Larger goals, less chain quest

2»

Comments

  • ThebeastttThebeasttt Grah, ALMember RarePosts: 1,079
    Even at Vanguard launch every single class could solo to cap. Not sure why people are still pretending that game wasn't awful but any attempt to recreate it is folly. If you really love Vanguard so much go join the other 5 people trying to make the emulator.
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 23,433
    Even at Vanguard launch every single class could solo to cap. Not sure why people are still pretending that game wasn't awful but any attempt to recreate it is folly. If you really love Vanguard so much go join the other 5 people trying to make the emulator.
    Not sure what you are on about but I subscribed to Vanguard right up to the announcement they were closing it.

    Recreate it being folly? I strongly suspect that if this game has the general spirit, the world, the interesting classes reminiscent of Vanguard then it will most likely be on of a very few mmo's I play.
    skadad



  • ThebeastttThebeasttt Grah, ALMember RarePosts: 1,079
    Sovrath said:
    Even at Vanguard launch every single class could solo to cap. Not sure why people are still pretending that game wasn't awful but any attempt to recreate it is folly. If you really love Vanguard so much go join the other 5 people trying to make the emulator.
    Not sure what you are on about but I subscribed to Vanguard right up to the announcement they were closing it.

    Recreate it being folly? I strongly suspect that if this game has the general spirit, the world, the interesting classes reminiscent of Vanguard then it will most likely be on of a very few mmo's I play.

    You flushing money on Vanguard clearly makes it a good game.
  • delete5230delete5230 Member RarePosts: 4,345
    Sovrath said:
    Even at Vanguard launch every single class could solo to cap. Not sure why people are still pretending that game wasn't awful but any attempt to recreate it is folly. If you really love Vanguard so much go join the other 5 people trying to make the emulator.
    Not sure what you are on about but I subscribed to Vanguard right up to the announcement they were closing it.

    Recreate it being folly? I strongly suspect that if this game has the general spirit, the world, the interesting classes reminiscent of Vanguard then it will most likely be on of a very few mmo's I play.

    You flushing money on Vanguard clearly makes it a good game.

    VANGUARD IN A NUT SHELL:


    Vanguard was released a mess, I'll not get into the politics behind release because this is short and sweet.


    It was sold to SOE and they added a good starting area this is true. BUT they did a bad job of MARKETING AND RE-ADVERTIZING.


    Very few knew about the re-release and people only trickled in a few at a time in a game that was made for mass population.


    Every night 10 new players in 10 new players out !!!!!.....This continually kept the population at a few hundred at any given time..... Yet everyone loved the game and the main complaint was low population. People were willing to put up with the bugs BUT NO POPULATION AT ANY GIVEN TIME.


    SOE killed it, they did not save it like many here would try and tell you :(
    Distopia
  • SavageHorizonSavageHorizon ParisMember RarePosts: 3,328
    Even at Vanguard launch every single class could solo to cap. Not sure why people are still pretending that game wasn't awful but any attempt to recreate it is folly. If you really love Vanguard so much go join the other 5 people trying to make the emulator.

    Every single mmo today allows all classes to solo but how quick and easily you get there depends on which class. 

    Try soloing a rogue in Vanguard to top level before they changed the xp lol, good luck with that. 

    Don't like how the game is being made then don't play it. 




  • svannsvann san jose, CAMember UncommonPosts: 2,030
    Even at Vanguard launch every single class could solo to cap. Not sure why people are still pretending that game wasn't awful but any attempt to recreate it is folly. If you really love Vanguard so much go join the other 5 people trying to make the emulator.
    Nothing wrong with soloing to cap.
    The important thing is:
    1. XP was hugely better in groups
    2. You couldnt solo dungeons unless you were far over leveled.
    jimmywolf
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,459
    Even if every class has the potential to solo, you should hit a wall without grouping. Soloing should be a privilege afforded to you by other means such as item and ability upgrades. If you are level 15 still wearing starter gear because you refuse to do group content, you should get destroyed by mobs around your level.

