dorotea said:I agree that it is a very interesting article. Over 10 years old and about a totally different game not about Pantheon but still very much worth reading.
EQ isn't a "totally different game" than pantheon and the idea to which the article is trying to convey is the very essence to which Pantheon is attempting to achieve (ie providing the missing elements of play that were lost over the years from games like EQ?)
I am confused, did I click on a different article than you?
dorotea said:I agree that it is a very interesting article. Over 10 years old and about a totally different game not about Pantheon but still very much worth reading.
I think this is a little bit of an unfair statement dorotea. The author's goal was to talk about something that EQ did well (in their opinion) that could be applied in other games. For that reason, I think it's very valid insight for any game in development, including Pantheon.
I know that some people beat the EQ drum a little too much around here sometimes, and in my opinion they do themselves a disservice by being so close-minded. But at the same time, I think there *are* things that Pantheon can learn from the design of early MMOs such as EverQuest. In my imperfect memory, FFXI also had a very similar enemy power curve, though perhaps not as pronounced at later levels.
Either way, I think this is one concept that we should really think about for Pantheon, regardless of the source or the bias of any of our fellow posters. I'm not a fan of increasing challenge simply by making hp and damage numbers larger (because that just gets silly after a while), but the general concept of increasing the relative power of monsters faster than the relative power of players does make a lot of sense.
Nephele said:dorotea said:I agree that it is a very interesting article. Over 10 years old and about a totally different game not about Pantheon but still very much worth reading.
I think this is a little bit of an unfair statement dorotea. The author's goal was to talk about something that EQ did well (in their opinion) that could be applied in other games. For that reason, I think it's very valid insight for any game in development, including Pantheon.
I know that some people beat the EQ drum a little too much around here sometimes, and in my opinion they do themselves a disservice by being so close-minded. But at the same time, I think there *are* things that Pantheon can learn from the design of early MMOs such as EverQuest. In my imperfect memory, FFXI also had a very similar enemy power curve, though perhaps not as pronounced at later levels.
Careful to accuse others of being close minded lest you yourself be a victim of your own accusation. My arguments have centered around basic concepts of game play, I use EQ, because like the article, I think many things to which EQ did were solid implementations. I am all for other implementations as long as they meet the core ideal to which many of those implementations provided. Arguing for concepts that are just repackaged mainstream features isn't open minded, and yet that is what many here do when they argue against some of my positions. They accuse me of wanting an EQ clone as they promote their mainstream game clone.
We discussed this a few years back. Initially I agree that that a level XX human mob would be equal to a level XX human player. That's how it was done in classic roleplaying games with hit dice and such. However, there’s more to it than that in CRPG's so I've had to rethink my stance.
Ultimately, the developers are going to make mobs that have a specific number of HP's and difficulty. You can create mobs with any level at any difficulty range. The "level" or "con" of the mob is just to set the target level range of players that the mob is designed for.
That said, a developer could take the stance that if a group of level 20 players should be hunting 1 level 30 mob and design around that, which I am OK with too. I would like a raid of 24 level 50 players to be going after a level 100 dragon, simply for the roleplaying factor. But I don't think the mob "level" really matters mechanically what the level is set to.
Nephele said:dorotea said:[...]
[...]
I know that some people beat the EQ drum a little too much around here sometimes, [...] I think there *are* things that Pantheon can learn from the design of early MMOs such as EverQuest. In my imperfect memory, FFXI also had a very similar enemy power curve, though perhaps not as pronounced at later levels.
Either way, I think this is one concept that we should really think about for Pantheon, regardless of the source or the bias of any of our fellow posters. I'm not a fan of increasing challenge simply by making hp and damage numbers larger (because that just gets silly after a while) [VEX THALL- oops!-sry!], but the general concept of increasing the relative power of monsters faster than the relative power of players does make a lot of sense.
