Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Pantheon doing level scaling? Seriously?

1235

Comments

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited September 2017
    Iselin said:
    Nyctelios said:
    Most people complaining about scaling seems to put too much faith in their flat numbers. Game designs should put weight in the player skill. So scaling can't take that from you.

    You are grouping with low levels in a starter area. A wild boss appears. They don't know how to deal with certain adversities such encounter may create, you do.

    If stripping your flat numbers means the game took away your progression I think you are just empty as a person and forgets what the word play means.
    In an ideal world...  I just don't think it's realistic.

    The carrot's on the stick for a reason in these games.  Not saying I don't wish it were different, simply trying to be realistic.
    But there are different carrots: the leveling carrot, the gear carrot, the story carrot...

    You can take any of these games apart, and examine their entrails in detail. The more you do that, the less realistic they become. :)
    True that, but I think there's an overarching reason they've traditionally held similar carrots.  What I would call the "ooh shiny!" carrots, which includes not just new gear but new status symbols via aesthetics, titles, etc.

    With that said, I'd very much like to see that treadmill system flipped on its head.  I just have a hard time imagining in my mind's eye a system that would hold the player's attention more effectively.  Even in immensely popular games outside the genre, such as Destiny, we can see that "ooh shiny!" carrot is extremely popular and extremely effective.  They even provide an easy overview of your current carrot level (light level) that helps you compare where you are to what's next for your gameplay agenda.  Other than farming those light levels, there's not much of a point to Destiny after you complete the story missions.

    Imagine the reaction had Bungie eliminated light level progression, instead relying solely on solid gunplay to keep you playing the same missions over and over with no real point or progression to be had.  That ooh shiny! carrot is dangerously tasty!

    Story carrots could hold it better and would be more enjoyable for me, but that requires a metric shit ton more dev time to keep a constant stream of quality story content coming.

    image
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 18,346
    Dealing with a serious concern the wrong way does not make it a good idea.

    Without a lot of effort or thought,just going on what i know from my fave game,it can be and there are easy ways to create longevity in a fashion that players will enjoy.

    Sub class,with 20 classes that is a LOT of leveling to raise all the various classes to attain a more versatile character.

    What is baffling is that almost every single developer saw it right in front of their eyes with their crafting systems but couldn't figure it out with classes.I am talking about allowing players to craft more than one profession,classes same thing,it doesn't even make sense to LIMIT players unless done in a way that makes sense.

    Scaling does NOT make sense,not in any way.the reason mobs have levels is because they  need to have that identity ,this is gaming we can't give them real life AI,that would be impossible,so we give them identifiable aspects like a level 50 Dragon,breathes massive AOE damage fire.Once yo ustart scaling stuff you remove all of that,what then a scaled level 1 Dragon breathing a small 15 dmg aoe more of a bad breathe than a fire breathing Dragon?You remove the mobs identity and turn it into nothing more than a number,a piece of code.
    I don't know why i even bother to explain things,if people don't GET IT,they likely never will,just keep on trucking with yellow markers ,lines and arrows flashing around bla bla whatever enjoy whatever ,we can even remove the label,no more mmorpg just call everything a GAME or a pile of C++ code.

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

  • BananaSoupBananaSoup Member UncommonPosts: 180
    Wizardry said:
    Dealing with a serious concern the wrong way does not make it a good idea.

    Without a lot of effort or thought,just going on what i know from my fave game,it can be and there are easy ways to create longevity in a fashion that players will enjoy.

    Sub class,with 20 classes that is a LOT of leveling to raise all the various classes to attain a more versatile character.

    What is baffling is that almost every single developer saw it right in front of their eyes with their crafting systems but couldn't figure it out with classes.I am talking about allowing players to craft more than one profession,classes same thing,it doesn't even make sense to LIMIT players unless done in a way that makes sense.

