Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Anyone else want levels to take a while?

123457

Comments

  • danwest58danwest58 Member RarePosts: 2,012
    Mylan12 said:
    danwest58 said:
    Mendel said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Dullahan said:



    My question about Pantheon's market share has always been -- where are these 1 million / 500k / 200k / <your projected number here> at now?  What game will Pantheon raid and take away their player base?  The best case I can come up with is somewhere between 10k and 20k people, and even that is going to devastate games like P99, EQ1, EQ2 and other games with anemic populations already.  Maybe people will flock to Pantheon from places like SW:TOR and LotRO (both older, trinity-based games with strong, compelling IPs), but I don't see that happening without a significant marketing effort, and I am unaware that VR has plans for such a campaign.

    When projecting numbers for Pantheon, please keep in mind what these potential players are doing now.  (There's only around 250-300 who are regularly commenting on sites like MMORPG.com, so it's very unlikely we are a hoard of unattached players waiting for Pantheon.  Unless the vaunted subscription rate is going to be in the $350 (US) per month, we simply aren't going to cut it financially).
    I am not sure what you are saying here?  Are you saying there will only be a few thousand players playing Pantheon?  
    Yeah its hard to figure out some of these posts. The guild I was in while in EQ had 3 blizzard developers in it and I started hearing about WoW years before they announce it or even named it. Heck I should have been telling them that EQ only had around 450K people and that is all they can ever plan to have playing WoW.
    Wonder where all them other people that ended up playing WoW came from as EQ only went down to around 200K, they didn't all come from it.
     I not sure what the point of all the posts by people saying that Pantheon will only have 100K, 10K, 2K or even a half dozen playing it. We will not know until the game is finished and released and then we shall all see how well or bad it does. It seems some people just enjoy being doomsayers and they infest every game forum.
     Hmmm Maybe someone should make a game for doomsayers as we see a few dozens of them around in every forum.

    Yea I agree that we will not know what this game or any game will do until it is out.  Hell look at Rift it was known as a WOW killer and well the game is a mess right now.  

    I do think people have their hopes that this could be a large game.  I think that is a fair opinion to have.  I personally hope this game becomes large enough that it will show that you do not have to clone WOW to be successful.  
  • coretex666coretex666 Member EpicPosts: 3,853
    edited February 2017
    Well, ideally, assuming that level 100 is maxlevel at release (which it probably wont, but correct accordingly), and you're playing 4 hours per day:

    Level 1-10: About a day
    Level 11-20: About three days (total, so additional 2 days)
    Level 20-30: About a week (additional 4 days)
    Level 30-40: About two weeks (additional 7 days)
    Level 40-50: About a month (additional 14 days)
    Level 50-60: About two months (additional 28 days)
    Level 70-80: About four months (additional 56 days)
    Level 80-90: About eight months (additional 112 days)
    Level 90-100: About two to three+ years (additional 448+ days => the last levels have a real slowdown as well)

    In short the traditional "endgame" shouldnt exist as such.

    Also, there should be raid style content from level 50 on. You'll need two groups for these early raids, and they wont be too complex and hard just yet. You'll need three groups and increasing complexity later.

    From level 90 on you should be considered "maxlevel" of sorts. All top gear should be wearable at level 90, its just hard to actually get it. An actual level 100 should be a rare sight.

    And yes there will always be people who can manage faster. One will have to install mechanisms to stop them. For example it should be necessary from level 10 on to solve quests to actually continue leveling. And you should need to find items in the game to level skills. With such mechanisms one can make speedruns much harder.

    Why would you have raid style concent from level 50 on and not earlier? Or was it just an example for illustration?

    I played a lot of Lineage 2 which had, I think, even slower levelling than what you describe in your post, but it almost did not lock any content behind a progression milestone. There were low level open world raid bosses which was a really cool thing. I remember getting together bunch of level 20 characters going for a raid boss :).

    Generally, I like what you describe in your post.  
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,998
    Mylan12 said:
    danwest58 said:
    Mendel said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Dullahan said:



    My question about Pantheon's market share has always been -- where are these 1 million / 500k / 200k / <your projected number here> at now?  What game will Pantheon raid and take away their player base?  The best case I can come up with is somewhere between 10k and 20k people, and even that is going to devastate games like P99, EQ1, EQ2 and other games with anemic populations already.  Maybe people will flock to Pantheon from places like SW:TOR and LotRO (both older, trinity-based games with strong, compelling IPs), but I don't see that happening without a significant marketing effort, and I am unaware that VR has plans for such a campaign.

