Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

End Game Discussion (Raiding and Alternatives)

    • 1778 posts
    January 27, 2017 2:22 PM PST

    I like both. It is fun to do random events. But its also fun to be able to schedule with your guild.

    • 172 posts
    January 27, 2017 2:24 PM PST

    Amsai said:

    I like both. It is fun to do random events. But its also fun to be able to schedule with your guild.

    Fair enough.  There are certainly times when a made-ready-to-order event is very handy.  Especially when you don't have as much time.  I agree.

    • 284 posts
    January 27, 2017 6:17 PM PST

    I look at it more like this: while they wouldn't make up the majority of what you did on a given night, events that you could schedule would be good ways to fill in time between the more opportunistic raid boss spawns. If the windows are just all over the place or your group just doesn't need anything that's popping in the next few hours, why not just do some larger group stuff in the mean time?

    This is actually why I'm a big fan of the Dynamis idea I proposed earlier, because it sidesteps entirely the problem of "no bosses are up" by making an overworld zone where the would-be trash monsters are actually the goal. 

    But anyway yeah, some structure helps frame what to do on a given raid night.

    • 213 posts
    January 29, 2017 12:12 AM PST

    What if we stopped thinking of Max level as end game? 

    What if instead there was a mastery for Every 10 levels and only those who wish to have the most well rounded character had to finish this as they leveled instead of later so that the early content is no longer trival.

    For instance, when you gain that special level you have a special class quest that you need a group for.  This quest will be HARD, and you can choose to skip it, but should you decide to go back and do it at later levels you will be downgraded to that level again.  It's reward might be a Permanent +1 or +2 to a certain stat, or maybe an item that you'll need for a dungeon 20 levels later.  Maybe you'll unlock a passageway in a far away town, and sent a riddle to find it.

     

    Just an idea.

     

    • 1434 posts
    January 29, 2017 2:24 AM PST

    Gamerchick said:

    What if we stopped thinking of Max level as end game? 

    What if instead there was a mastery for Every 10 levels and only those who wish to have the most well rounded character had to finish this as they leveled instead of later so that the early content is no longer trival.

    For instance, when you gain that special level you have a special class quest that you need a group for.  This quest will be HARD, and you can choose to skip it, but should you decide to go back and do it at later levels you will be downgraded to that level again.  It's reward might be a Permanent +1 or +2 to a certain stat, or maybe an item that you'll need for a dungeon 20 levels later.  Maybe you'll unlock a passageway in a far away town, and sent a riddle to find it.

     

    Just an idea.

     

    This was actually something they discussed specifically early on. You can go back and listen to the roundtables from early 2015. The quests were later dubbed Rite of Passage. The idea was that you could only continue gaining levels once you completed a class quest every so many levels.


    This post was edited by Dullahan at January 29, 2017 2:26 AM PST
    • 213 posts
    January 29, 2017 2:47 AM PST

    Awesome!  I have watched a bunch of the videos so far but seems like there is so much more info out there I still need to find.  Thank you!

    • 264 posts
    January 29, 2017 12:28 PM PST

     Raiding is not what I consider the backbone of an MMORPG. I know, blasphemy. To me the core of MMORPGs consists of solid small group content. That means anything from 2-6 players. At most I would say small raid content of 12 people (2 groups). As I look back at my gaming experience over the years it was the smaller raids that got the most traction amongst players be it in EverQuest, Vanguard, WoW, you name it. So if Pantheon wants to focus on endgame raiding I would say keep the raids small.

     I have a love/hate relationship with large group raiding. When it's done right it is amazing, when it's done wrong it is horrific. See the problem is it is very easy to do it wrong, raiders out there you know what I'm talking about you've all seen it. Raid content is the most time consuming and difficult content to create and it is played by the smallest percentage of players. Yes it is content players can aspire to, and it gives the hardcore players something fun to do until they beat the raid and then they demand more raids. The hardcore players consume content very quickly unless you create artificial barriers (the impossible boss). And then they rage about that.

