Liav said:I never played WoW, but I'm familiar with its mechanics.
Vanguard had a comparable number of abilities but the combat systems themselves are nothing alike, basically.
I still disagree about the targeting but eh, it's whatever.
Im neutral about the dual targeting...thats like EQs target of target right?
I think they have said you can only have 12 skills keyed up at a time, so you will have to change them in and out like you had to in EQ
what was different or special about the vanguard combat? was it more action based?
Sevens said:Im neutral about the dual targeting...thats like EQs target of target right?
It's kindof like the health of target's target in EQ. But in EQ you still only had the one active target. With this two target system you can keep an active enemy and an active ally on target at the same time, so spells get directed at the appropriate targets without needing to cycle between them. Theoretically, a health of target's target could still be implemented on top of this dual-targeting system.
Sevens said:Im neutral about the dual targeting...thats like EQs target of target right?
Yeah, even better actually. Basically you had an "offensive" and "defensive" target. Any hostile actions would be directed to the offensive target, while any beneficial actions were directed to your defensive target. You could debuff/damage an enemy and then cast a heal without having to switch targets to your tank.
Sevens said:I think they have said you can only have 12 skills keyed up at a time, so you will have to change them in and out like you had to in EQ
Yeah, in EQ it was only spells that were subject to that limit but it makes sense if they did that for all skills in Pantheon. That's cool.
Sevens said:what was different or special about the vanguard combat? was it more action based?
Well, just more buttons to press to optimize your performance overall. Playing a Rogue in EQ amounted to using an autohotkey macro to press backstab every X seconds, and staying out of AOEs. It's not really a ton of responsibility or talent required to do this.
In Vanguard, you had to choose your ability usage to maximize your performance in any given situation. This applied to all classes, from Rogues to Monks to anything else. A Rogue who uses his DOT chain on a mob that will die in 10 seconds isn't very smart, for instance.
Group grinding is in the game right?? .. not just group dungeons?
Sevens said:Liav said:I never played WoW, but I'm familiar with its mechanics.
Vanguard had a comparable number of abilities but the combat systems themselves are nothing alike, basically.
I still disagree about the targeting but eh, it's whatever.
Im neutral about the dual targeting...thats like EQs target of target right?
I think they have said you can only have 12 skills keyed up at a time, so you will have to change them in and out like you had to in EQ
what was different or special about the vanguard combat? was it more action based?
In Vanguard combat was more reactionary. You had skills you could only use after a parry and stuff like that. Also skills would cause a kind of weakness and also take advantage of another so working together with other classes. was beneficial.
Liav said:Nimryl said:To which game are you referring?Group grinding is in the game right??
Pantheon.. just re-reading the tenets/features... doesnt really make it clear.
Visionary Realms is 989Studios in 2016..
Everquest had it limitations, due to the egnine and scope of development, etc. So did Vanguard. Today, those limitations don't exist on a 64bit game world. So you can still use the base line/core mechanics of EQ... and then go about adding depth of game play. (EQ+VG =Pnthn).
I want Pantheon NOT EQ3.
I say that with the understanding of:
As long as it fits the tenets and features the devs have listed and has an oldschool themepark feel (EQish). Then any and all ideas should at least be considered and put forward where they make sense or fit the lore or, etc etc. Though I cant really see any Value of pulling ideas from any MMO younger than say VG. I think at least basic ideas (and maybe fleshed out more for Pantheon) from everything from table top to UO to AC to FFXI to EQ to WoW to VG. Now that being said you cant draw everything or even most things from those games. But when and where it makes sense, then do so. Lets not forget that the devs have some fresh ideas too like the atmospheres, colored mana, and perception system.
Bluefyre said:Sevens said:Liav said:I never played WoW, but I'm familiar with its mechanics.
Vanguard had a comparable number of abilities but the combat systems themselves are nothing alike, basically.
I still disagree about the targeting but eh, it's whatever.
Im neutral about the dual targeting...thats like EQs target of target right?
I think they have said you can only have 12 skills keyed up at a time, so you will have to change them in and out like you had to in EQ
what was different or special about the vanguard combat? was it more action based?
