oneADseven said: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.
I don't think it will be very easy to do the most dmg with just 6 players when multiple raids would be in there with you, they would simply out dps your 6 guys with their full raid and win, and get the loot.
Remember this isn't going to happen in a vacuum where only the players poly wants will be in there, at least most of the time.
I do see what he was getting at, I just don't think it would be that easy.
I also think that the Dev's at VR can come up with a solution to any exploitable holes before they are a problem mostly, and certainly after they are discovered, hopefully in Testing.
Tal
If other people are there then you simply don't compete with them. You wait until you have the mob to yourself. As clever as VR is, don't understimate the player-base. The regular old players have caused the developers to make countless "hot fixes" over the years because they didn't properly prepare for some random variable. I'm not saying the issue can't be solved but I do agree that lockouts in an open-world game built around MDD can be exploited. I look forward to hearing a solution that can't be but I haven't see one yet. This concept has never been pulled off before so plenty of care and consideration needs to go into how it's implemented. Frankly, I look forward to when someone proposes something that doesn't have an exploitable hole in it or introduce a new way to grief other players.
oneADseven said:Frankly, I look forward to when someone proposes something that doesn't have an exploitable hole in it or introduce a new way to grief other players.
It might be a bit harsh sounding, but you could set the lockout system up so that any player who damaged the boss or healed anyone who damaged the boss or healed anyone who healed anyone who damaged the boss within X amount of time of the boss dying would get the Lockout.
That should prevent any exploiting.
oneADseven said:If other people are there then you simply don't compete with them. You wait until you have the mob to yourself. As clever as VR is, don't understimate the player-base. The regular old players have caused the developers to make countless "hot fixes" over the years because they didn't properly prepare for some random variable. I'm not saying the issue can't be solved but I do agree that lockouts in an open-world game built around MDD can be exploited. I look forward to hearing a solution that can't be but I haven't see one yet. This concept has never been pulled off before so plenty of care and consideration needs to go into how it's implemented. Frankly, I look forward to when someone proposes something that doesn't have an exploitable hole in it or introduce a new way to grief other players.
Simple enough maybe? I just got an idea, lock out the whole guild? And don't allow guild jumping? So I can't leave guild A and instantly join guild b. Then that could work if it could be implemented correctly.
Or maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture here, was just an idea please stop me if im wrong.
Talonguard said:It might be a bit harsh sounding, but you could set the lockout system up so that any player who damaged the boss or healed anyone who damaged the boss or healed anyone who healed anyone who damaged the boss within X amount of time of the boss dying would get the Lockout.
That should prevent any exploiting.
Then it's easily griefable. You have a large guild wait for a smaller guild to attempt the boss and then they roll in and out dps them, claiming the loot for themselves and causing a lockout of the other guild. Further preventing guild #2 from competing.
I have a view of what this is because I've seen it implemented In games before. Trust me. This is one of the easiest mechanics to exploit and or use to grief players.
I'm not trying to be argumentative. Im just showing you the vast flaws in this idea.
Dubah said:Simple enough maybe? I just got an idea, lock out the whole guild? And don't allow guild jumping? So I can't leave guild A and instantly join guild b. Then that could work if it could be implemented correctly.
Or maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture here, was just an idea please stop me if im wrong.
So then a guild makes 4 different guilds in order to bypass the guildwide lockout.
Do you see how this works? Pretty much any explanation or idea you cOme up with I can exploit or grief others with. Its unfortunately just a bad idea.
If you want fairness at endgame, you have 1 option.
Instances.
Another way to go about it would be to, make it so only characters (XX) level or higher can enter the dungeon to be simple let's just say lvl 48 and max lvl is 50. You also make it so that you cannot engage the boss unless you have at least 22 out of 24 raid members in the zone and in the raid.
So you cannot fill a raid with just warm bodies they all have to be lvled to be there, and you can't attack the boss unless you have nearly a full raid and present. After your raid that meets these requirements does X% of damage to the boss, lets just say 20% then the boss becomes invulnerable to any attacks not coming from a member of your raid, and once the boss is locked to your raid, the raid is locked and you cannot add or remove anyone from the raid until the encounter is over. If you beat the boss you get to loot it and you're locked out until your timer is gone. If you fail and die then you're free to gather up and try again. (if no one else has him engaged).
