Riahuf22 said:Tanix said:Riahuf22 said:Well, that was extreme, and honestly those weren't compromising features those were completely different features than what eq had. Compromising would be like Eq was pretty much a 100% grp base game, modern in solo, but instead of only having certain classes that can solo in Pantheon have it to where all of them can but it would be at targets 8-12 levels below them, this is considered a compromise not the crap you threw in that eq wasnt.
So you want solo content designed into the game. Gotcha.
You keep claiming otherwise, but then go ahead and state that exact thing again.
EQ didn't design solo content. As you point out above, EQ had some classes that could solo simply by emergent play. You however want ALL classes to be able to solo a specific range of mobs. So you want solo content designed into the game.
This isn't a compromise, this is you expecting modern MMO soloing in the game.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
You look at it as designed solo content, but I would rather have it designed that way than, have classes in eq that are soloing well beyond their means, and killing target even to 5 levels above them with little difficulty, I mean seriously you act like eq had it all right but if people are simply snaring a target and walking it like a dog with dots on it, how exactly wad that hard it wasnt, so how about where you stop pretending eq didn't have design solo content when it obviously did
I don't "look at it as.." that is EXACTLY what it is. You are specifically designing content to be solo'd "by all classes" at a certain level range you claim is the accepted range. That is what your words mean when you place those certain ones in that particular order. It means you want content specifically designed a certain way, in this case, solo content specifically designed. So based on the above clarification, and your continued examples, what you are saying is you want content designed similar to how modern MMOs do it, such like WoW.
That is, you want ALL classes to be able to solo at a specified range and you want to stop the random factor of emergent play where a person through clever use of the spells/skills and situation could with extreme effort step outside the range you want to defeat an encounter (ie a druid through a very difficult and long encounter with zero room for error, being able to take down a Giant 5 levels above them. What you want, but your own words is for this erratic behavior to be stopped, where players are very cleanly defined as to what they are allowed to do in the very specfic ranges they will be allowed to do it.
Yep, that is WoW exactly. It is theme park design, it is anti-emergent play, it is on rails "you must be this high to ride this ride" play. That is not in the spirit of EQ, nor release VG. Considering this game is trying to at least offer the design direction based on the core concepts of those games, your suggestion (a modern MMO design in blatant contrast) is very conflicting in direction. That is, you are admonishing me for wanting them to hold to the basic principals to which made EQ what it was while you advocate for systems that defeat the entire purpose of why they are making this game.
I think we have very clearly established your premise.
My point? No. I don't want WoW on rails, theme park content telling me what I can and can't do because others would like equality of outcome in play. That isn't even in the same ball park as EQ, which is why this is a poor request. Also, when you read the FAQ, it states:
1.4 Will you be able to solo in Pantheon?
Yes. While most content will be designed for groups, there will typically also be content that is soloable. Some classes may solo better than other classes.
The statement is not entirely clear what they mean exactly (I think you need to clarify this Kilsin/Brad). What I took from this (while putting it into proper context based on Brad and others comments over the years) is that what the mean by "solo" is that while the game is designed for groups, soloing will be possible, but not specifically designed for such (unless under very specific circumstances) and that because of this, while classes would be able to solo, how well, where and what they could solo would really depend on numerous varibles (ie its group content, if you figure out how to make your class solo, more power to ya).
Now that is what I got from that and their discussions. I did not infer it meant solo content designed for soloing so all classes could solo as this would be 1) counter to what EQ and VG originally were and counter to many of the other statements on what this game is, what is trying to achieve.
Your interpetation is that of them making it another WoW in terms of soloing, which.. is counter to everything this game set out to be.
You see, if VR designs the game as you describe, there is no point in me being here as it will yet be another flavor of mainstream games.
So I don't want EQ Emulator, I want a game designed in the spirit of EQ, taking the key elements that were important in its design and holding to its approach using modern mechanics.
If wanting that is wanting an EQ clone, then you wanting what you want is a WoW clone and I am pretty sure that an EQ clone is far closer to the intent of this game than a WoW one. Just saying...
Tanix said:My point? No. I don't want WoW on rails, theme park content telling me what I can and can't do because others would like equality of outcome in play. That isn't even in the same ball park as EQ, which is why this is a poor request. Also, when you read the FAQ, it states:
1.4 Will you be able to solo in Pantheon?
Yes. While most content will be designed for groups, there will typically also be content that is soloable. Some classes may solo better than other classes.
The statement is not entirely clear what they mean exactly (I think you need to clarify this Kilsin/Brad). What I took from this (while putting it into proper context based on Brad and others comments over the years) is that what the mean by "solo" is that while the game is designed for groups, soloing will be possible, but not specifically designed for such (unless under very specific circumstances) and that because of this, while classes would be able to solo, how well, where and what they could solo would really depend on numerous varibles (ie its group content, if you figure out how to make your class solo, more power to ya).
Now that is what I got from that and their discussions. I did not infer it meant solo content designed for soloing so all classes could solo as this would be 1) counter to what EQ and VG originally were and counter to many of the other statements on what this game is, what is trying to achieve.
Your interpetation is that of them making it another WoW in terms of soloing, which.. is counter to everything this game set out to be.
You see, if VR designs the game as you describe, there is no point in me being here as it will yet be another flavor of mainstream games.
So I don't want EQ Emulator, I want a game designed in the spirit of EQ, taking the key elements that were important in its design and holding to its approach using modern mechanics.
If wanting that is wanting an EQ clone, then you wanting what you want is a WoW clone and I am pretty sure that an EQ clone is far closer to the intent of this game than a WoW one. Just saying...
