Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Raiding

12345679»

Comments

  • VorthanionVorthanion Member RarePosts: 2,749
    edited February 2016
    Sinist said:
    You raid supporters are talking as if Visionary Realms will place the same amount of focus on PvEvP and raiding that SOE did and that goes against everything that Brad has said about Pantheon's real focus, which is cooperative and challenging group content. Focusing on contested content, let alone raiding spits on the face of Pantheon's mission statement.


    The less of a role that contested content and raiding play in the game, the better as far as I'm concerned.  The best way to combat the issue of instancing is to have plenty of alternate paths of progression and offering equal rewards for each path.  If you don't, then the majority will follow the singular path that offers the best reward, creating the very bottleneck and drama that brings about the need for instancing.

    I noticed this as well. The expectations by some seems to be that raiding will be a major focus to the game and the arguments about features and balance seem to reflect that bias as well.

    This concerns me as Brad has stated raiding is a smaller focus to the game, but I can not take solace in such a comment as I remember WoW and its initial claims of wanting to focus on mainly group content only to have that thrown to the curb with MC being increased to 40 man (it was originally supposed to be a 25 man) and the focus on group content was tossed to chase more and more raid content.

    I enjoyed raiding in EQ, but I did not care for contested "raid" content due to the drama . That is not to say that I can not live with contested raids, but if VR goes the EQ route (ie PoP, GoD, etc...) then I know grouping will only be some passing activity for off raid times. That I am not interested in.

    As for the "there needs to be equal paths for rewards", I am dead set against this. I have seen this in a few games and It really just turns the whole thing into a gimmick. If people want raiding gear, then raid. If people want group gear, then group. This idea that groups should receive the same rewards as a raid only harms the effort put into raids.

    My argument about raiding/group gear being no drop or not was not to say that there should be equal paths to that gear, it was to point out the hypocrisy of treating raid gear with such reverence while dismissing group gear, not that people should have equal access to both because they don't want to do one or the other. I know I can live with not having raid gear because I don't want to chase the contested raids, but I can not live with grouping being a marketing gimmick that gets throw to the side in order to chase those demanding the game turn into another Fires of Heaven private game.

    The equal rewards for different paths had to do with the different leveling areas or zones.  EQ had a huge issue with zones being empty because they lacked the rewards other zones offered.  What's the point of having ten level 10 zones if only one offers the best rewards?  This is what leads to bottlenecking, kill stealing and camp blocking.

    Why bother having overland zones if all of the best rewards are in dungeons?  Everyone will pack the dungeons and essentially ignore the rest.  Why visit Split Paw in EQ when Guk has all of the better gear.  These are issues that are easily solved and can greatly improve player behavior and enjoyment.

    image
  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    Sinist said:
    You raid supporters are talking as if Visionary Realms will place the same amount of focus on PvEvP and raiding that SOE did and that goes against everything that Brad has said about Pantheon's real focus, which is cooperative and challenging group content. Focusing on contested content, let alone raiding spits on the face of Pantheon's mission statement.


    The less of a role that contested content and raiding play in the game, the better as far as I'm concerned.  The best way to combat the issue of instancing is to have plenty of alternate paths of progression and offering equal rewards for each path.  If you don't, then the majority will follow the singular path that offers the best reward, creating the very bottleneck and drama that brings about the need for instancing.

    I noticed this as well. The expectations by some seems to be that raiding will be a major focus to the game and the arguments about features and balance seem to reflect that bias as well.

    This concerns me as Brad has stated raiding is a smaller focus to the game, but I can not take solace in such a comment as I remember WoW and its initial claims of wanting to focus on mainly group content only to have that thrown to the curb with MC being increased to 40 man (it was originally supposed to be a 25 man) and the focus on group content was tossed to chase more and more raid content.

    I enjoyed raiding in EQ, but I did not care for contested "raid" content due to the drama . That is not to say that I can not live with contested raids, but if VR goes the EQ route (ie PoP, GoD, etc...) then I know grouping will only be some passing activity for off raid times. That I am not interested in.

