I still like the idea of large raids. When doing the PoP raids in EQ there was a tremendous sense of accomplishment when you finally downed a raid mob and got a flag you've been wanting for ages. I know that you can mirror the same thing with smaller raids but it is about the people you are with more than the raid itself. The more people you share the experience with the more you enjoy the experience.
Plus you can certainly tune raids for 72 players if you really want so I disagree with Liavs point about larger raids being easier for people. If you remember when GoD first came out no one would say those raids were easy and I think they allowed 52 players in those raids. In fact I remember at the time all the hardcore guilds complaining because GoD was too hard not the other way around.
Cromulent said:I still like the idea of large raids. When doing the PoP raids in EQ there was a tremendous sense of accomplishment when you finally downed a raid mob and got a flag you've been wanting for ages. I know that you can mirror the same thing with smaller raids but it is about the people you are with more than the raid itself. The more people you share the experience with the more you enjoy the experience.
Plus you can certainly tune raids for 72 players if you really want so I disagree with Liavs point about larger raids being easier for people. If you remember when GoD first came out no one would say those raids were easy and I think they allowed 52 players in those raids. In fact I remember at the time all the hardcore guilds complaining because GoD was too hard not the other way around.
Yeah, but GoD was incredibly hard because the raids were overturned because they had been designed around the expansion having a level increase to 70 which SOE decided to push to Omens of War instead.
I agree with Dullahan and a few others. No standardized raids. I don't want to be told that this is a 25-man and that is a 40-man. Let people work it out on their own. If there have to be set numbers, then let them be large. 10 people (or 12 in this case) is not a raid to me. WoW started going downhill for me when they took out the 40-mans. Guilds that had already been traumatized by that 40-player limit left the game or broke apart. EverQuest was not a zergfest in the early days, and the zerg guilds were rarely counted among the server's elite. In fact, they were generally a joke, as at least one other person has mentioned here. There were many large guilds (and some smaller ones) who were well-oiled machines. I'm hoping that most or all raid targets will be open and contested and that guilds will learn how many players they need to take them down by trial and lots of error, rather than by the game constraining them to a certain number based on the target's difficulty.
Citing Gates of Discord as an argument against raids with player caps is just ignorance. Gates of Discord was a broken expansion on release, it has nothing to do with player numbers.
By not limiting raids to a certain quantity of players, you're just opening things up to zerging. Period.
There is no practical reason to allow unlimited players into a raid other than to make casuals feel good about themselves.
I'm not into 'casual' raiding. I think that's something that came into these games when the raid sizes were cut so drastically. That's when you began to see so many PUG raids. To me, the less people involved in a raid, the more casual it feels. "Hey, let's get a couple groups together and go take out this dragon." Seems pretty casual. It's not as easy to get ten groups together. If this type of content is contested, smaller raid sizes will allow more guilds to compete for it, not less. I'm not sure how that helps 'casuals' raid. Mobilization will be crucial. Logistics matter more with larger raids, and I like that.
Uncapped, less rigid structure fits more with their ethos. It will lead to the community finding the optimal number of players for the content in order to obtain the best loot:player ratio while maintaining a guild force able to contest content and raid regularly. There of course will be other issues to solve too. This could also potentially lead to each server solving raiding quite differently.
But the above is predicated on them actually having correct server populations, timely release of content and other behind the curtain mechanics/structures in place so that the community can support that aspect of the game themselves, without it descending into a total mess.
Ultimately, I think getting uncapped, non-instanced, contested raiding right is a lot harder than designing around a set number in an instance, but if done correctly the reward is a much richer game more in line with the reasons we’re backing the game in the first place.
Thallium said:Uncapped, less rigid structure fits more with their ethos. It will lead to the community finding the optimal number of players for the content in order to obtain the best loot:player ratio while maintaining a guild force able to contest content and raid regularly. There of course will be other issues to solve too. This could also potentially lead to each server solving raiding quite differently.
But the above is predicated on them actually having correct server populations, timely release of content and other behind the curtain mechanics/structures in place so that the community can support that aspect of the game themselves, without it descending into a total mess.
Ultimately, I think getting uncapped, non-instanced, contested raiding right is a lot harder than designing around a set number in an instance, but if done correctly the reward is a much richer game more in line with the reasons we’re backing the game in the first place.
Well said. Hell of a first post.
