|
I have been playing mmorpgs for a long time. I have been playing WoW since the first expansion and I have tried Guild Wars 1&2, D&D online, Rift, SWTOR, LotR Online, and a few others that I can't think of right now.
The one thing that I have noticed about the games that fall flat a few months after release is that they do not have extensive end game content like WoW. For example, in SWTOR most people I knew loved the leveling process but once they had their character finished and completed what little content there was for max level they just stopped playing and went back to WoW. The same was true for Rift.
I hope that Pathfinder Online releases some heavy end game content when they release the game and then follows it with an expansion not long after.
Goblin Squad Member
|
We are the content.
99% agree! But there is a fair point about GW needing to design the game to be interesting for a range of playstyles also as you level up.
"end game content" seems to me to be:
* kingdom politics (building, expanding, managing and warfare) = 100% player driven, but within PFO framework and ruleset.This is the main 'endgame' and will likely decide the long-term success or failure of the game. But there will also be:
* beating high level dungeons and monsters, taming of new frontiers. I expect the map will expand quickly enough that there's always some remote hex where monsters have had time to breed. This is dev dependent.
* search for better recipes and materials for crafters. Market is player-driven but the 'technology tree' is 100% devs.
* playing the world market. 100% player driven.
* continue leveling in new classes. The PFO levelling can't be rushed and never stops. Still, the balance has to be good for this to feel new.
* potentially events, which will likely be cooperation between devs and key players.
Done right, this should cater well to all types of gamers: pvp'ers, social gamers, explorers and achievers. But it requires that the game (including population and mapsize) grows at the right pace.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have been playing mmorpgs for a long time. I have been playing WoW since the first expansion and I have tried Guild Wars 1&2, D&D online, Rift, SWTOR, LotR Online, and a few others that I can't think of right now.
You've chosen all themeparks egs which are not very applicable? EvE as an example of emergent gameplay might be a better comparison to make in this case. I sure hope so.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Note that the first capstone characters won't be around for about 30 months. It looks like the first dual-capstoned characters (if any ever happen) -cannot- be until after more than 60 months.
And the plan as I understand it is to add new features as rapidly as the revenue stream can support the costs of the features.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As more or less mentioned for pfo the term endgame has a different meaning. Similar to eve, the "end game" is more or less going to be kingdom development, wars etc... It is an area where you will always be able to continue to progress in, having ups and downs etc...
The reason why we don't quite reffer to it as endgame, is because there isn't a defined time when it starts. Someone can contribute to the end game for their faction, on a brand new character that just started. Also the general view of end-game raids etc... is generally a theme-park style and is a continual gear rush.
In WoW, star wars, and pretty much every other theme park, reaching level cap, then completing the raids was everything the game had to offer, and actually participating in the raids either required you to be at cap to accomplish anything, or flat out didn't allow you to enter if you weren't cap. PFO there is no cap, there also aren't clear borders of levels, power etc...
A 2 month old character, with the right timing, gear and luck, could take down a 10 year vet in the game (Yes he will be at a notable disadvantage, but that is far different then being flat out different leagues, if it were basketball think, college basketball vs NBA, when WoW is like 1st grade chess club vs NBA). As well to the best of my knowledge the majority of activities won't have set limits on participants (IE unlike WoW's PVP where the numbers on each side are set in stone, and if you want to win you form a team of only the best, you can benefit from bringing the weaker characters along as well as every body helps).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Even though I agree with you guys, I'm really interested about the general content for "more accomplished" characters. Or no, I'm interested in the whole content that encompanies our own endeavours. We had a few interesting discussions in the "rare monsters"-thread about threats from big, scary monsters, about events such as sicknesses that need to be cured and so on. I think while WE are the content in terms of building empires there is a real need for such events. I think that's why PFO is part sandbox, part theme park. If used right the theme park can be a great storyteller.
I'd really love to see a dynamic event that doesn't just contain playing in the sandbox but facing real unthought-of challenges.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Even though I agree with you guys, I'm really interested about the general content for "more accomplished" characters. Or no, I'm interested in the whole content that encompanies our own endeavours. We had a few interesting discussions in the "rare monsters"-thread about threats from big, scary monsters, about events such as sicknesses that need to be cured and so on. I think while WE are the content in terms of building empires there is a real need for such events. I think that's why PFO is part sandbox, part theme park. If used right the theme park can be a great storyteller.