    When projecting numbers for Pantheon, please keep in mind what these potential players are doing now.  (There's only around 250-300 who are regularly commenting on sites like MMORPG.com, so it's very unlikely we are a hoard of unattached players waiting for Pantheon.  Unless the vaunted subscription rate is going to be in the $350 (US) per month, we simply aren't going to cut it financially).
    I am not sure what you are saying here?  Are you saying there will only be a few thousand players playing Pantheon?  
    Yeah its hard to figure out some of these posts. The guild I was in while in EQ had 3 blizzard developers in it and I started hearing about WoW years before they announce it or even named it. Heck I should have been telling them that EQ only had around 450K people and that is all they can ever plan to have playing WoW.
    Wonder where all them other people that ended up playing WoW came from as EQ only went down to around 200K, they didn't all come from it.
     I not sure what the point of all the posts by people saying that Pantheon will only have 100K, 10K, 2K or even a half dozen playing it. We will not know until the game is finished and released and then we shall all see how well or bad it does. It seems some people just enjoy being doomsayers and they infest every game forum.
     Hmmm Maybe someone should make a game for doomsayers as we see a few dozens of them around in every forum.

    It's relatively easy to see where WoW's population came from -- Blizzard converted a large number of Warcraft RTS players to the World of Warcraft.  It's pretty much a unique occurrence in gaming history, players following a brand from one genre to another.  No other IP has been able to bring as many people into the MMORPG space, not LotR, not Star Wars, not Star Trek.

    Where are tomorrow's Pantheon players, and what are they doing now?  The numbers I can reasonably predict are small, ridiculously small even.  To get numbers in the range that I consider as a viable long-term player base really involves taking players from other games.  In other words, I can see it becoming very competitive, very soon.  Generally, having options is not a bad thing for players, but with so many games apparently struggling to keep the doors open, that competition is very likely to cause some companies to simply disappear.   Lack of choice is rarely good for players, the developers or the industry.

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

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member LegendaryPosts: 8,808
    DMKano said:
    Amathe said:
    DMKano said:

    Which has been more successful than EQ1, DAoC, AC, AO and all gen1 games put together.
    How do you propose success be measured?

    Total box/download sales?

    Total revenue from subscriptions/cash shop sales?

    Total number of players?

    Player satisfaction?

    Market share of then existing market?

    Percentage of player retention over time?

    Return on investment to investors? 

    Player, press and industry feedback as to quality?

    Advancement of the genre through innovation?

    Years in operation?

    You really can't fairly compare the success of two games without choosing your criteria.

    money made. That is the metric I use for success as that is what metric all business use.

    The criteria in video game business is always money.
    Seen many a game have huge box sales and crash a burn after. Im sure they made money but I would not call that success. Now an MMO like EQ1 thats been going for 18 years, does not cost much to keep running. Uses tools that make a community keep playing. Now thats something I would call a success both for the company and the gamers. 
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    edited February 2017
    CrazKanuk said:
    .

    Yes, you're right, Everquest did have 500,000 subscribers at one point. However, when WoW released that number was cut to like 200k in less than a year. So what does that mean? Does it mean that Everquest had run out of steam? Or does it mean that it was only popular because of a lack of choice? 

    You know what, though, I'm not here to rain on your parade, so if you really want to hang your hat on 500,000 subscribers, go for it. Fuck, WoW had 10 million at one point, so the true market is at least 10 million. Most of those people are disgruntled, too, so they're looking for a new game, and Pantheon offers what most MMORPG players have been asking for. Therefore, if they are able to deliver a great game, there's absolutely no reason that they shouldn't be able to secure 10% of those WoW numbers, so 1 million people, and that's being conservative! So the sky is the limit! 
    WoW actually had 12 million, but the point I was making (and did so successfully), was that even before and after WoW, EQ had hundreds of thousands of players. Even by today's standard, that is a lot of people for "mainstream" games. WoW was an anomaly, and therefore doesn't represent the norm. 

    I would say yes, it was dated and running out of steam to some degree. It was a very different game at that point, and had started losing people for the first time in it's history after several of the previous expansions.

