Goblin Squad Member
|
Back in the times when Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMO) where called Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games (MMORPG) this moniker had a meaning that is, sadly, now completely lost.
Back then playing with and against other people from possibly all over the world was a radically new form of online entertainment and was hailed as the future of electronic gaming.
This has certainly come true, but not in the sense of how it was ment back then.
Why is that, you may ask.
Well, as MMORPGs started to get popular many people flocked to them in the hopes of experiencing new levels of interesting entertainment. A game that not only is gamey but that is also social.
This dream was often put to a harsh test by a fact that Scott Adams described in words better than I ever could:
"People are idiots."
That was a huuuge let down for players and sales figure analysts alike.
The solution was simple: games would be soloable and player interaction heavily restricted or downright unnecessary.
So welcome to the age where the term MMO really has no meaning any more as Diablo III and Minecraft are just as much MMOs as WoW or SW:TOR or Guildwars.
I dearly hope that PFO will bring the MMO feeling back by:
- giving reasons to interact with many different people
- giving reasons to build a strong community with many people
- refraining from fracturing this community out of purely technical reasons (instancing)
- refraining from fracturing the community by allowing "casual solo play" to be nearly as viable in all aspects as group/guild play
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was really excited to be able to solo through WoW, and EverQuest 2, and Vanguard, and Rift, etc.
I expect to play PFO entirely differently. I intend to be much more social than I have in those other games because I expect I will have to be in order to succeed.
And I do so love to succeed :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is the unfortunate assumption of a zero-sum here. MMOs have evolved to not just be pure solo experiences, or purely social ones. They provide as much as they can for either type of game play. I expect PFO to be more aligned socially, however I'd be quite surprised if that were the only method of success.
Yes, the pundits and paradigm seekers were let down, but that's always to be the way when an industry has incremental change.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Ryan has been pretty consistent in suggesting that players who choose to solo in PFO will be about as effective as those who choose to harvest entirely in safe areas. Sure, you'll be able to do it, but it'll be slow, and you won't really be able to achieve the same kind of results.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Ryan has been pretty consistent in suggesting that players who choose to solo in PFO will be about as effective as those who choose to harvest entirely in safe areas. Sure, you'll be able to do it, but it'll be slow, and you won't really be able to achieve the same kind of results.
Only if you desire to be über rich and ultra powerful.
Well ...
There are those who can live the game and those who cannot.
Who to cater too?
Quite the balancing act if you ask me.
I didn't read the thread so I'm sorry if this has already been discussed.
But, don't remove the spells. Just make them into more fun versions of what they are since this is a computer game. For example, phantasmal killer summons a spectre that you *can* get away from if you exceed the spells range but if it gets to you then sorry, you die. Similar with other spells like destruction, make it an effect that visually builds up and releases but make it something like an energy bolt that you can potentially dodge.
My 2 pennies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I dearly hope that PFO will bring the MMO feeling back by:
- giving reasons to interact with many different people
Agreed, and I think we are going to see a lot of this.
- giving reasons to build a strong community with many people
Agreed. I am really excited to hear them talking about things like NPC camps growing to overwhelm player camps and settlements not dealt with. Things like this are really going to give reasons for the community within in a hex to band together.
- refraining from fracturing this community out of purely technical reasons (instancing)
Not agreed. Things like having buildings with interiors that can be decorated is going to be nearly impossible without things like instanced structures, and I personally don't want to have to load a massive dungeon every time I walk over the top of it. I think instancing neighborhoods LOTRO style is a terrible idea, and that the vast majority of the map should be accessible to all players but I think at this current state in time some instancing is still good for the game.
