If I had to pick only one thing I hope they avoid it would be vaguely what I call "predictability". I'm loooking for dynamic everything: quests, mobs, loot, experience. I want the game to change based on what is happening in the world. I don't want there to be a "place to be" from level x to y. I want all the places with mobs in that level to have the potential for reward relative to the risk. Perhaps my experience is abnormal, but so much of my time in MMOs is spent trying to convince people to leave the well know X camp for Y loot (or Z xp) and do somethign new.
1. Kill 15 bears/done, ok now get 15 wolf tails/ done, deliver these to jim hes on the other side of the world, thx go back to tim and tell him i got his delivery....arghhhh.
None of that please.
2. Boring npcs, especially in inns that do nothing, i want my npcs to feel alive.
3. Any form of survival, i dont want to eat and ****, thats why im in game.
4. Boring enemies that run towards you like fools in combat, an enemiy humanoid shoudl be as hard a real pvp player, they should be doing everything they can to surivive, can we also not make bosses 2 feet taller than everything else, its silly.
5. The most important thing ever.
Never ever remove, titles, pets, mounts or cosmetics....ever.
Instead of removing these items put them in game, this gets people farming and keeps old content relevant.
Tanix said:Not sure what you mean?
Do you mean basic skills and abilities generally being described (ie Agility being explained as the ability to move in a graceful manner and that it has an effect on certain skills, etc...)
Or do you mean them handing you the detailed formulars on hit/miss percentage, armor calculations, etc...?
Yes, I want the exact formulas for every stat, skill etc. The rules of the game should be so clear that you could theoretically play it with a piece of paper and dice.
I don't want to see them make changes to the difficulty of the game when many of the people lobbying for mechanics to make the game harder realize they've effectively lobbied themselves out of contention for a lot of things.
Example, dont change how open world spawns are handled when people cannot compete because of their limited playtime.
Spluffen said:Tanix said:Not sure what you mean?
Do you mean basic skills and abilities generally being described (ie Agility being explained as the ability to move in a graceful manner and that it has an effect on certain skills, etc...)
Or do you mean them handing you the detailed formulars on hit/miss percentage, armor calculations, etc...?
Yes, I want the exact formulas for every stat, skill etc. The rules of the game should be so clear that you could theoretically play it with a piece of paper and dice.
Those aren't rules, those are cheats (imo).
If I tell you that agility has an effect on dodge and speed, that is all you need to know. You wanting me to tell you the exact formulas is you wanting to min/max without playiing the game. That is, you want the developers ot tell you outright what is the best item, skill, etc.., without learning it in play.
Even the old school RPGs like Wizardry didn't give you that kind of information. That is cheat information, not rule information.
Porygon said:I don't want to see them make changes to the difficulty of the game when many of the people lobbying for mechanics to make the game harder realize they've effectively lobbied themselves out of contention for a lot of things.
Example, dont change how open world spawns are handled when people cannot compete because of their limited playtime.
Your personal limited playtime is irrelevant. This is the basic core premise of mainstream gaming, why there are "dailes", "15 min dungeon runs", etc... If you don't have time to play a game, then don't play, or go play a game that attends to that level of focus. Asking a game to be developed to "limited play time" is ridiculous, even a bit narcicistic if you ask me. So I agree on this point if that was what you were saying.
Tanix said:Porygon said:I don't want to see them make changes to the difficulty of the game when many of the people lobbying for mechanics to make the game harder realize they've effectively lobbied themselves out of contention for a lot of things.
Example, dont change how open world spawns are handled when people cannot compete because of their limited playtime.
Your personal limited playtime is irrelevant. This is the basic core premise of mainstream gaming, why there are "dailes", "15 min dungeon runs", etc... If you don't have time to play a game, then don't play, or go play a game that attends to that level of focus. Asking a game to be developed to "limited play time" is ridiculous, even a bit narcicistic if you ask me. So I agree on this point if that was what you were saying.
You had me for a minute but yes. That's exactly what I'm saying.
Porygon said:Tanix said:Porygon said:I don't want to see them make changes to the difficulty of the game when many of the people lobbying for mechanics to make the game harder realize they've effectively lobbied themselves out of contention for a lot of things.
Example, dont change how open world spawns are handled when people cannot compete because of their limited playtime.
Your personal limited playtime is irrelevant. This is the basic core premise of mainstream gaming, why there are "dailes", "15 min dungeon runs", etc... If you don't have time to play a game, then don't play, or go play a game that attends to that level of focus. Asking a game to be developed to "limited play time" is ridiculous, even a bit narcicistic if you ask me. So I agree on this point if that was what you were saying.
