no. corpses should not decay. if i lost my gear because i couldn't get back to my corpse fast enough, i'd quit the game and never come back.
in the south. tornados took out power for 7 days straight.
what if you die and think, it's late, i'll grab corpse in morning. Next day; boom tornados and 7 days no power.
corpse gone. lost everything you ever worked on, including one of a kind items that can never be gotten again. etc. no thanks.
Flapp said:corpse decay does not have to include gear loss.no. corpses should not decay. if i lost my gear because i couldn't get back to my corpse fast enough, i'd quit the game and never come back.
in the south. tornados took out power for 7 days straight.
what if you die and think, it's late, i'll grab corpse in morning. Next day; boom tornados and 7 days no power.
corpse gone. lost everything you ever worked on, including one of a kind items that can never be gotten again. etc. no thanks.
Tanix said:Zorkon said:Tanix said:
So again, to reiterate…
I want there to be an exp penalty, and I want it to be harsh.
I wan there to be a chance to lose your level.
I want the items to be left on the corpse so the player must return to the corpse to retrieve them.
I don't want the corpse to decay, I want the body though to stay where it is (no grave yards or easy return spots).
A corpse decay system is not a reasonable balance to a game like this. As I said, it works fine in a rogue like system where gear acquisition is fast, levels are fast, everything is fast because the penalty of death is loss of everything. That is risk vs reward balance.
@Tanix
I'm with you on all but your last item, the corpse decay. A system with harsh penalties are going to have players that rage quit. Players that run their trial levels and decide this game just isn't for them. Players that die and have to log off and them mommy grounds them from the network for a month for B-slapping their sister or whatever. I personally don't want all these abandoned corpses cluttering the noob zones or the bottom of dungons. Can you just imagine it after a few months or even years.
One possible resolution would be the corpse disappear if the player logged off. But that eliminates the ability I seen used often in EQ where we /consent our friendly guild Necro or monk then sent him an email of the situation, then logged off. And when he got on he would have us all fixed up.
I feel the corpse MUST rot after a given time, (my thoughts...1 week) but gear loss is unacceptable per Brad. There is no reason the corpse couldn't Rot and the gear be returned to the player in a inventory overflow tab. So I'm talking not loss of gear, but 7 (14, or 30...whatever) day denial of gear unless you recovered your corpse.
The visual display of corpses and such issues are a non-issue really.
You are already on to the solution.
People worried about the lag such would cause is a client issue (the client processes the graphics and the overload of corpses is on the client side). This is solved with corpse view toggles. I mentioned it before but you could have random levels of corpse view toggles to see your own, your group, raid, friend, etc... and it would be entirely up to the client to decide on that.
As for the server side, it is a simply coordinate location for where the corpse is and then a link to an inventory list of the items on the corpse which would be very small if the player has tons of corpses. Point is, the server would not have an issue with this, nor would the client with a toggle (which I think EQ even has this very feature already, that or it is another game I am thinking about, point is... the solution already exists and works well).
As for recovering a corpse. I really think a person should have to recover their corpse regardless and not be handed their gear simply because they got mad, quit for a week/month and came back.
There will be classes who can summon corpses for people. People can go find them and get their corpse back when they come back.
I really dislike the GY/item return thing. I mean, I guess I could be ok with it, but it would have to be a 30+ feature where it can't be abused by people gimmicking or being lazy.
Corps view toggles, I'm aware of them (/hidecorpse all) and all well and good for you and i, but what of a new player? Would you have corpses hidden by default for new players? ALL? OTHERS? by TIME maybe?
I suppose a (/hidecorpse week) as a default might work, but I don't see the point of keeping them around for an extended period of time.
Zorkon said:Tanix said:Zorkon said:Tanix said:
So again, to reiterate…
I want there to be an exp penalty, and I want it to be harsh.
I wan there to be a chance to lose your level.
I want the items to be left on the corpse so the player must return to the corpse to retrieve them.
I don't want the corpse to decay, I want the body though to stay where it is (no grave yards or easy return spots).
A corpse decay system is not a reasonable balance to a game like this. As I said, it works fine in a rogue like system where gear acquisition is fast, levels are fast, everything is fast because the penalty of death is loss of everything. That is risk vs reward balance.
@Tanix
I'm with you on all but your last item, the corpse decay. A system with harsh penalties are going to have players that rage quit. Players that run their trial levels and decide this game just isn't for them. Players that die and have to log off and them mommy grounds them from the network for a month for B-slapping their sister or whatever. I personally don't want all these abandoned corpses cluttering the noob zones or the bottom of dungons. Can you just imagine it after a few months or even years.
One possible resolution would be the corpse disappear if the player logged off. But that eliminates the ability I seen used often in EQ where we /consent our friendly guild Necro or monk then sent him an email of the situation, then logged off. And when he got on he would have us all fixed up.
I feel the corpse MUST rot after a given time, (my thoughts...1 week) but gear loss is unacceptable per Brad. There is no reason the corpse couldn't Rot and the gear be returned to the player in a inventory overflow tab. So I'm talking not loss of gear, but 7 (14, or 30...whatever) day denial of gear unless you recovered your corpse.
The visual display of corpses and such issues are a non-issue really.
You are already on to the solution.
People worried about the lag such would cause is a client issue (the client processes the graphics and the overload of corpses is on the client side). This is solved with corpse view toggles. I mentioned it before but you could have random levels of corpse view toggles to see your own, your group, raid, friend, etc... and it would be entirely up to the client to decide on that.
As for the server side, it is a simply coordinate location for where the corpse is and then a link to an inventory list of the items on the corpse which would be very small if the player has tons of corpses. Point is, the server would not have an issue with this, nor would the client with a toggle (which I think EQ even has this very feature already, that or it is another game I am thinking about, point is... the solution already exists and works well).
As for recovering a corpse. I really think a person should have to recover their corpse regardless and not be handed their gear simply because they got mad, quit for a week/month and came back.
There will be classes who can summon corpses for people. People can go find them and get their corpse back when they come back.
I really dislike the GY/item return thing. I mean, I guess I could be ok with it, but it would have to be a 30+ feature where it can't be abused by people gimmicking or being lazy.
Corps view toggles, I'm aware of them (/hidecorpse all) and all well and good for you and i, but what of a new player? Would you have corpses hidden by default for new players? ALL? OTHERS? by TIME maybe?
I suppose a (/hidecorpse week) as a default might work, but I don't see the point of keeping them around for an extended period of time.
Nope, I would have the options on as default all, a new player can read the manual, maybe there will be a log in tip, or they can ask others if need.