     Have some big raid content, but don't make the drops amazing. Don't put the major end game emphasis on big raid content that is not where the majority of players will be, nor can you satisfy this crowd without a truly massive staff and budget.

    • 5 posts
    January 30, 2017 12:26 PM PST

    moszis said:

    Enitzu said:

    A 6 man dungeon can not ever be as hard as a 24+ man raid.

    This is the core of the issue in your point of view.  Its literally and logically wrong.  You can make a 6 man dungeon that would take years of planning and hard work to beat by top 1% of players, after they have already beaten every raid mob and gained every piece of raid gear.  And at the same time you can make raid content accessible to anyone mid to high level and easily beatable as long as you have an "ok" group of people.

    Raiding was never rewarded with best gear because its the most difficult thing in the game.  Its rewarded because of social benefit it bring to the game.  Soloing some group content could be often harder than raiding (if possible at all), you dont see soloers claim that they "deserve" the best gear in the game.  

     

     

    logically you are wrong. the more moving parts the more complex the event can be. pick whatever number of mechanics 1 player can do at a time then multiply it by the number of people in the raid.

     

     

    you can't have 8 bosses that require the raid to tank them all separate and each with their own mechanics to follow If the Raid only has 8 players and 2 tanks.

     

     

    Can you have a 50 man event that's simpler than a 8 man event? Sure. But if you try to turn both up to 11 the 50 man event will always be more complex because you have the chance to make it so.

     


    This post was edited by Zarzak at January 30, 2017 12:29 PM PST
    • 5 posts
    July 16, 2017 7:00 PM PDT

    Definition of end game is quite vauge , i dont believe in end game , lets say in IRL you pursue your end game and you acquire it then what ? you will idle and afk the whole time or even drop the game and go for somehting else , i dont want Pantheon to be like that , i want it to be constant with endless progression , like after max level if there was one we can go beyond it with diffrenet stats that will not make us Super powerful to solo group content alone but will give us a tiny bit edge like diffrenet spells we can acquire from diffrenet disciplines from other classes , progress to secert or mystrious new class , reborn in a fountain or somehting into diffrenet class , gain new stats that give us diffrenet aspects such as being able to hit higher level monsters than other players for an example max is 50 , normal players can fight up to 54~55 monsters and the new stats will allows to surpass that for a bit like 55~58 , also will be great to have Super high level zones or monsters that cannot be bested without having those new and hidden stats and so on ... there are tons of things in my mind jumbled around and i cant output it correctly haha .. 

     

     

    • 2130 posts
    July 16, 2017 7:09 PM PDT

    End game isn't that vague, I'll sort of repeat what I said in the other thread.

    End game is the natural endpoint of linear progression. Progression is finite for practical reasons, so you will hit a ceiling. That generally means max level, the highest stat gear available, etc. The nature of gameplay based on arbitrary numbers is that it is linear, so end game emeges as a result.

    Horizontal mitigates this to an extent but unless you make a real-life simulator, there is going to be a finite amount of content to consume. It is impractical to make enough content rapidly enough that players always have something to do. Repetition of already existing content is inevitable, to an extent.

    Hiding things behind layers doesn't make it any less linear, it just changes or prolongs what you have to do to reach the ceiling. This isn't a bad thing, as long as the ceiling isn't reached extremely rapidly.

    • 159 posts
    July 17, 2017 3:08 AM PDT

    Liav said:

    End game isn't that vague, I'll sort of repeat what I said in the other thread.

    End game is the natural endpoint of linear progression. Progression is finite for practical reasons, so you will hit a ceiling. That generally means max level, the highest stat gear available, etc. The nature of gameplay based on arbitrary numbers is that it is linear, so end game emeges as a result.

    Horizontal mitigates this to an extent but unless you make a real-life simulator, there is going to be a finite amount of content to consume. It is impractical to make enough content rapidly enough that players always have something to do. Repetition of already existing content is inevitable, to an extent.

