dorotea said:The breadth of our customer base not just its depth will dictate whether Pantheon succeeds or fails economically. Which is a whole lot more important than whether it succeeds artistically since a shut-down game does none of us any good.
Whilst there are some features and mechanics that merely contribute to the 'artistic' value of Pantheon, there are some that are fundamental to what Pantheon is trying to be. How it is differentiating itself. What it is trying to return to the genre. Following through on its tenets and vision is more than trying to achieve 'artistic success'.
Being group-focused has always been a fundamental part of the vision. It has always been front-and-center and oft-mentioned. "Bring a friend" is a Pantheon rallying cry. Several of the tenets are related directly.
Yes, Pantheon needs to not 'fail' or no one will get to enjoy it for long, but honestly, if it turns out to be yet another 'massively-multiplayer' game that just *is not* then it has failed anyway, so it makes no difference. If, to be an economic success, it has to become what all the other 'successful' MMORPGs are, regarding it's multi-player experience or other defining features, then it has already failed according to it's own vision and tenets and for the backers that are backers *because* of those vision and tenets.
Happily, it doesn't have to compromise its integrity to be an economic success. The 'depth' of the playerbase is already enough to make it a 'success'. I believe Ben Dean even explicitly said so at one point, but I believe it to be true anyway. I also believe, though, that there is some considerable breadth already. There are many that don't mind that some of the tenets and vision aren't ideal for them. I also believe that the breadth will widen, as players that might not be used to the kind of thing Pantheon offers, or even those that think they won't like some aspects of it, actually try it and love it.
Maybe that's not an increase in customer breadth, but of depth? The shallow-end customers swimming from the breadth over to the depths? Semantics I suppose.
I feel another of my tortured examples coming on...
If I see a garage selling classic motorcycles and displaying lovely, shiny, classic bikes and I go in and put down money for a classic bike and they later deliver me a modern bike, that is a failure. If they deliver me a classic bike, but have fitted a modern oil system, that is a failure. I don't care if it's the best and most popular modern bike in the world, or if modern customers find that oil system more reliable, it's not what I asked for and it's not what I wanted. If you know your bikes, you'll know that many seeming 'improvements' utterly change the character and that 'character' *is* fundamental to a classic bike. That character is way more important than what is technically 'better' and definitely more important than what is popular.
Now, there have been classic bike shops for a long time, but they were relatively rare and far between. It was always a greater challenge than a modern bike franchise and was usually operated by genuine enthusiasts and experts. They sometimes failed. They sometimes scraped by. But almost invariably, they loved doing it and had rabidly loyal and happy customers.
In recent years, there has been a revival in classic bike sales and also modern-but-classic-styled or modernised custom classics are very popular. A lot of riders had never had a classic bike experience until it started to become popular again and, now - though the business is self-supporting with 'old' fans of classic bikes - there is a ton of business from new riders too, who are appreciated the joys of a ride of 'character' and not one of just modern convenience or speed.
All this is to say: VR doesn't need to, and shouldn't, make a game designed to please the modern mass market. If they do it has failed before it releases. They may as well branch into selling hamburgers or fidget spinners or anything else popular and successful that also isn't a modern-classic MMORPG.
Disclaimer: Once again, I am not suggesting objectively soloing = bad and grouping = good. Even if grouping were considered objectively 'better' in some ways, whether people apprecaite or enjoy those 'ways' is subjective. What I am suggesting is: *IF* you are making the group-focused game we haven't had for 20 years, *THEN* you can't make it as solo-focused as MMORPGs have become over the last 20 years.
Disclaimer 2: I would like to solo. When waiting for a group, when exploring, when travelling or when I just plain fancy it. Other reasons too. But I will not expect it to be anywhere near as easy or rewarding as group gaming in a group-focused game, because I want, for a change after 20 years, for an MMORPG to be properly and meaningfully group-focused. If I want an 'easy' solo experience, I don't expect a massively multi-player game to provide it, I play a solo game.
Disclaimer 3: The issue is also not just (full) 'group' or 'solo'. It is duo, trio, quartet, non-standard class combos, naked (!) and/or whatever other combinations and setups. I expect to be able to play in many different ways, including solo, but I expect to have to work harder and/or go after easier enemies the further from 'average full group' I get and there is no further than solo, so that will be the hardest or even just not possible in many situations.
dorotea said:Often we pick one area that is most important to us and assume, consciously or subconsciously, that someone that feels otherwise is not a "true" Pantheon fan.
