I love the idea of a slow, enjoyable journey to max level. I'm going to take my time and enjoy every minute. But unless you want this to be a single player style game where people quit once they reach max level, you will need significant end game content.
I've heard that roughly 15% will be solo, 70% group, and 15% raid (or maybe its 10-80-10, whatever). I love the concept and fully approve, but once people DO reach max level we're going to need things to keep our attention. I'm not waiting 3 years for this game to be done at max level. If there are significant things OTHER than raids to do at max level - great! Either raids with my guild or other things, we need some end game content.
Don't overlook this. My guild is a p99 guild that moved to Agnarr that is waiting for Pantheon. We're an entire community that expects something more than a couple months of game content until we reach max level. Make sure we have stuff to do after max level, no matter how fast or slow we reach it.
None of us can give you that information Spryler. It will be at first like 1999 EQ, open world bosses? but future expansions we can not guess on. That is up to the devs to determine how much "End game content they supply" I dont believe the devs will be using instances, but instead zones.
Well part of this is the players fault. The maker of the game needs to finish the game at some some point and release it. Its the players fault for rushing and progressing faster than the games design. If people werent always in a race to max level first, there would not be an issue of "boredom due to no end game content". Enjoy the game as intended and this should not be an issue as it wasnt when EQ1 came out.
I guess that is my fear, that they are relying on things being like EQ1. Unfortunately the player base has gotten "better" at these games. No one knew anything about anything back then. If the player base were to go back and play EQ1 now and you could somehow give everyone amnesia, everyone would level up way faster. I am going to intentionally level as slow as humanly possible to avoid this, yet I still worry.
I just don't want it to be over too soon, despite slow playing the game.
well it is a totaly new game when it is relesed everyone is a white sheet of paper with woden weapons and toilet paper armor and level 1 in every skill and ability and 0 coins
so it will probobly take some time to level upp and get some desent gear to even start raiding , so my point is that it will take time so just have fun and enyoy the ride if you are worried by that factor =)
of course the end game tend to circle around raids, but perhaps there will be suprises like some gm events, tornaments, then you have some trade skills and aclemation system to do..so hopefully you have something to do for a long time ahead =)
Your warning is unnecessary. There will be more than enough end game content to keep you busy. And if not they will add more, just like every other MMO.
I am pretty sure they are just prepping for release now and will likely shift focus to end game when we are all happily playing the game.
But you should keep in mind that 100 hours worth of content takes 10,000 man hours to create, so people who race to the end will inevitably complete the content before more is released. That is the price of being hardcore. Also note that the hardcore players will make up a small portion of the playerbase, so don't expect to be pandered to just because you are hardcore.
End game content can be developed after release - anyone that races through a year's worth of content in a month of frantic 16 hour days and then is unhappy that there is nothing to do and no one to do it with isn't all that likely to stick around even if there are a raid or two available.
One can be very hardcore and spend years and years crafting and playing different characters - one reason I advocate subclasses or specialization trees or real differences between races so even someone that only wants to play one class can have a few of them.
We can debate Raid Instances and whether they do them or not. (They probably will).
If they don't have load-balancing(which are multiple instances of the same zone) Day 1... they're dead. Buried. Just close up shop now. And if they do use load-balancing, just drop the charade that you're not doing instances. Because you are.
The simple fact is that nobody is going to want to have 100-200 people trying to beat on one mob as soon as it pops or have mass drama over those people trying to take 4-5 camps, when those people can be split across 5-10 instances(EQ1 calls them picks). Its how it works in 2018, and it works very well.
And if they try to come up with some type of idiotic 'ghosting' mechanic like Vanguard.. Just Don't. Don't pretend these issues haven't been fully solved, and PLEASE use the TLP EQ1 servers as your starting point for raiding and grouping what was Open World Content in this style game. It works. It works well. Your 'solution', whatever it is, will probably suck and ultimately be a buggy mess that gets constantly fixed over months, if not years.. because it usually isn't well thought out. Use What Works for the server tech. If you think you're a bloody magician and have A New Way, you can implement it after everything is up and running and dazzle us with your developmental abilities then and push the genre forward.
Its going to be hard enough getting the content done on time, to be messing around with server mechanic problems that already have solutions.