In Vanguard combat was more reactionary. You had skills you could only use after a parry and stuff like that. Also skills would cause a kind of weakness and also take advantage of another so working together with other classes. was beneficial.
Vanguard's combat brought you back into the game world & into gameplay. Instead of stairing at a wall.
To be honest with myself and my expectations, if VRI released an almost one for one copy of EQ with it's abilities/roles/grouping etc I would still pay 20-25 bucks a month to play it. Even if the only thing new was the quests and lands. That to me personally would be leagues better than any game out right now. Again my opinion, however that's how I feel.
This thread is going to be all over the place. Some EQ1 mechanics were great, some classes played better than others. Do I want it all back? No. Parts yes, parts which made sense, parts which reminded me I was in control.
I could go through mechanic after mechanic, pulled from multiple games, putting a check next to the things I want and an X next do those I don't and I bet I could get the list to 100.
What is my hope, though, is that the spirit of EQ1 is brought forward, keeping the faithful in mind when decided how things should world. Improve what needs improved, but keep what worked and add only that which makes sense.
Take heart. These armchair developer/designers wax poetic with their rose-colored histories all day on these forums. Given the subtext of Pantheon's FAQ and disclosures from Brad and Kilsin, the "uphill in the snow both ways" crowd should probably be hollering in the Saga of Lucimia forums. Sadly, until we log in ourselves, we'll only have the "official" posts, FAQ, blogs, to block out the hijacking of real discussion by myopic EQ3 advocates.
Personally, I have faith that Brad+team will create something completely new. And just like VG was the spritual successor to EQ, Pantheon will be a successor-in-spirit: not a sequel, not a rewrite.
I want pantheon not eq3, All i really want from the old games is the group leveling. i want a auction house i wants mounts, i think allot of people on this forum have rose tinted glasses that could ruin this game before it gets going.
read the tenants and things they want to do it will never be a eq clone with the possible exception being the sense of adventure that you are in a living breathing world full of wonder
for EQ players remember your 1st boat ride or peeking into the karanas or befallen or mistmore having to have that finely tuned fight or flight feeling in your gut.running the zone walls because going out in the open made you want to poop a little!
thats my biggest hope for pantheon.that it makes me wanna poop a little wherever i go:)
Vandraad said:This thread is going to be all over the place. Some EQ1 mechanics were great, some classes played better than others. Do I want it all back? No. Parts yes, parts which made sense, parts which reminded me I was in control.
I could go through mechanic after mechanic, pulled from multiple games, putting a check next to the things I want and an X next do those I don't and I bet I could get the list to 100.
What is my hope, though, is that the spirit of EQ1 is brought forward, keeping the faithful in mind when decided how things should world. Improve what needs improved, but keep what worked and add only that which makes sense.
I think my main point was that although it is absolutely a good idea to pull ideas from other games that have come before when it comes to mechanics it is also a good idea to think up and develop completely new mechanics for games that no one has done before. I'm going to use diplomacy in Vanguard as an example of that. I really enjoyed the diplomacy game and if something new like that existed in Pantheon I think it would add a lot of extra depth to the game.
Cromulent said:Vandraad said:This thread is going to be all over the place. Some EQ1 mechanics were great, some classes played better than others. Do I want it all back? No. Parts yes, parts which made sense, parts which reminded me I was in control.
I could go through mechanic after mechanic, pulled from multiple games, putting a check next to the things I want and an X next do those I don't and I bet I could get the list to 100.
What is my hope, though, is that the spirit of EQ1 is brought forward, keeping the faithful in mind when decided how things should world. Improve what needs improved, but keep what worked and add only that which makes sense.
I think my main point was that although it is absolutely a good idea to pull ideas from other games that have come before when it comes to mechanics it is also a good idea to think up and develop completely new mechanics for games that no one has done before. I'm going to use diplomacy in Vanguard as an example of that. I really enjoyed the diplomacy game and if something new like that existed in Pantheon I think it would add a lot of extra depth to the game.
Seriously no one is really wanting an EQ clone...all that I, and a few others, on here are fighting for is the game they promised us at the start. What we argue for is that any new feature brought in is properly vetted so that it fits in with the spirit of the old school mmos (EQ and Vanguard). Really the only reason most on here use EQ as a reference is that is all we know, that is when we had the most fun in an mmo so anything that distracts from that we are cautious about.