    Hiding things behind layers doesn't make it any less linear, it just changes or prolongs what you have to do to reach the ceiling. This isn't a bad thing, as long as the ceiling isn't reached extremely rapidly.

    I agree, which is why I created another thread recently about this. There is a limit to the amount of static content a game can have, and to the ways players can go through it without it feeling repetitive. In that other thread I suggested two ways to keep Pantheon appealing without resorting to "tricks" such as daily chores or endless grind.

    Firstly, there could be dynamic content, something like public events that wouldn't require publishing a full expansion. Hordes of enemies could start gathering in a given area and threaten the peace and the lives of adventurers, requiring players to join efforts in order to stop the threat. Or players could find clues to great magic sources, culminating in a public event requiring cooperation to investigate the magic, possibly unlocking new items for the community as a whole. I'm talking basically scripted events that could be put together quickly with a minimum of new assets so as not to overburden fhe longer-term development of Pantheon, running weekly or monthly.

    My second suggestion was to have a degree of competition among players - leaderboards for specific content such as raids or PvP combat. I know PvP will not be the main focus of Pantheon, but I imagine having arenas in certain cities where players could fight one another could appeal to many players, both as participants and spectators. And one thing I'll say about PvP, never having been any kind of top dog myself, is that every single encounter feels different in a way that facing enemy AI simply can't match.

    And to finish with a clarification I made in my previous posts, this is not a defense of a race to endgame, or of endgamers. It comes simply from the realization that content is finite, player burn-out is a reality, and overall the community will be better off if players continue to find reasons to log in frequently rather than taking a break until the next expansion.

    • 542 posts
    July 17, 2017 6:39 AM PDT

    Dullahan said:

    This was actually something they discussed specifically early on. You can go back and listen to the roundtables from early 2015. The quests were later dubbed Rite of Passage. The idea was that you could only continue gaining levels once you completed a class quest every so many levels.

     

    Thanks for sharing Dullahan
    Rites of passage would be much more meaningful than levels

    I believe one of the underlying issues why people keep rushing to endgame in other games,
    is that it is so difficult for people to relax.
    Always and everywhere you go expectations in life,and even those games do not allow you to relax anymore.
    Demands and things like gearscore have to be met before other players even would consider playing with you.The whole focus in these games has hurt the genre for years.
    Because the players feel they are not valued ,they are not.Because gearscore matters more than spending quality time together.
    These expectations add extreme pressure on you to perform and it becomes like a second job,you often get fed up within a few weeks and then think to yourself;
    "if that is their kind of fun let them have it,but there is nothing left in this game for me to enjoy"

    Spending meaningful time in each area is so important to gain fond memories of the places you travel through on your adventure.
    Part of learning how to relax is living in the present,not worrying about the future or overthinking things that happened in the past.
    VR sees this,reading their "Pantheon Difference" section it wasn't a hard choice at all to get behind that.
    This whole idea of enjoying the moment will grant players the chance to fall in love with their game again.


    This post was edited by Fluffy at July 17, 2017 6:48 AM PDT
    • 36 posts
    July 17, 2017 7:35 AM PDT

    Endgame is a harsh word for me, endgame means the game ends, because there is nothing to do after.

    So i pretty much hope, VR will release Content to progress in the time its needed. I also hope a rush to the "Endgame", means Max Level isnt possible in 2-3 days/weeks. Personally i think the critical point will be, how much content on the "level up" journey will be available. Will it be like alll others, rush to max level in few days and then the game beginns, or will there really enough time to learn the skills by leveling a bit slower. For me the best thing to have "Endgame" is content with progression, means, you need to beat for example Bossmob #1 and get Equipment to beat Bossmob#2 etc. For example like Planes of Power and Gates of Discord in EQ or APW in VG.

    • 2886 posts
    July 17, 2017 9:40 AM PDT

    Loorn said:

    Endgame is a harsh word for me, endgame means the game ends, because there is nothing to do after.

