It would be nice if you could have 2 bind points, one being your starting city and the other being any valid bind location.
So when you die you have a choice of the two places. This way you can avoid a possible death loop.
If you self gate you go back to your bind location only.
You could also make the two bind locations to be choosen by the player and call them Primary and Secondary bind locations.
When you die you choose either Primary or Secondary but for self gates you go only to the Secondary bind location.
Druid and Wizard group gate spells work normally.
Death loops could be avoided by a simple "Press OK to revive" prompt. If one was asleep or afk then they just don't respawn.
If they KEEP pressing OK and respawing in a group of Mobs, well they get what they get then.
Possibly an immobile ghost mode with the prompt, so they can see if it's clear before they click.
Let's think of community when we think of this. If everyone has the ability to bind themselves anywhere they please and they don't have to RELY on community members ie: druid, wizard to help with this, then what effect does this have?
More of the same "I can do everything myself, therefore I don't need the help of community members".
Also remembering the emergency evacuations that druid and wizard had. Also remembering the spell translocate to bind point, when someone wanted to leave a dungeon to be replaced by someone else by using the Call of Hero spell (don't remember what class did call of hero)
If you remove the need to need help from others, you get a solo game...just like all those other games we've seen over the past ten years. SWG was a good example of community members needing community members to get things done. Let's remember what we're wishing for here, and remembering the consequences of those same wishes, down the road.
Cana
OneForAll said: Leave binds points like EQ and allow your priest to hand out one tome of rezzing awesome sauce to someone in the group so there's a chance if only one or two people survive a fight you can keep going. Otherwise you get the dreaded run back for goofing off and wiping in the first place! The fear of runbacks and wipes brings danger risk and excitement to the combat.
What our clerics in a raid on a place like Plane of Fear would do, if it was determined that a wipe was imminent, one or two clerics would log ...that way they could come back and rez everyone. And we had corpse retrieval and dragging corpse by permission..through our rogues or others that could do that task. Again community relying on community. All classes playing valid roles, and nobody a jack of all trades, well except the necromancers..they were the exception.
Cana
Indefinitely waiting to respawn was removed, as people were staying as corpses for scouting and other nefarious purposes.
Today, you can't bind anywhere, even as a caster. You can bind in more places than melee, but not IN a dungeon, typically. You can't bind in lower guk on EQ1 TLP, for example, but you can bind in upper guk, as a caster. You can't bind melee there, but you can bind yourself there. Melee has to find an NPC that will bind you. (I think the closest one is in the SW corner of Oasis of Marr, now).
In any case, whether or not a Hearthstone, or Origin, Return Home or similar personal "take me back to my home city" ability is in Pantheon hasn't been confirmed in the FAQ. Personally, I hope they have it, because it solves so many stuck character problems and RL disconnection problems.
Put another way, teleportation (via bind & gate) for all casters is a tremendous value that is difficult to balance for non-casters. Origin (in EQ1 TLP) put that to rest, finally.
I understand why they're limiting continental teleportation to a few classes, given the history of their inspiration. I have played both those classes in pre-pop EQ, so I understand the taxi dynamic first hand. Even so, I think Visionary Realms is going to have a tough fight on their hands, over time, regarding the value continental teleportation holds for those classes. It's considered in overall class balance, and honestly, puts those classes in a very unenviable position, balance wise.
In my opinion there is a grey area between PoK books and class restricted continental teleportation. If the design goal is purely social, then leaving it class restricted seems like the right choice. If the design goal is purely economic, then paying NPC's to do the same thing seems reasonable, even if that payment is punitively expensive in gold for everyone in the group. (or even requires everyone in the group to pay the NPC with XP, if you really want it to be a sacrifice)
Personally, I just don't want to see contintental teleportation have such overshadowing weight in class balance efforts. Otherwise, we're just going to see pocket wizards & pocket druids everywhere, and that would be a shame, imo.
IMHO I Prefer only being able to bind at the closest town or city of even Npc village. VR are putting a emphasis on meaningful travel So I think that this would be a good part of this. This of course is just my opinion and preferance, I will be happy with whichever way VR deside is Best.
If the binding mechanic was as it was upon release of Everquest then I would like to see one change. That would be for a non-casting class (someone who can't bind) be able to pay for a bind from a NPC in cities.
Not sure how much binding changed in EQ after I left but casters could bind pretty much anywhere and they could bind others in cities only (I believe City of Mist was considered a city, also). It made for melee types to beg for binds in cities near where they would be adventuring if they happened to have ventured across the world from one city to the next. This way, if a melee isn't able to pay for a bind from a fellow player they could always pay for a bind from a NPC. It wouldn't be nearly as convenient as having a player bind you at an optimum location, but at least it gets you going albeit with a cost and an inconvenient location.
