I think Lockout timers on endgame raid content should be implemented in Pantheon.
It's purpose, mainly to control the pace of progression through raid content so players don't burn through it so fast that they become bored with the game and un-subscribe until the next expansion.
It will also keep 1 or 2 guilds from locking down all the endgame content. Thus keeping any other guilds from getting to experience that section of the game.
More players will get to have a chance to challenge themselves and see what VR worked so hard to make for all players.
Lockout timers are the perfect solution to these problems that were so rampant in EQ and still plague P99 if I'm not mistaken.
VR can set the amount of time to whatever they want so that the pace is right for Pantheon.
I really hope VR Implements Lockout timers so that unlike EQ, Pantheon can be a game that many players get to enjoy the endgame and not just a handful.
Players who reach max level and cannot progress at all because a handful of players have all the content on timers and locked down are players who will quickly become bored and disillusioned with the game and they will go play a different game.
I'm sure some of you are going to respond and say this is some type of hand holding, I disagree. I think its the best solution to make the game somewhat fair, the challenge is supposed to be PvE, Player Versus Environment, not a weird type of GvG (guild vs guild) with 20 guilds fighting each other over a limited number of encounters, but not actually being able to battle one another.... it's just bad, and weird and should not be a part of Pantheon.
Tal
If your concerned with 1 or 2 guilds locking down the endgame, just make instances. Lockout timers just penalize the better guilds/players. If you want to make it fair, use instances.
This is what happened on phinegal and it was one of the most successful TLPs ever in terms of percent of players that got to experience content in era.
Also, if a player wants to rush to the endgame and then quitfor 5 months... why wouldn't they be able to? There are very few players that actually do this. Usually you'll just see a drop in raid attendance as opposed to unsubscribing.
Porygon said:If your concerned with 1 or 2 guilds locking down the endgame, just make instances. Lockout timers just penalize the better guilds/players. If you want to make it fair, use instances.
I'm 99% sure that VR has already stated that there won't be separate instances like your talking about for raids.
If they did implement separate instances for raid content then I agree that would be better as far as fixing over competition for raids.
However, if they are not, and I think that is actually the case, then lockout timers seem to be the best solution.
Tal
Lockouts seems best to me. If the content is seriously hard/challenging then the best will end up known and the rest will fail, but most anyone can try.
Iksar said:Lockouts seems best to me. If the content is seriously hard/challenging then the best will end up known and the rest will fail, but most anyone can try.
Agreed. I think lockout timers are the best compromise, no matter how much I'd prefer everything to be open-world competition. But I'd also only be for them if they made the raids ridiculously hard to complete. If anyone can try them without competing with other guilds, then not everyone should be able to complete them. Not by a long shot.
Instances or lockouts would both go against the whole design of making an old school MMO with a real world and real share of things. Many people are afraid of "end game locking", but end game is a term that what said not to fit for pantheon. The game is not designed around level max and raid fever like late EQ turned into, neither around a wow type where everywone aim for the saim goal : join a raid, loot ****, disband and cancel sub.
Most here, including me, have been accustomed to games where the endgame is everything. Years after years, we all forgot how it was during classic EQ, and that back then "end game" had pretty much no sense, and while I agree the gaming community expanded from passionnate to grind-whoreish with a shitload ton more people, I do not think it would make the game great to make it an other raid farming game like many other already existing titles.
MauvaisOeil said:Most here, including me, have been accustomed to games where the endgame is everything. Years after years, we all forgot how it was during classic EQ,....
I play on P99 so I can remember what it was like in classic EQ like it was last week....., because It was last week.
I don't have a max lvl character on P99 so I can't give first-hand testimonials of not being able to raid anything unless I was in 1 of the 3 guilds that have everything on timers and locked down.
but I have read about it on P99 forums and heard players talking about it in game chat. It is real and it sucks. Lockout timers would prevent this.
Instead of having mobs on a 1 or 2-week re-spawn timers, you can just lockout the players who have beaten the encounter for however long and then other players will have a chance to experience the whole game if they are good enough.
Lockout timers seem to be the only real fix to this problem without having separate raid instances.
Tal
Talonguard said:I think Lockout timers on endgame raid content should be implemented in Pantheon.
How would a lockout timer work? Can you give me a detailed explanation of this mechanic?
As an fyi. I'm going to respond with multiple ways to exploit this mechanic, as well as grief other players... because this is typically one of the easiest mechanics to do so with.
And I know that they already said they would have no instances (I also went and read your post in the pnp thread to gather more insight) which indicates to me that they understand there will be open world competition (including not all guilds or players having the opportunity to kill certain mobs). If they were not ok with this. They would make instances.
Porygon said:How would a lockout timer work? Can you give me a detailed explanation of this mechanic?