There are many ways you can hide them or handle it, the point is not to give the player an easy way out. They want their items, they have to go get them. No throwing a tantrum quitting for a week and then walking easily over to the city and getting everything back. I see no point in rewarding poor behavior with an easy out. Also consider that the reason a person may have a corpse back in a dungeon is that they are a griefer and people won't help them recover the corpse because of this. If you allow the player to easily get their corpse back with a default GY feature, it encourages the ability to be anti-social.
Corpse runs sucked, but honestly when I think about my days playing the original EQ some of the best and most humorous memories came from running naked with a group trying to get our corpses back. It brought an element to the game that wasnt about progression, or grinding and oddly is a fond memory looking back. You had to work together with others to progress as a group for experience, loot and conquering the NPC's, but also had to work together as a team to recover when you didnt do it effectively. Not so much in the moment of course, I think I had to replace a few keyboards and mice over some corpse runs =P.
If I know gear loss isnt really a permanant risk even if I dont get my corpse for an extended amount of time because of decay, I'm all for the corpse runs. Actually looking to revisit that again.
First of all even if there is a client side option to turn off corpses, non decaying corpses will kill server performance given enough population and time. Every corpse is a set of data points that server will have to constantly check regardless of your toggled options, it is information that will have to be sent to every individual client regardless if they want to render it or not. It is at it's core, a memory sink when it comes to players abandoning their bodies. There are games where this has been done and trolls have been able to literally kill the sever by just repeatedly dying in a zone and not claiming their corpses.
If players have a way of storing back up sets of gear, say on a mount parked outside the dungeon, or a bank in a nearby town; then I'm all fall both a steep xp penalty and a losing your gear and inventory upon death. However there should also be a mechanic that allows a character to summon his body to get his gear back at a forfeiture of ever getting the lost xp back. The ritual or mechanic should also have a cost, preferably some kind of crafted item and while it should be expensive, it shouldn't be priced out of anyone's reach.
Tanix said:I played EQ for 5 years straight.
I stopped playing when I could no longer take the extreme dumbing down of the game.
So yes, I would still enjoy the game if it were like EQ at release, in fact that is the only reason I am considering this game. If this game is like what you are asking for, I won't be playing it. There are tons of MMOs designed around the idealogy you are arguing for.
The game continued to be "dumbed down" because they were hemorrhaging players to "dumbed down" games. They still have quite a player base, but those players currently enjoy what some consider "dumb". I too left because of the "dumbing down" of the game (in particular allowing PvE servers transfer to PvP) but we are the minority. As much as I would love PRotF to appeal to everyone's desires, they need to attract and maintain a subscription base while keeping true to the tenents they proposed (not the ones other people are hoping for).
Dissolution said:Corpse runs sucked, but honestly when I think about my days playing the original EQ some of the best and most humorous memories came from running naked with a group trying to get our corpses back. It brought an element to the game that wasnt about progression, or grinding and oddly is a fond memory looking back. You had to work together with others to progress as a group for experience, loot and conquering the NPC's, but also had to work together as a team to recover when you didnt do it effectively. Not so much in the moment of course, I think I had to replace a few keyboards and mice over some corpse runs =P.
If I know gear loss isnt really a permanant risk even if I dont get my corpse for an extended amount of time because of decay, I'm all for the corpse runs. Actually looking to revisit that again.
Just like highschool... so many fond memories. Reliving highschool with what you know now sounds like a great idea... until you are stuck reliving highschool again (as an adult), except dropping out won't have consequences like if you did it 20 years ago. We don't want people "dropping out" because their visions of grandeur are put into the perspective of reality.
add: This is not meant to sound like an insult, just trying to put a different perspective on how our memories can make us think we want something that we may realize that we really didn't want once we get it.
Darch said:Dissolution said:Corpse runs sucked, but honestly when I think about my days playing the original EQ some of the best and most humorous memories came from running naked with a group trying to get our corpses back. It brought an element to the game that wasnt about progression, or grinding and oddly is a fond memory looking back. You had to work together with others to progress as a group for experience, loot and conquering the NPC's, but also had to work together as a team to recover when you didnt do it effectively. Not so much in the moment of course, I think I had to replace a few keyboards and mice over some corpse runs =P.
If I know gear loss isnt really a permanant risk even if I dont get my corpse for an extended amount of time because of decay, I'm all for the corpse runs. Actually looking to revisit that again.
Just like highschool... so many fond memories. Reliving highschool with what you know now sounds like a great idea... until you are stuck reliving highschool again (as an adult), except dropping out won't have consequences like if you did it 20 years ago. We don't want people "dropping out" because their visions of grandeur are put into the perspective of reality.
add: This is not meant to sound like an insult, just trying to put a different perspective on how our memories can make us think we want something that we may realize that we really didn't want once we get it.
Darch, I dont get easily offended and appreciate what your saying. I can be pretty honest with myself and understand your point. I started up on a TLP server a little bit ago because I asked myself the same thing. I had expected there would be the corpse runs but it didnt go back that far with it. I can honestly say that when it comes to the corpse runs, Im not sure if I will not get tired of it after having a chance to experience it again. My life circumstances are completely different now and gaming is more to relax and escape for a bit even. I know I like the old school mechanics though and my return to an EQ TLP showed me I miss the old school mechanics but desire the old school without all the clunkiness and with a modern polish. (basically I want 1999 with a 2019 look).
Ive just started on these forums for maybe about a week and have recognized the fan base has several very distinct camps.
1. Hardcore. Desires Corpse runs, potentially corpse decay with gear loss on a timer, no fast travel, some even no mounts etc.
2. Medium core. Desires corpse runs for lost experience but not for gear. Alternative solutions for the corpse run all together if so desired etc.
3. Casual. Old school mechanics without all the negative consequences.
I can only imagine that during the alpha and beta stages the devs are going to be applauded and scorned for absolutely every decision they make during the alpha, beta and even live versions for every...decision...they...make.
I wonder if maybe it wouldnt be a solution to have servers with different rulesets and advertise them like the crpg's do with difficulty level.
Hard: Corpse runs with gear loss, timed corpse decay, no fast travel whatsoever, hell levels
Medium: Corpse runs for experience only, minimal travel alternatives
Casual: Whatever was developed that was considered not hardcore enough for camps 1 and 2.
You get the point. Im assuming during the testing phase they are going to try multiple different solutions to perceived problems from the community. Based on the diversity of the groups maybe some of those solutions would be ideal for the medium and casual groups but not for the hardcore group. Those changes could then still be applied but only to the servers that they would best fit. I understand as well, this may be a logistical nightmare for VR. Fortunately for me I can be the good idea fairy without having to actually execute the plan for it but its just a thought.