    On the other hand, if you have grouped and are well equipped, then you should have more ability to solo.
    Distopiadeniter


  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAMember LegendaryPosts: 23,433
    edited May 2017
    Sovrath said:
    Even at Vanguard launch every single class could solo to cap. Not sure why people are still pretending that game wasn't awful but any attempt to recreate it is folly. If you really love Vanguard so much go join the other 5 people trying to make the emulator.
    Not sure what you are on about but I subscribed to Vanguard right up to the announcement they were closing it.

    Recreate it being folly? I strongly suspect that if this game has the general spirit, the world, the interesting classes reminiscent of Vanguard then it will most likely be on of a very few mmo's I play.

    You flushing money on Vanguard clearly makes it a good game.


    "to me".

    Thank you for playing.
    Post edited by Sovrath on
    skadad



  • lahnmirlahnmir UtrechtMember RarePosts: 1,012
    edited May 2017
    Mendel said:
    lahnmir said:
    I think questing is so undefined that by focusing a bit more you could make a world look more real, give players a proper choice in what kind of activity to engage and make stuff more fun.

    Let me explain.

    -Why not call quests that have you kill X amount of said creature Hunts? Let every settlement have a Hunters Guild where you can pick up hunts to partake in in the vicinity. It makes sense location and world wise and for those that want to farm on monsters a bit there is a clear direction in where to go.

    -Why not call quests where you have to deliver goods from A to B errands? You could pick these up from traders and wandering merchants. They are focused on traveling and exploring for players that want to do that.

    -And let actual Quests be multi step adventures, let them have a complete story and take up a lot of time. Do it like TSW but a bit longer. Instead of a 100+ questlog you would have 1 or 2 quests that would take you the better part of a day. But you sure as hell would remember them and feel like you truly accomplished something.

    Just some ideas but I think that by distinguishing stuff like this you get a more real and rewarding experience. Of course all of it needs to be optional and on an equal level when it comes to rewards. A bit more non combat stuff would be great too. Treasure hunting, exploring, gathering, crafting etc.

    I don't mind quests or quest chains but they need to have meaning and make sense.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    So, you're advocating throwing a thesaurus at the issue?  I don't see how that helps getting a "more real and rewarding experience", unless these different labels come complete with different combat mechanisms.  If success is a matter of 'hit rat A with sword B', the changed name does nothing to increase my immersion.

    In a game trying to focus on group play, why have traditional quests, anyway?  After all, most quests have been designed for a solo player with individual rewards.  That doesn't really promote grouping.  If anything, it encourages solo play.  It seems a bit counter-productive to have individual quests in a game focusing on group play.
    Uhhm no. Not just different labels, different experiences that players can pick from instead of the big, undefined heap called quests we have now. Not only more 'real' but also more clear so players can pick what they want. Gameplay experience differs between groups of course, grinding skeletons because of an undead infestation is not the same as running an errand, I thought that was clear from my original post. It has nothing to do with putting labels on anything, I don't know where you got that from, the wording is the least of my worries.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    Post edited by lahnmir on
    Hawkaya399
    'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'

    Kyleran on yours sincerely 

  • lahnmirlahnmir UtrechtMember RarePosts: 1,012

    Scorchien said:
    Wizardry said:
    I believe in a grouping game but not FORCED via fake looking objective scenarios.
    Example one of my biggest peeves is forced grouping because a dungeon is so littered with mobs,you can't breathe without running into one or 20.Point being,sure it might be tougher to get to the other side of the mountain to do a quest,but WHY is it tougher?Is it tougher just because the dev just jotted down some higher level mobs?Or is it perhaps a watering hole where some scary mobs go to drink or get relief from the desert heat?My point is that there is a BIG difference from designing a world and just generating a game.I can get a generated game anywhere,they are a dime a dozen,a hand crafted world,now that takes effort and polish and should be commended.

