I'm not interested in all of the discussions of days or hours to level cap. That's all speculation on detail. My question is foundational.
VR have talked a lot about the people who played Everquest, people who miss the "old school" and "hardcore" MMOs. That was a long time ago, and those people are at least in their mid-30s, if not much older*. Few of us have lives at all similar to the lives we had then. So here's my question to VR:
Is PRF being designed for the time the people who played back then had available back then? Or is it being designed for the time the people who played back then have available now?
Either is legitimate, but it's a vital design choice. I can't spend 12 hours in LGuk waiting in line to join the group camping the Frenzied spawn for 3 hours for my turn at a FBSS. If PRF is designed for people to spend long sessions in order to accomplish large numbers of meaningful things, it precludes what I suspect is the majority of the old school playerbase. Again, that's a legitimate choice, but it has to be an intentional choice.
Is PRF for those of us who played the "old school", "hardcore" MMOs? Or is it for those who are now like we were then?
* I am preemptively deaf to the 20-something who claims to have been a hardcore Everquest player. Don't bother.
Check out the FAQ :)
Somebody (prolly Bazgrim) will soon link the right place in the FAQ, but I remember they said that if you got two hours you will be able to achieve meaningfull progression.
-sorte.
I hope there is content for both typse of players. Like Sorte memtioned above, the devs have said you will be able to make meaningful progress in a few hours. But I also hope there are at least a few old school style camp-outs, just in case my family is out of town for the weekend and I have some time to kill. Just for fun.
For 3-5 of my 15 (on and off) EQ years, I would play in this mode:
Mon - 1 hour at lunch with friends, 2 hours at night with same friends, then 1-2 hours raiding with guild
Tue - 1 hour at lunch with friends, 1-2 hours at night grouping/soloing
Wed - 1 hour at lunch with friends, 2 hours at night with same friends, then 1-2 hours raiding with guild
Thu - 1 hour at lunch with friends, 1-2 hours at night grouping/soloing
Fri - 1 hour at lunch with friends, 3 hours at night with same friends, then 2-4 hours grouping/soloing
Sat - 1-4 hours grouping/soloing
Sun 1-2 hours raiding with guild
Soooooo
20 - 30 hours per week (estimate) at my peak of playing.
I don't know how I could possibly afford that much time again but that is, of course, a psychological illusion (I couldn't afford it back then).
The way I did it mostly was severe sleep deprivation. I still spent time with home and family but I went to bed at 2Am or 3AM every night and slept 3-5 hours every night for five years. so a huge portion of that playing time were consumed while everyone else slept.
I will probably play PRF about 12 hours per week. I figure 1-2 hours after everyone is in bed some nights and a couple long nights of 4 hours play.
I think it's a fairly subjective topic, so it's hard to give a definitive answer. My answer to you would be that you should be able to achieve meaningful progression even in short bursts. But if you can only spend 2 hours playing and you want Jboots, and there's usually a line of people waiting to camp jboots, your time is better spent doing something else. If you want Jboots and don't have the time to sit there and camp them, then farm enough cash (save your money), bit by bit, to purchase them from another player. Same with the FBSS and other items. I imagine most items will be tradeable.
If you have 4-8 hours per week to play, you're not going to be able to keep up with the more hardcore players, and it might take you two or three times as long to get max level as the average player. So if you're concerned about being at the top all the time, this game probably isn't being designed for you. Not trying to be rude, but I think that's just the truth. If you are okay with progressing slowly and just enjoying the ride, you will probably still have a lot of fun. I know several people who are of this latter mentality who are thrilled about Pantheon despite not having tons of time to play due to kids and work and RL stuff.
So, in short, I would say it depends on whether or not you're okay with being behind the curve.
Some of us old-school EQ gamers are actually SOOO old that we have more time to play now than when we did in 1999.
While I'm sitting here in my chair with no access to Terminus, I'd like to say that I'll probably be playing less than I did than during the EQ golden era. However, if VR does it's job, I'll be totally addicted and spend far more time.