    Scaling does NOT make sense,not in any way.the reason mobs have levels is because they  need to have that identity ,this is gaming we can't give them real life AI,that would be impossible,so we give them identifiable aspects like a level 50 Dragon,breathes massive AOE damage fire.Once yo ustart scaling stuff you remove all of that,what then a scaled level 1 Dragon breathing a small 15 dmg aoe more of a bad breathe than a fire breathing Dragon?You remove the mobs identity and turn it into nothing more than a number,a piece of code.
    I don't know why i even bother to explain things,if people don't GET IT,they likely never will,just keep on trucking with yellow markers ,lines and arrows flashing around bla bla whatever enjoy whatever ,we can even remove the label,no more mmorpg just call everything a GAME or a pile of C++ code.

    Moaning for the thousandth time...
    MrMelGibson
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 37,004
    Wizardry said:
    Dealing with a serious concern the wrong way does not make it a good idea.

    Without a lot of effort or thought,just going on what i know from my fave game,it can be and there are easy ways to create longevity in a fashion that players will enjoy.

    Sub class,with 20 classes that is a LOT of leveling to raise all the various classes to attain a more versatile character.

    What is baffling is that almost every single developer saw it right in front of their eyes with their crafting systems but couldn't figure it out with classes.I am talking about allowing players to craft more than one profession,classes same thing,it doesn't even make sense to LIMIT players unless done in a way that makes sense.

    Scaling does NOT make sense,not in any way.the reason mobs have levels is because they  need to have that identity ,this is gaming we can't give them real life AI,that would be impossible,so we give them identifiable aspects like a level 50 Dragon,breathes massive AOE damage fire.Once yo ustart scaling stuff you remove all of that,what then a scaled level 1 Dragon breathing a small 15 dmg aoe more of a bad breathe than a fire breathing Dragon?You remove the mobs identity and turn it into nothing more than a number,a piece of code.
    I don't know why i even bother to explain things,if people don't GET IT,they likely never will,just keep on trucking with yellow markers ,lines and arrows flashing around bla bla whatever enjoy whatever ,we can even remove the label,no more mmorpg just call everything a GAME or a pile of C++ code.

    Moaning for the thousandth time...
    There's no joy in Mudville....
    NycteliosMrMelGibson

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • NycteliosNyctelios Member EpicPosts: 3,827
    Nyctelios said:
    Most people complaining about scaling seems to put too much faith in their flat numbers. Game designs should put weight in the player skill. So scaling can't take that from you.

    You are grouping with low levels in a starter area. A wild boss appears. They don't know how to deal with certain adversities such encounter may create, you do.

    If stripping your flat numbers means the game took away your progression I think you are just empty as a person and forgets what the word play means.
    In an ideal world...  I just don't think it's realistic.

    The carrot's on the stick for a reason in these games.  Not saying I don't wish it were different, simply trying to be realistic.
    I understand your point, but having flat numbers (gears and/or stats) as mean of progression creates most of the problematic (and toxic) situations of these days: Characters are not reflective of the player controlling it and people get more and more away from each other in an environment is suppose to make them work together.

    Instead of 'Nyctelios is in my party' you get 'ranger lvl 80 540gs is in my part'. So everything loses personality and meaning and you have this LFD automated experience where player that could be bots, nobody would notice the difference, gather together not because they enjoy their time playing together, but because they fill those marks on the list: GS, lvl, class, role.

    I'll bet on the horse that most people having raging preaching moments against scalling are afraid to find out that flat numbers due grinding (or cash shop) is the sole feature they can show as players.
    MadFrenchieMrMelGibson
    Steam ID Discord ID: Night # 6102 - GoG ID - 

    Current playing: 
    Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn - Shadowbringers; Genshin Impact

    "There is a fine line between consideration and hesitation. The former is wisdom, the latter is fear." Izaro Phrecius, Holy Emperor of the Eternal Empire, Last of Royal Phrecius Family.
  • DvoraDvora Member UncommonPosts: 499
    Nyctelios said:
    Nyctelios said:
    Most people complaining about scaling seems to put too much faith in their flat numbers. Game designs should put weight in the player skill. So scaling can't take that from you.

    You are grouping with low levels in a starter area. A wild boss appears. They don't know how to deal with certain adversities such encounter may create, you do.

    If stripping your flat numbers means the game took away your progression I think you are just empty as a person and forgets what the word play means.
    In an ideal world...  I just don't think it's realistic.