    As for the "there needs to be equal paths for rewards", I am dead set against this. I have seen this in a few games and It really just turns the whole thing into a gimmick. If people want raiding gear, then raid. If people want group gear, then group. This idea that groups should receive the same rewards as a raid only harms the effort put into raids.

    My argument about raiding/group gear being no drop or not was not to say that there should be equal paths to that gear, it was to point out the hypocrisy of treating raid gear with such reverence while dismissing group gear, not that people should have equal access to both because they don't want to do one or the other. I know I can live with not having raid gear because I don't want to chase the contested raids, but I can not live with grouping being a marketing gimmick that gets throw to the side in order to chase those demanding the game turn into another Fires of Heaven private game.

    The equal rewards for different paths had to do with the different leveling areas or zones.  EQ had a huge issue with zones being empty because they lacked the rewards other zones offered.  What's the point of having ten level 10 zones if only one offers the best rewards?  This is what leads to bottlenecking, kill stealing and camp blocking.
    Ah ok, I see... that is a valid point. Loot balance between zones, that makes sense. I agree.
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,630
    Amathe said:
    The importance of raiding will come into focus once we see how slow the leveling actually is, and how frequently new content is added.

    If most people are max level after [choose any period of time] and there is still no expansion in sight, people will want to raid. Because what else would they do, if there is not going to be much pvp (at least at first)? 

    You're assuming that most people raid if there is nothing else to do, but it's been proven over and over that the majority of any game's population do not raid period.
    I am probably assuming a lot of things at this early stage of development.

    But first, I'm not sure how it can be "proven" how Pantheon players will act in a game that has not been made yet.

    Second, I'm not sure from what database that "proof" has been extracted, but with reference for example to WoW players, their preferences and playstyles may not be fairly comparable to the target audience for Pantheon. 

    I would suspect many people will quit (at least for a while) if they run out of things to do. If they don't quit, they may try something they had not planned on doing. For example, I ended up doing a lot of PvP in GW2, and mostly liking it, after I reached max level - even though I had not planned on doing it all. But only because nothing else really appealed to be at that juncture. 

    My unproven observation is that even if 10-20% or less of the game is raiding, you may find you have more raiders competing for that content if they do not yet have enough alternative things to do at the time. 

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,630
    Who would I have to sleep with to convince you guys not to re-post 3 feet of text every time? It kills you when you try to read it on a cell phone. 

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    Amathe said:
    My unproven observation is that even if 10-20% or less of the game is raiding, you may find you have more raiders competing for that content if they do not yet have enough alternative things to do at the time. 
    Which is why every subtle aspect of play needs to be evaluated to how it ultimately affects progression.

    How fast loot brought into the game (rares, spawn cycles, etc...), how much of it can be bought through player trade, travel time, down time, leveling speed, intermediate side progression (ie think AAs for zones or for a certain level of content), over level content (ie content generally too high level or hard for current level ranges), extremely long and epic quests lines, etc...

    All of those add up to keeping people interested in the game. Add in some raids with some developer stalls (ie enormously difficult raids that require extraordinary skill, dedication, and flawless execution (ie AoW pre-SoL) and you can buy enough time to get some content out. Sure there will be those top % bitching about nothing to do, but you can't keep up with locusts, it only leads to gimmick mainstream features.

    I don't want VR to do "free updates" either. It is a waste of time, a gimmick, and not worth it. If they release a yearly expansion of healthy size (Kunark or Velious) and charge for the expansion, that is a good solid model in my opinion. If they charge like 40 bucks for each yearly expansion and either pro-rate or offer previous expansions free with each new expansion, this will give them development money boosts (for new art, sounds, features, etc...) with the expansion sales on top of the monthly subs keeping things spinning.


  • SavageHorizonSavageHorizon Member EpicPosts: 3,466
    If I remember correctly Vanguard didn't even have raid content for first six months or so. There was so much group contents of which some would be  considered taking raid content in many other MMOs.

    I trust Brad and I team know what they are doing rather than armchair mmo devs.




  • VorthanionVorthanion Member RarePosts: 2,749
    If I remember correctly Vanguard didn't even have raid content for first six months or so. There was so much group contents of which some would be  considered taking raid content in many other MMOs.

