your niche inside the game and run with it ... make the most of every opportunity, accumulate wealth and then use that wealth to buy into other markets. When it comes to player to player interaction, I have always been a fan of a strong player driven economy. Competition for resources is what makes the economy world go round ... best to prepare yourself for it and embrace the challenge head on. No pussyfooting around ... get in there and make of it what you will!
Sometimes we "old school" MMO players deride "new school" MMO players for the way we feel they behave in OUR game. They do this... They do that... They do the other... Hell, I used to be guilty of that myself on a regular basis and likely still fall into the trap from time to time. I think that it's important to remember that players play games as games are designed to be played.
Here's an example.
Way back in the earlier days of WoW, I was in the middle of killing the last mob before the boss mob in what used to be the "group" quest in a quest chain. Just before that mob dies, a group runs past me and attacks the boss. Now, I'm an EQ player not long out of EQ... so I quip in chat "Happy I could clear everything for you, because, you know, I wasn't here to kill that..."
What did I get back?
"It will respawn in three minutes, shut up and wait your turn." Now - I have to say that I was fairly peeved. They told me to wait MY turn, when I was the one that cleared to the mob and they were the ones running in and getting the kill first... but you know what? They were right in as much as that was how the game was designed.
There is a design intent in today's games to absolutely limit the degree to which players can harm other players in the game world. Training is resolved by very strict leashing and having mobs ignore people they run past on those short leashes. You can't always hit NPC's. Content is hidden inside nice, neat, individualized instances so that you can do your thing without being interrupted by others. Harvesting nodes are individualized (only there for you!) or only despawn FOR you when you harvest them (the next player can harvest too). Named mobs in the open world respawn in 5 minutes or less. Rare mobs aren't rare. The list goes on....
One thing those games all had in common as well was an expectation of PvP on PvE servers. I have nothing against PvP players - I enjoy PvP myself... often opting to play on PvP servers in today's MMO's. But PvP players on PvE servers can also add to the dynamic where some players try to goad other players into PvP encounters. That's just speculation on my part based on seeing some cases of this play out.
The net result has, in my opinion, been somewhat opposite of intent. Players are more concerned about ME than WE... protection FROM community amounts to a disregard OF community. You don't need specific people unless you are in a guild pushing content. Otherwise, the community is just a pool to pull from to gain the ends you want.
Will a game that does not have all the modern "protect players from players protection" have the same issues with player population as games that do have them? I guess time will tell. I know that while EQ did have some problem children (and some problem guilds), for the most part, behavior WAS mitigated to a good degree by the community. I know that when I went back to play Vanguard for a bit (after leaving the game a few months after launch), the community I saw was markedly better behaved than the community in WoW, Rift, etc...
But as I said, time will tell.
I am hopeful that the mechanics/design of the game will be a driver toward behavior patterns that are more community (we) based, and less individual (me) based.
Personally I'm of the opinion that in what has become a normal MMO, WoW, FFXV, ect, Open world would be a terrible idea. Quite frankly if you pissed off your current guild there was always a new guild that would take you. Guild size requirements and the ease to hit level cap almost ensured that there would always be a high end disreputable guild or in the case of WoW you could always pay to switch servers and start again where no one know who you is.
In a game like this I would say that as long as the majority of the community or in reality the majority of the high end portion of the community wants a good community they will overall get a good community. You'll have some issues with stuff that can be completed in a small group especailly in the earlier levels, but some competition is good. Instances overall kill a MMO by ensuring that a large portion of the server really isn't playing with the rest of server they are just playing in their own private where they don't have to worry about their interactions with others.
There will be issues here and there, I doubt they'll be frequent but they will happen. Should they? Absolutely. The world isn't a perfect place and neither should the MMO be. It shouldn't be common that someone steals a kill here or there or trains a group of mobs to kill someone but it should happen once in a while. Honestly if the game forced everyone to be perfectly nice to each other or even worse forced each to be seperate from every other group it just wouldn't be as much fun and wouldn't feel as much like a MMORPG. Competition is a large part of what makes a game fun, whether it be competing to be at the top of a DPS meter, competing to be the first to kill a boss, competing to see who can make the most money or whatever else you might decide to compete for. Yes the competition will bring out the worst in some people, but I believe there will be many great people who will help keep those people in check!
Honestly I'm not sure why I replied to this thread. My opinion on these topics seems to fluctuate on a daily basis. I don't even think I, myself, know what kind of game I want Pantheon to be. I want it to not be a bad game, I know that much.
Does everything need to be a competition in a PvE game? Progression raiding is certainly competitive, but all aspects of the game? I just read the game tenets and injecting competition between players into things as trivial as group content doesn't seem to be a core principle of the game.
I'm all for competition. I've probably played more competitive games than most people on this forum. However, I don't go into a PvE environment operating under the assumption that any other given player is to be trampled if they share a common goal with me.