I'm not saying you're pointing this comment at me, but I do hope I don't seem like I'm doing this.
For me, it's not a matter of being a 'true' Pantheon fan, or some other kind of elitist puritanism, it's just about encouraging VR to make the game they want to make and not relax ideals in order to match modern MMORPG ideas of what is 'appealing'.
Not that I think VR are sat reading this and are swayed by my support of their vision hehe. I'm keen to discuss all aspects of Pantheon with other backers. I hope I don't seem too opinionated and intractable. I don't want to brow-beat people I don't agree with into submission, but I do perhaps dislike it if I feel misunderstood and persist 'explaining' until I might seem aggressive?
*shrug*
At the risk of portraying that image even further, I was just looking for info for another thread and came across this: -
From Website FAQ
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 creating 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 seeking for the kind of experience we aim to offer in Pantheon.
The two important parts of this statement re. this thread are the two points I have been making, so I feel somewhat comforted. Not putting this here to be smug or try and 'prove I am right', just to acknowledge the related things VR have always said that made me a backer in the first place.
Pantheon is intentionally and consciously "targeting specific gamers with distinct preferences" and those gamers are "Players who desire cooperative play, working together as a team".
They go on to address the obvious related issues, but believe, as I do, though "While most content will be designed for groups, there is content that is soloable" and this does not doom Pantheon to an 'old audience' because "There are many younger players out there who enjoy cooperative and social play".
To clarify - part of what I said was that Pantheon didn't need to perfectly match what any of us wanted to attract and keep us as players. It needed to be significantly better as a whole than the competition.
If my number one hot button is the focus on group play, and I accept but do not love the large world, slow travel, slow leveling elements - I may well be a dedicated Pantheon player. Because the game will be a *lot* better than other MMOs on my most important factor.
If my number one hot button is large world, slow travel, slow leveling and I accept but do not love grouping - I may still be a dedicated Pantheon player. Because the game will be a *lot* better than other MMOs on my most important factor.
To be an economic success Pantheon should be *very* much better than most other MMOs in terms of its core design goals. Otherwise what is the point? It cannot compete with major current MMOs on their terms - it can only compete by being very different in ways that will attract and keep significant number of players. Pretty much all of us agree on this.
My corollary is that while it must be true to its objectives on the core design philosophies - it must not be *so* hardcore on this that it repels all but a handful of players that love all of the design elements and therefore want more and more of them.
Thus - if Pantheon is 100% dedicated to the goal of group-focus and keeps the groupies so happy they think they died and went to a better place - 100% forced grouping - it is likely to fail because it will keep very few players that do not want to group all of the time. My wording above was "accept but do not love grouping". Most players will not accept 100% forced grouping no matter how good everything else is. But if they like other things enough they may well accept grouping that is strongly encouraged but not mandatory to get to maximum level - eventually.
So I am not arguing against the group focus - just on our not being too fanatical about it.
Ditto for large world, slow travel and slow leveling. If it takes a year for a "no lifer" to get to maximum level and 10 years for a normal player we are unlikely to keep many players. If it takes an hour to get from point X to point Y with 15 ambushes on average - and this is a trip we need to make pretty often - we are unlikely to keep many players. If death means an hour naked corpse run requiring a group - on average - and if we can't get a group we lose 5 levels and half of our gear - permanently - we are unlikely to keep many players.
Some might say "extremism in the defense of old school purity is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of old school purity is no virtue." I do not agree. With apologies to Barry Goldwater - some of us will recognize the source of that quote. We need to go most of the way to perfection, and on most of our key design features. We do not need to, and should not, go all the way on any of them or even asymptotically approach "purity". Enough to satisfy almost all supporters but not so much as to drive away almost everyone else. A difficult balancing act but far from impossible. It is not exactly all that hard to be a lot better than WoW and LOTRO and EQ2 and SWTOR etc. on every single one of our core points. If being 80% better triples the number of mundanes we add to our core support - really good trade-off over being 99% better.