I really don't read it the way you are. He answers the question right at the beginning, will we be able to solo. He answers "yes". That is a flat comment that really can't be interpeted any other way. He then goes on to say "While MOST content will be designed for groups", he doesn't say all content, he says most, which to me means that there is going to be some solo content, and then says there will typically also content that is soloable. The last part of that states that some classes may solo better than other classes. He doesn't say some classes won't be able to solo, he says some classes may be better at soloing than others.
I think you are just reading what you want into that. Now saying that, I don't mind it being like EQ and it being all group content and to solo you have to outlevel it, in fact I would prefer it. But I really think they might be designing some solo content.
@Tanix no one should be able to kill targets that far above them period, that by itself would stop them from wanting to grp by itself, like why would I go and find a grp and kill evens and I can kill that big guy by myself, and get more exp, and prolly better loot, and money. Yeah that's eq it alrdy made. You sound like you want the game challenging but than we prevented to kill something 5 levels above you, you get mad? That doesn't make any sense to me, you should have 0 chance to kill him, he's stronger than you, more resistant to your spells, hits harder than you, have more hp than you, and probably have better armor than you, why should you be able to kill him, and the devs said they are going to be smarter than the simply NPCs we have been in previous mmos, so why do you feel like killing that target 5 levels above you should even feel possible. Hiw about to stick to either trying to make a better harder game the genre needs, or just admit you want a eq clone, and opening up soloing at such a low level compared to you does little to nothing to the game, other than to hear you complain about it effortlessly.
And the devs have said it's going to be a 20/60/20 game, and my example pretty much fits that decription, as for yours says something like 20/75/5.
And btw in wow at lvl 50 they could kill level50-52 mobs pretty easily, same for eq if you had the right classes, as for my idea was much harsher, so stop with the wow comparisons they aren't even close other than all classes can solo at killing low level targets
But I've done repeatingmyself we obviously aren't going to agree, and you feel like killing targets 5 levels higher than you is a challenging game, I feel like killing something 8 levels below you should be challenging to do, by definition which sounds tougher to you, to me it's clear to me, but maybe to you it could be different, everything else has been.
My hope is that they split mobs between group and solo mobs. The group mobs take roughly 6 players of equal level to defeat it. The solo mobs take only one average class to kill it though the time to kill and regen for the next fight will vary by class. Finally on average you can only solo a group mob that is half your level.
Only group mobs will have high value loot. Group mobs can be either 1 big mob, 2 linked powerful mobs, or a group of 6 solo link (aka unsplitable only CCable). The loot only drops from the last of the group killed.
What made EQ great was not all the technological limitations or the “hard core” aspects it was the mandatory interdependence for most classes. Rewarding solo play in any significant way is the most damaging thing from modern MMOs that should be avoided, that includes high level players farming trivial content.
Riahuf22 said:@Tanix no one should be able to kill targets that far above them period, that by itself would stop them from wanting to grp by itself, like why would I go and find a grp and kill evens and I can kill that big guy by myself, and get more exp, and prolly better loot, and money. Yeah that's eq it alrdy made. You sound like you want the game challenging but than we prevented to kill something 5 levels above you, you get mad? That doesn't make any sense to me, you should have 0 chance to kill him, he's stronger than you, more resistant to your spells, hits harder than you, have more hp than you, and probably have better armor than you, why should you be able to kill him, and the devs said they are going to be smarter than the simply NPCs we have been in previous mmos, so why do you feel like killing that target 5 levels above you should even feel possible. Hiw about to stick to either trying to make a better harder game the genre needs, or just admit you want a eq clone, and opening up soloing at such a low level compared to you does little to nothing to the game, other than to hear you complain about it effortlessly.
And the devs have said it's going to be a 20/60/20 game, and my example pretty much fits that decription, as for yours says something like 20/75/5.
I get it, you don't like emergent play. You don't like players being able to figure out and through extreme effort and risk, accomplish something. Rather what you want is Equality in Outcome, where risk and reward are measured in equal doses and consistent for everyone. This way, nobody can excel or fail beyond that limit. What you describe is WoW where mobs were specifically attached to a level, where NO class, regardless of their aproach or clever application of skill, could achieve outside of that rubber stamp, on rails play. Mainstream, got it.,
Trasak said:My hope is that they split mobs between group and solo mobs. The group mobs take roughly 6 players of equal level to defeat it. The solo mobs take only one average class to kill it though the time to kill and regen for the next fight will vary by class. Finally on average you can only solo a group mob that is half your level.
Only group mobs will have high value loot. Group mobs can be either 1 big mob, 2 linked powerful mobs, or a group of 6 solo link (aka unsplitable only CCable). The loot only drops from the last of the group killed.
What made EQ great was not all the technological limitations or the “hard core” aspects it was the mandatory interdependence for most classes. Rewarding solo play in any significant way is the most damaging thing from modern MMOs that should be avoided, that includes high level players farming trivial content.
How are you going to balance that?
Seriously, explain how you will allow ALL classes to achieve what you just described.
Keep in mind, that not all classes are equvivilent and so some will do better than others. So how do you deal with that in order to insure that ALL classes can achieve this?
Also, in EQ, some players were able through clever and very difficult play do exactly what you claim should not be allowed (ie being rewarded significantly in solo play). A druid/bard could through enormous effort (in the first three expansions) solo some giant mobs kiting them. It took a lot of time, a LOT of effort and was extremely risky (a lot of people lacked the ability to do it because of the time and effort required), but through such they could actually obtain gems that sold to the vendors for a large amount of cash (ie the content was deisgned for a group, not to be solo'd). That was a balance of risk vs reward.
So, would you stop that? Are you going to nerf any class that figures out how to solo content for good reward? You might want to start now though, as certain spells that would allow kiting are the biggest culprits in this area. Maybe, like modern MMOs, they should remove all kiting based spells (ie snare and fear) so that players do not draw outside the lines?