Darch said:Dissolution said:Corpse runs sucked, but honestly when I think about my days playing the original EQ some of the best and most humorous memories came from running naked with a group trying to get our corpses back. It brought an element to the game that wasnt about progression, or grinding and oddly is a fond memory looking back. You had to work together with others to progress as a group for experience, loot and conquering the NPC's, but also had to work together as a team to recover when you didnt do it effectively. Not so much in the moment of course, I think I had to replace a few keyboards and mice over some corpse runs =P.
If I know gear loss isnt really a permanant risk even if I dont get my corpse for an extended amount of time because of decay, I'm all for the corpse runs. Actually looking to revisit that again.
Just like highschool... so many fond memories. Reliving highschool with what you know now sounds like a great idea... until you are stuck reliving highschool again (as an adult), except dropping out won't have consequences like if you did it 20 years ago. We don't want people "dropping out" because their visions of grandeur are put into the perspective of reality.
add: This is not meant to sound like an insult, just trying to put a different perspective on how our memories can make us think we want something that we may realize that we really didn't want once we get it.
Again, I wasn't playing EQ when I was a kid. I was an adult.
The argument to claim that people just don't remember, and so are not legitimate in thier arguments is a fallacy, not a valid argument. Maybe you were a kid who had a child like understanding of the game back then, but many of us werent and we know exactly what we want.
Again, don't make assumptions people were kids back then and don't make assumptions that people had underdeveloped minds and can't properly reason or remember why they like something.
By the way, it is not about being offended, it is the fact that this is a tired and lazy argument a lot of people make to dismiss arguments for certain features in older games. It is ignorant and arrogant in its position. You may not have meant it that way, but its origins are exactly intended to be that way.
I wouldn't segregate people into camps of hardcore / mediumcore / casual. XP loss can be even more hardcore than temporary gear loss. There is a huge difference between concept and implementation. If the war of XP Attrition wasn't challenging in EQ then it's understandable why people would think that XP loss wouldn't be all that impactful. Please see my previous argument of "limited lives" -- the concept is sound but when you play a game like Contra where your limited lives aren't really limited due to easy gimmicks, that aspect of the game is no longer considered challenging. The value of XP is relative. If it's easy to obtain then losing it wouldn't be a big deal, so hopefully XP acquisition/maintenance is a lot more challenging in Pantheon than it was in EQ. No 96% rezzes, no quad kiting, no AoE destruction groups, no duo/trio efficiency that surpasses full groups, no blue grinds that are more efficient than yellow grinds, no double dipping ideal XP with rare loot, etc. Corpse decay can be an awesome risk vs reward mechanic in this game but we have to be open-minded in how it could be implemented and how other related features/mechanics could come into play. If someone suffers from tunnel vision and insists that the "EQ Way" is the established baseline for every argument, they are already operating from a failed and illogical premise. You can't have a meaningful dialogue with someone who is delusional about what Pantheon is and what it's meant to be.
Tanix said:Darch said:Dissolution said:Corpse runs sucked, but honestly when I think about my days playing the original EQ some of the best and most humorous memories came from running naked with a group trying to get our corpses back. It brought an element to the game that wasnt about progression, or grinding and oddly is a fond memory looking back. You had to work together with others to progress as a group for experience, loot and conquering the NPC's, but also had to work together as a team to recover when you didnt do it effectively. Not so much in the moment of course, I think I had to replace a few keyboards and mice over some corpse runs =P.
If I know gear loss isnt really a permanant risk even if I dont get my corpse for an extended amount of time because of decay, I'm all for the corpse runs. Actually looking to revisit that again.
Just like highschool... so many fond memories. Reliving highschool with what you know now sounds like a great idea... until you are stuck reliving highschool again (as an adult), except dropping out won't have consequences like if you did it 20 years ago. We don't want people "dropping out" because their visions of grandeur are put into the perspective of reality.
add: This is not meant to sound like an insult, just trying to put a different perspective on how our memories can make us think we want something that we may realize that we really didn't want once we get it.
Again, I wasn't playing EQ when I was a kid. I was an adult.
The argument to claim that people just don't remember, and so are not legitimate in thier arguments is a fallacy, not a valid argument. Maybe you were a kid who had a child like understanding of the game back then, but many of us werent and we know exactly what we want.
Again, don't make assumptions people were kids back then and don't make assumptions that people had underdeveloped minds and can't properly reason or remember why they like something.
By the way, it is not about being offended, it is the fact that this is a tired and lazy argument a lot of people make to dismiss arguments for certain features in older games. It is ignorant and arrogant in its position. You may not have meant it that way, but its origins are exactly intended to be that way.
Why would someones opinion be a tired and lazy argument just because they may not agree with you that a certain feature may not be relevant. Not agreeing with you is not ignorant and arrogant. Its a difference of opinion.
Its origins are from a game 20 years ago, this is a new game based on an old model and I dont think that necessarily means everything has to be precisely as it it was remembered 2 decades ago. The devs themselves have stated this game is based on their experience and lessons learned spanning over those 20 years and multiple games. Some features may or may not be relevant in 2019 the same as they were in 1999. When others have a different idea of what is or is not relevant its ok to agree to disagree. That doesnt make them stupid, ignorant or arrogant. That makes them just like everyone else on the forum but with a different perspective.
I personally do like some of those features as well and understand they might not agree with everyone. I also disagree with some features but see they are extremely important to others. I know what responses to expect if I dont agree with certain people on the forum. I was not a kid either then. I really dont care if anyone thinks they know who I was 20 years ago or who I am today. Darch assumes I was a child when I played with these features and the general attitude tends to be a little elitist on the forum so I just ignore the undertones because it doesnt hurt my ego and continue to say my piece because its just as valid as everyone elses.
and so, dissolution sought out a resolution to the elitist grumpy old man darch, but lord darch was not so eager to accord with such a green-behind-the-ears fledging. perhaps it was behind the lens of self-righteous truth that gave -10 to perception that hindered lord darch. alas sir dissolution was no sapling. he spoke with absolution.
little did they both realize, they were in the universe of the internet, country of pantheon forums, until overlord kilsin came to lockdown the post because it is leaning to violate rule number 6.
and so darch and dissolution were one-shotted by overlord kilsin and they both look at each other in the gray-lit world, both in sync "this is your fault."
a moment of silence pass before they both set off to their bodies. as they were about to revive noob stellarmind looted their bodies and made off with all the goods.
the end.
