oneADseven said:I didn't get that impression at all. The main takeaway I observed was this:
"If the tools and functionality for quick group play with decent downtime or options to take a break for family life are in place, then give me the group content!"
All he is saying is that ... if he has a couple hours to play, he wants to be productive in that time. It's completely reasonable. He doesn't want to spend 85% of his time looking for and then meeting up with a group. Again, I think that is reasonable. At the end of the day, though, I think players need to accept that when a game is built mostly around player interdependence and group-centric play ... there are going to be times where it's the responsibility of the player to properly manage their time. If you only have an hour to play and it takes 30 minutes just to get to a group, you should probably consider doing something other than grouping. As long as Pantheon has a healthy mix of horizontal progression, and opportunities to accomplish something while solo, everything will be fine. We just need to remember that the game is designed around a grouping mindset so whatever solo content that ends up being available probably isn't going to offer the same kind of progression potential as what could be had in a group.
I think GioCefalu is here for a reason. I think he really enjoys group-centric play but also understands that his current situation isn't really aligned with how things "used to work." He just wants to see some innovation that will help him make the most out of his time. He doesn't want WoW. He wants to carve his niche in the world of Terminus and hopes that the game is being developed in such a way where he'll have a platform to be able to do that. If you look at the things he is asking for ... and then compare that to the AMA excerpts I linked, and the language Brad used in his blog article ... it's obvious that his concerns have been heard by VR and that they are designing the game with players like him in mind. We shouldn't be trying to ship him off to WoW or some other modern MMO. He specifically phrased his response around the caveat of "It depends on how much time I have." He prefers group content if the right tools are in place to help facilitate it. If not, he'll settle with some sort of solo play. There are plenty of folks who share that exact sentiment.
He said though this:
GioCefalu said:As others have also mentioned, I enjoy both, but it depends on how much time I have. So many MMOs (even modern day EQ) have put an emphasis on group play to the point that you have to have significant amounts of uninterrupted time, and that's just difficult for me. I can't commit the same amount of time I could when I was younger. Full time job, kids, other activities, you get the drill.
I'm hoping Pantheon gives me enough solo ability that I can play and accomplish something when I'm short on time, and I hope it also gives us group dynamics where interruptions (kids need to be tucked in, wife needs help with a chore, quick work call, etc) don't kill the group or their dependency on my character. I have some awesome memories of playing in groups when I was younger, but I don't have the time to LFG for 30 minutes, finding a lackluster group that doesn't provide anything for my character, spend 45 minutes running to the camp, killing stuff for 15 minutes, and then having to log off anyway. If the tools and functionality for quick group play with decent downtime or options to take a break for family life are in place, then give me the group content!
1. He wants solo ability so he can accomplish something in a short amount of time.
a. Problem: Soloing in games like EQ did not take a "short amount of time". In fact, soloing took an enormous amount of time. Spending a long time killing a mob that might provide worthy exp was not only dangerous, but took quite a while for a kiter/fear kiter, etc.. add in the fact that what mobs were good to solo were often in areas where it took time to travel because the game didn't specifically design solo mobs, players had to seek out the types of mobs that best fit their classes ability to possibly solo (ie emergent play).
2. He specifically states he doesn't want to be LFG for 30 mins.
a. Problem: Even in hot spots of EQ, it took time to get a group going. Waiting 30 mins was not uncommon to find a pickup group and while the tools they are making can help, this won't be a dungeon finder where you wait two mins and pop into a dungeon. Since grouping will be server constrained, you won't be able to play the odds of grouping with everyone in the entire game. It will still take time.
3. He is complaining about having to spend 45 mins running to a camp with only 15 mins left to play.
a. Problem: You can't have meaningful travel and world size if you can hop skip and jump to another location quickly as it defeats the entire purpose of a large world where it takes time to get places. So either he wants fast travel or tools to instant port him to the group (which may be possible with caravans /gag), or he will have to plan his group outings. I could be wrong, but I think he wants to pop on and be in a group making progress in a very short time, which defeats the entire point of this type of game.
Summary:
If you look at his time in his example, he has 1 1/2 hours of time and wants to be able to get more than 15 mins play out of that. This means he wants to be able to log on, find a group, and travel to a location (without any planning) and be able to spend most of that 1 1/2 hours productive grouping. This was nowhere possible in EQ, or early WoW, early LoTRO, etc... in fact this is a modern MMO requirement, a mainstream design expectation.
Now I am not downing him for his desire, I think there should be games that appeal to his needs, and thankfully there are tons out there that provide EXACTLY what he is talking about. I don't think it is reasonable to expect this game change its entire design concept to cater to such.
Watemper said:Will see how dedicated VR is to capturing the target audience they are going for.
1.1 Who is the targeted player (demographic) base for this game, and why?
While some MMOs have been designed with the goal and desire to appeal to all gamers, all of the time, we at Visionary Realms believe the future of MMOs is all about making more focused games, targeting specific gamers with distinct preferences. Pantheon is first and foremost a deeply social game. Players who desire cooperative play, working together as a team, and the shared experiences that result from playing with other real people to overcome challenges will enjoy Pantheon. Players who want an MMO to be their home and to interact with communities and player-driven economies will find what they are looking for in Pantheon. Why? We feel that, at least recently, the MMO players who enjoy these elements have been orphaned. In fact, the Visionary Realms team feels they are part of this orphaned group. And it doesn’t take a lot of research to find countless articles, blogs, and posts full of players looking for the kind of experience we aim to offer in Pantheon.
Although it seems other FAQ answers are shifting away from their core principle...if I play it for a month and get bored I will just move on. Simple as that.
