Pan'Theon: Rise' of th'e Fal'Len - #1 Thread in MMO

Dumar_sl said:

But the same problem arises again: you're giving an ability away that belonged to a class or certain classes (bind, gate) to every single player. Every step you go along this road diminishes class uniqueness & usefulness. If you keep traversing it, giving all players bind, gate, ports trough the UI or an npc, then the distinction and significance of each class becomes less & less, until finally in the end, you're left with nothing but differences of window dressing, as in Warcraft.

I absolutely loved the bind, gate mechanic in EverQuest, not having it available via some dialog box or npc to every player. That was a great design choice.

edit: Let me put it another way, more succinctly maybe: there should benoability that every class has, no ability that every single class shares (in before sense heading & bind wound is trolled up by someone). No universal gate spell, no universal bind spell, no universal port spells. An ability shared amongst a subset of classes, such as casters, is okay, but needs to be minimized.

No single ability should be shared amongst every class, end of story.

Click to expand...

The problem is some people are so damaged from playing a wizard or druid in EQ they're so terrified of having something they don't even have taken away they can't seem to accept the things that may be given to them.

Like I said, is ANYONE arguing that everyone should be allowed to port? Is ANYONE arguing that porting classes shouldn't have more convenience because of it?

No.

Meanwhile, most of us are arguing a world should be designed such that a porting class isn't perceived as necessary, and especially ONLY for that one ability, because it necessitates a devaluing of the class in other aspects. Instead, a porter should add convenience to something otherwise still reasonable. So, instead of 10 minute travel, you have 5 minute travel with a port. Opposed to the alternative of not traveling at all or not getting a group unless you can find a port or SoW, which argue all you want, happened all the fucking time.

Pantheon can't afford to have so many barriers to grouping as EQ did. They'll have to find ways to balance this shit in a reasonable way. The best thing to do is get involved in the discussion instead of ranting about how you're afraid every game ever will turn into WoW or that the game will take away your sole source of being needed (and income) in a different fucking game.

popsicledeath_sl said:

Fuck yeah, man, I agree. If fuckers want to bind themselves, they can roll a caster! If assholes want the convenience of travel, they can find 7 other players to go with them! Because the only way to make a game that isn't GW2 or WoW is to make a game so hardcore your description isn't even close to what EQ resembled!!!

Click to expand...

They can ASK a caster for a bind. They can ASK a player to help them travel. You're goddam right, you need other people.

LFG_sl said:

Why should a instant skip content ability be available to a selected class at all in a game that is focused on combat? Balancing around this single ability becomes nightmarish if it saves you 30-60min of waiting or re-clearing. And trivializes travel in general.

Click to expand...

Fuck it, I agree with LFG. No porting, no portals, no boats, no invis, no SoW, no FD, no clarity, no healing...all those things allow people to skip content, and content is king.

Vandyn_sl said:

I don't see anything wrong with a grouping mechanic. Sorry, there are going to be times where it's 2am and not a whole lot of people on. The answer shouldn't be 'log off' at that point if you can't find a group via chat.

Click to expand...

What if they just designed the game smarter, not retarder? Instead of EQ, where you would very often be fucked if you couldn't solo and there weren't people on to group, or they wouldn't wait 30 minutes for you to possible make it there alive, or you weren't the exact right class, etc... what if they just made it so there was a variety of content at various levels of accessibility?

I guess it also comes down to not designing the game for people with no creativity. Because there were plenty of times we didn't have ideal groups in EQ that many of us figured out shit to do. I had druid and necro friends I used to kite with on my rogue. I had a group in Seb once that was 4 rogues and 2 bards, I think, and was awesome. Hell, we used to go into howling stones with a necro as healer when we couldn't find one.

The bigger problem with instant gratification tools is it puts a different level of expectation on the players vs the developers. Right now, we're expecting the developers to design a game that lets us figure shit out for ourselves. When they start figuring everything out for us, then we get the current generation of games, and what's the point in that. If you log in at 2am and there isn't a ready-made group for your progressing pleasure, then the game needs to be design such that there are things to do if you're willing to take the time or be creative enough to figure shit out for yourself. Problem solved.

Mur_sl said:

No porting, no portals, no boats, no invis, no SoW, no FD, no clarity, no healing...all those things allow people to skip content, and content is king.

Click to expand...

In your case, false equivalencies are King.

JarekStorm_sl said:

They can ASK a caster for a bind. They can ASK a player to help them travel. You're goddam right, you need other people.

Click to expand...

I agree. No binding until you find a caster to bind you! All in favor, say aye!

popsicledeath_sl said:

The problem is some people are so damaged from playing a wizard or druid in EQ they're so terrified of having something they don't even have taken away they can't seem to accept the things that may be given to them.

Like I said, is ANYONE arguing that everyone should be allowed to port? Is ANYONE arguing that porting classes shouldn't have more convenience because of it?

No.