Dissolution said:Why would someones opinion be a tired and lazy argument just because they may not agree with you that a certain feature may not be relevant. Not agreeing with you is not ignorant and arrogant. Its a difference of opinion.
That "oppinion" is a common talking point response. It is used quite often to dismiss peoples arguments about many old shcool features. It is an accusation to dismiss that the person was either too young, or is too stupid to remember how the game was and so their attempts to reason those features are nothing more than nostalgic memories of failed and poor game play features. He may not have intended this, but this is a common fallacy applied by people who do not want those older features and lack the abilty to properly reason why modern mainstream features are better.
Dissolution said:Its origins are from a game 20 years ago, this is a new game based on an old model and I dont think that necessarily means everything has to be precisely as it it was remembered 2 decades ago. The devs themselves have stated this game is based on their experience and lessons learned spanning over those 20 years and multiple games. Some features may or may not be relevant in 2019 the same as they were in 1999. When others have a different idea of what is or is not relevant its ok to agree to disagree. That doesnt make them stupid, ignorant or arrogant. That makes them just like everyone else on the forum but with a different perspective.
Time is an irrelevant argument. Again, I don't see the logic in this argument. Is Chess an dated and obselete mechanic? Game mechanics are game mechanics, they are not a progression of time based aspects to which we throw out the old for the new. Modern gaming isn't "new", it is merely a combination of action/arcade play with instant gratification. Those games always existed in one form or another, so this idea that somehow modern games are "advanced" is pure ignorance of gaming history and the concepts to which game play exists. You can have a different perspective, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. This constant need to down play any feature from EQ as being somehow backwards, dated and regressive is pure fallacy and ignorance. The same thing was argued with Turn based games, that they were systems of the past that were due to technoligical limitations (which is founded purely on ignorance of the games that existed back then) and it was used to claim that anyone who wanted such a game was stuck in the past. It is a fallacy and people using blanket fallacies to dismiss arguments is not an opinion, it is just ignorance.
Dissolution said:I personally do like some of those features as well and understand they might not agree with everyone. I also disagree with some features but see they are extremely important to others. I know what responses to expect if I dont agree with certain people on the forum. I was not a kid either then. I really dont care if anyone thinks they know who I was 20 years ago or who I am today. Darch assumes I was a child when I played with these features and the general attitude tends to be a little elitist on the forum so I just ignore the undertones because it doesnt hurt my ego and continue to say my piece because its just as valid as everyone elses.
Everything is a matter of taste in game play, what you are seeking, what you desire. There are many types of game play focuses and goals in game play. There is no such thing as outdated game play, just social trends in acceptance. Arcade/action games designed a certain way have been pushed for years and it has developed a certain expectation in play, but the fact that the majority of the market has pushed a certain type of play does not make it better, nor does it make it "modern" in that same sense.
As I said, the argument used about "child like" memories is to dismiss the persons argument. It is to say "Nah, you don't want that... you really don't! You just can't remember how it was and how horrible it was, you really are just confused and don't understand". I don't get insulted by it, I just point out the ignorance of peoples responses when they use that fallacy and everyone should make it a point. Not to attack Darch, but to point out how his "opinion" is invalid and yes, people can have invalid opinions.
Darch said:Tanix said:I played EQ for 5 years straight.
I stopped playing when I could no longer take the extreme dumbing down of the game.
So yes, I would still enjoy the game if it were like EQ at release, in fact that is the only reason I am considering this game. If this game is like what you are asking for, I won't be playing it. There are tons of MMOs designed around the idealogy you are arguing for.
The game continued to be "dumbed down" because they were hemorrhaging players to "dumbed down" games. They still have quite a player base, but those players currently enjoy what some consider "dumb". I too left because of the "dumbing down" of the game (in particular allowing PvE servers transfer to PvP) but we are the minority. As much as I would love PRotF to appeal to everyone's desires, they need to attract and maintain a subscription base while keeping true to the tenents they proposed (not the ones other people are hoping for).
This is not what they are doing. From the start this game was being designed for a niche crowd, in the spirit of games like EQ and Vanguard and for the purpose of what is commonly missing in MMOs today. It was marketed as such, actually carried by its supporters initially because of this, all the while the mainstream groups were denouncing the game, saying it looked like garabage, that it is vaporware, was a failure, nobody would play, and that Brad was a charlatan.
Now Brad saying he wants new generations to experience this game does not mean he is trying to market to mainstream concepts. He is merely saying that he thinks that many gamers today who only know the modern dumbed down games can find enjoyment in a game like this.
So, if VR dismisses these points we are making and disregards the niche to which this game exists on and attempts to market to the mainstream market to chase the money, well... they will lose most of the founding people who supported this game, the ones who would be here after the mainstream locusts come through, consume the game and move on (this is how mainstream is nowadays, people game hop because the games are shallow garabge and they consume it and get bored quickly).
If VR markets to mainstream by trying to appeal to mainstream design. They need only say so and I am gone. I have no desire to go through YET AGAIN, another cycle of a developers promises of game play only to end up being kicked to the curb while the WoW crowd comes in, demands mainstream and destroys the game. I have seen numerous games be killed over the decades due to this and that is exactly what you argument suggests, that they need to market to mainstream or the game will fail, that we have to accept mainstream designs or the game won't succeed. Been there, done that, not buying it.. literally.
We have a continuum here.
On one extreme, VR "dumbs down" so many things for "quality of life" objectives and to appeal to more potential players that Pantheon is not a *lot* better than current MMOs from the perspective of most of us on these forums. In which case many of us do not stick around that long after release and the game is reliant on the success of its appeal to more mainstream players and those of us that are so committed to Pantheon and its lore that we stay here despite the watered down gameplay. Should this happen - and I consider it very low probabilty but not impossible - each of us needs to decide whether Pantheon is worth playing for the world itself and its lore, the appeal to EQ and Vanguard nostalgia, and whatever areas are not dumbed down.
On the other extreme, VR keeps as many elements of old EQ as it can without fear of IP lawsuits, and goes for "old school" over quality of life on virtually every single issue. Death is really painful, corpse runs are mandatory not optional, no mounts, no rapid travel at all other than between continents, no instancing whatsoever, trains galore, enormously slow leveling, not much of an "endgame", no solo play other than the ability to kill mobs far lower than you are for almost no experience or loot, resource nodes are few and far between and extremely contested, etc. Should this happen, and I consider it even less likely than the other extreme, Pantheon will be reliant on the ability to keep enough of us and a smallish number of contrarians that try the game out and like it, to survive. I hasten to add that I personally support more than a few of the design features mentioned in this paragraph - it is the combination of so many of them that I consider "extreme".