Yeah, I noticed that there is a bit of difference from the first FAQ/Tenants to what is now. It seems like they have gotten a bit more vague in what they are stating, leaving it open to encompass a larger base of players than they intially were focusing on. I could be wrong, this may just be my years of being let down by mainstream focused MMOs, but I can't help but be suspicous of such. Especially when Brad has gotten soft on some of his deisgn choices. I remember him actually arguing with defiance his Vision on the forums when EQ was released, but now he seems a bit more "pliant" to the masses unfortunately.
I know I keep beating that drum, but this is why I keep hoping they will market Pantheon as a server/client set eventually, so people can run their own servers. It solves ALL of these problems.
Tanix said:a. Problem: You can't have meaningful travel and world size if you can hop skip and jump to another location quickly as it defeats the entire purpose of a large world where it takes time to get places. So either he wants fast travel or tools to instant port him to the group (which may be possible with caravans /gag), or he will have to plan his group outings. I could be wrong, but I think he wants to pop on and be in a group making progress in a very short time, which defeats the entire point of this game.
The caravan feature is definitely something that would be tricky to get right. I spent some time thinking about this awhile ago and put this together:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ywACNWUnOw8CdlYwqP2Y59hyFQL2ieu_1WbNBh0xj40/edit?usp=sharing
I can see that you aren't thrilled about the idea of caravans in general but I'll share the idea anyway. If there is one takeaway I hope you can appreciate ... it's that it is possible to think outside of the box for "solutions" to certain issues ... without destroying the integrity of underlying game values. It's not a dungeon finder tool. It's not a quick travel tool. There are costs for using it, rules for how it can be used, and how often it can be used. I don't think something like that would ruin the game but feel free to critique.
oneADseven said:Tanix said:a. Problem: You can't have meaningful travel and world size if you can hop skip and jump to another location quickly as it defeats the entire purpose of a large world where it takes time to get places. So either he wants fast travel or tools to instant port him to the group (which may be possible with caravans /gag), or he will have to plan his group outings. I could be wrong, but I think he wants to pop on and be in a group making progress in a very short time, which defeats the entire point of this game.
The caravan feature is definitely something that would be tricky to get right. I spent some time thinking about this awhile ago and put this together:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ywACNWUnOw8CdlYwqP2Y59hyFQL2ieu_1WbNBh0xj40/edit?usp=sharing
I can see that you aren't thrilled about the idea of caravans in general but I'll share the idea anyway. If there is one takeaway I hope you can appreciate ... it's that it is possible to think outside of the box for "solutions" to certain issues ... without destroying the integrity of underlying game values. It's not a dungeon finder tool. It's not a quick travel tool. There are costs for using it, rules for how it can be used, and how often it can be used. I don't think something like that would ruin the game but feel free to critique.
I read your ideas quickly, so forgive me if I missed something.
I see no "costs" associated with it. This is not a down on you, but it is a common approach to game design these days which is what I think causes issues.
Where are your negatives? What risks are there for joining the caravan? See, features as such should follow basic game design tenants of the game. There should be risk vs reward right?
So, here is just something off the top of my head (keep in mind I am spit balling on something I have no real detailed knowledge of how it will work).
If you log out and join a caravan, you are now a passenger and one that has essentially handed over the reigns to another player. So.. if for instance, that caravan gets in trouble (your group wipes), how about... so do you die and end up having to recover your body where your caravan group last left off?
See how there is a benefit, but a weight to be considered? A true risk vs reward? Sure... you can attach yourself to a buddy group to get a quick fast travel to a new location when you log on, but.. if they die ANYWHERE along the way, you die as well and have to go through the process of recovery. It means you could log on and be like "Where the hell am I? I am naked and.. Has anbody seen my corpse? /queue music" (look up "Has anybody seen my corpse" on youtube to understand).
Point is, there is risk, there is reward, and the player has to decide and put faith into others due to it.
Do that (or any other major risk), put a system as such in and I may be on board with it. Anything else and it is just a cheat trying to appeal to mainstream.
Look, it like this, when your lvl 1 you can kill lvl 1 mobs solo, of becuase you are level 1, at 2 to prolly stay at killing level one mobs becuase you don't want to spending the time killing level 2 mobs or maybe to far away who knows doesn't matter, you basically keep repeating this and than at let's say level 10 you solo level like 5-7 mobs becuase the flow it prolly pretty good. Level 30 prolly around 22, 50 prolly around 42ish the point is you can literally always solo it's always going to be there, becuase even in early eq days where fighting low level mobs still hurt like hell, you were still able to solo, cept for like warriors and paladins maybe, possibly clerics depending on what their fighting, but in grps you kill things your level or higher and get the loot that is evualant to your level. So people saying they want to solo YOU CAN, it will just be things lower level than you which it should be, becuase to be if a lvl 25 wizard roots a lvl 25 mob and the root lasts a maximum of 20 seconds than on average that root should last like 8 seconds on him with diminishing returns, and worse if the target is higher level and better if it is lower, it keeps the soloing aspect of the game honest. To where maybe that level 25 wizard might be able to kill that level 25 target but with the effort spent he could of kill like 2-3 lvl 20 mobs with the same about of effort, (one at a time), and have about the same amount of exp gained, that way the grouping content is still better that soloing, but soloing is still their for the people who don't have time for it but have to realize it to targets that should be much weaker than them and not even too.
