I don't mind cool rare items being no-drop at all, they should be. EQ was split on the issue, classic EQ old world items like AoN were tradeable,as well as most weapons, later on most non-weapons clickies were no drop, both raid drop clickies of course but also solo or group drops. My view on it is, they should all be bind on pick up, aka no-drop.
I would prefer that as well. I mean, I do like the aspect of things being traded for when you want to help a friend out, or pass it to an alt, but I would rather there be no trade and everyone actually have to earn the item drop themselves than deal with the problems player trade creates.
Fact is though, there will be player trade, but if they are going to pick and choose what is BoP and what is not, I would prefer they be consistent with it. In EQ, it was never consistent and you had certain classes having their special items being traded while others were protected with BoP. There was often no rhyme or reason to it and it created a lot of arguments between players back then.
Ironically most new MMO's are completely devoid of endgame content. Online gaming has been shifting more towards meaningless busywork for some reason.
Never forget your original words "content is king," especially endgame content. If you can make the journey there group focused, interesting and fun more power to you but no matter how fun leveling is half your playerbase will be powergrinding to max regardless. Not packing the game full of endgame content would be MMO suicide, especially for the EQ fans.
When you say EQ fans, you mean EQ fans later in the game's life cycle. As someone who was part of the first raids worldwide and continued to raid on two servers up until Luclin, I can say with some authority that raiding was something a very small part of the population was engaged in.
Today, its those hardcore players and raiders who clearly had a higher level of devotion and appreciation for EQ who we hear from the most 17 years later; however, they do not represent the average EQ player.
If Pantheon is designed around the journey where there's real risk vs real reward, things take longer and content is king (not just raid content), I do not believe "end game" or raiding will be as imperative as it was in other games. That's not at all to say it shouldn't be there, only that there was a lot more to end game in EQ than getting together with 30 people and killing a dragon.
I didn't say raiding I said endgame content. EQ Classic had a ton to do at max level and even back then most people weren't exploring or chatting 24/7, they were trying to get to 50.
How fun the journey is has little effect on this goal. In the end the vast majority want a powerful character, how much time they're willing to invest in that power is the only variance.
I just don't think these 2 things can't coexist, they did in Everquest, up until Luclin when they started creating the majority of the content for the raiders and not the grouping community.
Everquest until Luclin seemed to me like 80/20 Group>raid content, with Planes of Power they changed that dynamic entirely, from 80/20 to 20/80, this is a major part of why Everquest took a dive.
I believe 80/20 to 90/10 Group/Raid ratio is optimal for the target audience of Pantheon.
WoW started with a 95% solo/group content approach, and was wildly successful with it. Later they changed the entire scheme to the 80/20 Raid>Group approach like Everquest did, and lost a metric shitton of subs, and still haven't figured out what went wrong yet.
I disagree whole heartedly. The main reason it was taking a dive at that point is because other games started coming out. Also the game was basically 3 years old at that point, games just lose population over time, that's the reality.
I don't disagree with your idea that there was too much of a raid/group disparity, but I contest that it was the primary cause of the games population decline.
Have to disagree with this. While WoW and other games would have hurt EQ's pop either way, the game fundamentally changed from 2002-2005. During this time the playerbase stopped growing, and even dropped at times. There's a reason everyone talks about wanting a classic version of EQ. That is the reason why those are the popular emulated servers. Those servers allowing players to revisit the "golden era" is, in my opinion, the only thing that has kept Daybreak alive.
As I've said so many times before, the reason why WoW hurt EQ so much was because it was already becoming more like WoW before it even launched. The best thing I believe they could have done was differentiate themselves by staying true to the original design. Instead they had to compete directly with the casual themepark design.
You guys are misunderstanding me. I'm not disagreeing that the games changed fundamentally. I'm also not disagreeing that it was a factor in the population declining. All I am disagreeing with is his assertion that it was the SOLE and PRIMARY factor in the population decline.
"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."
Playing off of the comment that MMORPGs populations always decline (which is true on a long enough timeframe,) I remembered that it wasn't true of Eve so I looked at population statistics and realized there are three common patterns for population in MMORPGs.
Some are a flash-in-the-pan and have an initial rush of players at release, after which then their population drops precipitously and declines from there. These are games like Asheron;s Call 2, Rift, Tabula Rasa and Vanguard.
Another group are healthier games that have a steady, multi-year growth phase followed by a steady decline. These are games like: Ultimate Online, Everquest, Asheron's Call, and Lineage. I think Wow is in this camp now.
However, some games have started small then steadily grown. What would be interesting is to consider what has caused those games to grow consistently. These are games like Eve, Second Life, and Runescape.
However, some games have started small then steadily grown. What would be interesting is to consider what has caused those games to grow consistently. These are games like Eve, Second Life, and Runescape.
Uniqueness in their genre/sub-genre/niche
I care about your gaming 'problems' and teenage anxieties, just not today.
Players going quickly through content. On the one hand you have players who can only play weekends or a few hours a day and during that time are watching the kids and other stuff, vs the players who are so hyped they take two weeks vacation at the launch of the game so they have 20 hours a day to play. I don't really think you can make things even for both.
SWTOR and GW2 says let them rush to end game if they want. Just give them end game content. As to complaints about end game. What game doesn't have players who complain about end game no matter what Devs do. IMO.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Comments
I would prefer that as well. I mean, I do like the aspect of things being traded for when you want to help a friend out, or pass it to an alt, but I would rather there be no trade and everyone actually have to earn the item drop themselves than deal with the problems player trade creates.
Fact is though, there will be player trade, but if they are going to pick and choose what is BoP and what is not, I would prefer they be consistent with it. In EQ, it was never consistent and you had certain classes having their special items being traded while others were protected with BoP. There was often no rhyme or reason to it and it created a lot of arguments between players back then.
How fun the journey is has little effect on this goal. In the end the vast majority want a powerful character, how much time they're willing to invest in that power is the only variance.
You guys are misunderstanding me. I'm not disagreeing that the games changed fundamentally. I'm also not disagreeing that it was a factor in the population declining. All I am disagreeing with is his assertion that it was the SOLE and PRIMARY factor in the population decline.
"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
Some are a flash-in-the-pan and have an initial rush of players at release, after which then their population drops precipitously and declines from there. These are games like Asheron;s Call 2, Rift, Tabula Rasa and Vanguard.
Another group are healthier games that have a steady, multi-year growth phase followed by a steady decline. These are games like: Ultimate Online, Everquest, Asheron's Call, and Lineage. I think Wow is in this camp now.
However, some games have started small then steadily grown. What would be interesting is to consider what has caused those games to grow consistently. These are games like Eve, Second Life, and Runescape.
I care about your gaming 'problems' and teenage anxieties, just not today.
SWTOR and GW2 says let them rush to end game if they want. Just give them end game content. As to complaints about end game. What game doesn't have players who complain about end game no matter what Devs do. IMO.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey