Nephretiti said:Porygon said:I stopped reading when you said go play other games. That's never a good solution for anyone.
Aye - it's usually better to apply some sort of comparison. Something like "This isn't grade-school gaming. This is college -level gaming. Be prepared to slough it out and dont expect your levels and loot-wins too often".
Risk vs reward as opposed to walking two steps ..getting a pat on the head and a cookie for finding the next quest npc with a ! over its head.
Old school gaming where you work together as a team, figure things out..strategize, learn...climb up that learning curve and actually feel like you have accomplished something. I don't want a screen full of third party apps blocking my view, I don't want to have things handed to me..I want to learn to use my skills and my wisdom, to get that feeling of accomplishment, I also look forward to team work...not soloing all the way to level cap. Don't want to die, keep your wits about you, although sometimes death is unavoidable, depending on the situation. And the Leeroy Jenkins of the world may have to change their tactics..lol Don't train your group...stand and die, easier to rez one person than a whole wiped group. :) And most of all...when in a raid group...LISTEN to the raid leaders. Yup. :)
Cana
Wow this thread has been all over the place since I left for work this morning. It's good to see so many more people chiming in with their thoughts, although I wish I could remove all the flamey bits from some posts and just keep the reasonable stuff.
For me, what influences my stance on the contentious issues like loot rights, death penalty, trading and the economy, travel, appearance customization, and so on, isn't what worked in X game or Y game, or how well I liked that approach. Instead, what I care about are a few big things.
1) Ensuring that time-limited players don't feel like they're second-class citizens, and aren't shut out of parts of the game they want to explore and participate in, or forced into a position where they can never be effective or competitive. Obviously there's a point where it's simply not practical to try and play, but that person who only has 2-3 hours a session to put in should still be able to log out feeling like they've accomplished something meaningful, regardless of which sphere they're playing in.
2) Ensuring that we don't ram socialization down people's throats. We all want a return to a more social game where people actually talk, but telling people to get with the program or quit will just create an empty game world. We should be looking for ways to incentivize socialization, to draw people out, to get them more comfortable with the idea of doing it by creating shared needs and opportunities to band together with other players, instead of telling them "sorry, in order to do X you have to take your chances with hundreds of random strangers and hope they turn out to be nice."
3) Ensuring that people don't have to start at launch to get the best experience out of the game. I want for Pantheon to be a game where someone can come in years after launch and still be able to really enjoy everything the game has to offer, and not have to try and navigate a massive power/wealth gap just because they weren't there when it all started.
4) Ensuring that people with different major focii are supported. The game shouldn't just cater to the PvE achiever crowd who wants to go out and kill bigger badder monsters all the time. It should have stuff for the explorer types, the roleplayers, the crafters, the socializers, even the pvpers - and ideally, those folks should all contribute meaningfully to making Terminus a better world. If the game favors one or two groups too much over the others, then a diverse community never really can form.
I have biases and preconceptions to be sure, but when it comes down to it, I try to keep as open a mind as I can. If someone proposes something that I don't think works, I try to point out why I don't think it works. As a supporter and someone who really wants this game to succeed for many reasons, it's frustrating when I see us all refusing to acknowledge each other's concerns and treat them as valid. Sometimes we may have to agree to disagree on finer details of things, but I hope at least that we can get the antagonism to stop. In order to truly succeed when it launches, Pantheon really needs as many of us as it can get, and everyone we can convince to play it as well. I don't mean just keeping the lights on, but I want to see the game grow, and honestly become a force in the market. I want to see it drive innovation that the MMO industry sorely needs, and generate years worth of additional content and expansions for us playing it. That's the level of success that I would like to see.
We can't achieve it by telling other supporters they're wrong for how they feel about these things. In the end, there won't be perfect solutions, but we should at least be able to get to a consensus that we think has a chance of working - regardless of which side of a debate we fall on.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. I'm sure half of you are thinking "ugh, does that Neph guy ever stop?", but I hope that if nothing else this post gets some of us to think about these problems a little differently than we were before.
dorotea said:People that say "if you do not like everything that *I* consider old school then go and play WoW" should go and ....no I won't say it.