    So i pretty much hope, VR will release Content to progress in the time its needed. I also hope a rush to the "Endgame", means Max Level isnt possible in 2-3 days/weeks. Personally i think the critical point will be, how much content on the "level up" journey will be available. Will it be like alll others, rush to max level in few days and then the game beginns, or will there really enough time to learn the skills by leveling a bit slower. For me the best thing to have "Endgame" is content with progression, means, you need to beat for example Bossmob #1 and get Equipment to beat Bossmob#2 etc. For example like Planes of Power and Gates of Discord in EQ or APW in VG.

    Just as a reminder (for everyone really)

    From the FAQ:

    "9.2 What do you envision the ‘End Game’ scene to be like? Classic style, with inherently difficult raids? Or more contemporary with many different levels of difficulty? Do you guys plan on raiding at all?

    We're trying to avoid the term 'End Game' because it has evolved into something far different than what it literally means. In some games, the perception that the true game, the ‘fun’ game, doesn’t begin until the 'end game' came to exist. The reason why isn't super important and varies depending on the game but with Pantheon you won’t be compelled to rush to the final levels.

    First, even if you could rush to maximum level, you would be incredibly ill-equipped to handle high-end combat. Because you found some way to rush (perhaps a bug, etc.) your character won't have what it needs to do well at the higher levels. Second, most content in Pantheon will be designed around grouping, with smaller amounts designed for soloing and raiding. Pantheon is not primarily a raiding game, though we know many in our community enjoy raiding. Same with soloing -- it is not Pantheon's focus, but some people like to solo occasionally. Also, there is no reason why we couldn't have, say, level 20 or level 30 raids. In other words, there is nothing magical or special at the final levels that somehow allows you to experience an aspect of Pantheon that was previously hidden. That is not the case. We want the game to be fun and adventurous, finding skills and items throughout your entire experience from low to max level. Lastly, we will be launching expansions frequently enough to keep ahead of most players and raising the level cap as necessary."

    @Loorn - Looks like you'll get what you hoped for :)


    This post was edited by Bazgrim at July 17, 2017 9:40 AM PDT
    • 18 posts
    July 17, 2017 10:41 AM PDT
    ... also hope to see some kind of points like Merrit points in FFXI.
    • 27 posts
    July 18, 2017 5:59 PM PDT

    Enitzu said:

    Now some say you can get that same feeling doing 6 man content because it's just as hard. To you I say, sorry but no it's not. A 6 man dungeon can not ever be as hard as a 24+ man raid.

    6 man content can not ever be as hard as a 24+ man raid?  Really?  This statement is absurd on it's face. 

    Despite numerous instances across numerous games being a direct refutation of your claim, let's take a look at your arguments.

    Enitzu said:

    In a raid the devs can expect you to have at least 1 of each class.

    Isn't this just trivially harder?  This is more of a roadblock than a difficulty increase.  "You can't do this without X, Y, and Z class" isn't really a good measure of how hard something is.  In fact, finding ways to get around these 'requirements' while having LESS people would almost by definition be MORE difficult.

    Enitzu said:

    They can provide mechanics that may require a class.

    Again, how is this harder?  Unless you'rs simply saying that getting 24 people online at the same time is harder than 6.  They can include a wider range of mechanics, maybe, but the amount of variables each player is responsible for is the crucial part of what makes something difficult.

    Enitzu said:

    They can go outside the box and throw things at you that no 6 man could ever handle. 

    Increasing the Devs toolkit is also increasing the players toolkit.  Having to do more with less is being undervalued in your analysis.

    What exactly is your definition of harder?  Is it something like, "the more people required, the harder the encounter?"  I don't see a hard connection between amount of players and inherent difficulty.

    In my estimation, the relationship between amount of variables and players present is what determines how hard something is.  If 6 people are required to control 60 variables, this, to me, is harder than requiring 24 players to control for 150 variables.  How much each individual person has to account for is the way to look at this.

    I think if you honestly reflect on your experience with MMOs you will find plenty of circumstances where bringing LESS people to an encounter requires much more effort, strategy and execution than your typical zerg raid content.