See, the danger here is the more you start demanding people play within the confines of expectation, the more the game becomes what games are today. All of these mechanics you see in modern games, they were all reactive designs to percieved abuses in play in previous games. So, the more we try to stop behavior we think is wrong, the more we are going to end up with another mainstream game, because emergent game play (ie game play that falls outside the intention of the developer) is bad in modern game design. You must play as they exactly designed and because they want everyone to have the :"same" experience, the game is on rails and nobody is allowed to even stick their hand outside the window.
You can't have risk vs reward if you straight jacket players and put them in a padded room.
To be fair, the FAQ also states:
9.1 Will you be able to raid in Pantheon?
Yes, there will be Raid content in Pantheon. That said, the majority of content is being designed for grouping, with the remainder for soloing or raiding.
Like it or not, the implication is that some content will be designed for soloing. As long as checks and balances are put in place I don't think there is too much to worry about here. EQ2 used a system similar to what Trasak described. There were "solo mobs" and they weren't really worth a damn. Nobody progressed their characters with solo content. They could kill them for faction or low-value drops but solo content was vastly inferior to traditional group content when it came to any sort of vertical progression. It wasn't until way later in the game that we saw the world dumbed down and adjusted to feature solo play rather than allow it. The main change that went into effect was the inclusion of huge quest timelines that required solo mobs to progress. Players could level from 70-80 while solo, and in record time. It was highly efficient due to the "quest XP" that was rewarded, as well as the countless gold or quest rewards that could be sold to merchants. It was arguably faster than grouping and almost certainly more profitable. As long as we don't see "solo-quest hubs" everything should be fine. One other point I would make is that I think it's really important that the solo content is truly the exception. If it's there ... no qualm with me. If zones are littered with solo mobs in every direction, that would be a very real problem.
@Tanix
TLDR:
The average character is a math model that the rest of the game design is based on. Variations on the “average character math model” are either zero sum changes for player or solo mobs and zero sum changes and force multipliers for group encounters.
Synergistic class specific abilities can give you a force multiplier over the “average character math model”. I would still try and balance such that strength, weakness or synergies would only be a 20% change in power.
Good games require good system design at their heart or you are constantly chasing bugs and balance issues.
The basis of my assumption is that all classes have a combination of DPS, HP and CC. All mobs will in turn have a combination of DPS, HP and CC. Solo mobs HP will be consumed before the players HP will be at roughly the same level. For a fighter that might require him to stand there relying on high HP and mitigation and or use a combinations of temp CC abilities and bandages to make that happen. The cleric can auto attack and simple spell kill mobs while healing themselves. Both of these will naturualy be on the slow side but very safe.
DPS classes will be able to kill a solo mob much faster than tanks or healer but they will be more vulnerable CC mistakes and the RNG giving the mob a string of crits as they only have a limited sudo health pool to work with.
Now you throw in the fact that certain classes will be better at both surviving and killing certain mobs and you get some of your preferred “emergent gameplay” (I really just think of it as good game balance and variation within mobs). The fighter will do great against a fast attacking but low max damage mobs, and crappy against caster mobs, conversely the wizard will perform best against caster mobs and the fast attacker will shred him. This variation can be as diverse and deep as VR has time to program into their mobs abilities and AI dispositions. For example its fine to snare a mob but if you keep out of melee range easily then the mob should pull out a bow and start plinking you right back.
Where group mobs come in is that their DPS roughly is 6 times higher than a solo mob and their sudo HP is six times higher than a solo mob which are in turn tuned to the average character. Average meaning that all classes will have a known max DPS and known max sudo HP (at least on the developers side behind the DM screen) the “average class” will quite literally average the Max DPS and Max Sudo HP of all classes (for the record HP regain abilities and CC are considered sudo HP effects).
Now that DPS and Sudo HP can be configured in a ton of different ways which will dictate how the encounter plays out. It could be the mob auto attacks at x DPS then does an AOE every y seconds if more than 2 targets are in range then throws a boulder at the highest threat character out of range. It could be a single big hit ever tick that must be mitigated or avoided. Likewise the sudo health would be a combination of their max hp, health regen over the expected time the fight should take, the healing spells that should be cast, life steal effects, aoe debuffs and stuns (math starts getting complicated here).
Again similar to how the solo mobs have strengths and weakness the group mobs will also have them. This encourages certain ways to deal with group encounters and optimal group makeups will change the difficulty of each encounter. Theoretically a good makeup can challenge higher level group encounters and bad makeups will have trouble with even slightly lower level mobs.
It is a very unromantic and math driven view of game design but it is the starting point of all good game design. I imagine that VR has some base math models that they base all their class balance and mob balance on. From that base model you make zero sum changes to make classes different then adding in group composition multipliers to encourage/enforce class interdependence.
The level at which a solo player can reasonably challenge a group mob will be a function of the total power growth curve of player characters. The model I suggested basically says that you are 6 times stronger than you were half your levels ago this encompasses class levels, skill levels and gear (actual user experience may vary if you have great or terrible gear or are missing key abilities).
Tanix said:Trasak said:
Also, in EQ, some players were able through clever and very difficult play do exactly what you claim should not be allowed (ie being rewarded significantly in solo play). A druid/bard could through enormous effort (in the first three expansions) solo some giant mobs kiting them. It took a lot of time, a LOT of effort and was extremely risky (a lot of people lacked the ability to do it because of the time and effort required), but through such they could actually obtain gems that sold to the vendors for a large amount of cash (ie the content was deisgned for a group, not to be solo'd). That was a balance of risk vs reward.
There is nothing clever about rooting a target and nuking/dotting it up and sitting there til root breaks, or pretending to walk a dog while your pet hits it or have your pet tank it while you nuke it, these are basically all your forms of soloing in eq foe the most part, what part of this sounds clever, or challenging to you? Oh it isn't I forgot, ok I get it you want a simple game but call it hard so it makes you feel better when you actually kill something.