    I trust Brad and I team know what they are doing rather than armchair mmo devs.

    Yes, because the "professionals" know everything, including what people should and shouldn't like.  When you are in the entertainment business, logic and numbers pale in comparison to feedback and research.

    image
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    edited February 2016

    The equal rewards for different paths had to do with the different leveling areas or zones.  EQ had a huge issue with zones being empty because they lacked the rewards other zones offered.  What's the point of having ten level 10 zones if only one offers the best rewards?  This is what leads to bottlenecking, kill stealing and camp blocking.

    Why bother having overland zones if all of the best rewards are in dungeons?  Everyone will pack the dungeons and essentially ignore the rest.  Why visit Split Paw in EQ when Guk has all of the better gear.  These are issues that are easily solved and can greatly improve player behavior and enjoyment.
    This is pretty off. I don't doubt this happened down the line, but in the early years, every location offered different benefits. I found all the early areas up to Luclin to have players, not only because they all had their own perks, but because of the challenge of moving low level characters across the world.

    Regarding everyone going to dungeons rather than overland, that too is a faulty conclusion. For starters, anyone soloing or in a small/imbalanced group would fair better in overland areas. Beyond that, there were quests, rare spawns and other incentives scattered throughout, so while it may not have been the most rewarding place to level, they still gave you a reason to adventure there.


  • SinistSinist Member RarePosts: 1,369
    If I remember correctly Vanguard didn't even have raid content for first six months or so. There was so much group contents of which some would be  considered taking raid content in many other MMOs.

    I trust Brad and I team know what they are doing rather than armchair mmo devs.

    Yes, because the "professionals" know everything, including what people should and shouldn't like.  When you are in the entertainment business, logic and numbers pale in comparison to feedback and research.
    It is not that, it is rather they know their Vision and at the end of the day, that is all the matters. That is not to say they should not listen to discussion to consider and expand their own ideas, but their Vision is the template, not social whim.

    Games should not be made by questionnaire as every game that has shows it to be the case. Fact is, most offering suggestions do so not from an interest in seeing a solid game system developed, but more of a position of asking for their favorite frosting on a cake. They are concerned about "what they want" and this is often at the detriment of what is actually needed.

  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,415

    If I remember correctly Vanguard didn't even have raid content for first six months or so. There was so much group contents of which some would be  considered taking raid content in many other MMOs.

    I trust Brad and I team know what they are doing rather than armchair mmo devs.

    Yes, because the "professionals" know everything, including what people should and shouldn't like.  When you are in the entertainment business, logic and numbers pale in comparison to feedback and research.

    Those statistics are only relevant when the sample groups are the same.  If you for example go to the Berkley campus and take a pole on who they think should be the next president, and then try to apply that data across the rest of the country, you're going to fail miserably in your predictions.

    Pantheon is not another faceroll solo quest game.  Therefore all the statistics pulled from those games which show that raiders are a minority MAY NOT apply to this game. They might, but its a different group of players.

    If Jeep gets a bunch of feedback on their SUVs, that feedback is irrelevant to Honda SUV owners.

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • BenjolaBenjola Member UncommonPosts: 843
    edited February 2016
    EQ has both open world and instanced raids (best items and fights being instanced), it's very well balanced and Pantheon should be the same imo.

    There was never raid items 'saturation' in EQ because:
    - Keys and flag systems for raid zones.
    - Long respawn times of open world raids (3-7 days) and long locks for raid instances ( ~ 5 days ).
    - Big loot tables with a negative drop mod for the weapons , i.e rare drops.

    Example: To get the Darkblade of the Warlord from RZ in PoTime (best main hand for a War by a mile) it took average of 3 months raiding for every warrior.
    'Unique' enough for me.

    Also, not many guilds can handle high-end raids, it's usually 2-3 guilds per server if that.

    I was a guild leader of hardcore raiding guild (6 days a week!) for 3 years and I never felt like raid drops were raining.

    The mistake that EQ made however, is making the group dungeons instanced from 2005 on or whenever it was.
    Raid instances were fine and very well balanced.
    Pantheon should be the same, both open world + instanced raids.