I am also hoping the closer we get to release the nostalgia boat will wane a little. It is hard to seperate the good mechanics in the game from the nostalgia of the game it was experienced in, but its also easy to forget the bad mechanics in the game because of the mechanic of nostalgia. This perspective makes me see Tannix's comments as mostly erudite, because they center on game play and not solely on mechanics (and tannix is no where near Odus! :D)
To this end I also agree with 1AD7's comment in the discord chats, when new joiners to the channel ask about Pantheon and get the reply; "Play P1999". I get that the response: "Play P1999", is meant to provide a taste of the death penalty and the ensuing change in game play and world view that the death penalty implies to the player. But to 1AD7's point, pointing to P1999 and having the player assume that Pantheon play will be like P1999 would be a diservice to the new game that is Pantheon and perhaps might not be the best response.
It may be the best response from a game mechanic perspective, but because it comes from nostalgia the implication is: any game with this mechanic therefore plays just like this old game and therefore the new game will be -just- like the old game, but better. Whereas Pantheon is a new game altogether.
And this is why I also like seeing comparrisons to SWG(crafting!), Vanguard (diplomacy!), FFXI, UO, and even....WoW. WoW initially improved on the mechanics that so many complained about at first and I think the subsequent changes made to game mechanics were done at the expense of the original game play and created those things that are now considered unfavorable ( "!", Killing 10,000 pigs for exp a la southpark, LFG "tool") .
I see game mechanics as things programmers can get their hands on and code in; if it already exists, copypasta and modify what it's attached to. Which makes theory crafting fun especially if you apply those old mechanics to a new set of rules in the hopes to make the game play better from having the influence of those game mechanics. I think game play is influenced by game mechanics and game rules. What makes game play in a sand box MMO so compelling is the game rules are hidden and only learned through the game mechanics.
The discord channel is full of people that heard about the game and want to hear more, but may have not subbed to these forums. It is good to see the chats in there and the responses from "us" to the newbies that haven't even heard of EQ(death penalty!). The responses they get are -the best I can say is- slower or more patiently general about game play and why that play is intruiging. Statements like "They better have a dungeon finder" are not as rapidly eschewed and instead things like "open contested world" and "faction" are gently massaged. (<- pun intended, messaged)
Manouk said:Nephele said:dorotea said:[...]
[...]
I know that some people beat the EQ drum a little too much around here sometimes, [...] I think there *are* things that Pantheon can learn from the design of early MMOs such as EverQuest. In my imperfect memory, FFXI also had a very similar enemy power curve, though perhaps not as pronounced at later levels.
Either way, I think this is one concept that we should really think about for Pantheon, regardless of the source or the bias of any of our fellow posters. I'm not a fan of increasing challenge simply by making hp and damage numbers larger (because that just gets silly after a while) [VEX THALL- oops!-sry!], but the general concept of increasing the relative power of monsters faster than the relative power of players does make a lot of sense.
I am also hoping the closer we get to release the nostalgia boat will wane a little. It is hard to seperate the good mechanics in the game from the nostalgia of the game it was experienced in, but its also easy to forget the bad mechanics in the game because of the mechanic of nostalgia. This perspective makes me see Tannix's comments as mostly erudite, because they center on game play and not solely on mechanics (and tannix is no where near Odus! :D)
To this end I also agree with 1AD7's comment in the discord chats, when new joiners to the channel ask about Pantheon and get the reply; "Play P1999". I get that the response: "Play P1999", is meant to provide a taste of the death penalty and the ensuing change in game play and world view that the death penalty implies to the player. But to 1AD7's point, pointing to P1999 and having the player assume that Pantheon play will be like P1999 would be a diservice to the new game that is Pantheon and perhaps might not be the best response.
It may be the best response from a game mechanic perspective, but because it comes from nostalgia the implication is: any game with this mechanic therefore plays just like this old game and therefore the new game will be -just- like the old game, but better. Whereas Pantheon is a new game altogether.
And this is why I also like seeing comparrisons to SWG(crafting!), Vanguard (diplomacy!), FFXI, UO, and even....WoW. WoW initially improved on the mechanics that so many complained about at first and I think the subsequent changes made to game mechanics were done at the expense of the original game play and created those things that are now considered unfavorable ( "!", Killing 10,000 pigs for exp a la southpark, LFG "tool") .