Also my druid soloed Ice Giants like spreading warm butter on fresh toast, so I didn't need a bard, the snare was good enough to acieve what I wanted to kill him, though it did take a bit but basically had no gear of dying, even if it didn't go as plan the zone line was literally right there, so again basically no risk either
oneADseven said:If zones are littered with solo mobs in every direction, that would be a very real problem.
ya think ;)
#communitymatters
Syrif said:oneADseven said:If zones are littered with solo mobs in every direction, that would be a very real problem.
ya think ;)
I was thinking that solo mobs could be the wandering set dressing type mobs that sorta fill in the blanks. In the wild they would be your random encounters and in dungeon areas they would be the low danger patrollers and mobs placed for looks more than loot and challenge. The group encounters would be deliberately place or have set paths based on where they were used.
sevnptsixtwo said:MyNegation said:Questaar said:For me the problem of high level farmers is simple. If the mob is grey the PC gets no exp or loot. Simple.
I think this is a good rule, it can be tweaked around like: every level above 'grey' is 10% less to the drop etc.
but generally this is a good solution and it doesn't break my immersion. and it is less "fake" than top level griefers farm lowbie areas.
Correct, for you. It is completely opposite for me. If VR goes the way some of you are suggesting, lower level mobs drop nothing, then they will be programming themselves right out of my bank account. I will not play this game. I will not pay cash again for a game that leads me around everywhere while pretending to be free roam. That is exactly what is being suggested here. Just gained a level? Well, you need to move on to the next spot, this one is useless.
Seeing a item on a mob, killing that mob, and the item not dropping because I am too high level? That is 'fake' and immersion breaking.
I agree with seven. How would this mechanic even be fair? Not every named will be camped 100% of the time, so say I happen across a timed spawn at the right time while seeking to complete a different task? I'm for some reason not entitled to the loot? I mean if the item sells for say 5 gold that's 5 gold more than I had when I started my journey.
I really think this conversation has veered away from its original intent, which was (as I read it) to discuss solutions to the problems of players bottom-feeding on lower level content. Instead we've had almost four pages of people arguing over a 20 year old game. It's like watching a Congressional hearing, only perhaps even more childish.
On Page 1, I mentioned three reasons that I see this behavior occurring. Here are solutions that I would propose to help prevent it from becoming a problem.
1) Players need cash, and are killing low level mobs for drops to sell for cash.
Neph's solution: Change the paradigm. I'm not a fan of loot that exists only to sell to NPC vendors. If a vendor buys an orc skull, there should be some use for orc skulls somewhere (maybe making them into candles or armor adornments). Make it so that every drop has a value to other players, and then make it so that NPC vendors pay next to nothing for those same drops. To insure that players still have a way to earn coin, have sentient NPCs carry a small amount of coin that they drop, but add a system of procedurally generated tasks that players can undertake to earn money as well. These tasks should be level-appropriate, but also many and varied, such that it's not predictable what you might get asked to do. Oh, and I hope you like to travel.
I have a lot more to say on procedural content generation but that is a thread in and of itself - which I will try to post sometime this week.
2) Players need faction or skillups
Neph's solution: This is easy. Make it so that faction and skillups only come from level-appropriate encounters. Problem solved.
3) Players want specific loot items either to sell, or because the items are still useful many levels later.
Neph's solution: While I appreciate and support items having a long lifetime, if something is still being used by people 20 levels later, that is a big hole in the game's itemization that needs to be addressed. Someone shouldn't have to go back to a dungeon that's so far below them as to have almost no risk just to get a haste belt (as an example). That gap either needs to be filled by some (better) version of the same thing on a level-appropriate mob, OR by crafting (preferably by both).
As for farming loot to sell, the simple solution here is to limit the quantity of these items that players are able to store and sell. If the aforementioned haste belt is a highly valued item, then simply only allow people to have, or sell, one of them at any given time. In fact I'd go so far to say that every equippable dropped item with stats on it should have the LORE tag or an equivalent. We should be looking to create a player culture of personal achievement and adventuring - not of farming. Besides, limiting the amount of loot drops on the market allows loot and crafting to function side by side (especially if crafting requires other drops from the same places the equippable loot comes from).
Neither of these solutions closes the door completely on going back to get a drop from a lower level mob, but it mitigates the behavior such that, in theory, it should only happen a very small percentage of the time.
I feel fairly confident that if these three things were done, bottom-feeding would be a very rare occurrence. Admittedly, the first solution regarding how players earn cash is the hardest to build. I think it's a concept worth exploring however.
I really hate that I'm about to put a disclaimer on this post, but this community has been *very* toxic lately and frankly, it's gotten to the point where many of of the people that I've chatted with for years around here have told me that they simply aren't bothering to come to the forums anymore because they are sick of being attacked. So with that said - I am not planning to contribute to the ongoing dumpster fire. I will respond to intelligent questions and open-minded conversation. I will not respond to EQ purist rants or people who think they need to "win" the debate. However, I hope that my post will help everyone else to think and behave a bit more rationally about this issue and truly exchange ideas with each other, instead of just trying to tear each other down.
Sounds good neph, sry for the rant, it's actually pretty, solid especially with roaming mobs, alert mobs, hopefully mobs that hold of lanterns and stuff to prevent sneaking into areas or to catch people out of invis and with mobs that aggro people regardless of level and encourages other NPCs to do the same than I'd say for the most part out of an immersion standpoint have done just about everything you can do.
Nephele said:I really think this conversation has veered away from its original intent, which was (as I read it) to discuss solutions to the problems of players bottom-feeding on lower level content.
