KickStarter Pantheon - (Brad "EQ" McQuaid's new MMO)

[Xenich]

Maybe it's some masochism too. Maybe frustrration ("akk! I fell down the trap and died!") is an addiction for some players? Maybe I need to be like "Where do I go next? Damnit!" in order to enjoy the gmae. Most gamers don't need frustration.

What do you think a game is belowmecoldhands? If you never lose, why bother playing a "game"? What do you think "akk! I fell down the trap and died!" means? It means you missed the trap. Either your skill wasn't high enough, you didn't have the skill, or you were not careful enough. You failed, lost, were bested by the game system. Welcome to playing a "game". Games are addicting because people enjoy the challenges of such. EQ had layer after layer of systems that if one did not take care, could cause them issues. Again, the game was progressing a character in a harsh and difficult world environment. That is playing a game.

Now some people can't handle games at all. They are... poor sports. They throw tantrums when they lose, they get angry when they fail. They aren't happy in the journey of failure and success, they want success all the time, because winning is what they think is fun, not the game, not the challenge of competing with the system. Frustration is simply dissatisfied of being thwarted, disappointed. There is nothing wrong with being such as I said in a previous post. This is natural, this is a part of game play. The problem is with someone who doesn't like to fail in competition. If there is no fail, no loss, no being thwarted, then there is no point.

A gamer who does not accept frustration as a part of play isn't a gamer, they are just someone looking to be entertained.

 

[KevinV12000]

Now some people can't handle games at all. They are... poor sports. They throw tantrums when they lose, they get angry when they fail. They aren't happy in the journey of failure and success, they want success all the time, because winning is what they think is fun, not the game, not the challenge of competing with the system. Frustration is simply dissatisfied of being thwarted, disappointed. There is nothing wrong with being such as I said in a previous post. This is natural, this is a part of game play. The problem is with someone who doesn't like to fail in competition. If there is no fail, no loss, no being thwarted, then there is no point.

A gamer who does not accept frustration as a part of play isn't a gamer, they are just someone looking to be entertained.

Xenich, bravo. This is it right here, this is the essential difference that marks out the gamer from the consumer of entertainment content. There is no doubt whatsover that there are a lot more of the latter than the former in the world. Thus, the problem facing designers who happen to be gamers themselves.

And, culturally, many of the very successful businessmen who drive publishing companies and large companies like EA are the latter types: they play to win, doesn't matter how one wins and, yes, they are always very conspicuously displaying their allegance to whatever hot sports team is dominant this season and have long-forgotten their Chicago Bulls jersey, left mouldering in some closet.

Which is why Kickstarter and projects like this are so key, much as indie music is key for musicians and self-publishing for authors.

We live in a punk world now. Kick it all over and do it yourself.

 

[Ranselknulf]

Now some people can't handle games at all. They are... poor sports. They throw tantrums when they lose, they get angry when they fail. They aren't happy in the journey of failure and success, they want success all the time, because winning is what they think is fun, not the game, not the challenge of competing with the system. Frustration is simply dissatisfied of being thwarted, disappointed. There is nothing wrong with being such as I said in a previous post. This is natural, this is a part of game play. The problem is with someone who doesn't like to fail in competition. If there is no fail, no loss, no being thwarted, then there is no point.

A gamer who does not accept frustration as a part of play isn't a gamer, they are just someone looking to be entertained.

Xenich, bravo. This is it right here, this is the essential difference that marks out the gamer from the consumer of entertainment content. There is no doubt whatsover that there are a lot more of the latter than the former in the world. Thus, the problem facing designers who happen to be gamers themselves.

And, culturally, many of the very successful businessmen who drive publishing companies and large companies like EA are the latter types: they play to win, doesn't matter how one wins and, yes, they are always very conspicuously displaying their allegance to whatever hot sports team is dominant this season and have long-forgotten their Chicago Bulls jersey, left mouldering in some closet.

Which is why Kickstarter and projects like this are so key, much as indie music is key for musicians and self-publishing for authors.

We live in a punk world now. Kick it all over and do it yourself.

There are also people who don't know how to win as well. People who have no interest in playing a game but just locking it down so others can't play it. Goons are the big example but there are always multiple smaller groups like that in these online communities.

They lock it down so they can sell the stuff for money or just because they can for drama / entertainment value. This is a major reason games started going easy mode and instanced imo. The problem still exists although I would prefer a different solution to heavy instancing.