Meanwhile, most of us are arguing a world should be designed such that a porting class isn't perceived as necessary, and especially ONLY for that one ability, because it necessitates a devaluing of the class in other aspects. Instead, a porter should add convenience to something otherwise still reasonable. So, instead of 10 minute travel, you have 5 minute travel with a port. Opposed to the alternative of not traveling at all or not getting a group unless you can find a port or SoW, which argue all you want, happened all the fucking time.

Pantheon can't afford to have so many barriers to grouping as EQ did. They'll have to find ways to balance this shit in a reasonable way. The best thing to do is get involved in the discussion instead of ranting about how you're afraid every game ever will turn into WoW or that the game will take away your sole source of being needed (and income) in a different fucking game.

Click to expand...

Ports were never required in EQ either. The 10m vs 5m idea will just mean that people will walk the extra 5 minutes. The solution is to have enough content spread about such that if you can't find a port to faraway Blackburrow, there are options and things to do closer by to you. The solution isn't to make traveling to Blackburrow just 'a little' inconvenient.

If you want to traverse the world, going from Erudin to Ak'anon for example, should be a very serious ordeal. It should take a day's travel by yourself - a few to multiple hours minimum time traveling on foot with no buffs. That's the kind of world I'm expecting. Not one where you can travel there with just a little inconvenience without a port.

Dumar_sl said:

There should be other things to do, to be sure: maybe crafting or very, very inefficient soloing. But you should not be able to progress at even close to the same level as with a group, no.

Click to expand...

Considering that we don't even know if crafting is in, I wouldn't count on that. And inefficient soloing is the equivalent of 'log off' because nobody is going to beat themselves over the head with a hammer if they can help it. Just because you're game is hardcore doesn't mean they'll put up with tedium, they'll just say fuck it instead if it isn't worth their time.

Vandyn_sl said:

Considering that we don't even know if crafting is in, I wouldn't count on that. And inefficient soloing is the equivalent of 'log off' because nobody is going to beat themselves over the head with a hammer if they can help it. Just because you're game is hardcore doesn't mean they'll put up with tedium, they'll just say fuck it instead if it isn't worth their time.

Click to expand...

Then log-off.

Why design a game for the one person with no friends no guild and plays off peak time? EQ was mostly bad when you were not in a guild/new player. Theses days everyone is in vent or teamspeak its not going to be so hard to find a port or sow or what ever you need. Brads now even talking in putting a LFG feature just for new players. New players are nowhere near as helpless as they were in EQ. It was a special time when people didnt understand the internet and so on. Its a whole new world now. The features in EQ were harsh for its time. I think the same features in a "modern" mmo will be nowhere near as dramatic as people think. Did WoW make everyone 1999 stupid?

Dumar_sl said:

Ports were never required in EQ either. The 10m vs 5m idea will just mean that people will walk the extra 5 minutes. The solution is to have enough content spread about such that if you can't find a port to faraway Blackburrow, there are options and things to do closer by to you. The solution isn't to make traveling to Blackburrow just 'a little' inconvenient.

If you want to traverse the world, going from Erudin to Ak'anon for example, should be a very serious ordeal. It should take a day's travel by yourself - a few to multiple hours minimum time traveling on foot with no buffs. That's the kind of world I'm expecting. Not one where you can travel there with just a little inconvenience without a port.

Click to expand...

What was great for EQ isn't going to be great for a niche, small-scale, probably small population project like Pantheon. Even still, in another post I mentioned how there has to be a spectrum for travel, even to the point of some places that DO require certain classes to access. I guess that's the problem with having an argument and looking for places to make it instead of looking at a discussion and making the relevant argument.

popsicledeath_sl said:

I agree. No binding until you find a caster to bind you! All in favor, say aye!

Click to expand...

Or maybe they can buy or trade for a one use scroll of binding, as long as it's a player interaction, not a cheesey artificial UI gimmick. Maybe a one use scroll of escape, to return to bind. Build that shit into the world, tie it to player interdependence, and keep things real.

Vandyn_sl said:

...nobody is going to beat themselves over the head with a hammer if they can help it.

Click to expand...

Some people think this is the only way to create a game that has a meaningful community, though.

popsicledeath_sl said:

What was great for EQ isn't going to be great for a niche, small-scale, probably small population project like Pantheon. Even still, in another post I mentioned how there has to be a spectrum for travel, even to the point of some places that DO require certain classes to access. I guess that's the problem with having an argument and looking for places to make it instead of looking at a discussion and making the relevant argument.

Click to expand...

EQ was small enough pop, and it worked fantastically. This idea that it's so niche, so small-scale that it'll have the same amount of players as a CoD server is silly. It'll have enough people for these mechanics. If Brad can't secure funding to make more than one dungeon, one city, and one starting area - that is, if development is so expensive that he can't make at least two of each, then he needs more money before the game should be put into development: no matter how much we discuss here, we can't make the game we want work with one of each.

popsicledeath_sl said:

The problem is some people are so damaged from playing a wizard or druid in EQ they're so terrified of having something they don't even have taken away they can't seem to accept the things that may be given to them.