Simple, we handle it like how we used to. If someone steals or trolls your camp, then you handle it like an A-dult would. If that doesn‘t work, then contact your gm’s. What you don‘t do is persistently complain for the game to be changed. I don’t like it when a good mmorpg gets chipped at little by little. I’ve already seen what that has done to good games. #communitymatters
Nephele said:I really think this conversation has veered away from its original intent, which was (as I read it) to discuss solutions to the problems of players bottom-feeding on lower level content. Instead we've had almost four pages of people arguing over a 20 year old game. It's like watching a Congressional hearing, only perhaps even more childish.
On Page 1, I mentioned three reasons that I see this behavior occurring. Here are solutions that I would propose to help prevent it from becoming a problem.
1) Players need cash, and are killing low level mobs for drops to sell for cash.
Neph's solution: Change the paradigm. I'm not a fan of loot that exists only to sell to NPC vendors. If a vendor buys an orc skull, there should be some use for orc skulls somewhere (maybe making them into candles or armor adornments). Make it so that every drop has a value to other players, and then make it so that NPC vendors pay next to nothing for those same drops. To insure that players still have a way to earn coin, have sentient NPCs carry a small amount of coin that they drop, but add a system of procedurally generated tasks that players can undertake to earn money as well. These tasks should be level-appropriate, but also many and varied, such that it's not predictable what you might get asked to do. Oh, and I hope you like to travel.
I have a lot more to say on procedural content generation but that is a thread in and of itself - which I will try to post sometime this week.
2) Players need faction or skillups
Neph's solution: This is easy. Make it so that faction and skillups only come from level-appropriate encounters. Problem solved.
3) Players want specific loot items either to sell, or because the items are still useful many levels later.
Neph's solution: While I appreciate and support items having a long lifetime, if something is still being used by people 20 levels later, that is a big hole in the game's itemization that needs to be addressed. Someone shouldn't have to go back to a dungeon that's so far below them as to have almost no risk just to get a haste belt (as an example). That gap either needs to be filled by some (better) version of the same thing on a level-appropriate mob, OR by crafting (preferably by both).
As for farming loot to sell, the simple solution here is to limit the quantity of these items that players are able to store and sell. If the aforementioned haste belt is a highly valued item, then simply only allow people to have, or sell, one of them at any given time. In fact I'd go so far to say that every equippable dropped item with stats on it should have the LORE tag or an equivalent. We should be looking to create a player culture of personal achievement and adventuring - not of farming. Besides, limiting the amount of loot drops on the market allows loot and crafting to function side by side (especially if crafting requires other drops from the same places the equippable loot comes from).
Neither of these solutions closes the door completely on going back to get a drop from a lower level mob, but it mitigates the behavior such that, in theory, it should only happen a very small percentage of the time.
I feel fairly confident that if these three things were done, bottom-feeding would be a very rare occurrence. Admittedly, the first solution regarding how players earn cash is the hardest to build. I think it's a concept worth exploring however.
I really hate that I'm about to put a disclaimer on this post, but this community has been *very* toxic lately and frankly, it's gotten to the point where many of of the people that I've chatted with for years around here have told me that they simply aren't bothering to come to the forums anymore because they are sick of being attacked. So with that said - I am not planning to contribute to the ongoing dumpster fire. I will respond to intelligent questions and open-minded conversation. I will not respond to EQ purist rants or people who think they need to "win" the debate. However, I hope that my post will help everyone else to think and behave a bit more rationally about this issue and truly exchange ideas with each other, instead of just trying to tear each other down.
I have noticed that the community has gotten far more toxic than when I first joined as well.
For the most part the solutions you posted I would believe would work to ease things off. Would like to add what about the possibility of getting said loot from another source? Maybe one named mob drops a 5% haste belt and is on a place holder or timed spawn. But maybe you could acquire the belt through an alternate means such as trading faction points for it or maybe a rare drop from a small raid type event. You would have to implement such things carefully though to prevent items from becoming too common and lowering their worth
Nephele said:I really think this conversation has veered away from its original intent, which was (as I read it) to discuss solutions to the problems of players bottom-feeding on lower level content. Instead we've had almost four pages of people arguing over a 20 year old game. It's like watching a Congressional hearing, only perhaps even more childish.
You are quite right that this thread has veered way off track, so lets fix that.
Nephele said:On Page 1, I mentioned three reasons that I see this behavior occurring. Here are solutions that I would propose to help prevent it from becoming a problem.
1) Players need cash, and are killing low level mobs for drops to sell for cash.
Neph's solution: Change the paradigm. I'm not a fan of loot that exists only to sell to NPC vendors. If a vendor buys an orc skull, there should be some use for orc skulls somewhere (maybe making them into candles or armor adornments). Make it so that every drop has a value to other players, and then make it so that NPC vendors pay next to nothing for those same drops. To insure that players still have a way to earn coin, have sentient NPCs carry a small amount of coin that they drop, but add a system of procedurally generated tasks that players can undertake to earn money as well. These tasks should be level-appropriate, but also many and varied, such that it's not predictable what you might get asked to do. Oh, and I hope you like to travel.
While I can see your point, ensuring that every item that drops has some use or value other than as vendor trash would be a monumental undertaking. I'd prefer a more dynamic approach of supply/demand where NPCs dynamically adjust their buy/sell prices based upon the availability of the items within their market area. Thus an NPC in an area filled with Orcs might get quite tired of paying out money for rusty orc weapons so as you try to sell the more and more they continually lower their prices. Sell them something that doesn't drop in the area and they would pay a higher price..until you then start trying to sell that NPC 100 of them. So if player want to farm generic drops for cash, they need to put in a bit more effor than just dumping it off at the closest NPC merchant.