And these are just normal mobs that I'm talking about, not to rare spawns or named mobs and such just simple old run of the mills mobs most games have. and also instead of 50 killing 42 I'd knock that down to like 38ish instead but that's just me
@ Tanix -- The cost was tied into the caravan item being consumed upon use. The kind of penalty you describe would make more sense if players could log in and out as they please while still being attached to the caravan. In the example I provided, that wouldn't happen ... mostly because it would allow the feature to be easily abused. Riders would only benefit from the caravan feature if it was attached to a stall and consumed. Since that item is a crafted item, and the components can be adjusted, the relative cost is easily controlled. The cost could be so high that nobody in their right mind would ever use the feature. This is something that would need to be tuned along the way but to imply that there is no cost or risk is completely inaccurate.
oneADseven said:@ Tanix -- The cost was tied into the caravan item being consumed upon use. The kind of penalty you describe would make more sense if players could log in and out as they please while still being attached to the caravan. In the example I provided, that wouldn't happen ... mostly because it would allow the feature to be easily abused. Riders would only benefit from the caravan feature if it was attached to a stall and consumed. Since that item is a crafted item, and the components can be adjusted, the relative cost is easily controlled. The cost could be so high that nobody in their right mind would ever use the feature. This is something that would need to be tuned along the way but to imply that there is no cost or risk is completely inaccurate.
Cost isn't really a risk though (unless it is tied to core progression and of a serious note, ie corpse runs... level loss, etc...). All such deterrents do is get abused later. For instance, cost with potions in EQ were extremely high, to the point where even raids only bought a couple or so for certain classes at certain times. Then, a couple of dupe bugs later and people had stacks of them. Cost is not a good barrier, it didn't work out well with WoW either.
I don't think caravans should be a readinly useful feature. I think they should be for very specific need, under very specific cirumstances and have enormous amounts of risk and conditions. Cost, and other widget based restrictions are meaningless.
Make where players can lose their corpse (ie die and not be sure where they died at), limited on what and where you can go if you are a in a carvan (ie increased agro range, etc..), the list goes on. IF you are going to put in a magic port where anyone can use it, it has to have MAJOR possible negatives outside of gimmicks plat buyers can easily overcome or it is pointless.
Personally, I think the entire thing is a gimmick, because if it were to TRULY have a risk, people wouldn't use it (because most when given the choice won't risk things if it is for "convenience"), which is the point. It should be a "decision" to use such, not a component of how much plat I purchased online this week.
I'll respectfully disagree with your opinion. The idea of "cost" is not universally eliminated from the discussion because people were duping in EQ. It's not eliminated because some people engage in illegal RMT. Using that logic anything and everything that can be purchased with plat is irrelevant. Most people don't cheat. (I hope.) The thing you need to realize is that the money spent on the consumed caravan could have been spent on something else. That includes gear that can help someone level. That includes paying someone for help with a corpse run. You have a really one dimensional mind set and I find it very difficult to get on the same wave length as you. I think I understand your perspective better but in the end we just have different philosophies. You think that purchasing something with in-game currency is somehow circumventing content. I consider it intentional emergence. You can't use RMT as a backbone for every argument. In the end, consider that people sometimes sell their characters. Since it's possible to buy (with real cash) the best geared character in the world, potentially, does that mean that every item/accomplishment associated with that sold character is now compromised on a game-wide level? I don't think so.
Riahuf22 said:Look, it like this, when your lvl 1 you can kill lvl 1 mobs solo, of becuase you are level 1, at 2 to prolly stay at killing level one mobs becuase you don't want to spending the time killing level 2 mobs or maybe to far away who knows doesn't matter, you basically keep repeating this and than at let's say level 10 you solo level like 5-7 mobs becuase the flow it prolly pretty good. Level 30 prolly around 22, 50 prolly around 42ish the point is you can literally always solo it's always going to be there, becuase even in early eq days where fighting low level mobs still hurt like hell, you were still able to solo, cept for like warriors and paladins maybe, possibly clerics depending on what their fighting, but in grps you kill things your level or higher and get the loot that is evualant to your level. So people saying they want to solo YOU CAN, it will just be things lower level than you which it should be, becuase to be if a lvl 25 wizard roots a lvl 25 mob and the root lasts a maximum of 20 seconds than on average that root should last like 8 seconds on him with diminishing returns, and worse if the target is higher level and better if it is lower, it keeps the soloing aspect of the game honest. To where maybe that level 25 wizard might be able to kill that level 25 target but with the effort spent he could of kill like 2-3 lvl 20 mobs with the same about of effort, (one at a time), and have about the same amount of exp gained, that way the grouping content is still better that soloing, but soloing is still their for the people who don't have time for it but have to realize it to targets that should be much weaker than them and not even too.
And these are just normal mobs that I'm talking about, not to rare spawns or named mobs and such just simple old run of the mills mobs most games have. and also instead of 50 killing 42 I'd knock that down to like 38ish instead but that's just me
EQ, and keep in mind I am speaking of EQ in its first three expansion, the Verant expansions, before SoE's influence. Soloing existed as such:
1) Each class could solo mobs from level 1-? a certain level. It varied depending on class, some earlier, some later, but there was a cut off for most due to the way EQ mobs damage scaled.
2) Being able to solo was HIGHLY dependent on the player, the attention they put to skills (for instance a monk who painfully trained up Instill Doubt, Feign Death, and Bind Wound to max could solo a bit longer, I made it to 36 before I reached my cap in ability on release EQ, and keep in mind that it was slow, so slow that modern gamers would not accept how slow my exp gain was.)
3) Gear was a key factor in soloing. A raider who had high AC, damage, regen, etc... could solo certain exp generating mobs that they otherwise could not before.
4) Some classes had skills, very specific skills which allowed them to solo successfully. These were the "special" classes people would make to solo all the time with (ie druids, necros, SKs, bards, and Enchanters after 50).
Most classes could not solo consistently and only were able to due to various conditions over expansions, mob types, etc....
The point is, soloing in EQ was not a game mechanic, in fact it was an "emergent" play concept where each player pushed to the limits their classes abilities, spells, skills, gear and situations (ie when, where what and how) to gain exp.