I would actually remove the concept of binding all together. When a player dies and releases they should go the closest spiritual magnet and reform there. They can be stone rings or magic circles or temple alters based on where they are at when they died. The locations can all be considered neutral and safe while naked. An added caveat would be that areas would have natural flows such that you could not jump forward by intentionally dying.
The benefit of this is that the party will always reform together when they die and can travel back together. These stones will also become locations for player interaction i.e. group finding, buffs, and local trades.
Bazgrim said:This is a good question as I only just realized that EQ1 changed the way binding works. It was so convenient to be able to bind in Dagnor's Cauldron to make my Unrest farming much more efficient. But now you can only bind in cities. Which is kinda lame cause most cities have a spirit binder anyway.
I think if you're a caster that has an ability to bind, you should be able to bind yourself pretty much anywhere. And you can bind other people anywhere as well. (Of course giving them the option to Accept/Decline it lol) I think that's how it was in classic EQ. This also opens up an opportunity for providing a service for plat, and therefore just more player interaction. Hard to tell if being able to bind anywhere would be TOO convenient and decrease the fear of dying. But I guess that's something we'd just hafta see in testing.
Agreed. This goes for various abilities that can provide services. If I'm a solo, non-binding class, I either put up with the run or find a binder. Same for ports, etc.
Honestly im find with Casters being able to bind themselves, but i believe the non casters should be able to be bound anywhere a caster can simpy so when it coes to something as simple as this the casters dont have that huge of an advantage over other classes, but one thing i wouldnt want to see if being able to bind yourself in a dungeon, anywhere not even at the entrance. and honestly if i were to bring up a altenative to this whole bind point kind of thing it would be a "campfire" type of an idea where you can set up your spot and the more people that share the same area or close tmakes the place look better maybe adding a merchant or something to sell, dont really need the whole merchant thing really but just food for thought so sharing the same area brings up a nice incentive to set up near other people and possibly socialize with them.
Riahuf22 said:Honestly im find with Casters being able to bind themselves, but i believe the non casters should be able to be bound anywhere a caster can simpy so when it coes to something as simple as this the casters dont have that huge of an advantage over other classes, but one thing i wouldnt want to see if being able to bind yourself in a dungeon, anywhere not even at the entrance. and honestly if i were to bring up a altenative to this whole bind point kind of thing it would be a "campfire" type of an idea where you can set up your spot and the more people that share the same area or close tmakes the place look better maybe adding a merchant or something to sell, dont really need the whole merchant thing really but just food for thought so sharing the same area brings up a nice incentive to set up near other people and possibly socialize with them.
Not sure I care for the idea of non-bind classes being able to be bound anywhere a bind class can, but I'd be ok with more than just cities for non-binding classes, like maybe at portal location (Druid rings, wizard spires type things), or some sort of ruins in some regions (not all regions), so your non-bind classes aren't traversing for extreme times. (think Qeynos to Lake Rathe run)
I dont mind the CR run, but it also should not be a 30-40 minute run/time sink
Personally I'm for all or none to keep the death penalty fair. Always thought it was odd that generally classes that could bind were just limited by losing their equipment (e.g. lower mana pool) and could just function essentially like normal Vs classes who had to run the whole way with no realistic way of defending themselves as the equipment they need to even function is on their corpse... utter madness IMO :P
Overall I think early game with a smaller world then porting/binding should be serverly limited. However lots of Ex EQ players are knocking on a bit now with all the responsibilities that comes with so IMO all classes should get out of combat gate back to bind out of the box.
Still saying all this it's sounds like is generally full group focussed so there has to be some mechanism to bring players together quickly.. if you have to wait 20 minutues for the Tank to run there before anyone can do anything worthwhile...? hmmm msounds tricky but the team have made noises about the game being more time friendly in group setup so they must have something based around travel...
rocketmagnet said:Personally I'm for all or none to keep the death penalty fair. Always thought it was odd that generally classes that could bind were just limited by losing their equipment (e.g. lower mana pool) and could just function essentially like normal Vs classes who had to run the whole way with no realistic way of defending themselves as the equipment they need to even function is on their corpse... utter madness IMO :P
Overall I think early game with a smaller world then porting/binding should be serverly limited. However lots of Ex EQ players are knocking on a bit now with all the responsibilities that comes with so IMO all classes should get out of combat gate back to bind out of the box.
Still saying all this it's sounds like is generally full group focussed so there has to be some mechanism to bring players together quickly.. if you have to wait 20 minutues for the Tank to run there before anyone can do anything worthwhile...? hmmm msounds tricky but the team have made noises about the game being more time friendly in group setup so they must have something based around travel...