We all supposedly support Pantheon here - let's treat eachother as allies that do not agree on every single point not enemies to be driven away.
Many design decisions will make Pantheon what it will be, and very few of us will agree on *every* one of them.
It should suffice that we agree that a game that goes the way we want on two or five or eight of the significant points is a whole lot better than what is out there now that may approximate zero on that scale.
Great advice, Dorotea.
Glad to see Kilsin singling out Dorotea here.
It's safe to sit in the ivory tower of old school MMO purism and say "we want some changes so we don't repeat EQ exactly, but the changes you suggest are rubbish!" Even when the purest of the old school MMO purists starts getting into the nitty gritty details of an actual design choice, they will draw the ire of other purists. The essence of old school MMO is different for every single person.
Kilsin said:dorotea said:People that say "if you do not like everything that *I* consider old school then go and play WoW" should go and ....no I won't say it.
We all supposedly support Pantheon here - let's treat eachother as allies that do not agree on every single point not enemies to be driven away.
Many design decisions will make Pantheon what it will be, and very few of us will agree on *every* one of them.
It should suffice that we agree that a game that goes the way we want on two or five or eight of the significant points is a whole lot better than what is out there now that may approximate zero on that scale.
Great advice, Dorotea.
Beautifully said and I totally agree. My criticism is of EQ-Live and WoW - simply because they are much too easy for my style of gameplay. That's my opinion of course.
Ainadak said:Glad to see Kilsin singling out Dorotea here.
It's safe to sit in the ivory tower of old school MMO purism and say "we want some changes so we don't repeat EQ exactly, but the changes you suggest are rubbish!" Even when the purest of the old school MMO purists starts getting into the nitty gritty details of an actual design choice, they will draw the ire of other purists. The essence of old school MMO is different for every single person.
I think there is a general consensus of what making an updated and challenging game is. Just curious - what do you think 'purism' actually is? Perhaps that could mean someone wanting a 100% EQ clone - I haven't seen anyone who wants that though. What I have seen are community members wanting an updated mmo with some challenge and depth that is currently missing from the mmo market. This is just my personal opinion, but I suspect this is in part why EQ-Live and WoW have lost so many subscribers over the years. An updated mmo with some challenge may be of similar gameplay to 'old-school,' but different in its own right as well. I do appreciate people's thoughts. That being said, I think Pantheon is looking good so far.
Ooh all these months of trying to get suck-up points are finally recognized. ((cough)) ((blush)).
Actually I think very few of us mean the more extreme comments we may make. Maybe when they are typed and for the next half hour.
I think almost all of us recognize that "I won't play Pantheon unless it ....." or "If you don't agree with ..... you are only fit for playing WoW" are normally venting, hyperbele or a combination.
Well the bottom line for me is I have zero interest playing another quick n easy MMO. At the moment I am done with the genre because of the state it's in, haven't played an MMO for a few years now. Hopefully Pantheon brings back some of that old school MMORPG fun. There are already tons of WoW clones out there so here's to something different.
dorotea said:Ooh all these months of trying to get suck-up points are finally recognized. ((cough)) ((blush)).
Actually I think very few of us mean the more extreme comments we may make. Maybe when they are typed and for the next half hour.
I think almost all of us recognize that "I won't play Pantheon unless it ....." or "If you don't agree with ..... you are only fit for playing WoW" are normally venting, hyperbele or a combination.
I'm totally not playing pantheon if it doesn't come out.
Ok that was an easy one ;).
The following is all coming from a guy with a full time job, plus living on and operating a stable with 30+ horses and doing all the project work associated with that kind of business (which is 1+ full time jobs alone), and having a kid in competitive travel sports (any parents out there that can relate, stay strong, it's worth it).
Nephele said:1) Ensuring that time-limited players don't feel like they're second-class citizens, and ...
To what degree?