Shucklighter said:Thallium said:Uncapped, less rigid structure fits more with their ethos. It will lead to the community finding the optimal number of players for the content in order to obtain the best loot:player ratio while maintaining a guild force able to contest content and raid regularly. There of course will be other issues to solve too. This could also potentially lead to each server solving raiding quite differently.
But the above is predicated on them actually having correct server populations, timely release of content and other behind the curtain mechanics/structures in place so that the community can support that aspect of the game themselves, without it descending into a total mess.
Ultimately, I think getting uncapped, non-instanced, contested raiding right is a lot harder than designing around a set number in an instance, but if done correctly the reward is a much richer game more in line with the reasons we’re backing the game in the first place.
Well said. Hell of a first post.
A good post, except for the fact that instancing has nothing to do with player caps or the topic of the thread.
Contested content and capped raids are not mutually exclusive. See: Vanguard
Thallium said:Uncapped, less rigid structure fits more with their ethos. It will lead to the community finding the optimal number of players for the content in order to obtain the best loot:player ratio while maintaining a guild force able to contest content and raid regularly. There of course will be other issues to solve too. This could also potentially lead to each server solving raiding quite differently.
But the above is predicated on them actually having correct server populations, timely release of content and other behind the curtain mechanics/structures in place so that the community can support that aspect of the game themselves, without it descending into a total mess.
Ultimately, I think getting uncapped, non-instanced, contested raiding right is a lot harder than designing around a set number in an instance, but if done correctly the reward is a much richer game more in line with the reasons we’re backing the game in the first place.
Exactly. It's just another part of risk versus reward. There is a reward for every risk, but when you minimize that risk it doesn't increase the reward. More people still reap the same reward. When items are rare and desirable, the desire to find peak efficiency will drive the better players away into better, leaner guilds.
Another thing to note is, if content is challenging -- particularly raid content -- more players makes things slower and sometimes even harder. That allows smaller, more coordinated guilds to get things done faster when the race is on.
Capping a raid size removes one variable from content design and allows the developers to deal with a much more "known" set of parameters when trying to establish the appropriate challenge level, and potentially the intricacy of raid mechanics. I'm very much a fan of a more open game design in many respects, but when it comes to raiding and the most complex encounter design that the team intends to implement, let's let them be artists and see what comes of it.
Hannar said:Capping a raid size removes one variable from content design and allows the developers to deal with a much more "known" set of parameters when trying to establish the appropriate challenge level, and potentially the intricacy of raid mechanics. I'm very much a fan of a more open game design in many respects, but when it comes to raiding and the most complex encounter design that the team intends to implement, let's let them be artists and see what comes of it.
Hannar nailed it. This is my thought process as well.
Pantheon is claiming to be a challenging game. Here are two important quotes:
“A commitment to a style of play that focuses on immersive combat, and engaging group mechanics.” - Game Tenet http://pantheonmmo.com/game/game_tenets/
“I want to make combat, especially mid and higher level combat, so tactically intense, with so much going on, so much to do, so much to counter, so many companions to keep alive, and the timing of many abilities crucial, that multi-boxing is, if not impossible, extremely difficult and likely far inferior to having an actual real person in your group.”- Aradune https://www.reddit.com/r/MMORPG/comments/4y7sd0/i_am_brad_aradune_mcquaid_cco_for_pantheon_rise/d6lph90/
As fun as ~72 and ~54 man raids were, as Hannar said quite elegantly, would prove to be incredibly challenging for Visionary Realms to pull off and stay true to their tenets.
Dullahan said:Exactly. It's just another part of risk versus reward. There is a reward for every risk, but when you minimize that risk it doesn't increase the reward. More people still reap the same reward. When items are rare and desirable, the desire to find peak efficiency will drive the better players away into better, leaner guilds.
Another thing to note is, if content is challenging -- particularly raid content -- more players makes things slower and sometimes even harder. That allows smaller, more coordinated guilds to get things done faster when the race is on.
I'm confused. Are you advocating for or against capped raid sizes? The content of your post seems supportive of limiting it.
"more players makes things slow and sometimes even hard"
"small, more coordinated guilds get things done faster"
So basically you want uncapped raids "just because", but also acknowledge that it's cumbersome and probably won't be utilized anyway.
For raid size, I feel like nothing should be restricted at first. If problems should arise then make adjustments. But until they do just let it ride out. If the raid mob drops a single item it's in the raid groups interest to keep its size small as possible to increase the chances of winning a roll.
