Hey everyone,
I would like to get some feedback on what you guys think an appropriate amount of time between expansion releases is.
I played Everquest from 2000-2004. During that time 7 expansions released for the game. I think that this rate is much too high. I admit I am ignorant to if this was a result of the engine/builds at the time to not be able to implement content patches or if it was just to make more money.
I played WoW from 2004-2012. During that time 3 expansions were released. I think that this is more of the way to go with expansions. Instead of continuing to release expansions at a cyclic rate (2 a year) like Everquest was doing I find it much more reasonable to do an expansion every 2ish years with multiple content patches that release new dungeons to explore, new raid bosses to take down, and balance changes along the way. Despite what you think of WoW's solo-esque style of play and instancing (which I don't want in pantheon) I do believe they released expansions/content through patches a much better way than Everquest did.
Leveling in Pantheon is going to be slow. More about the adventure and the journey than the destination. I do want time to get to the destination before there is another expansion/destination. Lets say it takes 6 months to get max level for the more casual players who want to enjoy the game, if content is patched and expansions are 2 years that means they have a year and a half to enjoy all the content that it has to offer (minus hardcore raiding) maybe make an alt, level up professions, ect.
This idea of content through patches, progressively releasing harder raid content/dungeons throughout the 2 year expansion window free's up the older raid content/dungeons for more casual players to get to experience without having to compete in the 24/7 poopsocking that is going to be happening (which is fine I enjoy batphone raiding).
I would really like to know what you guys think about this. Am I way off base? Do you guys enjoy spending the price of an expansion twice or even once a year when content could be easily patched in to give players more meaningful content to explore without the added price/level/aa cap increase?
-Shaolin
I'm okay for the 2year gap, well even 1 year would be fine if the additionnal expac is not making older content obsolète (what wow was doing). However, I am all against the progressive release of streamlined content. If people want to poopsock and clean everything in a few months, that's their choice, and the game should not adapt or slow down to make sure they either "don't get to clean everything" or inverse, invest massively in frenetic content to keep a fraction of the playerbase (<5%) occupied while they obviously will never stop due to little to no IRL restrain.
An expansion is a one time bought content, sub is only for access/server costs, and not for actual content streamlining.
I personally liked the EQ content cycle. It was good that many/most players were behind/not quite maxed before the next expansion dropped as those players stayed enrolled and always had things to work toward, servers becoming top heavy is a bad thing for an open world game. Seven in five years might be excessive (1999-2004) but I think 4 in that same time would be acceptable. The real problem is expanding the world outward too much vs revamping and/or adding new areas to existing zones.
For example: Expansion 1 adds Kunark, expansion 2 revamps a lot of the under utilized old world and adds some new stuff to other zones, expansion 3 adds mostly new content, 4 revamps/revisits existing areas/changes the existing world.
Preferably they will do a lot of revamps and zone changes, which also adds a higher draw down the line for progression servers as they become a more rich experience.
I like to think expansion timing should be more content focused rather than timeline focused. My recommendation would be as follows:
Each expansion should have a “core” path as well as ancillary paths. Using EQ1 as an example, the core path would be leveling up from 1 - 50, acquiring a full suit of top group armor and weapons from Lower Guk / Sol B, research all of your spells, max 1 tradeskill, and explore all of the zones. Ancillary paths would include things such as (1) full suit of raid gear, (2) camp rare items such as Pearl Kedge Totem or ManaStone, (3) max all tradeskills, (4) level up an alt, and (5) accumulate tons of plat and weight reduction bags.
For me, the time between expansions should be the amount of time it takes a hardcore player to consume 100% of content (core path and all ancillary paths), which should be equivalent to a casual player completing the core path. The idea is that you have enough content for the hardcore not to have completed everything and twiddle their thumbs while simultaneously allowing more casual players to reach max level and prepare for the next wave of content.
Of course, this is incredibly challenging to achieve, particularly with the folks who wish to rush through as much content as fast as possible. However, I think introducing a few massive timesinks as ancillary paths that the hardcore can elect to pursue would enable the devs to time it reasonably well. Examples would include the coldain ring/shawl quests that require huge time investment but provide only a minor power increase.