Maybe different servers with different rulesets. I always enjoyed that kind of set up.

 

[Xenich]

There are also people who don't know how to win as well. People who have no interest in playing a game but just locking it down so others can't play it. Goons are the big example but there are always multiple smaller groups like that in these online communities.

Whether they lock it down so they can sell the stuff for money or what have you. This is a major reason games started going easy mode and instanced imo. The problem still exists although I would prefer a different solution to heavy instancing.

Well, part of that is handled with reputation, part is handled with better systems. Stormhammer solved this issue with cock blocking and all the stupid idiot games guilds played (like the fucktard Furor and FOH).

I would like to see pantheon implement something like that. For instance, a contested server (raid guilds fight over the spawns like children) and a non-contested server like Stormhammer (the guild does a ability test with a GM to see if they are able to handle that Tier and then are put into a rotation with the other guilds for various raid spawns).

This way, everyone can be happy.

 

[Ranselknulf]

There are also people who don't know how to win as well. People who have no interest in playing a game but just locking it down so others can't play it. Goons are the big example but there are always multiple smaller groups like that in these online communities.

Whether they lock it down so they can sell the stuff for money or what have you. This is a major reason games started going easy mode and instanced imo. The problem still exists although I would prefer a different solution to heavy instancing.

Well, part of that is handled with reputation, part is handled with better systems. Stormhammer solved this issue with cock blocking and all the stupid idiot games guilds played (like the fucktard Furor and FOH).

I would like to see pantheon implement something like that. For instance, a contested server (raid guilds fight over the spawns like children) and a non-contested server like Stormhammer (the guild does a ability test with a GM to see if they are able to handle that Tier and then are put into a rotation with the other guilds for various raid spawns).

This way, everyone can be happy.

That method requires a lot of GM overhead to manage. An implementation like this exists in games where you trigger spawn monsters and they can't be respawned again for a certain duration.. can be hours or weeks.

Trigger spawn is basically the same thing without GM's. Maybe code the game where the spawn of a monster can be changed as it becomes an issue. Start off as regular spawn then move into other methods if an issue arises.

 

[Xenich]

That method requires a lot of GM overhead to manage. An implementation like this exists in games where you trigger spawn monsters and they can't be respawned again for a certain duration.. can be hours or weeks.

Trigger spawn is basically the same thing without GM's. Maybe code the game where the spawn of a monster can be changed as it becomes an issue. Start off as regular spawn then move into other methods if an issue arises.

Not as much as you might think. Logs and community policing was enough to keep guilds from taking spawns they weren't scheduled for. It was a no tolerance policy, you got caught taking a raid boss you weren't scheduled for and you were banned from the server (they pushed you back to the other servers).

As for spawns. You still had the random 7 day +72 hours, so the schedule was just set for the full interval of 10 days. Every two weeks, you cycled to new raid targets.

My point is that I don't want to contest raid targets . That type of competition I think is unreasonable to anyone who works. It always sucked to have the Euro guilds sneak in and put all the raid bosses on their time, making it impossible to raid. Then, all the key'd content and cock blocking tricks... yeah.. not my cup of tea. I am not saying that there shouldn't be such competition, but I would like there to be an option to avoid it as there was with the Stormhammer server, especially these days with out fucking stupid people are and how narcissistic they are.

As for the GM thing, I got to thinking. You may be right. In EQ, guilds were in the 100's of size. Pantheon will be 18-24 man raids? Which means a LOT of guilds possible, so yeah... major overhead.

My solution? An instance just for testing. You zone in, walk to a panel, click on the tier your guild wishes to test for. There is a check to see your guild is actually there, then you fight. After the win, it flags you and puts your guild name in the rotation.

 

[Norfleet]

Urgh. At that point you may as well just move to instanced raids, this sounds ridiculously convoluted, especially once you start getting blatantly corrupt admins involved. In my day, things were handled much more simply: You want a spawn, it's yours if you manage to murder everyone else contesting it, simple as that.

 

[Xenich]

Urgh. At that point you may as well just move to instanced raids, this sounds ridiculously convoluted, especially once you start getting blatantly corrupt admins involved. In my day, things were handled much more simply: You want a spawn, it's yours if you manage to murder everyone else contesting it, simple as that.

Lets see... you claim "blatantly corrupt admins involved". Funny because I played on a server that did exactly as I explained and what you describe NEVER happened. Regardless, what part of "separate server" do you not understand?