There are some game experiences that require time, many of them being contiguous time. Hell, you can't bop into Call of Duty every once in a while and not be demoralized by the hordes with every unlock. When this game's central concept is group play then it stands to reason that if you don't work with groups you will not be "competitive" with them. Now, if you mean that this person with very limited time should be able to buy and sell in the marketplace and amass a fortune, sure. I can see that. If they then want to use that fortune to become a highly skilled crafter, gotcha, I'm on board. But if you mean this person should be able to cap their level, skills, spell ranks, gear, etc before the next expansion comes out while having only an hour a night to play? No. Sorry. I can't support that.
Honestly I find the mental exercise of planning what I will do in a game when I can log in to make the most of that time a really compelling metagame in itself. I'll probably never hit cap on anything. I won't be "competitive". And I dont particularly care. If I experience the content only in bursts, and only by playing with other players' 3rd and 4th and 11th alts, so be it. As long as the game experience is compelling and I am enjoying my time in it, I win.
2) Ensuring that we don't ram socialization down people's throats....
I agree that telling people to get with the program or quit is unproductive. However, I don't think it's inappropriate to set realistic expectations for what the game is. If you can't realistically accomplish notable content without cooperative play, telling a person that if they don't have the time or the will to find and cooperate with others they're not likely to find notable success is not mean or rude, its just honest. And telling people that they have to cooperate with 100's of other people and hope they are nice is extreme rhetoric equal to saying they should just quit.
3) Ensuring that people don't have to start at launch to get the best experience out of the game. I want for Pantheon to be a game where someone can come in years after launch and still be able to really enjoy everything the game has to offer, and not have to try and navigate a massive power/wealth gap just because they weren't there when it all started.
VR appears to understand this desire, given their thoughts on the Progeny system. Whether or not that system ever gets implimented remains to be seen. But I think a reality is that no matter what you do the game world will experience an evolution as time goes on. There's no way to have people advancing, obtaining wealth and power, and not have a downstream effect. There's also no realistic hope that you're going to have a steady stream of new players starting the game over years and years to a degree that the starting experience can be just like launch. Or more likely even close to it. There will be a power/wealth gap. While I agree with the concept you put forward, I don't see how it's possible to throttle that significantly without also throttling the feeling of accomplishment for those who have advanced equally.
4) Ensuring that people with different major focii are supported. The game shouldn't just cater to the PvE achiever crowd who wants to go out and kill bigger badder monsters all the time. It should have stuff for the explorer types, the roleplayers, the crafters, the socializers, even the pvpers - and ideally, those folks should all contribute meaningfully to making Terminus a better world. If the game favors one or two groups too much over the others, then a diverse community never really can form.
Again, I like the idea. But in practice its not so simple. The easiest example to identify is the balance between PVE and PVP. In order to balance play for PVP you must impact PVE, or you have to put in gimmicky artificial constraints. The reverse is also true. For the rest, what do you mean by "have stuff"? Should there be a massive world to explore? Absolutely. Should a person that doesn't like to group or even to gain levels be able to explore most (not all) dungeons? Absolutely not. Should they be able to gain gear equivalent or even near equivalent to those that group? No.
VR needs to define a core target audience (they have; groupers focused on PVE), and they need to build a solid game for that audience that will retain those core customers for the long haul. If they try to satisfy everyone fully (casual solo players, raiders, PVP players, etc.), purely by limitations of time and money they will release a game so dilluted in every category that no one is happy. It's happened time and time again with a company thinking they are the ones that are going to create the end-all, be-all of MMOs, and they end up with an inconsistent, clunky, cluge of a game that fizzles out after a year or so, if it even makes it to release before the developer goes bankrupt.
While I agree with your sentiment that we should not be hostile to those with new ideas, I think it's important that we understand and support the focus of VRs design. I'm not here because I want WoW or DAoC or and EQ clone, or anything else. I'm here because I did my homework lon ago on what VR's core concept was, and it's a concept I embrace. I don't want a PVP game, and they arent making one. I don't want a casual solo game, and they arent making one. I've played those kinds of games and I know those kinds of games are not for me. It doesn't mean those games suck, or that anyone that plays them is an idiot, or a carebear or anything else. It just means they made a game for a particular crowd, and I don't happen to be in that crowd. The problem is that no one has a game for the crowd I am in, and VR appears to be the only developer willing to give it a shot.