    A fancy new game that's similar will naturally take some of the players. That they had changed some of the group focus to a more "end game" raid focus and traded world mechanics for convenience, also did not help.
    Post edited by Dullahan on


  • LokeroLokero Member RarePosts: 1,514
    Dullahan said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    .

    Yes, you're right, Everquest did have 500,000 subscribers at one point. However, when WoW released that number was cut to like 200k in less than a year. So what does that mean? Does it mean that Everquest had run out of steam? Or does it mean that it was only popular because of a lack of choice? 

    You know what, though, I'm not here to rain on your parade, so if you really want to hang your hat on 500,000 subscribers, go for it. Fuck, WoW had 10 million at one point, so the true market is at least 10 million. Most of those people are disgruntled, too, so they're looking for a new game, and Pantheon offers what most MMORPG players have been asking for. Therefore, if they are able to deliver a great game, there's absolutely no reason that they shouldn't be able to secure 10% of those WoW numbers, so 1 million people, and that's being conservative! So the sky is the limit! 
    WoW actually had 12 million, but the point I was making (and did so successfully), was that even before and after WoW, EQ had hundreds of thousands of players. Even by today's standard, that is a lot of people for "mainstream" games. WoW was an anomaly, and therefore doesn't represent the norm. 

    I would say yes, it was dated and running out of steam to some degree. It was a very different game at that point, and had started losing people for the first time in it's history after several of the previous expansions.

    A fancy new game that's similar will naturally take some of the players. That they had changed some of the group focus to a more "end game" raid focus and traded world mechanics for convenience, also did not help.
    Let's keep in mind that out of WoW's 12 million, at least 7 million of those were Asia-based.  The other 5 accounting for the west.

    So, thinking that there's a "true market of 10 million" people potentially available for Pantheon is misleading yourself in an extreme way.  Not to mention, there were very few MMOs in the early WoW days.  Whereas, today, the market is drowning in them... so, people are spread thin, despite having more total players in the genre than back in those days.

    Back in the EQ days, 500k was mind-blowingly amazing, since there weren't that many people around playing these games.  Calling WoW an anomaly would be the greatest understatement of all time.

    I have no clue what ESO's actual player numbers are, but it's probably the current most successful since WoW.  And, I'm pretty sure they couldn't have more than a million-ish, at most.  They had a huge IP to boost their numbers, unlike Pantheon.  Pantheon is starting with no name and a mediocre(at best) reputation.

    500k in an MMO, even today, is a raging success, due to how stretched and saturated the genre is now.  If they could actually get that many, they'd be lucky and thrilled.  I'd be incredibly surprised to see them get that high.  I'd consider 200k to be a pretty solid success story in today's atmosphere.
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    edited February 2017
    Lokero said:

    Let's keep in mind that out of WoW's 12 million, at least 7 million of those were Asia-based.  The other 5 accounting for the west.

    So, thinking that there's a "true market of 10 million" people potentially available for Pantheon is misleading yourself in an extreme way.  Not to mention, there were very few MMOs in the early WoW days.  Whereas, today, the market is drowning in them... so, people are spread thin, despite having more total players in the genre than back in those days.

    Back in the EQ days, 500k was mind-blowingly amazing, since there weren't that many people around playing these games.  Calling WoW an anomaly would be the greatest understatement of all time.

    I have no clue what ESO's actual player numbers are, but it's probably the current most successful since WoW.  And, I'm pretty sure they couldn't have more than a million-ish, at most.  They had a huge IP to boost their numbers, unlike Pantheon.  Pantheon is starting with no name and a mediocre(at best) reputation.

    500k in an MMO, even today, is a raging success, due to how stretched and saturated the genre is now.  If they could actually get that many, they'd be lucky and thrilled.  I'd be incredibly surprised to see them get that high.  I'd consider 200k to be a pretty solid success story in today's atmosphere.
    There's a lot more than 12 million people in the potential mmo market, but they won't likely come together and play one game again any time soon.

    One thing I disagree with is the implication that everyone who will play a game like Pantheon, are currently playing other MMOs. There are a lot of people who aren't, or haven't. Furthermore, people who played EQ and Vanguard will end up being by far the minority, and will be outnumbered more and more by people who also find they have similar tastes, and did not know.