Disposalist - no the reference to people focusing on one element at the expense of all others was not aimed at you - far from it. That doesn't apply to you at all. It was just a general reference to a tone we sometimes see here. A tone that is somethimes justified for if we give up too much and become WoW-lite we have nothing either.
Well said.
There is a tendancy to feel like we are 'righting 20 years of MMORPG genre wrongs' or some such puritanical crusade sometimes hehe.
I'm prone to it, I know, though I try to be reasonable.
There is certainly a balancing act between extreme hardcore old school features that would only please the extreme hardcore old school crowd and 'good' old school features that hardcore old school players will love, but those that aren't as keen will be ok with.
The solo/grouping thing is a good example, since even games like Everquest were very soloable, but are looked upon as old school group-focused games.
Personally I was always a little disappointed how soloable EQ was, by some classes, but not others. I would have liked it to be a little more soloable by some and less by others, but overall, it wouldn't be any more group-focused than it was.
I could certainly stand it if Pantheon were more group-focused than EQ, but I totally accept that it doesn't really need to be to make me happy and it would put a fair amount of people off.
Telepath said: There should never be XP penalties for soloing. The thing that should make soloing less efficient should be completely based on the difference in TTK.
There has been no mention of an "XP penalty" for soloing by VR, if by that you mean mob X giving less total XP when killed by a solo player than when killed by a full group. I don't believe the OP is suggesting anything like that either. I think they are just asking about overall rate of advancement.
The TTK for individual mobs certainly will play a large part.
That lower efficiency will also be significantly affected by the limit on what level of mob you can take on without dying. Full groups are expected (currently) to be able to take on mobs up to 5 levels higher than they are. Solo players are expected to only be able to take on mobs lower level than themselves - at least after lvl 5-10. And the level 'differential' will go up as you get to higher levels.
Different Classes are also expected to have a wide range of solo effectiveness.
"I disagree with disposalist. If everyone in EQ could solo like the pet classes I think half the groups would vanish overnight. It is partially why I am so afraid VR's promise for every class to be able to solo will backfire. Technically able to solo and able to solo efficiently are two every different things."
I agree that it would be wrong for every class to be able to solo well - so well that it can gain loot or experience almost as fast as by grouping. I will go further - it would be wrong for *any* class to be able to solo that well. You may well be correct that we need to be stricter than EQ in some ways to support the design philosophy.
Yet I want all classes to be able to solo in much of the landscape. Able to explore the world without needing a group to kill a rat that they find a few feet from town. Able to get to maximum level without grouping if they want to - as long as it takes 5 or 10 times longer to do it that way. I don't want forced grouping I want strongly encouraged grouping.
Landscape not dungeons - I am content if I cannot survive going 5 feet into a dungeon without a group. VR can cater to most of us - who want a heavy focus on grouping - by having dungeons exclusively for groups and having the best rewards and fastest xp there. But can also cater to the soloists among us by allowing them to explore the world without every mob being designed for a group and with reasonable rewards for killing things. Reasonable meaning a lot less than group rewards for group content.
Jobeson said: I disagree with disposalist. If everyone in EQ could solo like the pet classes I think half the groups would vanish overnight. It is partially why I am so afraid VR's promise for every class to be able to solo will backfire. Technically able to solo and able to solo efficiently are two every different things. I would love to see pantheon more group focused than EQ myself, a world where fighting your level is a 50-50 tossup. I will be very sad if we see more soloers than groupers past lvl 15 or so. Gotta make it clearly more efficient and safer to group in any form.
When I said "I would have liked it to be a little more soloable by some and less by others, but overall, it wouldn't be any more group-focused than it was" I meant that, overall, soloing would be less easy - by bringing down how easy it was for those pet classes like necros, even though it was made possible for warriors and clerics, that found it near impossible.
EQ was regarded a group-focused game, but for some classes, soloing was sometimes more effective than grouping, so, yeah, that wasn't perfect at all.
I certainly didn't mean all classes should be able to solo 'well' or in a way that detracted from grouping.
VR have already stated that VR will be a group-based game that will allow comfortable solo play to about level 10 I think (maybe even earlier), past that point it will be possible but not easy and certain classes will be at a real disadvantage in doing so. No where have I seen a statement from VR saying solo play will be easily possible for all classes through all levels. Solo game play will be available, yes, but there are big disadvantages to doing so including needing to take on lower level mobs than yourself, recovery rates, kill rates, etc.