I'd really love to see a dynamic event that doesn't just contain playing in the sandbox but facing real unthought-of challenges.
While I partly agree, the biggest challenge of it is matching such things to a persistent world. At least to me the persistant world is one of the key draws to the concepts of PFO, IE what you do has to feel like it really matters, when you eliminate the great necromancers undead horde, slaughter all of his minions, and then 5 minutes later somoene else clears the same horde etc... it more or less changes villains from a great force that you are stopping, into loot dispensers. Same reason why my views on the rare monsters were far more focused on wanting the giant evil monsters to be something that a town should want defeated at all costs, and not something that they would prefer to protect until they could be the ones to take down.
The modules they mentioned sound to be a goal of that, I really will be interested to hear how they will decide to balance that (as even GW themselves in the blog mentioning modules explained that the concept of mixing repeatable content with the sand box world is certainly going to be a challange)...
Now my personal hunch (note a complete shot in the dark, a blind guess at something that most likely the GW team hasn't come close to deciding) is that repeatable content will most likely be some sort of use of illusion magic to form the equivalent of a holodeck, with no actual loot beyond rewards chosen by the creators (perhaps set numbers of rewards per day for the dev created ones, or reputation or something along those lines, player created ones the players could create chosen rewards that the company pays out of pocket to make etc... or the players may use them as a trial of sorts for company or settlement membership).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Asphere, check out the blog Where the Wild Things Are. It's about general PvE content more than end-game content, but it might be relevant to your interests.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Asphere: To add Ryan's recent comments on how themeparks are developed compared to how PfO is intended to pan out in the EARLY phases:
-snip-Most Theme Park games are what they are once they're in public beta. You can see how they'll work and the only real questions left are scalability and balance. Maybe there are systems that are too ragged for deployment, or systems that are stubs waiting for future development, but by and large, the game you see is the game you get.
We hope to be a little different in that regard in that we'll have a lot more stubs than normal when we get to that point, because we want to build those stubs out in consultation with the community.-snip-
So as mentioned already, to get to cap will take about 2.5yrs est. (iirc) and the initial lean launch will have some of the basics in place to which additional systems are aimed to be added eg First Player Built/Run Settlements not likely for about 7 months (iirc!). It'll be much more about exploration and adventure I imagine?
In themeparks it seems you mainly get a small amount of exploration (map % uncovered) and mainly adventure content (quests, dynamic events). Once you have "done" both of these then you need Endgame Content to carrying on making the most of your levelled toon before game over, unless new content can be added to the "old" content or the raid content can be ramped up again.
The defining features of Pathinder Online are:
* Exploration
* Adventure
* Development
* Domination
Adding 3/4 the sandbox player-driven content to the themepark stuff you create a situation where the content and the context are changeable and dependent on each other: Therefore no need for adding an "endgame" content. On the one hand, 3/4 create the context to players who want to enjoy 1/2 and on the other hand 1/2 are (part of) the content for 3/4.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd like to avoid the term "end game" because it's not really applicable to the kind of game we're designing. Themeparks have end games because, well, eventually you ride all the rides, and you have to have some kind of term to describe what you do when you reach that condition.
I think there is a great question which is "what do I do after I've gained some player & character mastery?"
We see four answers:
1: You and your friends are seeking to be first. You're going where nobody has gone before - maybe that's exploring territory. Maybe it's in developing weird and wonderful characters. Maybe it's min-maxing builds for PvP combat. You gain satisfaction from the sense of doing things most other players can't or won't ever do.
2: You and your friends become famous. You slay the biggest dragons. You fight demons and angels. You walk around in armor that radiates power, wielding weapons of arcane might. Your deeds are legendary. Other players know who your characters are. You gain satisfaction from the adulation of your peers.
3: You and your friends become market powerhouses. You set up the best supply lines and production facilities so that you can make the coolest stuff at the best prices and get it to the most valuable markets. You gain satisfaction from making obscene amounts of money.