As an fyi. I'm going to respond with multiple ways to exploit this mechanic, as well as grief other players... because this is typically one of the easiest mechanics to do so with.
The lockout timer would be applied to your personal character after you defeated the boss in the instance/zone.
You would not be able to re-enter the instance/zone until the lockout timer timed out.
So to be clear the timer is applied to the character you used to beat the encounter, not your account, so you could kill the boss again on a different character if you have it lvled and geared for it.
I think that covers it. I'm no expert.
Tal
P99 has an extremely limited amount of content for the size of the player base, with no new content on the horizon. Perhaps it's not the best comparison?
Instead of thinking in terms of things that have already been done i.e. lockouts and instances why not try new ideas? Instances and lockout timers are exactly what you would expect in a theme park MMORPG. They have been done to death by other games and it is well understood that instances and lockouts breed a sense of entitlement in the player base. Having to compete for raid targets means you earn the right, above and beyond what some would even consider fair sometimes. However you can not question that you did not earn the right to engage that target.
Instead of lock 'outs' how about lock 'ins' in the vien of early Veeshan's peak, you can zone in, but you can not port out, you can not gate out. You can die or fight out. If there are multiple areas like this it will be impossible for a guild to lock down more than one target area at a time.
Or raid content could take the form of plane of hate/fear with quicker respawns balanced by lower drop rates and large enough to support multiple guilds at a time.
I'd prefer to see Visionary Realms try anything but instances and lockouts.
Part of the charm of a game like Pantheon, and early EQ is that you may not get to do everything, that is ok! It makes the opportunity to do those things so much more special, magical, and heroic as opposed to your weekly entitlement, everyones the hero that saves the world nonsense that modern MMORPG's cater too.
Talonguard said:The lockout timer would be applied to your personal character after you defeated the boss in the instance/zone.
You would not be able to re-enter the instance/zone until the lockout timer timed out.
I think that covers it. I'm no expert.
Tal
If killing the boss is going to lock me out of the zone... just make instances??
How does the game determine who killed the boss? Whoever is in the raid? Whoever is on the hatelist?
What happens if 2 guilds engage at the same time, do both guilds get locked out? How does the game determine who won and who lost?
Talonguard said:I think Lockout timers on endgame raid content should be implemented in Pantheon.
It's purpose, mainly to control the pace of progression through raid content so players don't burn through it so fast that they become bored with the game and un-subscribe until the next expansion.
And you are mostly wrong, that was not it's intent at all in Vanguard.
Dominant guilds, skilled guilds were able to monopolize the raid kills, which meant they locked up the premium drops.
But the biggy in Vanguards case was that some of those drops were flying mounts. Flying mounts where key elements only came from single sources.
One guild essentially had monopolized all the flying mounts in the MMO. No other players outside that guild had a flying mount.
The guild did not block other guilds from attempting the raid bosses. Other guilds just did not have the skills. They needed more than a try. They needed hours, days.
Thus lockout timers. Which gave other guilds days and days to attempt raid bosses that would otherwise be quickly cleared.
The problem could have been solved with more Raid Bosses respawns that did not operate like clock work.
[for the record, in Vanguard, when a boss was on lockout for you it simply became a blueish ghost and would totally ignore you and any action you might try and take. I think in EQ IIRC would boot you from the zone.]
Lyyr said:Having to compete for raid targets means you earn the right, above and beyond what some would even consider fair sometimes.
After.... let's say 1 year, Pantheon is going to be very top heavy and VR could not possibly make enough content to spread all of the players out enough to not use Lockout timers or some other tools.
Who says you should have to fight over raid content at all? We are supposed to be fighting the Environment not each other on the PvE server. Some competition is a good thing and lockout timers will still allow for it. All it will do is lockout players who have beaten the encounter so that others who have earned the right by leveling and gearing their characters get a shot at it as well.
If you don't use lockout timers traditionally you would then have very long re-spawn timers to keep any one player or group from just farming it over and over again day in and day out.
With lockout timers, those that have beaten the encounter can do so again after it fades, basically being the same as a long re-spawn timer, except other players also get to enjoy the game and not just 1 group.
This method would not work in every single....for lack of a better word, instance. Encounters that don't take place in a dungeon would not be able to be timer locked, I dont think.....
Unless they could make it where once you killed say....world boss dragon, Redrum the Mighty you would get a timer on your character that prevented you from doing dmg to that Mob until your timer ran out. Anyways that last part was just a random thought that distracted me.
Tal
While I agree with lockout timers as a means to allow more people to experience the same content, I believe the answer should be much more nuanced. I also think that we limit ourselves when we assume that raiding MUST have a clear progression. Just because other games have gone that route does not mean it's a good thing in the long run or the right thing for Pantheon.