As for taking a mob, I am talking about raids (contested group content is fine). You won't take a raid mob in a game like EQ. You will die quick as the opposing force of players merely attacks a weak point in the raid setup to watch your entire raid wipe. PvP raids didn't exist unless there was an agreement between PvP players. Otherwise it was just chaos with raid bosses never being downed.

How many games have you played serious raids with extremely weak points in the encounters (ie you make one small mistake, you wipe) where the content was contested? Or is this another one of those "you heard from a friend and so you are an authority?" I mean, we already know you don't know shit about EQ because you never played. /shrug

 

[Ranselknulf]

It can be good, it depends on the implementation but anything involving humans running it has a higher chance of failure imo.

Some sort of automated system would be best. Sure automated systems can have bugs but those can be tweaked easy enough.

 

[Xenich]

It can be good, it depends on the implementation but anything involving humans running it has a higher chance of failure imo.

Some sort of automated system would be best. Sure automated systems can have bugs but those can be tweaked easy enough.

It is a trade off. Automated systems have bugs or unintended design exploits. The testing automation like I mentioned seems safe bet. Worst case scenario is someone exploits something and gets put into the rotation who isn't qualified.

Automated actual raid encounter mechanism can run into an issue and there is a loss with possible bad frustration or an exploit. It is a trade off, but I think a mix of both is feasible.

One idea is an automated log system for the real raids. Basically, when a boss is engaged, it starts an area log that records all the players actions within a range. The logic checks those guild tags to the list and sends an email to an admin/GM if it isn't the scheduled guild. This way, nobody would be able to down the mob even in secret. Then, the GMs just strip the offending guild of any loot they may have gotten (easily noted by the log) and bans the guild from the non-contested servers, putting them in the environment they apparently wanted.

See, I don't think it is wrong for people to want PvP or to want contested content. More power to them, but I have a big problem with those who want to force people to play on them. We know why they want this, because they don't like playing against others who WANT to PvP, they love exploiting those who do not.

 

[Norfleet]

It can be good, it depends on the implementation but anything involving humans running it has a higher chance of failure imo.

Humans are intrinsically corrupt and evil, and occasionally if not frequently downright incompetent. Failure is pretty much assured.

Some sort of automated system would be best. Sure automated systems can have bugs but those can be tweaked easy enough.

I think that's why we've since moved to instanced raids. I can't say I'm sad about that. "Line Waiting Simulator" is not an interesting form of gameplay, and, as Xenich points out, not everyone wants to fight for their spot in a bloody PvP engagement, and I agree that there is little to be gained by forcing them to do so.

Lets see... you claim "blatantly corrupt admins involved". Funny because I played on a server that did exactly as I explained and what you describe NEVER happened. Regardless, what part of "separate server" do you not understand?

All admins are corrupt. I have never seen an exception. Even if you haven't personally encountered it, it's there. Any human involvement is a thing of EVIL.

As for taking a mob, I am talking about raids (contested group content is fine). You won't take a raid mob in a game like EQ. You will die quick as the opposing force of players merely attacks a weak point in the raid setup to watch your entire raid wipe. PvP raids didn't exist unless there was an agreement between PvP players. Otherwise it was just chaos with raid bosses never being downed.

Hah. Where I come from, not only is that commonplace, but you pretty much set the other half of your guild to protect you from that, and abort the mission if the enemy penetrates the perimeter. The number of guildmembers raiding is only half the equation there, those NOT raiding play the equally important role of guarding the rear from the attacking enemy players who may try to stop you. Hell, I personally practically never actually partook in the raid part, because, well, my interests favor the meatier part.

How many games have you played serious raids with extremely weak points in the encounters (ie you make one small mistake, you wipe) where the content was contested? Or is this another one of those "you heard from a friend and so you are an authority?" I mean, we already know you don't know shit about EQ because you never played. /shrug

Lots, actually. Sometimes the mistake would have been showing up to begin with, and if the guy whose base you're raiding shows up, it definitely gets VERY contested. EQ raids and the like are, fundamentally, at their core, meant to be beaten. It's a very defeatist design. Raiding a player's base, on the other hand, in an environment where they place the map and guardians? This is NOT something meant to be beaten, and some of these were downright fucking mean in ways that you'd never have encountered. You were not meant to succeed. You were meant to die horribly. And yes, this qualifies as PvE as long as nobody shows up, and frankly, we planned these attacks after weeks of careful activity tracking for when they weren't around for this reason. But it's not your common raid PvE. This is PvE played for blood. This is a raid you weren't meant to win, that the designers did everything they could legitimately do to make the task impossible for you. When you've partaken in raids like that, every other kind of raid just seems defeatist by design.