We'll have to wait and see which way that falls.
philo said:Time isn't a concern if you don't play the game as if it was a competition. I find there to be a fundamental flaw in the question behind this thread.
Perhaps rereading it, in its entirety, for comprehension, will correct your perspective. The other respondants certainly found the clarity that is readily available.
phahmaqu said:philo said:Time isn't a concern if you don't play the game as if it was a competition. I find there to be a fundamental flaw in the question behind this thread.
Perhaps rereading it, in its entirety, for comprehension, will correct your perspective. The other respondants certainly found the clarity that is readily available.
What I believe he was saying is, if you're not going mega hardcore you'll be fine, because the game is being designed with 2 hours sessions in mind. It's somewhere in the FAQ cant be bothered to read it all right now
Kaen said:I would say it depends on whether or not you're okay with being behind the curve.
Makes me wonder who will set the curve; do you think it will be old guys with families like us, or young kids who have more time? If young kids who never played EQ1 decide they like PRF I wouldn't even mind being behind the curve because it means the devs have succeeded in creating a game that appeals to players across all age groups. I think PRF is going to change the gaming community just like D&D and EQ1 did.
Personally I would probably play 0-3 hours on my work days, and as much as 10 hours a day on my 3 days off every week. So, I would be fine with style similar to EQ but i do not want it so that i spend 3 hours trying to get a group.
The people back then either have more or less playing time dependent on circumstances! I am sure its as mixed as it was back then with how much folks can play.
For example i will certainly be able to play more considering i am retired now. Back then was working upwards of 80 hours a week! Still had time to play a couple hours most nights and every third week had a 3 day weekend which played a lot.
phahmaqu said:philo said:Time isn't a concern if you don't play the game as if it was a competition. I find there to be a fundamental flaw in the question behind this thread.
Perhaps rereading it, in its entirety, for comprehension, will correct your perspective. The other respondants certainly found the clarity that is readily available.
I didn't realize it needed clarification. If it isn't a race/competition and if you don't have time to camp something, it isn't a bad thing to put it off until another time. Come back later or even an expansion or two down the line when there are less people to contend with if that is the issue. Or maybe just break up a camp that normally might take 12 hours into 12 or 20 shorter play sessions when you can if that is the concern.
I'm sure there are other things to do than to camp 1 specific camp (you used fbss as the example). You may have to be patient for awhile if it happens to be the FotM type of popular camp spot. The only reason why that would be an issue is if you feel like you have to "keep up with the jones" so to speak. To me it isn't a race. If you feel like it is then I can see where you might run into issues having minimal play time...but that is the same in any game. I still think the question was only a concern if to you it is a competition...otherwise it is a non-issue. It just requires patience.
Xbachs said:Kaen said:I would say it depends on whether or not you're okay with being behind the curve.
Makes me wonder who will set the curve; do you think it will be old guys with families like us, or young kids who have more time? If young kids who never played EQ1 decide they like PRF I wouldn't even mind being behind the curve because it means the devs have succeeded in creating a game that appeals to players across all age groups. I think PRF is going to change the gaming community just like D&D and EQ1 did.
Kaen said:
But truth be told I'd rather see lots of older gamers playing Pantheon, I hope content isn't dumbed down for people who grew up playing WoW and later games.
The generation that grew up on WoW has never played a social game like PRF. I think the way the game is designed will eliminate a lot of the bad behavior you are worried about. And people who do insist on griefing or whatever are going to find it hard to progress.
Xbachs said:Kaen said:
But truth be told I'd rather see lots of older gamers playing Pantheon, I hope content isn't dumbed down for people who grew up playing WoW and later games.The generation that grew up on WoW has never played a social game like PRF. I think the way the game is designed will eliminate a lot of the bad behavior you are worried about. And people who do insist on griefing or whatever are going to find it hard to progress.
