There's a whole related discussion to be had around combat information in general and what is useful and what is immersive and what is possibly just convenience.
Personally, I am quite tolerant of informational features in such situations because I find it unimmersive and weird that my character, and thus me, as a player, might often not know something that should be completely obvious to them.
For an example, I sometimes (in EQ for example) can't work out what my tank is attacking. Were I actually watching a warrior engage in combat, in anything but the most chaotic and random of fights, it would be totally obvious what monster he was fighting. I only end up confused because the game's representation of combat is greatly simplified and monsters might superimpose upon each other (as might the adventurers) which is somewhat ridiculous. Of course in a real fight the warrior would perhaps rapidly change target, but again, the game does not reproduce this, so analogous mechanics and UI elements are needed.
This is why I am pleased to see things like the /assist command or even UI elements that help with this kind of situation.
These kind of features are analogous to the senses that characters would have but cannot be reproduced by the game. To not have them often gives a sense of weird detatchment.
As another example, this is also why I advocate 3rd person view as it allows some sense of a characters surroundings that is actually a more realistic analog than 1st person where you might have an orc pounding you on the side of the head and have no idea what is damaging you or from where.
In a 1st person FPS you might have damage direction indicators in the UI. This is nothing like 'real' of course, but is analogous to what the soldier would know and soon becomes a subconsciously appreciated element and to the player is appreciated in a 'natural' way. When a soldier gets shot they will almost certainly have a good idea where that came from. The damage indicator gives this knowledge and the player appreciates it as "Ouch! I got shot from the right!". Without that indicator you have the ridiculous situation where you perhaps hear an impact, lose some health, but have no clue what happened really and have to spin 360 real quick to try and work it out.
To relate to the OP, this is why I wouldn't throw out any UI suggestion if it is subtle and it is analogous to what a character would actually know and why I prefer the idea of something related to a Consider 'skill' that is actively used and progressed/developed as you practice it and become familiar with creature types.
To have an indication of relative power and threat of a monster might well be deemed a necessary game mechanic, but could it be more immersive and natural? More meaningful and deep? And yes, a UI element that is nothing like 'realistic' can still be immersive and natural when, without it, you are unnaturally detatched from the situation.
Ideally the game would have perfectly natural animations and perfect surround sound. You'd be able to smell the approaching orc and feel the vibrations of his boots pounding on the ground behind you. You'd feel exactly where it's blade bites into your body... Without that kind of thing, you need UI elements to some degree.
MauvaisOeil said:The consider system, if lightened to a single "target and get instantly all info you need" is not solved by a toggle. Because the problem is not solely on UI clutter or visual overwhelming, it's on ease of information access. If it becomes tief to solely targetting (ala wow : Level indicated, hostility indicated) it won't be a "choice", because it's faster and more optimal while requiring less personal actions to do so, and it will just be mandatory.
No one will choose to have a peg leg on purpose, but if it's the base system it means everyone will run starting with the same conveniency/inconveniency.
So no : Toggles are not the ultimate answer because it seems to make everyone happy while it doesn't, and taint the game with a lack of decisions from the dev team.
My understanding is that a work-around toggle did exist in EQ. Players could create a macro that attached /con to tab-target, thus allowing them to /consider an NPC with a single keystroke. It appears that /consider information is purposely made accessible. There is no cast time, range, cooldown, resource cost, etc. Press Button > Produce Color. If this kind of functionality is already present then I think there is a valid argument for allowing a UI toggle that displays the same information in the colored ring beneath the NPC being targeted. The colored ring already exists and I would prefer to see the intended color association of /con being realized there rather than being forced to divert my eyes to a chat-box. I have to agree that allowing this to happen is pretty much a no-brainer, just as OCastitatisLilium suggested. This is a very basic QoL feature that would improve my immersion and ability to process purposely-accessible information in a more organic way.