Not all of these raids were necessarily hostile acts, either. Some of us took to basically constructing dungeons like this for kicks, just to raid them ourselves, and these things were HARD AS HELL, because the entire point of them was to literally be IMPOSSIBLE. Some of these were never conquered. Not that this stopped us from trying, because if someone says it's impossible, you just know someone will want to dispute it.

 

[Xenich]

/derp /derp Whatever you say Norfleet. /derp


Your response of people being corrupt is not a valid supporting premise to your argument and in fact, you use a form that is invalid (ie ALL people are...), which is bullshit. I refuse to discuss an invalid premise with you. Learn to make a proper argument or run along.

As for your comment to Flunkle about instances, the problem there is that then you have to put raid mobs in separate zones, for separate events, etc... In EQ, raid mobs were found within the content, in the dungeons, in cities, in open zones, etc.... Putting them all in their separate corner begins to feel artificial like WoW was and goes against the layering of content that was often present with EQ.

As I said, you don't like the concept, fine... don't play on the server. Pick the contested or the PvP server (if they make one) and enjoy. Don't like that... don't play the game. /shrug

 

[Norfleet]

Your response of people being corrupt is not a valid supporting premise to your argument and in fact, you use a form that is invalid (ie ALL people are...), which is bullshit. I refuse to discuss an invalid premise with you. Learn to make a proper argument or run along.

I have had consistently and unmitigatedly bad experiences with any system run by humans, anywhere and everywhere. There's a reason we play video games, and that's not to have humans lording over the show.

As for your comment to Flunkle about instances, the problem there is that then you have to put raid mobs in separate zones, for separate events, etc... In EQ, raid mobs were found within the content, in the dungeons, in cities, in open zones, etc.... Putting them all in their separate corner begins to feel artificial like WoW was and goes against the layering of content that was often present with EQ.

At the point at which you're appointing jackbooted fascists to descend from the sky to tell you where and when you may or may not kill mobs and take your hard-looted goods away, you've already created an artificial feelings far worse than anything instancing could have caused.

 

[Xenich]

Your response of people being corrupt is not a valid supporting premise to your argument and in fact, you use a form that is invalid (ie ALL people are...), which is bullshit. I refuse to discuss an invalid premise with you. Learn to make a proper argument or run along.

I have had consistently and unmitigatedly bad experiences with any system run by humans, anywhere and everywhere. There's a reason we play video games, and that's not to have humans lording over the show.

Yet such experiences does not set the standard of an absolute.

As for your comment to Flunkle about instances, the problem there is that then you have to put raid mobs in separate zones, for separate events, etc... In EQ, raid mobs were found within the content, in the dungeons, in cities, in open zones, etc.... Putting them all in their separate corner begins to feel artificial like WoW was and goes against the layering of content that was often present with EQ.

At the point at which you're appointing jackbooted fascists to descend from the sky to tell you where and when you may or may not kill mobs and take your hard-looted goods away, you've already created an artificial feelings far worse than anything instancing could have caused.

Like I said, separate server (fully contested server, scheduled raid mob server, PvP Free4all server), choice is yours. Is that a problem or are you going to be a fucking hypocrite (ie jackbooted fascists) ?

 

[Norfleet]

Like I said, separate server (fully contested server, scheduled raid mob server, PvP Free4all server), choice is yours. Is that a problem or are you going to be a fucking hypocrite (ie jackbooted fascists) ?

I'm not sure how your "solution" constitutes scalable, anyway. At the point at which you're holding a schedule, you may as well just instance the entire thing. Pretty soon you'll have a favored bureaucracy where the requests of those most cronied up with the GMs get priority over those of the unwashed masses. Favoritism and corruption is the natural outcome unless you replace all the GMs with impartial machines. Sure, you're free to run such a solution, but I don't see how this is particularly scalable, or, for that matter, even particularly fair, since you've basically just created a system where only the cronies of the GM get to play on this server, or raid on it, or whatever it is you're trying to do with it, while everyone else, obviously, basically never will, because the other servers will thus be congested and bogged down in fighting, which, while certainly entertaining above that of the raiding itself, isn't helping anyone actually raid.