I see game mechanics as things programmers can get their hands on and code in; if it already exists, copypasta and modify what it's attached to. Which makes theory crafting fun especially if you apply those old mechanics to a new set of rules in the hopes to make the game play better from having the influence of those game mechanics. (A corvette is just a VW with a different body, right?) I think game play is influenced by game mechanics and game rules. What makes game play in a sand box MMO so compelling is the game rules are hidden and only learned through the game mechanics.
The discord channel is full of people that heard about the game and want to hear more, but may have not subbed to these forums. It is good to see the chats in there and the responses from "us" to the newbies that haven't even heard of EQ(death penalty!). The responses they get are -the best I can say is- slower or more patiently general about game play and why that play is intruiging. Statements like "They better have a dungeon finder" are not as rapidly eschewed and instead things like "open contested world" and "faction" are gently massaged. (<- pun intended, messaged)
Manouk said:Nephele said:dorotea said:[...]
[...]
I know that some people beat the EQ drum a little too much around here sometimes, [...] I think there *are* things that Pantheon can learn from the design of early MMOs such as EverQuest. In my imperfect memory, FFXI also had a very similar enemy power curve, though perhaps not as pronounced at later levels.
Either way, I think this is one concept that we should really think about for Pantheon, regardless of the source or the bias of any of our fellow posters. I'm not a fan of increasing challenge simply by making hp and damage numbers larger (because that just gets silly after a while) [VEX THALL- oops!-sry!], but the general concept of increasing the relative power of monsters faster than the relative power of players does make a lot of sense.
I am also hoping the closer we get to release the nostalgia boat will wane a little. It is hard to seperate the good mechanics in the game from the nostalgia of the game it was experienced in, but its also easy to forget the bad mechanics in the game because of the mechanic of nostalgia. This perspective makes me see Tannix's comments as mostly erudite, because they center on game play and not solely on mechanics (and tannix is no where near Odus! :D)
To this end I also agree with 1AD7's comment in the discord chats, when new joiners to the channel ask about Pantheon and get the reply; "Play P1999". I get that the response: "Play P1999", is meant to provide a taste of the death penalty and the ensuing change in game play and world view that the death penalty implies to the player. But to 1AD7's point, pointing to P1999 and having the player assume that Pantheon play will be like P1999 would be a diservice to the new game that is Pantheon and perhaps might not be the best response.
It may be the best response from a game mechanic perspective, but because it comes from nostalgia the implication is: any game with this mechanic therefore plays just like this old game and therefore the new game will be -just- like the old game, but better. Whereas Pantheon is a new game altogether.
And this is why I also like seeing comparrisons to SWG(crafting!), Vanguard (diplomacy!), FFXI, UO, and even....WoW. WoW initially improved on the mechanics that so many complained about at first and I think the subsequent changes made to game mechanics were done at the expense of the original game play and created those things that are now considered unfavorable ( "!", Killing 10,000 pigs for exp a la southpark, LFG "tool") .
I see game mechanics as things programmers can get their hands on and code in; if it already exists, copypasta and modify what it's attached to. Which makes theory crafting fun especially if you apply those old mechanics to a new set of rules in the hopes to make the game play better from having the influence of those game mechanics. I think game play is influenced by game mechanics and game rules. What makes game play in a sand box MMO so compelling is the game rules are hidden and only learned through the game mechanics.
The discord channel is full of people that heard about the game and want to hear more, but may have not subbed to these forums. It is good to see the chats in there and the responses from "us" to the newbies that haven't even heard of EQ(death penalty!). The responses they get are -the best I can say is- slower or more patiently general about game play and why that play is intruiging. Statements like "They better have a dungeon finder" are not as rapidly eschewed and instead things like "open contested world" and "faction" are gently massaged. (<- pun intended, messaged)
I think I have actually been very clear on mechanics of play, even outlined in detail why I think my position is valid (Travel time, meditation time, death penalties, etc...). You are welcome to specify exactly where you think your argument is valid, but just generally referring to my comments without attending to any specifics is really just a failure to state, a very fallacious attempt to appear valid.