To give another example of how this very same concept could apply to other aspects of the game, imagine if people tried using the same argument of "information access" for NPC health pools. Rather than being able to see this information on the nameplate, players would be required to press an additional "assess health" command which then populates the desired information in a chat-box. I think that would be pretty awful and that most players would agree that being able to see the "health bar" of their target would be a great QoL upgrade for how that information is conveyed and processed by the player. At the end of the day, a colored ring already exists beneath our offensive target and color association is already being leveraged for the /consider command. This seems like a very obvious opportunity to deliver the "two birds, one stone" analogy through polished UI. I don't see a real drawback to this outside of some players preferring to look at a chat-box rather than an existing UI asset to process information.
Since this topic is all about consideration there is another point that is worth taking a look at. I think it's a little peculiar that people are making such a big deal about the idea of /consideration being attached to the process of targeting an NPC rather than being an additional keystroke that must occur afterward. If a slight QoL change like that is worth such an uproar, where is the consistency in logic when it comes to the targeting system being simplified in general? Is that bad for the game as well? By allowing us to have both an offensive target and defensive target, players are able to cast hostile/beneficial spells simultaneously rather than having to perform additional keystrokes to cycle between friend and foe. That change is much more radical because it not only reduces the number of keystrokes players have to make but also has significantly less opportunity cost than players being limited to a single target.
MauvaisOeil said:Please, just please. A toggle is NOT the solution to every problem when players aren't agreeing. The game has to be set to standarts that everyone will share and not be a nitpick or toggling in/off what you want to see or not to the point everyone plays a different game. We have to have a base game that fills needs and only offer choices for details.
The consider system, if lightened to a single "target and get instantly all info you need" is not solved by a toggle. Because the problem is not solely on UI clutter or visual overwhelming, it's on ease of information access. If it becomes tief to solely targetting (ala wow : Level indicated, hostility indicated) it won't be a "choice", because it's faster and more optimal while requiring less personal actions to do so, and it will just be mandatory.
No one will choose to have a peg leg on purpose, but if it's the base system it means everyone will run starting with the same conveniency/inconveniency.
So no : Toggles are not the ultimate answer because it seems to make everyone happy while it doesn't, and taint the game with a lack of decisions from the dev team.
These are excellent points MauvaisOeil. I agree that removing the action in the system would not be good. I think what the few people asking for the Change are missing is that it’s not just about having the action; group socialization/planning/strategy (tenets of Pantheon) also play more of a role and are necessary with the action command. A toggle would change that. And I want to add I agree: targeting the NPC is not the same thing as Considering the NPC - the grand faction system is also a part of Visionary Realm’s Consider function. This is probably why Visionary Realm’s Consider function is not something like ‘rings.’
I love Visionary Realm’s systems such as Consider. I also love that people will need to learn how to play the game in the world of Terminus rather than things being ‘handed’ to us as seen in those mainstream games.
disposalist said:Consider 'skill' that is actively used and progressed/developed as you practice it and become familiar with creature types.
I have spoken my opinion on the UI element for consider but I wanted to say I like the consider skill idea you have mentioned a couple of times. I would need to think longer on exactly what type of information would be gained by growing the skill or on how it would grow. But I like the idea. But that just might be because I like character growth in general.
First thank you for responding to the toggle question. While I still do not agree I do have a better understanding.
The current system in Pantheon has two issues for me. First it makes me use a keystroke and I find that once I remap all my abilities and hotkeys I like, I rarely have any extra. I realize this might not be how others play but it might give you an idea on why I have issues with adding a key that I will need. But this is only half of the issue.
Chat windows for me are horribly setup when you first launch an mmo. I had a post in 2018 talking about it. But in summary once I am done, I have 2 windows one I would call most important and that has personal chat included only. For example, Tells, Group, and Guild. Second window is more of a mess it has general things that would include emotes, local say, and if forced it would have consider. This second window is something I would prefer not to be important and to take up as little space as required. I find chat windows to be emersion braking and well annoying. They are large and at times can have constant flow of distracting information flowing across it.