4: You and your friends play the Kingdom Game. You create, develop, and protect a part of the world of Pathfinder Online that you call your own. Your actions may include attacking and trying to destroy the Kingdoms of other groups of players. You gain satisfaction from the sense power and control.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In addition to the PvP stuff, I do hope GW is able to put together the occasional Live Event where they can generate "invasions" of certain monsters not typicaly seen in an area, play the part of NPC's to interact with players in interesting ways, introduce story arcs and perhaps even make changes in the landscape.
As an old-time MUD player, I can't stress how much this adds to the enjoyment of a game environment and makes the world come more alive.
Obviously that's a time/man-hour intensive endevour but even a little bit of it thrown into the mix once in awhile can have a big impact (IMO).
Clearly, the vast majority of the dynamic content will end up coming from the players themselves but there are things that GM's can do that players can't and likely shouldn't be allowed to do. For example, playing the part of an intelligent dragon that takes the concerted effort of 100 players to defeat (or bargain with) is likely something that shouldn't be put in the hands of a player.... but it adds alot to the game environment in terms of the variety and dynamism of the world...and a remainder to the players that there ARE intelligent powers moving within the world beyond simply themselves. Unique events like that help breath alot of life into a game...even if you are only able to pull something like that off once every 6 months or so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a hard time imagining anything we'd put into the game that players could not control and use against one another except for NPC Marshals, which are just a hack to stop people from being a@%$~+%s.
Finding, taming, and learning to control a dragon as a weapon of war? That's freaking awesome! Why would we want to not let players do that?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
3: You and your friends become market powerhouses. You set up the best supply lines and production facilities so that you can make the coolest stuff at the best prices and get it to the most valuable markets. You gain satisfaction from making obscene amounts of money.4: You and your friends play the Kingdom Game. You create, develop, and protect a part of the world of Pathfinder Online that you call your own. Your actions may include attacking and trying to destroy the Kingdoms of other groups of players. You gain satisfaction from the sense power and control.
In that sense, I think GW's responsibility is not to provide capstone content, but rather capstone structure. Nihimon articulated it well and simply, but as Ryan has pointed out in his MMO 101 lecture, game design choices affect how well or poorly "we can be the content."
Asphere, I hope that GW develops well thought out structures for assassination/protection of heads of state, warfare, mercantilism, etc. If that's the case, we're golden :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
Finding, taming, and learning to control a dragon as a weapon of war? That's freaking awesome! Why would we want to not let players do that?
Okay now I've very excited about the possibilities this opens up.
In the same line of thought, it could be possible to take control of a nest of monsters and then use them to wear down an opposition Hex hopefully without revealing that you're secretly behind te monstrous attacks.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I have a hard time imagining anything we'd put into the game that players could not control and use against one another except for NPC Marshals, which are just a hack to stop people from being a!&%&~+s.
Finding, taming, and learning to control a dragon as a weapon of war? That's freaking awesome! Why would we want to not let players do that?
One does not tame and control a dragon! At best, one convinces a dragon that its desires coincide with ones own. More likely, a dragon might undertake a loyalty mission to improve its minion(s).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have a hard time imagining anything we'd put into the game that players could not control and use against one another except for NPC Marshals, which are just a hack to stop people from being a+@$+~#s.
Finding, taming, and learning to control a dragon as a weapon of war? That's freaking awesome! Why would we want to not let players do that?
I would think that putting something in the hands of one player that could easly defeat 100 is the kind of thing that would break the kind of PvP balance you guys seem to be striving for, where the power scale between a low level player and a higher one is not so vast that it's impossible to bridge.
Players and thier organizations all have agenda's, there should be powerfull forces in the world that move with agendas entirely seperate from any player organization. That's the role where GM's step in to add richness and depth to the world and to make it more dynamic and unpredictable for the players. If you leave it soley in the hands of players and PvP then the game will tend to devolve into an endless cycle of "My Team vs Your Team" which ultimately is only a little more interesting then stale PVE content.