A common misconception that I have seen on this forum is that Pantheon is being designed for a small demographic of player. It is my understanding that VR is looking to attract players who enjoy MOBA's, Survival games, FPS (that have built in progression mechanisms, I assume) and really challenging titles like Dark Souls. This is all in addition to the MMO crowd. It's also being designed to accommodate multiple playstyles -- whether you like to solo, group, raid, have a little bit time or time to spare, you should find something in the game that is up your alley. All that said, risk vs reward will always be at the forefront of who, what, when, where, why, and how.
It's my hope that ideal experience gain and loot acquisition will be achieved through grouping up with others. Players are welcome to solo, but they should never expect to compete with groups when it comes to reward potential. That same mentality will apply toward time spent in game. Time invested will always be a primary factor in your ability to progress, but I think it's a design goal to create opportunities for players to enjoy meaningful progression even if they only have 2 hours to play. Everybody needs to manage their expectations, though. The game is not designed to be a race -- if someone puts a burden on themselves to try and keep up with the most hardcore players, that is a personal choice. People need to hold themselves accountable when it comes to personal choice.
@phahmaqu -- I am not implicating you in any of the above. I am only attempting to share my understanding of the goals for this game. There is plenty of information that can be found in the FAQ. Here are some excerpts that you might find useful, particularly the last one:
1.3 Will there be a lot of downtime while playing Pantheon?
This is also a tricky question to answer because ‘too much’ downtime is subjective. We feel our target audience does enjoy some downtime, whether it’s to take a bio break or to do some socializing. But we also feel situations with too much downtime or repetition can be boring, even for our specific audience, and we will endeavor to avoid it.
1.6 How do you plan to keep players interested without the hardcore grind of older MMOs? Will Pantheon be as hardcore as some older MMOs?
Keeping players interested and playing a long time, whether in one session or spread out over days, involves creating compelling gameplay. Player rewards, levelling, earning new abilities, and acquiring more powerful items at a reasonable rate are some ways to make your game sticky. Add in that grouping with others will be encouraged and rewarded and that people will be making new friends in-game and you have a situation where your comrades need you to log in with them in order to advance. Most people who want to be part of a team, to be a team player, respond well to this pressure.
As for how ‘hardcore’ Pantheon will be, we’ve said it wouldn't be as grindy, and the type of grind we were referring to involves tedious repetition. But that doesn't mean Pantheon won't be difficult, or involved, or require time invested in order to advance -- in fact, virtually all MUDs and MMOs are built around time invested as the primary advancement mechanism. Pantheon will both challenge and entertain you.
1.7 What design philosophies are being used for the creation of Pantheon?
We’re building Pantheon from the ground up to make sure the game is fun at low levels, then tackling the next set of levels, and most importantly making sure it’s fun all along the way. This is a development philosophy that we really embrace. Having seen and been part of projects that weren’t made that way, we’re very convinced our approach to Pantheon is the way to go.
17.0 “The Grind” has kept some people from joining their friends in playing MMORPGs in the past. With no plans for quest hubs how will Pantheon appeal to players who aren't interested in a grind and want story-driven content?
Gaining experience by any means, including killing mobs, finishing quests, etc. is still the fundamental way to keep track of a character’s vertical progression and accomplishments. That much is similar between earlier MMOs and Pantheon and, really, between almost all MMOs. The Perception system is our answer to boring quest hubs and being told to accomplish things that really have nothing to do with the environment and the lore. By using your Perception skill, by finding Perception triggers, and by following them where they lead, you will be doing 'quests', but quests given to you in context by the environment. You can be rewarded in just as many ways as a traditional quest: experience, items, a quest token, etc., as well as with special skills and abilities.
4.3 Will Pantheon require me to play for hours and hours or all night and all day to advance my character?
No. While the world of Terminus will consist of vast landscapes and epic dungeons, there is no reason to require players to play long, contiguous gaming sessions. Players will be able to play a couple of hours, logout, and return later to continue their journey. There will also be mechanics and features to both help people get together and group and also to make lasting friendships. To further facilitate this there will also be ways for players to keep their group together even if some members of the group can play longer than others or at different times.
phahmaqu said:
* I am preemptively deaf to the 20-something who claims to have been a hardcore Everquest player. Don't bother.
