Dullahan said:I have to say that a well balanced player-mob system might make the early game more appealing for new players than anything else thats been suggested (mentoring etc).
I'm curious to hear how you link a tool to help friends play together (mentoring) to a system that will inevitably turn into newbie griefing, forcing PvP on the PvE aspect of the game...
I don't see how a level 1 player being killed by opportunist monsters every time they engage a mob or being baited into opposible odds when they try to fight back would make the game "more appealing".
*Edit: I may have come across more confrontational than I wanted. While I may disagree with some of your ideas, I know you put a lot of thinking into them. So I'm genuinely curious here as I see both completely unrelated.
In reading up on the orginal Project M I found a few different problems people had with it (I didn't, I think it's was a GRAND idea) most of them with easy fixes, for example
Easy fix= Assign players to mobs randomly (I think Project M did this) limit the amount of Player Mobs to an area to say 2 or 3, if all available area's were full the Player Mob system wasn't available except by Queue.
Easy Fix.. first I would expect them to try to live so let them run, but for suicide, let the last player(group) to have engaged a Player Mob get's the credit (exp) no matter how they die.
Easy fix, as Nephretoto already mentioned "if it is a mob PC - it is SUPPOSED to grief other players!".. I see this as a non issue
Easy Fix = set a level cap for the area they are in
This was the biggest problem with it that I was able to find by reading up on it. That it was considered by many to be introduction of PVP type play in PVE servers.
This one I have no idea how to "fix" because yes I guess it technically is and yet I don't see a problem with it but I'm aware some do. I recall a Zombie Infestation event in WoW where if you got "bit" by a player that was already a Zombie then you turned into a Zombie. people threw FITS absolute temper tantrums because they were "FORCED" to PVP on a PVE server, I even heard some complain it was against there religion (no kidding that's what was said)
THIS I don't know any way around, unless it was made known from the beginning "If you play this game, then you may have to fight a player that looks like a fire beetle"
Personally, I think it's well worth the price. I belive most would love it, otheres would get used to it, and those that don't would get over it.
Mekada said:Dullahan said:I have to say that a well balanced player-mob system might make the early game more appealing for new players than anything else thats been suggested (mentoring etc).
I'm curious to hear how you link a tool to help friends play together (mentoring) to a system that will inevitably turn into newbie griefing, forcing PvP on the PvE aspect of the game...
I don't see how a level 1 player being killed by opportunist monsters every time they engage a mob or being baited into opposible odds when they try to fight back would make the game "more appealing".
*Edit: I may have come across more confrontational than I wanted. While I may disagree with some of your ideas, I know you put a lot of thinking into them. So I'm genuinely curious here as I see both completely unrelated.
If the goal is to keep lower level areas populated to facilitate groups, then mentoring stands to help achieve this by allowing higher level players to mentor down. If players are able to play mobs in low level areas, it stands to reason this gameplay might make lower level areas more interesting and in turn, cause more people to play lower level characters.
Granted, it may be a stretch and beyond the scope of Pantheon, but if done right I think it could offer a very unique experience that even players with high level characters would return to from time to time. It could become something of a mini-game and a respite from grinding and high level play while also providing people for new players to group with.
We may also have a different outlook on mentoring. See, I don't think mentoring should merely provide an easy way for friends of different levels to play together. I think it should exist to create groups in a level range where players are scarce, primarily among people who don't necessarily know each other. To me it should be a matter of necessity, not convenience. The goal of Pantheon should be to promote interaction and socialization among all players, not just those you already know.
Marilee said:I knew it! I knew there was a short term experiment in EQ where you could log into a mob. I know I played as a fire beetle in Befallen. Until you posted this I couldn't find anyone that seemed to remember that this actually happened in EQ.
I remember doing that as well. I was a green snake in Eas Commons I think it was (one with the giants) a druid had snared it and dotted it a was medding while waiting for the giant to get to him, I kept going up behind him and biting him on the butt and ran away. it was really funny. He has not idea what was going on. I think in the end he dotted me.