    Can't a developer design a map that looks realistic with mobs in certain areas because it makes sense and not just there to give us something to kill.Or a dungeon with some Boss at the end of the tunnel that the ONLY reason anyone goes in is to kill the Boss for some loot.That is where deep systems come in,you do quests for favor with perhaps your King or nation or town to get some specific currency or favor to get better quests/rewards.

    Bottom line is that the constant lean towards some Boss at the end of a tunnel needs to stop.Like WHY is the Boss at the end of the tunnel,why not the start or why is he even in that tunnel?

    The ENTIRE design concepts/systems need to be good or it ruins the entire game. A perfect example was Vanguard,i get one pixel to close to a fort and the entire fort came running at the exact same time,it looks retarded FAKE and turns me right off.I need to see stuff that just "makes sense",realistic sense.



       Someone doesnt know how to break a spawn and pull , i lvled 3 toons to max and countless other alts in Vanguard ...... Never experienced what you described
    That is because you actually played the game  ;)

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'

    Kyleran on yours sincerely 

  • DistopiaDistopia Baltimore, MDMember EpicPosts: 21,175
    Dullahan said:
    Even if every class has the potential to solo, you should hit a wall without grouping. Soloing should be a privilege afforded to you by other means such as item and ability upgrades. If you are level 15 still wearing starter gear because you refuse to do group content, you should get destroyed by mobs around your level.

    On the other hand, if you have grouped and are well equipped, then you should have more ability to solo.
    Slapping a brick wall in front of someone's progression in that manner isn't very sound. There are better ways to promote grouping. The same goes to your gear comments, there are better ways to reward grouping than making that the only source of reward.

    THe whole point of solo play is to ensure there's always a reason to log in.  That is especially important for a sub based experience. Purposefully making a game only playable under the right circumstance is counter productive to the ultimate goal of a service based product ( keeping folks coming back).

    No one should expect to down an elite mob or tackle a dungeon solo.  However, Killing basic things for XP should always be doable just don't reward with high XP. This should also allow for attaining the very basics of gear ( for armor rating based gear yet not with stats). 

    This also helps people to learn on their own, better preparing them for a harder group encounter. 

    Torval

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • Hawkaya399Hawkaya399 Member UncommonPosts: 234
    The problem with group-based MMO's is always how they handle grouping. Incoming population almost certainly will dramatically fall after the first several months. And there will be some older players who quit too, keeping in mind launch is usually far larger than those who end up staying. When the pops do fall, the players will find it increasingly hard to make groups over the months and years after. This inevitably causes strain and t he development team is forced to give htem either soloing capabilities or faster methods of travel and forming groups. To some amount, most MMORPGs are now solo-friendly both because players like hte convenience AND because population is bound to fall and so it can't hurt to refrain from relying on groups too much.

    This doesn't mean grouping can't be done other ways. I really think there's room here fro improvement. I don't mean just simply adding insta-grouping or cross-server grouping to the MMO. That's the gut reaction and obviously many MMO's have or are trying it, but just like instances are used so commonly to solve probelms, it doesn't mean there's no other way to approach it.
  • MendelMendel Marietta, GAMember RarePosts: 1,922
    lahnmir said:
    Mendel said:
    lahnmir said:
    I think questing is so undefined that by focusing a bit more you could make a world look more real, give players a proper choice in what kind of activity to engage and make stuff more fun.

    Let me explain.

    -Why not call quests that have you kill X amount of said creature Hunts? Let every settlement have a Hunters Guild where you can pick up hunts to partake in in the vicinity. It makes sense location and world wise and for those that want to farm on monsters a bit there is a clear direction in where to go.

    -Why not call quests where you have to deliver goods from A to B errands? You could pick these up from traders and wandering merchants. They are focused on traveling and exploring for players that want to do that.