- refraining from fracturing the community by allowing "casual solo play" to be nearly as viable in all aspects as group/guild play
For sure. There needs to be group content and solo content, and more of the former than the latter. Group content doesn't always need to be the most rewarding though. Getting a good group can be a challenge but it can also be a crutch lesser skilled players use to allow their mediocre skills to go by unnoticed in a large crowd. I would love to see some highly challenging solo dungeons or quests with some awesome rewards so I can say "I earned this myself!" However... content shouldn't be for 1-40 players. Raiding well established NPC encampments or a type three dungeon should always be for large groups. The majority of type one dungeons should always be for small groups. And of course PVP is always going to give some favor to the group with the larger numbers. If a player wants to be a lone-wolf they should be able to. But doing so should limit the content and rewards available to them.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think we need to clarify what we mean by 'instancing'. I've come to see it as referencing a case where two different players go through the same door but don't end up together on the other side- they might each end up in their own house when they go through the 'door to your house', or they might end up alone in an identical theme park area on the other side.
If everyone who goes through a door or boundary ends up together afterwards, all the time, but there is a different piece of hardware on the server end handling that area, I would call that a 'zone boundary'.
Does that agree with what everyone else has been using for those terms?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think we need to clarify what we mean by 'instancing'. I've come to see it as referencing a case where two different players go through the same door but don't end up together on the other side- they might each end up in their own house when they go through the 'door to your house', or they might end up alone in an identical theme park area on the other side.
If everyone who goes through a door or boundary ends up together afterwards, all the time, but there is a different piece of hardware on the server end handling that area, I would call that a 'zone boundary'.
Does that agree with what everyone else has been using for those terms?
I guess I was referring to any zone chunked off into its own section under a certain size as an instance. So yeah anyone going into your house would see it as your house and see everyone else in your house.
I see the need to instance (Or actually just lock other people out of) dungeons though. You don't want 500 people running the same dungeon designed for 5 people. It eliminates all challenge. People shouldn't be able to just zerg up to overcome obstacles. But if you made it scaleable you would see every good solo class wanting to solo everything. Something else on this big no-no list. If it only scaled after 5-7 people, 5 people would be running 99% of dungeons. If it only scaled after 40 90% of people would do dungeons, and the remaining 10% would do them in groups of 40-45 people.
If they make them for a specific number or scaleable within specific numbers then people will do content appropriate to their group size and they can specifically gear content for that group size. For instance 1 man dungeons might have puzzles meant to be achieved by 1 person where a 4-8 man dungeon might have puzzles that require cooperation, while a 20-40 man dungeon would have puzzles that requires the group to break down into multiple parties at some part and converge back together to overcome powerful groups of enemies at some points.
But how can you limit the group sizes without instances?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I would limit the number of people that find a given dubgeoun's entrance, but have later explorers have a chance to find a different one.
I also think that getting more help is a valid strategy for handling a challenge. So long as the total rewards don't increase, where's the harm?
I'd also suggest that the limited-access dungeons shouldn't be part of any major events- but that the major event dungeons should be friccing huge, difficult to map, and contain plausible places and ways for a limited number of respawning enemies. Even if we go the Space Hulk route, and make passages that PCs can't go through, but can close off.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Instancing is the technique to let several people experience the same content at the same time without the chance to meet each other.
Reasons for instancing content:
- avoid overcrowding
- scripted content is easy to do
- no adjustment for different party-sizes necessary
- few content occupies a vast amount of people
Reasons against instancing:
- mandatory party size
- feels artifical
It can't be stressed enough how much influence a fixed party size for most of your content has on the community!
If all your high end content is only digestable in groups of 5, 10 or 15 and nothing in between, then you further the building of guild groups that very often have almost no interaction with the community on one side and highly anonymous pick up groups (PUG) build automatically and randomly from people of all servers. These people you likely never see again and you can't communicate with them after finishing the content.
This makes for the current rather shallow community experienced in most games that use this techniques.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Instancing is the technique to let several people experience the same content at the same time without the chance to meet each other.
Reasons for instancing content:
- avoid overcrowding
- scripted content is easy to do
- no adjustment for different party-sizes necessary
- few content occupies a vast amount of peopleReasons against instancing:
- mandatory party size
- feels artificalIt can't be stressed enough how much influence a fixed party size for most of your content has on the community!
If all your high end content is only digestable in groups of 5, 10 or 15 and nothing in between, then you further the building of guild groups that very often have almost no interaction with the community on one side and highly anonymous pick up groups (PUG) build automatically and randomly from people of all servers. These people you likely never see again and you can't communicate with them after finishing the content.