Question
Would it be ok to have the consider system still require an extra keystroke like the C key, but have the results be chosen by the player to ether be displayed in the chat or graphicly in the UI? Seeing as it still requires the exact same amount of player input it seems to me this would be an ok spot to have a Toggle in the settings.
Starblight - Visionary Realm’s Consider function helps the person and group in 2 ways: faction standing/tiers are displayed via text and color of text indicates npc’s range of difficulty. :)
Syrif said:Starblight - Visionary Realm’s Consider function helps the person and group in 2 ways: faction standing/tiers are displayed via text and color of text indicates npc’s range of difficulty. :)
First, I would love an answer to my question stated above especial form you as you seem to be one of the more vocal people on the requirement of it staying in the chat window. Second, I am not sure what you are getting at. If you read my posts, I would imagine it would be clear I understand how it works. It works exactly the same way it did in EQ.
If you are referring to my response to disposalist that is not talking about what currently is in Pantheon but would could be.
starblight said:Syrif said:Starblight - Visionary Realm’s Consider function helps the person and group in 2 ways: faction standing/tiers are displayed via text and color of text indicates npc’s range of difficulty. :)
First, I would love an answer to my question stated above especial form you as you seem to be one of the more vocal people on the requirement of it staying in the chat window. Second, I am not sure what you are getting at. If you read my posts, I would imagine it would be clear I understand how it works. It works exactly the same way it did in EQ.
If you are referring to my response to disposalist that is not talking about what currently is in Pantheon but would could be.
I see. Well, I am probably not the one to answer your question then since I like Visionary Realm’s systems. On a side note, I am going to watch the stream on the Dire Lord. I plan to play that class, and the Dire Lord wasn't in Everquest - how cool! ;)
In Pantheon - some things will be like VG & old EQ and some things won’t.
starblight said:The current system in Pantheon has two issues for me. First it makes me use a keystroke and I find that once I remap all my abilities and hotkeys I like, I rarely have any extra. I realize this might not be how others play but it might give you an idea on why I have issues with adding a key that I will need. But this is only half of the issue.
Chat windows for me are horribly setup when you first launch an mmo. I had a post in 2018 talking about it. But in summary once I am done, I have 2 windows one I would call most important and that has personal chat included only. For example, Tells, Group, and Guild. Second window is more of a mess it has general things that would include emotes, local say, and if forced it would have consider. This second window is something I would prefer not to be important and to take up as little space as required. I find chat windows to be emersion braking and well annoying. They are large and at times can have constant flow of distracting information flowing across it.
If players can customize their input (this is possible in pretty much every MMO ever made) then you would be able to manually assign tab-target and /con to the same keybind. I agree with your point on how reading through a chat-box in order to process basic information can be immersion-breaking and annoying. It's pretty standard for people to apply filters to their chat-box in order to prioritize the information that they want to be conveyed. Also, it isn't uncommon for players to (reluctantly) have multiple chat-boxes open simultaneously in order to navigate through the constant flow of distracting information that you speak of.
starblight said:Question
Would it be ok to have the consider system still require an extra keystroke like the C key, but have the results be chosen by the player to ether be displayed in the chat or graphicly in the UI? Seeing as it still requires the exact same amount of player input it seems to me this would be an ok spot to have a Toggle in the settings.
As mentioned above, the extra keystroke isn't even necessary. As far as how/where the information is displayed, it seems perfectly reasonable to merge color association into an existing UI asset that is already fulfilling the same exact purpose. (Red = offensive target / Blue = defensive target.) On-screen real estate is in high demand for those who prefer a minimalistic approach and anything that can alleviate the need for an additional chat-box would be a highly desirable QoL feature.
Heebs said:If they just haven't added color-coding on healthbars yet cause it's still pre-alpha, that makes sense. I was just wondering if it's going to be added eventually to the default UI.
