Hi everyone,
I figured I’ll create a document to express my design preference for Pantheon. It entails design philosophy and features that I want to be included in Pantheon or any other MMORPG. Pantheon is the closest MMO in development to my ideal one so I thought I’ll make a design document about it.
The document is here on google docs.
It's always interesting to read the opinions of others, yet, some of your stated desires or goals are in direct conflict with the stated public design goals for pantheon. Nothing wrong with that, just .. I've learned, since M59, that some features are unlikely to change. Recently, I've seen this happen to several MMO's, including PFO, Shroud, and Project Gorgon. For two of those, I and others did our best to point out the logical design flaws in the public design goals, and the developers, in some cases, did engage with the community on those points.
Ultimately, though, any engagement was lip service, as they went to production with the same logical design flaws the community pointed out. And then the consequences of those flaws were reaped in a profoundly negative way. History repeated itself. Again.
In other words, MMO devs are not the most.. flexible or open minded, and there's a reason for that. They have their own design document (at least, god help them, they should have) and they are working from that. Any and all discussion that deviates from that, or causes adjustments to that? They're not inclined.
And, some of that reticence is justified. They don't want scope creep, nor do they want distraction. However, in some cases, voluntary ignorance and hubris have lead to some avoidable catastrophes. So, there's a balance to be struck, and I don't think you're going to end up influencing these devs in any meaningful way, as they're not interested in that kind of "core design" discussion. I mean, given the ideas that have been presented, and the logical analyses that have occurred on these forums since 2014, with no change in the games design? As with Shroud, core design decisions are not up for debate. At least with Shroud, the developers finally stated it publicly, so the community could then fall back to the position of giving feedback on the things that ultmately didn't matter. :)
dorotea said:Impressive document.
Given that VR prefers comments on specific design questions to be in existing threads focused on those issues I will comment neither on what I agree with or what I disagree with. There is more of the former than the latter.
Glad you're impressed.
I would answer Kilsin's questions but I never know what to say. It's so much easier to frame the question with the answer I want to give.
vjek said:It's always interesting to read the opinions of others, yet, some of your stated desires or goals are in direct conflict with the stated public design goals for pantheon. Nothing wrong with that, just .. I've learned, since M59, that some features are unlikely to change. Recently, I've seen this happen to several MMO's, including PFO, Shroud, and Project Gorgon. For two of those, I and others did our best to point out the logical design flaws in the public design goals, and the developers, in some cases, did engage with the community on those points.
Ultimately, though, any engagement was lip service, as they went to production with the same logical design flaws the community pointed out. And then the consequences of those flaws were reaped in a profoundly negative way. History repeated itself. Again.
In other words, MMO devs are not the most.. flexible or open minded, and there's a reason for that. They have their own design document (at least, god help them, they should have) and they are working from that. Any and all discussion that deviates from that, or causes adjustments to that? They're not inclined.
And, some of that reticence is justified. They don't want scope creep, nor do they want distraction. However, in some cases, voluntary ignorance and hubris have lead to some avoidable catastrophes. So, there's a balance to be struck, and I don't think you're going to end up influencing these devs in any meaningful way, as they're not interested in that kind of "core design" discussion. I mean, given the ideas that have been presented, and the logical analyses that have occurred on these forums since 2014, with no change in the games design? As with Shroud, core design decisions are not up for debate. At least with Shroud, the developers finally stated it publicly, so the community could then fall back to the position of giving feedback on the things that ultmately didn't matter. :)
A few of my ideas are there for another game, in another time. I don't want feature creep too. From what I can tell the team is pretty agile. I think they're building Pantheon by playing it and seeing what works. Most of my concerns are with zone design. Does it feel worldly? is it challenging and exciting? is their lore that strikes a sense of believability. I think the core design of Pantheon can work out well.
I don't mind the dev keeping it simple. As a highly stubborn person myself, I can't complain about sticking to the plan.
((ultimately, though, any engagement was lip service))
You may be correct but it is very easy to confuse failure to listen and failure to agree. Once a decision is made it takes fairly convincing argument to persuade the people that made it that they are wrong. Not only do people hate to *admit* that they made a mistake, but any correction takes time and money and delays the game. How can one tell whether the people on the other side go into a discussion absolutely committed to making no changes even if you persuade them that you are right from them listening but simply not being persuaded that you are right? Or maybe agreeing that you are right but deciding any correction isn't worth the time and money.
I may be too kind - I always assume in the absence of totally convincing evidence that the other side is listening. Not acting, perhaps, but at least listening.
((core design decisions are not up for debate.))
I hope not. Core decisions should not be up for reconsideration. We are too far along to start over ...again.
VR listens to many things but arguments that the basic design philosophy is wrong and, for example, the game shouldn't have levels but should be based purely on skill are a waste of the poster's time and deserve to be ignored. We have what we have - the focus must be on making it as good as it can be not starting over. When one goes into a bakery and sees a large applie pie about to go into the oven it may be useful to suggest a nice topping. It is far from useful to suggest "I prefer cherry pie" throw it out and start over.
There is so much there that I feel like you need to focus on 1 point at a time if you are wanting to have a discussion about it.
Many of your thoughts have been discussed in various threads over the years. You should realize that at this point of development all of the major, overarching design decisions have been decided upon long ago.