Nephele said:2) Players need faction or skillups
Neph's solution: This is easy. Make it so that faction and skillups only come from level-appropriate encounters. Problem solved.
I need to disagree with this. There could very well be circumstances where a player finds out later on that they need to raise a given faction to complete an important quest, a quest that was introduced later on in the game. Unless there is always content available at every level that would allow for players to build a faction they suddenly find themselves needing, summarily cutting them off from that possibility isn't a desirable solution.
Look at the EQ1 epic quests, for example. They involved players going back to early game zones, many of which needed players to build factions they never needed before. I think it was the Wizard Epic that required you to go into Halas. I'm quite certain there were very few, if any, Dark Elf Wizards that had good Halas faction. Their only choice was to mass murder Gnolls to build that faction...and that meant going to BlackBurrow. I know my Troll Shaman had to work on some factions to finish her epics. The point being is we can't know from the outset what factions will be needed when.
3) Players want specific loot items either to sell, or because the items are still useful many levels later.
Neph's solution: While I appreciate and support items having a long lifetime, if something is still being used by people 20 levels later, that is a big hole in the game's itemization that needs to be addressed. Someone shouldn't have to go back to a dungeon that's so far below them as to have almost no risk just to get a haste belt (as an example). That gap either needs to be filled by some (better) version of the same thing on a level-appropriate mob, OR by crafting (preferably by both).
I'm a big proponent of liberal use of the Lore tag to limit farming, basically preventing the player from stockpiling some drops. And just as spells get replaced as we level, I do concurr that items should be replace over time. The fact that the FBSS was so popular for so many years just showed how overpowered it truly was when designed. You got a 21% haste item in the belt slot (a highly underserved slot for any other desired item) off a group level mob where the only other decent haste item, the Cloak of Flames (36% haste back slot) required a raid against a highly contested dragon. Had there instead been multiple haste items of varying haste percentages spread throughout the levels it may very well have reduced the farm status of the FBSS. Add to these the Lore tag and you help reduce, but not wholly eliminate, the farming of the item for sale (though you can just sell loot-rights).
Riahuf22 said:Sounds good neph, sry for the rant, it's actually pretty, solid especially with roaming mobs, alert mobs, hopefully mobs that hold of lanterns and stuff to prevent sneaking into areas or to catch people out of invis and with mobs that aggro people regardless of level and encourages other NPCs to do the same than I'd say for the most part out of an immersion standpoint have done just about everything you can do.
No worries sir, it's hard sometimes not to respond emotionally to things. I know this all too well :)
I agree with you that making it harder for people to sneak/invis/etc to get to things helps a lot. I'm really looking forward to seeing how NPC dispositions force us to change our approach by making the mobs behave much more intelligently, as an example :)
Grimix said:For the most part the solutions you posted I would believe would work to ease things off. Would like to add what about the possibility of getting said loot from another source? Maybe one named mob drops a 5% haste belt and is on a place holder or timed spawn. But maybe you could acquire the belt through an alternate means such as trading faction points for it or maybe a rare drop from a small raid type event. You would have to implement such things carefully though to prevent items from becoming too common and lowering their worth
I like that suggestion a lot Grimix. I don't know that I can add much to your idea but I think having multiple potential avenues to obtain different types of items isn't a bad thing at all.
Have to focus on work for a bit, but will come back to the forums once I escape from that :)
Syrif said:Nephele said:I really think this conversation has veered away from its original intent, which was (as I read it) to discuss solutions to the problems of players bottom-feeding on lower level content.
Simple, we handle it like how we used to. If someone steals or trolls your camp, then you handle it like an A-dult would. If that doesn‘t work, then contact your gm’s. What you don‘t do is persistently complain for the game to be changed. I don’t like it when a good mmorpg gets chipped at little by little. I’ve already seen what that has done to good games. #communitymatters
Handling it like an adult will never work for the simple fact theperson who is taking/stealing your camp you will never see in real life, so what are you going to do say this is my camp could you please go somewhere else and camp that instead?" You realize the answer your going to get right since like 90% of the time he's probably going to realize it's your camp and stole it anyway. I mean it sounds like a great idea but honestly players for the most part when it comes to situations like this they can be a jerk, and another thing is it not against the rules, from a game point of veiw, the best you can do really is let the community know and hope it gives him a bad rep or something, but other than that your just kind of screwed.e
Yay, meeting unexpectedly cancelled. So now I can respond to Vandraad. Then, sadly, moar work :(
Vandraad said:While I can see your point, ensuring that every item that drops has some use or value other than as vendor trash would be a monumental undertaking. I'd prefer a more dynamic approach of supply/demand where NPCs dynamically adjust their buy/sell prices based upon the availability of the items within their market area. Thus an NPC in an area filled with Orcs might get quite tired of paying out money for rusty orc weapons so as you try to sell the more and more they continually lower their prices. Sell them something that doesn't drop in the area and they would pay a higher price..until you then start trying to sell that NPC 100 of them. So if player want to farm generic drops for cash, they need to put in a bit more effor than just dumping it off at the closest NPC merchant.
I think that approach could work too. I'm still partial to mine (I have an irrational hatred of vendor trash loot) but I actually now kind of want to combine the two concepts. Either way, definitely worth exploring as an option! Thank you sir :)
Vandraad said:I need to disagree with this. There could very well be circumstances where a player finds out later on that they need to raise a given faction to complete an important quest, a quest that was introduced later on in the game. Unless there is always content available at every level that would allow for players to build a faction they suddenly find themselves needing, summarily cutting them off from that possibility isn't a desirable solution.