In the end, I don't want to see VR fall into the trap of so many others by building a game by committee. It's like going into the Ferari dealership and asking them to build one with an 8inch lift kit, 35inch tires, a truck bed and an economy electric engine. The inevitable outcome for all but 1 in 1 billion customers would be "WTF?!?".
Watemper said:Riahuf22 said:Watemper said:dorotea said:>See I disagree with your fast travel. The run wasn't the tough part. It was dying along the way. I am pretty sure you won't win on the fast travel argument as they said it will be meaningful and the world will feel bigger. However, the EQ classic instant travel was porting with druids and wizards...which I actually liked and am fine with. <
Interesting that we have so many widely varying views and people that are "old school" on one issue can be "convenience not tedium" on another.
Personally I consider it highly illogical for VR to emphasize "large world" and "no easy travel" on the one hand if they allow certain classes to have instant travel abilites that can take other characters along.
If I can't get from Terminus City to the Butt Cheek hills in less than 5 hours the world is large.
If I can't get from Terminus City to the Butt Cheek hills unless I know or pay a druid or wizard the world is pretty damn small and the pig-futtering wizards and druids bribed or spelled the developers into giving them a hugely unfair advantage.
Getting from Freeport to Everfrost took half an hour to maybe an hour depending on what route you took. No where did I sa you should take 5 hours to get somewhere.
And from kaladim to Everfrost could take 2 hours if you barely missed the boat. So imo we need a touch of travel assistance, not quite instant cept from maybe a druid or wizard, but something to make it feel like your not stuck somewhere for an insane amount of time
Okay so then let's make a game to where you can get to anywhere in 10 mins no matter where you are on the map...EQ is a big world. That is fine. The assistance to getting too far away lands is with wizards and druids back in EQ. If they design it correctly you should have a plethora of things you can do along the way.
Clearly not what I was saying as I had no problem with getting from FP to EF took an hour o had no problem with at all, but with technically kaladim to FP was basically 2 zones between each other (BB, OOT) and that could easily add in another hour is a bit extreme which is what I was getting at, so maybe instead of attacking me and over reacting to what I said maybe you could simply realizing I wasn't saying bad about your post but was saying that there were some parts of travel in the same game that needed work.
Feyshtey said:The following is all coming from a guy with a full time job, plus living on and operating a stable with 30+ horses and doing all the project work associated with that kind of business (which is 1+ full time jobs alone), and having a kid in competitive travel sports (any parents out there that can relate, stay strong, it's worth it).
Nephele said:1) Ensuring that time-limited players don't feel like they're second-class citizens, and ...
To what degree?
There are some game experiences that require time, many of them being contiguous time. Hell, you can't bop into Call of Duty every once in a while and not be demoralized by the hordes with every unlock. When this game's central concept is group play then it stands to reason that if you don't work with groups you will not be "competitive" with them. Now, if you mean that this person with very limited time should be able to buy and sell in the marketplace and amass a fortune, sure. I can see that. If they then want to use that fortune to become a highly skilled crafter, gotcha, I'm on board. But if you mean this person should be able to cap their level, skills, spell ranks, gear, etc before the next expansion comes out while having only an hour a night to play? No. Sorry. I can't support that.
Honestly I find the mental exercise of planning what I will do in a game when I can log in to make the most of that time a really compelling metagame in itself. I'll probably never hit cap on anything. I won't be "competitive". And I dont particularly care. If I experience the content only in bursts, and only by playing with other players' 3rd and 4th and 11th alts, so be it. As long as the game experience is compelling and I am enjoying my time in it, I win.
2) Ensuring that we don't ram socialization down people's throats....
