Ok, I get it. Pantheon wont be EQ. Fine. EQ was the greatest, but every champ has to retire eventually.
I want an adult level game with adult level risk/reward and mystery. EQ was the closest to that I have ever seen.
I want to be made to feel like a noob again. Dont be afraid to be too harsh. Be afraid of not being harsh enough.
Or its calling it what it is. The argument has been made (that I've agreed with) numerous times in the thread as is. I love alot of what EQ did but I'm no fool to know that there are somethings that we enjoyed back then that yeah wouldn't make the most sense now in a new game.
Dullahan said:Rose colored glasses is something people throw around when they lack a solid argument.
Sure, that can be said. Yet you can't argue my points either which is why you make this general and vague statement.
But by all means try it. What part of EQ was "hard"? It's ok, we'll wait ...
Enitzu said:Dullahan said:Rose colored glasses is something people throw around when they lack a solid argument.
Sure, that can be said. Yet you can't argue my points either which is why you make this general and vague statement.
But by all means try it. What part of EQ was "hard"? It's ok, we'll wait ...
You say "we'll" like you speak for the majority. You don't.
Its easy.
EQ was harder because the mobs were stronger than the player. By virtue of mob health and damage dealing capabilities alone, the mobs were hard and encouraged and even required a cooperative effort where other games allow you to solo.
I could stop there and say thanks for playing, but I'll continue.
EQ was harder because when you died you didn't respawn right next to your corpse like, oh i dunno, every other mmo.
EQ was harder because of the number of active variables (threat, aggro, resists, fizzles, positioning, roamers, downtime etc) during combat.
EQ was harder because you couldn't just reset your personal instance to get another chance to beat the loot pinatas with a stick. The fact that everything was contested made it harder to achieve your goals.
EQ was harder because some of the most coveted items or npcs were extremely rare and required a greater devotion of time.
Now of course, I'm sure you will cry foul and try to hang me on going beyond purely mechanical "challenge" but nobody was claiming EQ was the most complicated game ever. Though, I do think you forget how complicated the game actually was during those early years. (this is one of the reasons I contend Pantheon should be even harder)
Nevertheless, those were the things that made your accomplishments feel special and the game so highly addictive. Time, after all, is one of the most important factors in the assignment of value to anything (time = money = stuff).
Enitzu said:I've pretty much backed away from these boards because of this very reason. You can not post a single thing against change and innovation without certain people going up in arms. And to those people, you really need to remove the rose tinted googles.
I was an incredibly hardcore EQ nerd for over 7 years. I raided in one of the best guilds in the world. I played 10+ hours a day and 14+ on weekends. You don't get more hardcore than I was. So to sit here and listen to people say complete bs like "EQ was a hard game" in any way, shape, or form is complete and utter bs. If you at any point thought there was any difficulty to EQ you are sadly mistaken. The hardest part to it was finding a group. Raids were plain tank and spanks. Groups consisted of the same old things time and again. UI was god aweful. Graphics were just as bad. Tedious, meaningless, and insignificant time sinks around every turn. I could go on and on. The fact that some of you can't open your eyes and see that a lot of what was EQ was only EQ until something better came along and then there was the mass exodus.
Change is not a bad thing. Change can be exactly what it is. We just have to make sure that change doesn't impact the core values. We have to make sure that the game remains to be group oriented and meaningful. We need to make sure that the game continues to make us want to be out in the world being social, making friends, and getting things done. What I don't need or want to see is a remake. A remake of EQ right now would hold possibly enough people to fill 1 server. And the content output would be so low that you would be lucky to see an expansion every 3 years. I don't want that. I want so much content that I have to make a decision on what to do that day because I can't do it all. Most of all, I want this game to be financially successful. If it's not then this is the last time we will EVER see an attempt at this type of MMO. If you don't believe any of what I said thus far you can believe this. No one will attempt this in the current market except for Brad. If this fails, so do all of our hopes and dreams. So if that means that I have to compromise on little things to open the audience a little broader, I'm all for it. I still want the core principals but the minor irrelevant things make no difference and will not affect my enjoyment of the game in the least bit. Pick your battles people because you can't win em all.
/endrant ... Now back to quietly stalking until Alpha when I can actually see the direction they are taking things.
