Aradune said:*lots of great stuff*
'nuff said. We may end up agreeing to disagree, and that's ok. But I thank you for the opportunity to take the subject matter much further and into much more detail than one normally sees in a forum post. I hope people enjoy it.
-Aradune
This is maybe my favorite post of yours I have read yet. Logging onto a MUSH and realizing I really just needed to entertain myself was very disappointing, was much happier having the dogs outside of town in the MUD I played kill me because I was too low of a level.
Also the concept of rules make the game actually fun and not a directionless sandbox is also a good observation. A little bit of there is no light without the darkness concept.
I for one think a completely open world is a terrible idea as it favors the poop sockers too much. Small changes and clever tools can keep players in a true open world 95-99% of the time but that critical 1-5% of adjusted world space can open the game up to several orders of magnitude more players to engage the content.
Joppa - I really appreciate your post. It is great that opinions can be shared with us before the time that they are locked in stone and unchangable. That gives us a chance to participate in the discussion. Not make the decision and maybe not like the decision but to know that we were heard.
I much prefer knowing that Aradune's opinions are not the unchangable word of the deity. ((hastily murmurs with the hope of getting some suck-up points - they are the changable word of the deity)).
I do not want all of the decisions made before alpha and beta. Some, of course, but alpha and beta add far more value (as Aradune has stated) if they go beyond bug finding and include testing of concepts under stress with players. Not just in a conference room with developers. So I found your post very positive.
Plus the conflict of ideas point. It has been said here many times over many years that we should feel encouraged to disagree with eachother and even with VR as long as we have (and express) reasons for our opinions and do not degenerate into excessive emotion and personal attacks. How much more important that is within a development team - even if it is the newest hire feeling free to say "boss - I understand why you think that is the best approach but I have a different idea that could work better - here it is."
vjek and oneADseven. I agree that there is a lot to be discussed in the area of kill credit. FTE, MDD, shared credit and the like. It is important. As you pointed out these decisions can and will affect the entire mindset of the community about whether Pantheon is a game of ruthless competition or boring and humdrum cooperation or fall somewhere in the middle. I tried to use slanted terms for both ends of the spectrum to be fair. Competiton does not have to be ruthless. Cooperation does not have to be boring.
Janus said:"This kind of "creative tension" is a good thing and healthy for the overall design of the game."
While this is only a bit from your overall point, I feel this needs to be addressed as the above post may look like two people are at odds within the creative aspect of the game. As someone who has both managed and worked in operations that require creative thought, problem solving and venture analysis, there is no more important instance than that of competing ideas. It's when everyone is in consistant agreement that you drastically limit your potential.
It is indeed very interesting to see Aradune and Joppa disagreeing. I agree that those differences can lead to great innovations and consistent agreement can limit potential, BUT also, there are many many groups that have split due to createive differences and many many projects that have failed due to people pulling in different directions and having constant unresolved issues.
I think it would be useful to hear back from Joppa and Aradune on how their differences in these very fundamental issues might be shaped by The Vision.
Joppa said:philo said:I'm curious how Brad or other VR members respond to those of us who think that having :
NPCs only you and your group/guild can communicate with. Other players cannot bother them.
Is not actually an open world game?
...I have a different approach to handling contested content within an open world game like this that does not involve mob locking that I feel strongly we need to explore. Plus, you as the community are full of amazing ideas on this topic as well which we absolutely glean from...
I really hope that you guys think long and hard on what kind of players will like what kind of solutions.
Some players really like and want contention. Some players really do not. Going one way and not the other has great potential to seriously alienate one lot or the other.
My suggestion would be that if you come up with several viable options that might work, but please different audiences, use them all as appropriate, don't just pick one and hope some aren't too put off.
Talking about the bosses and raids, I suppose, rather than all regular encounters, perhaps there could be simultaneous different versions? Or the version you get could be on a time-based rotation? Of could depend on the situation? Or could change depending upon the server rule set?
I just know that in other games, including EQ, some encounters would often turn into second-rate, pseudo-PvP with other players finding ways to essentially block, hamper, steal or whatever, an encounter.
Joppa said:philo said:I'm curious how Brad or other VR members respond to those of us who think that having :
NPCs only you and your group/guild can communicate with. Other players cannot bother them.
Is not actually an open world game?
...while PvE-centric players certainly made up the majority in the past, I think it could be argued that PvP-centric (or at least PvP-interested) players make up just as much if not more of the percentage of online gamers today...
Whilst I absolutely do not want to antagonise Joppa as a big PvP fan, I have to say...