Iksar said:I think this is a great point. Over-expansion can grow the world too quickly and leave many zones barren. I hope that not every expansion is a new continent, but is instead woven into the existing geography in a way that maintains a largely connected world. Perhaps an existing zone is shaped like a donut, with a mountain in the middle. Lightning strikes the mountain, revealing a hidden passage to the center of the mountain which is populated by a previously undiscovered class of mountain goblins. No new zone created, but additional content layered into the existing world.Preferably they will do a lot of revamps and zone changes, which also adds a higher draw down the line for progression servers as they become a more rich experience.
Yea, so after reading some of these comment I think that it would be a fair compromise for an expansion a year but possibly a level cap increase every 2. I totally would agree with an expansion a year for a boat load of new content/revamps but not necessarily raising the level cap.
I wouldnt mind say 12-15ish months after Pantheon releases the first expansion increases the level cap and adds a new cont (like kunark did), and then 12-15 months later would; I wouldnt necessarily say revamp an entire zone but potentially add to exisiting zones to bring more people there at all level ranges, and possibly some AA.12-15 months later then increasing the level cap and add a new dynamic to the game/class/race. I would say im ok with a level cap increase every 2 years and every year more content/AA for those levels? Is that a more reasonable approach?
I think that the time investment to reach max to time to enjoy the content an expansion has to offer should be balanced as well.
edit: I don't really like the idea of revamping entire zones to make them relevant, the zones should all be relevant from the start. I would really like it if lets say (for the expansion) since we have been farming a lower level zone/dungeon so much, maybe some high level re-enforcements come that gives max level players a reason to use the zone and adds to the high level/low level players sharing the same zone for added community. That wouldn't obviously be the entire expansion but that could just be 1 aspect that incorporates what you were suggesting in a different way.
As long as the old content isn't displaced by increased level caps or huge gear/stat jumps ever few months, should be ok. Horizontal progression with new content releases, fixes, and whatever else the community seems to most want are my usual priorities. I hate ghost towns and top-heavy populations. At that point, alting becomes a single-player game instead of an MMO. In a game built around grouping, that'd be a death sentence for alts and newer players.
I like the idea of a 2 year gap myself. If the game is as involved as it should be, and having more than 1 character I would like a little time in between expansions. It also gives people a chance to really see the current expansion instead of rushing through it so they can be ready for the next expansion. It's all about moderation. 2 per year is way too much. 1 per year would suffice, but if I had my choice it would be every 2 years.
Another reason is for the developers to address all the problems and add plenty of content per expansion. It allows each expansion to address any problems, build on lots of content, and introduce new features.
When expansions are rushed you get expansions like Velious in EQ. It had a lot of nice gear, and story line. But the zones were so massive and mostly empty space. Sleepers tomb was nothing more than a couple of big rooms with some mobs in between. Then 4 dragons guarding the sleeper. It was really cookie cutter when you break it down.
My preferred format for annual expansions:
Year 1: Build onto the world. (No level cap increase.)
Year 2: Build onto the world. (+5 level cap increase.)
Year 3: Build onto the world. (No level cap increase.)
Year 4: Build onto the world. (+5 level cap increase.)
Rinse and repeat until the end. I think an increase of 5 is far superior to 10 as it would go a long way toward preserving the relevance of high-end content.
oneADseven said:My preferred format for annual expansions:
Year 1: Build onto the world. (No level cap increase.)
Year 2: Build onto the world. (+5 level cap increase.)
Year 3: Build onto the world. (No level cap increase.)
Year 4: Build onto the world. (+5 level cap increase.)
Rinse and repeat until the end. I think an increase of 5 is far superior to 10 as it would go a long way toward preserving the relevance of high-end content.