    A lot of people will be surprised by how different Pantheon will be, for good or bad. They are going for a more dangerous, cooperative, gritty, simulated reality type of feel that just isn't comparable to anything currently offered. Those who never played MMOs before 2005 will have no concept of what that is like (though survival games come close minus the persistence).

    No idea what exactly these numbers will be, but based on my observations over the last 15 years on various forums, the number is higher than people think.


  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,501
    DMKano said:
    money made. That is the metric I use for success as that is what metric all business use.

    The criteria in video game business is always money.
    It's not nearly that simple, but ok. 

    To measure "money made", you need to know how much a company has in sales, and then adjust it for money expended.  How many games do you have this information for?

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

  • Viper482Viper482 Member EpicPosts: 3,168
    edited February 2017
    DMKano said:
    Amathe said:
    DMKano said:
    money made. That is the metric I use for success as that is what metric all business use.

    The criteria in video game business is always money.
    It's not nearly that simple, but ok. 

    To measure "money made", you need to know how much a company has in sales, and then adjust it for money expended.  How many games do you have this information for?

    More than a dozen, sadly it cannot be shared as its private information.
    Convenient. If you cannot provide facts for your claims due to the "high level of classification" you hold with game companies....maybe you should just not bring it up.
    Make MMORPG's Great Again!
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,501
    DMKano said:
    More than a dozen, sadly it cannot be shared as its private information.
    I have secret evidence in support of my position too. I keep it in a file drawer next to an offensively flatulent leprechaun who lives in my basement. 

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

  • GeekyGeeky Member UncommonPosts: 406
    I'm with the slow leveling thing.  I'd like  have to log in 2 or 3 nights in a row and camp one spawn point for a couple hours each night before moving down the hall of the cave to the next spawn point and having to camp that for a bit.  It's like @OP said, making it slowing will make it more intimate.  Being "forced" to stay in one level range for a few days opens up opportunities of specific quest related specifically to that dungeon or level range you're in.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 20,183
    Rhoklaw said:
    After playing on P99 for a while, I had forgotten just how slow vanilla EQ was. I think it took me a whole day just to reach level 8-10. This only works on PvE focused games though as PvP focused games usually have little to no PvE content and are more focused on endgame PvP content. Except of course Blizzard who for some reason felt it necessary to speed up leveling as well as offer instant high level characters for sale.

    I do prefer to actually feel like I'm earning a level through diligence and hard work, instead of being given a trophy level because I learned how to talk to an NPC.
    To me it isn't about how many levels I gain in a certain period of time but pacing.

    I want to enjoy the progress my character has made. If there are new skills then I want to experiment and see what my character can do now that it couldn't tackle before. If my existing abilities got stronger then I want to test new limits.

    What I don't like is having so many new skills, power increases, and gear that I'm not sure what they do, if they're better than what I had before, or in some really bad cases just playing the character gets weird and klunky.

    On the flip side I don't want to feel adventuring and progression to feel stagnant and tedious either. I remember hitting a leveling wall in Lineage and calculating how many weeks (months) it would take for me to safely level (that means a ding and enough xp to survive a death without a delevel).

    I understand it's tricky for developers because everyone has different skill levels and play intensities, but if I'm going to play a game long that is one of the requirements. If not it gets either boring or disorienting to me.
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • AdamantineAdamantine Member RarePosts: 4,444
    edited February 2017
    Why would you have raid style concent from level 50 on and not earlier? Or was it just an example for illustration?
     
    Well, because I despise the concept of having an "endgame" and "maxlevel". The game should start when you start the game, and should "never end" until you stop playing it.

    Thus, if a game has raid content, it should have raid content starting early, from tougher getting boss fights until you really need a second group to manage, and later a third, maybe a fourth group.

    And maxlevel, basically, is something that you cannot reach, or will only reach after a really, really long time.

    In Vanguard, when you hit level 48, basically all your job was getting to level 50, later 55. Because otherwise people wouldnt like you in raids. Additionally, they had the slowdown I described in my list. I felt that was way stupid, because you only existed at this point to farm xp. It was no fun at all.



    Dullahan said:
    Furthermore, people who played EQ and Vanguard will end up being by far the minority, and will be outnumbered more and more by people who also find they have similar tastes, and did not know.
    I dont know about "far". In Vanguard, once the population had reduced itself, it felt like 80%+ of players had played EQ before. Not me though.
    Please set a sig so I can read your posting even if somebody "agreed" etc with it. Thanks.
  • EvorasXEvorasX Member UncommonPosts: 6
    While I appreciate most people are talking about 'vertical' progression through the levels, this is sligtly missing the point. I imagine that most people actually want:

            To see/feel that they are progressing during play...