I get it you think I am wrong, fine... you think my comments are "erudite", that I am basing my position on "nostalgia" of game play. and not game mechanics.
Make your argument, I am open to discussion, but please don't think to make an accusation of a superior position without ever stepping foot into the debate, it is disingenuous to say the least.
That is, come in and get dirty, speak to specifics, don't vaguely refer to others as being invalid with such general comments.
Edit:
I want to be clear so you understand. I wasn't a kid when EQ was released. I have been a hobby gamer and tech enthusiast since the first Pong was released. When I talk about a given design to EQ, why I liked it, why I think it is missing today, it isn't from the eyes of a child playing on their parents computer, but of a fully grown and aged adult who already had much life experience prior to EQ being released.
I am not riding a child like nostalgia of the game, which is why I delve very deep into discussing the basic mechanics of play. Honestly, I find that argument to be.. a bit a generic over used talking point that is thrown out to dismiss legitimate concerns about game play (which is really just a culimination of game mechanics).
!
Tanix said:Manouk said:Nephele said:dorotea said:[...]
[...]
I know that some people beat the EQ drum a little too much around here sometimes, [...] I think there *are* things that Pantheon can learn from the design of early MMOs such as EverQuest. In my imperfect memory, FFXI also had a very similar enemy power curve, though perhaps not as pronounced at later levels.
Either way, I think this is one concept that we should really think about for Pantheon, regardless of the source or the bias of any of our fellow posters. I'm not a fan of increasing challenge simply by making hp and damage numbers larger (because that just gets silly after a while) [VEX THALL- oops!-sry!], but the general concept of increasing the relative power of monsters faster than the relative power of players does make a lot of sense.
I am also hoping the closer we get to release the nostalgia boat will wane a little. It is hard to seperate the good mechanics in the game from the nostalgia of the game it was experienced in, but its also easy to forget the bad mechanics in the game because of the mechanic of nostalgia. This perspective makes me see Tannix's comments as mostly erudite, because they center on game play and not solely on mechanics (and tannix is no where near Odus! :D)
To this end I also agree with 1AD7's comment in the discord chats, when new joiners to the channel ask about Pantheon and get the reply; "Play P1999". I get that the response: "Play P1999", is meant to provide a taste of the death penalty and the ensuing change in game play and world view that the death penalty implies to the player. But to 1AD7's point, pointing to P1999 and having the player assume that Pantheon play will be like P1999 would be a diservice to the new game that is Pantheon and perhaps might not be the best response.
It may be the best response from a game mechanic perspective, but because it comes from nostalgia the implication is: any game with this mechanic therefore plays just like this old game and therefore the new game will be -just- like the old game, but better. Whereas Pantheon is a new game altogether.
And this is why I also like seeing comparrisons to SWG(crafting!), Vanguard (diplomacy!), FFXI, UO, and even....WoW. WoW initially improved on the mechanics that so many complained about at first and I think the subsequent changes made to game mechanics were done at the expense of the original game play and created those things that are now considered unfavorable ( "!", Killing 10,000 pigs for exp a la southpark, LFG "tool") .
I see game mechanics as things programmers can get their hands on and code in; if it already exists, copypasta and modify what it's attached to. Which makes theory crafting fun especially if you apply those old mechanics to a new set of rules in the hopes to make the game play better from having the influence of those game mechanics. I think game play is influenced by game mechanics and game rules. What makes game play in a sand box MMO so compelling is the game rules are hidden and only learned through the game mechanics.
The discord channel is full of people that heard about the game and want to hear more, but may have not subbed to these forums. It is good to see the chats in there and the responses from "us" to the newbies that haven't even heard of EQ(death penalty!). The responses they get are -the best I can say is- slower or more patiently general about game play and why that play is intruiging. Statements like "They better have a dungeon finder" are not as rapidly eschewed and instead things like "open contested world" and "faction" are gently massaged. (<- pun intended, messaged)
I think I have actually been very clear on mechanics of play, even outlined in detail why I think my position is valid (Travel time, meditation time, death penalties, etc...). You are welcome to specify exactly where you think your argument is valid, but just generally referring to my comments without attending to any specifics is really just a failure to state, a very fallacious attempt to appear valid.