Make no mistake, even for the best soloers, that exp was EARNED as even the best had to become very skilled at playing their class to produce a net positive in exp return (many people would attempt to kite, reverse kite, etc,, and die more often than succeed).
So when you look at EQ as an example of where soloing should be copied, keep in mind those aspects because it was those subtle means to which constrained the game. If you simply design the game where all classes can solo at a whim, you pretty much relegate your game to mainstream garabge that the average player will be to max level in a week or so. That or worse, you get dubbed an Asian MMO grinder where kills to level are measured in the 100's of thousands and miillions to proceed.
Well I understand old eq I played it almost from day 1 so I know, but we alrdy know it's not going to be that harsh, at least I dont, and I'm not saying that for any other reason than they alrdy said you can solo, so at max level soloing something g 10-12 levels lower level than you that still gives you exp is still considered soloing, and it doesn't require a special class to solo but those classes to maybe solo harder targets like I stead of 10-12, maybe 8 or so. So yes I believe all classes should be able to solo, they shouldn't be punished for picking a class for as long as their skill with the class is good enough to do it.
oneADseven said:I'll respectfully disagree with your opinion. The idea of "cost" is not universally eliminated from the discussion because people were duping in EQ. It's not eliminated because some people engage in illegal RMT. Using that logic anything and everything that can be purchased with plat is irrelevant. Most people don't cheat. (I hope.) The thing you need to realize is that the money spent on the consumed caravan could have been spent on something else. That includes gear that can help someone level. That includes paying someone for help with a corpse run. You have a really one dimensional mind set and I find it very difficult to get on the same wave length as you. I think I understand your perspective better but in the end we just have different philosophies. You think that purchasing something with in-game currency is somehow circumventing content. I consider it intentional emergence. You can't use RMT as a backbone for every argument. In the end, consider that people sometimes sell their characters. Since it's possible to buy (with real cash) the best geared character in the world, potentially, does that mean that every item/accomplishment associated with that sold character is now compromised on a game-wide level? I don't think so.
The problem is that reality shows you wrong. Plat selling/buying has become so prevelant that it is a massive industry, so much that game companies began to partake in it. RMT is what drives most of the gaming industry today be it buying items directly, paying for level ups, or simply purchasing bonuses (potions, power ups, etc...). This is modern gaming to the exact. RMT is WIDELY accepted, argued and rationalized and here you are telling me "you hope" that most people don't cheat?
Yeah, I hate to break it to you, but they do... given the chance and enough self reasoning, many people cheat and this gaming generation has GROWN UP thinking cheating in games is acceptable, you know.., because they work hard all day, they don't have the time, they deserve to... xyz...
Like I said before, I have been around this too long to have some naieve view about such things.
Cost systems, in terms of player tradeable currency as a negative are NOT a deterrent, they are circumvented quite quickly.
You want meaningful negatives? You put in penalties people can't "buy" their way out of.
Problem is, you make a game where this is consistent throughout, and you WILL cut your player base down to a very specifc focus.
Question is, does VR want to MAKE a game? Or do they want to SELL a game.
We will see come release.
Please answer my last question instead of using extreme absolutes and deflection.
Since it's possible to buy (with real cash) the best geared character in the world, potentially, does that mean that every item/accomplishment associated with that sold character is now compromised on a game-wide level?
If not, can you elaborate on your idea of "meaningful negatives" that players can't "buy their way out of?"
If so ... game over. (Your logic, not mine.)
Riahuf22 said:Well I understand old eq I played it almost from day 1 so I know, but we alrdy know it's not going to be that harsh, at least I dont, and I'm not saying that for any other reason than they alrdy said you can solo, so at max level soloing something g 10-12 levels lower level than you that still gives you exp is still considered soloing, and it doesn't require a special class to solo but those classes to maybe solo harder targets like I stead of 10-12, maybe 8 or so. So yes I believe all classes should be able to solo, they shouldn't be punished for picking a class for as long as their skill with the class is good enough to do it.
Soloing should not be a focus. PERIOD.
EQ didn't focus on it, nor should Pantheon.
I can only be clear and direct to my position. If VR sells out, I won't play their game. Period.
Now you might think... well...they don't need you, they have... xyz modern gamers etc....
Modern gamers are not faithful, this is an verified fact. You build a game to modern design and what that means is you end up with locusts to rush throgh content and move off to the next game.
It is the core EQ/VG release crowd that would keep this game afloat. The same gamers who made P1999 popular and various other private servers. Those are the people who VR intially claimed would sustain them. If VR fails them, the game will be massively succesful to the mainstream locusts, but then will die out because nobody will be here to keep the lights on (I know I wont).
So what is their goal now? Cater to mainstream? Cater to the players who actually funded them through the failed KS to now?
There is a MAJOR issue with this game many people don't understand. Either VR serves its core base, or it hopes the mainstream hype will make it rich so it doesn't have to care.
Other companies have done this though, so it is possible VR could leave thier core base hanging.
Larian for instance was a little cRPG company known for certain titles and they sold a bill of goods to the old school gamer base, promised them the world, told them they were making games for them, but as soon as the money got too good, Larian sold out and pushed mainstream garbage. I am too old to think VR is a saint and would never do such a thing, so I am very critical of their decisions.
VR can save me the time though. All they ahve to do is just say "We are making games for everyone!" and I will stop supporting or following the game. It is as easy as that.
oneADseven said:Please answer my last question instead of using extreme absolutes and deflection.
Since it's possible to buy (with real cash) the best geared character in the world, potentially, does that mean that every item/accomplishment associated with that sold character is now compromised on a game-wide level?