    This post was edited by Lucid at July 18, 2017 6:01 PM PDT
    • 3237 posts
    July 18, 2017 9:23 PM PDT

    24 man content should be more difficult, on average, than 6 man content.  That doesen't mean there can't be exceptions to the rule. However, when it comes to comparing the two ... imagine this ... you can take the 4 hardest "single group" encounters ever made and then turn it into a 24 man raid.  One could argue that this could technically make the fights easier because of raid buffs or extra flexibility ... but then you buff the encounters to compensate.  At any given point in time, there are only so many functions a single player can perform. Take that to the max (along with gear, spell, consumable, resist/acclimation requirements/encounter experience, etc), and then multiply how many players you will require to perform at that level.  The higher that number is, the more difficult it is to find people that can perform at the caliber that is necessary.  I won't say that all raids are harder than all group content ... but it really comes down to simple math ... there are more variables and challenges that a dev team can throw at a raid team compared to a group.  The more variables/obstacles of consistent difficulty that are overcome, the more challenging the content ... in my opinion.

    To put it another way, @Lucid, instead of saying 60 variables for 6 players and 150 for 24, try 240 for 24 (or even more, when factoring in the added utility from having extra players, buffs, roles, etc.)  In my opinion, 240 variables between 24 players is more difficult to master than 60 variables for 6, especially when the variables are designed to compensate for a 24 player raid.  EQ2 had a pretty good balance of X2, X3, and X4 content and it consistently got harder as you went up.  There may have been an exception here or there but for the most part, the epic dragons, giants, and other monstrosities were confined to X4 raids.  Terrorantula just wouldn't have been the same as a single group spider.

    Three Princes had mechanics that required a tank of each archetype to hold aggro on specific bosses that changed mid fight ... if you were on the wrong one, it was a massive nuke.  Part of what made that fight interesting was balancing the aggro enough so that you could hold onto it, but not so much that it was impossible for another tank to switch with you mid-fight as the script demanded.  Inherently, yeah, I would say it's harder to field a full raid of diverse classes and specializations than it is a single group.  Not only are the encounters potentially more complex, but it requires a much higher level of diplomacy to get a guild to operate on a united front compared to a single group.  Large scale raiding is healthy for the game ... it allows friends to play together consistently.  You aren't going to see 3-4 tanks grouping together on a regular basis ... if these guys are all good friends and want to play together, a raid is their best option for PVE content.  That said, I understand Pantheon is primarily a group-centric game.


    This post was edited by oneADseven at July 18, 2017 11:24 PM PDT
    • 801 posts
    July 19, 2017 7:04 AM PDT

    I really like to kill the term end game, and stick with High end content. Such as boss mobs, and elite areas or content.

     

    6 man content is or can be harder then 24 man content. Especially if spawn rates, or expected uses of spells, event triggers etc are managed. We should not hope for 24 man to be the hardest, but only tweaked to make it feel more like the 6 man game. We should make that perfect group of players take out a mini boss and reap the rewards for doing so. Not 24 man cruise through the event and volla surpass the 6 man content on rewards either.

    All of it goes hand and hand, on how players want it.

    I still love higher end content with 24+ raids, it still will be my so called End game.

    • 9115 posts
    July 19, 2017 8:04 AM PDT

    Anyone who says anything over 6 man group is harder, AKANDE THE BUTCHER wants a chat with you! :D

    The only argument to be had for larger groups that exceed 6 man content is the coordination required for everyone to do their jobs but that alone doesn't make it harder, it just means everyone, no matter how big or small the group/raid is, needs to pay attention and do their job to achieve the goal.

    The more people, the more human variables that could go wrong if someone stuffs up, disconnects or goes afk but that doesn't mean the mob or the content is any harder. I personally like a variety of challenging group and raid content and with groups looking like they will be set to 6 in Pantheon, I like the number 24 for structured raid content with options to expand too much larger or "all-in/uncapped" raids in some instances where the community can come together in huge numbers to overcome a mob for a more social involvement (plus fat shiny loot) but that is just personal opinion from my years leading a guild and raids in VG. :)

    • 2752 posts
    July 19, 2017 9:56 AM PDT

    Kilsin said:

    Anyone who says anything over 6 man group is harder, AKANDE THE BUTCHER wants a chat with you! :D

    The only argument to be had for larger groups that exceed 6 man content is the coordination required for everyone to do their jobs but that alone doesn't make it harder, it just means everyone, no matter how big or small the group/raid is, needs to pay attention and do their job to achieve the goal.