Yeah, most people offering opinions and thoughts about changes and other innovations do not want to see the baby thrown out with the bath water. I would be willing to bet that most of us, the entire community, want probably 70-80% of the same core fundamentals, where we differ is the window dressing - i know if i got 70% of the version of Pantheon that i am dreaming of, i would be ri-goddamn-diculously happy. However there is a vocal minority in this community that have become so viscious towards any ideas contrary to their vision of what Pantheon should be that, as Kalgore correctly stated, many members no longer involve themselves in discussions on these boards.
I am a very laid back person. If you don't agree with me, that's ok, i don't mind. I will be happy to discuss differences in beliefs, concepts, opinions, thoughts, etc. and am willing to come to find some middle ground if you present valid dissenting points. However if you come at me with hyperbole driven rhetoric like a fanatic a-hole, you are probably going to get the same in return, and guess what? That helps no one make the game we want. It definitely doesn't help the VRI team sift through the dreck.
Feyshtey said:And I would argue that the same is true of the people who have every fluffy idea. There's an appreciable portion of the MMO fanbase that are sick and tired of gimmicks. That's not to say that new mechanics and ideas should be outright rejected. But over complicating a game with a bunch of pet-battle stupidity will turn off just as many as a bland MMO with nothing new...
Noone wants "every fluffy idea" in the finished product, but good grief, this is pre-pre-alpha.
This is exactly the time for entertaining and discussing every fluffly idea.
This is not the time for rigid rejection and elistist exclusion.
Fear that something you don't like might creep into the final product is no good reason to risk suppressing new ideas and alienating new players at any stage, but especially at this early stage, surely.
Gotta love the word 'dreck' ... wish i could recall where it derives from!
@Reht et al:
From reading many posters on the boards, I see a realisation from the majority that:
A. EQ1 (until PoP) *was* tough and fairly unforgiving in its level of challenge!
B. Compared to the blandness that makes the MMOs of today, it was HARSH, if not downright MURDEROUS.
C. The PvE version had a steeper learning curve than EVE (and that is pretty damn vertical)... let alone PvP.
D. It did have its faults (many were just limitations of the existing tech!)
However, it is not that many are vociferously opposed to change per se, they are opposed to 'change for change's sake'. If there is a 'better' way to do something that EQ dis badly, then look at the best ways to do that... as long as the change does not (and I quote) 'Throw out the baby with the bath-water'. Hopefully Brad & Co have a 'vision' (TM), based on the tenets of EQ/VR that 'challenge and socialising trumps all' which will allow the game to innovate (where *needed*) and to re-introduce the challenging, addictive experience that EQ (and VR somewhat) was/were.
I, personally, look forwards to seeing the rough template for Pnatheon and am fully prepared to weigh in with suggestions about whether, or indeed how, certain aspects could or should be changed to be better. My standpoint tends to be a meta-gaming one - looking at how the pieces interact to make the whole.
If you are like me, you would be happy to brainstorm
'3 ways to try to ensure starter towns/areas do not become empty, barring the tumbleweed, 6 months in'.
and subsequently compare my results to others, perhaps then looking for flawed arguments in their work while others do the same for mine.
.... errrrm, what was i talking about again???
Dullahan said:Enitzu said:Dullahan said:Rose colored glasses is something people throw around when they lack a solid argument.
Sure, that can be said. Yet you can't argue my points either which is why you make this general and vague statement.
But by all means try it. What part of EQ was "hard"? It's ok, we'll wait ...
You say "we'll" like you speak for the majority. You don't.
Its easy.
EQ was harder because the mobs were stronger than the player. By virtue of mob health and damage dealing capabilities alone, the mobs were hard and encouraged and even required a cooperative effort where other games allow you to solo.
- This exists today albeit games don't mind if players can solo. Not the best example of saying one game is harder than the other simply because one game doesn't support a specific playstyle like the other one did.
I could stop there and say thanks for playing, but I'll continue.
EQ was harder because when you died you didn't respawn right next to your corpse like, oh i dunno, every other mmo.
- Most put you in some sort of a graveyard I believe? But most share similar death penalties of broken armor, cost to repair, exp, etc. You mean corpse runs were "harder". Not harder, just time consuming. (This coming from a guy who triple boxed necro/cleric/chanter)
EQ was harder because of the number of active variables (threat, aggro, resists, fizzles, positioning, roamers, downtime etc) during combat.
- I will argue EQ's combat is far simpler than most MMOs today obviously given different era of gaming.