The game allows solo play for a variety of reasons; doing something while your group gets on line, down time from group play, solo exploration, etc. But solo levelling is not on VR's list as a requirement or a focus of the game. So given that, I would expect solo levelling at 30+ to take a very long time.
I dont get the polarization of group vs solo to be honest. They both have a place. It doesnt matter a jot whether people think solo play is better than group play. It can be a very subjective argument and there will never be a consensus. Just because the market is saturated with solo based games, does not mean there is no market for a grouped based game. Most publisher's games cater to the mass market for profit, to get the maximum bang for buck. But that doesnt mean every game has to follow the same formula.
Take music, Rock and Punk and Rap and Brit Pop (etc., etc) all broke the status quo of music at one time or another. They did not follow the common path at there inception, but their popularity cannot be denied. They also tend to re-emerge back into the mainstream too, from time to time. It is no different for any product in the modern world. If it is different from the status quo but it is still good in its own right, it can definitely be successful.
The bottom line is that Pantheon is grouped based with solo play being possible but difficult and I think trying to guess at solo progression time scales is missing the point somewhat. If you want levelling progression, then group play is the way to go. If you want solo play, dont expect to make much of a dent in the progress bar; nonetheless, that style of game play will still be rewarding in ways other than by xp gain.
There is room for a group centric game and in my opinion, Pantheon will be successful. Even though VR intend to keep Pantheon group centric, there will be players who manage to solo successfully. This does not lessen the game, however. I think fearing any aspect of Pantheon at this stage is a bit nonsensical until we have at least had a chance to see it all in action.
Jobeson said:Please ignore low level soloing ability. It is assumed low levels can simply solo through the training wheel stages.
How efficient should soloing be compared to grouping once you get into mid to high level content? Say from 30 and on. I mean this quite literally, as in if the average level up time for x level in groups takes say 10 hours, how long should the average time take soloing that level up from increased downtime, extra deaths, etc? 12 hours? 13 hours?
A lot of this will depend on how experience rates are handled, and if there are any modifiers based on zone or group size.
Personally, I think that someone soloing would level up drastically slower than someone in a group. Groups mean faster killing and the ability to dispatch harder mobs. This should mean that the group should see the best experience yields. If it is taking a group 10 hours to level in an experience-optimized environment, then I would say the solo leveler would probably see level gains in about 14-18hours.
It's really hard to judge just how this will play out. However, I do think that a solo player will see increased leveling time, especially if they are focused on killing stuff lower than themselves to level.
chenzeme said:VR have already stated that VR will be a group-based game that will allow comfortable solo play to about level 10 I think (maybe even earlier), past that point it will be possible but not easy and certain classes will be at a real disadvantage in doing so. No where have I seen a statement from VR saying solo play will be easily possible for all classes through all levels. Solo game play will be available, yes, but there are big disadvantages to doing so including needing to take on lower level mobs than yourself, recovery rates, kill rates, etc.
The game allows solo play for a variety of reasons; doing something while your group gets on line, down time from group play, solo exploration, etc. But solo levelling is not on VR's list as a requirement or a focus of the game. So given that, I would expect solo levelling at 30+ to take a very long time.
I dont get the polarization of group vs solo to be honest. They both have a place. It doesnt matter a jot whether people think solo play is better than group play. It can be a very subjective argument and there will never be a consensus. Just because the market is saturated with solo based games, does not mean there is no market for a grouped based game. Most publisher's games cater to the mass market for profit, to get the maximum bang for buck. But that doesnt mean every game has to follow the same formula.
Take music, Rock and Punk and Rap and Brit Pop (etc., etc) all broke the status quo of music at one time or another. They did not follow the common path at there inception, but their popularity cannot be denied. They also tend to re-emerge back into the mainstream too, from time to time. It is no different for any product in the modern world. If it is different from the status quo but it is still good in its own right, it can definitely be successful.
The bottom line is that Pantheon is grouped based with solo play being possible but difficult and I think trying to guess at solo progression time scales is missing the point somewhat. If you want levelling progression, then group play is the way to go. If you want solo play, dont expect to make much of a dent in the progress bar; nonetheless, that style of game play will still be rewarding in ways other than by xp gain.
