You are so right oneADseven, nevermind me, you know best! This game is being designed for mainstream gamers! /rollseyes
Stop twisting my words. I never said that Pantheon was being designed for mainstream gamers. I said that many modern gamers are part of the target market that Pantheon is looking to attract. It should go without saying that Pantheon is taking on a more old-school approach than it is modern, but there will be compromises. The point I have been trying to make is that the tenets are sacred -- it's more about concept than implementation. Just because something doesn't align with what you remember from EQ doesn't make it trivial or obsolete. If Pantheon features corpse runs with XP attached instead of loot, and also includes de-leveling, and also includes corpse decay ... do you really think that this would qualify as "mainstream" MMO design? Is it impossible for you to imagine a world where players would feel compelled to return to their corpse for XP restoral, similar to what Brad suggested? Knowing that some sort of "compromise" is in order for the death penalty ... where they are looking for a middle ground between EQ and Vanguard, where naked corpse runs were dubbed as "probably too extreme" -- what do you realistically expect?
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:
"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.
Whether or not VR continues to use the vernacular "old school" or "niche" group, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Hell, I was amazed a game would even be considered for an "old school audience' even if we do deserve it. We are the true warriors, we not only battle NPC's but rheumatoid arthritis while doing it and scoff at the spectre of death, knowing full well he lurks at every log out and could take us in our sleep at any time from natural causes.
Just kidding. (insert laughing emoji with tears here)
Its not only just good business to have the expectation of a wider audeince but most of us would love to see the younger audience stop, take a breath and slow down for a moment to see and appreciate what we have with the old school model MMO. However, taking an old school mmo model and trying to attract a new school mmo gamer is like trying to force a young athlete to take up yoga. Until they reach a point where they are ready for it they will just criticize, complain and pick it apart explaining how it sucks. Its either something they will seek out because they are interested or they will criticize everyone who is. You just cant target any other audience than the ones who already understand the benefit and are seeking it. We will get some who "get it", but the only way to try to pull them in is by baiting them with those features they are accustomed to and that would just throw everything into a tailspin from the original intent.
I do agree with both you and Tanix. I think consequences need to be memorable. Corpse runs are a way to do this. I think there is also the possibility that until we see how an alternative to corpse runs could replace it we wont know if there is an equivelant level of suck that can be administered to make the sting of death just as memorable. I dont doubt that they could hit us with the XP bat so hard at death that I'm not begging to be doing a cross country sprint in my jammy-jams again.