- Threat/agro was simple due to lack of tools warriors had vs the rest of the classes. Don't blow your load and let the tank get agro establishd. I wouldn't call this difficult.
- Fizzles were cute but not player skill-driven. Want to not fizzle as much, spend time just casting that spell skill over and over....
- Resists were opportunistic
- Positioning is more important than ever in MMOs. Rogues and frontal cleaves still do exist...
- Roamers are alive and well
- Downtime makes it difficult?EQ was harder because you couldn't just reset your personal instance to get another chance to beat the loot pinatas with a stick. The fact that everything was contested made it harder to achieve your goals.
- This is the one I can agree, contested content does make it more difficult...until you get in the best guild and its ez breezy. Or you just get more hardcore
EQ was harder because some of the most coveted items or npcs were extremely rare and required a greater devotion of time.
- Time invested != Difficulty
Now of course, I'm sure you will cry foul and try to hang me on going beyond purely mechanical "challenge" but nobody was claiming EQ was the most complicated game ever. Though, I do think you forget how complicated the game actually was during those early years. (this is one of the reasons I contend Pantheon should be even harder)
Nevertheless, those were the things that made your accomplishments feel special and the game so highly addictive. Time, after all, is one of the most important factors in the assignment of value to anything (time = money = stuff).
I'll bite. You're correct, Pantheon SHOULD be harder. But harder as to how? Making a game difficult to play doesn't make the game difficult.
Raive said:...Making a game difficult to play doesn't make the game difficult.
Very true. Whilst there is something to be said for a 20 hour camp making the prize all the sweeter, I'd prefer a couple of hours of getting to a boss and an actually challenging encounter than sitting on my arse waiting for a spawn only to have a guild turn up and steal it.
You simply won't persuade some folk. It's like my grandparents insisting life was better during the war. Sure you had bombings and rationing and shortages and conscription and millions dying, but you really learned to appreciate life and enjoy what you had!
@Raive
You call it difficult to play, I call it fun.
Difficulty is more than mechanics. Yes, they should strive for harder mechanics and better AI, but that isn't the only thing that makes a game challenging.
(((EverQuest))) was about social challenges as well as mechanical and time related. They were all intertwined.
Also, the stuff you said in bold is patently false.
If a player solos a mob in one game but cannot in another, its harder. Its really that simple. Yes, its not more complicated or mentally challenging, it simply has more hps than you and does more hps in damage than you do. Its not meant to be soloed. Its a social challenge requiring you to find a group.
Yes, corpse runs being more time consuming made them harder. Please, let up on the semantics. There are only 3 kinds of challenge in an MMO: skill, social and time and honestly the first two can generally be avoided given enough time. However, because a corpse run isn't a skill check doesn't make it easy. It costs the only thing a game can exact against you: your time. The skill part is avoiding wasting your time by dying in the first place.
Don't know what games you are playing, but all the variables in (((EQ))) combat are definitely not alive in well as they existed in (((EQ))). Threat and aggro management is not nearly as intricate in MMOs today, nor is getting aggro as severe. There is no racing against the clock to regenerate resources during downtime before multiple respawns and roamers with offset timers spawn and send your party back to your bind. Sorry, that doesn't happen. And that's why they're boring.
Raive said:- Downtime makes it difficult?
I wanted to discuss this point, because, many feel as you do that downtime does not add to difficulty. And, depending on the style of MMO you want to play - it may not. And, it's easy to use statements like these without context and state it as a blanket fact, but, given the proper context, it's not true.
If Pantheon wants to have the return to strategic gameplay within combat, then downtime absolutely adds to difficulty. You have to manage your resources within combat, between pulls, and find that sweet spot of constant pulls versus death. It also allows allows for more class interdependence as bards/enchanters etc. can add more value to the group with mana regeneration buffs.
I played a warrior in EQ and typically was the main tank/puller for my groups. Most of the groups in EQ that were the "best" exp groups hovered consistently around 25% mana. Having to find the balance with resource management does add an element of dramatic tension, strategy, and challenge. And, it creates some great "oh ****" moments.
Now, an argument could be made that twitch gameplay that requires no resource management and ability rotations is difficulty as well - and potentially even moreso from a hand eye coordination/reaction standpoint, but that's not the style of MMO that I want to play and not what Pantheon has been advertised as. Again though, I'm not saying the downtime needs to be 100% EQ carbon copy, but, it has to be significant enough to allow resources to be finite again.