If multiple raids attack the boss at or about the same time then the raid that does the most damage in the first 20% is the one that gets locked into battle with the boss, the other raid must wait till they fail, or till the boss re-spawns after he's killed.
So far that's 2 ways of doing this that cannot be exploited as far as I know. I personally like option #1 best so far. I will keep thinking of more non-exploitable ways to do this. I'm sure there are many.
Tal
zewtastic said: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.
My most recent eq1 guild on the progression server was running 4 instances of NToV and Vulak Aerr in era. We did this by using tactics that limited the number of tanks we needed and allowed us to set up ch rots that could go on forever.
On previous TLPs we ran 3x instances of anguish including 3x OMM kills. These are just examples.
The issue isnt the difficulty of the raid, it's the ease of exploiting a lockout system that doesnt include instances. That's all I'm trying to convey.
Talonguard said:Another way to go about it would be to, make it so only characters (XX) level or higher can enter the dungeon to be simple let's just say lvl 48 and max lvl is 50. You also make it so that you cannot engage the boss unless you have at least 22 out of 24 raid members in the zone and in the raid.
So you cannot fill a raid with just warm bodies they all have to be lvled to be there, and you can't attack the boss unless you have nearly a full raid and present. After your raid that meets these requirements does X% of damage to the boss, lets just say 20% then the boss becomes invulnerable to any attacks not coming from a member of your raid, and once the boss is locked to your raid, the raid is locked and you cannot add or remove anyone from the raid until the encounter is over. If you beat the boss you get to loot it and you're locked out until your timer is gone. If you fail and die then you're free to gather up and try again. (if no one else has him engaged).
If multiple raids attack the boss at or about the same time then the raid that does the most damage in the first 20% is the one that gets locked into battle with the boss, the other raid must wait till they fail, or till the boss re-spawns after he's killed.
So far that's 2 ways of doing this that cannot be exploited as far as I know. I personally like option #1 best so far. I will keep thinking of more non-exploitable ways to do this. I'm sure there are many.
Tal
I dont really see any flaws in this. However let me ask you... wouldnt it just be easier to give guilds instances?
Talonguard said:You also make it so that you cannot engage the boss unless you have at least 22 out of 24 raid members in the zone and in the raid.
After your raid that meets these requirements does X% of damage to the boss, lets just say 20% then the boss becomes invulnerable to any attacks not coming from a member of your raid, and once the boss is locked to your raid, the raid is locked and you cannot add or remove anyone from the raid until the encounter is over.
You could even build in an engage phase with very high HP that tests raid dps (and possibly other stats or maybe even preview mechanics?) against some benchmark needed to complete the claimed phase(s) of the fight. Definitely not sure how pratical and/or fun that would be but I think your proposal sounds interesting and even presents other opportunities.
Porygon said:Talonguard said:It might be a bit harsh sounding, but you could set the lockout system up so that any player who damaged the boss or healed anyone who damaged the boss or healed anyone who healed anyone who damaged the boss within X amount of time of the boss dying would get the Lockout.
That should prevent any exploiting.
Then it's easily griefable. You have a large guild wait for a smaller guild to attempt the boss and then they roll in and out dps them, claiming the loot for themselves and causing a lockout of the other guild. Further preventing guild #2 from competing.
Presumably, the way it would work currently would be just as easily grief-able and at least this way they can only grief one other raid before they get locked out of that encounter, so all the other guilds could then raid in peace until that grief guild's timer ran out. As it sits now that grief guild could ruin everyone's fun, this way, they can only do it once per cycle. Also griefing players or guilds is against the rules and would get you reported and punished, that would cut it down pretty quick.
I do, however, agree that instanced raids would be the easiest way to limit competition among guilds for content, but since VR has said explicitly that they won't be doing that, I'm seeking other options that will work.
Thanks for the help playing devil's advocate Porygon
Tal
*edit - fixed spelling error.
- If a mob is designed for say 24 people, you get to access a mob only if you have a raid going. (To prevent exploitation)
- If this raid has 1 person or 24, it doesn't matter. (so someone can kill this with a smaller raidforce or a group if so desired)
- As soon as this raid force attacks the mob, it's locked to that raid force. Other PC's cannot heal, nuke or otherwise influence the outcome of the raid)
- - If the raid wipes, and if there's another force present, whichever engages next gets control.