One of the recent newsletters highlighted some of the UI upgrades that they have been working on so it's definitely safe to say that there is still plenty of refinement going on in the background. I think there is a good chance that we see a more modern pass on UI once Project Faerthale is revealed.
Ultimately, I think what it comes down to is the Visionary Realm devs should continue to focus on making the game they want to make. Ofc, appeasing a wide multitude of viewpoints on this isn't realistic (there are probably 100+ different ways/visual ideas to do Consider). There is likely a reason VR is not using mere, visual rings around or below the npc for the Consider function. There is also likely a reason why faction and npc difficulty are tied into VR's Consider function as well. The devs are doing terrific things with their design, and like many others, I respect that.
Syrif said:Ultimately, I think what it comes down to is the Visionary Realm devs should continue to focus on making the game they want to make. Ofc, appeasing a wide multitude of viewpoints on this isn't realistic (there are probably 100+ different ways/visual ideas to do Consider). There is likely a reason VR is not using mere, visual rings around or below the npc for the Consider function. There is also likely a reason why faction and npc difficulty are tied into VR's Consider function as well. The devs are doing terrific things with their design, and like many others, I respect that.
The game is in pre-alpha and we have seen a variety of changes to UI as the game continues to be refined. One could argue that there was a reason that VR was not using directional arrows in the group member UI. That reason, of course, is that they simply didn't get it coded in yet. The absence of a feature (especially QoL as it seems like something that would be low-priority during pre-alpha) doesn't mean that there is some sort of active stance toward not adding it in later. Faction and difficulty can both be handled through UI similar to how it was done in EQOA. I understand that you don't like the idea of change (you voiced your reluctance 16 times on page 2 alone) but I think it's unfair that you keep trying to suggest that a simple QoL feature somehow goes against the vision of the game.
oneADseven said:I understand that you don't like the idea of change
In response to your quote of me: you are correct that I am opposed to your idea for Visionary Realms to change their Consider system. Being opposed to a change of one their awesome systems does not somehow just mean "I don't like the idea of change," so I don't understand what you mean. This is their system afterall. And as a matter of fact, I plan on playing the Dire Lord class, which will be entirely new to me. The race I want to play did not exist in other/older mmo’s either. The point that I made is there will be similarities to games like DAOC, VG, EQ and there will be some differences as well - and that's fine. I respectfully mentioned to you earlier that it is ok to disagree. I'll say it to you again: it is ok to disagree. There's nothing more for me to say about that to you, sorry. *shrug*
Syrif said:In response to your quote of me: you are correct that I am opposed to your idea for Visionary Realms to change their Consider system.
It isn't my idea. Brad was the Chief Creative Officer behind EQOA and several members of the current VR team were big fans of the game. I am not the first person to make this suggestion.
Syrif said:Being opposed to a change of one their awesome systems does not somehow just mean "I don't like the idea of change," so I don't understand what you mean. This is their system afterall.
Context is important. I wasn't suggesting that you don't like the "idea" of change. I was specifically referencing your reluctance to a slight change to the /consider system and correlated that with the 16 times you conveyed that message on page 2. Let me remind you of one of your previous statements:
Syrif said:That's not polishing/tuning lol. What you are describing is *changing* the /consider system into a ring around the target. That may have worked in that PlayStation game you referred to - OnlineAdventures. But, such changes are dangerous for a good mmorpg, and they wouldn't be good for Pantheon. It's also these kinds of changes that led to the ruin and decline of games like WoW and Everquest (especially the period of Everquest that Brad was no longer a part of). I get that you may have liked that system in that PlayStation game (eqOnlineAdventures), but that system is at odds that with the immersive, mmorpg gameplay that Visionary Realms is going for with Pantheon. Visionary Realms will be putting perception, depth, and wonder back into an mmorpg similar to how it existed at one time. Some people will love it, while some may dislike it - And that's fine.