    -And let actual Quests be multi step adventures, let them have a complete story and take up a lot of time. Do it like TSW but a bit longer. Instead of a 100+ questlog you would have 1 or 2 quests that would take you the better part of a day. But you sure as hell would remember them and feel like you truly accomplished something.

    Just some ideas but I think that by distinguishing stuff like this you get a more real and rewarding experience. Of course all of it needs to be optional and on an equal level when it comes to rewards. A bit more non combat stuff would be great too. Treasure hunting, exploring, gathering, crafting etc.

    I don't mind quests or quest chains but they need to have meaning and make sense.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    So, you're advocating throwing a thesaurus at the issue?  I don't see how that helps getting a "more real and rewarding experience", unless these different labels come complete with different combat mechanisms.  If success is a matter of 'hit rat A with sword B', the changed name does nothing to increase my immersion.

    In a game trying to focus on group play, why have traditional quests, anyway?  After all, most quests have been designed for a solo player with individual rewards.  That doesn't really promote grouping.  If anything, it encourages solo play.  It seems a bit counter-productive to have individual quests in a game focusing on group play.
    Uhhm no. Not just different labels, different experiences that players can pick from instead of the big, undefined heap called quests we have now. Not only more 'real' but also more clear so players can pick what they want. Gameplay experience differs between groups of course, grinding skeletons because of an undead infestation is not the same as running an errand, I thought that was clear from my original post. It has nothing to do with putting labels on anything, I don't know where you got that from, the wording is the least of my worries.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    Okay, changing the wording is exactly what you advocated.  How are these Hunts, Errands and Adventures going to produce any difference in the game play, other than allowing people to select or reject them by sight?  Now, if your hunts didn't rely on the main combat system, and instead required you to set traps or snares or some kind of herding, it could be a useful distinction.   A non-lethal hunt.  A shepherd that wants you to gather his sheep for sheering doesn't expect a pile of sheep corpses -- he wants to shear them and have the sheep produce more wool for him again next season.   I don't see the Pantheon team being creative enough to venture that far outside of traditional methods.

    If these names are using the combat system, they are simply subcategories of Quest without any meaningful distinction.  It seems that you're simply asking for labels (more information) to make an Accept / Decline button push easier.  How about read the quest description? 

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,459
    edited May 2017
    Distopia said:
    Dullahan said:
    Even if every class has the potential to solo, you should hit a wall without grouping. Soloing should be a privilege afforded to you by other means such as item and ability upgrades. If you are level 15 still wearing starter gear because you refuse to do group content, you should get destroyed by mobs around your level.

    On the other hand, if you have grouped and are well equipped, then you should have more ability to solo.
    Slapping a brick wall in front of someone's progression in that manner isn't very sound. There are better ways to promote grouping. The same goes to your gear comments, there are better ways to reward grouping than making that the only source of reward.

    THe whole point of solo play is to ensure there's always a reason to log in.  That is especially important for a sub based experience. Purposefully making a game only playable under the right circumstance is counter productive to the ultimate goal of a service based product ( keeping folks coming back).

    No one should expect to down an elite mob or tackle a dungeon solo.  However, Killing basic things for XP should always be doable just don't reward with high XP. This should also allow for attaining the very basics of gear ( for armor rating based gear yet not with stats). 

    This also helps people to learn on their own, better preparing them for a harder group encounter. 

    I agree with you to a degree. However, it wasn't people's ability to solo that kept them logging into EQ. It was that there was always something to achieve, and that was largely because the vast majority of it could not be achieved solo. That fact also made the game much more social, and created a bond between players and the world that hasn't existed in games where soloing has been the primary mode of progression.
    Post edited by Dullahan on
    DistopiaHawkaya399


  • AmatheAmathe Miami, FLMember EpicPosts: 3,022
    "Even if every class has the potential to solo, you should hit a wall without grouping. Soloing should be a privilege afforded to you by other means such as item and ability upgrades. If you are level 15 still wearing starter gear because you refuse to do group content, you should get destroyed by mobs around your level.