I would be okay with this. This sounds like a pretty good amount of updating and expanding. I too would rather see 5 level increments instead of 10. With 5 levels you still use old raid content to gear up members. When you go as far as 10 it creates such a gap between 50 and 60 that most raid content's gear isn't as useful as the 10 levels you gain so content isn't used as much
I think it should depend on the progesson the the players/char's. If they make the game so that players are maxed out in 6 months then they have to weigh up between how many players they may loose over the next 6+ months before an expansion is released.
Usually for the hard core players once an expansion is released they are maxed within a month, then there is the long wait for the next release.
Personally I would think after launch they could wait 1-2 years before the first expansion. I would think players initally will make their main. Play it to a certain level or to max level then try another char to see how it goes and do that in the first 2 years. Only the 1 Char player would be affected by the longer inital expansion delay.
But after that the expansions might need to be a bit more regular to keep people interested and staying in the game. Maybe every year.
I like to vary my gaming with multiple chars, so initally if I made say 4 then to get them to max level would take quite a bit of time, but for a +5 level expansion across the 4 chars would be no where near the amount of time from 0 -> 50 or what ever max is iniitally.
This also depends on how easy it is to build the new zones etc for an expansion and what they can bring into them. I am sure a MMO these days is built proably a bit better to integrate new content and abilities into it.
oneADseven said:My preferred format for annual expansions:
Year 1: Build onto the world. (No level cap increase.)
Year 2: Build onto the world. (+5 level cap increase.)
Year 3: Build onto the world. (No level cap increase.)
Year 4: Build onto the world. (+5 level cap increase.)
Rinse and repeat until the end. I think an increase of 5 is far superior to 10 as it would go a long way toward preserving the relevance of high-end content.
I"m down with this but want to modify slightly to be more specific :) (oneADseven and I had this conversation like a week or two ago so he knows where I'm going with this)
Expansion 1: Add new land area, content, and new kinds of gameplay (like housing)
Expansion 2: Add additional new content (without significant land area), and +5 level cap increase
Expansion 3: Add new land area, content, and new kinds of gameplay (like for example, player ships and islands to explore)
Expansion 4: Add additional new content (without significant land area) and +5 level cap increase.
... and so on.
The reason I want to separate this way is that when you add new land area AND do a level cap increase at the same time, players tend to all go pool in the new area (because that's where the new top-level content is. I would much rather see top-level content spread throughout the existing world whenever a level cap increase is introduced. That way, older areas are still populated and the top-heavy population is still spread out.
Is a year the right timeframe for an expansion? Depends on how fast players burn through existing content and how fast the team can build new stuff, really. A year is a good average but assuming that expansions add significant amounts of gameplay, land mass, or content, then I could see that time frame ranging anywhere from 10 to 18 months.
I personally like the idea of a major expansion every 2 years, perhaps with a small DLC yearly as needed.
My reasoning for the 2-year timeline is this, 1 year for the development of new content, and then 1 year to thoroughly test the content before releasing it to the general population.
Almost nothing bothers me more than buggy expansions, If I'm going to pay good money for new content then said content better be polished and refined to fit and flow with the existing game.
I hate when game developers release expansions without proper testing (with a large pool of professional testers) to find all the little bugs, sometimes they don't even find the large bugs, sometimes those large bugs can even affect the core game in ways that are detrimental to fundamental gameplay, I don't want to see this with Pantheon.
This line of logic follows with what they have said they will be doing (and are doing it seems) with regard to testing the core game, VR will spend 1-year testing on each stage (pre-pre-alpha, pre-alpha, alpha, and beta) before the official release.
I think it would be wise of Pantheon to stick with a paradigm of thoroughly testing all content before official release.
Unlike some game developers, VR has a very large and passionate group of volunteer game testers at its disposal to utilize in making the best game/expansions that they can make, these veteran testers will have had roughly 4 years experience after official launch working closely with VR to make the best possible game. Keep those vet testers engaged from time to time in testing new material and you will go far.
So VR, please carry-over the mindset you are using to create Pantheon, to the development and release of expansions, don't rush the process or feel you have to stick with an arbitrary timeline, if you do you will end up with the same type of problems Vanguard had at release. Holding to arbitrary timelines at all costs is bad for game development.