Dangerous is a powerful word. If you aren't willing to elaborate on why/how something is dangerous then you shouldn't be using that word because it comes off as intentional (but poorly executed) fearmongering. If you're going to incessantly harp on how something is at odds with immersion/depth/wonder then once again, you should be able to convey why you have that opinion. If you were saying these things once or twice then it wouldn't be a big deal ... but when you keep regurgitating the same blanket statements multiple times on every single page and with no logic or reason to back them up, while simultaneously qualifying yourself as having an objective understanding of what is or is not good for Pantheon, it's poor form. When you do all of that while also denigrating the ideas/suggestions of another individual, it's straight-up obnoxious.
Several people have asked you to clarify your position but you have refused to do so. You claim that people should be asking VR those questions instead. Why is that? You have cited Visionary Realms more than 25 times while advocating that nothing should be changed as if there is some sort of harmonious bond between your position and theirs. This is why people are asking you to clarify your position -- you seem incessantly opposed to adding a simple quality of life change. It's not normal for someone to share the exact same opinion dozens of times without being willing to rationalize the whats/whys/hows that make a discussion interesting/engaging/coherent.
Syrif said:I respectfully mentioned to you earlier that it is ok to disagree. I'll say it to you again: it is ok to disagree. There's nothing more for me to say about that to you, sorry. *shrug*
Do you really mean it this time? You have said that a few times now but seem to have this weird thing going on with circular logic and vitriol. I understand that you really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really don't like consider rings. I used "really" 26x there to properly capture how you feel. I get the point. What I don't understand is when OCastitatisLilium asked you to answer questions like these:
-What about the integrated con system into the target rings breaks the game?
-What about it doesn't work?
-What about the target markers breaks the game in any way?
-What about them doesn't work?
-Why take away a system that effectively could have people from any different language background communicate on screen to promote socialization?
-How does taking away a communication system help in communication?
-Why would you want to waste most of your raid or dungeon time talking like in a chat room instead of getting as much of the raid or dungeon done as you can with what limited time some people may have?
-What about either of these systems is inherently bad?
-What about having it be something you can toggle in the options breaks the game?
-Why is having it an option that people can choose to have on something that just doesn't work?
Your response was that they should ask VR those questions instead.
Really?
Or when Starblight asked you if consider information could be displayed graphically rather than textually and said he was asking you specifically because of how vocal you have been on keeping it how it is, you responded with: "Well, I am probably not the one to answer your question then since I like Visionary Realm’s systems."
Really?
If I attempt to engage in further discussion with other people that are actually interested in dialogue, are you going to remind me for the 27'th time that you don't like colored rings? Please stop trolling.
ad7 - Goodness! Just as many questions can be asked in the opposite - seems obvious. I’ve already said why I don’t think that Playstation game’s feature would be good in this mmorpg (you can read other people’s reasons too), and that I’m not surprised to see there aren’t Consider rings in the streams. You keep quoting me, yet call me a troll. As I’ve already said to you, let’s agree to disagree and move along. I have. Thank you :)
Ainadak said:I wonder if anyone would approve of this compromise - pressing the c button makes the target ring (the one that already exists in the game) change color and also puts text in the chat log that discusses faction.
Faction standing isn't something that I would need to constantly reevaluate so the idea of having to occasionally reference the chat-box seems much more reasonable. The only issue (for me) is that I wouldn't want to populate my chat-box with faction information just to gauge the level. I would likely have to create a second channel in the box, specifically for this information, as I would want it filtered from my normal channel. Having to switch channels to see this information would definitely be annoying, but most likely tolerable. It's not as intuitive as I would like to see but if we're compromising for the sake of a compromise, this might be as good as it gets.