I think they could really go nuts with an idea like this.
Dynamic content has been long awaited. Seeing rival npc factions fighting was just the first we saw of this. If npcs had goals in areas of the world and in particular zones like taking an outpost or building a base, you could give mob-players objectives that play into those goals.
It sounds like a fun idea, I'm sad that I missed out on it :(
The second thought that came to mind (first was, "that is awesome!") is that it needs to be an event. Something like halloween could be justified since you'd be putting on a "costume" of sorts. Players also need to be informed about this because of the griefing aspect.
What I would like to see is randomization (word?). Where when you log on during the event's duration (days/week/whatever) you have a random chance of being able to do this for say 5 hours or until death. So you're logging into the game and when you get to the char select screen there's a popup telling you that you have the option to do this. You hit yes and for the next 5 hours (logged in or out) you can do this. Part of why I think it should be randomized and a duration is so that we don't see a massive drop in players because everyone goes monster.
Finally, if you die while being attacked by a character you don't get hit with the death penalty. Not only killed by, but killed once a player-mob hit you (until combat ends). This will help lessen the grief aspect of 1+ players waiting till you're fighting a mob(s) then killing you or getting you low hp and then letting the mob kill you so you lose a lot of exp. It also might not hurt to have a [de]buff on the player so that once they're killed by a player-mob they are immune to player-mobs for 5/10/15 minutes too. Killing other players as a monster is the fun behind it, but especially new players will get pissed off if they can't even play the game while the event is happening - even if it's a one day event.
I am not buying into this "forced PvP" arguement. Everyone knows the mobs that are out there are NOT comperable to a fully equipped and functioning player. If a lvl 3 snake comes up and bites you and you die - you probably deserve it. You can fight the snake - which has the exact same stats and abilities as ANY other snake in the area - or you can run for the guards. The player mobs had a MUCH lower skill set to play with than ANY player. It was one of the reasons I liked it so much - it was a REAL challenge. I think the biggest worry I am seeing regarding Project M is that everyone thinks there is going to be swarms of players roaming the countryside with bloodlust in their eyes and YOU on their target list. I never saw more than 2 PC mobs together. Terminus is a BIG world - when someone logs in they are assigned their mobs randomly (at least the were in EQ). I would like to see SOME selection based on level on your mob. Another fix has already been mentioned - make the penalty for death be a significant timer and a randomized respawn on the other side of the planet. You can not hold group mechanics together if using those two rulesets.
But I DO agree - make this optional ASAP. And by optional, I mean NO ONE should ever be forced to play a lvl 1 in an area where there are 500 lvl 1 noobs running around trying to collect RAT fur for a quest! No one should be forced into Project M at all - it should be voluntary. And besides, you never know - you just "might" get someone that really REALLY wants to roleplay Goblin Shaman.
As for rewarding someone for playing a mob? There was one mention of it in passing - nothing serious in it. I think if you spend time in a Klicknick outfit you should get an XP potion to apply to one of the toons on your account. But don't get too excited about this. Getting Xp as a mob was NOT an easy thing to do. It was, however, friggen AMAZING fun.
Nephretiti said:I am not buying into this "forced PvP" arguement. Everyone knows the mobs that are out there are NOT comperable to a fully equipped and functioning player.
I think it's an awesome idea, but the implementation would be difficult, and, I'm not sure how you could avoid some issues.
Your right that the mob ability would be much less than that of the player, but, I remember the system - players would lie in wait until Joe Newbie had 2-3 frogloks on him and see the player run to the zone wall to not get any more adds. Then, Joe Newbie would be struggling in the fight, and looked to barely survive - then poof - here comes the player controlled froglok fisherman out of normal agro range to finish him off.
Now, an argument can be made whether that's good or bad, but that's where I heard most of the griefing/ganking type forced pvp complaints come from.
Perhaps if the death from a player controlled mob didn't result in exp loss you could alleviate some of the frustration - but - I'm sure that would open even more potential exploits.