If not, can you elaborate on your idea of "meaningful negatives" that players can't "buy their way out of?"
If so ... game over. (Your logic, not mine.)
How does that make cost a reasonable mechanic?
I explained a meaningful negative. For instance, a corpse run is a meaningful negative. It doesn't matter if you have the best gear, you still have to travel back, fight your way in naked and retrieve your gear.
Cost negatives can be bought out. When you say "Well, it can get very expensive!!!", keep in mind that isn't a negatve to a person who can buy enormous amounts of plat in game. It is easy to over power those expenses, unless... you are saying you are going to make the cost so high that even a plat buyer will find it too expensive?
At that point, you just explained to me that plat sellers will drive game development decisions (something I already know that happens, but it would be a clear point for you to admit such).
So what does this mean? It means that "cost" penalties (such as repair costs, monetary restrictions, etc..) are not a good game play mechanic as has been shown over and over in games like WoW.
So.. do you understand what I mean now about "not being able to buy your way out of?"
Tanix said:Riahuf22 said:Well I understand old eq I played it almost from day 1 so I know, but we alrdy know it's not going to be that harsh, at least I dont, and I'm not saying that for any other reason than they alrdy said you can solo, so at max level soloing something g 10-12 levels lower level than you that still gives you exp is still considered soloing, and it doesn't require a special class to solo but those classes to maybe solo harder targets like I stead of 10-12, maybe 8 or so. So yes I believe all classes should be able to solo, they shouldn't be punished for picking a class for as long as their skill with the class is good enough to do it.
Soloing should not be a focus. PERIOD.
EQ didn't focus on it, nor should Pantheon.
I can only be clear and direct to my position. If VR sells out, I won't play their game. Period.
Now you might think... well...they don't need you, they have... xyz modern gamers etc....
Modern gamers are not faithful, this is an verified fact. You build a game to modern design and what that means is you end up with locusts to rush throgh content and move off to the next game.
It is the core EQ/VG release crowd that would keep this game afloat. The same gamers who made P1999 popular and various other private servers. Those are the people who VR intially claimed would sustain them. If VR fails them, the game will be massively succesful to the mainstream locusts, but then will die out because nobody will be here to keep the lights on (I know I wont).
So what is their goal now? Cater to mainstream? Cater to the players who actually funded them through the failed KS to now?
There is a MAJOR issue with this game many people don't understand. Either VR serves its core base, or it hopes the mainstream hype will make it rich so it doesn't have to care.
Other companies have done this though, so it is possible VR could leave thier core base hanging.
Larian for instance was a little cRPG company known for certain titles and they sold a bill of goods to the old school gamer base, promised them the world, told them they were making games for them, but as soon as the money got too good, Larian sold out and pushed mainstream garbage. I am too old to think VR is a saint and would never do such a thing, so I am very critical of their decisions.
VR can save me the time though. All they ahve to do is just say "We are making games for everyone!" and I will stop supporting or following the game. It is as easy as that.
Soloing things far below you doesn't do anything to the game, cept give people something to do when they are looking for a grp, plus you'll never get good gear soloing which I also mentioned, unless some world drop becomes decent, which most will never get, I wasn't putting a focus on it but if you make it literally 90% group 8% raid and 2% solo, people will get tired of basically doing nothing becuase they don't have time to find a grp and get/find a camp and grind to get to it and than actually enjoy it before they have to leave, having a mmo having individuals solo mobs far below them isn't a bad thing it's a filler, and if anything in a mmo you need a filler, some people will farm mats, some people will talk to others in town, some want to kill NPC'S before they log off and they shouldn't have to find a grp to do it. Simply put its smart planning to do it this way even though it obviously goes against what you want.
Tanix said:I explained a meaningful negative. For instance, a corpse run is a meaningful negative. It doesn't matter if you have the best gear, you still have to travel back, fight your way in naked and retrieve your gear.
Cost negatives can be bought out. When you say "Well, it can get very expensive!!!", keep in mind that isn't a negatve to a person who can buy enormous amounts of plat in game. It is easy to over power those expenses, unless... you are saying you are going to make the cost so high that even a plat buyer will find it too expensive?
At that point, you just explained to me that plat sellers will drive game development decisions (something I already know that happens, but it would be a clear point for you to admit such).
So what does this mean? It means that "cost" penalties (such as repair costs, monetary restrictions, etc..) are not a good game play mechanic as has been shown over and over in games like WoW.
So.. do you understand what I mean now about "not being able to buy your way out of?"
My point is that you can't use RMT as a backbone for your argument against "cost." Seeing that players can purchase fully decked out characters who completely bypass every "meaningful negative" that the game has to offer (this includes leveling and corpse runs that you referenced), and do so using the very same RMT that you're using to invalidate "cost" to begin with, there is no consistency in your logic. In any event ... I can see that this discussion is spinning in circles, very similar to our last. I'll bow out now. (I really don't want to be involved in getting another thread locked.) Thank you for trying to keep it civil.
Riahuf22 said:Tanix said:Riahuf22 said:Well I understand old eq I played it almost from day 1 so I know, but we alrdy know it's not going to be that harsh, at least I dont, and I'm not saying that for any other reason than they alrdy said you can solo, so at max level soloing something g 10-12 levels lower level than you that still gives you exp is still considered soloing, and it doesn't require a special class to solo but those classes to maybe solo harder targets like I stead of 10-12, maybe 8 or so. So yes I believe all classes should be able to solo, they shouldn't be punished for picking a class for as long as their skill with the class is good enough to do it.
Soloing should not be a focus. PERIOD.
EQ didn't focus on it, nor should Pantheon.
I can only be clear and direct to my position. If VR sells out, I won't play their game. Period.
Now you might think... well...they don't need you, they have... xyz modern gamers etc....