This makes for the current rather shallow community experienced in most games that use this techniques.
This game is likely to be EVE style in that there are no "servers" there is THEE server. I believe the designers' intention is to expand the map into more hexes rather than dividing the population into more servers.
My problem with simply being able to add more people to overcome challenges is I like the idea of INSANELY hard challenges that can only be overcome through a well organized and highly skilled party, and that offers INSANELY nice rewards in compensation. For instance a 5-10 man instance that is say 20% stronger than one designed for high level characters with a moderate skills and organisation to be pushed to their limits should have 50-100% better rewards. If there is no instancing you can just say "Hey guys! I found a SUPER hard instance for 10 people with AWESOME rewards! Lets bring 12 people!" I'm sure you can do the math.
Sandbox content can be fun and epic but it almost never pushes you to your limits because of this. If the kracken is hard to kill with a schooner, bring a bigger ship, or two schooners. If the dragon is hard to kill with 5 people bring 7. In contrast TOR actually pushed me to my limits quite a few times... until I capped and stopped doing everything 2 levels under suggested and completely under-geared. XD
But the point is why settle for either or? Cover the entire face of this game with sandbox content and have theme-park dungeons underground. BOOM! Perfect! Its a sandbox with theme-park content. I personally love it.
Also I don't support instancing by your definition. I just think dungeons should have a minimum suggested players after which they scale up to the maximum suggested players at which point it locks new players from entry. But two parties shouldn't hit the same dungeon at the same time. I like how it is described in the blog.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Totally free amount of players will not happen anyways because the rewards would be too small.
About "let's do it both":
Sounds like we will have exactly this and I see no problem there unless all the Dungeons are for exactly 5/10/15 people and no more and no less.
And yes, the biggest dungeons (with likely the biggest rewards) will be dungeons where several parties are doing it at the same time and I like that very much!
Another point that was not talked about but I hope will be is that there is no fast travel to dungeons. No "invite and teleport". You have to travel there. You have to find the entrance. Nice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would really like to see the group leader be able to choose a difficulty level, rather than basing it entirely on how many players there are.
I don't really see a problem with a 20-man group consuming 10-man content because they prefer an easier challenge. Likewise, I'd like it to be possible for a 10-man group to try out 20-man content if they think they're that uber.
I wouldn't object to the rewards being based on a combination of party size and difficulty level, so that the 20-man group consuming 10-man content didn't get the same rewards a 10-man group would, but I'm not sure that's necessary.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Another point that was not talked about but I hope will be is that there is no fast travel to dungeons. No "invite and teleport". You have to travel there. You have to find the entrance. Nice.
I will be surprised if there are no spells that allow groups to summon members to their location.
Personally, I don't see the thrill in having to wait for a group member to trek halfway across the world for 15 minutes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If they could make content scale to party size, adding more minor enemies, maybe increasing hp but nothing else, then instancing doesn't need to have a party size requirement. A lot of modern games can adjust on the fly, like Borderlands. It might break your immersion if somebody leaves and suddenly there are fewer enemies, but I figure your immersion can take that hit if it keeps the game fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would really like to see the group leader be able to choose a difficulty level, rather than basing it entirely on how many players there are.
I don't really see a problem with a 20-man group consuming 10-man content because they prefer an easier challenge. Likewise, I'd like it to be possible for a 10-man group to try out 20-man content if they think they're that uber.
I wouldn't object to the rewards being based on a combination of party size and difficulty level, so that the 20-man group consuming 10-man content didn't get the same rewards a 10-man group would, but I'm not sure that's necessary.
I personally disagree with the concept in general. For modules sure scale to your hearts content. Dungeons and world content, personally I think they should be what they are found as. Just like PVP content, overworld content, harvesting hazards etc... Sometimes they should be easy, sometimes hard, sometimes purely Imposible unless you come back with friends.
Now one thing that I could support, a dungeoneering skill, an ability that upon finding a dungeon entrance, can give you a bit of a hint as to what you are dealing with and whether you have a shot at duoing with your buddy, or should come back with an army.