Tal
oneADseven said:My preferred format for annual expansions:
Year 1: Build onto the world. (No level cap increase.)
Year 2: Build onto the world. (+5 level cap increase.)
Year 3: Build onto the world. (No level cap increase.)
Year 4: Build onto the world. (+5 level cap increase.)
Rinse and repeat until the end. I think an increase of 5 is far superior to 10 as it would go a long way toward preserving the relevance of high-end content.
I am still hoping that they have plans on how to add meaningful expansions without raising the mechanical level cap even if your paper doll says it’s now level 65 rather than level 50. There could be some methods of designing the background math of the game mechanics such that level 50 will always be able to participate in end game content, all be it at a disadvantage, regardless of the current level cap.
If there was ever was a topic I would love to have a fireside beer chat with Brad on it would be how to design a game on a logarithmic power curve rather than a linear/exponential curve while still satisfying the players need for a feeling of accomplishment.
The big question is what is the difference between an expansions, you pay extra cash for to offset bulk development time, and frequent content added game development over time, under the monthly subscription model. What is a fair amount of content to expect from a monthly subscription? Are expansion costs to offset development overhead or a profit source?
Trasak
I think we all want longevity in the game. That means a subscriber base of some measurable threshold. Newer subscriptions need to be at a rate to offset subscribers that are leaving.
If the game is going to be a challenge (which many of us are hoping for) and group-centric (also a tenet of the game) then having expansions that move the existing playerbase away from zones where newer subscribers will find themselves will ultimately result in a fractured playerbase that does not lead to longevity in the game. That is just one part, the other part is being able to continue to entice new players to subscribe and to hold onto new subscriptions for a long period of time which ultimately means that new players will be able to play with older players on a somewhat consistent or reliable basis.
I am hoping that the game will have a meaningful expansion rate that would allow for the longevity of the game in which newer players can adventure alongside existing players to maintain a healthy subscriber base to be able to fund and grow the game for many years. Part of that meaningful rate, obviously, requires content that is meaningful and not throwaway. It does not make sense to waste resources on content that will not be part of the Pantheon experience. So I hope the first expansion or two will take the information at hand about original content and the playerbase experience and how to allocate resources to creating future content and revising existing content.
The game has to maintain a subscriber base to be viable (whatever that threshold happens to be).
oneADseven said:My preferred format for annual expansions:
Year 1: Build onto the world. (No level cap increase.)
Year 2: Build onto the world. (+5 level cap increase.)
Year 3: Build onto the world. (No level cap increase.)
Year 4: Build onto the world. (+5 level cap increase.)
Rinse and repeat until the end. I think an increase of 5 is far superior to 10 as it would go a long way toward preserving the relevance of high-end content.
I can get on board with this.
I also think less than 5% of resources should be devoted to things that would be aimed at the hard core folks. Those guys are going to devour any world or raid content you can devise in record time and then spend the rest of the time complaining that there isnt enough content. I just don't think that time and resources should be wasted on that segment of the population. Spend time really flushing out the existing world. When an expantion comes out dont just add new high end zones and more level cap raids. Add a level 20-30 area or a 30s range raid. Even some new quests or modifications to starting areas would be welcome. Too ofen an expansion just means level bump and new raid zones.
Besides once the game starts to focus only on the high end stuff subscriptions will start to fluctuate. I don't know how many times I have seen it where an expansion comes out and everyone blows thorugh its content and does all of the raids and then entire guilds un subscribe until the next expansion. Did it myself for years in EQ2. I just don't think that expansions should be focused on trying to deliver content to people that cannot be satisfied.
Having well rounded expansions also might just entice new players to come into the game, especially if those expansions cause existing players to roll alts. That would make it possible to see viable populations through the game world at any given time making it easier for a new player to get into the game.