I think the real problem here is going too raid heavy. The vast majority of MMORPG players do not get involved in raiding! Keep new dungeon content coming out or even new solo content, if Pantheon becomes yet another raid focused MMORPG it's going to lose because the competition will flat out have it out gunned. VR is not going to be able to compete with WoW or FFIV on raids they simply won't have that degree of resources. I'm ok with having raid content just keep in mind you are putting a ton of resources into content very few players will experience.
Let's put this in perspective: every single player will solo at some point. The vast majority of players will group at some point. A small minority of players will raid at some point, especially if the raid content is designed around large raid teams of 20 or more players. It doesn't matter if you make the raids instanced since by the very design it requires massive coordination and dedication to complete. Since I have raided quite a bit (mostly WoW in the BC/Wrath era) I know what kind of time raiding takes and even if you are in a top notch guild you will still be spending at least 3 hour sessions a couple days per week to progress. Keeping a roster to field 25 geared/skilled players who can regularly spend 3+ hours on the same schedule is a ton of work. It can also be extremely rewarding when you get a well oiled machine running with everything humming along bosses dropping every week or two and being the top guild (or close to it) on your server. But it's not something everyone has the time to do and a lot of people have zero interest in it.
There's nothing wrong with having great content for the best and/or most dedicated players...just don't get carried away. Remember hardcore gamers like myself are NOT the majority of your audience. Yes Pantheon will attract a more dedicated MMORPG player base but that doesn't mean go wild developing nothing but raids or funneling players into raid content at max level. If 75% of the playerbase quits due to a raid progression wall Pantheon will not thrive and may not even survive.
Quillim said:We can debate Raid Instances and whether they do them or not. (They probably will).
If they don't have load-balancing(which are multiple instances of the same zone) Day 1... they're dead. Buried. Just close up shop now. And if they do use load-balancing, just drop the charade that you're not doing instances. Because you are.
The simple fact is that nobody is going to want to have 100-200 people trying to beat on one mob as soon as it pops or have mass drama over those people trying to take 4-5 camps, when those people can be split across 5-10 instances(EQ1 calls them picks). Its how it works in 2018, and it works very well.
And if they try to come up with some type of idiotic 'ghosting' mechanic like Vanguard.. Just Don't. Don't pretend these issues haven't been fully solved, and PLEASE use the TLP EQ1 servers as your starting point for raiding and grouping what was Open World Content in this style game. It works. It works well. Your 'solution', whatever it is, will probably suck and ultimately be a buggy mess that gets constantly fixed over months, if not years.. because it usually isn't well thought out. Use What Works for the server tech. If you think you're a bloody magician and have A New Way, you can implement it after everything is up and running and dazzle us with your developmental abilities then and push the genre forward.
Its going to be hard enough getting the content done on time, to be messing around with server mechanic problems that already have solutions.
They have already stated that they aare not interested in instancing. They've said that *IF* they use instancing, that it will be very sparingly. There is no need to instance raid content.
spryler said:unless you want this to be a single player style game where people quit once they reach max level, you will need significant end game content.
This is not necessarily true. I urge you to go into this with an open mind. There are other systems that can be instated that will keep players playing other than raiding. Will there be raids, sure...it likely won't be the focus like in EQ from Velious and beyond.
I'm guessing you've never played a game with a system similar to progeny given your post?
Quillim said:
If they don't have load-balancing(which are multiple instances of the same zone) Day 1... they're dead. Buried. Just close up shop now. And if they do use load-balancing, just drop the charade that you're not doing instances. Because you are.
The simple fact is that nobody is going to want to have 100-200 people trying to beat on one mob as soon as it pops or have mass drama over those people trying to take 4-5 camps, when those people can be split across 5-10 instances(EQ1 calls them picks). Its how it works in 2018, and it works very well.
And if they try to come up with some type of idiotic 'ghosting' mechanic like Vanguard.. Just Don't. Don't pretend these issues haven't been fully solved, and PLEASE use the TLP EQ1 servers as your starting point for raiding and grouping what was Open World Content in this style game. It works. It works well. Your 'solution', whatever it is, will probably suck and ultimately be a buggy mess that gets constantly fixed over months, if not years.. because it usually isn't well thought out. Use What Works for the server tech. If you think you're a bloody magician and have A New Way, you can implement it after everything is up and running and dazzle us with your developmental abilities then and push the genre forward.