    The carrot's on the stick for a reason in these games.  Not saying I don't wish it were different, simply trying to be realistic.
    I understand your point, but having flat numbers (gears and/or stats) as mean of progression creates most of the problematic (and toxic) situations of these days: Characters are not reflective of the player controlling it and people get more and more away from each other in an environment is suppose to make them work together.

    Instead of 'Nyctelios is in my party' you get 'ranger lvl 80 540gs is in my part'. So everything loses personality and meaning and you have this LFD automated experience where player that could be bots, nobody would notice the difference, gather together not because they enjoy their time playing together, but because they fill those marks on the list: GS, lvl, class, role.

    I'll bet on the horse that most people having raging preaching moments against scalling are afraid to find out that flat numbers due grinding (or cash shop) is the sole feature they can show as players.
    Eh scaling doesnt fix the gear score comparison issue, that is completely unrelated.  ESO scales mobs so that mobs everywhere are pretty much the same difficulty.  That doesnt mean that everyone has the same gear and kills them at the same speed.

    Many people consider mmo pve too easy.  Add scaling to that and you take away the ability to find something harder.  Difficulty sliders are not a fix for this.  Even if you turned a slider up and made every mob more difficult, once you've killed one mob, you've killed them all, there is nothing to look forward to.  Boring.

    For the most part I find your arguement pretty much nonsensical.  You sound like a brainwashed lefty socialist.  It sounds like you are arguing for not only mob scaling but gear scaling too.  Make every player the same and every mob the same, then it's all about "playing together".  Except it would be boring as hell and nobody would play at all.  Might as well play a shooter .  Those are fun because of the action, not the progression, and progression is a big part of what an MMO is supposed to be about.
    Iselin[Deleted User]dcutbi001
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,920
    edited September 2017
    Dvora said:
    You sound like a brainwashed lefty socialist.  
    Lol. A gen worthy of the department of redundancy department.

    The only thing worse than a lefty socialist is that other kind of socialist, whoever they are,
    MrMelGibson[Deleted User]
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited September 2017
    Nyctelios said:
    Nyctelios said:
    Most people complaining about scaling seems to put too much faith in their flat numbers. Game designs should put weight in the player skill. So scaling can't take that from you.

    You are grouping with low levels in a starter area. A wild boss appears. They don't know how to deal with certain adversities such encounter may create, you do.

    If stripping your flat numbers means the game took away your progression I think you are just empty as a person and forgets what the word play means.
    In an ideal world...  I just don't think it's realistic.

    The carrot's on the stick for a reason in these games.  Not saying I don't wish it were different, simply trying to be realistic.
    I understand your point, but having flat numbers (gears and/or stats) as mean of progression creates most of the problematic (and toxic) situations of these days: Characters are not reflective of the player controlling it and people get more and more away from each other in an environment is suppose to make them work together.

    Instead of 'Nyctelios is in my party' you get 'ranger lvl 80 540gs is in my part'. So everything loses personality and meaning and you have this LFD automated experience where player that could be bots, nobody would notice the difference, gather together not because they enjoy their time playing together, but because they fill those marks on the list: GS, lvl, class, role.

    I'll bet on the horse that most people having raging preaching moments against scalling are afraid to find out that flat numbers due grinding (or cash shop) is the sole feature they can show as players.
    I dunno if I can completely agree, though I understand your point.

    It's my opinion that the LFD system itself has cheapened the worth of players even more so than gear checks.  Being able to hit a few buttons and have the game find another player for you, sometimes even adding and porting them to the dungeon automatically, means every player is pretty much completely expendable.

    I do remember times in DAoC where we would take on players a little bit low level, a little bit underskilled or under geared, simply because we knew the player behind the screen was chill and it was better to endure the additional challenge of using that player in the group as opposed to attempting to find a "more perfect" fit for the group comp and content.  It wasn't perfect, but it increased the value of the person behind the avatar.  Of course, DAoC also divided players into smaller servers, which inherently made the community more familiar and increased the value of a positive reputation witin that community.  Cross-realm grouping destroyed that benefit, to the detriment only of those players who earnestly wish to leave a positive mark, and to the largest benefit of the vitriolic player who only wishes to endure other players insofar as it serves their goal exclusively.