More than anything I just want to keep my primary channel clean and used for communication. I absolutely despise having to scroll through a chat channel (designed for communication) filled with game system spam. Unfortunately, this kind of information isn't always unneccessary which is why I would prefer to see it integrated into the UI with as minimalistic an approach as possible. EQOA executed this flawlessly, in my opinion. The ideal situation for me is to have a chat log and a combat log in the same box, but with each one having their own channel. I'd rather not see level/faction information populating in either one as it's just one more reason to have to cycle between them.
oneADseven said:MauvaisOeil said:The consider system, if lightened to a single "target and get instantly all info you need" is not solved by a toggle. Because the problem is not solely on UI clutter or visual overwhelming, it's on ease of information access. If it becomes tief to solely targetting (ala wow : Level indicated, hostility indicated) it won't be a "choice", because it's faster and more optimal while requiring less personal actions to do so, and it will just be mandatory.
No one will choose to have a peg leg on purpose, but if it's the base system it means everyone will run starting with the same conveniency/inconveniency.
So no : Toggles are not the ultimate answer because it seems to make everyone happy while it doesn't, and taint the game with a lack of decisions from the dev team.
My understanding is that a work-around toggle did exist in EQ. Players could create a macro that attached /con to tab-target, thus allowing them to /consider an NPC with a single keystroke. It appears that /consider information is purposely made accessible. There is no cast time, range, cooldown, resource cost, etc. Press Button > Produce Color. If this kind of functionality is already present then I think there is a valid argument for allowing a UI toggle that displays the same information in the colored ring beneath the NPC being targeted. The colored ring already exists and I would prefer to see the intended color association of /con being realized there rather than being forced to divert my eyes to a chat-box. I have to agree that allowing this to happen is pretty much a no-brainer, just as OCastitatisLilium suggested. This is a very basic QoL feature that would improve my immersion and ability to process purposely-accessible information in a more organic way.
To give another example of how this very same concept could apply to other aspects of the game, imagine if people tried using the same argument of "information access" for NPC health pools. Rather than being able to see this information on the nameplate, players would be required to press an additional "assess health" command which then populates the desired information in a chat-box. I think that would be pretty awful and that most players would agree that being able to see the "health bar" of their target would be a great QoL upgrade for how that information is conveyed and processed by the player. At the end of the day, a colored ring already exists beneath our offensive target and color association is already being leveraged for the /consider command. This seems like a very obvious opportunity to deliver the "two birds, one stone" analogy through polished UI. I don't see a real drawback to this outside of some players preferring to look at a chat-box rather than an existing UI asset to process information.
Since this topic is all about consideration there is another point that is worth taking a look at. I think it's a little peculiar that people are making such a big deal about the idea of /consideration being attached to the process of targeting an NPC rather than being an additional keystroke that must occur afterward. If a slight QoL change like that is worth such an uproar, where is the consistency in logic when it comes to the targeting system being simplified in general? Is that bad for the game as well? By allowing us to have both an offensive target and defensive target, players are able to cast hostile/beneficial spells simultaneously rather than having to perform additional keystrokes to cycle between friend and foe. That change is much more radical because it not only reduces the number of keystrokes players have to make but also has significantly less opportunity cost than players being limited to a single target.
I don't think tab targetting was working in EQ, as I remember this type of fast and mouseless targetting appeared only with wow Era. The default bind for /con was simply C, which was another keypress.
However I have a hard time understanding why you are making a comparison with a toggle through this.
Ainadak said:I wonder if anyone would approve of this compromise - pressing the c button makes the target ring (the one that already exists in the game) change color and also puts text in the chat log that discusses faction.
I think that the issue people have with that is visual clutter, even if it's also just color changes. From what I've read from people, I think less visual clutter is one of the things that will make Pantheon different. I think it's important to distinguish between a game that was designed for Playstation (such as the one referenced in this thread) and a game like Pantheon that is designed to be an immersive, computer-based mmorpg. And Pantheon finally being different from the mainstream market. The ideas and thoughts are interesting to read, but there are just so many different ways it can be done - that's why I think Visionary Realms should just focus on making the game they want to make. I think their systems are already looking pretty impressive.
MauvaisOeil said:
I don't think tab targetting was working in EQ, as I remember this type of fast and mouseless targetting appeared only with wow Era. The default bind for /con was simply C, which was another keypress.