    The more people, the more human variables that could go wrong if someone stuffs up, disconnects or goes afk but that doesn't mean the mob or the content is any harder. I personally like a variety of challenging group and raid content and with groups looking like they will be set to 6 in Pantheon, I like the number 24 for structured raid content with options to expand too much larger or "all-in/uncapped" raids in some instances where the community can come together in huge numbers to overcome a mob for a more social involvement (plus fat shiny loot) but that is just personal opinion from my years leading a guild and raids in VG. :)

     

    Amen! My feelings exactly. 

     

    I desire content that is challening for me personally and the challenge not be worrying about 20+ others doing their jobs correctly.

    • 3237 posts
    July 19, 2017 11:49 AM PDT

    I would argue that the extra coordination required to make sure everybody is doing their job in 24 man content compared to 6 man content is harder.  An analogy to consider:  Imagine being the president of a company with 6 employees, and then one with 24.  Regardless of what company you work for, it's your job to make sure that everybody is performing at a high level.  If someone makes a mistake, all of your other employees suffer.  Which company is more difficult to manage?  The added stress of accounting for quadruple the players at any given time is definitely a layer of challenge, no matter how you spin it.  Venril Sathir would like to have a word with anybody who hasn't encountered him in Norrath.  (EQ2 anyway)  This encounter required every single person in the raid to maintain their mana within a few percent of each other.  If anybodies mana was too high, or too low, it was an instant wipe.  So basically everybody had to joust AoE's, pump out significant damage, maintain heals, debuffs, aggro, handle adds, etc ... and a single mistake from anybody, at any time, spelled certain doom for the entire raid.  Several abilities were off limits due to their mana costs.  Certain gear couldn't be worn due to mana procs.  This encounter required precision on so many levels.

    I have played through some very difficult group content (Nizara, Icy Dig  -- EQ2, and many of the high end group dungeons in WoW, FFXIV, Vanguard) and I enjoyed it very much, but these zones were generally done within a week or two of being released.  Compare that to Djinn Masters Prism, where there were hundreds of thousands of wipes in T6 to this mob across all servers compared to a single victory, or Malkonis D'Morte who wasn't even beaten until the following expansion when the level cap rose to 70.  At the end of the day, the dev team can design the encounters however they want.  If they want group content to be more challenging, they can accomplish that.  The same could be said about solo content.  If coordination is the only difference between group and raid, what's the difference between solo and group?  One could argue that solo content could be as difficult as group content ... and I agree.  If the development team wanted to put an emphasis on making solo content the most difficult in the game, it could be designed/programmed in such a way that could accomplish as much.

    So what it really comes down to is what VR envisions as being the most difficult content in the game.  They hold the keys.  They could make easy mode raid encounters, tough group content, and extremely challenging solo content if that's ultimately what they want to do.  Having experienced those variations of all content in the past, though, I personally think that raid content should be considered the most difficult.  It's more difficult to find 24 "elite" players than it is 6 ... so if all else is the same, where content requires "elite" caliber players ... raid content should, in essence, be more difficult to tackle than group content.  If Pantheon ends up being a game where raiding is a stepping stone to the most difficult group content, so be it.  I'll play through it and see if it's something I ultimately find enjoyable ... but if history is any indication of the future, I much prefer an "end-game" that requires epic scale raid parties compared to a single group.  I don't mind seeing exceptions here and there but if group content ends up being consistently more difficult than raid content, or if the roles are reversed and raiding ends up being a stepping stone to grouping ... I'll have a very hard decision to make.