 

[Xenich]

Like I said, separate server (fully contested server, scheduled raid mob server, PvP Free4all server), choice is yours. Is that a problem or are you going to be a fucking hypocrite (ie jackbooted fascists) ?

I'm not sure how your "solution" constitutes scalable, anyway. At the point at which you're holding a schedule, you may as well just instance the entire thing. Pretty soon you'll have a favored bureaucracy where the requests of those most cronied up with the GMs get priority over those of the unwashed masses. Favoritism and corruption is the natural outcome unless you replace all the GMs with impartial machines. Sure, you're free to run such a solution, but I don't see how this is particularly scalable, or, for that matter, even particularly fair, since you've basically just created a system where only the cronies of the GM get to play on this server, or raid on it, or whatever it is you're trying to do with it, while everyone else, obviously, basically never will, because the other servers will thus be congested and bogged down in fighting, which, while certainly entertaining above that of the raiding itself, isn't helping anyone actually raid.

Neat speculation, but I deal in fact. My factual history, that observed history of reality conflicts with your prediction. EQ had the Stormhammer server to which functioned exactly as I mentioned. It did not have those problems.

My fact trumps your unfounded assumption.

Next?

 

[Norfleet]

And how large did this get? EQ, by the standards of modern MMOs, isn't really that large, and yet it was partitioned into many, many servers. It is also questionable how clearly you were able to observe the corruption if you were part of it. After all, the system always look good from the inside, that's what perpetuates it. Would such a system feasibly scale to the levels that modern MMOs tend to reach? This is rather questionable, since such systems tend to break down very dramatically as their growth complexity is polynomial or worse, so that doubling the amount of load will dramatically increase the costs. Your system may have worked then, although frankly I'm a bit skeptical given that you speak of this as if you were an insider, but how will it scale now? How many people would be required to even maintain such a thing, and how quickly will it collapse into cronyism once the number of people contending for a slot exceeds the number of desirable slots, or even total slots? Perhaps this already happened. Did some guilds, perhaps, conveniently score their favored timeslots? You mentioned people being robbed and then booted from the server by aforementioned jackbooted thugs. Perhaps these are the ones who didn't kiss sufficient ass to get on the favored list, hmm? No human-operated system in history has ever operated free of corruption. Thousands of years of recorded history backs this up. Humans should never be in charge of anything unless it cannot be avoided, and even then this is hardly a desirable outcome.

 

[Xenich]

And how large did this get? EQ, by the standards of modern MMOs, isn't really that large, and yet it was partitioned into many, many servers. It is also questionable how clearly you were able to observe the corruption if you were part of it. After all, the system always look good from the inside, that's what perpetuates it. Would such a system feasibly scale to the levels that modern MMOs tend to reach? This is rather questionable, since such systems tend to break down very dramatically as their growth complexity is polynomial or worse, so that doubling the amount of load will dramatically increase the costs. Your system may have worked then, although frankly I'm a bit skeptical given that you speak of this as if you were an insider, but how will it scale now? How many people would be required to even maintain such a thing, and how quickly will it collapse into cronyism once the number of people contending for a slot exceeds the number of desirable slots, or even total slots? Perhaps this already happened. Did some guilds, perhaps, conveniently score their favored timeslots? You mentioned people being robbed and then booted from the server by aforementioned jackbooted thugs. Perhaps these are the ones who didn't kiss sufficient ass to get on the favored list, hmm? No human-operated system in history has ever operated free of corruption. Thousands of years of recorded history backs this up. Humans should never be in charge of anything unless it cannot be avoided, and even then this is hardly a desirable outcome.

Storhammer had... I don't know... maybe 10k + Not really sure.

Server ran fine. Basically it is as I stated. You went with your guild to the arena zone. The GM spawned the top raid boss for a given tier sought. If your guild beat it, you would considered able to beat the content Iand all tiers below it) and were put into a rotation schedule that you could select. That is, you could choose to only do certain bosses out of each raid tier. During your week, nobody touched those mobs or they were permanently banned from the server (the entire guild). Some tried when they first got to Stormhammer and were banned in the same day. It worked very well and there wasn't any bitching, fighting, corruption, etc...

Now you can say "well, maybe you didn't see the corruption, weren't close enough... etc...." and all I can say is... our guild tested for a raid tier, we picked our boss schedule and we raided bosses. We never had any problems. All the people I knew who raided did the same, no problems, no issues.