Dullahan said:Enitzu said:Dullahan said:Rose colored glasses is something people throw around when they lack a solid argument.
Sure, that can be said. Yet you can't argue my points either which is why you make this general and vague statement.
But by all means try it. What part of EQ was "hard"? It's ok, we'll wait ...
You say "we'll" like you speak for the majority. You don't.
Its easy.
EQ was harder because the mobs were stronger than the player. By virtue of mob health and damage dealing capabilities alone, the mobs were hard and encouraged and even required a cooperative effort where other games allow you to solo.
I could stop there and say thanks for playing, but I'll continue.
EQ was harder because when you died you didn't respawn right next to your corpse like, oh i dunno, every other mmo.
EQ was harder because of the number of active variables (threat, aggro, resists, fizzles, positioning, roamers, downtime etc) during combat.
EQ was harder because you couldn't just reset your personal instance to get another chance to beat the loot pinatas with a stick. The fact that everything was contested made it harder to achieve your goals.
EQ was harder because some of the most coveted items or npcs were extremely rare and required a greater devotion of time.
Now of course, I'm sure you will cry foul and try to hang me on going beyond purely mechanical "challenge" but nobody was claiming EQ was the most complicated game ever. Though, I do think you forget how complicated the game actually was during those early years. (this is one of the reasons I contend Pantheon should be even harder)
Nevertheless, those were the things that made your accomplishments feel special and the game so highly addictive. Time, after all, is one of the most important factors in the assignment of value to anything (time = money = stuff).
Now I get it. You can't understand the difference between the meaning of hard and the meaning of tedious or timesink.
Mobs were not hard by any means. You needed to group because that was the principle of the game sure but in that time you could literally press 1-2 buttons while watching tv and usually never have to worry.
Corpse runs, while time consuming and somewhat problematic depending on where you died, again not hard just more of a timesink. Much less of one if you were good at the game and social because there were always plenty of rezs around.
Active variables .. was going to comment but instead I'll just say if those were ever issues then it's what we in the military call the 3P, Piss Poor Planning.
Loot ... Yet again, time sink. I love raiding and I love dungeon crawls. I don't like spending 12 hours killing the same place holder/named trying to get the 1 2% drop rate item I need off it. Variety is a good thing. This can be accomplished in so many ways that keeps the time sink of gearing with while making it a whole lot less mind numbing and monotinous.
I could keep on but it will 90% of the time come back to the same thing, time. Which is now a days the 1 thing most of us working professionals that want this type of game don't have as much of. It sucks but the fact is that most of us that want this type of game are the same ones that played EQ way back when. Which means that we are all older and have families, kids, and other responsibilities that will keep us from spending that much time in game now. I agree that time should be a factor in a lot of things to elongate the game some but the level of monotony in EQ was a bit much and if released into the gaming world today, even the hardcore would fall from burn out. That is why I say you wear rose tinted googles. Things have to change or the game will fail. Deny that all you want but the only ones who will end up upset are the ones that can't seem to see the reality of this.
We will agree to disagree on a few of the points. There's a fine line for me when it comes to what's difficult for the sake of tedium and what's difficult that leads to entertainment. We'll never see eye to eye in that regard.
EverQuest did have social challenges due to its raw nature and lack of game-provided resources that the players had to make up in place. Now some of those challenges are necessary to foster a well-endowed community where actions can have have consequences. Some of the other challenges not so much and could use some re-tooling to better serve the community. I'd say along the lines of 70-30 here.
Now on to some of the points
- A player attempting to solo in a game where it was designed for that player not to solo is more restrictive (more of just playing out of position) vs being outright more difficult. Attempting any content that wasn't designed to be done in a manner of single group vs raid mobs or full group content as a duo can be seen as difficult. Hell if dig right down to it, the player can make any content difficult if you try and break the rules. Which soloing back then really was (quad-kiting). Yes EQ had far less solable content, in that regard doesn't make it the more difficult game as its just forcing people to group more.
- Yes EQ did have the far more punishing death penalty than most MMOs, I'll agree with that. Only difficulty with corpse runs was the amount of time they took. Nothing more nothing less, tedium comes to mind. (Mind you my opinion may be bias as I either usually outlast wipes via FD or summoned my own corpse with rez)
- Not all the variables of EQ combat are present in todays game's yes, because alot of the games expanded upon the combat and made them more involving/more in-depth. EQ was far from the pinnacle of MMO combat however it was a pretty decent starting point. I only played EQ/EQ2/VG/RIFT and the latter 3 as a MT and I can tell you that yes threat/agro are just as severe as they have been ever before. Cut and dry you lose agro the person dies. You may have more tools to work with sure (and sorely needed), but it any non-tank who didn't know what they were doing could make groups a living hell.