With a high degree of probability Pantheon will take neither route to failure. It will be considerably slower and more challenging than extreme one. But considerably less ...draconian ...than extreme two. A few of us may lament the "shameless cave-in to modern mediocrity" and leave but most of us will be content in recognizing that it is far *better* than alternative games even if not one of us considers it absolutely perfect.
What remains to be seen is what areas VR chooses to leave purely "old school" so that Pantheon retains its own distinctive identity and is not simply another standard MMO, albeit with its own lore, and what areas VR "waters down" so that it can attract enough players to survive, and since only a handful of *us* support old-line purity on *every* issue.
dorotea said:We have a continuum here.
On one extreme, VR "dumbs down" so many things for "quality of life" objectives and to appeal to more potential players that Pantheon is not a *lot* better than current MMOs from the perspective of most of us on these forums. In which case many of us do not stick around that long after release and the game is reliant on the success of its appeal to more mainstream players and those of us that are so committed to Pantheon and its lore that we stay here despite the watered down gameplay. Should this happen - and I consider it very low probabilty but not impossible - each of us needs to decide whether Pantheon is worth playing for the world itself and its lore, the appeal to EQ and Vanguard nostalgia, and whatever areas are not dumbed down.
On the other extreme, VR keeps as many elements of old EQ as it can without fear of IP lawsuits, and goes for "old school" over quality of life on virtually every single issue. Death is really painful, corpse runs are mandatory not optional, no mounts, no rapid travel at all other than between continents, no instancing whatsoever, trains galore, enormously slow leveling, not much of an "endgame", no solo play other than the ability to kill mobs far lower than you are for almost no experience or loot, resource nodes are few and far between and extremely contested, etc. Should this happen, and I consider it even less likely than the other extreme, Pantheon will be reliant on the ability to keep enough of us and a smallish number of contrarians that try the game out and like it, to survive. I hasten to add that I personally support more than a few of the design features mentioned in this paragraph - it is the combination of so many of them that I consider "extreme".
With a high degree of probability Pantheon will take neither route to failure. It will be considerably slower and more challenging than extreme one. But considerably less ...draconian ...than extreme two. A few of us may lament the "shameless cave-in to modern mediocrity" and leave but most of us will be content in recognizing that it is far *better* than alternative games even if not one of us considers it absolutely perfect.
What remains to be seen is what areas VR chooses to leave purely "old school" so that Pantheon retains its own distinctive identity and is not simply another standard MMO, albeit with its own lore, and what areas VR "waters down" so that it can attract enough players to survive, and since only a handful of *us* support old-line purity on *every* issue.
Mocking is not an argument, but I can see how that is all you have left.
If you think EQ design is failure, then you have shown exactly why you are fake in your arguments for old school design. You always claim you want the same things, but then in every detail of those arguments, you support mainstream.
Stop trying to fool people here Dorotea, I know you want mainstream design, you show so in EVERY discussion we have of the details.
At least let the corpses last a week. When I die in MMO’s I get so worked up! I can’t log in for at least five days. I expect the corpse to last forever in some form, until it is looted.
((Mocking is not an argument, but I can see how that is all you have left.))
Every word was serious - I meant no mockery and rereading it I see no mockery
((If you think EQ design is failure, then you have shown exactly why you are fake in your arguments for old school design. You always claim you want the same things, but then in every detail of those arguments, you support mainstream. ))
My "extreme" model for going much too far to make *every* element of the game slow, painful and difficult went far beyond Everquest. Surely you know this - you have said that you played Everquest, I believe.
You also know that I argue in favor of many design elements that are not mainstream - though when I agree with you I get silence and when I disagree with you I get posts like this.
Unless you feel that very slow leveling, slow travel, severe death penalty including deleveling, eliminating class instant travel abilities because they make the world too small, and the like are all mainstream features today. In which case I wonder what you are playing because I surely haven't found those games.
dorotea said:((Mocking is not an argument, but I can see how that is all you have left.))
Every word was serious - I meant no mockery and rereading it I see no mockery
((If you think EQ design is failure, then you have shown exactly why you are fake in your arguments for old school design. You always claim you want the same things, but then in every detail of those arguments, you support mainstream. ))
My "extreme" model for going much too far to make *every* element of the game slow, painful and difficult went far beyond Everquest. Surely you know this - you have said that you played Everquest, I believe.
You also know that I argue in favor of many design elements that are not mainstream - though when I agree with you I get silence and when I disagree with you I get posts like this.
Unless you feel that very slow leveling, slow travel, severe death penalty including deleveling, eliminating class instant travel abilities because they make the world too small, and the like are all mainstream features today. In which case I wonder what you are playing because I surely haven't found those games.
You claim you want meaningful old school designs. You however when pressed argue for mainstream concepts. This is a fact.
dorotea said:Unless you feel that very slow leveling, slow travel, severe death penalty including deleveling, eliminating class instant travel abilities because they make the world too small, and the like are all mainstream features today. In which case I wonder what you are playing because I surely haven't found those games.
When we argue travel, you argue components that invalidate it, When we argue death penalties, you fight Corpse recovery with items, but want exp penalties and deleving (which is meaningless as I have explained to you multiple times), whjen we argue travel issues, you say you want a wide open world, but then argue speeding up travel on multiple issues.
You CLAIM you want "meaning" yet you ultimately argue otherwise. You are a cheerleader for one team, but a supporter of another.
I am consistent, so are you and you are mainstream focused. That is a fact.
I think the issue here comes from the differing opinions on what is required to preserve the integrity of the old school model. Is it corpse runs? Slower game tempo? Greater difficulty in the mob versus player power? Is it even in any of these details or are we obsessing over trees while missing the forest?
I chuckle a lot of times when I hear the denigration of the current “mainstream” MMO model as opposed to the old school model of MMO and how it has dumbed down. I don’t agree. I don’t think its dumbed down at all, I think it has just evolved in such a manner so that it has lost the spirit of what the MMO was when games of EQ’s caliber were the king of the hill. I can 3 box EQ classic while drinking heavily, eating snacks, watching Netflix and intermittently painting a miniature figurine so I’m not sure it’s like the difference between rocket science and finger painting.
The two models have vastly different missions. The old school model is looking to achieve the mission of an adventure, more role playing oriented and immersion focused. With a setting forcing the community to group and work together almost as a digital version of a tabletop RPG. Slower tactical dungeon crawling. Fast twitch “Gaming” skills have no place in this model.