Here's what I think Pantheon should do:
Making (Raid) Content Accessible
Have multiple "types" of raid content:
"World Boss" Raids - long and very random spawn timer, multiple spawn locations (within one zone, or potentially spread between several zones), very tough but 100% contested. These should be the Gorenaires and Trakanons of Pantheon. The thing that spawns and terrorizes a zone until enough players get together to kill it. These don't need lockout timers - the respawn should take care of that. By their nature, these are very contested, but because you never really know when/where one might appear, it's always a race to get your raid to it before someone else does.
Triggered "Event" Raids - these are raid encounters that can be triggered intentionally (or uninentionally) by player actions. They might be placed in special rooms at the bottom of dungeons, or out in the world at mysterious landmarks. The trigger conditions should be non-obvious and relatively obscure (don't worry, players will figure it out soon enough because we all talk). For example, bring a crystal drop from three different dungeons and place it in the monolith to start the event. The event itself should be tough enough to feel special. These encounters *should* have a lockout timer so that they can't be run over and over and over by the same group. However, once cleared and defeated, they should be re-triggerable within an hour so that another group could come along and do them too. The rarity of the encounter should not be in the respawn, but rather in satisfying the trigger conditions.
Progressive Raid Zones - these are zones set up entirely for raiding, where raids generally need to progress through a series of encounters that get tougher the deeper you go. An example of this type of zone design would be EQ's Temple of Veeshan, or Vanguard's Ancient Port Warehouse. The zones can have multiple wings to better support multiple raids happening simultaneously. Respawn time should be reasonable (probably 3-8 hours) so that each raid can be attempted by different groups on a regular basis. However, each encounter should carry a lockout so that the same guild can't come in and do the same "wing" night after night, and other guilds/raids get a shot.
Super Raids - A super raid is a semi-unique event that might only happen every few months, but when it does, it draws in a large number of the players online in that Realm. Super raids involve multiple world boss class raid targets that spawn in different areas simultaneously and must be defeated. Super raids are events, which means they have storylines. An undead invasion. A retaliatory strike by unhappy dragons. An assault by the Revenant. Participating in these events should be a reward in and of itself, and if your guild/raid actually manages to down one of the bosses, to the victor go the (relatively unique) spoils. I say that these should be semi-unique, meaning that if one happens on your realm, it should only really happen once. The next time a super raid happens, it should be something different. Even if it's the same threat re-emerging 2 years later, the event itself should change (along with the loot). I've talked about these in other threads, but the concept is that Pantheon would have a few of these built and waiting to be triggered. What triggers a super raid? A hidden series of things that the entire population of a server contributes to. For example, once 10 million orc kills are logged on your realm, potentially that could trigger the Orc Uprising super raid. Or perhaps, when 500 people have completed the epic "Riddle of the Wraith" quest line, events are set into motion that trigger the Revenant super raid 10 days later - or, if another super raid has happened recently, whenever the next "window" for such an event might be. As for lockouts? Well, since these are semi-unique events... there's no need.
Progression
I am not a fan of sticking every raid into some sort of tiering system and saying "you must do X before you can do Y before you can do Z". That is silly and artificially limits the amount of content available to guilds.
That's not to say I want everything to be at the same level of difficulty. However, what I want is for the majority of standalone raids to present a unique challenge to those who attempt them.
Which one do you do first? Do you go fight the dragon of Avendyr's Pass, before you try to defeat the Wraithlord of Wild's End? Or do you try the Wraithlord first? It's really about what you think your raid is ready for. Sure, gear from one will help you with the others. But the majority of them should all be tuned so that each one could be a group's first raid.
Obviously , raiding zones as described above will have a progressive aspect - as they should. Likewise, world boss raids should be tougher than other raids, so you could call that a progression too. But having a delineated, gamewide raid progression would just squeeze everyone into the same set of bottlenecks. The goal should be to support as many raiders as possible while still ensuring that each encounter is meaningful and rewarding in its own right.
Now, none of this isn't to say that a new tier of raiding couldn't be introduced alongside a level cap increase in an expansion somewhere down the line. But within the same level range, unique challenges > progression, except in situations where it's a zone built for raiding.
My opinions.
I do not see lockout timers as at all inconsistant with the "old school" philosophy.
I do not see excessive competition for either bosses or access to raids as a good thing at all.
If the top guilds can't grind the same raids over and over maybe some of their members will spend more time in the lower level areas or grouping with or helping other people. This strikes me as a plus. If middle tier guilds know that they will get a shot at raid content this encourages more people to stick around and work at things after hitting level cap - another plus.
For what it is worth I agree with Nephele almost entirely.
Porygon said:How does the game determine who killed the boss? Whoever is in the raid? Whoever is on the hatelist?
What happens if 2 guilds engage at the same time, do both guilds get locked out? How does the game determine who won and who lost?
I imagine that whatever raid got to loot the boss was the one who killed it and therefore is the one who gets the lockout timer, only seems fair.