Was EQ designed with players shitting on eachother as a core principle? Or was there an expectation that people just wouldn't do it based on a play nice possibility that only holds weight with GM intervention?
Also, Vanguard only had a few players and there were plenty of undesirables sprinkled among them. The mechanics of the game weren't as conducive to disruptive behavior as EQ.
Liav said:Honestly I'm not sure why I replied to this thread. My opinion on these topics seems to fluctuate on a daily basis. I don't even think I, myself, know what kind of game I want Pantheon to be. I want it to not be a bad game, I know that much.
Does everything need to be a competition in a PvE game? Progression raiding is certainly competitive, but all aspects of the game? I just read the game tenets and injecting competition between players into things as trivial as group content doesn't seem to be a core principle of the game.
I'm all for competition. I've probably played more competitive games than most people on this forum. However, I don't go into a PvE environment operating under the assumption that any other given player is to be trampled if they share a common goal with me.
Was EQ designed with players shitting on eachother as a core principle? Or was there an expectation that people just wouldn't do it based on a play nice possibility that only holds weight with GM intervention?
Also, Vanguard only had a few players and there were plenty of shitters sprinkled among them. The mechanics of the game weren't as conducive to disruptive behavior as EQ.
In all the time I played EQ, there was never a raid night where there was nothing to raid, and never a non-raid night where there was nothing open to go do. That doesn't mean you didn't compete for what you wanted to do... but... Losing that competition just meant doing something else - or not competing at all and just doing something else.
I think very much key to the equation will be how many individual bits of content there are to do (x raid encounters, y areas to group, trades, etc...) and the population size of each server. If there are too many people and not enough content - it will become toxic. If there is enough content to keep everyone doing something (even if it's not their primary choice) when they want to be doing something... then I think everything will work out.
I'd like to speculate about why you think that was the case.
On EQ TLPs, one guild controls all contested content at any given time.
On P99, don't they have some stupid rotation that is enforced by server admins to prevent monopolies?
Was it because the genre of MMOs was new and goal-oriented gameplay such as monopolizing raid content was a newer concept? Were gamers just different in their mentality? Did the number of people at max/raid capable level contribute?
I agree that content availability will have a huge role. Do you feel it is possible to create enough content to feed the most dominant guilds without causing a content drought for any guilds that aren't at the top of the food chain? In a fully open world model, at least.
I don't feel that way. I think it will be a mess, personally.
*fights monster and notices interesting Lore, (no drop?) item on monster but doesnt pertain to her, She DOES know however that it is for a quest or somehting for another class*
*shouts in zone* "'Stone of irridescent marking' rotting on Corpse- 9 min left"
*waits a minute or two for tells and receiving none*
*states in general chat* " stone of irridecsent marking rotting on corpse in ayvenders pass near big rock by gate, 7min remaining"
*goes to other place and does other things, forgets about monster*
I agree with Liav in all respects. If I want to compete with other players I will play on a pvp server.
Simple competition for spawn or resources that everyone needs can get bad enough - I'm not looking to spend hour after hour trying to tag that 8th orc I need before someone gets it or finally race to a platinum node before the other 20 people trying to do the same. But there *will* be people simply trying to grief others and doing things not because they want to do them but for the "fun" of annoying other people.
dorotea said:I agree with Liav in all respects. If I want to compete with other players I will play on a pvp server.
Simple competition for spawn or resources that everyone needs can get bad enough - I'm not looking to spend hour after hour trying to tag that 8th orc I need before someone gets it or finally race to a platinum node before the other 20 people trying to do the same. But there *will* be people simply trying to grief others and doing things not because they want to do them but for the "fun" of annoying other people.
Part of the issue there is ensuring that there is enough to do. If i'm spending hour after hour tagging my 8th orc, I'd likely have left for another quest within the first 10 minutes, I might have just seen the fact that there are 3 other people fighting for limited spawns and left to do something else right away. Fighting for nodes is always going to be a common issue, if we weren't fighting for nodes then I would suspect that either crafting isn't worth it and no one is going after them or crafting prices are going to be very low because of high supply or we used some artifical limitation like you can only mine 20 platinum nodes a day before your character is too exhausted to mine a node like F2P games use sometimes.
Open world needs enough variety of content to succeed. Plain and simple. You can't have everyone going after the same spawn you need to give reasons for people to go after many different spawns. There will be competition if there weren't we might as well just be sitting in our own private instance that we can invite only the people we want to, like a lot of modern MMOs use for the majority of their content. That's not really that MMO like, having to deal with random players is part of what makes a MMO fun. There however needs to be enough content available that the competition isn't that extreme to the point where it's stopping players from progressing.
I play on PVE servers not because I don't want to interact with players but because I don't want to have to worry that the player standing next to me is out to kill me.