Modern gamers are not faithful, this is an verified fact. You build a game to modern design and what that means is you end up with locusts to rush throgh content and move off to the next game.
It is the core EQ/VG release crowd that would keep this game afloat. The same gamers who made P1999 popular and various other private servers. Those are the people who VR intially claimed would sustain them. If VR fails them, the game will be massively succesful to the mainstream locusts, but then will die out because nobody will be here to keep the lights on (I know I wont).
So what is their goal now? Cater to mainstream? Cater to the players who actually funded them through the failed KS to now?
There is a MAJOR issue with this game many people don't understand. Either VR serves its core base, or it hopes the mainstream hype will make it rich so it doesn't have to care.
Other companies have done this though, so it is possible VR could leave thier core base hanging.
Larian for instance was a little cRPG company known for certain titles and they sold a bill of goods to the old school gamer base, promised them the world, told them they were making games for them, but as soon as the money got too good, Larian sold out and pushed mainstream garbage. I am too old to think VR is a saint and would never do such a thing, so I am very critical of their decisions.
VR can save me the time though. All they ahve to do is just say "We are making games for everyone!" and I will stop supporting or following the game. It is as easy as that.
Soloing things far below you doesn't do anything to the game, cept give people something to do when they are looking for a grp, plus you'll never get good gear soloing which I also mentioned, unless some world drop becomes decent, which most will never get, I wasn't putting a focus on it but if you make it literally 90% group 8% raid and 2% solo, people will get tired of basically doing nothing becuase they don't have time to find a grp and get/find a camp and grind to get to it and than actually enjoy it before they have to leave, having a mmo having individuals solo mobs far below them isn't a bad thing it's a filler, and if anything in a mmo you need a filler, some people will farm mats, some people will talk to others in town, some want to kill NPC'S before they log off and they shouldn't have to find a grp to do it. Simply put its smart planning to do it this way even though it obviously goes against what you want.
Soloing give exp right? So explain this too me.
You are saying everyone should be able to solo right? So all classes should be able to solo.. correct?
Are all classes equal? How do you make content where all classes can solo if all classes are not equal in ability?
Would this not mean that some classes would be able to excel in soloing over others?
Bare with mere here, since you have been "thinking" and all.
Lets say you have a warrior who does medium damage, but is designed to be more defensive.
You have a rogue, which is deisgned to be more offensive, but less defensive.
Now you have a healer that is much more defensive, but can repair any damage they have to them. (ie they are very low offensive).
So, how do you design this solo encounter? If you make the damage of the mob too high, they kill the rogue before it can kill the mob.
Make the defense too low on the mob and the rogue kills the mob far before the warrior does and light years before the cleric.
See the problem now?
So lets just say... we make it where the damage from the mob is to the point where it is the lowest of of the least defenseive PCs.
Then, make its HP no higher than the lowest DPS of a PC.
You know what you just did? You made Rogues the best soloers in the game where they will thrash through content like it is nothing (a common problem with DPS classes in modern MMOs).
WAit!!! you are saying that this won't be a problem, because you will make EXP low, so the rogue won't see any reasonable gain over others... but how? Are rogues going to get an exp penalty? Please tell them that, I will grab popcorn for that meeting.
Maybe you will just have all mobs give little exp, but then.. rogues will be the top earners, you know.. because they are DPS and solo content is designed for the LCD of players. Again, let me grab the popcorn.
Fact is, you can't have what you want, Either all classes have to be balanced equally, called class hemogeniation, or you have to admit some classes are going to excel over others and if you are willing to admit the latter, then you also have to admit that some solo classes are going to blow past group exp, which again... let me grab some popcorn.
There are a lot of problems I don't think you are considering here.
oneADseven said:Tanix said:I explained a meaningful negative. For instance, a corpse run is a meaningful negative. It doesn't matter if you have the best gear, you still have to travel back, fight your way in naked and retrieve your gear.
Cost negatives can be bought out. When you say "Well, it can get very expensive!!!", keep in mind that isn't a negatve to a person who can buy enormous amounts of plat in game. It is easy to over power those expenses, unless... you are saying you are going to make the cost so high that even a plat buyer will find it too expensive?
At that point, you just explained to me that plat sellers will drive game development decisions (something I already know that happens, but it would be a clear point for you to admit such).
So what does this mean? It means that "cost" penalties (such as repair costs, monetary restrictions, etc..) are not a good game play mechanic as has been shown over and over in games like WoW.
So.. do you understand what I mean now about "not being able to buy your way out of?"
My point is that you can't use RMT as a backbone for your argument against "cost." Seeing that players can purchase fully decked out characters who completely bypass every "meaningful negative" that the game has to offer (this includes leveling and corpse runs that you referenced), and do so using the very same RMT that you're using to invalidate "cost" to begin with, there is no consistency in your logic. In any event ... I can see that this discussion is spinning in circles, very similar to our last. I'll bow out now. (I really don't want to be involved in getting another thread locked.) Thank you for trying to keep it civil.
I can, as it is the single most abused process of EVERY MMO. It is a cancer, a serious issue, so building mechanics around cost is not simply pointless, it is insane.
Also, your counter to my point made no sense.
Take a player who buys their gear, their items and money.
Please explain to me how they have circumvented game play by having to run back and grab their corpse naked like any other player and how they have an advantage in such?
Lets do apples to apples here.
Player A: Does not RMT, had medocire gear and dies way back in the ghoul lord room. A very difficult path to gain ones corpse.
Player B: RMT GOD, owns the best loot and gear in the game, has trillions of plat, etc. and dies in the same room.
So, both have to get to their body right? Both are naked. Both have to find a way to get back and retrive their items.