PvP may have become popular in MMORPGs over the years, but isn't Pantheon supposed to be bucking modern trends? I'm not saying PvP is necessarily a trend that needs bucking, I'm just saying that it being currently popular, like any other modern MMORPG aspect, certainly isn't a justification for it to be in Pantheon?
Even if PvP were a majority of modern players, one of the things that was so refreshing about what I was hearing about VR and Pantheon was the idea of intentionally targeting a niche audience that has been neglected over the years.
One of the reasons I became so excited about Pantheon was the early statements about it being PvE focused and old-school. For me, one of the things that has increasingly disappointed me with modern MMORPGs is how they have become so focused on end-game PvP to the huge detriment of the PvE game and the PvE game just became the boring grind to max-level when PvP really kicks in. PvP has its own gear and its own class specs and its own... well, everything and this is *bound* to effect the efforts put into PvE even if simply by diverting development money and talent.
Now I know PvP doesn't have to be this way and I'm encouraged by what Brad said about PvE being absolutely the first priority and that PvP should grow out of that.
But then you say that you don't necessarily agree with Aradune and that what he is saying isn't necessarily the way the game will be developed...
As I said in my comments on your thoughts re. locking mobs: there are some very different kinds of players that are very hard to marry up. To try and please both can be to the detriment of both.
I hope PvP players can be happy with what Pantheon can give them. I also hope that PvE is still the overriding priority and isn't negatively impacted in any way in order to provide PvP.
Sorry Joppa... I still love you!
Joppa said:philo said:I'm curious how Brad or other VR members respond to those of us who think that having :
NPCs only you and your group/guild can communicate with. Other players cannot bother them.
Is not actually an open world game?
...The last thing is to reiterate the start of a new approach to streaming. This is key and one of the most important things to say about it right now is that it was largely inspired by you the community - we hear you and we want to do right by you, and this new streaming plan will represent our passion and commitment to that goal...
Really interested to hear this. I would love to stream from Pre-Alpha or Alpha or whatever, though streams aren't really my focus, I prefer to make edited guides and tutorials and some showcase stuff, but streaming would still be fun and maybe seeing some real average players might be 'a good thing'?
I appreciate that you guys might not want the potential disaster of association with live, uncontrolled game footage though! Or even of edited footage, unless you review/approve it (which would also be a headache).
Would love to hear more on your plans and how I can help, basically! ;^)
((Some players really like and want contention. Some players really do not. Going one way and not the other has great potential to seriously alienate one lot or the other.
My suggestion would be that if you come up with several viable options that might work, but please different audiences, use them all as appropriate, don't just pick one and hope some aren't too put off.))
This is oh so very true. I am quite strongly in the camp of those that want competition between players severely limited, outside of pvp servers. But years on these forums has shown very clearly that quite a few players feel the opposite way just as strongly. There aren't that many of us that we want a substantial fraction ...what is the delicate way to put this ..... pissed off by the basic approach of the game if we can avoid it. Even if it winds up going *my* way I have to conclude that a less polarizing solution may be better for the game. And a game that satisfies me in all respects but fails is ....a failure. Does me no good at all.
How can we avoid such an undesirable result? I see two critical points to address here - obviously there are many other issues where competition versus cooperation play a role in design decisons as well.
1. The easiest to deal with by far. Dungeons. Simply use two or more different approaches. Many ways of reducing competition have been discussed. Instancing. Having boss encounters trigger after going through a door that no one not in the raid or group can go past. Having mobs untouchable by anyone but the raid or group after the encounter is triggered. Lockout timers. Others. Have some dungeons where competition is unfettered. Have some dungeons where it is very much fettered by whatever restrictions VR chooses to use. My point is to encourage diversity here on this important dichotomy not to argue the merits of one approach or another as to how to achieve it.
One *really* important caveat. If dungeons are simply for fun or general xp gathering or general loot this works fine. Simply have the two approaches somewhat comparable. Do not have 20 "cooperation" dungeons giving 11 best-in-slot items and three "competition" dungeons giving crap. But as with class abilities - no need to go crazy making everything totally equal. That way lies madness.
But if you want both sides relatively content (some will always gripe as you well know) it is essential that there be a balance in the really important dungeons, if you have any like this at all. Do not have "competition" dungeons giving keying needed for access to major areas of the game. Or vice versa. Perhaps you can have twp types of dungeon that give the same key (perhaps no extra work - it isn't as if you planned to just have one or two dungeons in the game).