There is room for a group centric game and in my opinion, Pantheon will be successful. Even though VR intend to keep Pantheon group centric, there will be players who manage to solo successfully. This does not lessen the game, however. I think fearing any aspect of Pantheon at this stage is a bit nonsensical until we have at least had a chance to see it all in action.
"It doesnt matter a jot whether people think solo play is better than group play" No, it really does. *If* you want the game to be a good group experience.
Balancing for soloing detracts from balancing for grouping. Making content for soloing makes easy/boring content for groups. The more soloing is prioritised and focused, the less grouping is.
They are not seperate. They can't co-exist without effecting each other.
If they could, yeah, no one would much care I think. If content could be balanced for both, then that would be great, but I think that's near impossible or at least a gargantuan effort (and, so, still detracts from the effort of making the best group game there is) and soloers would be taking content that 6 people could be enjoying, so...
Let's remove the emotive 'soloing' name and call it non-optimal grouping vs optimal grouping. If we want an average group to have a challenging experience the game must balance for an average group. If you balance for non-optimal, anything near 'good', either well class-balanced, well geared, or skilled, or a combo, will have a boring, trivial time (which is what I've experienced again and again in modern MMOs - grouping up ruins the game, which is bonkers).
Sure, if you make the average group the 'balance point', then duos, trios, interesting class mixes, unskilled players, will all find it hard. Good! It should be! They will mitigate that by getting better skills, getting better gear, getting more party members or simply targeting easier content, but you don't have to trivialise the game for the 'average' group.
Soloing is, of course, the extreme of 'non-optimal' and a bit of a special case because it's pretty non-social too, but in essence it is just the most extreme non-optimal group choice you can make.
No one 'hates' soloers, but a lot of players are desparate for a challenging group game, for a change after maybe 20 years, and so yeah, when people imply soloing should be anywhere near as viable as grouping, knowing it will have a detrimental effect on grouping, it gets a natural amount of push back from people who have been missing a good group experience for long long time.
Disclaimer Again: Just on case people missed it above. I want soloing. There will be times I am waiting for a group, travelling alone, or just fancy it. BUT I do not expect it to be anywhere NEAR as easy as grouping. I expect to be picking on lower level, simpler monsters.
disposalist: "It doesnt matter a jot whether people think solo play is better than group play" No, it really does. *If* you want the game to be a good group experience.
I just dont agree with you. Whether group play in general or solo play in general provides a better experience is immaterial and subjective; they are just different and people like both styles of play for differing reasons.
Pantheon is primarily a group based game, therefore group play will be more rewarding. Thus the grouping experience winthin Pantheon will be better than the solo experience, which is fine. This does not mean group play is better than solo play generally, though.
chenzeme said:disposalist: "It doesnt matter a jot whether people think solo play is better than group play" No, it really does. *If* you want the game to be a good group experience.
I just dont agree with you. Whether group play in general or solo play in general provides a better experience is immaterial and subjective; they are just different and people like both styles of play for differing reasons.
Pantheon is primarily a group based game, therefore group play will be more rewarding. Thus the grouping experience winthin Pantheon will be better than the solo experience, which is fine. This does not mean group play is better than solo play generally, though.
I wasn't suggesting 'better' or 'worse' - yes, that is related to personal subjective preference (and personal convenience) - but that you cannot, technically, as a developer, balance for solo play without making group play too easy and you can't make soloable content without it being easy content for a group, therefore developing for soloing will always, to some extent, detract from a group game.
I think a certain amount is necessary, as I've said, but I believe the main conflict/problem is to do with there being no technical way to accomodate both without effecting the other.
The issue of how much you focus one or the other is more than just developers allowing for preference of playstyle - it is a balance of the quality and quantity of content for one or the other, because you cannot provide content that is equally 'good' for both.
Do you really believe VR can work out how to balance or scale content that is both solo and group? I'd love to hear how, if so. I'd love it if this was not an issue. Every example of attempts to scale or balance for both soloing and groups I've seen in other MMORPGs has been horrible - almost all make soloing the 'balance point' and grouping is ruined - even duoing makes them boring, it's not really solo vs group, it's solo versus anything else. Do you think there's one that got it right? Or maybe just have faith VR can do it? I'd love that too, but I'm very sceptical it's possible.
disposalist: Do you really believe VR can work out how to balance or scale content that is both solo and group?
chenzeme: I just dont agree with you. Whether group play in general or solo play in general provides a better experience is immaterial and subjective...