    On the other hand, if you have grouped and are well equipped, then you should have more ability to solo."

    VR is promoting the game on its website as one where soloing will be possible, albeit easier for some classes than for others. From the FAQ; "While most content will be designed for groups, there will typically also be content that is soloable. Some classes may solo better than other classes."

    I think the the word "possible" is misleading if anyone who primarily or exclusively solos will quickly become unable to fight against mobs their own level and will be destroyed if they try.

    If that is the case, then maybe the FAQ should be edited to state: "While most content will be designed for groups, there will typically also be content that is soloable, provided you are content to fight only mobs below your level and have only trash gear and understand you will be destroyed if you fight anything but solo green cons by yourself. "

    It's totally up to VR how much and how little solo content they have. I'm not trying to tell them how to make their game, or advocate for more of one thing or another. I just think that if you are correct about how failsauce soloing will be, then a lot of people may get the wrong idea from the FAQ, as it stands today anyway. 
    Distopia

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

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,459
    Amathe said:
    VR is promoting the game on its website as one where soloing will be possible, albeit easier for some classes than for others. From the FAQ; "While most content will be designed for groups, there will typically also be content that is soloable. Some classes may solo better than other classes."

    I think the the word "possible" is misleading if anyone who primarily or exclusively solos will quickly become unable to fight against mobs their own level and will be destroyed if they try.

    If that is the case, then maybe the FAQ should be edited to state: "While most content will be designed for groups, there will typically also be content that is soloable, provided you are content to fight only mobs below your level and have only trash gear and understand you will be destroyed if you fight anything but solo green cons by yourself. "

    It's totally up to VR how much and how little solo content they have. I'm not trying to tell them how to make their game, or advocate for more of one thing or another. I just think that if you are correct about how failsauce soloing will be, then a lot of people may get the wrong idea from the FAQ, as it stands today anyway. 
    I never said my view on the topic was necessarily representative of what Visionary Realms had in mind. They have given the impression that it will be highly situational. I just hope the situation is dictated by how well equipped your character is. I really don't want to see certain classes able to succeed soloing while basically naked (as it was in EQ).

    I simply believe without the proper equipment, the caster should run out of mana, the melee should fail to dodge or absorb the necessary damage to have much success soloing.
    Distopia


  • Hawkaya399Hawkaya399 Member UncommonPosts: 234
    edited May 2017
    Dullahan said:

    *snip*

    I agree with you to a degree. However, it wasn't people's ability to solo that kept them logging into EQ. It was that there was always something to achieve, and that was largely because the vast majority of it could not be achieved solo. That fact also made the game much more social, and created a bond between players and the world that hasn't existed in games where soloing has been the primary mode of progression.
    I agree with you so strongly there. You hit it right on the head. However, it isn't popular these days. There could be a number of reasons. Maybe most gamers evolved past that to preferring solo-play. Whatever the reason, enforced-grouping isn't popular. There're countless numbers of MMORPGs now to prove this.

    But lets assume there's a small population of gamers who still like that. Let me ask, which reason below is the reason we liked Everquest....
    1. "That fact also made the game much more social, and created a bond between players..."
    2. "It was that there was always something to achieve, and that was largely because the vast majority of it could not be achieved solo."
    See what I'm asking? The impetus to play may not be social at all. The social element is just along for the ride. It may also be the case a social element isn't required for "always something to achieve." A game might have a yuuuuge mountain to climb for soloers, maybe periodically wiping or using permadeath.

    I'm in your camp, mind you. I'm being the devils advocate here.