I agree that telling people to get with the program or quit is unproductive. However, I don't think it's inappropriate to set realistic expectations for what the game is. If you can't realistically accomplish notable content without cooperative play, telling a person that if they don't have the time or the will to find and cooperate with others they're not likely to find notable success is not mean or rude, its just honest. And telling people that they have to cooperate with 100's of other people and hope they are nice is extreme rhetoric equal to saying they should just quit.
3) Ensuring that people don't have to start at launch to get the best experience out of the game. I want for Pantheon to be a game where someone can come in years after launch and still be able to really enjoy everything the game has to offer, and not have to try and navigate a massive power/wealth gap just because they weren't there when it all started.
VR appears to understand this desire, given their thoughts on the Progeny system. Whether or not that system ever gets implimented remains to be seen. But I think a reality is that no matter what you do the game world will experience an evolution as time goes on. There's no way to have people advancing, obtaining wealth and power, and not have a downstream effect. There's also no realistic hope that you're going to have a steady stream of new players starting the game over years and years to a degree that the starting experience can be just like launch. Or more likely even close to it. There will be a power/wealth gap. While I agree with the concept you put forward, I don't see how it's possible to throttle that significantly without also throttling the feeling of accomplishment for those who have advanced equally.
4) Ensuring that people with different major focii are supported. The game shouldn't just cater to the PvE achiever crowd who wants to go out and kill bigger badder monsters all the time. It should have stuff for the explorer types, the roleplayers, the crafters, the socializers, even the pvpers - and ideally, those folks should all contribute meaningfully to making Terminus a better world. If the game favors one or two groups too much over the others, then a diverse community never really can form.
Again, I like the idea. But in practice its not so simple. The easiest example to identify is the balance between PVE and PVP. In order to balance play for PVP you must impact PVE, or you have to put in gimmicky artificial constraints. The reverse is also true. For the rest, what do you mean by "have stuff"? Should there be a massive world to explore? Absolutely. Should a person that doesn't like to group or even to gain levels be able to explore most (not all) dungeons? Absolutely not. Should they be able to gain gear equivalent or even near equivalent to those that group? No.
VR needs to define a core target audience (they have; groupers focused on PVE), and they need to build a solid game for that audience that will retain those core customers for the long haul. If they try to satisfy everyone fully (casual solo players, raiders, PVP players, etc.), purely by limitations of time and money they will release a game so dilluted in every category that no one is happy. It's happened time and time again with a company thinking they are the ones that are going to create the end-all, be-all of MMOs, and they end up with an inconsistent, clunky, cluge of a game that fizzles out after a year or so, if it even makes it to release before the developer goes bankrupt.
While I agree with your sentiment that we should not be hostile to those with new ideas, I think it's important that we understand and support the focus of VRs design. I'm not here because I want WoW or DAoC or and EQ clone, or anything else. I'm here because I did my homework lon ago on what VR's core concept was, and it's a concept I embrace. I don't want a PVP game, and they arent making one. I don't want a casual solo game, and they arent making one. I've played those kinds of games and I know those kinds of games are not for me. It doesn't mean those games suck, or that anyone that plays them is an idiot, or a carebear or anything else. It just means they made a game for a particular crowd, and I don't happen to be in that crowd. The problem is that no one has a game for the crowd I am in, and VR appears to be the only developer willing to give it a shot.
In the end, I don't want to see VR fall into the trap of so many others by building a game by committee. It's like going into the Ferari dealership and asking them to build one with an 8inch lift kit, 35inch tires, a truck bed and an economy electric engine. The inevitable outcome for all but 1 in 1 billion customers would be "WTF?!?".
Great post.
I WILL have one character that has a "social disorder" in that he will not group with anyone. Ever. I will make it work. I always do. Sorry, but sometimes I just need a little "me" time. No - that isn't a reference to the size of my character - I don't particularly like Haflins or Gnomes.
@Feyshtey
I've been saying the same things for years about devs designing games by fan statistics and commitee's. They all do it (mainly to appease and monetary gain)... VR is the only one seeing sense in my opinion. I've used this phrase before but generally ignored by dev's and fans tbh because who wants their seemed to be "say" taken away? even tho it's actually better for the industry as a whole...