- Wont comment too much on "downtime" as its just another way of saying we want dungeon crawls vs dungeon runs. Dungeon crawls aren't as plentiful as they used to be but they are still floating around. They do need to return but I do not think just saying combat needs "downtime" as a way to making it more difficult . Making resources finite so decisions in combat are more meaningful, sure. That is a good way to start.
Evoras said:@Zewtastic
I agree with pretty much all you posted above (particularly about the toxic influence of the modern cess-pit MMOs). I am, however, more optimistic.
Can Pantheon survive with just the 'hardcore' playerbase? Yes and No.
1. with over 1000-ish actives oin EQ99 and 5k+ forum members here (aggregate to 4k real) it can certainly START.
2. with growth and education (much like EVE online) of new players, it can sustain itself SHORT-TERM to MID-TERM.
3. with a solid USP and EVE-like-growth it should last at least as long (10 years = MID-LONG TERM)
So, is it possible for Pantheon to hold fast to it's core tenets and not water them down at every turn? YES.
Will the next generation of gamers have to be re-educated? YES.
If anything, tell the kids 'No, this game is way too tough for you. It takes tactics and co-operation.'
.... Then watch them flood in to try to prove you wrong! (cross fingers)
Good to have the optimism to balance out the pessimism.
zewtastic said:Yes EQ came first, and yes WoW is mostly a copy of EQ with some very dumbed down penalties and carebear modifications. You cannot change history, WoW came after and copied just about everything. WoW's dumbed down, penalty free play and cartoony characters appealed to the millions of kids that grew up watching their parents play games, and now they wanted their own. Blizzard chose carefully. The non-threatening cartoony characters in WoW applied the same marketing logic that Camel cigarettes used to attract young children to smoking.
Sorry but that is not true. WoW anno 2005/2006 was a hard game and it was not just a dumbed down Everquest copy and it was not penalty free. WoW made one thing much better than other MMORPGs anno 2005: it offered many options and choices to the players. You had contested solo content, contested group content, instanced group content, contested raid content, instanced raid content etc. It was not a Everquest-like "Make a group and camp or GTFO" game. The classes also had options via talent trees. A warrior could be a tank or a damage dealer, a druid could be also a tank or a damage dealer or a healer etc. You were not forced to make and level an alt when you wanted to try an other role.
Having such options you could log in and you had always something to do. And such choices and options made the game attractive for players, which did not find "Make a group and camp or GTFO"-Everquest very funny.
And honestly, when VR will make Pantheon a "Make a group and camp or GTFO"-game then i doubt they will fill more than two servers.
Greetings
Kalgore said:When I first read about Pantheon I was so exicted to have a real MMO something along the lines I played years ago. hard core raiding and grouping with updated grapics going to and fro slaying everything that stood in my way. I couldnt wait for them to take the best of the MMO franchise and invent something new for the bad that those MMO introduced.
Reading the forums made me more excited I even went to Newegg to build my Pantheon machine. (Pure baddassery btw)
Now.
The forums are made up of the same crap every day people argue for this or that soloey because EQ had it or Vanguard had it. Or they didnt want something because WOW had it etc etc etc. People are refusing to even listen to what could be a better version of an old idea and with that comes a lack of thoughtfulness the Devs need to make this game great.
Ox's take on this:
I am in the camp of this is a discussion platform. There will be rehashed content and questions and debates. That is its purpose. This is a good thing for new people coming onboard and or exposed to the game.
Believe me after a few post I have made here I have felt like I kicked the grizzly in the nethers and got way more than I bargained for. All I have to say on this is it was about pets. People will not always agree and sometimes ideas don’t sit well with others. That’s human nature. Hell I do it. We as a community need to be open to ideas and “discuss” them. Not go all battle cow on people. It just ends poorly for all involved.