    Here:
    http://www.vg247.com/2013/06/29/firefall-boss-feels-mmo-developers-have-killed-a-genre-by-catering-to-accessibility-over-achievement/
    Kern said one of the many ways the genre has been “killed” is the sense of achievement players felt when overcoming a difficult quest or mission. When the difficulty curve is lessened, so is the sense of fulfillment. “

    When the bar is lowered so that everyone can reach max level quickly, it makes getting to max level the only sense of accomplishment in the game,” he said. “We lose the whole journey in between, a journey that is supposed to feel fun and rewarding on its own. Nobody stops to admire a beautiful zone or listen to story or lore, because there is no time to do so.
    I agree with this below:
    https://slashlfg.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/the-importance-of-mmo-history-and-why-developer-hand-holding-is-killing-it-penny-arcade-com/
    The neverending attempts by developers to streamline their MMOs, to keep players on a steady progression track, may actually be killing the common bond that the community has by removing opportunities for history to be made.
    Post edited by Hawkaya399 on
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,459
    Dullahan said:

    *snip*

    I agree with you to a degree. However, it wasn't people's ability to solo that kept them logging into EQ. It was that there was always something to achieve, and that was largely because the vast majority of it could not be achieved solo. That fact also made the game much more social, and created a bond between players and the world that hasn't existed in games where soloing has been the primary mode of progression.
    I agree with you so strongly there. You hit it right on the head. However, it isn't popular these days. There could be a number of reasons. Maybe most gamers evolved past that to preferring solo-play. Whatever the reason, enforced-grouping isn't popular. There're countless numbers of MMORPGs now to prove this.

    But lets assume there's a small population of gamers who still like that. Let me ask, which reason below is the reason we liked Everquest....
    1. "That fact also made the game much more social, and created a bond between players..."
    2. "It was that there was always something to achieve, and that was largely because the vast majority of it could not be achieved solo."
    See what I'm asking? The impetus to play may not be social at all. The social element is just along for the ride. It may also be the case a social element isn't required for "always something to achieve." A game might have a yuuuuge mountain to climb for soloers, maybe periodically wiping or using permadeath.

    I'm in your camp, mind you. I'm being the devils advocate here.

    Here:
    http://www.vg247.com/2013/06/29/firefall-boss-feels-mmo-developers-have-killed-a-genre-by-catering-to-accessibility-over-achievement/
    Kern said one of the many ways the genre has been “killed” is the sense of achievement players felt when overcoming a difficult quest or mission. When the difficulty curve is lessened, so is the sense of fulfillment. “

    When the bar is lowered so that everyone can reach max level quickly, it makes getting to max level the only sense of accomplishment in the game,” he said. “We lose the whole journey in between, a journey that is supposed to feel fun and rewarding on its own. Nobody stops to admire a beautiful zone or listen to story or lore, because there is no time to do so.
    I agree with this below:
    https://slashlfg.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/the-importance-of-mmo-history-and-why-developer-hand-holding-is-killing-it-penny-arcade-com/
    The neverending attempts by developers to streamline their MMOs, to keep players on a steady progression track, may actually be killing the common bond that the community has by removing opportunities for history to be made.
    I'd say it isn't popular entirely because that was the direction the most success MMO went. It wasn't something that was voted on, but something they determined would improve their bottom line, even if it was at the expense of their current players.

    In other words, it will be popular again once it's utilized again. The casual players who wandered into MMOs due to WoW and it's subsequent clones may not find heavily cooperative MMOs attractive, but they will only come and go regardless. They cannot be the target audience of Pantheon, or really any other mmo that plans to be around long-term. They're too unreliable.

    Yes, fans of traditional mmorpgs are interested, in large part, because of the player interaction. That was the whole point of the genre from the get-go, and something that's been abandoned to appeal to people who are not fans of fantasy, rpgs, roleplay, or even multiplay.

    Is it possible to keep people around using solo content? History says no, but the reality is possibly if you had enough money to continually create the necessary content. That would be totally out of the realm of possibility for Pantheon, as well as out of scope from their core philosophy.
    Hawkaya399


  • lahnmirlahnmir UtrechtMember RarePosts: 1,012
    Mendel said:
    lahnmir said:
    Mendel said:
    lahnmir said:
    I think questing is so undefined that by focusing a bit more you could make a world look more real, give players a proper choice in what kind of activity to engage and make stuff more fun.