Like I said, is ANYONE arguing that everyone should be allowed to port? Is ANYONE arguing that porting classes shouldn't have more convenience because of it?

No.

Meanwhile, most of us are arguing a world should be designed such that a porting class isn't perceived as necessary, and especially ONLY for that one ability, because it necessitates a devaluing of the class in other aspects. Instead, a porter should add convenience to something otherwise still reasonable. So, instead of 10 minute travel, you have 5 minute travel with a port. Opposed to the alternative of not traveling at all or not getting a group unless you can find a port or SoW, which argue all you want, happened all the fucking time.

Pantheon can't afford to have so many barriers to grouping as EQ did. They'll have to find ways to balance this shit in a reasonable way. The best thing to do is get involved in the discussion instead of ranting about how you're afraid every game ever will turn into WoW or that the game will take away your sole source of being needed (and income) in a different fucking game.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree.. I think Wizard/Druid class NPC granting ports to certain cities/plus class ports to more remote locations is fair. It's just something that needs to be done in a balanced way. If a dungeon is a 10 min run from the town that you can port to, place a spire half way between the town and dungeon. This doesn't have to be the case with every area, some areas should benefit a porting class or what's the point? I think it's a fair system and does give a class that extra uniqueness.

Certain areas should be no ports, period.. Ideally they would have more of a risk/reward benefit.

JarekStorm_sl said:

Or maybe they can buy or trade for a one use scroll of binding, as long as it's a player interaction, not a cheesey artificial UI gimmick. Maybe a one use scroll of escape, to return to bind. Build that shit into the world, tie it to player interdependence, and keep things real.

Click to expand...

And to get the scroll made they have to find a player with a paper mill, who has to contract out a lumberjack, who has to hire a druid to talk to appease the local wildlife, who have to convenence a council of woodland critters to decide if they're going to fight for the tree or not.

Sometimes, the bullshit isn't worth it, and it's better in every aspect of the game to just facilitate a mechanic that allows people to keep playing the game. The trick is finding when it adds more to the game than it takes away, adds more to community than it takes away.

Then again, if they focus the game through cities, it wouldn't be as big an issue. The issue and flawed mechanic in EQ is you had to find someone to bind you in a city, and there was often very few people in the city, because there was often very little reason to be there except to bind some poor asshole who can't play the game until he begs a bind.

I second the use of clickies/scrolls/potions for bind/sow/gate etc. From a game design point, this also gives designers the option of easily increasing or decreasing the effort needed to obtain these items rather than make major changes to basic class design (which never goes over well). Also a useful money sink and a good use for tradeskills.

Convo_sl said:

I don't disagree.. I think Wizard/Druid class NPC granting ports to certain cities/plus class ports to more remote locations is fair. It's just something that needs to be done in a balanced way. If a dungeon is a 10 min run from the town that you can port to, place a spire half way between the town and dungeon. This doesn't have to be the case with every area, some areas should benefit a porting class or what's the point? I think it's a fair system and does give a class that extra uniqueness.

Certain areas should be no ports, period.. Ideally they would have more of a risk/reward benefit.

Click to expand...

We agree. There should be variety. Because variety is a way to create balance in a way that doesn't kick some players in the nuts on most occasions. The extremes of EQ also created balance, but it was balance by way of someone else being kicked in the nuts, and while sometimes good, sometimes it was just bad mechanics.

Just like I played a rogue during Kunark, and loved that Seb had an area that required me to pick a lock. That doesn't mean every game since I'm fiercely advocating this mechanic, and trying to get as much content locked behind doors as possible because I want to play a rogue and it would benefit me personally.

In fact, I hope they have a ton of locked doors in Pantheon, and I think more classes should have tools to handle them. Give wizards an unlock spell. Let bards pretend they're rogues and fumble around with lockpicks and get lucky sometimes even though they're amateurs. Hell, let tanks have a shot at bashing a door down, etc. Give doors HP so a rogue means you get through the door np (with a small chance of failure) but if other means fail your group can beat the damn door down over the course of a few minutes.

popsicledeath_sl said:

And to get the scroll made they have to find a player with a paper mill, who has to contract out a lumberjack, who has to hire a druid to talk to appease the local wildlife, who have to convenence a council of woodland critters to decide if they're going to fight for the tree or not.

Click to expand...

Or just make it a spell: Create Scroll of return. Only porting classes could cast. Make it lore, only have one at a time.

Make it a loot dropped item too, so there's a chance to get one that way.

Just whatever the solution, don't take the easy way out. People always take the path of least resistance, I'm guilty of it like everyone else. If there's an easy way, that will become the only way.

All I want is a world which doesn't allow me to be lazy, because in the end it only cheapens the experience and we're only cheating ourselves.