You had me for a minute but yes. That's exactly what I'm saying.
Yeah, sorry, I had to catch myself a moment and reread your comment to correct my original comment, sorry if it came off a bit "assumptive" initially.
Watemper said:One thing I don't want to see in Pantheon...hmm hard to choose with so many things I hate in MMOs now n days.
I guess if I had to pick one it would be something along the lines of a Plane of Knowledge type of zone. That was probably the biggest thing that killed EQ.
What was wrong with it? think I quit close to the time all those planes came out. Don't think I made it to that one.
Tanix said:Spluffen said:Tanix said:Not sure what you mean?
Do you mean basic skills and abilities generally being described (ie Agility being explained as the ability to move in a graceful manner and that it has an effect on certain skills, etc...)
Or do you mean them handing you the detailed formulars on hit/miss percentage, armor calculations, etc...?
Yes, I want the exact formulas for every stat, skill etc. The rules of the game should be so clear that you could theoretically play it with a piece of paper and dice.
Those aren't rules, those are cheats (imo).
If I tell you that agility has an effect on dodge and speed, that is all you need to know. You wanting me to tell you the exact formulas is you wanting to min/max without playiing the game. That is, you want the developers ot tell you outright what is the best item, skill, etc.., without learning it in play.
Even the old school RPGs like Wizardry didn't give you that kind of information. That is cheat information, not rule information.
I don't really care if you think its cheating to be honest, cheating or not they are literally still the rules. I want to know the rules.
Spluffen said:I don't really care if you think its cheating to be honest, cheating or not they are literally still the rules. I want to know the rules.
Yeah... I'm not sure how knowing the rules is cheating. Obsecuring what stats actually do is a terrible game design and every video game that does it eventually has to revert it and add more information. Knowing 1 agi = 1 AC isn't cheating, it's giving me the information to make educated decissions.
EppE said:
Spluffen said:
I don't really care if you think its cheating to be honest, cheating or not they are literally still the rules. I want to know the rules.
Yeah... I'm not sure how knowing the rules is cheating. Obsecuring what stats actually do is a terrible game design and every video game that does it eventually has to revert it and add more information. Knowing 1 agi = 1 AC isn't cheating, it's giving me the information to make educated decissions.
The reason why I think it is bad is because it takes away the player learning about their class in play. There were many skills in EQ where it was “vague” on exactly how they worked. The attributes were generally shown, but the details on how they specifically applied the math were not known. You knew a certain stat functioned generically, but you didn’t know the exacts and so through play you learned how your stats worked, got a feel for the basics of the skills.
For instance, taunt was the most misunderstood spell in EQ. You knew what taunt did, but you didn’t know exactly how it worked (detailed mechanics). Through play over time people learned what it was actually doing and how you applied taunt made the difference between being a great tank and a mediocre one. This was what it meant to “know your class”.
FD was the same way. As a monk, I learned numerous tricks about how FD worked, how it interacted with mobs, mob pathing, mob agro, etc… and all of these things were not “given” to me past a general description of an ability. It was left to the player to master them in play.
I noticed a change in attitudes in gaming over the decades. In the early cRPGs, for instance “wizardry 7”, the classes, skills, and basic stats were explained “generally”, maybe with “some” details, but most of this was generic. You weren’t given the math, you had to play and develop an understanding of the best way to use these spells/abilities/equipment. You were given enough information to make an educated decision, but not enough to blatantly hand you the right answer in every case as that would be “given” the answer, not given an basic understanding.
A lot of people playing games tend to look at a “manual” as that of a “walk through” where everything must be explained in exact detail so the player doesn’t have to use deduction, experience and judgment, they just have to do the math and the answer is instantly provided. That is hand holding, that is in my opinion… cheating.
Play the game, figure out the details, gain experience, this is what it is all about. This was one of the things that was really cool about EQ.
EppE said:... Knowing 1 agi = 1 AC isn't cheating, it's giving me the information to make educated decisions.
I feel really old when someone refers to Wizardry 7 as one of the early CRPGs. The really early ones were games like Datestones of Rhyn and Temple of Apshai. Wizardry 1 and Might and Magic 1 came along years and years later. Then it took *aeons* to get to Wizardry 7 - and several major changes in the Wizardry system - other than the name, Wizardry 7 had very little in common with Wizardry 1-4. Werdna and Trebor and tiltowait were long long gone.