So imagine an artist, a sculptor. The artist forms the clay before firing; if the artist let everyone alter 1mm of it; after thousand's had had their go/say... no matter what the artist formed intially/envisioned; it would still always end up a blob on the desk. Same goes for games. Us fans need to becareful what we wish for... and the dev's need stay true to their vision.
Nimryl said:@Feyshtey
I've been saying the same things for years about devs designing games by fan statistics and commitee's. They all do it (mainly to appease and monetary gain)... VR is the only one seeing sense in my opinion. I've used this phrase before but generally ignored by dev's and fans tbh because who wants their seemed to be "say" taken away? even tho it's actually better for the industry as a whole...
So imagine an artist, a sculptor. The artist forms the clay before firing; if the artist let everyone alter 1mm of it; after thousand's had had their go/say... no matter what the artist formed intially/envisioned; it would still always end up a blob on the desk. Same goes for games. Us fans need to becareful what we wish for... and the dev's need stay true to their vision.
This, that have highlited is key.
I have said it before like this "we don't know what is good for us" We like to think we do, we say the game should be like this or it should be like that. and look where that has gotten the genres. Games most of us don't like to play. There are a lot of decisions out of VR that right now I think will hurt the game (most leanning to being too easy) but I need to step back and let the Dev team build THEIR game, and hope they stay true to their vision.
Syrif said: Porygon - What is wrong with saying that? If someone is looking for that type of gameplay and game mechanics, then I said they can play WoW, EQ-Live, and the like because those already exist in those games. No offense meant to anyone, but it’s facts that have been stated is all. Pantheon, in my opinion, is making substantial progress on something that doesn’t exist right now because it is meant to be different.
Sorry for the late reply. I forget what threads I comment in sometimes. The issue is that the game is supposed to be built on community, and when you, as a member of the community start actively telling people to play different games gives off the wrong impression to people who may have different views but are nervous to voice them. This is how you end up with the vocal minority speaking for a population.
We as a community should be willing to compromise in order to create a game worthy of a large large playerbase so we can ensure it is around for years to come.
Porygon said:Syrif said: Porygon - What is wrong with saying that? If someone is looking for that type of gameplay and game mechanics, then I said they can play WoW, EQ-Live, and the like because those already exist in those games. No offense meant to anyone, but it’s facts that have been stated is all. Pantheon, in my opinion, is making substantial progress on something that doesn’t exist right now because it is meant to be different.Sorry for the late reply. I forget what threads I comment in sometimes. The issue is that the game is supposed to be built on community, and when you, as a member of the community start actively telling people to play different games gives off the wrong impression to people who may have different views but are nervous to voice them. This is how you end up with the vocal minority speaking for a population.
We as a community should be willing to compromise in order to create a game worthy of a large large playerbase so we can ensure it is around for years to come.
No, we should not.
First, We don't have any ability to compromise. We arent making the game. VR is.
Second, We, the people who are embracing the core tenets that VR has stated are their goal, have every right to encourage a drive toward those more narrowly focused goals. We have watched developer after developer compromise over and over and over again hoping to get the maximum possible number of sales. We can pour over the list of 100's of titles already on the market that have done this and wholly failed to build a game we feel compelled to play. We are homeless. We cannot find a game in our niche. We are disillusioned and desperate.
What you're effectively saying is that there's a market (admittedly a minority) who want a certain kind of game, and that we are **** out of luck, and that we instead should let yet another title be added to the lengthy list of ones we don't want to play.
"We" is very subjective. There are a lot of people backing this game. There seems to be a minority that is unwilling to make compromises and that shouldn't thwart the potential for this game. It's been stated countless times that Pantheon isn't an EQ redux but you'll never stop seeing posts on here from people who want to see that game emulated as closely as possible. The mantra of "If it ain't broke don't fix it" truly does not apply here. I think there are certain aspects of the game that have been made so similar to EQ that it actually feeds that fire and it's unfortunate. It's constantly pitting the EQ zealots against everybody else. When sound effects / emotes / animations are identical to EQ it only justifies the rationale that this game is truly on the path of being a re-skinned EQ. That isn't what I signed up for.