    As far as raid size goes, I much prefer 36+ compared to 24.  With the ways encounters work any more, half or more of the raid is generally required to attend to other encounter mechanics than the actual boss itself, and that really messes up immersion for me.  I would love to see a raid that requires the majority of it (24 players minimum) that have to focus exclusively on the boss, while a couple groups handle adds or other mechanics where they get ported to another area, have to solve a puzzle, etc.  I've seen so many raids in my day where the main tank group focuses on the main boss and everybody else gets split up on other stuff ... it just feels like a gimmick to me.  If there is an epic hydra terrorizing the lands ... the majority of a raid force should be focused on it rather than the little skeleton minions that it summons.  It all falls back to the new theme I have seen pop up ... "Bring your friends."  That lich boss looked pretty dope ... let's see the video where 2-3 groups try to tackle a king dragon, get wiped across the floor, and then bring fifty more of their friends to get revenge.  I appreciate that single groups of friends can make the community a better place ... but more than anything, guilds are what truly makes the community in my opinion.  I would be disappointed to see a 24 man cap on most raids because that would essentially mean that I would have to form 3 separate raiding parties for my guild and that we would only be able to band together on the occassional super boss that was uncapped.  I would prefer to see 36-48 (6-8 groups of 6) as the standard, and then smaller raids for x2, x3, x4 sprinkled in ... and then of course the occassional uncapped raid.

    I have been a guild/raid leader, and main tank for over 13 years and across a variety of major MMO's.  I remember world firsting a x2 boss in the TFD adventure pack in EQ2 and it never amounting to any sort of accomplishment because it was ridiculously easy compared to the larger raid content.  It was nothing compared to getting WW 3'rd on Chel'drak or Pedestal of Sky ... or even WW 5'th on Tarinax.  I lead a world first kill in EQOA against Avatar of Fear that impressed the dev team so much that they invited our entire guild to participate in the beta for the first expansion and had several of our guild members featured on the retail box.  Two devs joined our guild as a "friend" rank of sorts and they would check in with us from time to time to gauge our progress and see how we were faring in the world and to ask for our feedback about content.  They knew that we were as commited to the raid scene as any guild out there and that they could count on us to find ways to overcome whatever challenge they threw our way.  I have yet to see a single group encounter that wasn't beaten with relative ease ... we'll see what happens, but if group encounters are purposely designed as the most difficult in the game, it would feel like we were robbing Peter (Raids) to pay Paul (groups).  I just personally haven't ever experienced a sense of accomplishment from beating a single group boss anywhere close to what was felt after killing a raid boss.  More people are challenged, and when they overcome it ... the satisfaction that comes with a large scale victory is unmatched.

    I understand nothing is set in stone as far as raid sizes go.  I was also under the impression that we would at least test larger groups as well (8 players as opposed to 6) so hopefully that's still on the table.  This is all my personal opinion and based on my own experiences.  I don't speak for anybody else.  But I really do hope to see a grander scale of raiding than just 4 groups.  I hope to see Pantheon evolve raiding just like they are other features/concepts for the genre ... and large scale raiding would be a great place to start.  I hated the 8 man raids in FFXIV.  That was the most difficult content in their game.  I hope the end-game for Pantheon is nothing like what I saw in FFXIV and is much closer aligned to EQOA/FFXI.  I look forward to testing and providing feedback on whatever is implemented.  I'll give anything a fair chance and see how fun it is, but I will always have the preconceived notion that my experience would be thwarted if I can't regularly play with a group of friends larger than 24.

    I'm bringing friends to pre-alpha ... and plenty of them.  I hope by alpha or beta we'll have stuff we can test together (48+, minimum)  --  hoping for the best, but I'm sure we'll enjoy our time either way.  Also, I am highly in favor of having a mix of content.  I would love to see challenging solo content, group content, and raid content, and even a variety of encounters where group or raid size could fluctuate.  But if one is consistently going to be the hardest, I just hope it's raids.  Also, I would love to see an end-game where progression is something that we can continue to work on for a long time.  Personally I love AA's and posted some of my thoughts on that topic on some of the previous pages of this thread back in January.  I know a lot of people who have their doubts about progeny ... but for me, that can end up being the single most important feature of this game.  Progeny can ultimately determine the overall replay value for Pantheon for some players.  If progeny can deliver half the replay value of what subclasses did for FFXI, I'll be a very happy camper.