As far as VR and the game design I think they have stated a number of times they are looking at the dynamics of the game with an old school perspective. This with a newer game engine and enhances AI and mechanics will be a balanced approach. This will engage a diverse player base. We are still a long way from Alpha so VR has time to evaluate and look at the methodologies and deploy on that. I think they have a good approach. Do we have questions? Yes. Should we ask them? Absolutely. I think VR is listening. This is a great thing. Granted we don’t have control over the game deployment but we can help with discussion on where the game is going. I think this community is exceptional when it comes to experience and vision so I know we can help VR. We all have to stay focused and constructive.
Also I have always liked your posts they are well thought out and I hope I have not sounded condescending or rude in my replies. What I have found is sometimes you need to take a step back and take in what people are saying and either ignore it or learn from it. This is very hard to do when you are passionate about something. Very hard indeed.
Ox
This post was edited by Oxillion at August 3, 2016 11:47 AM PDT
Larirawiel said:zewtastic said:Yes EQ came first, and yes WoW is mostly a copy of EQ with some very dumbed down penalties and carebear modifications. You cannot change history, WoW came after and copied just about everything. WoW's dumbed down, penalty free play and cartoony characters appealed to the millions of kids that grew up watching their parents play games, and now they wanted their own. Blizzard chose carefully. The non-threatening cartoony characters in WoW applied the same marketing logic that Camel cigarettes used to attract young children to smoking.
Sorry but that is not true. WoW anno 2005/2006 was a hard game and it was not just a dumbed down Everquest copy and it was not penalty free. WoW made one thing much better than other MMORPGs anno 2005: it offered many options and choices to the players. You had contested solo content, contested group content, instanced group content, contested raid content, instanced raid content etc. It was not a Everquest-like "Make a group and camp or GTFO" game. The classes also had options via talent trees. A warrior could be a tank or a damage dealer, a druid could be also a tank or a damage dealer or a healer etc. You were not forced to make and level an alt when you wanted to try an other role.
Having such options you could log in and you had always something to do. And such choices and options made the game attractive for players, which did not find "Make a group and camp or GTFO"-Everquest very funny.
And honestly, when VR will make Pantheon a "Make a group and camp or GTFO"-game then i doubt they will fill more than two servers.
Greetings
And this is what I and I can imagine alot of folks (especially ex-VGers) fear. Given this kind of game is aimed at a very niche market, it had to strike the right chord and do it pretty dam well. But when you read some of these threads, can't help but get the ide that some people would be ok if this game had only 1k players and 1 server but they got everything on their wishlist. Just doesn't seem too practical. Folks give off the impression where its either full-EQ or its easy-mode carebear and any feature from a modern-day mmo is tarnishing our beloved EQ.
Raive said:- Wont comment too much on "downtime" as its just another way of saying we want dungeon crawls vs dungeon runs. Dungeon crawls aren't as plentiful as they used to be but they are still floating around. They do need to return but I do not think just saying combat needs "downtime" as a way to making it more difficult . Making resources finite so decisions in combat are more meaningful, sure. That is a good way to start.
Again, I'm only harping on this point because I think it is misrepresented. Dungeon camps (where you said crawls, I'm assuming you meant camp EQ style) versus dungeon crawls/runs is not relevant to the discussion on whether downtime adds to challenge. Instancing versus contested content / spawn timers / meaningful rare mobs/drops, etc. led to crawls versus camps. Those would occur regardless of the out of combat mana regen if contested content with camps/rare spawns similar to EQ was a thing again.
Now, you agree with me on your last sentence "Making resources finite so decisions in combat are more meaningful, sure. That is a good way to start."
I agree, it's a start, but it isn't a finish. Most every new age MMO has finite resources while in combat (no fast in combat mana regen), but, most all have fast out of combat regen. So, combat typically results around a DPS check and finding the ultimate rotation of abilities - especially for group content. Some raids may have gimmicky mechanics that need to be learned, but, fast regeneration birthed AoE DPS spam mechanics and DPS rotations while removing the need for any other strategy in combat.
If you only have finite resources while in combat, you can burn through your mana bar, fast regen outside of combat, and start over.
I'm not sure if you played EQ (so I apologize in advance if you haven't), but I'm going to use an example from it. If EQ had combat like you stated, finite resources in combat, but no downtime outside of it, wizards/mages/enchanters/clerics etc. could have burned down mobs DPS wise without needing to use any other strategy like crowd control.
So, again, time in and of itself (downtime in this case) is not a challenge, but providing context of how downtime is used in game demonstrates that it is directly correlated to greater challenge (strategy).