    Let me explain.

    -Why not call quests that have you kill X amount of said creature Hunts? Let every settlement have a Hunters Guild where you can pick up hunts to partake in in the vicinity. It makes sense location and world wise and for those that want to farm on monsters a bit there is a clear direction in where to go.

    -Why not call quests where you have to deliver goods from A to B errands? You could pick these up from traders and wandering merchants. They are focused on traveling and exploring for players that want to do that.

    -And let actual Quests be multi step adventures, let them have a complete story and take up a lot of time. Do it like TSW but a bit longer. Instead of a 100+ questlog you would have 1 or 2 quests that would take you the better part of a day. But you sure as hell would remember them and feel like you truly accomplished something.

    Just some ideas but I think that by distinguishing stuff like this you get a more real and rewarding experience. Of course all of it needs to be optional and on an equal level when it comes to rewards. A bit more non combat stuff would be great too. Treasure hunting, exploring, gathering, crafting etc.

    I don't mind quests or quest chains but they need to have meaning and make sense.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    So, you're advocating throwing a thesaurus at the issue?  I don't see how that helps getting a "more real and rewarding experience", unless these different labels come complete with different combat mechanisms.  If success is a matter of 'hit rat A with sword B', the changed name does nothing to increase my immersion.

    In a game trying to focus on group play, why have traditional quests, anyway?  After all, most quests have been designed for a solo player with individual rewards.  That doesn't really promote grouping.  If anything, it encourages solo play.  It seems a bit counter-productive to have individual quests in a game focusing on group play.
    Uhhm no. Not just different labels, different experiences that players can pick from instead of the big, undefined heap called quests we have now. Not only more 'real' but also more clear so players can pick what they want. Gameplay experience differs between groups of course, grinding skeletons because of an undead infestation is not the same as running an errand, I thought that was clear from my original post. It has nothing to do with putting labels on anything, I don't know where you got that from, the wording is the least of my worries.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    Okay, changing the wording is exactly what you advocated.  How are these Hunts, Errands and Adventures going to produce any difference in the game play, other than allowing people to select or reject them by sight?  Now, if your hunts didn't rely on the main combat system, and instead required you to set traps or snares or some kind of herding, it could be a useful distinction.   A non-lethal hunt.  A shepherd that wants you to gather his sheep for sheering doesn't expect a pile of sheep corpses -- he wants to shear them and have the sheep produce more wool for him again next season.   I don't see the Pantheon team being creative enough to venture that far outside of traditional methods.

    If these names are using the combat system, they are simply subcategories of Quest without any meaningful distinction.  It seems that you're simply asking for labels (more information) to make an Accept / Decline button push easier.  How about read the quest description? 
    It seems I am not getting across what I mean. I do actually mean different types of gameplay, just identified and logically categorized, not labels, that is what you put on it at the end. For all I care the Hunts could be a full blown Monster Hunter experience and the Quests would be like mini adventure games. That was not the point I was trying to make. So either I am having trouble conveying my ideas or you are having a hard time understanding what I mean, your assumption on what I mean however is wrong and I tried to rectify that in my second post already.

    /Cheers,
    Lahnmir
    'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'

    Kyleran on yours sincerely 

  • QuillimQuillim El Cajon, CAMember UncommonPosts: 83
    Honestly.. I see no problem with how its been done in EQ1 for a while. Each zone has sets of quests that give various amounts of xp and have you tour the zone. Finish all the quests and you get some sort of shiny. If you don't want the shiny or need the xp, don't do the quests. It also has the advantage of getting people to experience a lot of the content, rather than perma-camping one particular spot.