    Even in ESO, gear alters the overall effectiveness of a character, despite the global scaling.  Add an LFD that allows player to port in and you have a recipe for players treating each other like NPCs.

    Causing gamers to see past the stat sheet would take more than simple scaling, as even scaling leaves room for gear progression (at least, in the games that I've experienced it in).  Since progression isn't going the way of the dodo anytime soon (too efficient a method to keep players playing without having to constantly release new content), I think the genre would be well-served to search for ways to root out bad behavior on a globally recognized scale, as well as rewarding good behavior in the same global manner.

    image
  • MrMelGibsonMrMelGibson Member EpicPosts: 3,027
    Wizardry said:
    Dealing with a serious concern the wrong way does not make it a good idea.

    Without a lot of effort or thought,just going on what i know from my fave game,it can be and there are easy ways to create longevity in a fashion that players will enjoy.

    Sub class,with 20 classes that is a LOT of leveling to raise all the various classes to attain a more versatile character.

    What is baffling is that almost every single developer saw it right in front of their eyes with their crafting systems but couldn't figure it out with classes.I am talking about allowing players to craft more than one profession,classes same thing,it doesn't even make sense to LIMIT players unless done in a way that makes sense.

    Scaling does NOT make sense,not in any way.the reason mobs have levels is because they  need to have that identity ,this is gaming we can't give them real life AI,that would be impossible,so we give them identifiable aspects like a level 50 Dragon,breathes massive AOE damage fire.Once yo ustart scaling stuff you remove all of that,what then a scaled level 1 Dragon breathing a small 15 dmg aoe more of a bad breathe than a fire breathing Dragon?You remove the mobs identity and turn it into nothing more than a number,a piece of code.
    I don't know why i even bother to explain things,if people don't GET IT,they likely never will,just keep on trucking with yellow markers ,lines and arrows flashing around bla bla whatever enjoy whatever ,we can even remove the label,no more mmorpg just call everything a GAME or a pile of C++ code.

    Moaning for the thousandth time...
    It's fun to laugh at his expense though.
  • kjempffkjempff Member RarePosts: 1,657
    Wizardry said:

    Scaling does NOT make sense,not in any way.the reason mobs have levels is because they  need to have that identity ,this is gaming we can't give them real life AI,that would be impossible,so we give them identifiable aspects like a level 50 Dragon,breathes massive AOE damage fire.Once yo ustart scaling stuff you remove all of that,what then a scaled level 1 Dragon breathing a small 15 dmg aoe more of a bad breathe than a fire breathing Dragon?You remove the mobs identity and turn it into nothing more than a number,a piece of code.
    I don't know why i even bother to explain things,if people don't GET IT,they likely never will,just keep on trucking with yellow markers ,lines and arrows flashing around bla bla whatever enjoy whatever ,we can even remove the label,no more mmorpg just call everything a GAME or a pile of C++ code.
    To me this identity thing you talk about is so clear to me. I assume you can also agree that is coupled with immersion, suspension of disbelief. It is almost impossible to get any discussion going, because no one seem to understand the perspective. Are there really no escapists left who try to immerse themselves in a mmo and see it as a virtual world? Does everyone just see the matrix code? The skinner box is no longer in disguise, now you actually see the box from the inside and you don't even care?(ok bit far out but still..)
  • KajidourdenKajidourden Member EpicPosts: 3,026
    I'm more interested now.  You need only play WoW or FFXIV to see the problem with power creep and constant content invalidation.

    Nobody cares if you have 500 instances if only 5 are relevant.
  • DvoraDvora Member UncommonPosts: 499
    Iselin said:
    Dvora said:
    You sound like a brainwashed lefty socialist.  
    Lol. A gen worthy of the department of redundancy department.

    The only thing worse than a lefty socialist is that other kind of socialist, whoever they are,
    lol well there are left leaning people that wouldn't call themselves socialists, tho yes all socialists are leftist.  If I said socialist lefty would you still give me shit?  :D  
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    edited September 2017
    Dvora said:
    Iselin said:
    Dvora said:
    You sound like a brainwashed lefty socialist.  
    Lol. A gen worthy of the department of redundancy department.