    I think this does not need to be all 'vertical', but can be horizontal.
    This may be:
          Crafting, Socialising, questing, working on factions, exploring ....
    But, in all these things .... only something hard won is highly valued.

    Levels thrown at you like so much confetti (I am looking at you WoW) or shiny loot dropping faster than you can pick it up or even showers of platinum just for logging in ....
    ... these things devalue the experience.

    Progress can, and should, be slow, challenging and hard won. This gives it value!
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    edited February 2017

    Dullahan said:
    Furthermore, people who played EQ and Vanguard will end up being by far the minority, and will be outnumbered more and more by people who also find they have similar tastes, and did not know.
    I dont know about "far". In Vanguard, once the population had reduced itself, it felt like 80%+ of players had played EQ before. Not me though.
    I'm not at all surprised there would be more EQ players in the case of Vanguard. All but the hardcore fans left. Had the game been finished and in proper working order, that would not have been the case.


  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    EvorasX said:
    While I appreciate most people are talking about 'vertical' progression through the levels, this is sligtly missing the point. I imagine that most people actually want:

            To see/feel that they are progressing during play...

    I think this does not need to be all 'vertical', but can be horizontal.
    This may be:
          Crafting, Socialising, questing, working on factions, exploring ....
    But, in all these things .... only something hard won is highly valued.

    Levels thrown at you like so much confetti (I am looking at you WoW) or shiny loot dropping faster than you can pick it up or even showers of platinum just for logging in ....
    ... these things devalue the experience.

    Progress can, and should, be slow, challenging and hard won. This gives it value!

    Agreed, but I think the point is that you can devalue the experience equally by making things slow. Slow was a mechanic implemented in early MMOs as a means of keeping players around, paying subscriptions. These days, progression (levels) just feel like a necessary evil of an MMO, which it shouldn't. Honestly, it doesn't matter how fast or slow the leveling is, it's got to be relevant. If you have me running in circles, grinding mobs for 30 hours to gain a level, how is that worthwhile? At that point I'd be saying "Please!!!! Isn't there some old lady somewhere who has a rat problem in her cellar?" 

    The question really shouldn't be about whether you want leveling to take longer, it should be about how they can make your journey equally enjoyable through the entire game. There are PLENTY of Guinness records that someone has, obviously, taken the time to accomplish (Fastest to eat an onion, peel 50lbs of onions), but the vast majority of people probably don't give a shit about doing it. Same goes here. If you want to satisfy a few dozen (maybe couple hundred) people with intentionally inflated, empty leveling, then shoot for the moon. It will ultimately attract some users, but it will drive away more than it attracts. 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • boojiboyboojiboy Member UncommonPosts: 1,553
    Yudore said:
    I'm not sure if the devs have spoken on this topic yet but I really hope that the level cap takes a while like it did with both the original EQ/EQ2 when it first launched. I'm so tired of playing games that allow me to achieve reach level 30 in one or two days and max level in less than a week. I want to be able to feel like the levels are an achievement even if the game feels a bit more grindey (I think grinding can be fun in groups). When I hit level cap I want to look back and remember zones and the mobs in the them like I did with EQ/EQ2. The benefit of a longer leveling curve is the ability to spend more time in zones and therefore more time soaking in the lore and building a connection with the world and the people in it. Call me crazy but I would even welcome hell levels over EZmode MMORPGs that are a dime a dozen nowadays.

    I think level cap should take roughly 3 months when playing 4 to 5 hours a day.

    I'm curious what others think, post below!

    Always a difficult balance to achieve....  slow leveling, yet, not grindy.  But I agree.... I like a slower pace of leveling.
  • coretex666coretex666 Member EpicPosts: 3,853
    Why would you have raid style concent from level 50 on and not earlier? Or was it just an example for illustration?
     
    Well, because I despise the concept of having an "endgame" and "maxlevel". The game should start when you start the game, and should "never end" until you stop playing it.

    Thus, if a game has raid content, it should have raid content starting early, from tougher getting boss fights until you really need a second group to manage, and later a third, maybe a fourth group.