My thought process is basically aligned with what Nephele proposed. As far as the percentage of content that is dedicated to high level content exclusively within each expansion, this is highly dependent on how well they pull off progeny. Believe it or not, not every hardcore player wants to focus on nothing but end-game vertical progression. I absolutely prefer a more horizontal approach. When it comes to the vertical stuff, I think they should include some serious timesinks similar to what Taliche was suggesting with the "core" and "ancillary" paths. Progeny could end up being the ultimate ancillary path that extends through every expansion assuming the "cap" is increased a notch or two with each new wave of expansion content. I would also love to see things like a Coliseum (idea posted here: https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/5217/coliseum), or a group/raid version of the "Gauntlet of Diffusion" zone I proposed here. I completely understand the point that Sabot is making in the above post but I would be really disappointed if they only dedicated 5% of resources to the hardcore folks.
A better way to look at it, in my opinion, is to dedicate the majority of resources to a type of content that can be enjoyed by everybody. Some people are going to access it sooner than others, or even burn through it, but you need to keep the hardcore folks engaged. I remember EQ2 trying to implement lower-end content in some of their expansions like the Steamfont Mountains zone. That entire area felt like a waste to me because there was no reason for me to go and experience any of it unless I rolled up an alt, which is something I didn't really do in that game. With a feature like progeny, I would enjoy leveling up multiple times on the same character and would actually appreciate/enjoy seeing these alternate paths. When it comes to something like the Coliseum or Gauntlet of Diffusion, both of them could serve as a type of core/ancillary hybrid that is built for longevity. I strongly agree that it should be just as important to add new content into existing areas, or find ways to expand them (the donut shaped zone with a mountain opening that Taliche proposed) -- and all of that would resonate with me even more if there is an emphasis on horizontal progression. Again, I feel progeny is the ultimate tool when it comes to this because each generation of progeny feels like a notch of horizontal progression that requires a full cycle of leveling up vertically.
What I hope we don't see are expansions after expansions of content that continuelly moves us away from the core game.
Such as:
New parts of the world where it becomes the new hub and the old world is left barren and empty.
New mechanics where its required to change your entire gear set and any gear set from previous parts of the game are worthless.
New abilities where old abilities become worthless.
Kittik said:What I hope we don't see are expansions after expansions of content that continuelly moves us away from the core game.
Such as:
New parts of the world where it becomes the new hub and the old world is left barren and empty.
New mechanics where its required to change your entire gear set and any gear set from previous parts of the game are worthless.
New abilities where old abilities become worthless.
That's why I hope we see a lot more willingness/no reservations about revamping older content/zones.
Looking at EQ, even by Kunark they could have revamped pretty much all of Western Antonica and Odus save maybe the immediate areas around Qeynos and Halas. The Karanas, Splitpaw, all of Odus, Runnyeye, and Lake Rathetear could all have used entire facelifts. Then you have places like Najena, Steamfont Mountains, Befallen, Kithicor, and South Ro which were very under utilized or otherwise just zones traveled through to get elsewhere. That's basically a full expansion of content or more that could have gone far to keep players from spreading too thin by adding tons of new areas/continents.
Then they had a lot of places that were never added to the original continents but were on the original map like: The Frigid Plain, Unkempt Wood, Lake Neriuss, Winters Deep, Rujarkian Hills, Broken Skull Rock, The Dead Hills, Dragonscale Hills, The Loping Plains, and others.
The game is well set up lorewise to have zones revamped given the tendency for Terminus to have bits of other planets crash or otherwise show up.
That aside I really don't think reimagining of zones is a bad thing at all. Does it risk breaking some immersion or come off a bit jarring initially? Sure. But it is a game after all and revamping old zones that are under used is a net positive. I don't think they would take something like a desert zone and poof it's now a jungle or anything, just a different desert zone likely with some familiar points of interest still present if only altered a little.
Personally, I don't mind population changes over time as long as they make sense. For example, if the orcs and the bandits share the pass at launch, perhaps in an update sometime, a new chief assumes control of the orcs, and they begin pushing the bandits out of the pass. The bandits then take up residence in the ruins which were previously occupied by giant spiders. As long as the shifts make sense and seem logical given the idea of a changing world, all good.
Replacing the orcs with a gnomish colony overnight might require a lot of explaining though :)