    I care about your gaming 'problems' and teenage anxieties, just not today.

  • DarkswormDarksworm Member RarePosts: 1,081
    edited February 2016
    Benjola said:
    EQ has both open world and instanced raids (best items and fights being instanced), it's very well balanced and Pantheon should be the same imo.

    There was never raid items 'saturation' in EQ because:
    - Keys and flag systems for raid zones.
    - Long respawn times of open world raids (3-7 days) and long locks for raid instances ( ~ 5 days ).
    - Big loot tables with a negative drop mod for the weapons , i.e rare drops.

    Example: To get the Darkblade of the Warlord from RZ in PoTime (best main hand for a War by a mile) it took average of 3 months raiding for every warrior.
    'Unique' enough for me.

    Also, not many guilds can handle high-end raids, it's usually 2-3 guilds per server if that.

    I was a guild leader of hardcore raiding guild (6 days a week!) for 3 years and I never felt like raid drops were raining.

    The mistake that EQ made however, is making the group dungeons instanced from 2005 on or whenever it was.
    Raid instances were fine and very well balanced.
    Pantheon should be the same, both open world + instanced raids.

    Instancing is good.  I completely disagree with what you're saying about instanced dungeons, and I don't think it makes much sense.

    EQ was designed for people that want to spend 10 hours a day in a game.  The world has changed, the MMORPG market has changed.  No one has that kind of time to play a game (speaking generally) and this kind of design is unfair to casual players and people with real lives who cannot dedicated 2+ hours to sitting in a dungeon running around killing the same mobs over and over again.

    If a game has a healthy population, the lack of instancing also creates traffic jams.

    You don't seem to remember the "lists" people had to keep for group in EQ because the zone was full...  People would sit at the front of zones and wait until someone left so they could fill the spot, sometimes of hours.

    Everyone is talking about the mistakes EQ made here and there, but almost all of them are using selective memory to recall it.

    What EQ did was horrible, but people put up with it because nothing else on the market was good.  You see what happened when WoW/EQ2 released, right?  Entire guilds left EQ to go to those games...  What WoW and EQ2 did was only an extension of what EQ was already moving towards at the time they released...

    EQ2 has contested zones, and they are severely underutilized.  Almost everyone opts to do instanced dungeons, even when the Contested Zones offer comparable Loot and better XP.  People prefer objective-oriented content to mindlessly running around killing stuff, or named camping.  They like that they can spend 30 minutes doing a heroic, and get at least something for their time when they don't have hours to stay logged in doing things the EQ way.
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    edited February 2016
    Darksworm said:
    Instancing is good.
    Except that its contrary to all things massively multiplayer.
     I completely disagree with what you're saying about instanced dungeons, and I don't think it makes much sense.

    EQ was designed for people that want to spend 10 hours a day in a game.
    It really wasn't. With the exception of summers and weekends, I was usually unable to play EQ more than 3-4 hours a day maximum. What I achieved in that time was more than enough to compel me to continue logging in from day to day and striving towards my goals.
     The world has changed, the MMORPG market has changed.  No one has that kind of time to play a game (speaking generally) and this kind of design is unfair to casual players and people with real lives who cannot dedicated 2+ hours to sitting in a dungeon running around killing the same mobs over and over again.
    Pantheon is being designed around 2-3 hour play sessions. If a player doesn't feel gratified by what they are achieving in only 2 hours a day, its possible that the game is not for them. However, I think there is something to be said for a game that offers the player a great deal to work towards and discover in the long term. As I said above, even in smaller doses, I thoroughly enjoyed classic EQ.
    If a game has a healthy population, the lack of instancing also creates traffic jams.

    You don't seem to remember the "lists" people had to keep for group in EQ because the zone was full...  People would sit at the front of zones and wait until someone left so they could fill the spot, sometimes of hours.

    Everyone is talking about the mistakes EQ made here and there, but almost all of them are using selective memory to recall it.