If competition is an intrinsic design basis behind Pantheon, EQ, Vanguard, etc. then that would be news to me. To me, it simply seems to be a behavior that arises due to the limited availability of specific content. These are fundamentally different in a very important way.
If competition is a fundamental, then any kind of "play nice" policy that limits intentional trains and such would be a completely hypocritical stance for VR to take. Players would also be hypocrites, essentially playing the game by their own made up rules by not using specific mechanics in the game to their advantage as a choice.
All of the tenets of Pantheon seem to indicate that the game will be about cooperation. A PvP server obviously throws that aside. So I have to ask, is all of the talk about how everything should be open world and contested purely because EQ did it? Is it simply the wish of an extreme minority of players who view everything as a competition?
I also agree with Liav in that I think hard "competition" has no place in a PvE environment. Sure, server firsts and such, not a problem. Content denial however was and is bad.
From what I know, it may not be that much of a problem in Pantheon, if lockout timers like in VG are implemented: Mobs respawning fast, but you can only kill them every once in a while. Not sure how far down this principle should be applied...for example, should this only work for raid mobs, or also for dungeon bosses? How could it work with "rare" mobs?
Liav said:I'd like to speculate about why you think that was the case.
On EQ TLPs, one guild controls all contested content at any given time.
On P99, don't they have some stupid rotation that is enforced by server admins to prevent monopolies?
Was it because the genre of MMOs was new and goal-oriented gameplay such as monopolizing raid content was a newer concept? Were gamers just different in their mentality? Did the number of people at max/raid capable level contribute?
I agree that content availability will have a huge role. Do you feel it is possible to create enough content to feed the most dominant guilds without causing a content drought for any guilds that aren't at the top of the food chain? In a fully open world model, at least.
I don't feel that way. I think it will be a mess, personally.
I sort of suspect that to a degree, you are right in that a power guild, or a conglomeration of power guilds will seek to monopolize content. That is one distinct difference I think that wasn't part of early EQ that grew up in EQ and beyond. Some people will want to monopolize content for no other reason than to monopolize content and screw with everyone else. i.e. it's a power game and they get their enjoyment not from the game itself, but from the impact they have on other players - OR - they will want to block content that opens content... i.e. keep new content to themselves.
To that extent - I actually think there WILL need to be some "play nice" mechanics in code. I know we (on the forums) have talked about things like limiting how many times you can kill a mob in a given time period. Stuff like, "If I killed The Goblin King, I can't kill him again for 15 days, and he is on a 5-7 day spawn cycle" - but that too is imperfect if multiple guilds join forces, or if guilds use alts to perma-kill the mob.
Still, it might be one of a set of things that can be done to limit content monopolization.
Another thing they could do would be to have content triggered by doing something (quest) that is locked to the group / raid that did that something on spawn. i.e. We collect 20 ancient bones, put them in the brazier, and The Goblin King spawns... and the only people who can attack him, is us (unless we die - at which point he becomes open)
I'm sure there are many other ideas.
Where I'm really at is this... I want open world. I much prefer it (my personal opinion) over the sanitized game spaces in many games today. I'm willing to (and even looking forward to) dealing with some of the "bad" that might come with it. But I still think there is a place for moderation of the extreme via game mechanics... and one of the primary things I think needs to be dealt with is content monopolization.
That may actually be a good conversation to have: What ways, in an open world, can you think of to have the open world, while ensuring everyone has a chance at all content (no content blocking).
When I think back on it, I think that one of the reasons that EQ worked as well as it did back in the day is that the game WAS hard for us. Death happened easily and often. It often took only one or two mistakes for a group to wipe. Because of this difficulty, players banded together - and while there were absolutely bad people, even groups of bad people - most people were cordial and civil and respectful because they had to be. Reputation mattered. Get a reputation as a killstealer or a ninja looter and you'd find that groups wouldn't take you. It was a deterrent - not a perfect one, but it worked, some of the time at least.
Another reason that EQ somewhat worked is that the zones and the world were so big compared to the number of players active them. It was rare to find a zone where *everything* was camped, although this was more common in some popular dungeons, and grew more common as the game aged. The space, the breadth of things to do, helped spread players out and prevent conflict. It still happened, of course, but not as much as it would have otherwise.
Like others have said though, players are different now. To start with, as soon as one person figures out how to handle a difficult room or encounter, and posts the video to YouTube, now everyone knows how to do that. Also, for the vast majority of people playing, this won't be their first game - and that experience makes a difference. Likewise, modern systems, and modern MMO mechanics, have made it very easy for players to minimize their risk. Even back in EQ, people used to abuse invisibility potions to race ahead of other groups for named spawns.
I like locking mechanics but they don't stop situations where people race by you before you tag or pull. And likewise, locking mechanics remove the incentive for players outside of your group to jump in and help when a fight is going poorly.