There was no manipulation of schedules. Once you were confirmed to a tier, you were put into the rotation. There was no "time slots" as EQ bosses were 7 day +/- 72 hour spawns. The mob would show up in your rotation time guaranteed, you just had to wait for it to pop up. That is, you didn't have control "when" it would pop, just that you would be able to get it in your rotation without having to deal with someone snaking it from you. When the boss popped, people didn't touch it. It was simple, no manipulation of schedules as there was no way to do such, it was all in a rotation.

Your distrust of anyone to the point of fucking idiocy is not my problem. Seriously, if the world is that bad that you have to resort to thinking everyone is out to fuck you over, then maybe you should just give up on life and save us all your bullshit banter? /shrug

Point is.... I am sure there are legitimate issues to consider with this system, but your stupid tin foil banter is what I would expect from a half drunk homeless man who only has a mild attachment to reality. In short, lay off the "Mankind is evil and will fuck us!" bullshit. You are starting to drone on like you do with PvP.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

That method requires a lot of GM overhead to manage. An implementation like this exists in games where you trigger spawn monsters and they can't be respawned again for a certain duration.. can be hours or weeks.

Trigger spawn is basically the same thing without GM's. Maybe code the game where the spawn of a monster can be changed as it becomes an issue. Start off as regular spawn then move into other methods if an issue arises.

Not as much as you might think. Logs and community policing was enough to keep guilds from taking spawns they weren't scheduled for. It was a no tolerance policy, you got caught taking a raid boss you weren't scheduled for and you were banned from the server (they pushed you back to the other servers).

As for spawns. You still had the random 7 day +72 hours, so the schedule was just set for the full interval of 10 days. Every two weeks, you cycled to new raid targets.

My point is that I don't want to contest raid targets . That type of competition I think is unreasonable to anyone who works. It always sucked to have the Euro guilds sneak in and put all the raid bosses on their time, making it impossible to raid. Then, all the key'd content and cock blocking tricks... yeah.. not my cup of tea. I am not saying that there shouldn't be such competition, but I would like there to be an option to avoid it as there was with the Stormhammer server, especially these days with out fucking stupid people are and how narcissistic they are.

As for the GM thing, I got to thinking. You may be right. In EQ, guilds were in the 100's of size. Pantheon will be 18-24 man raids? Which means a LOT of guilds possible, so yeah... major overhead.

My solution? An instance just for testing. You zone in, walk to a panel, click on the tier your guild wishes to test for. There is a check to see your guild is actually there, then you fight. After the win, it flags you and puts your guild name in the rotation.

Here's the thing Xenich: many players use the same argument against contested solo/group camps/zones/etc. Do you want your cake and to eat it too? Because that's what it sounds like. Someone who's just like you, but a polar opposite, will argue for non-contested solo/grouping.

I remember when I was playing in 1999 I sometimes couldn't find a good spot in Blackburrow, so I had to learn about where else I could go in a given level range. That of course requires time and talking to others. It wouldn't work in a mainstream games anymore because players don't have the patience (or tolerance). There I think was Kerra Isle and West Karana lions/spiders/bandits and Qeynos Catacombs. At first I mostly went to the Catacombs when BB was busy because I favored its smaller size. Later I more often went to West Karana and then to North Karana. Some of the players decided to just trek to freeport or rivervale. A banker in North or East Karana would have made thigs easier because you could bind at the Gypsy camp in North Karana. Either way, you inevitably were doing a lot of running. Which is why some players left to other areas.

If you think about it, it's a lot cheaper as a game maker to just instance Blackburrow and not even bother with creating The Qeynos Catacombs. Hell, you barely even need to furnish low level mobs in West Karana if you're just going to instance Blackburrow. You could cut West Karana in half. Open world contested-spawn MMO's like EQ necessarily need lots of content to give players options when things are busy, Instances handily solve this problem, but for me, they destroy the social feel.

There has to be a better answer than just making more content to compensate. It's too tempting to say "Well we'll just instance X and eliminate Y and Z." It's the death of contested open world. Not only that, players prefer instances over contested open world fights because there's less frustration. With instances, they don't have to deal with a**hats. They don't have to deal with the best spots always being taken. They don't have to deal with random trains someone else created. So naturally the company concludes it's both cheaper to make non-constested MMO's and also more appealing to most players - doubly cheaper!

Diable 2 had a way of dealing with what happened when more players logged in. The max population on a diablo 2 server was I think 6 or 8. AS the population rose, the difficult and reward increased. This meant if the population was high then no single player could sweep over the dungeons and empty them, as they would if the population was low. They'd have to work together or at least work at a much more subdue pace if the population was high.