The mission of the newer MMO is to attract a younger target audience (much younger than us) who grew up on Call of Duty instead of Pac-Man. They are gamers. Fast twitch “gaming” skills are a major component when proving skill with their generation. They are not role playing. The EQ-esque tempo will never hold their attention spans. To them the old school model is by far the dumbed down version. If it’s more effective to get it done solo and not have to deal with others than it’s a no-brainer. The gaming mentality isn’t dumber as much as it is much less patient and much less tolerant of wasted time. They are playing to win a game more than have an experience. For us who played EQ, patience was a part of the experience. Sometimes a camp was more a battle of attrition than it was a battle with the NPC. EQ lost its way when it found itself in a situation it wasn’t accustomed to. Heavy competition. EQ’s sideways changes were a knee jerk reaction for survival.
Reality is, along with the competitive MMO market, technological advances and race between games to have the newest and coolest feature, way to advance fastest, way to avoid others if you’re a soloer etc. etc. MMOs stopped being what it started as.
So really what preserves the “integrity” of the old school model? For some of us, I’m not even necessarily sure it’s a particular feature because I think a lot of it was community based.
I agree with Darch (obviously not with his condescending assumptions on age), but with the romanticism when it comes to how we view our MMO experience with EQ. I believe the consequences, slower tempo, mystery and lack of instruction that came with that experience is likely never going to be matched. Even if replicated we are chasing a ghost on a first-time experience that has already been experienced. Corpse runs and/or decay will add to the challenge, consequence and risk vs. reward, but ultimately wont recreate for some what they may really be seeking (no indirect finger pointing there, that could be many people...myself included).
Bazgrim had linked something somewhere stating that VR has a plan to be profitable with 100k subscriptions. I think if VR sticks to its guns and focuses entirely on this niche group we will have something relatively close to what we are looking for with nobody getting precisely what we want. I think that a low pop plan is what they need to target and if they stick with it and over time they may attract others for mastering what it is rather than by catering to attract others.
We will lose some once nostalgia wears off, we will lose some because really no game will ever bring that first experience back and lose some because its not hard core enough, or too hard core. I think they will get some players from the current gaming generation audience but if they are looking to appeal to this audience they will never attract them without sacrificing the core mission they are stating at this time. There is no 1 game that can satisfy both factions. The old school and new school are far too different. Most of the features in the modern MMO are polar opposites of what the old model requires in order to preserve its integrity in my opinion.
I don’t think EQ should be looked at as the format for success in the same way as say…chess. I think EQ did a lot right. I think it brings alot to the table as far as what to baseline many of the formula from, but I also that there is likely room for improvement on it as well. Theres always more than one way to skin a cat. Preserving what many here are looking for I think isn't going to be just in the matters of consequence and lack of convenience. Although I think that does play a major part as well there are a lot of variables involved.
Excuse my abuse of digital ink. I think I just used this as a means to unwind after a long weekend.
Dissolution said:
I think the issue here comes from the differing opinions on what is required to preserve the integrity of the old school model. Is it corpse runs? Slower game tempo? Greater difficulty in the mob versus player power? Is it even in any of these details or are we obsessing over trees while missing the forest?
I chuckle a lot of times when I hear the denigration of the current “mainstream” MMO model as opposed to the old school model of MMO and how it has dumbed down. I don’t agree. I don’t think its dumbed down at all, I think it has just evolved in such a manner so that it has lost the spirit of what the MMO was when games of EQ’s caliber were the king of the hill. I can 3 box EQ classic while drinking heavily, eating snacks, watching Netflix and intermittently painting a miniature figurine so I’m not sure it’s like the difference between rocket science and finger painting.
The two models have vastly different missions. The old school model is looking to achieve the mission of an adventure, more role playing oriented and immersion focused. With a setting forcing the community to group and work together almost as a digital version of a tabletop RPG. Slower tactical dungeon crawling. Fast twitch “Gaming” skills have no place in this model.
The mission of the newer MMO is to attract a younger target audience (much younger than us) who grew up on Call of Duty instead of Pac-Man. They are gamers. Fast twitch “gaming” skills are a major component when proving skill with their generation. They are not role playing. The EQ-esque tempo will never hold their attention spans. To them the old school model is by far the dumbed down version. If it’s more effective to get it done solo and not have to deal with others than it’s a no-brainer. The gaming mentality isn’t dumber as much as it is much less patient and much less tolerant of wasted time. They are playing to win a game more than have an experience. For us who played EQ, patience was a part of the experience. Sometimes a camp was more a battle of attrition than it was a battle with the NPC. EQ lost its way when it found itself in a situation it wasn’t accustomed to. Heavy competition. EQ’s sideways changes were a knee jerk reaction for survival.
Reality is, along with the competitive MMO market, technological advances and race between games to have the newest and coolest feature, way to advance fastest, way to avoid others if you’re a soloer etc. etc. MMOs stopped being what it started as.
So really what preserves the “integrity” of the old school model? For some of us, I’m not even necessarily sure it’s a particular feature because I think a lot of it was community based.
I agree with Darch (obviously not with his condescending assumptions on age), but with the romanticism when it comes to how we view our MMO experience with EQ. I believe the consequences, slower tempo, mystery and lack of instruction that came with that experience is likely never going to be matched. Even if replicated we are chasing a ghost on a first-time experience that has already been experienced. Corpse runs and/or decay will add to the challenge, consequence and risk vs. reward, but ultimately wont recreate for some what they may really be seeking (no indirect finger pointing there, that could be many people...myself included).
Bazgrim had linked something somewhere stating that VR has a plan to be profitable with 100k subscriptions. I think if VR sticks to its guns and focuses entirely on this niche group we will have something relatively close to what we are looking for with nobody getting precisely what we want. I think that a low pop plan is what they need to target and if they stick with it and over time they may attract others for mastering what it is rather than by catering to attract others.
We will lose some once nostalgia wears off, we will lose some because really no game will ever bring that first experience back and lose some because its not hard core enough, or too hard core. I think they will get some players from the current gaming generation audience but if they are looking to appeal to this audience they will never attract them without sacrificing the core mission they are stating at this time. There is no 1 game that can satisfy both factions. The old school and new school are far too different. Most of the features in the modern MMO are polar opposites of what the old model requires in order to preserve its integrity in my opinion.