Its going to be hard enough getting the content done on time, to be messing around with server mechanic problems that already have solutions.
There is no reason to have mirrored zones, what you are calling load balancing, if the server populations are balanced correctly in the first place.
Mirrored zones leads to a glutton of loot and "easy " farms...which leads to a high mudflation rate and a poor economy.
Faster,easier gearing/leveling. Content trivializes faster, players progress faster...it removes a lot of the challenge that comes with item rarity.
Small server populations solve most of these issues. They also make reputation matter and less competition for camps/spawns.
With proper itemization and small server population it seems possible that these issues can be minimized. Granted, small population does make it harder to find a group...but it's better than the alternative imho.
Shards and ghosting have both been identified as potential pieces of the Pantheon puzzle. They were both used in Vanguard, although Vanguard also operated off of an FTE model rather than MDD so I'm not sure how ghosting will be leveraged in Pantheon. I think there is a very strong likelihood of seeing mirrored zones, load balancing, picks, or "shards" as they have been referred to in Pantheon. I have reservations on shards as I saw them exploited in EQ2 in a way similar to what Philo described above. Rather than players competing for resources, they would force pop a new zone and avoid other players altogether. It still feels like an instance ... just with more players. I like the idea of there only being one Amberfaet Forge in the world at any given time ... or one Thronefast King, or one Dragon X.
I'm guessing you've never played a game with a system similar to progeny given your post?
I haven't, but would love to hear about it. I don't necessarily think it has to be raids, just something to keep us busy. Someone up above mentioned GM events and tournaments as possibilities and stuff like that sounds great. My main concern is the whole 10-80-10 thing. I guess I'm as guilty as most people of being tied to the raid-as-end-game paradigm.
Raid..pshaa.. "that's so 1990"
Yes search the site for "progeny" to look for solutions to the problem you bring up.
Here's a 12 page thread buy Kilson that's closed now but shows what all has been talked about.
https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/3056/the-progeny-system-what-say-you
Oh this is what we called "trans-ing" in the MUD I played before Everquest ever came out, ChaosMUD (based on Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time world). It was race specific. When you transed you had to relevel but kept your gear and gained an additional benefit. It was race specific. The only one I remember is that one race got stoneskin, 25% less damage taken or soemthing.
I always liked that process and fully support it on Pantheon.
I wouldn't call Progeny an "end game system" but more a choice for players bored of their character, to refres their adventure into something new. I will probably never use this system, simply because I put a lot of dedication in my characters and don't consider retiring them, they are years of hours-long hardwork, and aren't meant to be put aside anytime.
However about raids, I really don't favor this format as it brings a lot of stress, competition, management, multiplied by the number of players involved. Back in EQ, they could be from 30 to 72+ players, simply because they weren't "limitated" in format due to beeing just a stack of groups in the same zone, which brings a lot trouble by itself : encounters triviality, loot sharing, screen cluttering, and that simply due to the various size of the raid. What is funny is some games now, favor a raid size of 8 people, while EQ/Pantheon's group size is 6. There isn't much of a step here, and I think 6 man group content can be way enough to capitalize on, and the raid scene is just a decoy of the starving need of end game content in games where the end is the only fulfilling meaning, and every gear is trash before that.
On "mirrored zones" I think the negative comments above reflect some ambiguity in the use of the concept.
Most of the time I have seen the concept pushed is for use over the first days or weeks or even months of the game when Gods willing we will see many people trying it out. Especially if there are no dedicated "free trial" servers and both subscribers and the hoi polloi all share the same starting areas. After this *temporary* use to avoid disaster at the rollout there should be no multiple versions of the same zone other than a limited use of instances to allow storylines to play out without interference from other players and perhaps to allow some bosses to be fought without excessive competition.
I know that even a limited use of instances as mentioned in the last paragraph is controversial - it may be best to think of "mirrored zones" as mostly a concept to avoid overcrowding in landscape zones not dungeons.