At the end of the day a segment of the population will be unsatisfied. Hopefully VR makes the right choice and decides to ship a game that will be highly profitable. Compromises need to be made and if certain players aren't willing to make them then maybe they are disillusioned with reality. Or ... maybe they will get everything they want, and those who were looking forward to an evolution to the genre ... a game that takes and combines the best aspects of many old-school RPG's while making a genuine effort to mitigate the pain points ... maybe they will be SOL. I guess we'll see. Personally I'm tired of seeing all the "EQ or nothing" diatribe.
OP post came across as un-necessarily aggressive and closed minded. As do a fair bunch of the responses. The term 'Old School' means different things to different people, as you can clearly see from the responses. It's unhelpful and confusing.
"I couldn't POSSIBLY drive from London to Newcastle in a RED car. That would simply ruin the trip for me. No it has to be black, like I had 20 years ago. And it has to break down every 3 miles, otherwise it's just not fun"
EQ was rubbish in many respects. A lot of people simply don't want to be subject to those any more, for a variety of perfectly valid reasons. That doesn't mean that those people want a WoW clone, and we all have known for a very long time now that that is not what is being developed. There are plenty of features and mechanics from other MMOs that kick EQs ass; and there are some less desirable ones.
I've not had trouble establishing relationships and fostering a sense of community in ANY MMO I've ever played. I was far from the only one. I wonder how we all managed that?
Sure, having a dungeon finder did sometimes break communication, but sometimes I found I made new friends too, added them to friends and grouped with them later. I'm sure I'm not the only one who found this. And don't forget there were sometimes language barriers to consider too. Are you going to group only with people who speak English?
And is standing around in a sea of spam of WTS really how you want to be interacting with other payers? responding to ridiculous offers whether you're buying or selling and getting annoyed with it all - seriously that's how you want to build a community?? Moreover you think it's damaging the game if you don't do that? Gimme a break, seriously.
Death penalty - whatever. On the one hand it promotes diligence. On the other it will also mean gkicks for the 'moron' who 'caused' the wipe. It could foster a general distrust, cautious player interaction and small communities of people who 'can be trusted', with everyone else being an 'idiot'. Hardly something that promotes an overall sense of community.
For every upside of a mechanic there is also a downside. And the point is, see it's not the mechanics, it's your attitude that counts.
Feyshtey said:Second, We, the people who are embracing the core tenets that VR has stated are their goal, have every right to encourage a drive toward those more narrowly focused goals. We have watched developer after developer compromise over and over and over again hoping to get the maximum possible number of sales. We can pour over the list of 100's of titles already on the market that have done this and wholly failed to build a game we feel compelled to play. We are homeless. We cannot find a game in our niche. We are disillusioned and desperate.
I believe it's wrong to think that "compromise" between fans on the forums automatically means violating VR's core tenets. I don't think I've seen any suggestion yet that really violates any of those core tenets.
It's also worth pointing out that in order to follow their first tenet - that "content is King" - they need financial success. It takes money to design and build content for players. If their game has too narrow of a niche at the exclusion of the vast majority of the potential playerbase, they will have an extremely hard time funding that content. (You'll, sadly, end up in a situation like I am in with WildStar, where I adore the game to pieces but not enough people share my love and thus you're doomed to never see the game grow.) Again, that doesn't mean that they need to violate their core tenets. It does mean that they should be mindful about how much they cater to the hardest of the hardcore.
Syrif said:Well, not to be rude to anyone, but I keep seeing threads or comments that express a desire to "ease down" gameplay. Since these recent threads keep coming up and have **not** themselves been locked, then I will write of my reminder of the need for an updated old-school gameplay; I assume my thread will not be locked either. The obvious one is that we all know the mmo market is entirely dominated by mmo's at the moment that have greatly pursued the "ease down" approach. This option is widely available for players who want that type of gameplay - go play there if that is what you want. Honestly though, in my opinion, you will be playing games that have been on a downward spiral (at least subscription-wise such as WoW and EQ-Live).