I agree VR should give us enough information to know in general how things work so we can intelligently make decisions. Especially decisions that are irrevocable (short of deleting the character) such as selection of race and choice of attributes if any such choice is allowed.
But the key words here are "in general". They should *not* be too specific. Partly for the reasons Tanix gives but even more so in order not to tie their hands. They should be able to change things that do not work quite as intended without needing to explain every change in detail. Thus if a warrior class gets bonus strength but seems to be a bit too powerful it is less disturbing to the player base if they tweak it down slightly without needing to highlight in patch notes "Warrior classes that had gotten an extra 2.17 points of strength now get an extra 2.15 points of strength instead." Not something I would exactly call a stealth nerf.
dorotea said:I feel really old when someone refers to Wizardry 7 as one of the early CRPGs. The really early ones were games like Datestones of Rhyn and Temple of Apshai. Wizardry 1 and Might and Magic 1 came along years and years later. Then it took *aeons* to get to Wizardry 7 - and several major changes in the Wizardry system - other than the name, Wizardry 7 had very little in common with Wizardry 1-4. Werdna and Trebor and tiltowait were long long gone.
I agree VR should give us enough information to know in general how things work so we can intelligently make decisions. Especially decisions that are irrevocable (short of deleting the character) such as selection of race and choice of attributes if any such choice is allowed.
But the key words here are "in general". They should *not* be too specific. Partly for the reasons Tanix gives but even more so in order not to tie their hands. They should be able to change things that do not work quite as intended without needing to explain every change in detail. Thus if a warrior class gets bonus strength but seems to be a bit too powerful it is less disturbing to the player base if they tweak it down slightly without needing to highlight in patch notes "Warrior classes that had gotten an extra 2.17 points of strength now get an extra 2.15 points of strength instead." Not something I would exactly call a stealth nerf.
Wow I haven't heard hardly anyone else talk about Temple of Apshai. I remember playing that game on my Atari 800XL. It had a tape drive and took over an hour to load up the game but I had a blast playing that.
dorotea said:I feel really old when someone refers to Wizardry 7 as one of the early CRPGs. The really early ones were games like Datestones of Rhyn and Temple of Apshai. Wizardry 1 and Might and Magic 1 came along years and years later. Then it took *aeons* to get to Wizardry 7 - and several major changes in the Wizardry system - other than the name, Wizardry 7 had very little in common with Wizardry 1-4. Werdna and Trebor and tiltowait were long long gone.
I agree VR should give us enough information to know in general how things work so we can intelligently make decisions. Especially decisions that are irrevocable (short of deleting the character) such as selection of race and choice of attributes if any such choice is allowed.
But the key words here are "in general". They should *not* be too specific. Partly for the reasons Tanix gives but even more so in order not to tie their hands. They should be able to change things that do not work quite as intended without needing to explain every change in detail. Thus if a warrior class gets bonus strength but seems to be a bit too powerful it is less disturbing to the player base if they tweak it down slightly without needing to highlight in patch notes "Warrior classes that had gotten an extra 2.17 points of strength now get an extra 2.15 points of strength instead." Not something I would exactly call a stealth nerf.
Wiz 7 is likely something that some of the younger people know of and might have played due to the "retro" movements in the recent past. The early Wizardy series are really just the early systems that most of this generation would want anything to do with. It would be like me refering to Ultima 6/7 rather than Ultima 1/2 because of their different styles in play and visuals. That is besides the point, those games did not give you the "behind the game" mechanics in play that most generations now desire.
I don't want to see any system that is cut-n-paste from any other game. I'm fine with them taking what really works and put a twist on it or something and definately call it a fresh new name. Rather that everyone got started out at launch at roughly the same level of comprehension and understanding of Pantheon instead of a select community having a huge leg up because they were exposed for 5, 10, 15 years to the exact same system or mechanic and it has long since been parsed up and down and inside out before Pantheon was a gleem in the devs eye.
Here is just a random term as an example: CoH. It belongs to a different game that IS NOT Pantheon. Sure, if it works and is what is considered as successful somewhere else, by all means, use a variation on it and don't call it CoH. From another forums thread here, make it a group channeled spell or something.
Crazzie said:I do not wish to see what i saw in TLP on EQ 1, a flood of chinese accounts farming every corner of the world. When you leave, come back they are still there 24/7 with a different crew of players around the clock.
There will be no play nice rules by me...