    It wasn't nicknamed Everkill for no reason. Just like that other game World of Warquest. Some middle ground would be great.
  • Nightbringe1Nightbringe1 Bluefield, WVMember UncommonPosts: 1,282

    I don't need or way quests as a mechanism pushing people to tour a zone.


    I want quests as a storytelling mechanism used primarily for faction, currency and, for the move involved quest, an item worth owning.

    It is perfectly fine for an individual quest to involve many zones in widely separated geographic locations, as long as the story supports it.

    jimmywolf

    Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
    Benjamin Franklin

  • jimmywolfjimmywolf henderson, NVMember UncommonPosts: 156
    agree something nice as a epic or long quest would be

    " a farmer daughter is missing an he want you find her. you find a spot with random gnolls  that have killed her, you bring back pendant turn out gnoll are from another zone an should not be here an he wants to know why to help her soul rest.



     you explore X zone later find a random named gnoll kill him an get a bloody note turn out a boss gnoll wanted make name for himself so he expand out killed farmer daughter. you go too X dungeon kill the  boss he drops a shiny metal orb, you let farmer know  he has no clue but he knows a guy that study artifacts  in a city that is famous. turn out the shiny metal is a rare alloy they can craft you a weapon/armor from it."



    that could be end of a long chain or could keep going, it would encourage exploring, grouping an could lead to other chain quest in different regions. can even make it were finding pendant first leads to farmer still wanting closure.



  • delete5230delete5230 Member RarePosts: 4,345

    I don't need or way quests as a mechanism pushing people to tour a zone.


    I want quests as a storytelling mechanism used primarily for faction, currency and, for the move involved quest, an item worth owning.

    It is perfectly fine for an individual quest to involve many zones in widely separated geographic locations, as long as the story supports it.


    So you would like individual quest like the other 300 mmos were people are playing solo. 

    "Don't bother me I have to get my story line done, because the game demand it"

    Look, I'm all for some solo content for times when no one is around, your feeling shy on a given day or you just want to craft.  Infact if the game is LARGE enough maybe even a lot.  But still even if it's a lot it would still be only 10%.  Last thing we need is a long story line like every other game.

     Their is a reason this game is popular even if its two years away....It's because it's an mmo not an online game !






  • Nightbringe1Nightbringe1 Bluefield, WVMember UncommonPosts: 1,282
    edited May 2017

    I don't need or way quests as a mechanism pushing people to tour a zone.


    I want quests as a storytelling mechanism used primarily for faction, currency and, for the move involved quest, an item worth owning.

    It is perfectly fine for an individual quest to involve many zones in widely separated geographic locations, as long as the story supports it.


    So you would like individual quest like the other 300 mmos were people are playing solo. 






    Nowhere in my quests did I mention XP as a reward.

    Nor, did I use the word solo, though I have no issue with quests being complete solo in part, or in whole.

    Questing should not be a primary means of gaining experience or leveling, though they may have a secondary effect of being the deciding factor as to which zones choose to spend your time, or influence what you do while outside a group.

    An example might be a quest for robes crafted from phase spider silk; except phase spiders are uncommon creatures found only deep underground and difficult to solo. It's going to take a lot of time and effort in the appropriate location to gather enough silk, and your really going to wants a groups help. The rest of group, however, will be in the area for XP, camping the named mobs around the Spider Queen's lair, and gathering crafting components that are both valuable and difficult to acquire solo.

    Separate from the acquisition of the phase spider silk, you probably had to develop faction appropriate for the location of the master tailor, acquire a few other materials that may, or may not have required a group, and traveled a considerable distance to and from the Spider Caves of Doom. These need not all be sequential steps, but rather a shopping list that allows for some degree of player discretion as to completion order.

    Incidental to the silks, you probably leveled one or more times and may have picked some loot from the named in the area. What you won't do is ditch your group once you acquire your last silk. At least, not if you want to be invites back to group with the same people in the future.


    Post edited by Nightbringe1 on

    Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
    Benjamin Franklin

Sign In or Register to comment.