For what it is worth - darn little - I think of Darkness Falls. A large and wonderful dungeon with many bosses in Dark Ages of Camelot. With two versions. On most servers it was a major pvp fulcrum with control switching between the factions based on what happened in the world, and much of the fighting occuring in the dungeon as control transferred. Many who played DAOC have that place among their most vivid memories - a great success for the designers. On Gaheris it was a pve dungeon purely - still much loved. A dungeon can have multiple entrances - as DF did. It can lead to many encounters - as DF did. Some can be set to be "competitive" and some can be set to be "cooperative". If you have keying - perhaps Fred the "cooperative" mob and Sally the "competition" mob at different ends of the place can drop the same key.
Sorry for running on and on - all I said may boil down to "use them all as appropriate" as more succinctly stated above.
2. Very hard to think of a middle ground on the issue of how credit for mobs is given. A global decision that affects everything in the game in ways both obvious and subtle.
The ultimate of cooperation may be represented by a common modern system of tagging. Anyone who does damage, or perhaps significant damage to a mob gets credit. And loot. This works best for quest credit. Giving 5 different players credit for killing the same pig where there is a "kill 100 pigs" quest will not really hurt the economy or devalue any prestigious item. On the other hand if anyone that hurts the Princess (Darkness Falls boss of great memory) gets the best-in-slot Tiara of the Royal Brow even I will admit that the item and the encounter have been trivialized beyone bearing. So if you even consider a tagging system it might be limited to quest credit only. Even giving 5 characters the stomach from the same pig to sell to a vendor will not be good for the economy. Not all that good for the pig come to think of it.
Advantage - and not insignificant IMO. At the very beginning of the game you may have quests showing new players the ropes and leading them around a bit, even though you strongly abhor the concept of quest hubs and golden paths. First impressions are critical - and you know this very very well. You do NOT want new players in a level 1-5 area frustrated over and over because they cannot compete with higher levels (perhaps griefing perhaps with legitimate reasons to be there) to get credit for even 5 or 10 pigs under a FTE or even worse MDD system.
The other extreme is bosses - raid or group bosses. Most of the discussion in the forums focuses on MDD versus FTE for these whereas my main focus in the debates has been open world trash mobs as per the last two paragraphs. Open world trash mobs are very important until players get to the point of doing more camping and dungeons than quests. First impressions and all that.
Bosses call for MDD or FTE or something comparable - not tagging. So what system pleases the more competitive type and which pleases the more cooperative type? And can you make some bosses FTE and some MDD if there is a real difference in what people want?
I actually have no opinion. Very unusual. Both are competitive, obviously. With FTE you compete to get to the boss first with enough power to be able to kill it. Whoever is there first *and* thinks that their group or raid can actually win, pulls. With MDD you compete to get enough people there not to outdamage the boss, though that is obviously helpful. You want enough to out damage anyone else who is there. You need much less in the way of tanks and healers and more in the way of dps if you are able to wait for someone else to pull and then take the mob away. Of course everyone knows this so that "someone else" may not do a thing and wait for *you* to pull.
My own preference is FTE but I am not honestly sure if that is because I am used to that system over many years or because I consider it less competitive and am offended by MDD as constituting killstealing. My early years in MUDs and MMOs killstealing and campstealing were *very* much looked down on by the typical player, myself included.
Thanks for the response Brad. Just for clarity, I think everyone understands that open world games are always within the restrictions of the game.
You make valid points. I dont have to agree with them all but when they are presented with justifiable points then my only response is "fair enough".
Thanks again for taking the time to reply.
Fragile said: Nothing makes me more confident in a game (especially in an era of 'darkness') when the CCO and the Creative Director are openly at odds with each other. /sarcasm off
I have to agree with this statement. Im sorry, but if the CCO is making calls, to me that is quite official to me. Its odd that Joppa would blatenly in public try and undermine what his boss is mentioning.
I have been excited about the potential for PF since it was revealed but I must say, my interest in Pantheon has been reinvigorated recently because of Brad. I know what PF is supposed to encompass. I saw the outline and I'm hoping that VR delivers on that. I have no issue with waiting a bit longer for PF to continue evolving and eventually be revealed. That said, I place a lot more value in Brad's willingness to engage the community and open up some dialogue than I do the results of this next milestone. The only storyline that I am interested in right now is whether or not his desire to engage with us is something that will be followed up with. For the first time all year ... my attention was truly captivated. Brad is the chief visionary behind Pantheon and having the opportunity to read some new blogs and ask him some questions is something that I view as an essential pulse of life. This is exactly what people have been asking for. It felt very unscripted and for me, that is why it felt so special and authentic. I'm not a fan of the script that has been used over the years. The drip-feed of information, the shrouds of mystery, the marketing reveals. I appreciate good old fashioned communication more than any of that.