IE using the skill will tell you
Class 1 kobald lair: Mostly weak kobalds, little to be worried about, but beware of traps and ambushes within, plausible with 2-3 midskilled players
Class 5 kobald lair: Expect huge swarms, deadly traps, kobalds with spellcasting, powers etc...
Class 1 necromancers lair: Handfulls of skeletons, zombies etc.. Nothing too serious
Class 5 Necromancers lair: Expect vampires, mass hordes of undeads, traps, spellcasting and most probably a lich near the end.
Etc...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Onishi, I like the idea of a dungeoneering skill that gives you info on the dungeon you just found.
I'm just concerned about the effort required to create dungeons in the first place.
In most Theme Parks, a lot of effort is put into developing encounters that are balanced for an exact number of players. That content is then only consumable by groups of that exact size. One way to make that content more valuable is to increase the number of players who can potentially consume it.
If I've got a group of fourteen players, but all the dungeons are either 5-man, 10-man, or 20-man, then I'm going to have problems.
I really hope the dungeons aren't set-pieces where each encounter is scripted and balanced for a set number of players. I would much rather a dungeon built up from a random layout of rooms and halls, populated with random mobs based on a theme, and with random "boss" encounters that include one or more random bosses that semi-randomly use their abilities with a smattering of AI to guide them. In that environment, I would think it would be a simple matter to scale the power of the mobs and bosses, and serve the greatest possible proportion of the community with engaging content that that group will find fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As a philosophical underpinning, I 100% agree. (I'm trying to throw them off, and get them wondering if I'm your sock puppet)
I would do back flips (no mean feet for a 40+ 6'4" 300lb desk jockey) if PFO gave us a system where the dungeons grew in power over time, such that there was always a random mix of dungeons of virtually any power level. If such a system included Dungeoneering as Onish proposed above, I would be in geek heaven.
My concern is that the limited resources for developing dungeons will force GW to create semi-static content, which will only be consumable by arbitrarily-sized groups.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think where my ideas split from that of the people saying "more people means you split the reward more ways is in the idea that this kind of system scales well in reward vs. effort.
If dungeon A is considered a casual 5 person dungeon, and dungeon B is considered a hardcore 5 person dungeon the difference in strength and numbers of the enemies, the number of traps or difficulty of puzzles would likely only be say a 25%-50% increase. I mean if casual is meant to present any challenge at all than upping it 100% would probably be unbeatable for anyone unless this is some seriously skill based gameplay and you have a team of seriously skilled players.
Because knocking up the challenge 25-50% is going to require a much higher caliber of player to beat the reward should be significantly increased. Perhaps 100% gains in gold and basic loot dropped, more powerful high end loot such as magical gear, gear enhancements, or rare crafting components/recipes, or cosmetic things like titles, unique mounts, home decorations, or things that modify your appearance.
If I hone my skills, find a party of players who have done the same, learn to work seamlessly together as a team, and then take a quest that pushes us to our limits... and then we barely overcome it for an amazing victory... I don't want to get the same reward as a group that ran the same thing with two extra players and casually breezed through the whole thing. They get epic loot we worked our butts off for that comes to 71% of the same loot we got per person... I don't want to fight the three headed demonic black dragon of ultimate doom with my 5 man party and earn my awesome black dragon head trophy for the wall of my house and my "Slayer of OMGWTH-Dragon" title just to see some newb who joined a 50 man party zerged the dragon on their first day in-game earn the same title.
That does not sit well with me. As far as it looks so far everything outside the dungeons of this game is sand-box. There should be plenty of fights where you can bring the whole company and have an epic battle with a dragon, sea-monster, or some form of behemoth. If dungeons exist they should exist for a reason, and that reason should be challenges that require skill, teamwork, and strategy to overcome. Not packing more bodies into the fight.
That is why I support different size dungeons that scale within reason. You might have solo dungeons for 1 player. These would be few and far between and probably part of a quest chain because they'll have to be balanced for your class. Then you might have small dungeons for groups of 5-10 people. They would have puzzles that require teamwork and the strength of the enemies you face would be directly dependent on the number of players. Then you would have your large dungeons for say 20-40 players. Again, scaled for the number of players and with puzzles that are designed around having a very large group.