I don’t think EQ should be looked at as the format for success in the same way as say…chess. I think EQ did a lot right. I think it brings alot to the table as far as what to baseline many of the formula from, but I also that there is likely room for improvement on it as well. Theres always more than one way to skin a cat. Preserving what many here are looking for I think isn't going to be just in the matters of consequence and lack of convenience. Although I think that does play a major part as well there are a lot of variables involved.
Excuse my abuse of digital ink. I think I just used this as a means to unwind after a long weekend.
Very good points, I agree on most of what you said. I call modern games dumbed down because they are arcade games (ie less is about thinking/planning and more about response times). In fact, games like Dark Souls (where you can beat the game at level 1 naked) are really just arcade games packaged in a fake cRPG wrapper. As you said, they look at difficulty in different ways, by how fast you have to react and that I see as dumbed down, a "physical" aspect of play, not a thinking one.
That is not to say I don't find merit in action/arcade games, but I aslo don't view every game as needing action/arcade as the younger generation does. I like turn based and real time games, tactical RNG based systems AND arcade based systems, but I like them in different things at different times. The market is saturated with action/arcade MMOs, and I would like a more traditional cRPG MMO.
Also, I don't view EQ as the "Holy Grail" of games, just that it did a lot of things right with numerous subtle design elements. Everything from its death penalties to travel time, mob spacing, combat time, rare spawns and place holders, sparse and wide gear progression, etc...
The game did a very good job in those areas capturing the spirit of AD&D game play, but as you said, there is room for improvement. I however do not see improvement when the arguments to EQs systems are that they are too harsh and need to be made easier.
As I have pointe out in another post, I see the problem with peoples "suggestions" in many game systems as not a desire to actually improve game play, but to find ways to circumvent it.
If we talk about travel time, people use arguments to promote why they shouldn't have to do it for long, or should be able to eventually circumvent it (ie max levels wanting fast travel). If we talk about death penalties, the idea is always to make it where the players penalty is reasonably optional (ie experience penalty only, no requiring to pick up gear). If we talk about deep hard to get to areas in dungeons, the focus is on how they can make it easier for people to get in and out to group.
I don't see arguments for game play, I see arguments for how they can circumvent it and when pressed, I see arguments about how they are adults, with responsibilities and don't have time to hold to such risk vs reward.
The list goes on and on, but what I see is constant QoL arguments, not game play ones and that is the conflict we are having here. Do we want a game? Or do we want to be simply entertained? While they seem like the same thing, they are very different in their basic definitions and logical forms.
The reality is that VR purposely stopped using the terms "niche" and "old-school" to describe and market their game. People who enjoyed playing games like Call of Duty, Dark Souls, and League of Legends are part of the target audience for Pantheon. Here is an excerpt from one of Brad's blog entries:
"But our target audience is bigger than that group. We are casting a broader net, so to speak. We are absolutely convinced that a large group of younger players will end up loving the game, assuming we can reach them, show them something that seems fun and interesting, provide answers to their questions no matter how simple or sophisticated. These people love Dark Souls, Call of Duty, the better MOBAs, the survival games -- they crave both challenge and risk and reward, but they also crave experiencing these things together with other real people. There's just something that's part of human nature where if you experience something exciting, dangerous, tension-filled, etc. and you experience that with other actual people, those events have a greater impact and create much deeper and longer lasting memories. So our challenge (the dev team and the community's) is to figure out how to reach these groups and explain to them what they're looking at, why things work the way they work, and how much FUN these games can be.
And just so you don't think I'm too crazy, no, I don't think the vast majority of these audiences and demographics will all be magically drawn to the game. But, as I've posted before, we're not making a game that is all things to all people. If we can reach a reasonable percentage of those who already do love Pantheon AND those who would once given a chance to experience it, then we will have success, the game will grow, expansions with new content and crazy new features will be released, and we'll have another game on our hands that's still running even 17 years after launch. 15 million online gamers (a conservative number, btw)? 10% is still 1.5M. 1% is 150,000 gamers. EQ was very successful and profitable at 150,000 gamers, peaking at 550k. Small numbers yes when compared later to WoW, but plenty large enough to employ a dedicated dev team, live teams, expansion teams, support and GM/CS teams, etc. etc. Especially a company like Visionary Realms, where we run lean and mean. We don't have huge overheads, a publisher who takes a huge cut, needless bureaucracy, 9-5ers, people who won't wear multiple hats and do whatever it takes.
And while I'm convinced we will be much closer to 10% than 1%, probably even higher, the point is that while we don't need a massive ton of people to achieve success, we do need to make a large number of people aware and familiar with the game. They need to be aware and have at least a general understanding before they can determine if the game looks interesting enough to try. That's where you guys come in, the existing community -- welcome these people in, take the time to help them understand, tell them some great experiences you and your guildmates had years ago and why you still talk about that shared experience today, how it truly impacted you. How many of your friends you still hang out with are people you met online and in-game years and years ago because the game was social and encouraged making true friends that you could count on, in and outside of the game. Don't get mired down into debate over what are usually minor issues, or mechanics and features we purposely haven't released the details on yet. Don't look down on the younger folk, even if they are only used to Destiny-like hopping around and firing as fast as you can but not really being part of true teamwork and tactics. Heck, even if they come across entitled. Or skeptical. Or just generally negative. React respectfully and explain and it may be surprising to you how positive the reaction will be."
While it's true that VR could afford to keep the lights on with 100k subscribers, they seem to be shooting for a much higher base than that. The fact that VR is looking to appeal to modern gamers doesn't mean that the game is taking on a mainstream focus with design. There are tons of modern gamers who crave something more challenging, more immersive, and more focused on teamwork. There are many gamers who have never experienced an "open-world" MMO and that is probably the single most important distinction that will set Pantheon apart from its competitors. The game tenets are sacred and those are what we should be looking at when it comes to managing expectations. Beyond that, it's also important to consider that Brad McQuaid was behind both Everquest and Vanguard. While there were many similarities between those games, there were also plenty of differences. When it comes to Pantheon, I think it's fair to assume that we'll probably see the best of both worlds. We'll see a return to many of the old-school concepts such as corpse runs, open-world competition, long leveling curves, and player/role interdependence. At the same time, there will most certainly be tweaks and revisions to all of those things.