Another way to put this: Brad's willingness to express opinions and ideas are something that I gravitate toward. VR has always had a very reserved stance when it comes to revealing hard facts and because of that, we have a dozen "hot topics" that have devolved into the proverbial beating of a dead horse over the course of several years. We have been at an impasse for a long time now and many people don't even care to participate anymore. Brad's presence on this forum will serve as a much-needed defibrillator. He provided that spark recently and now people are talking again. I am really looking forward to hearing more out of him, particularly when it comes to the questions that were asked on these various dev diary threads. If that doesn't happen ... if it feels like Brad was reeled in due to PR or communication policy, my interest in following this game will be sapped considerably. I'm not interested in waiting another year or two before learning an official stance on how something as basic as PVE competition is going to be handled in this game. That has been the most popular and controversial topic surrounding Pantheon since I originally started following it 3 years ago. I'd like to hear some of the results of that internal creative tension. Other than what Brad was kind enough to share with us here, what other options are being considered?
I feel pretty confident that Pantheon would be in a far better position to attract more followers and pledges if VR would be open and honest in regards to how they plan on tackling the most popular and controversial topic surrounding the game after having years to think about it. This kind of information is far more valuable when it comes to the community managing their expectations of what kind of game Pantheon will be than seeing perception/acclimation/climbing in action. My interest in the color of paint being used pales in comparison to learning what's under the hood. I don't need an official stance. I just want some insight into what the team is thinking. When people talk about radio silence and the year of darkness, this is what they are talking about. Please indulge us.
Well, I'm on Team Joppa. The idea of seeing mobs in a dungeon that I can't attack because they are locked to another group is beyond ridiculous to me. Regardless though, VR, you guys need to quit trying to reinvent the wheel here. We want the original freaking wheel (Everquest) with updated graphics and a new world to explore. That was the orginal point of Pantheon, now we have feature creep and delays. Unless you get 100 million in funding and hire another hundred employees, you can't compete with modern AAA MMOs due to fiscal and time limitations. I get you want to show the world this ground breaking and cutting edge MMO, but you don't have the resources, you're just going to alienate your loyal fanbase as the delays and radio silence pile up. Maybe if an EQ style clone can be successful, you'll have the finances to do what you want with the second MMO. As for the naming policy, I couldn't disagree more on having multiple people with the same first name. Awful and confusing. Names definitely should only be locked to one server though.
Anyway, I'm clinging to the raft until Project Faerthale is revealed. You guys asked for my trust this last year plus as you showed us nothing but claimed to be doing great things. I continue to give that trust, I just hope it's rewarded. You've truly made the health and future of this game's development reliant on a postive impression of Project Faerthale.
((Well, I'm on Team Joppa. The idea of seeing mobs in a dungeon that I can't attack because they are locked to another group is beyond ridiculous to me. Regardless though, VR, you guys need to quit trying to reinvent the wheel here. We want the original freaking wheel (Everquest) with updated graphics and a new world to explore. ))
VR has always said - well at least for years - that the intent is to come out with an "old school" game in the spirit of Everquest but *not* to come out with Everquest updated. It will have many things that were in Everquest and it will omit many things that were in Everquest.
The idea of seeing mobs in a dungeon that I cannot attack because someone else got there first and already triggered/pulled them is far from ridiculous to me. But Joppa may well have a better approach - we won't know until we see it. So I may be on Team Joppa too.
You feel Terminus will be a better place with almost unlimited competition between players for mobs. I feel Terminus will be a better place with no killstealing - and by the definition of killstealing that I learned even before 1999 the term applies if someone else pulls a mob and you try to take it away or even to influence the fight in a way not beneficial to the puller. You lean heavily towards competition - I lean heavily towards cooperation. Fair enough its one of the areas where VR will have to pick one side or the other or come up with something in the middle.
Jazhara said:Fragile said: Nothing makes me more confident in a game (especially in an era of 'darkness') when the CCO and the Creative Director are openly at odds with each other. /sarcasm offI have to agree with this statement. Im sorry, but if the CCO is making calls, to me that is quite official to me. Its odd that Joppa would blatenly in public try and undermine what his boss is mentioning.