But if they don't scale content difficulty based on players, and don't limit the number of players in certain dungeons I would go so far as to say they might as well not bother including dungeons. Just scatter traps and puzzles and big mean monsters around the world and call it good because no limitation to party size = permanent easy mode for everything.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope when a dungeon is found, the finder can use their dungeoneering skill to learn about the general size and challenge of the dungeon (which is determined at creation). They should also be able to bring someone "more knowledgeable" who can make a better assessment if necessary. In the condition of a lower dungeoneering skill leading to the inability to gather specific enough information.
The finder can then sell, give, barter the knowledge to someone else (in the form of a "map" and or "key"), or they can go gather a group to run the dungeon. The size of the group they gather should be entirely up to them, but since they know the general size and challenge of the dungeon the size of their group helps determine the challenge they hope to enjoy.
I expect most gear will come from crafting in this game...so the dungeon will be run for exploration/fun/challenge instead of drops. As such, I see no problem with bringing an arbitrarily sized group. Let the players determine the level of difficulty by determining the size and makeup of their group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My own opinion is that there should be a wide variety of encounters and few of them locked or instanced. Some should be so insanely hard the entire populace isn't able to conquer it for years. I also think the loot should be a random item drop scaled on the difficulty of the mob, with unlikely but possible chance of getting something really good, and not dozens of things or something for each person in the raid. There should be rare things and truly "uber" items along with the just difficult and the easy to obtain. Good mobs should be contested mobs and not instanced so each party has its own. A dynamic world has struggle and competition in it. Struggling to beat the other settlement to the good stuff or learning to negotiate and take turns would be choices the people of this world would have to make to survive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A group should never be worse off for the addition of another member. I'm not sure there's a way to limit the best loot to small, powerful groups.
The way is to not make 100% of the content married to your first statement.
Adding another player will always help you clear out NPC camps and over-run tiles. Adding another player will always help you take out NPCs wandering the surface including large epic NPCs. Adding another player will always increase your chances of winning in PVP. Adding another player is always going to help you run off the NPCs attacking player camps and settlements be it a group of goblins or a rampaging dragon.
The entire surface of this world is going to be covered in sandbox content where adding another player is the quickest, easiest way to increase your chances of success.
I am simply asking that ONE type of content, hidden on the other side of dungeon portals requires a party to be skilled rather than for you to just zerg the content. Personally I look forward to enjoying BOTH forms of content and would be just as upset if someone suggested making the strength of wandering mobs and NPC camps, or PVP parties scale based on party size.
If you all you want to do is zerg through everything in the game why not just not do dungeons or do casual ones? It isn't like there won't be plenty of other things to do. I'm not even asking that hardcore dungeons give some tier of gear unachievable through other modes of play. I'm simply asking a higher loot payout, and MOST importantly and cosmetic rewards like titles so we can show off our accomplishments.
I am simply saying in a game where you can zerg your way through 90% of the content that there be SOME AREA in which you can prove your skills and merits as a player, rather than just packing the group with more zerglings.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Andius: I see your point. Would you be satisfied if crowded conditions like some dungeons made the value added by excessive players virtually nil, or approach a limit? I hate the idea of a metagame restriction on how many players can participate in a Massively Mulitiplayer game, and it doesn't sit right that there should ever be a dungeon which can only be cleared by the 40 best characters, because numbers 41-200 can't even try together.
By all means, provide merit badges for doing it with fewer than the expected number. I soloed (basically) the HIVE Moon Base 5 man in DCUO, including the bosses. (granted, I was way overleveled, but I learned things that helped me lots for the challenge mode)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But Andius, you are welcome to enter the dungeon with as few as you want...and therefore get whatever challenge you are looking for. This model allows people who enjoy zerging to enjoy the dungeons at the same time as those who prefer small elite fighting forces. It lets everyone choose their own play style.