I get it you think I am wrong, fine... you think my comments are "erudite", that I am basing my position on "nostalgia" of game play. and not game mechanics.
Make your argument, I am open to discussion, but please don't think to make an accusation of a superior position without ever stepping foot into the debate, it is disingenuous to say the least.
That is, come in and get dirty, speak to specifics, don't vaguely refer to others as being invalid with such general comments.
Edit:
I want to be clear so you understand. I wasn't a kid when EQ was released. I have been a hobby gamer and tech enthusiast since the first Pong was released. When I talk about a given design to EQ, why I liked it, why I think it is missing today, it isn't from the eyes of a child playing on their parents computer, but of a fully grown and aged adult who already had much life experience prior to EQ being released.
I am not riding a child like nostalgia of the game, which is why I delve very deep into discussing the basic mechanics of play. Honestly, I find that argument to be.. a bit a generic over used talking point that is thrown out to dismiss legitimate concerns about game play (which is really just a culimination of game mechanics).
/curious Erudite is not a bad thing. The joke about odus was my own. ANd I don't think your ideas were nostalgic, because you mostly talk about game play. in the previous sentence I said how mechanics are tainted by nostalgia, except for Tannix, mostly erudite, etc etc.
Erudite : Having or showing great knowledge or learning. go you! /cheer
Manouk said:/curious Erudite is not a bad thing. The joke about odus was my own. ANd I don't think your ideas were nostalgic, because you mostly talk about game play. in the previous sentence I said how mechanics are tainted by nostalgia, except for Tannix, mostly erudite, etc etc.
Erudite : Having or showing great knowledge or learning. go you! /cheer
[Tanix gets worse at critcal reading -123]
My apologies, please excuse my inappropriate rant.
Manouk said:
The discord channel is full of people that heard about the game and want to hear more, but may have not subbed to these forums. It is good to see the chats in there and the responses from "us" to the newbies that haven't even heard of EQ(death penalty!). The responses they get are -the best I can say is- slower or more patiently general about game play and why that play is intruiging. Statements like "They better have a dungeon finder" are not as rapidly eschewed and instead things like "open contested world" and "faction" are gently massaged. (<- pun intended, messaged)
Totally agree with you here Manouk. I would love to see more of them participating on the forums. At the same time, I understand why many of them stay away, especially lately. I think just about everyone here has valid opinions and valuable perspectives - but I also have seen too many examples over the last few months of people not accepting or respecting the opinions and perspectives of others. I think we should all be confident enough in what we think to not feel obligated to defend that whenever someone else disagrees, and to not feel like we have to convince everyone else to see things our way. In the end, none of us will get 100% of what we want or envision for Pantheon, and we should all be willing to accept that possibility.
For my part, I just try to do what I can to try and set a good example for reasonable discussion, both here and in the various Discords :)
((EQ isn't a "totally different game" than pantheon))
I knew someone would say this - in fact I figured the odds on it being you were reasonably high ((chuckles)).
I stand by my wording. EQ isn't a totally different *type* of game - in fact I share your hope that Pantheon will be similar in many ways. But it is a totally different game.
EQ is the primary inspiration for Pantheon with Vanguard being a secondary inspiration and I share your opinion that this is also good.
But just as you like to say - many times in many ways - that Pantheon should be almost entirely "old school" and more than the most minor compromise with modern conveniences will drive you away - I like to say that it should not take too much from EQ. It should take its inspiration - I might even say its spirit - but not too many 20 year old details.
((I think this is a little bit of an unfair statement dorotea. The author's goal was to talk about something that EQ did well (in their opinion) that could be applied in other games. For that reason, I think it's very valid insight for any game in development, including Pantheon.))
Again, I stick by my wording which was carefully chosen. I did say the article was "very interesting" and then barely a line later that it was "very much worth reading". I agree with all that you say in the quote immediately above but I was making once again the point that Pantheon should be and very likely will be the spiritual successor of EQ - maybe even the reincarnation of the soul of EQ in different flesh - but definitively not even close to a clone of EQ .