- - If the raid is succesful, that raid force and anyone in it at any point in time (prevents swapping alts at the last minute) will be locked out.
- Lockouts will be 1 day (or some other timeframe) longer than respawn. (this to allow other raidforce(s) to get access if they can. That other raidforce then has that x timeframe the chance to kill the mob but doesn't have to compete with raidforce 1.
potential exploit:
Player is low health/endurance/mana. Player can drop raid, get outside help, then rejoin raid all refreshed. Can't not allow people to rejoin raids as people could drop by accident. Send one to bind point or guild hall or zone entrance? CoH like mechanics would make this a "not-a-prob". Allow no other players to cast beneficial spells or whatever as long as the raid is still active (and tecnically this person then is still part of the raid? perhaps)
just throwing thoughts out there
Porygon said:So then a guild makes 4 different guilds in order to bypass the guildwide lockout.
Do you see how this works? Pretty much any explanation or idea you cOme up with I can exploit or grief others with. Its unfortunately just a bad idea.
If you want fairness at endgame, you have 1 option.
Instances.
Lol, A) I'd like to see a guild with 4 raid forces, especially if they plan to do them as big as old EQ was, which would be nice. it would be easy to out DPS 4 small raid forces with one large raid force.
HOWEVER, I would prefer instances for many reasons, it would give the ability to have more mechanics. Such as EQ2 did, they had a ton of cool mechanics in their raid system granted I hated the button mashing you had to do. But, there was one raid I don't think I will ever forget, you had to kill one guy then it spawns 2 turtles, and you had to keep the 2 turtles within 5%hp of each other otherwise they started hitting harder, it was pretty cool, but only accomplished by an instanced raid.
I think personally instancing is an amazing idea, with some mobs being overworld as well for those that like to compete, i wouldn't mind having take place in both worlds to be honest. Maybe open world raids for keys and the keys open instances or something along those lines. Would alleviate some of the problems. Also with their travel system IDK how fast you could possibly move a whole raid force. So if raid targets were spread so far apart and there was a lot of them that it'd be impossible to lock them all down, that could be a semi-solution too. IDK, this is why i don't develop games lol.
Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 raid mobs.
If a raid mob drops Tier 1 loot, those zones can (possible should) be instanced.
Raid mobs that drop Tier 2 partial instanced for these mobs. (Chest, Shoulders, Legs and Weapon could be open world, the other slots instanced.)
Raid mobs that drop Tier 3 loot is all open world.
Just an idea....
Spluffen said:By which logic is it a right to beat the hardest bosses in a game? The best player wins. This is a video game, if you're bad you should lose.
Why should other players be the ones who beat you instead of the boss? If you're bad, then wouldn't you die to the boss? I think competition is essential for the health of an MMO, but competing for spawns is not a healthy form of competition in my mind. It's like playing a game of chess, but where punching the other person is allowed. The person who wins isn't the best at chess, they're the best at punching. Is this game of beating bosses or is it a game of fighting other players for content? VR has to choose.
Ainadak said:Why should other players be the ones who beat you instead of the boss? If you're bad, then wouldn't you die to the boss? I think competition is essential for the health of an MMO, but competing for spawns is not a healthy form of competition in my mind. It's like playing a game of chess, but where punching the other person is allowed. The person who wins isn't the best at chess, they're the best at punching. Is this game of beating bosses or is it a game of fighting other players for content? VR has to choose.
Why? Because it's a multiplayer game. Please don't ignore the context of the boss, surely you already know that it isn't a game about beating bosses. All aspects of the game and how well you play them factor in to how successful you will be. The analogy with chess is also completely false, punching somebody is not part of chess at all whereas in an MMORPG, competition and interaction between players is very much an aspect of the game and indeed legal according to the rules. VR definitely doesn't have to choose, both the bosses and the competition could be hard.
Spluffen said:Why? Because it's a multiplayer game. Please don't ignore the context of the boss, surely you already know that it isn't a game about beating bosses. All aspects of the game and how well you play them factor in to how successful you will be. The analogy with chess is also completely false, punching somebody is not part of chess at all whereas in an MMORPG, competition and interaction between players is very much an aspect of the game and indeed legal according to the rules. VR definitely doesn't have to choose, both the bosses and the competition could be hard.