I think that answers all your questions?
Tal
Nephele said:While I agree with lockout timers as a means to allow more people to experience the same content, I believe the answer should be much more nuanced.
Thank you sweet Jesus.....I mean Naphele.
All that stuff you said in your post, yes YES YES.
Thank you for taking the time to type up such a well thought out brilliant post.
I want to play the game that works like you outlined. I hope that game is Pantheon.
Tal
I would like to respectfully endorse what Nephele is proposing. A mixed bag would be ideal, and the ability to monopolize would be severely hampered due to the various elements that have been described. Thank you for articulating your thoughts so well, Neph -- that is very much what I would like to see. I know we have spent quite a bit of time talking about this topic outside of this forum and it's nice to see what it looks like on paper.
Talonguard said:I imagine that whatever raid got to loot the boss was the one who killed it and therefore is the one who gets the lockout timer, only seems fair.
I think that answers all your questions?
Tal
So what if my guild decides to make 4 different raid groups to bypass this mechanic. Meaning only 1 of the groups will get locked out each time we kill the mob..
I understand what you are trying to do. But lockouts arent the way. It's far to easy to exploit.
Everyone can get good, thats the idea. Good enough to take down raid boss X regardless of how long it takes groups to do it. If the ubermench guild does it 3 months into games release- more power to them. If the Filthy casuals attempt it 3 years later- the thrill for the casuals will still be as good. What I am against is the ubermench, wether intentionially or not, locking out the filthy casuals just because they are ready in their time. I am perfectly fine with in-game comments like "pshaw, filthy casuals are doing it NOW?! thats three years old!. Hoipefully with a horizontal kind of leveling the crutch of getting higher level than the encounter was initially intended for wil not also automatically improve the chances of the filthy casuals.
Porygon said:Talonguard said:I imagine that whatever raid got to loot the boss was the one who killed it and therefore is the one who gets the lockout timer, only seems fair.
I think that answers all your questions?
Tal
So what if my guild decides to make 4 different raid groups to bypass this mechanic. Meaning only 1 of the groups will get locked out each time we kill the mob..
I understand what you are trying to do. But lockouts arent the way. It's far to easy to exploit.
Yes, if you had a large enough guild, and enough skilled and geared players, you might be able to field multiple raid groups.
Most cases though, that is not a very realistic reality.
Serious raiding takes very dedicated and careful players. You seem to pass it off as simply having enough warm bodies. Maybe in WoW and EQ2 that worked.
Porygon said:So what if my guild decides to make 4 different raid groups to bypass this mechanic. Meaning only 1 of the groups will get locked out each time we kill the mob..
I understand what you are trying to do. But lockouts arent the way. It's far to easy to exploit.
I don't think you understand how this would work, I don't think its easily exploitable at all.
You seem to have it stuck in your head it is easily exploitable, you even said you thought it was easily exploitable in the same breath you asked how the mechanic worked in an earlier post.
That tells me you had decided that it was going to be easily exploitable before you even had any facts about it or how it worked.
Everything you hear is just confirmation bias it seems.
It would not matter if you set up 4 raid groups, the raid group that did the most dmg would get the kill, the loot and the lockout.
Also, remember you will be competing with everyone else who has not killed the boss and been locked out, you probably won't have the boss all to yourself to accomplish some convoluted plan to exploit the game.
Not to mention that exploiting the game will probably get you banned.... if you did manage somehow.
I don't think exploits will be an issue with lockout timers.
Tal
Porygon said:So what if my guild decides to make 4 different raid groups to bypass this mechanic. Meaning only 1 of the groups will get locked out each time we kill the mob..I understand what you are trying to do. But lockouts arent the way. It's far to easy to exploit.
You could try it, and maybe succeed, but what is the exploit? Each of the characters used in those groups would still have to be sufficiently geared and leveled which means they deserve a chance to do the content. Of course the real question is how would your guild keep everyone happy with 4 raids worth of players and only one raid worth of raiding?
I don't think you guys understand what Porygon is saying. I know exactly what he's talking about. Zew, you have to remember that this isn't Vanguard. Vanguard featured encounter locking for raid content whereas Pantheon has been clearly advertised as MDD (Most Damage Done) where multiple forces can damage the same mob. Porygon's point was referencing the ability to split up a single raid into four separate groups while only accumulating one lockout. It would turn the game into a loot pinata. The ghosting/lockout method from Vanguard worked in large part because of the FTE (First To Engage) ruleset. It was built around that. It doesn't just magically translate to MDD. If you can kill something with 24 players but only assign the lockout to 6, that skews risk vs reward. Zew, you should also understand that raiding in EQ2 was very similar to Vanguard. It featured the same encounter locking feature and was just as mechanically challenging. I think you meant EQ1.