And, a final thought, I've shared several times on these boards that I think every class should have a finite resource - like endurance for warriors - and they should need to manage their resource. They should also have many more skills than EQ launch - I'd say more similar to VG.
So if I were creating an MMO, I would use EQ Resource Management + VG Class design built on a social MMO foundation and try to implement mechanics like the Pantheon difference if given the developmental resources/time.
Enitzu said:Now I get it. You can't understand the difference between the meaning of hard and the meaning of tedious or timesink.
Mobs were not hard by any means. You needed to group because that was the principle of the game sure but in that time you could literally press 1-2 buttons while watching tv and usually never have to worry.
Corpse runs, while time consuming and somewhat problematic depending on where you died, again not hard just more of a timesink. Much less of one if you were good at the game and social because there were always plenty of rezs around.
Active variables .. was going to comment but instead I'll just say if those were ever issues then it's what we in the military call the 3P, Piss Poor Planning.
Loot ... Yet again, time sink. I love raiding and I love dungeon crawls. I don't like spending 12 hours killing the same place holder/named trying to get the 1 2% drop rate item I need off it. Variety is a good thing. This can be accomplished in so many ways that keeps the time sink of gearing with while making it a whole lot less mind numbing and monotinous.
I could keep on but it will 90% of the time come back to the same thing, time. Which is now a days the 1 thing most of us working professionals that want this type of game don't have as much of. It sucks but the fact is that most of us that want this type of game are the same ones that played EQ way back when. Which means that we are all older and have families, kids, and other responsibilities that will keep us from spending that much time in game now. I agree that time should be a factor in a lot of things to elongate the game some but the level of monotony in EQ was a bit much and if released into the gaming world today, even the hardcore would fall from burn out. That is why I say you wear rose tinted googles. Things have to change or the game will fail. Deny that all you want but the only ones who will end up upset are the ones that can't seem to see the reality of this.
Ok, so you don't like it and that makes it tedium, not a challenge. Thanks for clearing that up and declaring what is officially fun.
We have an opportunity in Pantheon to give classes more depth (the melee example of spamming 2 abilities). This could lead to more reliance on skill checks and less on time checks. However, doing away with the time devotion entirely is a bad play. That is the problem mainstream games have made, and that is why they can't retain players.
Just because you personally have [reasons] you can't invest time in a game like that, doesn't mean it should change. Not only are there plenty of people who will enjoy that experience again, despite their time restrictions, theres a whole new generation of teenagers and young adults with plenty of time to spare.
EverQuest was a true mmorpg in the spirit of its mud and tabletop predecessors. That means your achievements were less about how perfectly you aimed your mouse or executed a series of hotkeys, and more about stats and dice rolls; how well you worked with others and the time you spent learning the game and preparing/progressing your character had a greater bearing on the outcome of events
Its sounds to me like that is what you are trying to get away from. Thats good news for you, because there are a dozen active MMOs out there that offer just that!
Yes, even I fall into the "EQ nostalgia" trap.
But I understand Pantheon is a new game, and Aradune & co- from a game play perspective- can be rediscovered as being cruel and harsh.
I say rediscvovered because I remember hearing such opinions when EQ nostalgia was not nostalgia and "verant" became a curse.
However, Downtime is not the thing that makes it a challenge, is it the angst created to avoid the downtime. The game forces you to play better- if I am expresing this correctly.
This is why the broo-ha-ha (what is the mexican word for witch?) over severe death penalty sounds like nostalgia but is actually referencing the impact on the psyche to avoid the downtime created by the severe death penalty in game.
And enitzu, I enjoy reading your posts and the non-EQ perspective is appreciated.
@Manouk
Thats just it -- Just as the tension and excitement in combat exists because of a severe death penalty, the challenge of efficient play is minimizing downtime while managing the risk. That was exactly what made EQ combat enjoyable for me. That pursuit of maximum efficiency.
Without downtime, we lose a large part of the meta that made combat satisfying.
Dullahan said:Thats just it -- Just as the tension and excitement in combat exists because of a severe death penalty...
So, let's change paradigms. Take a system like corpse runs and reinvent it. If it's not broken fine, but the reasons for continuity must be prevalent.
How about making combat performance (usually includes death) equate to loot reward? Not necessarily hard modes where mob skills are just increased in strength, but more general statistics of player deaths, being hit by mechanics, ...
I view corpse runs as a more frustrating mechanic with little reward other than don't die; increased loot level based on performance is a more positive reiniforcement for don't die.