Liav said:Dullahan said:Exactly. It's just another part of risk versus reward. There is a reward for every risk, but when you minimize that risk it doesn't increase the reward. More people still reap the same reward. When items are rare and desirable, the desire to find peak efficiency will drive the better players away into better, leaner guilds.
Another thing to note is, if content is challenging -- particularly raid content -- more players makes things slower and sometimes even harder. That allows smaller, more coordinated guilds to get things done faster when the race is on.
I'm confused. Are you advocating for or against capped raid sizes? The content of your post seems supportive of limiting it.
"more players makes things slow and sometimes even hard"
"small, more coordinated guilds get things done faster"
So basically you want uncapped raids "just because", but also acknowledge that it's cumbersome and probably won't be utilized anyway.
Yes to your conclusion. The point is that there is no need for hardcoded limitations, because it will happen naturally if content is contested and items are rare. While there may be some zerging early on by players eager to topple content, eventually Wizard_12 in a zerg guild will get tired of waiting for his Sceptre of Awesome.
There are also mechanics that punish having more players like things that require high coordination or mobs being healed by player deaths. I could probably come up with half a dozen unique ways to make raids harder for zergs without even altering the script directly based on the number of players.
Dullahan said:Yes to your conclusion. The point is that there is no need for hardcoded limitations, because it will happen naturally if content is contested and items are rare. While there may be some zerging early on by players eager to topple content, eventually Wizard_12 in a zerg guild will get tired of waiting for his Sceptre of Awesome.
There are also mechanics that punish having more players like things that require high coordination or mobs being healed by player deaths. I could probably come up with half a dozen unique ways to make raids harder for zergs without even altering the script directly based on the number of players.
You could apply the argument of "no need for hardcoded limitations" to a ton of things and see that it is absurd.
Limiting raid sizes allows the developers to create encounters with clear parameters in mind, as someone else in the thread stated before me. It also allows players to have reasonable expectations. It also prevents zerging. It also prevents unsustainability caused by massive raid sizes.
Liav said:Dullahan said:Yes to your conclusion. The point is that there is no need for hardcoded limitations, because it will happen naturally if content is contested and items are rare. While there may be some zerging early on by players eager to topple content, eventually Wizard_12 in a zerg guild will get tired of waiting for his Sceptre of Awesome.
There are also mechanics that punish having more players like things that require high coordination or mobs being healed by player deaths. I could probably come up with half a dozen unique ways to make raids harder for zergs without even altering the script directly based on the number of players.
You could apply the argument of "no need for hardcoded limitations" to a ton of things and see that it is absurd.
Limiting raid sizes allows the developers to create encounters with clear parameters in mind, as someone else in the thread stated before me. It also allows players to have reasonable expectations. It also prevents zerging. It also prevents unsustainability caused by massive raid sizes.
And yet EQ had raids designed for 24 to 50+ people and it still worked. Take VP or ToV. Both dungeons required a huge spread. Sure, it would make sense to have the majority of content geared to a particular number, but I see it as more absurd to bind all raid content to that rule.
You should really try viewing Pantheon less through the lens of a game, and more through the lens of a world. Completely sanitized and transparent content is boring. I miss fighting a mob and thinking, "Wow, is this mob even killable?" I think restoring that sense of mystery could go a long way to keeping people playing an MMORPG.
It "worked" in the sense that it was challenging to coordinate that many players. The actual encounters themselves are a joke. Here's an AE with a static amount of damage on a static timer. Here's a gflux. Absolutely trivial mechanics in a modern game. Laughably simple.
We view things from very different perspectives. My viewpoint is not sterile. When I can plug my brain into Sword Art Online my opinion will change.
I get just as much enjoyment out of these games as you do, just for very different reasons. VP and ToV are boring as all hell to me and I hope to never have to see them again after Pantheon comes out.
Vanguard and EQOA will likely remain as the highlights of my MMO career, two games that were shut down in short order. As much inspiration as they took from EQ, they improved on enough that I can look at them as superior (to me). I just want Pantheon to go more in the direction of those games, for obvious reasons.
Liav said:It "worked" in the sense that it was challenging to coordinate that many players. The actual encounters themselves are a joke. Here's an AE with a static amount of damage on a static timer. Here's a gflux. Absolutely trivial mechanics in a modern game. Laughably simple.
We view things from very different perspectives. My viewpoint is not sterile. When I can plug my brain into Sword Art Online my opinion will change.
I get just as much enjoyment out of these games as you do, just for very different reasons. VP and ToV are boring as all hell to me and I hope to never have to see them again after Pantheon comes out.