In fact, it allows you to take along people who do not fight at all. I could go with a group of fighters as a pure RP academic/explorer...documenting whatever it is we find in the dungeon. Then I would not be changing the difficulty of the dungeon, even being a +1. Or, as a rogue I could actually specialize in trap disarming and/or lock picking...and go along in a dungeon even though I do not know how to handle a weapon...but I am the worlds best lock picker...and, I might even be useful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Andius brings up a good point. There will presumably be a lot of open content in the form of encampments. Dungeons, as a gated space, COULD offer some other forms of content. We already know that different types of dungeons will have different levels of difficulty depending on the development of the hex in which they are located. If a small percentage (let's say 5-10%) of dungeons had a player cap and were designated 'hardmode', these could allow a group of dedicated players to challenge themselves. It gives players like Andius (I believe there are many of them, based on my WoW experience) something to strive for, without taking away their bragging rights by allowing a group twice the size complete the 'same content,' whatever that may mean in PFO's dungeon generation system.
I'm thinking one level of this could be implemented with a 5-player cap, and one more with 10 players. Anything higher than that I think will be relegated to the 2nd or 3rd tier dungeons, if Goblinworks sees a need to create player-capped 'raid dungeons,' gated by quest. Personally, I feel you should be able to pile in more people than necessary at that point.
I say 5-10% of the dungeons because I don't think PFO is going to be that sort of game; people will have many (and better) measurements of their accomplishments in the form of chartered company success, settlements developed, kingdoms toppled, etc. Despite this, I don't see how the presence of this content (especially in such small amounts) detracts from anybody else's experience.
Just to be clear, I'm imagining 'hardmode' to mean that the group attempting it wipes 5+ times when trying to clear it (unless very experienced), or ultimately gives up until they have better equipment/resources/class make-up at hand. Something that only 10% of players might attempt, considering the risk vs reward involved.
Maybe instead of getting 50 diamonds at a large, difficult, non-capped dungeon, or 50 rubies from an easy dungeon, the hardmode could give 15 diamonds and 15 rubies. I'm imagining a payoff that would only be worth it in terms of time and repair costs if you had an elite group of players or you didn't have the number of players necessary to clear the higher-tier non-capped content efficiently.
This could lead to some smaller chartered companies specializing in finding/buying these 'elite' locations and clearing them in order to stay economically viable versus other, larger companies.
--------------------------------TLDR------------------------------------
Again, I just want to point out that I'm not arguing this be the norm or even prevalent. I don't see this as a significant part of the game in the grand scheme of what PFO is being developed to be. I can just see a lot of instances when this might be desirable, including a small group of players online that don't want to yawn through a small, easy dungeon, or a small chartered company that doesn't otherwise have access to some of the higher-tier crafting mats.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Andius: I see your point. Would you be satisfied if crowded conditions like some dungeons made the value added by excessive players virtually nil, or approach a limit?
So what you are basically asking is if you run a dungeon that suggests 5 players that it nerf the party to a level that it would barely change their strength or not change it at all? That is agreeable to me.
Basically what I want is there needs to be ways in to the game to set a challenge at a certain bar for at least some of the dungeons. This dungeon will always present X level of challenge, and adding more players will never make it easier. If someone has beaten "The Minotaur King Dungeon" you know they are a good player because that is an elite level dungeon. You can then add titles, displayable achievements, house decorations, or other cosmetic items revolving around it.
Content like this is important for a few reasons:
1. It presents a real challenge with real rewards.
2. It sets measurable goals for people to strive for and get the rush of overcoming.
3. Everyone likes to show off their major accomplishments, and they don't want those accomplishments to be diminished by people to take easy side-routes to achieving the same goal.
I am up for ANYTHING that can meet that objective, whether it be allowing people spectator status so they can't take part in the fighting, upping the difficulty as you add more people, lowering the parties strength as you add more people, or simply making certain rewards not available to a party over X size.
But it is important to me, and probably a lot of other people to be able to prove some of their accomplishments rather than just saying "YEAH! We did the super hardcore dungeon with 3 people!!! No I can't prove we did it with 3 people rather than 300..."