Why would it ever make sense to assume otherwise? There is zero doubt in my mind that there were lessons learned in EQ that helped shape the design philosophy of Vanguard. While there was a valiant effort to try and leverage those lessons as opportunities for growth and improvement, it should go without saying that not everything went exactly as planned. In some cases, they took things too far, such as with quest hubs. So when it comes to Pantheon, I think we'll see a middle ground between EQ and Vanguard. When it comes to the death penalty, in particular, Brad has repeatedly cited a middle-ground between those two games as what they hope to achieve here in Pantheon. So we already know that there will be a corpse but it's unlikely that we'll see "naked corpse runs." The middle-ground has already been alluded to by Brad -- corpses that have a chunk of XP attached to them rather than gear. This doesn't mean that naked corpse runs are officially ruled out but for the sake of managing realistic expectations, Brad specifically said that "naked corpse runs are probably too extreme." If we know there is going to be a middle-ground and that some sort of compromise is in order, it's important to be open-minded with how that could end up panning out. I feel very strongly that XP loss could be much more impactful in Pantheon than it was in Everquest so the middle ground that was alluded to sits really well with me. At the same time, there are a few other twists that I am also strongly in favor of. I think de-leveling should absolutely be a thing in Pantheon. As far as corpse decay, I think that it could make sense in this game and hope to see it.
People should be careful in their assumptions when they suggest that XP loss would make the death penalty obsolete. I take those comments with a grain of salt because I know that the people claiming as much aren't really qualified to make that assessment, especially when we consider that the Chief Creative Officer that is developing the game suggests otherwise. When someone tries to undermine that ... it honestly comes off as delusional to me because it's so dreadfully obvious that they are using EQ as a baseline when they make such a claim. They are stuck in another time, another game, and aren't willing to accept the reality that we're in a new age and discussing a brand new game. So maybe we end up seeing corpse runs in Pantheon, but with a twist. Maybe the XP component of the penalty is more intense to compensate for the change that would remove gear loss from the equation. Maybe de-leveling makes the cut, and maybe corpse decay makes the cut. Maybe naked corpse runs make the cut. Nobody really knows what will happen with any degree of certainty but when we consider the breadcrumbs that have been revealed over the years, the picture that has been painted clearly suggests that we're going to see something different than what was observed in EQ.
Compromises are in order. Whether it's the death penalty, fast travel, trade, solo viability, contestability ... it doesn't matter. We should expect whatever VR has determined as a "pain point" to be alleviated by some degree while still maintaining a healthy semblance of the underlying principles that make things sticky and great. If people aren't willing to accept change then they are going to be disappointed. That's fine, it is what it is. People can be disappointed. If someone finds themselves in an "extreme" crowd that is unwilling to make a compromise, that is their own burden. They should be realistic about what Pantheon is and how it has been marketed. We need to embrace change and evolution and keep an open mind when it comes time to experience the game firsthand. Pantheon is going to be an amazing game and I wish VR a ton of success -- Pantheon is the most anticipated MMO in development right now and I really hope that VR accomplishes their goal of trying to evolve the genre.
oneADseven said:The reality is that VR purposely stopped using the terms "niche" and "old-school" to describe and market their game. People who enjoyed playing games like Call of Duty, Dark Souls, and League of Legends are part of the target audience for Pantheon. Here is an excerpt from one of Brad's blog entries:
Well, golly Brad, I didn't know you scrapped the entire premise of Pantheon to chase after mainstream! /sarc
You really need to work on context oneADseven, you are the worst about twisting the tenants and VR posts into your own expectation. Oh and by the way, his comments were concerning the discussions some of us were having on MMORPG.com at that time (my posting name was Sinist there).
He isn't saying they are targeting the mainstream market as a deisgn goal, he is saying that if they give Pantheon a chance, he believes they can come to love why games like EQ and Vanguard were loved. He is saying that that the spirit to which made EQ and VG is a solid concept of purpose in design and that given the chance modern gamers of today, of all walks can come to find why we "the niche crowd" beleive those things to be of value.
I believe this too. I think that as much as mainstreamers whine and throw tantrums over the old risk vs reward and choice and consequence development of games like EQ, that given the chance, they will come to love that concept of play because it is far more rewarding than the bland garbage out there today.
I know right now that if the context you are arguing was the goal, a lot of people here would drop this game in a blink of an eye. You again, are twisting the context to fit your own individual perspective.
I'm not twisting anything. He specifically referenced their target market and how they are casting a broader net to include people who enjoy Call of Duty, Dark Souls, and the better MOBA's. If you look at the numbers that he thinks they can achieve, it's close to the 1.5 million mark. That's nearly triple the peak of EQ. Again, VR has purposely stopped using the terms "niche" and "old-school" -- they are confident that the game they are designing will resonate with a certain amount of what some would consider "mainstream gamers." Please notice how I said that those folks were considered part of the target audience.
Tanix said:He isn't saying they are targeting the mainstream market as a deisgn goal, he is saying that if they give Pantheon a chance, he believes they can come to love why games like EQ and Vanguard were loved. He is saying that that the spirit to which made EQ and VG is a solid concept of purpose in design and that given the chance modern gamers of today, of all walks can come to find why we "the niche crowd" beleive those things to be of value.
Who is twisting context to fit their own individual perspective? It seemed pretty obvious to me that Brad was suggesting that the target market for Pantheon goes well beyond a large group of old-school gamers. That's why he said that their target market is bigger than that group, and how they are absolutely convinced that a large group of younger players will end up loving this game, and then referenced people who enjoy a bunch of those "mainstream" games. Putting the pieces together isn't exactly rocket science and your accusation of contextomy has zero merit. Again, like I said in my last post, the fact that they are targeting this much larger crowd does not mean that Pantheon is being "designed" with a mainstream focus.
This narrative that mainstream gamers are whining children that throw tantrums is patently false. Games like Call of Duty and the better MOBA's are notoriously competitive but also feature a high degree of challenge, risk vs reward, and cooperation. Being able to enjoy those qualities in a massive/persistent open world will most certainly be attractive to many modern gamers. That is the difference to consider here. It seems like VR is more intent on attracting the "modern gamer" who enjoys challenge, risk vs reward, competition, cooperation, and most importantly a "shared experience" with others than they are the folks who enjoy "mainstream MMO design." They aren't the same thing.
Your constant denigration of mainstream gamers is very much resemblant of the "community built upon exclusion" nonsense that we should be avoiding. Pantheon will hopefully evolve the genre and redefine what "mainstream" even means in the context of MMO gaming. Many of the people playing WoW are sick of it. There is a reason that Pantheon has been the most anticipated MMO in development for several years now. You can draw as many conclusions on what that means as you would like but it's pretty obvious that this game isn't being marketed as a niche product for a niche audience. We want to attract those MOBA players, the CoD players, the Dark Souls players. We want to invite them in and make them feel welcome as part of the community, not unwanted trespassers that threaten your vision and precious ideals.