    And maxlevel, basically, is something that you cannot reach, or will only reach after a really, really long time.

    In Vanguard, when you hit level 48, basically all your job was getting to level 50, later 55. Because otherwise people wouldnt like you in raids. Additionally, they had the slowdown I described in my list. I felt that was way stupid, because you only existed at this point to farm xp. It was no fun at all.



    Dullahan said:
    Furthermore, people who played EQ and Vanguard will end up being by far the minority, and will be outnumbered more and more by people who also find they have similar tastes, and did not know.
    I dont know about "far". In Vanguard, once the population had reduced itself, it felt like 80%+ of players had played EQ before. Not me though.
    Judging by your reply, I think you did not read my post.

    I mean no offense. It's just that your reply does not react to my post at all...not even the part you quote.

    I am in the same boat as you. I hate endgame model in MMOs and I love extremely long levelling / progression process.

     I was asking why would you have raid content since level 50 and not earlier. I went on in my post by saying that I appreciated in Lineage 2, which is my favorite MMORPG of all time, that it had raid encounters starting at very low levels and almost no content was locked behind progression milestones.

    Maybe you wanted to quote a different post?
  • Raidan_EQRaidan_EQ Member UncommonPosts: 247
    Nanfoodle said:
    DMKano said:
    Amathe said:
    DMKano said:

    Which has been more successful than EQ1, DAoC, AC, AO and all gen1 games put together.
    How do you propose success be measured?

    Total box/download sales?

    Total revenue from subscriptions/cash shop sales?

    Total number of players?

    Player satisfaction?

    Market share of then existing market?

    Percentage of player retention over time?

    Return on investment to investors? 

    Player, press and industry feedback as to quality?

    Advancement of the genre through innovation?

    Years in operation?

    You really can't fairly compare the success of two games without choosing your criteria.

    money made. That is the metric I use for success as that is what metric all business use.

    The criteria in video game business is always money.
    Seen many a game have huge box sales and crash a burn after. Im sure they made money but I would not call that success. Now an MMO like EQ1 thats been going for 18 years, does not cost much to keep running. Uses tools that make a community keep playing. Now thats something I would call a success both for the company and the gamers. 
    Agreed - and when players become invested in the game they are more likely to stay.

    The reason the 2-6 week numbers are being thrown around for current MMOs is because they are ridiculously shallow and they continually miss the most importnt piece that makes people want to stay - community/social bonds.  Instead they substitute convenience and accessibility and try for the quick burst win, basically similar to the game as a whole - a DPS race with no strategy.
  • MukeMuke Member RarePosts: 2,614
    If a game is done correct: a player does not notice the level based system. :)

    "going into arguments with idiots is a lost cause, it requires you to stoop down to their level and you can't win"

  • RallydRallyd Member UncommonPosts: 95
    edited February 2017
    I don't think this is so much how long leveling takes, obviously we want it to take a long time, but there are plenty of methods of progression outside of leveling that are important.  As long as there is years worth of MEANINGFUL progression to be had, and the progression never stops, I'll play forever.

    I say meaningful because most of the games recently have resorted to the carrot on a stick rare drop that could get you .000001% of a power upgrade, and you gotta farm for 100s of hours to try and get it, this is not meaningful, when it gets to that point I consider there to be no meaningful forms of progression left and quit.

    I do believe however that slow leveling helps maintain progression on a sub-based game, so I'd like to see at least 1000 hours required to hit "max" level whatever that may be.
  • Tiamat64Tiamat64 Member RarePosts: 1,537
    edited February 2017
    If they make levelling slow, they're going to have to make that level range fun enough that people can bear with being stuck in that same level range for so long.

    Possible, but easier said than done.  For many games, you gain new skills as you level and thus new fun.  It's going to be a hard act to make a game stay fun for a particularly long and slow time BEFORE those new skills are acquired.  Not impossible, but still difficult.  Sooooo... good luck to them with that if they go that route, I suppose.

    Of course, another possible (or perhaps, something that also needs to be done at the same time as well) way is to make more content per level range too.  But that too is not cheap or easy, and kinda defeats the point of making levelling slow if you have to spend extra development time per level on content for that range, anyways.
  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    Tiamat64 said:
    If they make levelling slow, they're going to have to make that level range fun enough that people can bear with being stuck in that same level range for so long.