I feel like content needs to be *very* challenging, but I worry that whatever zone designers do won't be enough - more than most games, this one will be dealing with a community full of seasoned MMO veterans. We'll eat that stuff up and ask for seconds. And the harder that fights get in general, the harder it will be for truly new players to get hooked and stick with the game.
I do feel like the number of ways that players can rush to the named mobs, the boss mobs, and so on needs to be severely minimized when zones are built. If you want that kill you have to clear around them, you can't just race past other people to get at them. But at some point, that means you start removing legitimate and interesting tools from players, so there will probably always be a potential for this to occur.
I guess all of this is to say... there's a balance. I'm not sure any of us can say clearly where that balance lies, exactly. What I do know is that as we start testing, if we're finding places where you can stealth or invis past every encounter to get to a boss - we need to ask the devs to change that. If we're finding that fights are really easy with a well-formed group, we need to ask the devs to change that. If we're finding places where all the good stuff comes from the named mobs and the bosses, so that normal enemies "aren't worth it" - we need to ask the devs to change that. Finally, if we're finding zones where everyone is there for the same two or three targets - we need to ask the devs to change that, too.
I know I'll be doing my best to give lots of this type of feedback during testing, and I hope everyone else will too. And hopefully it's an area where the devs will listen to us and close the loopholes as much as possible before launch.
Having played EQ1 pretty hardcore for about 4 years, and every other serious MMO since for at least a year (AO, WoW and SWTOR being the top three), most of the fears expressed about open world content boil down to thinking of EQ1 game with WoW mechanics, and PRotF won't be that game. Allow me to explain.
If a game is designed around a non-instanced open world, then a ton of mechanics change, not just the bosses. Mobs are harder to kill, chain aggro means mistakes get everyone dead, proper death penalty mechanics mean fewer people are going to do suicide-driveby griefing, etc. If you were doing a decently deep camp in any of the EQ1 dungeons, competition didn't just appear as if from nowhere, they had to slog through all your respawns to get to you, so the result was once people clamed a deep camp, and you did "/ooc camp check?" in local chat, you knew if the slog was or wasn't worth it.
And there was almost never a time where there wasn't something open somewhere to facilitate the grind. Even at the peak of EQ1's popularity of like 800k subscribers, I could find camps both indoor and outside where I could go days and see maybe a handful of people. And if people were jerks, everyone knew about them instantly and they got put on everyone's blacklist. And blacklisted people had a tough time in EQ1 until they made an alt and straightened out their attitudes.
At the very high end, if PRotF ends up anything like EQ1, methinks the worries about competing for raid content will also be wildly overblown, since maybe two guilds on an entire server will ever even see te top end content when it is bleeding edge and they aren't super-overgeared, and given how long raid stuff took even for well organized guilds, that left a ton of contet open for everyone else, which meant it sat there totally unused until uber_guild_01 got around to going there.
Open world is better. By far. Player policed populations are better, by far. A game that makes being unpopular a very long, tough row to hoe is better, by far. Stop thinking of PRotF as a WoW clone and think of straight up old EQ1 where level slogs were real and painful, and even easy content requied a group. In a game like that, griefers get what thy deserve almost every time. Plus, instant-gratification ADHD script kiddies will try PRotF for like 30 minutes and bail. It will not appeal to that type of player, not even a little bit. IN Brad's world, spending 30 minutes ona boat doing exactly nothing IS INTENDED AND PROPER, not a flaw. The WoW kidz and their ilk will flee such a game.
Look for PRotF to settle into something like a 25-50K person playerbase who are all super dedicated to old school MMOs. Open world will be awesome in that community, you'll see.
Seems we're all relatively on the same page, then. I agree with Nephele as far as balance is concerned.
EQ had a tendency to bury very specific powerful items in very specific areas with no options whatsoever. Examples would be FBSS, GEBs, etc. Iconic EQ items that were one of a kind in classic, and have such a high demand in modern EQ (TLPs, P99) that finding these camps permafarmed is not uncommon.
EQ TLPs even have a system to spawn multiple instances of an open world zone and you'll see the camps permafarmed in all 3+ instances of the same zone. It's kind of crazy, honestly. Once someone discovers a camp in Pantheon with a very powerful drop, I don't see any way around the propagation of that information and a comparable response from the playerbase. Not unless there are sidegrades scattered across the world, in which case you end up diminishing the demand for a given item.
Balance. :thinking:
@Venjenz
I don't buy the entirety of your post.
No one in this thread is looking at Pantheon through the lens of a WoW clone. I'm well aware of what Pantheon is, in that regard.
I simply reject the idea that designing a new game with EQ mechanics is going to be a utopia of happy casuals policing a handful of bad elements. I see viewing Pantheon through a 1999 EQ lens to be as naive and misled as viewing it through the lens of a WoW clone.