Look at the EQ1 epic quests, for example. They involved players going back to early game zones, many of which needed players to build factions they never needed before. I think it was the Wizard Epic that required you to go into Halas. I'm quite certain there were very few, if any, Dark Elf Wizards that had good Halas faction. Their only choice was to mass murder Gnolls to build that faction...and that meant going to BlackBurrow. I know my Troll Shaman had to work on some factions to finish her epics. The point being is we can't know from the outset what factions will be needed when.
I get your point here, but I also sort of feel like Pantheon should do better than that, if that makes sense? Because of the way EQ got built up over time, you had all these weird interactions between things added later in the life of the game and the stuff that was there before them. You could argue that to a certain extent that might be unavoidable, since devs change over time and new ideas come about, but I also feel like with 20 years of MMORPG history to look back and learn from, issues like this can be avoided as well. "Forward-compatible design" should be a thing that VR devs are thinking about. You do bring up a good point though.
Ok, now I really have to go focus on work. I actually have to talk about something in the next meeting, so I better go make sure I remember what the heck I was planning to say.
Walpurgis said:Tanix said:My point? No. I don't want WoW on rails, theme park content telling me what I can and can't do because others would like equality of outcome in play. That isn't even in the same ball park as EQ, which is why this is a poor request. Also, when you read the FAQ, it states:
1.4 Will you be able to solo in Pantheon?
Yes. While most content will be designed for groups, there will typically also be content that is soloable. Some classes may solo better than other classes.
The statement is not entirely clear what they mean exactly (I think you need to clarify this Kilsin/Brad). What I took from this (while putting it into proper context based on Brad and others comments over the years) is that what the mean by "solo" is that while the game is designed for groups, soloing will be possible, but not specifically designed for such (unless under very specific circumstances) and that because of this, while classes would be able to solo, how well, where and what they could solo would really depend on numerous varibles (ie its group content, if you figure out how to make your class solo, more power to ya).
Now that is what I got from that and their discussions. I did not infer it meant solo content designed for soloing so all classes could solo as this would be 1) counter to what EQ and VG originally were and counter to many of the other statements on what this game is, what is trying to achieve.
Your interpetation is that of them making it another WoW in terms of soloing, which.. is counter to everything this game set out to be.
You see, if VR designs the game as you describe, there is no point in me being here as it will yet be another flavor of mainstream games.
So I don't want EQ Emulator, I want a game designed in the spirit of EQ, taking the key elements that were important in its design and holding to its approach using modern mechanics.
If wanting that is wanting an EQ clone, then you wanting what you want is a WoW clone and I am pretty sure that an EQ clone is far closer to the intent of this game than a WoW one. Just saying...
I really don't read it the way you are. He answers the question right at the beginning, will we be able to solo. He answers "yes". That is a flat comment that really can't be interpeted any other way. He then goes on to say "While MOST content will be designed for groups", he doesn't say all content, he says most, which to me means that there is going to be some solo content, and then says there will typically also content that is soloable. The last part of that states that some classes may solo better than other classes. He doesn't say some classes won't be able to solo, he says some classes may be better at soloing than others.
I think you are just reading what you want into that. Now saying that, I don't mind it being like EQ and it being all group content and to solo you have to outlevel it, in fact I would prefer it. But I really think they might be designing some solo content.
There are no qualifiers for his comment. You are literally establishing that comment without direction, without clarification to mean ALL.
Does the comment say "Will ALL classes be able to solo?", no. It says.. "Will we be able to solo?" Which can mean, yes... under certain conditions, which I think they elude to "some classes may solo better than other classes."
Lets take that to an EQ example. All Classes could solo. *stop*
Right there, you might be inclined to believe soloing was a common occurence for ALL classes in EQ. It wasn't.
All Classes could solo at certain times, under certain conditions, according to certain applications.
So the statement is originally true, just not true in the sense of modern interpetation. Those who played early EQ understood what it means, that all classes at certain times may be able to solo depending on many variables (gear, location, spells, etc...), but soloing was not a concept of play as it is in modern MMOs where ALL CLASSES CAN AND DO SOLO AT ALL TIMES.
That is the point.
Now I would greatly appreciate VR clarifying this (I know they did in the past with various explantions, I would love however for them to clarify the FAQ) so that we can lay this to rest. If VR's intention is to intentionally develop solo content for ALL classes, then this is a big TELL for me and I am sure many others, which would help us discernn if this game is right for us or not.
You see, I was under a given impression of what this game was seeking. If that goal is not what I thought, I am more than happy to move on from the game. You see, unlike some, I don't expect a game to change its entire idealogy to cater to my individual whims.
On farming faction:
I would like to see faction gains be significantly more local and based on actions rather than slaughter in general. Its fine for faction hits to happen for killing someone but faction gains should only be from challenging tasks.
Rather than killing 400 orcs I would rather see a timed quest to go kill 2 chieftains and 4 lieutenants from the surrounding tribes. The players would need full groups to kill these mobs and would also need to find them (locate not camp). The difficulty of completing the task in a 2 hour time frame would justify the shorter time spent than simple grinding would take.
I would also make the final rewards of the faction gain be dependent on the level of the mob that fills in the slot. In this way low level players could kill the nearby level 20 chieftains but high level players could go to the adjacent mountain zone and kill the level 40 chieftains for an order of magnitude more faction. (for logistics purposes the quest tracker would over write a lower level kill with a higher one before turn in).
This would also be a good opportunity to introduce mob baiting where a mini quest can be performed to create a one use item to force a spawn to get the kill relatively on command. The nature of the mini quest will still prevent you from repeatedly summoning to max a faction in a single day. (more through taking time to find ground spawns and the like than any “daily limit”).
P.S. I think it would also be interesting if over time reputations returned to neutral rather than being stable. A little of “what have you done for me lately” mixed with forgive and forget. This would mean that having a high faction would be a matter of choice not just a progression flag to hit.