    The only thing worse than a lefty socialist is that other kind of socialist, whoever they are,
    lol well there are left leaning people that wouldn't call themselves socialists, tho yes all socialists are leftist.  If I said socialist lefty would you still give me shit?  :D  
    Do you have any idea about political theory or have you just been .... brainwashed.

    National Socialists were considered "right wing" - and there are a wide range of "left" and "right" socialist parties in Europe.

    And pretty much all US parties have "socialist" elements since "socialism" simply means some stuff owned by "everyone" or by "some collective" - there is a debate about what but that is it at its most basic.

    Sheesh I remember the uproar from lefty Fort Worth Texans when it was proposed that a  highway be built by a private company who would charge tolls. People - it seemed - thought that the new road should be in public ownership. Along with lots of other stuff ... schools, an army etc. etc.

    And when there is a disaster you would be amazed at how quickly those impacted feel that "the socialist state" should shift into action and come to the rescue. (And hopefully the rescue operation needed in Puerto Rico and other islands impacted will be in high gear soon.)
    TorvalsvannMrMelGibson
  • jpedrote52jpedrote52 Member UncommonPosts: 112
    I'm more interested now.  You need only play WoW or FFXIV to see the problem with power creep and constant content invalidation.

    Nobody cares if you have 500 instances if only 5 are relevant.
    They're not doing level scaling, only mentoring, where you can scale your level down to the same level as your group, never up, and this only affects the players, the NPC will always stay the same level and power.

    As for Dungeons and their relevance, a single dungeon will have various levels of content, i.e. a dungeon can have content for levels 10-50, the entrance of the dungeon is low level content and the further you go the higher level you'll need to be, and at the end of the dungeon there is the possibility for a raid zone, this way no artwork or zones are "wasted" for the low levels.
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 4,232
    I'm more interested now.  You need only play WoW or FFXIV to see the problem with power creep and constant content invalidation.

    Nobody cares if you have 500 instances if only 5 are relevant.
    They're not doing level scaling, only mentoring, where you can scale your level down to the same level as your group, never up, and this only affects the players, the NPC will always stay the same level and power.

    As for Dungeons and their relevance, a single dungeon will have various levels of content, i.e. a dungeon can have content for levels 10-50, the entrance of the dungeon is low level content and the further you go the higher level you'll need to be, and at the end of the dungeon there is the possibility for a raid zone, this way no artwork or zones are "wasted" for the low levels.
    I will question how relevant a dungeon can be if it has content for levels 10-50.  I think it is more a question of how many groups the dungeon can support at each level group.  Since Pantheon is supposed to be group focused, and the basic premise of grouping is killing volumes = greater experience, a group of levels 10-15 would need as many opponents as a group of levels 45-50 in order to be equally attractive as a place to hunt.

    For a group of 10-15 to stay ahead of 6 solo players, there needs to be at least 6 mobs per group in an area to provide the raw XP.  So, to support 5 groups at this level range, the dungeon would need to supply 30 appropriate level mobs to fight.

    Now, with a min-max difference of 5 levels, there are 8 range brackets within a 10-50 range.  This immediately balloons the dungeon population to 240 mobs (8 x 30).  Not totally impossible.  But that's only 1 group at each level bracket.  For that dungeon to support 6 simultaneous groups at each bracket, that's going to be 1440 (240 x 6) mobs in total.  That's a bit more problematic.  It is going to make the footprint of the dungeon rather large to keep the mobs independent and prevent graphic rendering issues.

    What happens when an extra group tries to squeeze in at a specific bracket?  If a 7th 30-35 group enters the dungeon, they can either 'compete' with the other 6 30-35 groups for level appropriate spawns, or they can take a disproportionate number of the 25-30 (or even the 20-25) mobs.  Overpopulation puts pressure on the dungeon both laterally and downward.  In my example, a 7th group in the 30-35 bracket could impact 19 total groups, potentially causing conflict for 100+ players.

    We don't know how Pantheon will actually implement the grouping function, if there will be bonuses or other incentives to encourage grouping.  We haven't had experience with their default mob scaling to know if a group of 30-35 is better off hunting 30-35 mobs, or sticking with weaker mobs (25-30) for best XP.