Perhaps Brad shouldn't be late night stream of consciousness posting things that the people who are actually making the game haven't agreed upon? The bottom line is that we don't know, what we do know is that there's a long pattern of questionable decision making at VR. Having disagreements even on fundamental things not only isn't an issue, it should be expected. Being 5 years into development and still not having picked a direction is highly concerning. But hey guys, they've got climbing.
I appreciate when Brad does the "drunk uncle" rambling thing, it's always good for some talking points for a month or so. The guy is a great idea person, and I do like that he's still more than just a figurehead with this game, at least to some degree. But yeah, this isn't the first time, though it has been a awhile, that Joppa has had to do some damage control. Still, with the radio silence thing going on, this was at least something by someone. I'll take it.
DOROTEA -- I know they aren't really re-making EQ1, legal reasons alone would prevent them from marketing in such a way, but I do believe it is what a lot of us actually want. You are right, I do want competition for mobs, but I also enjoy the cooperation it takes for one group to race against another group. I don't think those two concepts are mutually exclusive. I like how Warcraft did it, if you hit it first, it was yours but anyone could still attack the mob to help or what not. But the race to tag it was always fun. I thought that was better than EQ's 51% damage rule. I am also curious to see what Joppa comes up with, I have a lot of faith in him, he's Pantheon's version of Tigole and Furor. If he's half as good, we're in good shape.
Mathir said:I appreciate when Brad does the "drunk uncle" rambling thing...
I LOLed when I read that! I'm sure Brad will take it in good spirit too hehe.
As for "Team Brad" or "Team Joppa" and Brad posting ideas that aren't "in line" with the official vision, well, I think he thinks we're all grown-ups and know what a 'discussion' is. Especially when he actually spelled out that what he said wasn't the official line and was still being debated and that he welcomed our feedback.
I'm not pointing at anyone here, but it does seem some people sometimes don't know how to discuss. Back in the old days, a forum was where like-minded people met to discuss their hobby. Sometimes there was debate and there are always some people that get opinionated and defensive (I know I am guilty of that) but it was all in 'good humour' and with the knowledge you were all fans of whatever you were there for.
It seems in forums these days (not just here) that people think the idea is to debate for the sake of debate and to somehow 'win' like we are all against each other. Forum Deathmatch. I wish we could all post our thoughts and discuss and not have to defend ourselves against 'attack'.
I appreciate Brad's postings and I understand that what he says is his opinion and is up for discussion with us and within his team. I think it's healthy and useful as long as the participants are respectful and treat each other as valued peers with interesting ideas, not people with 'wrong' opinions who need to be 'beaten' in argument until they change or retract or just go away.
I'm certain from everyone at VR that I've heard from that it is a fantastic team of like-minded people. When I hear the pride and pleasure from VR when they talk about the team and their work I am so jealous. It's the job and the atmosphere I have always wanted! Sounds awesome.
So, please keep on with your stream-of-conscious, late-night, drunk-uncle ramblings (!) Brad! And please keep on talking about everything including Brad's comments, Joppa and the rest of the VR team.
We love to hear it all and I hope we can keep discussing it in a positive, interesting, worthwhile and entertaining way to keep us busy until Pre-Alpha 5 and beyond.
Keno Monster said:Jazhara said:Fragile said: Nothing makes me more confident in a game (especially in an era of 'darkness') when the CCO and the Creative Director are openly at odds with each other. /sarcasm offI have to agree with this statement. Im sorry, but if the CCO is making calls, to me that is quite official to me. Its odd that Joppa would blatenly in public try and undermine what his boss is mentioning.
Perhaps Brad shouldn't be late night stream of consciousness posting things that the people who are actually making the game haven't agreed upon? The bottom line is that we don't know, what we do know is that there's a long pattern of questionable decision making at VR. Having disagreements even on fundamental things not only isn't an issue, it should be expected. Being 5 years into development and still not having picked a direction is highly concerning. But hey guys, they've got climbing.
From what I'm hearing they are developing infrastructure and mechanics and organising testing with the absolute intention of enabling the ability to make those choices later.
They've told us time and again that many important aspects will come out of testing. We *are* still at pre-alpha.
I'm hoping they code for first-to-tag, most-damage-done, locking encounters even limited instances and more and then pick and choose per encounter as appropriate. I don't see why they should just pick one and use it everywhere.
They don't *have* to just pick one direction. They could even rotate the mechanics used to give different play-style players their chance for doing it the way they want.
They don't have to please competitive types *or* cooperative types, they can please both. They have the experience and expertease.