Trasak said:@Tanix
TLDR:
The average character is a math model that the rest of the game design is based on. Variations on the “average character math model” are either zero sum changes for player or solo mobs and zero sum changes and force multipliers for group encounters.
Synergistic class specific abilities can give you a force multiplier over the “average character math model”. I would still try and balance such that strength, weakness or synergies would only be a 20% change in power.
Good games require good system design at their heart or you are constantly chasing bugs and balance issues.
The basis of my assumption is that all classes have a combination of DPS, HP and CC. All mobs will in turn have a combination of DPS, HP and CC. Solo mobs HP will be consumed before the players HP will be at roughly the same level. For a fighter that might require him to stand there relying on high HP and mitigation and or use a combinations of temp CC abilities and bandages to make that happen. The cleric can auto attack and simple spell kill mobs while healing themselves. Both of these will naturualy be on the slow side but very safe.
DPS classes will be able to kill a solo mob much faster than tanks or healer but they will be more vulnerable CC mistakes and the RNG giving the mob a string of crits as they only have a limited sudo health pool to work with.
Now you throw in the fact that certain classes will be better at both surviving and killing certain mobs and you get some of your preferred “emergent gameplay” (I really just think of it as good game balance and variation within mobs). The fighter will do great against a fast attacking but low max damage mobs, and crappy against caster mobs, conversely the wizard will perform best against caster mobs and the fast attacker will shred him. This variation can be as diverse and deep as VR has time to program into their mobs abilities and AI dispositions. For example its fine to snare a mob but if you keep out of melee range easily then the mob should pull out a bow and start plinking you right back.
Where group mobs come in is that their DPS roughly is 6 times higher than a solo mob and their sudo HP is six times higher than a solo mob which are in turn tuned to the average character. Average meaning that all classes will have a known max DPS and known max sudo HP (at least on the developers side behind the DM screen) the “average class” will quite literally average the Max DPS and Max Sudo HP of all classes (for the record HP regain abilities and CC are considered sudo HP effects).
Now that DPS and Sudo HP can be configured in a ton of different ways which will dictate how the encounter plays out. It could be the mob auto attacks at x DPS then does an AOE every y seconds if more than 2 targets are in range then throws a boulder at the highest threat character out of range. It could be a single big hit ever tick that must be mitigated or avoided. Likewise the sudo health would be a combination of their max hp, health regen over the expected time the fight should take, the healing spells that should be cast, life steal effects, aoe debuffs and stuns (math starts getting complicated here).
Again similar to how the solo mobs have strengths and weakness the group mobs will also have them. This encourages certain ways to deal with group encounters and optimal group makeups will change the difficulty of each encounter. Theoretically a good makeup can challenge higher level group encounters and bad makeups will have trouble with even slightly lower level mobs.
It is a very unromantic and math driven view of game design but it is the starting point of all good game design. I imagine that VR has some base math models that they base all their class balance and mob balance on. From that base model you make zero sum changes to make classes different then adding in group composition multipliers to encourage/enforce class interdependence.
The level at which a solo player can reasonably challenge a group mob will be a function of the total power growth curve of player characters. The model I suggested basically says that you are 6 times stronger than you were half your levels ago this encompasses class levels, skill levels and gear (actual user experience may vary if you have great or terrible gear or are missing key abilities).
Good read Trasak!
Consider though that emergent game play does not enter into the equation.
So lets take your example of the a kiter and then using a solo group mob to pull out a ranged item to stop the advantage from distance in kiting. Now barring you using tactics to over power practical play (ie, what was done in EQ with mobs summoning players to fight kiting behavior or making thier ranged damage a one shot ability of the like), lets say the kiter uses in game mechanics to beat the encounter to which maybe the developer did not account for.
So, a druid pulls a mob with snare, it walks slowly, the druid then throws on a dot to slowly eat the health of the mob. The mob then changes to range to start ranging the druid, but... the druid has pulled the mob in an area where there are multiple trees, rocks, obstacles to which the mob doing range is unable to target when the druid passes behind it.
So, the druid has now applied an emergent game play tactic, using legally and reasonably the means of logical play. They defeat the mob which was equal or higher level based on this concept of strategy.
One option is to stop this, to claim this was not intended and develop more mechanics that try to impede to directly stop this behavior. Then, again, through clever evaluation and understanding of skills/spells, a player learns how to achieve a similar result in defeating the encounter.
Do you nerf the class? Put in numerous blatant invisible walls (ie like some games where an unexpected behavior is treated as a cheat), or do you applaud the ingenuitiy of the use and develop around it, or at the least, trying to subtly attend to it (ie the Verant Monk pulling code of Velious).
See, with "emergent" game play, you design a certain way, but you don't force mechanics to a rail and by doing such, you allow artistic play to promote solutions and build lasting experiences in the game (ie what EQ and games like EQ did before mainstream tried to cage all behaviors).
You can't math your way to a solution, which is why physics exists, for math alone can not achieve understanding as it lacks many aspects or practical understanding (ie the concept of testing and result).
@Tranix
Under my previous example the expectation is that the druid will have run out of mana (based on little or no mana regen while in combat) and or snare will have reached diminishing returns before an equal level group mob would have died from a druids (sub type healer) DPS. This would still hold true for a wizard or any other ranged caster and all melee classes will just take too much damage without support to even try.
Now I will grant you that picking the right target and using great tactics can give you an edge so a level 40 might be able to solo a level 30 group mob in optimal conditions. Where I will differ with you on is that I think its actually the developers responsibility to patch faulty behaviors so if a kiter is able to find a rock or tree that the mobs get stuck on then that rock or tree needs fixed. I don't consider that emergent game play or good tactics it's exploiting a game bug and will likely be against the EULA if done deliberately. (whether it is ever enforced is a different issue as I would consider it the fault of the developer and not the player)