However I have a hard time understanding why you are making a comparison with a toggle through this.
The point was that you can assign tab-target and /con to a single keybind. It's not exactly the same thing as a toggle but it's a work-around toggle in the context that we were discussing. If you're referring to a specific era where tab-target wasn't available in EQ, that's a different set of circumstances. Pantheon has always been a tab-target game so this kind of functionality will be available immediately. You mentioned that there should be consistency and that nobody will ever purposely choose to have a peg leg. If that is truly the case then everybody will take advantage of the multi-function keybind, which then suggests that there is no point in forcing an additional keystroke.
Well I think a requirement that a player must hit a key specifically set to con a target and only get the result in a text window is a little rigid. Now I could understand wanting that option but to force that on all player in its entirety is just odd.
Speaking for myself I keep posting because the few people that seem to be posting in favor of said system and all its rigidness have not fully explained or answered questions in regards to what if anything could be a player choice in the options.
Really even now I am telling myself this is a waste of time and the answer is not coming so why bother. I guess I am just a sucker for trying to understand.
I want to add a very big PLUS MINUS ONE to the idea that adding a feature is fine as long as you add a toggle so people who don't want it can switch it off.
EDIT: OMG sorry I totally flipped the meaning of that sentence. To be clear: Including a toggle does NOT make a feature ok to add...
It is hugely important that Pantheon is a *shared* experience. Different UI themes and different graphical fidelity? Fine. Functionally different interfaces and mechanics? Not fine.
VR should assess all the factors, garner some feedback and make a decision based on their huge combined experience and their vision for the game.
If a feature is worthwhile, add it, if it isn't, don't. Options and customisation is fine, but no one wants dozens of options about fundamental features so we end up almost playing different games.
Yeah, that is true. To add: there are just so many different ways this function can be done. I could propose there to be 'Consider cubes' that envelop the mob/npc. Or, Consider could be a skill. It was mentioned there could be Consider rings around the mob. Was mentioned Consider could be a separate text window next to the mob. Someone else could propose Consider to be a separate chat box entirely. Someone could want Consider to not exist. Or, someone may want Consider to not be a part of faction. Someone else may want Consider to be in a tab or seperate log. Someone could want it to be triangular. A person may want Consider to be "this graphic" or "that graphic" etc. No, wait - "this graphic!" The number of ways/toggles this function can be done may very well be endless. Everyone's feedback is appreciated and can be fun to read. But, I agree that at the end of the day, I'd think we should be playing the same game with the function/system that Visionary Realms has provided us. Their time is also valuable; it seems their time is better spent making the game than going back and changing their system(s) altogether.
Syrif said:Yeah, that is true. To add: there are just so many different ways this function can be done. I could propose there to be 'Consider cubes' that envelop the mob/npc. Or, Consider could be a skill. It was mentioned there could be Consider rings around the mob. Was mentioned Consider could be a separate text window next to the mob. Someone else could propose Consider to be a separate chat box entirely. Someone could want Consider to not exist. Or, someone may want Consider to not be a part of faction. Someone else may want Consider to be in a tab or seperate log. Someone could want it to be triangular. A person may want Consider to be "this graphic" or "that graphic" etc. No, wait - "this graphic!" The number of ways/toggles this function can be done may very well be endless. Everyone's feedback is appreciated and can be fun to read. But, I agree that at the end of the day, I'd think we should be playing the same game with the function/system that Visionary Realms has provided us. Their time is also valuable; it seems their time is better spent making the game than going back and changing their system(s) altogether.