Vanguard and EQOA will likely remain as the highlights of my MMO career, two games that were shut down in short order. As much inspiration as they took from EQ, they improved on enough that I can look at them as superior (to me). I just want Pantheon to go more in the direction of those games, for obvious reasons.
Simple, because the main prerequisite wasn't just the ability to dodge or quickly counter abilities, but in the time investment required to equip yourself to survive the mob or kill it before it killed you. While a static AE on a static timer may be simple, I saw guilds of 80+ people die to Gorenaire on many, many occasions, while I killed her with as few as 5 groups sporting maximum resists.
I feel like your perception of what MMOs should be and that of EQ, and even Pantheon in many respects, are just fundamentally different.
Laura said:Can anyone elaborate on what part of raiding (in EQ) was fun?
For me there were numerous reasons:
>Being able to visit places that I would never be able to otherwise, and see creatures through my own character's eyes. The lore of entering NToV and laying eyes on all the dragons. And the day we slayed Vulak is still etched into my memory
>The comraderie (sp?) of the guild, yes there were 60, 70, 80+ people online on raid nights, but you still felt like you knew everyone. I remember when I was being training on main-tanking trash pulls, our pullers took it easy on me and did the splitting for me, only bringing one at a time. Eventually with experience, leaning my enchanters/bards etc, I made my way up to being our Raid Tank officer, assigning primary and secondary tanks. Learning from others when I was new, and others learning from me as I gained experience. I think that's the kind of "social" aspect we're shooting for in Pantheon, no?
>Our first EP God attempt after getting Elemental flagged was Fennin Ro. We had over 80 people show up. He fell on our first attempt. Only 72 could get the flag but we knew he would be falling to us many more times in the future, so there was never any concern of those who didn't get the flag initally. After 2 kills, and our entire raid force was flagged, and we put pofire on farm status as we continued progressing through the other EP's
>Saving your MT and possibly preventing a wipe with a perfectly timed off heal or LoH was pretty awesome too :)
I'm boiling down the argument considerably when I say this, but EverQuest classic raiding for the most part is (and is on P99 and Prog Servers) getting enough people to manage mana, hit auto attack, and not pulling threat. There isn't much to it, despite all the incredible memories so many of us have. It is not challenging content. Was it challenging when MMOs were new and the idea of raiding still in its infancy? Was it challenging when playing your (potentially) first 3D game? Was it challenging since there were more people to manage than could fit around an arcade or television screen (ala old school games)? Yes, definitely. But it is not challenging given how far players, developers, and games have come along.
Better put: Pantheon may be a spiritual successor in many ways to games like EverQuest and Vanguard, but ignoring what the game tenets and the developers have said is proving some view the topic with rose-coloured glasses.
(Hopefully that didn't come off as overly harsh, but objective.)
Vandraad said:Think about that from the developers point of view for a moment. They are trying to create content that is interesting and challenging. How could content be made challenging if players could bring any number of players? You might say "make it dynamic, responding to the number of players present". Ok...what I choose to bring just myself? Should the raid content adjust to just me? No, there would have to be some minimum number of players. And if you're going to have a minimum, is stands to reason then there should be a maximum.
Only by limiting the maximum number of participants can the content be balanced properly. Unbalanced content will quickly ruin a game.
I personally am with Van on this one, and couldn't say it better. My ideal size is 30-40 ish. As to the why, just past experience with raiding in EQ2 with the 24 man raids, it would allow smaller friends guilds etc. to have raid content available to them. I would really like to see mobs that take many different raid sizes to take down.
Liav said:
Vanguard and EQOA will likely remain as the highlights of my MMO career, two games that were shut down in short order. As much inspiration as they took from EQ, they improved on enough that I can look at them as superior (to me). I just want Pantheon to go more in the direction of those games, for obvious reasons.
Liav said:
Seemingly, but I get more enjoyment out of EQ than any other game. Funny how that works.
Explain how these two comments work in relation to each other please.
philo said:Liav said:
Vanguard and EQOA will likely remain as the highlights of my MMO career, two games that were shut down in short order. As much inspiration as they took from EQ, they improved on enough that I can look at them as superior (to me). I just want Pantheon to go more in the direction of those games, for obvious reasons.
Liav said:
Seemingly, but I get more enjoyment out of EQ than any other game. Funny how that works.
Explain how these two comments work in relation to each other please.
Vanguard and EQOA don't exist anymore. Case closed.