You know more Americans sell plat on TLPs than chinese do. This is a silly stereotype.
Tanix said:
EppE said:
Spluffen said:I don't really care if you think its cheating to be honest, cheating or not they are literally still the rules. I want to know the rules.
Yeah... I'm not sure how knowing the rules is cheating. Obsecuring what stats actually do is a terrible game design and every video game that does it eventually has to revert it and add more information. Knowing 1 agi = 1 AC isn't cheating, it's giving me the information to make educated decissions.
The reason why I think it is bad is because it takes away the player learning about their class in play. There were many skills in EQ where it was “vague” on exactly how they worked. The attributes were generally shown, but the details on how they specifically applied the math were not known. You knew a certain stat functioned generically, but you didn’t know the exacts and so through play you learned how your stats worked, got a feel for the basics of the skills.
For instance, taunt was the most misunderstood spell in EQ. You knew what taunt did, but you didn’t know exactly how it worked (detailed mechanics). Through play over time people learned what it was actually doing and how you applied taunt made the difference between being a great tank and a mediocre one. This was what it meant to “know your class”.
FD was the same way. As a monk, I learned numerous tricks about how FD worked, how it interacted with mobs, mob pathing, mob agro, etc… and all of these things were not “given” to me past a general description of an ability. It was left to the player to master them in play.
I noticed a change in attitudes in gaming over the decades. In the early cRPGs, for instance “wizardry 7”, the classes, skills, and basic stats were explained “generally”, maybe with “some” details, but most of this was generic. You weren’t given the math, you had to play and develop an understanding of the best way to use these spells/abilities/equipment. You were given enough information to make an educated decision, but not enough to blatantly hand you the right answer in every case as that would be “given” the answer, not given an basic understanding.
A lot of people playing games tend to look at a “manual” as that of a “walk through” where everything must be explained in exact detail so the player doesn’t have to use deduction, experience and judgment, they just have to do the math and the answer is instantly provided. That is hand holding, that is in my opinion… cheating.
Play the game, figure out the details, gain experience, this is what it is all about. This was one of the things that was really cool about EQ.
It's not rocket science, the more familiar you are with the rules the more educated your decision will be. The vaguer/unknown they are the more it becomes a guessing game. Regardless of your word salad about how you had to walk uphill both ways back in the day, the rules are the rules and that's the only thing we're asking for. Educated =/= guessing.
Doesn't matter, either way I'll know the way the stats work, it's just gonna require more unnecessary theory crafting on my and others' part.
Not knowing how things work means that if you have the best build you can have at any time that is PURELY because of luck. Giving clear infomation will benefit those who care to master their class and the game in general, not the other way around.
Grimseethe said:1. Kill 15 bears/done, ok now get 15 wolf tails/ done, deliver these to jim hes on the other side of the world, thx go back to tim and tell him i got his delivery....arghhhh.
I think some quest where you kill mobs and say return a rare item they drop for a small reward is OK. Say "We're having issues with the local orcs. For every Orc War Braid you return you'll be rewarded". The item drops uncommonly and you may expect to turn in a handful after a few hours of fighting. This kind of quest is sort of like the "go kill 10 boars" but also not.
bigdogchris said:Grimseethe said:1. Kill 15 bears/done, ok now get 15 wolf tails/ done, deliver these to jim hes on the other side of the world, thx go back to tim and tell him i got his delivery....arghhhh.
I think some quest where you kill mobs and say return a rare item they drop for a small reward is OK. Say "We're having issues with the local orcs. For every Orc War Braid you return you'll be rewarded". The item drops uncommonly and you may expect to turn in a handful after a few hours of fighting. This kind of quest is sort of like the "go kill 10 boars" but also not.
Reminds me of orc sashes and goblin ears from EQ. These kinds of retrieval quests were a good way to encourage grouping, and also slowed down the game, because npcs that dropped these items were generally not soloable by players within the designed quest level range.
WarKnight said:Watemper said:One thing I don't want to see in Pantheon...hmm hard to choose with so many things I hate in MMOs now n days.
I guess if I had to pick one it would be something along the lines of a Plane of Knowledge type of zone. That was probably the biggest thing that killed EQ.
What was wrong with it? think I quit close to the time all those planes came out. Don't think I made it to that one.
Basically it was a zone with a bunch of teleport books, so basically a Hub, where you can teleport practically everywhere killing 90% of the zones in EQ. It also made Wizard/Druid TPs very close to being meaningless.