    This post was edited by oneADseven at July 19, 2017 12:21 PM PDT
    • 483 posts
    July 19, 2017 4:27 PM PDT

    I agree with oneADseven, the more people on the group the hard the content is, coordinating more players is always harder. In general difficulty depends on the boss or dungeon inherent difficulty, so a 6 man dungeon might be harder than a 24 man raid, but the exact same 6 man dungeon adjusted for 24 players will always be harder than it's 6 player counter part.


    This post was edited by jpedrote at July 19, 2017 4:28 PM PDT
    • 9115 posts
    July 19, 2017 5:52 PM PDT

    The thing is, everyone is responsible for themselves, you can only control your own actions in-game, the mob/content doesn't change, we design the difficulty, so maybe from a raid leader perspective, it may appear harder because you have to also worry about coordinating more humans but that absolutely has no effect on the actual difficulty of the mob or content, so the group/raid size makes no difference whatsoever.

    Scenario; you're a group/raid leader:

    If the group size is 6, you give 5 people instructions/strats (if they need it)

    If the group size is 24, you give 23 people instructions/strats (if they need it)

    If the group size is 72, you give 71 people instructions/strats (if they need it)

    All that changes is the amount of information that you need to convey to others, it doesn't impact the difficulty of the mob or the content in the slightest it just makes your job of managing humans harder the more humans there are ;)

    • 281 posts
    July 19, 2017 6:04 PM PDT

    jpedrote said:

    I agree with oneADseven, the more people on the group the hard the content is, coordinating more players is always harder. In general difficulty depends on the boss or dungeon inherent difficulty, so a 6 man dungeon might be harder than a 24 man raid, but the exact same 6 man dungeon adjusted for 24 players will always be harder than it's 6 player counter part.

     

    Key words: "adjusted for".

    • 511 posts
    July 19, 2017 6:08 PM PDT

    Kilsin said:

    The thing is, everyone is responsible for themselves, you can only control your own actions in-game, the mob/content doesn't change, we design the difficulty, so maybe from a raid leader perspective, it may appear harder because you have to also worry about coordinating more humans but that absolutely has no effect on the actual difficulty of the mob or content, so the group/raid size makes no difference whatsoever.

    Scenario; you're a group/raid leader:

    If the group size is 6, you give 5 people instructions/strats (if they need it)

    If the group size is 24, you give 23 people instructions/strats (if they need it)

    If the group size is 72, you give 71 people instructions/strats (if they need it)

    All that changes is the amount of information that you need to convey to others, it doesn't impact the difficulty of the mob or the content in the slightest it just makes your job of managing humans harder the more humans there are ;)

    Not entirely true, with 72 people (Assuming 12 6 man groups) you should only be giving instructions to at most 12 people - Group Leaders, more likely 4 to 6 people. Tank Officer, Healer Officer, Pulling Officer, DPS Officer (maybe have melee and caster separate) and CC Officer (if/when needed). Those 4-6 people would then tell their people what they need to do to fill their role. I have been in very few raids where one person is telling all 72 people what to do.

    I also think that the main difference of 24 vs 72 man raids isn't that 72 is harder persay than 24 man raids, as that really comes down to the mobs HP, mechanics, raids HP, heals, DPS etc, but having 72 people that have to do the right thing is much harder than getting 24 people. But, the reverse could also be said that in 72 people one person messing up, say 1 healer out of 12 is easier to overcome than 1 healer out of 5.

    Your statement makes me worried that PRF is leaning more towards the smaller raid size which sticking with "old school" mechanics and culture would upset more people then make happy IMO.

     

     


    This post was edited by Dreconic at July 19, 2017 6:09 PM PDT