That could be an April fools GM event. You would have a choice when you logged in : " Go to Terminus? or Go to event?" Those who chose terminus would play as usual, those who chose event would be randomly assigned monsters to log in as.
As a monster that does not mean you have to kill players although it would make sense to do so. If you could aid them that would be neat with two emotes like shaking head for "no" or nodding for "yes". and that's it, maybe a spammable token monster phrase "grr, bark, bark, grr" (one skill button with that speech) - and allow zoning. So like if you wanted you could follow a group around as a independent fire beetle, going into dungeons and nipping a monster here or there with the group and hanging out with them- tragically dying if you got stepped on , oh the drama!
I remember this. Its a fun thought to think you and your buddies could try to overthrow a newbie zone with luck.
Sent via mobile
-Todd
Zorkon said:
- PVP type play in PVE servers
This was the biggest problem with it that I was able to find by reading up on it. That it was considered by many to be introduction of PVP type play in PVE servers.
This one I have no idea how to "fix" because yes I guess it technically is and yet I don't see a problem with it but I'm aware some do. I recall a Zombie Infestation event in WoW where if you got "bit" by a player that was already a Zombie then you turned into a Zombie. people threw FITS absolute temper tantrums because they were "FORCED" to PVP on a PVE server, I even heard some complain it was against there religion (no kidding that's what was said)
THIS I don't know any way around, unless it was made known from the beginning "If you play this game, then you may have to fight a player that looks like a fire beetle"Personally, I think it's well worth the price. I belive most would love it, otheres would get used to it, and those that don't would get over it.
in reading the Game Tenets to see if I had any suggestions for the revamp, I came accrost this one
"A belief that an immersive world requires intelligent inhabitants."
It seems to me that could apply here, you couldent get much more intelligent then human controlled.
Thoughts?
Raidan said:I think it's an awesome idea, but the implementation would be difficult, and, I'm not sure how you could avoid some issues.
Your right that the mob ability would be much less than that of the player, but, I remember the system - players would lie in wait until Joe Newbie had 2-3 frogloks on him and see the player run to the zone wall to not get any more adds. Then, Joe Newbie would be struggling in the fight, and looked to barely survive - then poof - here comes the player controlled froglok fisherman out of normal agro range to finish him off.
Now, an argument can be made whether that's good or bad, but that's where I heard most of the griefing/ganking type forced pvp complaints come from.
Perhaps if the death from a player controlled mob didn't result in exp loss you could alleviate some of the frustration - but - I'm sure that would open even more potential exploits.
No exp loss from player death for one. Also think limiting the distance player mobs can go from their starting area would be another. Maybe a lizardman spawns near an encampment. He will be limited to the area around it.
Then maybe you give him a goal like collecting wood from surrounding the camp. As he returns it, it builds up the camp, causing more lizardmen to spawn in the surrounding areas like an event.
@Dullahan
Yeah good thoughts on the mob travel restrictions. I thought of that also but hadn't posted it. It then made me think though how would you keep a player engaged if they could only use a small space?
Your idea on the wood collection is good idea, but there would need to be more to keep interest of you'd have players logging in, seeing no players for like 10 minutes, then /relogging.
Maybe what the players do as a monster keeps the camp more populated even after relogging. So, they may not see the rewards for their actions, but they can know it's still dynamically effecting the game world.
Also, I was thinking depending on how much /time was logged as a mob, non afk (or some other active progression meaure) the account could "level up" to be able to be a mob in higher level zones.
Anyway, I definitely think there's a lot of brainstorming and creativity that could be involved with this idea that definitely could be a feature that would set Pantheon apart.
*Edit - Another way to avoid abuse if a player did level up into higher level dungeons is they would have either the pathing patterns or static-ness of the actual mob. Or, perhaps if it was a mob that did not have KoS agro they couldn't engage until attacked.
So, using Unrest as an example, if the player spawned as a Lurking Mummy (static mob), they couldn't move until pulled - and if they wiped a group, they'd return to the spawn point.
The possibility of having a human controlled mob would cause people to always play more on their toes.
