It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Its an mmorpg. If you don't want to design the game to be harder by requiring more player, coordination and social interaction, developers should stick to making single player games. That and players have plenty of those games to choose from, we don't need another.Torval said:My gaming preferences, which depend on the game and who I am gaming with, and even more so your fairly rude condescending observations of them are completely irrelevant to the point. You can make underhanded personal jabs to try and strengthen your point but they don't actually matter to the argument.Kyleran said:Actually I was making observations on your gaming preferences based on recent statements by you in these forums.Torval said:Wait what? You're speaking for me now? Oh, Is that your weak attempt to rattle me? I hope you have something better than that, like something of substance to add to the conversation.Kyleran said:Torval neither wants to cooperatively play in a group nor play a MMO for more than 6 weeks at a time.
Your arguments falls on deaf ears.
Harder to accomplish and challenge in combat aren't the same thing. It's not challenging for the solo player that PC mitigation and damage output doesn't compare to the mob.
In a PvP battle a level 5 player isn't challenged by a level 50 player.
Using damage numbers and health to define challenge means that the only thing needed is more people. In modern and old school raid mechanics using dps checks is the lowest common denominator as a challenge.
Challenge is defined by the need for tactics and strategy in a possible scenario. If the scenario is impossible there is no challenge to it and the outcome is predictable.
We weren't talking about numbers of mobs or environment before. We were talking about increasing the health and damage of a single mob.
He was trying to convince you about grouping and playing long term, neither of which you favor.
As to the question of challenge from higher DPS of course one solution is to zerg it down, but on some games the diminishing return on rewards makes it undesireable.
In DAOC my Mentalist can attack a low level green or blue mob and burn it down easily, but for very low reward.
Yellow con is more challeging, have to kite them for one cycle, but they normally go down unless the resist RNG demon comes into play.
Orange cons are dicey, higher resist rates and HPs require several kite runs and every now and then go south, but they provide the maximum experience the cap will allow.
Reds, well I won't do them solo, resist rates are too high, you end up burning too much mana which you have to sit off to regen and due to exp cap, usually not worth it.
Every class is different in DAOC, Bards can't beat a blue solo at times, while pet classes such as chanters and necros can solo some low purples in the right scenario. (which they normally only do when powerleveling someone) But they don't kite, pets tank and they melee or blast mob down.
So I see a lot of combat variance and possibility just from increasing the damage and DPS on a mob.
As for randomness, if you had seen my guildmates and I struggle with a standard Bard lvl 50 Epic quest last night you'd understand how unpredictable the PVE from a 15 year old game could be. We wiped hard for over 2 hours, they were still at it when I logged at midnight.
Was descibed by some in ZAM back in 2003 as "too easy" Guess we just suck.
Class variance (relative strength/weakness regarding dps, mits, heals, cc, etc) really has nothing to do with scaling either. The post Distopia made about scaling sums it up. Scaling doesn't equate directly to challenge. It could be argued that there is an indirect correlation, but that really applies as it relates to simple dps/hps/mit timer/checks and those are about the crudest form of mechanics checks you can make in an encounter.
Which goes back to the OPs point that simple mob encounters, single reward commodity based interactions with mobs, are something he would rather not see in Pantheon. Dullahan somehow correlated that with solo people should get bad rewards and groups should get good rewards because group mobs are harder.
The entire argument revolves around the idea that merely adding health/damage to a mob doesn't make it harder if the group also scales in power the same way. Thus DMKano's point that groups are generally safer, easier, and faster at most everything. If that's true then why is easier play rewarded more if "risk vs reward" is the desired result? The answer I think is because the intended play is group based so you reward players for doing it how you want regardless of whether it's more challenging.
This is not the case. Nostalgia is a much abused and overused term, especially in the realm of video games. While it plays a part, it is not the primary purpose of the game nor the reason people will be playing it.Darksworm said:
If what you said was true, then Pantheon would have 0 reason to exist, because players could simply just play EQ right now. The only reason why people are excited about this game, is because it's basically EverQuest with a graphics overhaul. It really doesn't have any more than that to offer players, from what we've seen. It's purely a nostalgia play. The developers are pretty transparent about that.