The only possible argument you could make is that player B buys someone to go in and retrive their corpse and bring it to them.
EVen still, he has to CONTACT someone to do this, pay them real money (or maybe he calls out a bid to the zone "Hey! I am a plat buying idiot, will some rogue come and drag my body to me for 100k plat?).
Don't laugh, that exact thing I have seen happen and you know what, on the server I was one, it got him such massive riducle he logged out (I mean people were hateful calling him a worthless loser and such).
Point is, the mechanic FORCED the player to find help from others, while a "cost" mechanic as you explain is nothing more than a mouse click for modern gamers.
Tanix said:Riahuf22 said:Tanix said:Riahuf22 said:Well I understand old eq I played it almost from day 1 so I know, but we alrdy know it's not going to be that harsh, at least I dont, and I'm not saying that for any other reason than they alrdy said you can solo, so at max level soloing something g 10-12 levels lower level than you that still gives you exp is still considered soloing, and it doesn't require a special class to solo but those classes to maybe solo harder targets like I stead of 10-12, maybe 8 or so. So yes I believe all classes should be able to solo, they shouldn't be punished for picking a class for as long as their skill with the class is good enough to do it.
Soloing should not be a focus. PERIOD.
EQ didn't focus on it, nor should Pantheon.
I can only be clear and direct to my position. If VR sells out, I won't play their game. Period.
Now you might think... well...they don't need you, they have... xyz modern gamers etc....
Modern gamers are not faithful, this is an verified fact. You build a game to modern design and what that means is you end up with locusts to rush throgh content and move off to the next game.
It is the core EQ/VG release crowd that would keep this game afloat. The same gamers who made P1999 popular and various other private servers. Those are the people who VR intially claimed would sustain them. If VR fails them, the game will be massively succesful to the mainstream locusts, but then will die out because nobody will be here to keep the lights on (I know I wont).
So what is their goal now? Cater to mainstream? Cater to the players who actually funded them through the failed KS to now?
There is a MAJOR issue with this game many people don't understand. Either VR serves its core base, or it hopes the mainstream hype will make it rich so it doesn't have to care.
Other companies have done this though, so it is possible VR could leave thier core base hanging.
Larian for instance was a little cRPG company known for certain titles and they sold a bill of goods to the old school gamer base, promised them the world, told them they were making games for them, but as soon as the money got too good, Larian sold out and pushed mainstream garbage. I am too old to think VR is a saint and would never do such a thing, so I am very critical of their decisions.
VR can save me the time though. All they ahve to do is just say "We are making games for everyone!" and I will stop supporting or following the game. It is as easy as that.
Soloing things far below you doesn't do anything to the game, cept give people something to do when they are looking for a grp, plus you'll never get good gear soloing which I also mentioned, unless some world drop becomes decent, which most will never get, I wasn't putting a focus on it but if you make it literally 90% group 8% raid and 2% solo, people will get tired of basically doing nothing becuase they don't have time to find a grp and get/find a camp and grind to get to it and than actually enjoy it before they have to leave, having a mmo having individuals solo mobs far below them isn't a bad thing it's a filler, and if anything in a mmo you need a filler, some people will farm mats, some people will talk to others in town, some want to kill NPC'S before they log off and they shouldn't have to find a grp to do it. Simply put its smart planning to do it this way even though it obviously goes against what you want.
Soloing give exp right? So explain this too me.
You are saying everyone should be able to solo right? So all classes should be able to solo.. correct?
Are all classes equal? How do you make content where all classes can solo if all classes are not equal in ability?
Would this not mean that some classes would be able to excel in soloing over others?
Bare with mere here, since you have been "thinking" and all.
Lets say you have a warrior who does medium damage, but is designed to be more defensive.
You have a rogue, which is deisgned to be more offensive, but less defensive.
Now you have a healer that is much more defensive, but can repair any damage they have to them. (ie they are very low offensive).
So, how do you design this solo encounter? If you make the damage of the mob too high, they kill the rogue before it can kill the mob.
Make the defense too low on the mob and the rogue kills the mob far before the warrior does and light years before the cleric.
See the problem now?
So lets just say... we make it where the damage from the mob is to the point where it is the lowest of of the least defenseive PCs.
Then, make its HP no higher than the lowest DPS of a PC.
You know what you just did? You made Rogues the best soloers in the game where they will thrash through content like it is nothing (a common problem with DPS classes in modern MMOs).
WAit!!! you are saying that this won't be a problem, because you will make EXP low, so the rogue won't see any reasonable gain over others... but how? Are rogues going to get an exp penalty? Please tell them that, I will grab popcorn for that meeting.
Maybe you will just have all mobs give little exp, but then.. rogues will be the top earners, you know.. because they are DPS and solo content is designed for the LCD of players. Again, let me grab the popcorn.
Fact is, you can't have what you want, Either all classes have to be balanced equally, called class hemogeniation, or you have to admit some classes are going to excel over others and if you are willing to admit the latter, then you also have to admit that some solo classes are going to blow past group exp, which again... let me grab some popcorn.
There are a lot of problems I don't think you are considering here.
I'm talking about killing something a dozen levels below you, and if max level is 50 that means a whooping 24% lower level than you and you would still have a hard time killing it.
Look if your in a grp and a mobs gives a sum total of 1000 exp and you are in a team of 6 I think is what they are going with and let's say you get a exp bonus for full grp and end up getting 250 exp, a solo player kills something a dozen level lower than them and get a 100 exp, the solo player will have to rest in between every fight for let's say 2 minutes for mana/health (aiming low), so let's say the fight took 3 minutes so that a total of 5 minutes a kill, the grp in 5 minute can kill 7 targets, which I believe can happen if they are fighting easy enough targets that give exp, so that is literally 7x faster and let's say it take 10 hours to level, that would mean for that player that decided to solo would take roughly 70 hours just to level for that level, and you still have a problem with soloing, and btw I was aiming low of all these estimates just to make it simple.