Philo's and OneADSseven's points are valid on a long-term basis but no server balancing can prevent overload and lag if there is a huge influx of players the first days (which we all should want). The choices as I see them are having multiple versions of the starting zone until the crush ebbs, or having dozens and dozens of servers on day one (perhaps each one brought on-line for use as the older ones fill up) consolidated to a far smaller number in a month or two. Since consolidation that early in the game's cycle sends the message "dying game", and in view of issues with duplicate character and guild names, we are far better off with duplicate versions of the starter zones as long as chat can be game wide not mirror wide and as long as players can move from mirror to mirror to be in the same version as friends/groupmates/guildmates.
On the broader level-cap points. Not even a massively funded game with a huge team can create raids fast enough to keep dedicated raiders that speed to level cap and then do nothing but raid happy. In Pantheon there will surely be some raids but not enough for anyone to do 24/7. By the time significant numbers of us hit level-cap there should be some raids, some festivals and events, some harvesting/collectibles, significant incentives to create new characters (whether because of progeny, subclasses, specialization trees, racial distinctions that are more than cosmetic, to group with leveling friends/guildmates and the like.) to keep most level-caps busy.
Those that want to do *nothing* but raid simply are unlikely to stay there isn't likely to be enough for them.
Quillim said:We can debate Raid Instances and whether they do them or not. (They probably will).
If they don't have load-balancing(which are multiple instances of the same zone) Day 1... they're dead. Buried. Just close up shop now. And if they do use load-balancing, just drop the charade that you're not doing instances. Because you are.
Lol. Someone is clueless. You are going to be sorely disappointed buddy.
Quillim said:We can debate Raid Instances and whether they do them or not. (They probably will).
If they don't have load-balancing(which are multiple instances of the same zone) Day 1... they're dead. Buried. Just close up shop now. And if they do use load-balancing, just drop the charade that you're not doing instances. Because you are.
The simple fact is that nobody is going to want to have 100-200 people trying to beat on one mob as soon as it pops or have mass drama over those people trying to take 4-5 camps, when those people can be split across 5-10 instances(EQ1 calls them picks). Its how it works in 2018, and it works very well.
And if they try to come up with some type of idiotic 'ghosting' mechanic like Vanguard.. Just Don't. Don't pretend these issues haven't been fully solved, and PLEASE use the TLP EQ1 servers as your starting point for raiding and grouping what was Open World Content in this style game. It works. It works well. Your 'solution', whatever it is, will probably suck and ultimately be a buggy mess that gets constantly fixed over months, if not years.. because it usually isn't well thought out. Use What Works for the server tech. If you think you're a bloody magician and have A New Way, you can implement it after everything is up and running and dazzle us with your developmental abilities then and push the genre forward.
Its going to be hard enough getting the content done on time, to be messing around with server mechanic problems that already have solutions.
Hello, did you read http://www.pantheonmmo.com/game/pantheon_difference/ before pledging ? I bet there is a handfull load of information you could use !
If i had to pick over more progression content or raid content i would pick the former. Some raid content while progressing would be good.
As for instances. They really should have something for overpopulations. For those who don't like instances, it's could just be for launch starting areas. It doesn't have to be for raiding zones.
dorotea said:End game content can be developed after release - anyone that races through a year's worth of content in a month of frantic 16 hour days and then is unhappy that there is nothing to do and no one to do it with isn't all that likely to stick around even if there are a raid or two available.
One can be very hardcore and spend years and years crafting and playing different characters - one reason I advocate subclasses or specialization trees or real differences between races so even someone that only wants to play one class can have a few of them.
Completely agree. The main thing I have been noticing are the ones that say they are hardcore and have not done anything beyond the storylines or quest content. It used to mean when you were “hardcore” you had done all of the objectives available in the game to an advanced level. It seems we have a real narrow band of players that go the full route anymore.
Good post
Ox
Instances may well be the bane of MMOs but that is where they have been taken to excess. Any tool may be used for weal or for woe; instances aren't inherently evil in and of themselves.
Server transfers if one server is too crowded and another is too empty - yes.
But a temporary flood of people checking the game out isn't overpopulation and multiple versions of the starter zone isn't the type of instance many of us foam at the mouth thinking of.