Player organizations tend to be fairly predictable in thier motivations and patterns. By the GM's jumping in every once in awhile you stir the pot, shake things up, force players to adept to new conditions that they really couldn't predict...perhaps even ally with enemies for a short time. It adds richness to the environment and mystery....and frankly a fantasy setting like Golarion should have all sorts of wierd, fantastic and freakish events occuring on a regular basis....powers moving in the world that are beyond the ken of any mortal being, comets appearing in the sky as omens, stars falling from the heavens, freakish storms, ancient terrors rising up to threaten civilized people, plagues, crop failures, etc.
That's what really breaths life into the setting and makes it special and unique...and frankly fitting of the Pathfinder IP. Don't get me wrong, I think what you are doing with the sandbox approach and putting tools in the hands of the players is a big step up from the type of static themepark that have been prevalent of late. However sandbox doesn't imply that the GM's play ZERO role in the game, it just means that the GM's aren't dictating paths and outcomes. Introducing situations into game that players must find thier own ways of reacting to and dealing is a valid and important role for GM's to play in a sandbox RPG style game. I understand that GW is working with limited manpower and resources so the logical inclination is to make the players rather then GM's as responsible for dynamism in the environment as possible. However I think if you are passing up the opportunity to introduce the occasional fantastic event or storyline, you are really missing the chance to make the gameworld much richer, vibrant and more in line with what RPG's expect from stepping into Golarion. YMMV.
P.S. Imagine the difference in a wargame where the players get to dictate the weather a battle will be fought in compared to one where it's introduced randomly by game engine. What's richer play, having the players be able to perfectly predict the conditions of battle and mold thier forces accordingly...or having the players need to adapt thier strategies on the fly to deal with the conditions they find themselves in?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I dunno that class mechanics balance is gonna happen here, since there aren't going to be any classes.
The guy who can get to a level of skill that is able to convince a dragon of sufficient age category to be a serious threat to a bunch of players to work with him or even for him to vanquish his enemies...can only be opposed by players with equivalent skill levels.
I think the balance lies in that every player will have the chance to achieve this level of skill and power, if they put in the effort to do so.
I hope this level of awesome is indeed possible.
I can imagine an assassin and a black dragon ally stalking their prey...it's a wonderful thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would think that putting something in the hands of one player that could easly defeat 100 is the kind of thing that would break the kind of PvP balance you guys seem to be striving for, where the power scale between a low level player and a higher one is not so vast that it's impossible to bridge.I have a hard time imagining anything we'd put into the game that players could not control and use against one another except for NPC Marshals, which are just a hack to stop people from being a+@$+~#s.
Finding, taming, and learning to control a dragon as a weapon of war? That's freaking awesome! Why would we want to not let players do that?
I would say that depends largely on what category of combat we are talking, and of course the duration of such a capability. If the dragon permanantly remains in the hands of a sole person, you are absolutely right. If the dragon takes a huge amount of time/effort of a massive group to obtain, requires tons of planning and luck to obtain, and there is some way to ensure or prevent it from simply darting out of combat. Actually IMO the easiest way to balance said dragon in the hands of players, would be that the dragon itself is never safe. IE sooner or later an army, or half the armies on the game will team up with the goal of taking or killing the dragon. The key to power balance, is not preventing one side from ever having the upper hand, it is ensuring that the upper hand is not a permanent thing IMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's talk about combat as a series of types.
Generally we'd like to avoid the situation where one character is virtually certain to beat another properly prepared and equipped character in a simple 1:1 encounter. And we'd like to avoid the situation where almost any number of low experience characters can't take down a very experienced character in a simple X:1 encounter.
But there are many other forms of conflict where those objectives do not apply.
We want to enable some characters to be able to assassinate others. By definition, that means that the victim doesn't have an equal chance to defeat the killer.
We want to enable some characters to be particularly good at fighting certain kinds of opponents like monstrous humanoids, without letting that spill over into being generically awesome against all foes including player characters.
We want to enable characters in armies to devastate characters not in armies - but only when the soldiers comply with some very stringent conditions.
And most importantly we want groups of characters acting in a coordinated fashion to be superior to individual characters who do not.
In that context, let's talk about the dragon thing.