    What EQ did was horrible, but people put up with it because nothing else on the market was good.  You see what happened when WoW/EQ2 released, right?  Entire guilds left EQ to go to those games...  
    People left EQ because WoW was doing everything that EQ did in 2004, but doing it better (I wasn't even playing EQ in 2004). I was guilded on every server I played on, and had a huge friends list. If I couldn't find a group in a particular place, I hit up a guild mate or a friend and found something else to do. That was the nature of the game. It was like a real world or something... You don't always get everything you want immediately; sometimes you have to wait for it or work towards it in other ways. That made achieving anything in EQ all the more exciting and enticing to even continue playing. Knowing that not everyone had done the things that you had done or obtained the items you obtained.
    What WoW and EQ2 did was only an extension of what EQ was already moving towards at the time they released...

    EQ2 has contested zones, and they are severely underutilized.  Almost everyone opts to do instanced dungeons, even when the Contested Zones offer comparable Loot and better XP.  People prefer objective-oriented content to mindlessly running around killing stuff, or named camping.  They like that they can spend 30 minutes doing a heroic, and get at least something for their time when they don't have hours to stay logged in doing things the EQ way.
    As far as I'm concerned, EQ2 was a horrible linear gear grind themepark. The only real sense of accomplishment the game offered came from your ability to gather the perfect group of 24 properly equipped players. That just isn't enough for everyone. Some people actually think there is more intrinsic value in something you must wait for and slowly work towards than something thats always readily available.


  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 19,332
    I would prefer ZERO raiding in my games,no need for it what so ever.

    Why take what you can design for a simple 4/5/6 man group and turn it into a messy  24 man group that also takes longer to organize and will never end up organized,just a bunch of players spamming at the Boss.

    I can take any Boss design there is and make it challenging to a 5/6 man group,i don't need to make any battle a 24 man battle.

    Raiding is actually the worst idea you can do to your game,you will always alienate a certain portion of player base.NEVER and i mean NEVER look at Wow and think anything Blizzard does makes sense because people buy into Blizzard as total fanbois,little they do makes sense.I say this because it sure seems developers are not learning,what works in Wow does not work,Blizzard could sell water to a fish in the ocean,their ideas are not working in other games,people QUIT those other games within 2 months of launch.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • KiyorisKiyoris Member RarePosts: 2,130
    edited February 2016
    Wizardry said:
    I would prefer ZERO raiding in my games,no need for it what so ever.

    Why take what you can design for a simple 4/5/6 man group and turn it into a messy  24 man group that also takes longer to organize and will never end up organized,just a bunch of players spamming at the Boss.

    I can take any Boss design there is and make it challenging to a 5/6 man group,i don't need to make any battle a 24 man battle.

    Raiding is actually the worst idea you can do to your game,you will always alienate a certain portion of player base.NEVER and i mean NEVER look at Wow and think anything Blizzard does makes sense because people buy into Blizzard as total fanbois,little they do makes sense.I say this because it sure seems developers are not learning,what works in Wow does not work,Blizzard could sell water to a fish in the ocean,their ideas are not working in other games,people QUIT those other games within 2 months of launch.
    Raiding in WoW is retarded. But raiding in EQ is actually great.

    It sure as hell is not "messy". We have officers, class leaders, MT, off-tanks, corpse draggers, pullers, CC, used to have rampage tanks, rotations, class channels.

    It's not like leeroy jenkings...


    Also, I really don't get why people who don't like raiding have to whine about it. I don't like tradeskills, but I don't demand that no one else can tradeskill. Put it in the game, I don't mind.


  • KiyorisKiyoris Member RarePosts: 2,130
    edited February 2016
    Wizardry said:
    also takes longer to organize and will never end up organized,just a bunch of players spamming at the Boss.

    Sorry you have such a bad experience with raiding, but that's not how most raids works.

    If we go raid, we start at 6.00PM, not a second later, everyone who is late gets no DKP and sits out until the next fight. Organizing the raid simply consists of inviting the guild members into the raid.

    Takes 5 minutes and the raid is underway, very little organization if you have a well working guild.

    Raiding in a good guild is actually far more organized than grouping.
Sign In or Register to comment.