In other words - this:
((I am also hoping the closer we get to release the nostalgia boat will wane a little. It is hard to seperate the good mechanics in the game from the nostalgia of the game it was experienced in, but its also easy to forget the bad mechanics in the game because of the mechanic of nostalgia.))
dorotea said:((EQ isn't a "totally different game" than pantheon))
I knew someone would say this - in fact I figured the odds on it being you were reasonably high ((chuckles)).
I stand by my wording. EQ isn't a totally different type of game - in fact I share your hope that Pantheon will be similar in many ways.
EQ is the primary inspiration for Pantheon with Vanguard being a secondary inspiration and I share your opinion that this is also good.
But just as you like to say - many times in many ways - that Pantheon should be almost entirely "old school" and more than the most minor compromise with modern conveniences will drive you away - I like to say that it should not take too much from EQ. It should take its inspiration - I might even say its spirit - but not too many 20 year old details.
((I think this is a little bit of an unfair statement dorotea. The author's goal was to talk about something that EQ did well (in their opinion) that could be applied in other games. For that reason, I think it's very valid insight for any game in development, including Pantheon.))
Again, I stick by my wording which was carefully chosen. I did say the article was "very interesting" and then barely a line later that it was "very much worth reading". I agree with all that you say in the quote immediately above but I was making once again the point that Pantheon should be and very likely will be the spiritual successor of EQ - maybe even the reincarnation of the soul of EQ in different flesh - but definitively not even close to a clone of EQ .
In other words - this:
((I am also hoping the closer we get to release the nostalgia boat will wane a little. It is hard to seperate the good mechanics in the game from the nostalgia of the game it was experienced in, but its also easy to forget the bad mechanics in the game because of the mechanic of nostalgia.))
Not sure how you and share the same desires as to game play, in almost every discussion you have argued more closely to mainstream expectations. In fact, recently you stated this:
dorotea said:One thing I don't want to see that I think I *may* see given the game's design objectives.
A game that not merely encourages group play and rewards it better than alternatives - but one that mandates it by not having areas with soloable mobs at or near level.
Yes allowing solo play to get you to maximum level conveniently is *bad*. I agree.
But not having it at all for the times when grouping is not feasible is *also* bad.
You desire being able to solo throughout the game (ie designed solo content, not emergent soloing as this was covered in those discussions very clearly). In each thread we have discussed, you tend to lean to modern mainstream concepts.
You make accusations me of being all about EQ, but then ignore why I make the arguments I do. EQ I use as an example of how it worked, and why it worked. It isn't about wanting an EQ clone, it is about wanting game play that existed in a game like EQ because that type of design produced a certain balance in play that no longer exists in games today and I have painstakingly went into detail to try and explain those elements of play and why they are important.
People calling me "close minded" are purposefully ignoring the details of the discussion to cling to their bias. Calling my reference to these features "nostalgia", especially when some didn't even play the game is dismissive and pretentious.
People are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. My arguments for EQ like features are not based on nostalgia or some ignorant emotional and vague reference to a past system, it is an extremely detailed analysis of the basic mechanics of play and why they are better served to the player over mainstream applications which circumvent game play.
Now you can certainly disagree, claim you don't care about that circumvention (which some have with claims of "timer wasting" and like dismissals), but you can not dismiss my arguments with cheap accusations of nostalgia and close mindedness. That is not only ignorant of the discussion, but ignorant of the very tenants of this game.
Every MMORPG out there kind of sucks right now. If it wasn't true we would not be here.
Yeah Pantheon will not be EQ, But all the things that worked well in EQ should be in Pantheon and then some.
I guess we just advocate our position on Pantheon and that's it.