There is some miscommuncation going on, but also some disagreement. When I asked whether the game would be about beating bosses or competing with players for content, it was a question of direction and not two mutually exclusive options. The game will have "difficult" bosses whether or not there is competition between players, but if competition between players for content is removed, then the only thing that the players need to overcome is the difficulty of the bosses.
I think we just disagree on game philosophy. I think that the difficulty in a PvE game should be centered on players overcoming the challenges presented by the environment. If the actions of other players presents a significant challenge to be overcome, then I think that is bad for a PvE game. It's fine that you thinking differently though. I can see how it would be really fun to compete guild vs. guild for content, but that just isn't the type of challenge that I'm looking for because it's a bit cutthroat and often requires a large time commitment.
Ainadak said:I think we just disagree on game philosophy. I think that the difficulty in a PvE game should be centered on players overcoming the challenges presented by the environment. If the actions of other players presents a significant challenge to be overcome, then I think that is bad for a PvE game. It's fine that you thinking differently though. I can see how it would be really fun to compete guild vs. guild for content, but that just isn't the type of challenge that I'm looking for because it's a bit cutthroat and often requires a large time commitment.
I guess. To be clear, I'm not looking for that challenge either because being in high end guilds and trying to be the best is incredibly stressful and the times I tried it had me burn out hard. Still, I wish for it to still be in the game. The rarer and more elusive the highest achievements are the better (in my book). I think its obvious that whoever puts in the most effort, time and skill gets the best rewards. This still works similar in a game with instancing or lockouts, however that detracts from the MMO part of it (social interactions from small scale all the way to guild politics) and as such the whole thing that attracts me to Pantheon above the numerous other games avaliable. It requires a lot of dedication, skill and cooperation to clear the hardest content in WoW but the fact that its a persistent world is almost completely irrelevant, the challenge would be the same even if your raid/guild were the only players on the server. I don't want that type of game.
edit: spelling
I am all for anything (except instancing) that prevents a group or groups of people from monopolizing content anywhere. Lockout timers are one way of helping with the situation. Having some competition is great but setting it up so one group of people can control something is not.
I don't think everyone should have the ability to get access to anything they want anytime, but I think there should be a reasonable chance for a guild that has a good plan, leadership, and works hard can realistically expect to be able to see most of the games content. Whatever they come up with for raiding I hope thats their goal and I hope the hard core, high end guys are completley ignored. No matter what you do you can't make them happy so I would not spend time and money trying. I think people playing the game for fun and for the experience should always come before players that think the end game starts at level cap and raiding.
Sabot said:I am all for anything (except instancing) that prevents a group or groups of people from monopolizing content anywhere. Lockout timers are one way of helping with the situation. Having some competition is great but setting it up so one group of people can control something is not.
I don't think everyone should have the ability to get access to anything they want anytime, but I think there should be a reasonable chance for a guild that has a good plan, leadership, and works hard can realistically expect to be able to see most of the games content. Whatever they come up with for raiding I hope thats their goal and I hope the hard core, high end guys are completley ignored. No matter what you do you can't make them happy so I would not spend time and money trying. I think people playing the game for fun and for the experience should always come before players that think the end game starts at level cap and raiding.
Making a game easy for casual's is so purely a Millennial move it risks ridiculousness.
You want it easier? There are already plenty of games out there for you. Go play an instanced game, go play WoW, EQ2, go play a P2W game, go play a Grind2Win game.
In a game with a persistent, non-instanced world, part of the challenge is negotiating challenges. Learning new ways to succeed.
Stop expecting everything to be simply handed to you and stop assuming if others have it it must be easy, or an exploit, or some other issue you have no proof or evidence of.
Sabot said:I think people playing the game for fun and for the experience should always come before players that think the end game starts at level cap and raiding.
What's considered fun and "the experience" is subjective. I don't think they should specifically cater to any one group - not high-end hardcore guilds that get their "fun and the experience" at later/max level, and not the lowest common denominator. There has to be inclusion of more than just your playstyle. What we consider fun can, will, and is allowed to be different.
Ainadak said:Spluffen said:By which logic is it a right to beat the hardest bosses in a game? The best player wins. This is a video game, if you're bad you should lose.