    Possible, but easier said than done.  For many games, you gain new skills as you level and thus new fun.  It's going to be a hard act to make a game stay fun for a particularly long and slow time BEFORE those new skills are acquired.  Not impossible, but still difficult.  Sooooo... good luck to them with that if they go that route, I suppose.

    Of course, another possible (or perhaps, something that also needs to be done at the same time as well) way is to make more content per level range too.  But that too is not cheap or easy, and kinda defeats the point of making levelling slow if you have to spend extra development time per level on content for that range, anyways.
    You certainly need enough content at any level to have a lot of things to do or the whole thing becomes pointless but slow leveling do mean you actually can bother getting good gear for that level. Few people bother that in fast leveling game since you outlevel that gear in a few hours.

    If leveling and gaining new skills is the most fun part of a MMO you seriously don't want players to hit max too fast, that just leads to most players quitting once the hit max.

    Besides, modern games actually put about the same percentage of their content as a slow leveling game for some idiotic reason, even the fastest leveling games have a rather small percentage of their content for max level characters and you usually miss the majority of the content since it becomes obsolete so fast.

    People solve that by creating many alts and level up all of them to see all the content under max level and to get the level up fix so the big question is if staying at 1 character is more fun then having 8 of them.
  • Tiamat64Tiamat64 Member RarePosts: 1,537
    Loke666 said:

    If leveling and gaining new skills is the most fun part of a MMO you seriously don't want players to hit max too fast, that just leads to most players quitting once the hit max.

    Besides, modern games actually put about the same percentage of their content as a slow leveling game for some idiotic reason, even the fastest leveling games have a rather small percentage of their content for max level characters and you usually miss the majority of the content since it becomes obsolete so fast.

    People solve that by creating many alts and level up all of them to see all the content under max level and to get the level up fix so the big question is if staying at 1 character is more fun then having 8 of them.
    I actually meant the fun was in using lots of skills, not in the gaining of new skills.  ....though the latter is a strong rat pellet, too, of course.

    Most modern games I've played have just about the right amount of content for their levelling speed when they first come out in my experience, actually.  The major issues start to develop as the game gets updated with new content, and eventually the dev team speeds up the levelling process so that newer players can catch up to the older players, at which point they do end up with a lot of their older content getting levelled and sped through faster than it can be played.  I've always found that to be a horrible design decision for future updates, although whether or not Pantheon will avoid that as it gets updated with new content doesn't really have much to do with whether or not levelling starts out slow.  It more has to do with whether or not the developers keep it slow AND whether or not Pantheon even lasts long enough for that to be a factor AND, if they do keep it slow, whether or not they somehow can come up with an alternate way of dealing with how older players will outlevel younger players (Mentor/sidekick systems can only achieve so much as the game gets older)

    Bringing up alts also reminds me that "modern" games also speed up the levelling process over time to encourage people to raise up alts, but that's probably more for F2P profitability reasons which doesn't really apply to Pantheon.  I myself prefer to stick to one character, yet lots of people I met in most MMOs love creating tons of alts instead, so I suspect there's more of the latter than the former which does make slow-levelling even more of a niche thing, but it's not something I gathered up and recorded lots of data on so I can't be sure.  *shrug*
  • AdamantineAdamantine Member RarePosts: 4,444
     I was asking why would you have raid content since level 50 and not earlier.
    Well 50 wasnt chosen by any exact criteria, its just an approximation. Besides, if you follow my descriptions, you'll get to 50 fairly quickly.

    My idea is that for example you also dont start with douzens of abilities - you typically start with maybe half a douzen. And then you slowly get more and more over time in order to get you to learn how to use your ability effectively.

    The same would happen with boss fights and grouping. Quite soon after you start playing, you will see mobs that are harder than usual, or groups of mobs that coordinate their combat and that require some strategy. Then you'll see literal bosses - mobs that last quite a bit longer than usual.

    And soon you'll find that playing with another player will increase your odds. And after some while longer, a third player really gets really beneficial. Etc, until you have a full group, whatever the group size of Pantheon will be.

    And the battles with boss mobs will get longer and longer until you get to raid level, when it might take ten minutes to an hour of carefully coordinated combat and specifically chosen strategy to beat a boss.







    Please set a sig so I can read your posting even if somebody "agreed" etc with it. Thanks.
Sign In or Register to comment.