Raidan said:Maybe what the players do as a monster keeps the camp more populated even after relogging. So, they may not see the rewards for their actions, but they can know it's still dynamically effecting the game world.
Also, I was thinking depending on how much /time was logged as a mob, non afk (or some other active progression meaure) the account could "level up" to be able to be a mob in higher level zones.
Anyway, I definitely think there's a lot of brainstorming and creativity that could be involved with this idea that definitely could be a feature that would set Pantheon apart.
*Edit - Another way to avoid abuse if a player did level up into higher level dungeons is they would have either the pathing patterns or static-ness of the actual mob. Or, perhaps if it was a mob that did not have KoS agro they couldn't engage until attacked.
So, using Unrest as an example, if the player spawned as a Lurking Mummy (static mob), they couldn't move until pulled - and if they wiped a group, they'd return to the spawn point.
The possibility of having a human controlled mob would cause people to always play more on their toes.
Having players level up and gain access to higher level mobs in new locations would be a great way to incentivize it. And yes the things you do to build up an area for a certain mob faction should set things in motion. Its important to make it feel like it has some impact. Maybe if you build up a lizardman village far enough, it creates a chance for rare named mobs to pop.
Really so much potential here I'd love to hear that they would consider a system like this.
@Dullahan
Yeah agreed - would love to hear some developer feedback on the idea. If it would be considered at all, I'd get into some major brainstorming/theory-crafting mode.
*Edit
Another thought I had is that not only could the monsters engage players at their static spawn/roamer points, but, if using your scenario of building/expandimg the lizardman camp - maybe they could gather a large enough force to have a raiding party, and overtake a kobold camp, and turn it into a lizardman camp.
There really is endless potential
Nephretiti said:I too like the idea of building encampments. Perhaps once a mob encampent is built then a full blown static encampment will come with static spawns of NPC (and maybe an occasional PC) mobs. It would become the Normal players responsibility to beat the horde back...
Thats exactly what I was thinking.
This could also be used to tell more of the story. In this case, you could get the lizardman point of view on things. Maybe as things progress, whether it be building a camp or another goal, other important members of the tribe would appear (named). Perhaps by talking to them you can learn secrets. Maybe it leads to a hidden place. Maybe a hidden item. Perhaps a quest or something that triggers an event. Also, different mobs may be able to perceive something (see: Perception System) that normal player races cannot.
I would LOVE to be able to play and keep and lore a random mob. However, this would be WAY too much for the Devs. Thiunk about this. You would have to come up with lore and quests and NPCs for every creature. Basically, you are asking for a number of playable races that is equivalent to every mob creature type in-game. That's simply too much work. Although I would LOVE to have all of that too, I think it would be asking too much.
I think it would be better for you to receive your mandate when you log in to the creature that you select. So let's say you log in as a Klicknik. Big blue letters scroll across the screen saying your mandate is to create a hive location in this region. You gather resources and clear competing mobs for a bit and if successful, a hive mound is created on-screen and static spawnings are generated of more klickniks. And a Queen Klicknik is created inside the mound or around the mound somewhere etc. With insect type mobs I don't think there is a reason for any supporting NPCs other than defending/attacking mob types.
Meahwhile, PCs from normal type discover that an agressive klicknik mound has been created in this area. They are advised that they must destroy the mound and kill the queen. Rewards for the mob player should be an account reward that they can give to the character player of their choosing and should be equivalent to the XP gain a player would make during this same amount of time played (i.e. normalized XP gain over the time played) and maybe something special like an appereance Beetle Shell cloak...
Another scenario might be: Player logs in as a Goblin Runt. Your mandate scrolls across the screen... You must befriend a Player Character. If you are able to "befriend" a player and he accepts you, you can play with him as much as you want. If you log out, when you log back in you automatically log in at his location whatever he is doing. You can keep leveling up. Eventually, you are going to die. As much as I would like to be a Goblin Warlord, I think it is asking too much to allow rezzes. I could be wrong. But a cleric walking into town with a Goblin Warlord following him? That might cause some issues...