Getting a dragon into a combat should be heck of a lot of work, and not something that a single character could likely accomplish. One path might be finding a dragon's lair, capturing a dragon egg, building a dragon egg hatching structure, bringing the egg through to hatching, keeping a baby dragon alive, learning how to train that dragon, bonding that dragon with one or more characters, keeping a juvenile dragon alive, learning how to train the dragon with combat-useful abilities, keeping an adult dragon alive, getting the dragon into a combat zone, and directing it successfully amidst the chaos and confusion of a battlefield.
That might represent months or years of effort by dozens of people. Having exerted that effort, the reward would be a pretty damn effective weapon system. The reward is that you're using a dragon to fight your foes, who may not be able to defend themselves against such a threat - in which case the proper response is likely die (to delay and advance or cover a retreat) or flee.
If your opponents are fielding dragons, you better be prepared to respond in kind or to have developed similarly powerful tactics.
In this context it's totally OK for one side to just utterly dominate the other, regardless of the size of the forces.
This is the kind of resource, time, and knowledge intensive stuff that makes sandbox games so much more interesting than theme parks.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think that you want the typical situation to be that when two experienced players accurately size each other's character up, they both know the expected outcome matrix of their choices- if both choose to fight, they both know who will win.
A monk who specializes in fighting spellcasters should pretty reliably be able to defeat a wizard who specializes in support in a duel where his mobility is not impaired. That same monk and his identical twin should reliably be beaten by the support wizard working with a fighting ranger.
There is another dimension of information warfare; convince the opponent that they would lose, when they would in fact win. Many battles should be won or lost as soon as it is determined that they are or are not being fought.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Ryan,
So the only time the players encounter adult Dragons in the world they should be under the control of a player organization? Why, logicaly should that be?
What does that inform the player about the role and status of Dragons in the World of Golarion? Are they nothing more then slaves to humans? Creatures that have no ability or will to act in thier own behalf?
Doesn't sound very much like the Dragons most of us are familiar with from high fantasy?
Are the only ways players get to interact with Dragons are to capture and raise them or fight them when they are in service to Player Organizations?
Is the Dragon simply nothing more then a fantasy skinned version of an Attack Helicopter in BattleField 2?
I hope you see what I am getting at? A world where EVERYTHING is controled by the players and occurs according to thier will is just as limited in it's own way as a world where NOTHING is.
A world where there are some things that occur that are within the players control and some things that occur which are far beyond and outside it is alot more reminiscent of the sort of fantasy settings I'm familiar with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So the only time the players encounter adult Dragons in the world they should be under the control of a player organization?
Did you mean "why is it that the only time players encounter adult Dragons in the world is when those Dragons are under the control of players?"
If so, then I think you significantly misread Ryan's post. He was describing the process that would allow players to control dragons. He was not describing the process that would bring adult dragons into the game world.
From Where the Wild Things Are:
Occasionally, a really dangerous monster may appear, something that is so tough that many characters working together will be needed to kill it. Think about a dragon, elemental, or demonic outsider as examples. These creatures can rampage all across a hex, dealing death and destruction until a large enough band of heroes assembles to take it down.
I don't think Ryan's post here was meant to negate that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope you see what I am getting at? A world where EVERYTHING is controlled by the players and occurs according to their will is just as limited in it's own way as a world where NOTHING is.
A world where there are some things that occur that are within the players control and some things that occur which are far beyond and outside it is a lot more reminiscent of the sort of fantasy settings I'm familiar with.
I think this an aspect that interests me a lot also. Maybe that verdant mountainside one day erupts in a volcano (or awakening Dragon!) in the midst a strong & prosperous player-run kingdom that is damaged and then enemies move in and effectively wipe it out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, if that's the case I apolgize. I was simply trying to make the case for GM participation/Live Events in a "sandbox" style game.
I thought you were deliberately motioning "in extremis" tbh! Which I agree with, bigger player groups just have bigger and more chaotic variables to deal with eg fire-breathing Dragons.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think in general I would rather not do GM run events. If the players aren't creating epic content as emergent behavior we're not doing our design jobs right.
That's different from saying there couldn't be epic content created by the game engine. There certainly should be.