Beyond that its more true to the P&P system. In D&D if a new player joins, most DMs are going to adjust what kind of challenges they are throwing at the party to reflect that.
I say 5-10% of the dungeons because I don't think PFO is going to be that sort of game; people will have many (and better) measurements of their accomplishments in the form of chartered company success, settlements developed, kingdoms toppled, etc. Despite this, I don't see how the presence of this content (especially in such small amounts) detracts from anybody else's experience.
Absolutely the greatest measure of a player is not what dungeon they have beaten but some things are hard to measure. The greatest measure of an army is going to be their courage, their persistence, their character etc. But when you see an army mostly comprised of people with medals plastered all over their chest that say they all ran 4 minute miles, bulls-eyed 30 out of 30 targets in their marksmanship test and swam the English channel in December... that helps their case if they are trying to recruit members based on being an elite fighting force that can train you to be the best.
In the end it won't win them any wars but it adds fun to the game and it does give some bonus credibility.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally, I would prefer to see the overall difficulty of the dungeon affected by two factors:
1. Leader-selected group-size setting.
2. Leader-selected difficulty mode (Easy, Normal, Hard, Epic).
This allows the most players to experience the most game at their desired challenge level.
I would not object to either of these settings being changed at any time and effecting the remaining content in the dungeon.
The leader of a 17-man group could select an Easy 10-man challenge, or an Epic 20-man challenge, or a Normal 17-man challenge.
I would ask you to seriously consider how this solution maximizes the number of players who get to experience the game at their desired challenge level.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't want to see dungeon difficulty settings, the harder the dungeon the rarer it is and the better the loot. If any dungeon can have it's difficulty set, the rewards cannot be greater when the difficulty is greater, this adds a community controlled mechanic that can screw up the economy. The game needs to limit the amount of 'epic' loot from 'epic' dungeons.
part of doing an epic dungeon should be finding one.
Back to the OP. The game needs some solo content, there isn't a large market for people who want to be forced to do everything with a group. The key is not making solo play 'faster' than grouping. GW would be stupid to not allow solo content, they are missing out on a good chunk of income.
One thing I see constantly, and it bugs the crap out of me, is that 'massively multiplayer' means that you are always in a group, it doesn't, it means that there are massive amounts of players in a single environment.
If you want to encourage grouping you need one things:
-No NPC vendors
-No 'epic' anything that can be obtained alone
-No reducing of 'experience' in a group.
If a person can't find a group quickly, and this will be the case for a good portion of the beginning of the game, they should be able to run off and be productive.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Actually, now I'm starting to see the reasoning behind modules, distinct from dungeons. Modules are already metagame-aware content, so group size limits are simpler to implement and they are easy to make repeatable, as opposed to the somewhat random aspects of dungeons.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are ample ways to limit the usefulness of bringing way more people than expected.
I remember a particulary nasty encounter in DAoC (Runihura).
You had to enter a room where the entrances where constantly patroled by snakes that killed anyone trying to enter while they were near. If that happened then everyone already inside the room had a very high chance of being killed as well, basically resetting the effort of getting everyone inside the room.
Also swarming Runihura with many PCs simply did not work as he activated an instant kill power whenever too many PCs where stacked anywhere (especially near him).
So killing Runihura with 40 "weak" PCs was actually much harder than killing him with 5 to 8 PCs if you had at least one powerful Tank and one powerful Healer and the rest knew exactly what to do.
What was easier was actually getting there as you could hack away the minions around his lair in almost no time and needn't fear getting ganked as much on your way. This alone made many player face the encounter in this hard way because the alternative would have been to not face it at all as they couldn't get together a good group of 5 to 8.
The big difference here was that it was the same Runihura. There wasn't a "heroic mode" or something like that so killing him with 40 people netted you the same archievement and the same gear (if you rolled high) than doing him with 5 people. I find that very important.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The key is not making solo play 'faster' than grouping.
Yes, but grouping is only one aspect of the whole.
PFO will be player driven so you need to know people, even if you do not regulary group with anyone!