First you start off with a massive strawman for no apparent reason. Then you go on about how everybody should accept things as they are, but have a very different tune when a feature/mechanic doesn't work how you want it to. This happened not long ago when the planned food/drink system was discussed by Joppa. If you're happy with something then VR gets heaps of praise (you have expressed your sheer joy and happiness about 30 times on this thread) and everybody else should also be satisfied. If you're unhappy you use words like "stupid" / "pathetic" / "mainstream" / "contrary to the vision" / "extremely annoyed" / "piss off a lot of people" while suggesting that VR should "come to their senses." You have known this community for 20 years and you aren't just talking about some tiny minority, no, it's the VAST majority of people who do not use forums that you speak for. It's actually quite hilarious. You have asked "Why change it?" around 15 times but when someone takes the time to explain their thoughts, it goes through one ear and out the other. You say feedback is appreciated and fun to read but the amount of intentional trolling and intellectual dishonesty I have seen from you on this thread is undeniable and staggering.
oneADseven - My view on food/drink is that I am quite content with whichever system the VR devs will actually produce for food/drink (views can evolve). Like others, I gave my opinion because I hadn't seen anything in the streams on food/water yet, so I stated my opinion about it. However unlike food/drink, the Consider function was actually shown in the streams, and I do not believe it needs to be changed. Whichever food/water system they develop, it should be just that. The same goes with Consider and any function system. I am not going to persistently ask them to change their system(s) that was already shown, sorry oneADseven. Furthermore, I don't think multiple food/drink or Consider toggle functions are the answer; really we should be playing the same game at the end of the day. Funny that you keep quoting me, yet call me the troll. There are only so many times I can ask you to agree to disagree. No need to further respond to you on this topic. Thank you for your understanding~
Syrif said:oneADseven - My view on food/drink is that I am quite content with whichever system the VR devs will actually produce for food/drink. Like others, I gave my opinion because I hadn't seen anything in the streams on food/water yet, so I stated my opinion about it. However unlike food/drink, the Consider function was actually shown in the streams, and I do not believe it needs to be changed. Whichever food/water system they develop, it should be just that. The same goes with Consider and any function system. I am not going to persistently ask them to change their system(s) that was already shown, sorry oneADseven
So just to be clear, your view is that you are content with whichever system VR produces for food/drink, but your opinion was that since the intended design was not yet produced, it was fair to call it a stupid stat buff similar to the mainstream FF/WoW garbage that would piss off the vast majority of people who do not post on the forums, and that it would be extremely annoying / pathetic. Your view is that whichever food/drink system gets developed should be just that, but your opinion was that I was dead wrong for praising the planned implementation -- and you're using "actually shown in streams" during a pre-alpha stage of development as the qualifying criteria that distinguish your views from your opinions? Your opinion was that Pantheon would be much much much better off if the intended plan never came to fruition, but your view is that you would be content if it did. Thank you, this makes a lot of sense. I appreciate you sharing this information, truly. The "Food and Drink is out!" thread was another prime example of you trolling your way through a discussion and I think it's important to gauge the consistency of your logic while discussing different topics.
Syrif said:Funny that you keep quoting me, yet call me the troll. There are only so many times I can ask you to agree to disagree. No need to further respond to you on this topic. Thank you for your understanding~
The quoting mechanism exists for a reason and it's an extremely useful tool when someone gets their hand caught in the cookie jar like you have, again. If you don't understand what internet trolling is then you should look up the definition and start thinking about your actions. I say this because it appeared that you didn't appreciate being called a troll earlier in this thread (much like I don't appreciate getting trolled) -- I hope you see how this works now. I'm not just sharing an opinion that I think you are trolling. I'm giving you examples/details and then explaining the correlation. It was important for me to do this so that we can establish a clear timeline. There was a precedent of you trolling me on other threads which evolved into a pattern here. The fact that you keep doing the same things (and drawing in other members of the community who waste their time trying to make sense of it) but seem to be in denial shows that the pattern has evolved into persistence. You can try to masque this behavior with a charade of smiley faces and other false pleasantries but the jig is up. If you would like me to produce a timeline of the various quotes that show the undeniable and staggering degree of intentional trolling and intellectual dishonesty that you have displayed on this thread, I'd be more than happy to accommodate. I hope you can figure this out and save me some time but the future appears grim.