I think GM run events prove in the long run to be things that cause a lot more problems than they solve. They tend to introduce all sorts of concerns about misconduct, they often cater to a very small portion of the players, and they also often misfire as the players creatively out think the plans of the developers in realtime.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think in general I would rather not do GM run events. If the players aren't creating epic content as emergent behavior we're not doing our design jobs right.
That's different from saying there couldn't be epic content created by the game engine. There certainly should be.
I think GM run events prove in the long run to be things that cause a lot more problems than they solve. They tend to introduce all sorts of concerns about misconduct, they often cater to a very small portion of the players, and they also often misfire as the players creatively out think the plans of the developers in realtime.
And, coming from a sandbox game with years of live GM events, one of the problems you can never avoid is that events will end up rewarding some more than others (even if only event content). No matter how much you try to keep it balanced, you will always anger people who see preferential treatment when none was there or intended.
But, the sandbox I came from did not allow players access to "epic" content for their control. As an early advocate of GM run events/content, I admit to being convinced ~ +1 to Ryan's plans.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And, coming from a sandbox game with years of live GM events, one of the problems you can never avoid is that events will end up rewarding some more than others (even if only event content). No matter how much you try to keep it balanced, you will always anger people who see preferential treatment when none was there or intended.
But, the sandbox I came from did not allow players access to "epic" content for their control. As an early advocate of GM run events/content, I admit to being convinced ~ +1 to Ryan's plans.
Well clearly Ryan's got to go with what he feels works best for the game, and I respect that. I do want stress though that as a former player of a long time commercial MUD (Gemstone) with a large player-base, my experience was that Live Events added hugely to the game in a way no proceduraly generated content could.
I have heard concerns about jealousy over participation in Live Events as well, but from my experience, they come from a very small minority who would inevitably find something else in the game to be petty and jealous about and complain.... whether it was the perception that certain builds or skill sets worked better then others, that others had more time and thus built up more resources/wealth, whether it was that others were more popular with the player base and thus had an easier time getting assistance or being invited to organizations, whether it was that certain player run organizations were more powerfull (because they put more work into them or were established far earlier). Once you let the complaints of the jealous stop you from doing anything worthwhile, you're doomed because it will never end.
Participation in Events or really anything else in a game that has even partial dependancy on luck...whether it's as simple as just being in the right place at the right time or rolling a critical hit in combat because the RNG was kind to you that day, is a little bit like winning the lottery or having your kid win a "Day at Practice with the Yankees".
Of course it'd be great if it happaned to you, but you enjoyed the same chance as anyone else....and you'll continue to enjoy that chance in future because it won't be the last time it ever happens. Even if it only directly effects a small number of people, it indirectly effects almost everyone with the dream that it could be them. Such special events also create cascade effects that go far beyond the principals involved.... whether it's the sort of player to player interactions spurred by a live event, jobs created by a lottery winner starting a business or a kid sharing what he learned at Yankee's practice with his team-mates. The existance of such things make the world just a little bit brighter place.
In terms of jealousy, I would hazard that participation in events is going to be nothing compared to what happens with PFO phased launch approach and those who are unlucky enough not to get invited in the initial round or two. Earlier access in this type of game confers a DIRECT advantage to those who get it, even with the world/game only partialy built. I predict there will be alot of complaints by those who don't get access, along with the typical claims of favoratism or conspiracy theories about rigged processes... despite that GW is taking absolutely the right approach (IMO) with thier phased access... and the folks who complain about not getting in initialy would be taking a petty and short-sighted view...as GW has got to be concerned about whats best for the game as a whole.
I feel that same way about people who would complain about access to Live Events whether in this game or another. Again, with all respect for Ryan and the GW crew who have got to be concerned with making the game work as a whole, I'm just advocating passionately for something I would hope to see and believe would add significantly to the game.
Getting off my soapbox now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
and they also often misfire as the players creatively out think the plans of the developers in realtime.He's right. Messing with live events can actually be a lot of fun.
Which is what we play games for in the first place. I see nothing wrong with finding ways to "mess with" things in unexpected ways. Remember kiting and pet or feign death pulling? Both totally unexpected and unintended but turned out to be vital parts of the game and a heck of a lot of fun.