    My instinct suggests that dungeons will not be all inclusive.  They will cater to 2 adjacent brackets (25-30 and 30-35), with larger dungeons supporting a smaller bracket (10-15) as a secondary hunting area.  The idea of a single 10-50 hunting area is wonderful, but is really more a single-player / single-group concept.  That's an idea that doesn't easily scale to a multi-group environment.

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

  • jpedrote52jpedrote52 Member UncommonPosts: 112
    You're overthinking it way to much, having counted mobs for each group is not the way to go, they have to create a dungeon and target it around a certain amount players, it does not need to be an exact science, some groups might kill faster and others slower, so the exact number of mobs the dungeon requires to hold X number of groups is an irrelevant metric, they just need to create huge dungeons populate them with mobs and let the players figure it out among themselves how many groups can be there at one time. If it's a smaller dungeon there will be less groups there, if it's a huge dungeon (something like guk) it will hold more groups, there will certainly be times where some dungeons are full, so you'll have to move on and choose a different dungeon or wait in the queue (or start a kill steal war, not recommended, your sever rep will suffer).

    You mentioned solo players, I don't believe dungeons will be solo player friendly, at most they'll be able to kill the entrance guards, but not progress further (unless they out level it). Solo players will have to stick to roaming mobs on the outdoor zones, and easy low level outdoor camps (it's what i'm beating on at least)

    As for the dungeon level range, I don't know if they'll make a 10-50 single dungeon zone, they might opt to divide the dungeon in 3 or more level ranges ( i.e.10-20  30-35 45-50), instead of having a full 10-50 levelling option. But i'm almost certain that a single dungeon will support multiple levels of content, they'll not create dungeons or zones specifically for low levels, those low level zones dungeons will have relevant high level content.
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    edited September 2017
    gervaise1 said:

    Do you have any idea about political theory or have you just been .... brainwashed.

    National Socialists were considered "right wing" - and there are a wide range of "left" and "right" socialist parties in Europe.
    Actually, socialism of all types used to be considered left wing. It was revisionist history among the academic world in an attempt to separate their beloved ideals from Hitler that recategorized nazism as "right wing", despite the fact that his ideals had absolutely nothing in common with right wing ideals (no, not even "nationalism" as all communist (left wing) countries were nationalist, as they are today. See Nkorea).
    Torval


  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited September 2017
    Mendel said:
    I'm more interested now.  You need only play WoW or FFXIV to see the problem with power creep and constant content invalidation.

    Nobody cares if you have 500 instances if only 5 are relevant.
    They're not doing level scaling, only mentoring, where you can scale your level down to the same level as your group, never up, and this only affects the players, the NPC will always stay the same level and power.

    As for Dungeons and their relevance, a single dungeon will have various levels of content, i.e. a dungeon can have content for levels 10-50, the entrance of the dungeon is low level content and the further you go the higher level you'll need to be, and at the end of the dungeon there is the possibility for a raid zone, this way no artwork or zones are "wasted" for the low levels.
    I will question how relevant a dungeon can be if it has content for levels 10-50.  I think it is more a question of how many groups the dungeon can support at each level group.  Since Pantheon is supposed to be group focused, and the basic premise of grouping is killing volumes = greater experience, a group of levels 10-15 would need as many opponents as a group of levels 45-50 in order to be equally attractive as a place to hunt.

    For a group of 10-15 to stay ahead of 6 solo players, there needs to be at least 6 mobs per group in an area to provide the raw XP.  So, to support 5 groups at this level range, the dungeon would need to supply 30 appropriate level mobs to fight.

    Now, with a min-max difference of 5 levels, there are 8 range brackets within a 10-50 range.  This immediately balloons the dungeon population to 240 mobs (8 x 30).  Not totally impossible.  But that's only 1 group at each level bracket.  For that dungeon to support 6 simultaneous groups at each bracket, that's going to be 1440 (240 x 6) mobs in total.  That's a bit more problematic.  It is going to make the footprint of the dungeon rather large to keep the mobs independent and prevent graphic rendering issues.