Another idea is some kind of dynamic content or SHARED instance creator. With dynamic content you might be changing the character of things to add places to fight. Shared instances are something like multiple entrnaces to Blackburrow spawning outside in Qeynos Hills - with some small (sometimes random) changes to their layout and character. The main thing is they're direclty accessible outside by all players and they're shared. Which "instnace" you enter is completely up to you.

If I was Brad and wanted to make Pantheon open world with some contested areas then I'd want to evolve it somehow or do something which isn't commonplace. No matter what happens, if this is the case, Brad should assume the contested open world WILL create some frustration. He needs to really understand this is niche before jumping into it. I want it and I know other players like it, mostly for the social element, but if you plan your game with the xpectation hundreds of thousands will play it, then your budgeting is going to fall through when you realize only 10,000 are willing to tolerate it AND play your game.

Kep in mind I liked the open world in EQ not because I wnated to be an ass and train other players or steal their camps but because it gave the world a much more responsive and populated feel. It felt more sandboxy. There were so many times I would heal someone who was hurt or even save soemeone from death. Or buff noobs. Or other times when I would watch another goup do something and learn from it. Or I'd see someoen and ask them "hey what you doing?" And I'd learn.

 

[Xenich]

Here's the thing Xenich: many players use the same argument against contested solo/group camps/zones/etc. Do you want your cake and to eat it too? Because that's what it sounds like. Someone who's just like you, but a polar opposite, will argue for non-contested solo/grouping.

Let me get this straight.

You are going to say that contested content for raid targets in EQ which required 50+ people to mobilize instantly that were on a 7 day +/- 72 hours spawn time is the same as someone complaining about not having an few of hours to group? You see them as the same? You actually think someone needing to put aside a few hours for play is the same has having to be on call to log in and play the game at a moments notice? Go ahead, tell us how you mobilize that many people to handle difficult content like EQ bosses and do it while working a real job? I am all ears, because I did. Explain to me how they are the same. Hmm?

I remember when I was playing in 1999 I sometimes couldn't find a good spot in Blackburrow, so I had to learn about where else I could go in a given level range. That of course requires time and talking to others. It wouldn't work in a mainstream games anymore because players don't have the patience (or tolerance). There I think was Kerra Isle and West Karana lions/spiders/bandits and Qeynos Catacombs. At first I mostly went to the Catacombs when BB was busy because I favored its smaller size. Later I more often went to West Karana and then to North Karana. Some of the players decided to just trek to freeport or rivervale. A banker in North or East Karana would have made thigs easier because you could bind at the Gypsy camp in North Karana. Either way, you inevitably were doing a lot of running. Which is why some players left to other areas.

If you think about it, it's a lot cheaper as a game maker to just instance Blackburrow and not even bother with creating The Qeynos Catacombs. Hell, you barely even need to furnish low level mobs in West Karana if you're just going to instance Blackburrow. You could cut West Karana in half. Open world contested-spawn MMO's like EQ necessarily need lots of content to give players options when things are busy, Instances handily solve this problem, but for me, they destroy the social feel.

I am talking about raids, not groups or soloing. Pay attention next time.

There has to be a better answer than just making more content to compensate. It's too tempting to say "Well we'll just instance X and eliminate Y and Z." It's the death of contested open world. Not only that, players prefer instances over contested open world fights because there's less frustration. With instances, they don't have to deal with a**hats. They don't have to deal with the best spots always being taken. They don't have to deal with random trains someone else created. So naturally the company concludes it's both cheaper to make non-constested MMO's and also more appealing to most players.

Diable 2 had a way of dealing with what happened when more players logged in. The max population on a diablo 2 server was I think 6 or 8. AS the population rose, the difficult and reward increased. This meant if the population was high then no single player could sweep over the dungeons and empty them, as they would if the population was low. They'd have to work together or at least work at a much more subdue pace if the population was high.

1. Read before you respond. Look at the context of the discussion.
2. Make an argument that is relevant to that line of discussion.
3. Make sure you have some experience or understanding of the topic before you comment.

Raids, not groups... raids...

Answer me this? Ever lead a raid? Run a guild that raided to any real effort? Where? Ever lead a raid in EQs contested raid content?

Yeah, didn't think so.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

And again I don't really care about the distinctions you make between group and raid.

It's the same to me. YOu want contested group and no-contested raid.