Mmmm? My post in this thread never gave an impression that I was asking for balanced play for both solo and group in Pantheon (and for clarity, I am not asking for balance with solo and group play - I cannot make that any clearer). I said that deciding if group play or solo play is best is very subjective. I also said the direction Pantheon is taking with prioritising group play is fine.
Solo play is important and should be rewarding, but I am happy with the direction VR have taken to prioritise group play.
I just do not understand why you are taking umbrage with what I actually said.
chenzeme said:disposalist: Do you really believe VR can work out how to balance or scale content that is both solo and group?
chenzeme: I just dont agree with you. Whether group play in general or solo play in general provides a better experience is immaterial and subjective...
Mmmm? My post in this thread never gave an impression that I was asking for balanced play for both solo and group in Pantheon (and for clarity, I am not asking for balance with solo and group play - I cannot make that any clearer). I said that deciding if group play or solo play is best is very subjective. I also said the direction Pantheon is taking with prioritising group play is fine.
Solo play is important and should be rewarding, but I am happy with the direction VR have taken to prioritise group play.
I just do not understand why you are taking umbrage with what I actually said.
Oh sorry I misunderstood a couple of pivotal sentences. When you said "It doesnt matter a jot whether people think solo play is better than group play" I thought you meant it doesn't matter if people - devs, backers, players eventually - think solo play is better.
The emphasis - the focus - is vital, but yeah, if you mean it doesn't matter what critics think because VR *are* making Pantheon group focused, then yes, sorry, I agree.
Well, *hopefully* it doesn't matter! There have been many games in the genre that have changed a good group/solo mix to a solo bias, ruining the group game, because 'people' said - loudly - that soloing is 'better'...
Also when you said "Whether group play in general or solo play in general provides a better experience is immaterial and subjective" I took that to mean that you thought both could provide an equally good experience to both players that enjoy soloing and players that enjoy grouping, in one game, which I don't believe is possible.
If you mean that group play or solo play as concepts, not together in one game or as concepts that devs might try to design into one game, can be perceived as 'better' by whoever and it should have no effect on Pantheon, than yes, I agree. People's general opinions on soloing and grouping are immaterial because Pantheon *is* going to be group-focused.
Though, again, if we see people being vociferous about soloing as Pantheon goes through pre-alpha and alpha VR might think they should change...
Either way, sorry, dude! My bad. Brainfarted!
Soling should not be efficient, in a group centric game.
It should be doable, but not efficient enough to be a long term viable form of progression for the masses.
I do solo, probably more than I think, as I often log on randomly for short period to kill some RL time, and would not want to burden a group with a short play session. Typically I use those times for farming materials or cash or just work on skill-ups, so xp is not the primary focus, but even a little xp is always welcome.
Grouping should always be the more viable option in every metric (exp, loot, etc.).
I've done my fair share of soloing in EQ with pet classes to know not to expect soloing to be AS viable an option.
There are always going to be mobs that will be way tougher for certain classes to solo at less than an even con. It's not surprising that those classes end up doing far better grouped.
I don't know how someone can gauge whether or not soloing is "rewarding" outside of personal preference. The difference between soloing and grouping shouldn't be weighed differently in outcome if that is what people are hinting at. Personally, I found soloing to be boring compared to grouping. Killing one thing over and over again, until changing camps to rinse and repeat, isnt as engaging as spending time with different people.
A key nexus point will be when ....if ..... Pantheon gets en invester willing to commit enough to get the game to launch within a year or two.
With a high level of probability the VR team will want to keep the game as close as possible to the current direction and not "sell out".
With a high level of probability the investor will be looking at expenses, business model, number of anticipated players, player retention likelihood and the like.
If this happy day comes it seems likely that Pantheon will retain much, but not all, of what makes it Pantheon. Keeping enough to retain VR's creative enthusiasm while compromising enough to increase the likelihood that if it is a niche game it at least is a *profitable* niche game.