    What happens when an extra group tries to squeeze in at a specific bracket?  If a 7th 30-35 group enters the dungeon, they can either 'compete' with the other 6 30-35 groups for level appropriate spawns, or they can take a disproportionate number of the 25-30 (or even the 20-25) mobs.  Overpopulation puts pressure on the dungeon both laterally and downward.  In my example, a 7th group in the 30-35 bracket could impact 19 total groups, potentially causing conflict for 100+ players.

    We don't know how Pantheon will actually implement the grouping function, if there will be bonuses or other incentives to encourage grouping.  We haven't had experience with their default mob scaling to know if a group of 30-35 is better off hunting 30-35 mobs, or sticking with weaker mobs (25-30) for best XP.

    My instinct suggests that dungeons will not be all inclusive.  They will cater to 2 adjacent brackets (25-30 and 30-35), with larger dungeons supporting a smaller bracket (10-15) as a secondary hunting area.  The idea of a single 10-50 hunting area is wonderful, but is really more a single-player / single-group concept.  That's an idea that doesn't easily scale to a multi-group environment.
    I would imagine that, if Pantheon is sticking to the roots, groups would be fighting mobs above their level, not below.  At least, my experience with DAoC was that a well-oiled group would be consistently pulling 2-4 red-purple cons mobs to burn down at a time reliably without deaths.

    In this instance, you don't need massive amounts of mobs.  If they herp-a-derp and make AoE farming weaklings the best method of group advancement, then they've implemented two intertwined mechanics that are largely incompatible with one another.

    image
  • MrMelGibsonMrMelGibson Member EpicPosts: 3,027
    Dullahan said:
    gervaise1 said:

    Do you have any idea about political theory or have you just been .... brainwashed.

    National Socialists were considered "right wing" - and there are a wide range of "left" and "right" socialist parties in Europe.
    Actually, socialism of all types used to be considered left wing. It was revisionist history among the academic world in an attempt to separate their beloved ideals from Hitler that recategorized nazism as "right wing", despite the fact that his ideals had absolutely nothing in common with right wing ideals (no, not even "nationalism" as all communist (left wing) countries were nationalist, as they are today. See Nkorea).
    Fascists are right wing.  No idea where you're getting that they are not.  Next thing you'll say is that Hitler's movement was atheist when Hitler himself called his movement Christian.  Gotta love those alt facts.
    TorvalIselinDullahandcutbi001
  • svannsvann Member RarePosts: 2,223
    Dullahan said:
    gervaise1 said:

    Do you have any idea about political theory or have you just been .... brainwashed.

    National Socialists were considered "right wing" - and there are a wide range of "left" and "right" socialist parties in Europe.
    Actually, socialism of all types used to be considered left wing. It was revisionist history among the academic world in an attempt to separate their beloved ideals from Hitler that recategorized nazism as "right wing", despite the fact that his ideals had absolutely nothing in common with right wing ideals (no, not even "nationalism" as all communist (left wing) countries were nationalist, as they are today. See Nkorea).
    Hitler murdered communists and unions.  Right winger.
    MrMelGibsonJamesGoblin
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    svann said:
    Dullahan said:
    gervaise1 said:

    Do you have any idea about political theory or have you just been .... brainwashed.

    National Socialists were considered "right wing" - and there are a wide range of "left" and "right" socialist parties in Europe.
    Actually, socialism of all types used to be considered left wing. It was revisionist history among the academic world in an attempt to separate their beloved ideals from Hitler that recategorized nazism as "right wing", despite the fact that his ideals had absolutely nothing in common with right wing ideals (no, not even "nationalism" as all communist (left wing) countries were nationalist, as they are today. See Nkorea).
    Hitler murdered communists and unions.  Right winger.
    For each thing you can name trying to label hitler as right wing, I can name 10 that made him left.

    The left right dichotomy is founded first and foremost on the size and power of government. That places fascists and communists alike way left of center.
    MrMelGibsonIselinJamesGoblinsvann


  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    edited September 2017
    Dullahan said:
    gervaise1 said:

    Do you have any idea about political theory or have you just been .... brainwashed.