Darn caught me.
But yeah as far as I'm concerned everyone should just play at the pace they can and want to. You don't NEED to be among the first people to max level or on the first raid team to down a boss. Though in general since they're trying to make the game more 'old-school' but still have it be accessible to people outside of the Everquest base I can't see them making it so you couldn't make ANY progress playing an hour or 2 at a time. Most players don't have the attention span to spend half a day in a group before seeing any meaningful progress, even if they do have the time.
If you get mad you're behind someone else though when you play 1 hour to their 5 hours then that's a personal problem.
phahmaqu said: @philo The flaw in your misreading is that you assumed, without assistance from my post*, that I cared in any way about keeping progression with the most advanced players (or any players, for that matter).
Lets use the example you gave " I can't spend 12 hours in LGuk waiting in line to join the group camping the Frenzied spawn for 3 hours for my turn at a FBSS. "
Only someone who wanted to keep up with the "rat race" would even be concerned about such a thing. Post Kunark the times you are describing were non existant. You simply had to be patient if you didn't want to, or didn't have the time to, "wait in line" until the wait times diminished because most players had moved on. My recommendation if you run into a similar situation again is patience. Move on to something else and come back at a later date.
What, in fact, my question relates to is not the rate of time invested over a calendar period, but the amount of contiguous time, consistently, during play sessions.
This solution was offered: " Or maybe just break up a camp that normally might take 12 hours into 12 or 20 shorter play sessions when you can if that is the concern." that directly related to the length of play sessions.
But if making progress requires routine (maybe one in three or one in four times) three hour sessions, that same person might be precluded from reasonable progression.
I understand that concern but it isn't warranted. Others already mentioned that 2 hour play sessions have been talked about as being sufficient. There is also the Caravan system that has been discussed that will allow players to log out inthe middle of a dungeon and meet up with group members at a later time. (granted we still don't know specifics but) Maybe looking into that will alleviate some of your concerns?
Back to the context of those of us who actually played EverQuest during its heyday: We just wanted to be able to play reasonably, and not be behind when expansions arrived. Give a thought to that mindset. * Zero (0) other thread participants misread my question this way. Perhaps you might consider that.
You can't say you "just wanted to not be behind when expansions arrived" and at the same time suggest that you aren't competitive.
Being "behind" is not a negative thing unless you have that competitive mindset.
In the same way that you can't say " you assumed...incorrectly... that I cared in any way about keeping progression with the most advanced players (or any players, for that matter)" and then say "I...wanted to not be behind when expansions arrived"
Obviously you cared about keeping progression with other players for when the expansion arrived. Which is completely acceptable and understandable.
It's fine that you want to play competitively, it will just be difficult to "not be behind when the next expansion arrives" when you have limited play time.
I think you will find that many of the forum members here played EQ during its prime. Your tone suggests that you might not realize that?
philo said:Obviously you cared about keeping progression with other players for when the expansion arrived.
I'll try to bootstrap the conversation into more recent terms, for clarity. When Burning Crusade (WoW) landed, you couldn't usefully (I've forgotten the specific details, maybe you literally couldn't at all) play the new content without first achieving a baseline progression in pre-expansion content. Those who weren't able to start playing BC content were behind. Not behind other players, though of course that was inevitably true. Behind the game's content. That's the behind I care about: not being able to keep up with the evolution of the game. I still don't care about other players' progression. Try to imagine a universe in which that's true, and then perceive my question and comments in that context.
I'm not going to nit pick definitions of keeping up with "content" vs keeping up with "players who are playing through that content". I'll leave it alone because I don't think my suggestions are helping.
Look into the Caravan System if you haven't already. I think it may answer some of your questions.