Your polar oposite wants contested group and doesn't care about raids (or wnats contested raids).

Many of the same argumetns you use can be turned around and used to justify instancing group/solo fihts.

THAT'S why it's important to address this on a professionall level, insofar as the Pantheon team is concered. They must approach this as a fully geared and prepared navy SEAL. Don't get caught sleeping on the job.

My worry is they won't give this enough attention. Then when complaitns are flying, they'll appeal. And at that point it's too late. Goodbye contested oepn world. Helo instances or patchwork mechanics to makeit non-contested.

Sorry if i come down hard on you. This is a enormous monster hard to put down. Every game you play there's a aswarm of poayers wanting non-contested contents. Swarm of players wanting things like this. TheY make the most noise.

 

[Xenich]

And again I don't really care about the distinctions you make between group and raid.

It's the same to me. YOu want contested group and no-contested raid.

Your polar oposite wants contested group and doesn't care about raids (or wnats contested raids).

Of course you don't care to segregate them, it destroys your fucking argument. Look, you don't get to ignore the facts because it is inconvenient.

The time it takes to raid vs the time it takes to group are DRASTICALLY different. Saying they are the same while ignoring the factual differences between them is fallacious and means you are either being devious or you are just that fucking stupid.

As I said, you don't know because you have no clue. You go on about EQ, but you were some mainstream casual who solo'd and did occasional groups. You never were a raider, you never had to organize 50-70 people, get them to race through difficult areas to setup and then handle an endurance raid for a few hours to win. You have no fucking clue. you were likely some little kid still living at home with mommy and daddy when you played EQ while the rest of us were working real jobs and had lives to attend to. I have told you before I have no problems with having to put time aside for the game. I did, I worked the hours and had a family. I put the time aside to play the game. I have led raids through major difficult content and I know the system of EQ quite well. When I say that contested raiding like EQ basically is for people without jobs, I am not saying such like the fucking mainstream idiots who go on about having to spend more than 30 mins in a game interrupting their busy lives. I am literally saying such because it is nearly impossible to do so while working.

So no... contested raiding and contested groups are not the same. Raid targets are on multi-day spawns and can pop at anytime during day or night. Group mobs in EQ were on 30 min timers, there is... NO COMPARISON.

Stop being a fucking idiot.

 

[Ranselknulf]

Just make a free for all server for the people who want to "pvp" and make a regular server with some sort of play nice features for everybody else.

 

[Xenich]

Just make a free for all server for the people who want to "pvp" and make a regular server with some sort of play nice features for everybody else.

Yep, not a hard concept, not sure why people would be against it.

 

[Nael]

Just make a free for all server for the people who want to "pvp" and make a regular server with some sort of play nice features for everybody else.

It solved a lot of the problems on Rallos Zek for exactly what Xenich was talking about. When the Taiwanese guild would roll through and try to do PoF and take it from us while we weren't in game but in the middle of a 2 day raid we could still organize a small one or two group PVP squad and wipe em and lock em out of the portal once they were all dead. Then we would hold their corpses hostage and negotiate an equitable arrangement. It was intense. It was fun. Sure it sucked if you were on the opposite end of that treatment but thems were the breaks and everyone on that server (for a few years at least) understood that. We didn't corpse camp people with the intention of locking them out from looting their stuff because there was still some respect between rivals. You didn't want them doing the same when you fucked up. Hell, I had enemy guilds give me the platinum they looted off my corpse back to me before.

Then the original raid groups kinda died off and the whole thing turned to a shit show for a few years. I guess things picked back up after I quit playing but those early days on Rallos Zek deserved to be documented. Unfortuantely they weren't and I don't think an MMO will ever have a community quite like that again. I've never played it but some of the things I've read about EVE Online and its PC pirates in that game sort of remind me of the same mindset in a similarly risk vs reward driven system.

Open PVP in an MMO is an unparalleled experience if you have a strong enough community that can police itself from griefers and maintain a good amount of competition. If one guild becomes dominant or the playing field is full of pretenders it will fail. Just look at what happened to WAR. The developers insured one faction had a mechanical upper-hand in the fight because of perceived difference in numbers. The developers artificially tried to tweak the game back to balance and fucked EVERYONE over. The game died. I think a lot of that had to do with the concept of artificial factions to begin with. In EQ1 there were no imposed factions from a guild/group standpoint. The players created their own factions. Organically. The way nature intended. And it was good for quite some time. All good things come to an end though of course.