    National Socialists were considered "right wing" - and there are a wide range of "left" and "right" socialist parties in Europe.
    Actually, socialism of all types used to be considered left wing. It was revisionist history among the academic world in an attempt to separate their beloved ideals from Hitler that recategorized nazism as "right wing", despite the fact that his ideals had absolutely nothing in common with right wing ideals (no, not even "nationalism" as all communist (left wing) countries were nationalist, as they are today. See Nkorea).
    Fascists are right wing.  No idea where you're getting that they are not.  Next thing you'll say is that Hitler's movement was atheist when Hitler himself called his movement Christian.  Gotta love those alt facts.
    Don't believe everything pinkos at university told you. I can call myself 20 feet tall, that will not make me an inch taller than 6 foot.
    MrMelGibson


  • MrMelGibsonMrMelGibson Member EpicPosts: 3,027
    Dullahan said:
    Dullahan said:
    gervaise1 said:

    Do you have any idea about political theory or have you just been .... brainwashed.

    National Socialists were considered "right wing" - and there are a wide range of "left" and "right" socialist parties in Europe.
    Actually, socialism of all types used to be considered left wing. It was revisionist history among the academic world in an attempt to separate their beloved ideals from Hitler that recategorized nazism as "right wing", despite the fact that his ideals had absolutely nothing in common with right wing ideals (no, not even "nationalism" as all communist (left wing) countries were nationalist, as they are today. See Nkorea).
    Fascists are right wing.  No idea where you're getting that they are not.  Next thing you'll say is that Hitler's movement was atheist when Hitler himself called his movement Christian.  Gotta love those alt facts.
    Don't believe everything pinkos at university told you. I can call myself 20 feet tall, that will not make me an inch taller than 6 foot.
    I got that information from Hitler's own book and public speeches.  I don't get my alt facts from right wing nut sites like info wars and Bannon's propaganda site.  Fascism and Nazis has always been far right.  Looks like you might want to read a history book at some point.  Otherwise You'll continue to believe the nonsense you are spouting here.  
    JamesGoblinTorval
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    Dullahan said:
    Dullahan said:
    gervaise1 said:

    Do you have any idea about political theory or have you just been .... brainwashed.

    National Socialists were considered "right wing" - and there are a wide range of "left" and "right" socialist parties in Europe.
    Actually, socialism of all types used to be considered left wing. It was revisionist history among the academic world in an attempt to separate their beloved ideals from Hitler that recategorized nazism as "right wing", despite the fact that his ideals had absolutely nothing in common with right wing ideals (no, not even "nationalism" as all communist (left wing) countries were nationalist, as they are today. See Nkorea).
    Fascists are right wing.  No idea where you're getting that they are not.  Next thing you'll say is that Hitler's movement was atheist when Hitler himself called his movement Christian.  Gotta love those alt facts.
    Don't believe everything pinkos at university told you. I can call myself 20 feet tall, that will not make me an inch taller than 6 foot.
    I got that information from Hitler's own book and public speeches.  I don't get my alt facts from right wing nut sites like info wars and Bannon's propaganda site.  Fascism and Nazis has always been far right.  Looks like you might want to read a history book at some point.  Otherwise You'll continue to believe the nonsense you are spouting here.  
    Spare me, no one who has spent even an hour reading Hitler would come to the conclusion that he was any type of traditional Christian. Talk about alternative facts.
    MrMelGibson


  • ZindaihasZindaihas Member UncommonPosts: 3,662

    Well I can see this thread has gotten way off topic and is going to get locked.  But before it does, I thought I'd throw my 2 cents worth in.  Nazism is the acronym for National Socialist Party.  You can argue whether it was left or right, but Hitler brought Germany's industry under the authority of the German government, which is the antithesis of Western conservatism which advocates free markets with minimal government intervention.  So from that standpoint, its political ideology strikes me as leftist.

    More importantly, the idea that Hitler was a Christian and/or Nazism was a Christian movement is offensive to me.  In truth, Hitler was an occultist as was Heinrich Himmler.  Simply Google Nazism and occultism and you will see that was the case.  Over time, critics of Christianity have twisted Nazism from ideology based on the occult into one based on Christianity.  Because Hitler was not an outright atheist, like Stalin, and was an enemy of Stalin's, people have tried to claim he was a Christian, which is absolutely false.

    MrMelGibsonDullahan

This discussion has been closed.