Another one I read about is some people not wanting "EC tunnel vendors" where the player devotes his or her time to selling and purchasing items - from what I read some people want the "bot system," as exists in WoW and EQ-Live. Again, if that is what you want - go play those games. Do I think it makes sense to make another "EC tunnel"? No, I do not. Do I think it makes sense to create an updated market area for traders that requires player interaction with eachother again? Yes, of course I do. The bot system is not the answer though. That already exists in WoW, EQ-Live, and others. We need a game that is not like those ones.
I've also read threads where ease of travel is made, well, easier. Again, that already exists on a couple of mmo's that I am aware of. They are called WoW and EQ-Live. The importance of player interaction regarding travel is essential. In old-school gameplay, some classes had travel abilities that were useful in certain scenarios. Other travel abilities were just for travelling to other continents. Travel to another continent took a little time. Why? Well, it is another continent - that's why. Maybe a group member needed to be picked up there or maybe a group had to work on a different quest piece. If you want instant travel available to everyone akin to WoW and EQ-Live, then you have that option to go play and experience that. The idea of unique travel experiences is for the community to engage with each other in a meaningful way.
Some other threads I have read talk about how some people think they have lives now. Really quickly, we had lives in the old-school days too. We had jobs, commitments, and obligations then just as we do now. We adults and kiddos could play a challenging game then - why couldn't we do so again now? I know I have more time to play now versus then. Others may not, but that also hasn't changed. I know people who are retired now who have an abundance of time to play, but unfortunately there is not a single mmo out there that requires hardly any time or thought. Not much of a challenge. Not much of a "risk-vs-reward" exists at the moment.
Another one I read is having a small death penalty, maybe not one at all. WoW and EQ-Live have this system - if someone desires that experience, then those games are available to you. Those games have been losing subscribers in large numbers, but hey, some people want that gameplay and I respect that. Those games are widely available to them. As for Pantheon, we need a game that has a moderately challenging death penalty again. If you wan't to forego the requirements to recover some of the experience lost, then you can do so and recover the experience via other means. If you want to recover substantial experience lost, then that will require some work. It did not break my back in old-school gameplay and an updated version will not do so now either.
I also read about corpse runs being unecessary. If you don't like the idea of recovering your corpse with items, then WoW and EQ-Live are just a tad around the corner to you. Corpse runs sometimes utilized community interaction then, and corpse recoveries may do so again now. And yes, not having food or water needs to have a minor penalty like reduced walking speed from fatigue or no health/mana regen or something similar. The incentive is to well, buy some food and water. Or, ask a player to forage or summon some food for you.
What do lack of corpse runs, no death penalty, easy travel, and no risk-vs-reward all have in common? They all exist in other games already. We need something that doesn' exist right now. Anyway, what are your thoughts on why you think an updated old-school gameplay (and mechanisms) are necessary for Pantheon now given that an updated, challenging mmo is currently absent from the market?
edit: When I say people can play those games it’s not meant as an insult. Rather, it’s a real option that people have. There needs to be a variety of mmo’s and gameplay available to people though.
I could not agree with you more. The good thing is I believe the Devs will stick to their core idea and, as long as they do, they will give us the old school game we are all salivating to play.
Feyshtey said:What you're effectively saying is that there's a market (admittedly a minority) who want a certain kind of game, and that we are **** out of luck, and that we instead should let yet another title be added to the lengthy list of ones we don't want to play.
This is a straw man. VR haven't stated that things are set in stone, compromise isn't against any of the core tenets of Pantheon. Syrif's so called "ease down "approach"" is wildly subjective. Adding another title to the list of games not to be played is clearly not what Porygon is saying. You either have not grasped what you're accusing people in this thread of or (hopefully not) being willfully dishonest to strengthen your argument.