Okay, with the huge Quote bubbles...it is kind of getting annyoing now lol.
Anyways...
@Riahuf22 I think they are going to be making solo designed zones...which is the problem. Although this was said before:
Kilsin:
You have clearly misunderstood Brad's reply, we have discussed this many times but there is no optional solo content, there will not be specific solo content or zones for soloing, you will be able to solo in Pantheon just like you could solo in EQ, it will depend on gear, class, level, player skill etc. you will not be able to solo dungeons or specific content by yourself, but you will be able to kill trash mobs and things below your level, obviously.
The game is group orientated but just like EQ (and most other MMORPGs), you will be able to solo easier or lower level content. If we forced grouping onto our player base for every single aspect of our game we would lose a good portion of them as there is nothing worse than logging in and staring at the grass while trying for hours to find a group, then logging off, so when this happens, you can go and kill a few skeletons equal or lower level to yourself until your heart is content, they will still be challenging and there will be downtime but it can be done.
Jumping to conclusions is never a good decision to make my friend. ;)
So the FAQ is either poorly worded or they changed their stance. Who knows.
Riahuf22 said:I'm talking about killing something a dozen levels below you, and if max level is 50 that means a whooping 24% lower level than you and you would still have a hard time killing it.
Look if your in a grp and a mobs gives a sum total of 1000 exp and you are in a team of 6 I think is what they are going with and let's say you get a exp bonus for full grp and end up getting 250 exp, a solo player kills something a dozen level lower than them and get a 100 exp, the solo player will have to rest in between every fight for let's say 2 minutes for mana/health (aiming low), so let's say the fight took 3 minutes so that a total of 5 minutes a kill, the grp in 5 minute can kill 7 targets, which I believe can happen if they are fighting easy enough targets that give exp, so that is literally 7x faster and let's say it take 10 hours to level, that would mean for that player that decided to solo would take roughly 70 hours just to level for that level, and you still have a problem with soloing, and btw I was aiming low of all these estimates just to make it simple.
A group kills 7 targets in 5 minutes?
You and I were playing EQ at MUCH different eras. You aren't even on the same level of play that I experienced in EQ.
Heck, killing 7 mobs in 5 mins whas akin to a SoL AoE group in Fungus Grove. That wasn't the EQ I knew, not even close.
Wasn't even talk in about eq, I was imagining possibilities of pantheon in general, plus my experience of eq has nothing to do with this, it's just something you keep bringing up so you feel like you can control the flow of your conversations, this isn't going to be EQ it's been said plenty, this isn't going to be vanguard, that has been said plenty, this is going to be pantheon, there will probably be something I won't like about the game, there will probably be something you don't like about the game, the main difference is I know I wont quit playing it, as for you said if certain thing happen you would. That's all I know
Riahuf22 said:Wasn't even talk in about eq, I was imagining possibilities of pantheon in general, plus my experience of eq has nothing to do with this, it's just something you keep bringing up so you feel like you can control the flow of your conversations, this isn't going to be EQ it's been said plenty, this isn't going to be vanguard, that has been said plenty, this is going to be pantheon, there will probably be something I won't like about the game, there will probably be something you don't like about the game, the main difference is I know I wont quit playing it, as for you said if certain thing happen you would. That's all I know
Or.. like it is the basis, or the core aspects to which I can relate my experiences from considering it (along with release VG) is the basis to which this games core is based on.
Why would you think otherwise? Were you under the impression that this game was just some random next in line MMO? That its design, its focus, its purpose was yet another try by modern developers to fish out subs from the current generation?
I mean, I thought you at least uderstood where this game was coming from, where it was developing its roots from.
It seems I was mistaken and you think Pantheon is yet another modern MMO in line to put in all the features you like about modern mmo gaming!
Well, I think either you are mistaken or I am.
Let me shore this up. Either this game is about taking what was in EQ/VG, retainig the many aspects of its longevirty in development (ie long travel, harsh death penalties, and extreme over time progression, among many other EQ/VG elements) or it is just another mainstream MMO being developed to excite the genreal masses and entertain them.
If the latter is the case, I apologize and I will never post in these forums or give a crap about this game again.
My question to you is... Is that what this game is? And.. are you in an area you think you should be in?
Maybe I am not the one confused here (I could be and I am happy to be corrected to move on if I am), please.. let me know.. Is this a mainstream MMO or are you confused instead of I?
Huh, for one the devs have said many, many times this is eq, and this isn't vg, thus is pantheon. So if you think it's going to have everything that eq and vg had you have to mistaken, they are going to evolve from that, they have alrdy said they still have modern aspects in a old school game type game, they have said it many times.
Riahuf22 said:Huh, for one the devs have said many, many times this is eq, and this isn't vg, thus is pantheon. So if you think it's going to have everything that eq and vg had you have to mistaken, they are going to evolve from that, they have alrdy said they still have modern aspects in a old school game type game, they have said it many times.
Yes, they have said this is not such, meaning this isn't an recreation of those games. I understand that, but they have also been clear about their vision. That the game while not trying to BE those games, did attempt to capture many of the features that made those games what they were, but... brining those concepts into the modern age of interface, play and technology.
So, when I talk about the game and use EQ as a reference point, I am staying pretty true to what this game is seeking. If your argument is that I am wrong, that this game is EQ/VG in name only and my brininig up past EQ mechanics is pointless, then fine... I will show myself to the door and you can promote your modern mainstream MMO that I have no desire being a part of.
So tell me, should I head for the door?