Mathir said:*snip*
I am also curious to see what Joppa comes up with, I have a lot of faith in him, he's Pantheon's version of Tigole and Furor. If he's half as good, we're in good shape.
I would take that as an insult and not a compliment. I always felt that Tigole and Furor were self important cry babies that were only out for themselves and pushed for things that kept them relevant at the expense of the long term health of the game.
DOROTEA -- I know they aren't really re-making EQ1, legal reasons alone would prevent them from marketing in such a way, but I do believe it is what a lot of us actually want. You are right, I do want competition for mobs, but I also enjoy the cooperation it takes for one group to race against another group. I don't think those two concepts are mutually exclusive. I like how Warcraft did it, if you hit it first, it was yours but anyone could still attack the mob to help or what not. But the race to tag it was always fun. I thought that was better than EQ's 51% damage rule. I am also curious to see what Joppa comes up with, I have a lot of faith in him, he's Pantheon's version of Tigole and Furor. If he's half as good, we're in good shape.
On the EQ point we clearly have a range of opinions on the forums. None of us expect a literal remake or update of that game for legal reasons if nothing else.
On the one end of the spectrum we have people that want a lot of updates and improvements to reflect 2019 technology and computers, and will be quite happy if most races are very similar, most classes are very similar, and many of the mechanics are very similar. People that would be distressed if their favorite mechanisms do not make it into Pantheon. Things like experience point loss for death, training, corpse runs, favorite spells like evac or feign death or druid or mage teleport. I could name scores of features.
On the other end of the spectrum we have people that want a game with whatever they personally consider old-school features such as significant penalties for dying, slow travel, slow leveling, intensive focus on grouping not solo play, no golden path and the like. But they don't much care if any particular feature from EQ makes it into Pantheon as long as the overall gestalt is old-school.
In other words - some of us are more influenced by nostalgia and want not just an old-school game but one that has recognizable features from EQ to enjoy. Some of us are less affected by this. You, I believe, clearly want some EQ features for the sake of having them, as long as they do not interfere with Panthon being an excellent game in its own right. That puts you in the majority on these forums, I suspect. I am less in this camp - but I too have features that I want to see again. Partly because *I* want them and partly because I think we need to appeal to those that *do* want them. My emphasis on the forums often is that we shouldn't take EQ features *only* because they were in EQ. We should give long and hard thought to whether they improve Pantheon and enhance its core objectives. But other things being equal it is a plus if we can nab many of the mechanisms from EQ. And, especially for crafting and harvesting, Vanguard.
We do have different preferences on competition versus cooperation but as you correctly say the two are not mutually exclusive and we need at least some of both. We just disagree on the mix. I too prefer the approach where if you hit it first it is yours - an approach that, of course, far precedes WoW. I no longer even remember what games before EQ had MDD and what games before EQ had FTE but both approaches go back to the early MUDs and MMOs so either approach is "old school". It is tagging and shared credit that came later. I think.
Mathir said:Well, I'm on Team Joppa. The idea of seeing mobs in a dungeon that I can't attack because they are locked to another group is beyond ridiculous to me. Regardless though, VR, you guys need to quit trying to reinvent the wheel here.
Agreed.
Mathir said:We want the original freaking wheel (Everquest) with updated graphics and a new world to explore. That was the orginal point of Pantheon, now we have feature creep and delays. Unless you get 100 million in funding and hire another hundred employees, you can't compete with modern AAA MMOs due to fiscal and time limitations.
Agreed.
Mathir said:I get you want to show the world this ground breaking and cutting edge MMO, but you don't have the resources, you're just going to alienate your loyal fanbase as the delays and radio silence pile up.
Really agreed.
Mathir said:Maybe if an EQ style clone can be successful, you'll have the finances to do what you want with the second MMO.
Disagree.
Mathir said:As for the naming policy, I couldn't disagree more on having multiple people with the same first name. Awful and confusing. Names definitely should only be locked to one server though.
Completely agreed.
disposalist said:We *are* still at pre-alpha.
After 5 1/2 years of development and counting.
Vandraad said:disposalist said:We *are* still at pre-alpha.
After 5 1/2 years of development and counting.
I wasn't around for it, but it's my understanding there was a complete start-over quite a lot more recently than 5.5 years? Either way - let's not do-over the "is Pantheon in Trouble" thread.
disposalist said:
It seems in forums these days (not just here) that people think the idea is to debate for the sake of debate and to somehow 'win' like we are all against each other. Forum Deathmatch. I wish we could all post our thoughts and discuss and not have to defend ourselves against 'attack'.
Agree.