Look at WoW. Grouping is pretty much mandatory for almost all of the end game content but the trend is that you do not need to know anyone in your group as it is being made for you and the encounters are mostly doable even without very good coordination.
This is what I ment when I said WoW is no longer an MMO:
you can obtain almost anything in this game without knowing anyone (or by knowing only 9 to 19 people). So there is no need for a community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally, I would prefer to see the overall difficulty of the dungeon affected by two factors:
1. Leader-selected group-size setting.
2. Leader-selected difficulty mode (Easy, Normal, Hard, Epic).This allows the most players to experience the most game at their desired challenge level.
I would not object to either of these settings being changed at any time and effecting the remaining content in the dungeon.
The leader of a 17-man group could select an Easy 10-man challenge, or an Epic 20-man challenge, or a Normal 17-man challenge.
I would ask you to seriously consider how this solution maximizes the number of players who get to experience the game at their desired challenge level.
I entirely support this as long as there are things that reward you for running a 17-man elite with 17 or less men that you can't get if you run it with 18+ men or run it as a 17-man hard.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just to point out something that bothered me a little bit...
MMORPG's just came out of the MUD/MUSHes/MUCKs/etc that did and still populate the internet and BBSes of the past and present. They weren't radically new in any way, just the same concept with graphics. Even a lot of the commands and terminology was carried along into the newer systems.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I entirely support this as long as there are things that reward you for running a 17-man elite with 17 or less men that you can't get if you run it with 18+ men or run it as a 17-man hard.Personally, I would prefer to see the overall difficulty of the dungeon affected by two factors:
1. Leader-selected group-size setting.
2. Leader-selected difficulty mode (Easy, Normal, Hard, Epic).This allows the most players to experience the most game at their desired challenge level.
I would not object to either of these settings being changed at any time and effecting the remaining content in the dungeon.
The leader of a 17-man group could select an Easy 10-man challenge, or an Epic 20-man challenge, or a Normal 17-man challenge.
I would ask you to seriously consider how this solution maximizes the number of players who get to experience the game at their desired challenge level.
The EXISTANCE of "x man dungeons" is the definition of theme park content. Having meaningful rewards only available through completing theme park content is what theme park games are based on.
EQ didn't limit the number of people who could raid the plane of air, they just made it REALLY inconvenient (intended to be impossible) to have more than a certain number.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Decius, since PFO is going to be a "hybrid sandbox with some theme park content", I think we can expect some "x man dungeons" or something similar to them.
My goal, and it sounds like Andius at least shares it, would be for players to have some theme park content like "x man dungeons" that they can consume at the challenge level they prefer, and with the number of players they want to bring, without having to spend an inordinate amount of time just trying to find that content.
I very much do not want to see that kind of content remotely rewarding enough to make it a more rational choice than harvesting/crafting or engaging in the kingdom game. In general, the reward for doing that content should be that it was fun and challenging.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would much rather be able to explore a dungeon with all my friends as a Saturday evening adventure than have to pick and choose 4 others while the rest feel left out. For me the socializing and exploring of the dungeon is the reward I am looking for. All the best gear is going to be crafted and experience is not earned as in other MMOs (so it cannot be nerfed by adventuring with too many people). I really do not see any advantages to artificially limiting group size. You are still welcome to go explore any dungeon with only 5 people if you want a challenge...you can even go explore it solo if that is what you want.
We are probably going to donate our findings to the charter anyways...so who cares if 5 or 25 go? The charter ends up with the same benefit int he end.
In fact, since they will all be locked and randomly created, bragging rights do not even mean much because you might have gotten a really easy dungeon.
I don't get it...someone please, explain to me again the benefits of creating these artificial grouping restrictions?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Forencith, just in case it wasn't obvious, I am not advocating for grouping restrictions.
In fact, it sounds like you have the same goals as I do in that you want to be able to take everyone who wants to go with you into the dungeon you found. I just go one step further and also want that sized group to be able to select the challenge level of the dungeon, so that those players have fun, rather than bringing 27 players to a dungeon that's got bosses that are appropriate for groups of 5, and having most mobs die before some of the group members can even get them targeted.