A caster was never able to bind at the spot they died unless it was just outside of Cazic Thule for example..and if they were dumb enough to bind there and go afk...to die forever (death loop) in a heap of corpses, because the patrolling Bouncers would come by (or whatever patrolling agro mob) I've seen this, and learned from it. Casters if they die far from their bind point ..still have to do the run just like any melee. And they were vulnerable, because they didn't have the hit points that melee have...even their armor wasn't that great for hit points, it was basically like wearing toilet paper (at least at the lower levels) so we were like glass cannons, lots of damage, but easily killed if smacked hard.
Cana
I think I'd prefer if non-binding classes could only be bound at cities/towns and select rare spots in the world. It adds to the class interdependency and makes it so corpse runs an actual part of the death punishment (sometimes), otherwise everyone in the group binds outside a dungeon (or heaven forbid a safe spot IN the dungeon) and wipes are no problem at all. I'd rather you need someone with res or summon to be able to negate corpse runs.
Another part of keeping melee/non-binders limited in location is to limit zerging. If you bind your tank right where you are fighting then you can recover very very quickly and have him jump right back into the fight provided you have any CC/additional tank/off-tank, which then would lead to them puting hefty debuffs on returning to ones body after releasing.
It's logical-ish in EQ because auto attack required no resources, whereas a freshly rezzed caster was worth exactly zero dps.
This is one of the major reason why I want auto attack to take a backseat for melee gameplay, or for casters to have a ranged (spell based) auto attack. Auto attack is cool and all, but in EQ it was literally all you did as a melee.
There are ways to mitigate zerging without having to necessitate things like this, anyway. EQ's early content were 100% zergable loot pinatas. In other games, dying in the middle of an encounter is a lot more punishing, if not an outright wipe depending on the situation. While I don't think one death should necessarily spell instant doom, I think it's possible to avoid zerging simply by having fights not employ exclusively braindead mechanics (or no mechanics at all).
I agree that casters should have an auto-attack (spell based). I also think that pure casters of all types should have bind and bind-other spells. Hybrids should probably have only bind-self. If pure melees, with no magical or spiritual abilities have little lore reason to have bind. This is my opinion. Class balance and interdependence are other concerns that factor in here. And also failure consequences.
Lore is a poor excuse, honestly. You're suggesting we should give casters all of these things. Why would I play a Rogue if a Wizard can do as much DPS in addition to all of this utility?
What can we give melee to offset this? Balancing non-combat abilities is very challenging.
I would like to see some sort of middle ground as it pertains to binding. No NPC binders, or non-casters with a bind spell, however, those with a bind spell being able to bind themselves and others in cities and a select few additional locations. There shouldn't be someplace to bind in every area or zone, it's part of the risk/reward system. The further you venture from civilization the better your rewards typically get.
Lortex said:I would like to see some sort of middle ground as it pertains to binding. No NPC binders, or non-casters with a bind spell, however, those with a bind spell being able to bind themselves and others in cities and a select few additional locations. There shouldn't be someplace to bind in every area or zone, it's part of the risk/reward system. The further you venture from civilization the better your rewards typically get.
I agree that binding, for any class, shouldn't be allowed just everywhere or anywhere. Allowing that diminishes the death penalty. If memory serves, Brad said that there would be places around the world where all classes could bind. Town/cities, yes, but also vendor outposts/encampments. Who remembers the gypsy camps in North Karana? A place such as that could serve as a bindable location. Sprinkle locations like that around the world and you end up with a nice balance for all classes. Add to that a bind potion sold by vendors (make them Lore/NoDrop) and melee will not be beholding to casters for casting bind at those outposts.
Liav said:Lore is a poor excuse, honestly. You're suggesting we should give casters all of these things. Why would I play a Rogue if a Wizard can do as much DPS in addition to all of this utility?
What can we give melee to offset this? Balancing non-combat abilities is very challenging.
Because of Smoke and Mirrors! You're CC now! ;)
But seriously, this is a big deal. Things like damage types and out-of-combat balancing can mean life or death to DPS class popularity. If there aren't traps, locks, and poisons required or used -constantly-, it is very difficult to justify a Rogue. And I played a Rogue in EQ1 from beta to 2004. Once I tried a caster though? Never again will I play a Rogue. Bind & Gate alone make a caster better, for my playstyle, even if they didn't typically do ~90% the same DPS with switchable damage types, which they can.
I had no idea how Visionary Realms was going to entice anyone to play a Rogue until they gave them Smoke & Mirrors CC. Now they have undeniable value. An endurance based CC ability? That's gold, right there, provided they don't nerf endurance regen into the ground. (which is likely, sadly)
If they don't completely screw up poisons, and maybe have traps and locks, there is a chance Rogues might be "ok". A lot of that is frighteningly dependent on content, though (traps, locks) and there's been no indication of a robust trap or lockpicking system, yet. And nothing out of combat has been demo'd, and adding such a massively complex & dependent system in after Alpha? I'm skeptical.
It's still not enough for me to give up Bind & Gate, though. heheh.