Why should other players be the ones who beat you instead of the boss? If you're bad, then wouldn't you die to the boss? I think competition is essential for the health of an MMO, but competing for spawns is not a healthy form of competition in my mind. It's like playing a game of chess, but where punching the other person is allowed. The person who wins isn't the best at chess, they're the best at punching. Is this game of beating bosses or is it a game of fighting other players for content? VR has to choose.
I don't see why it can't be a little bit of both, competition for the mob, and competition against the mob. This is PvEnvironment, and a pretty strong arguement can be made that other raid forces are a big part of the environment.
Personally I have no problems with competition, friendly or tooth-and-nail. Some of the most fun I had in pre-PoP was during boss spawn competitions. I understand that some people may not enjoy this aspect though...so is there a comfortable middle ground?
Maybe something like this. Numbers are just for illustrative reasons:
1) boss spawn time = 3 days +/- up to 10 hours for variability
2) If you are in the group/raid that gets kill/loot credit at any point while the group/raid is engaged to the boss, your character gets a lockout for 9 days
This would guaruntee that there are at least 2 spawns in between any one character's successful kills of the mob. There could be more, depending on the variability of the respawn timer. Potentially, this could be tweaked so that, while there still may be competition for the mob, you don't see 1 or two guilds being able to completely lock out content.
Another reason for this 'congestion' point could well be to slow progression through content, though...competition like this may be desireable from a dev point of view. There is also the 'team building and community' aspect. I think it would be fun to see expansions gated off by content designed for multiple guilds/raid groups working together in a zone, or even in multiple zones...all of these groups would need to be equipped, and that wouldn't happen if a guild or two were blocking others from content.
Nevron said:Sabot said:I think people playing the game for fun and for the experience should always come before players that think the end game starts at level cap and raiding.
What's considered fun and "the experience" is subjective. I don't think they should specifically cater to any one group - not high-end hardcore guilds that get their "fun and the experience" at later/max level, and not the lowest common denominator. There has to be inclusion of more than just your playstyle. What we consider fun can, will, and is allowed to be different.
I agree with you. You can't cater to any one persons playstyle. I guess what I am saying is that when you start to focus on the end game and end game raid content everything else soon fades away. Focusing on the end game raid set is a fight you can't win. I don't think anyone can ever make enough content to satisy that group. And if they could that would leave no resourses for anyof the other playstyle groups. These guys have already said raiding will be a smaller part of the overall game. That will just make it that much easier for some people to control it if something is not in place to prevent it. And to be honest no matter what set up they use the raiders will raid. Set it up in such a way as the high end guys can donminate and only they will raid.
To be clear I want to have those high end guilds on my server. I want to have something to aim for. I want to see the amazing gear they have gotten from the best raids in the game. What I don't want to see is someone in my guild needing or wanting something from a raid mob and we can't get it because Guild A has it permicamped and has had it that way for 6 months and there is no actual way for us to break in. They have camped its gear and thus we can never catch up enough to compete.
I know that will not happen everywhere all the time but if there is a way to prevent that scenario I am all for it. I want competition, I don't want dominance if that makes sense.
zewtastic said:Sabot said:I am all for anything (except instancing) that prevents a group or groups of people from monopolizing content anywhere. Lockout timers are one way of helping with the situation. Having some competition is great but setting it up so one group of people can control something is not.
I don't think everyone should have the ability to get access to anything they want anytime, but I think there should be a reasonable chance for a guild that has a good plan, leadership, and works hard can realistically expect to be able to see most of the games content. Whatever they come up with for raiding I hope thats their goal and I hope the hard core, high end guys are completley ignored. No matter what you do you can't make them happy so I would not spend time and money trying. I think people playing the game for fun and for the experience should always come before players that think the end game starts at level cap and raiding.
Making a game easy for casual's is so purely a Millennial move it risks ridiculousness.
You want it easier? There are already plenty of games out there for you. Go play an instanced game, go play WoW, EQ2, go play a P2W game, go play a Grind2Win game.
In a game with a persistent, non-instanced world, part of the challenge is negotiating challenges. Learning new ways to succeed.
Stop expecting everything to be simply handed to you and stop assuming if others have it it must be easy, or an exploit, or some other issue you have no proof or evidence of.
I would like to respond but I can't find any facts in your post. Did you mean to respond to me or was it someone else?