And all the ****** saying we are just wearing rose tinted glasses, dont try and tell me how I feel, what I want. We were promised a game in a certain niche and that is what we will fight for, you want just another run of the mill mmo, there are a million of them out there. Have fun
As someone who has read these forums regularly for nearly 2 years, seldom do I see EQ fans as resistant to real innovation or even change as is often suggested. Generally, when an EQ fan really objects to an idea or suggestion, its not just because its "new", its because its contrary to the design philosophy that made EQ great, and that we want to see utilized again in Pantheon.
You see, we merely want another game built on the same foundation, in the spirit of EQ (which is what Brad sold us on when he originally announced he would be making another MMO). For lack of a better answer, some might say it should "just be the way EQ was", because honestly, that is the safest bet. However, suggesting that we only want an EQ clone is silly, and most likely a strawman argument in response to a silly suggestion that clearly didn't mesh with Pantheon's stated design.
Sevens said:Seriously no one is really wanting an EQ clone...all that I, and a few others, on here are fighting for is the game they promised us at the start. What we argue for is that any new feature brought in is properly vetted so that it fits in with the spirit of the old school mmos (EQ and Vanguard). Really the only reason most on here use EQ as a reference is that is all we know, that is when we had the most fun in an mmo so anything that distracts from that we are cautious about.
OK that is fair enough. But I have certainly seen people shoot down ideas simply because they diverged from what EQ did in the past and that is a bad thing imo. Innovation is what drives the human race and is what drives us to create new and interesting things. You can take ideas from the past and expand on them and still innovate but copying is never innovation. I think that is an important point that should be made.
Sevens said:And all the ****** saying we are just wearing rose tinted glasses, dont try and tell me how I feel, what I want. We were promised a game in a certain niche and that is what we will fight for, you want just another run of the mill mmo, there are a million of them out there. Have fun
Whoa. How wrong could you be.
If you had read my previous posts (it is obvious you didn't because you are accusing me of saying you are looking through rose tinted glasses which I have never said at all in any thread on this entire forum) you would realise that I am a huge EQ fan and certainly want a hardcore MMO. In fact I am so keen for Pantheon to be a hardcore MMO I've spent $1000 to try and make sure it become a reality. This line really shows the problem that I am trying to illustrate in my post. Anyone who wants innovation and a little bit of change is instantly accussed of wanting a run of the mill MMO which is designed for casuals. Well done for proving my point for me.
Cromulent said:OK that is fair enough. But I have certainly seen people shoot down ideas simply because they diverged from what EQ did in the past and that is a bad thing imo. Innovation is what drives the human race and is what drives us to create new and interesting things. You can take ideas from the past and expand on them and still innovate but copying is never innovation. I think that is an important point that should be made.
Sevens said:And all the ****** saying we are just wearing rose tinted glasses, dont try and tell me how I feel, what I want. We were promised a game in a certain niche and that is what we will fight for, you want just another run of the mill mmo, there are a million of them out there. Have fun
Whoa. How wrong could you be.
If you had read my previous posts (it is obvious you didn't because you are accusing me of saying you are looking through rose tinted glasses which I have never said at all in any thread on this entire forum) you would realise that I am a huge EQ fan and certainly want a hardcore MMO. In fact I am so keen for Pantheon to be a hardcore MMO I've spent $1000 to try and make sure it become a reality. This line really shows the problem that I am trying to illustrate in my post. Anyone who wants innovation and a little bit of change is instantly accussed of wanting a run of the mill MMO which is designed for casuals. Well done for proving my point for me.
There is more innovation in the Pantheon difference than any MMO thats released in a decade. I've yet to see anyone get out the pitchforks over any of it.
Hieromonk said:Vanguard's combat brought you back into the game world & into gameplay. Instead of stairing at a wall.
I'd argue Vanguard also brought a lot of staring intently at your hotbars and early onset of carpal tunnel from mashing abilities following every global cooldown. I liked a lot of things about Vanguard, the combat was not one of them - despite the well designed classes.