I really wish VR did not have to call this a MMO. "The MMO you’ve been waiting for is finally coming..." Because what MMOs that are out there now are ...bad ..it sounds like your making something bad. (but I know you are not)
When they made EQ, they were not thinking MMO. They were thinking virtual world. I can not stand the term "End Game" and "end game content" what is the point of that, it at the end of the game!! You have these MMO companies churning out crap content, because they can't keep up with the crap content eaters who are rushing to end game, so the game can end. All the while selling you a silly ass mounts, outfits and a XP potions and "people are paying them for this garbage." The share holders are like, "Hey create more that garbage cause these consumers do know and better."
Meanwhile, I have fire horse mount, a silly outfit because I gave them $5 dollars. But I still feel empty, because I am stuck in this world or crap we call the modern MMO.
VR can't we come up with something to call this other than a MMO? How about Social Virtual World Role-Playing Game. "SVWRPG".
Caine said:Every MMORPG out there kind of sucks right now. If it wasn't true we would not be here.
Yeah Pantheon will not be EQ, But all the things that worked well in EQ should be in Pantheon and then some.
I guess we just advocate our position on Pantheon and that's it.
I really wish VR did not have to call this a MMO. "The MMO you’ve been waiting for is finally coming..." Because what MMOs that are out there now are ...bad ..it sounds like your making something bad. (but I know you are not)
When they made EQ, they were not thinking MMO. They were thinking virtual world. I can not stand the term "End Game" and "end game content" what is the point of that, it at the end of the game!! You have these MMO companies churning out crap content, because they can't keep up with the crap content eaters who are rushing to end game, so the game can end. All the while selling you a silly ass mounts, outfits and a XP potions and "people are paying them for this garbage." The share holders are like, "Hey create more that garbage cause these consumers do know and better."
Meanwhile, I have fire horse mount, a silly outfit because I gave them $5 dollars. But I still feel empty, because I am stuck in this world or crap we call the modern MMO.
VR can't we come up with something to call this other than a MMO? How about Social Virtual World Role-Playing Game. "SVWRPG".
I really like that SVWRPG term Caine. It would be a good way to distinguish the type of game we're all hoping for from many of the more on-rails experiences out there. +1 to your general sentiment :)
Pyye said:From what I am gathering in the streams, these mobs need to be toned down slightly. A group should be able to take down single mobs much quicker, or at least I am hoping so. I would rather have greater mob density with lower HPs and damage versus less density with more HPs and damage.
My personal preference would tend to run along the same lines of having the challenge come a little more from mob density and a little less from each mob being super tough. My first mmo was EQOA, which in my opinion really struck a great balance with this. Mob levels were based on single player levels (i.e. a level 50 mob was about as strong as a level 50 player), but there was no way a player could solo mob after mob, so grouping was still essential. The result of this was that a single player was not completely helpless, and could likely fight off a mob of similar level if caught unawares while solo exploring...but grinding xp solo was just not an option because the level of xp gain would be glacially slow. No content was designed for solo play, but it was at least possible to farm certain areas solo (and actually get level appropriate items!) as long as you didn't mind the way slower kill rate and added danger of not having a group. Making any progress with xp still required a group, however. Because a mob was roughly equal to a player of the same level, it was common for groups to camp in spots with an average mob level slightly higher than their own, but the combat was still challenging and dangerous (because the density of mobs was such that it was easy to pull adds and you had to stay on your toes), and was definitely slower and more tactical than WoW and its brethren.
I have no idea what the devs' plans are for tuning combat in Pantheon, or even if tuning it in this way would work in Pantheon the way it did in EQOA. (Pantheon's larger group size and quaternity, for instance, might necessitate balancing mob strength differently.) But for me, EQOA's example shows that, at least in certain games, players can be equal to mobs of the same level without the game devolving into a single-player action rpg.
Gyldervane said:I have no idea what the devs' plans are for tuning combat in Pantheon, or even if tuning it in this way would work in Pantheon the way it did in EQOA. (Pantheon's larger group size and quaternity, for instance, might necessitate balancing mob strength differently.) But for me, EQOA's example shows that, at least in certain games, players can be equal to mobs of the same level without the game devolving into a single-player action rpg.
EQOA was the softer, gentler, console version of EQ. It had many QoL features in the game which made it pretty much night and day different than the PC version of EQ.