Today I was watching the Pax East speech about FFXIV and their new raid they are placing into the game. When describing the raid they announced that this would have two tiers of difficultly. The first tier would be an easy version to allow players to enjoy the story and lore while the second would be for players looking for a challenge. This isn't something really new in the genre and they are definitely following the lead of World of Warcraft with their Looking for Raid system. What irked me was that she snickered when saying there was a second tier that was for players looking for a challenge.
When games were originally designed they were designed to be so challenging that they couldn't be won. You basically went to your limit and set your personal high score in the game. Now it seems like almost a novelty to have difficult content in a game. I don't know if this is just a culture shift or a generational thing, but I find it extremely upsetting that the majority of games are being made for these hyper casual players. I've always joked that when Everquest was made it was made for nerds and today's games are made for dumb people. I know this is an exaggeration of the truth, but it is disheartening to think we have fallen this far so quickly.
There also seems to be a fallacy in game design in general these days that designing hardcore content is a waste of time because only a small portion of your player base gets to experience it themselves. I look at it as a goal to accomplish and while a player with less time will take much longer to accomplish those goals it doesn't make them any less satisfying. I also compare it to American football; 99% of the population cannot play football at the NFL level, but it doesn't make it less enjoyable for them to watch or play. People need something to aspire towards and without these top level players it doesn't push the level of what can be accomplished.
Lastly do you think this has has to do with the modern design practice of making the majority of the game solo content. Is it against human nature to want to be alone the majority of the time since for most of the history of the human race we have had to work together for survival? Shouldn't games made to be played with lots of people require you to interact with them the majority of the time for success ? I was discussing this on the mmorpg forums the other day and most players think that the design of the game should be 80% soloable while I believe that the numbers should be reversed and that 80% of the content should require a group.
Is this genre doomed itself because of the rampant growth and pop culture success. Has gaming development in general across all genre's become dumbed down as a result of mass appeal?
DJay said:
Today I was watching.....
snip
When games were originally designed they were designed to be so challenging that they couldn't be won. You basically went to your limit and set your personal high score in the game. Now it seems like almost a novelty to have difficult content in a game. I don't know if this is just a culture shift or a generational thing, but I find it extremely upsetting that the majority of games are being made for these hyper casual players. I've always joked that when Everquest was made it was made for nerds and today's games are made for dumb people. I know this is an exaggeration of the truth, but it is disheartening to think we have fallen this far so quickly.
There also seems to be a fallacy in game design in general these days that designing hardcore content is a waste of time because only a small portion of your player base gets to experience it themselves. I look at it as a goal to accomplish and while a player with less time will take much longer to accomplish those goals it doesn't make them any less satisfying. I also compare it to American football; 99% of the population cannot play football at the NFL level, but it doesn't make it less enjoyable for them to watch or play. People need something to aspire towards and without these top level players it doesn't push the level of what can be accomplished.
Lastly do you think this has has to do with the modern design practice of making the majority of the game solo content. Is it against human nature to want to be alone the majority of the time since for most of the history of the human race we have had to work together for survival? Shouldn't games made to be played with lots of people require you to interact with them the majority of the time for success ? I was discussing this on the mmorpg forums the other day and most players think that the design of the game should be 80% soloable while I believe that the numbers should be reversed and that 80% of the content should require a group.
Is this genre doomed itself because of the rampant growth and pop culture success. Has gaming development in general across all genre's become dumbed down as a result of mass appeal?
I applaud you... well said.!
.
I could not agree more with every word that you posted. Casual gaming appears to be at the forefront of every MMO development and implementation since WoW made millions from it.
Here's to hoping Pantheon can bring back games that weren't intended to be beaten, and you aren't the hero, but simply a citizen in the world of Pantheon.
The general entitlement culture we live in has permeated gaming as gaming has gone from more of a "niche" thing that only "nerds" do (because in the past, if you gamed then the general populace felt you HAD to be a nerd) - to something more and more of the general population is partaking of.
I recall back in the day someone posted that they should get to see everything in EQ because they paid for it - a dev posted something to the effect of "Your $9.99 gets you in the game, that's it. What you accomplish in the game is up to you."
With a populace screaming to see and do everything - game developers have sought to accommodate them. A scream of entitlement has been met by a response of appeasement.
Vanguard ultimately did not go as far as EQ at being a hard ass game, but it also did not cave in to the entitlement crowd with mass appeasement. I'm heartened when I hear Brad McQuaid say things like "Death will be AT LEAST as harsh as it was in Vanguard."
Once you get past the enigma of WoW, I think the mass populace playing MMOs in particular don't ever realize why "new MMO X" fails to meet their expectations. I think at least part of it is that - in giving everybody access to everything - nobody is special. That is, by making everyone "heroic" - NOBODY is "heroic."
And so the thing they think they despise most - seeing other people with stuff they can't get - ultimately becomes a turn off for them - because THEY don't have stuff others might want. In short - the entitlement crowd is envious if others have more than they do - and they voice that envy loudly... but by the same token, they get bored if they don't see themselves as becoming special in the game... AND - because they demand to see (AND GET) everything for themselves... that also means everything for everyone else... so they CAN'T be special.
It's catch 22.
It will take a developer with a little bit of brass to stand up to that - and to make a game that again doesn't guarantee you anything but access to the world for your monthly fee...
Right now - McQuaid and the rest of the devs are saying things that point in that direction... and I fully expect that the game will accomplish that. As I said in a different post - Brad is 2 for 2 doing it... it's not a stretch to believe he will do it again.
Wandidar said:
The general entitlement culture we live in has permeated gaming as gaming has gone from more of a "niche" thing that only "nerds" do (because in the past, if you gamed then the general populace felt you HAD to be a nerd) - to something more and more of the general population is partaking of.
I recall back in the day someone posted that they should get to see everything in EQ because they paid for it - a dev posted something to the effect of "Your $9.99 gets you in the game, that's it. What you accomplish in the game is up to you."
With a populace screaming to see and do everything - game developers have sought to accommodate them. A scream of entitlement has been met by a response of appeasement.
Vanguard ultimately did not go as far as EQ at being a hard ass game, but it also did not cave in to the entitlement crowd with mass appeasement. I'm heartened when I hear Brad McQuaid say things like "Death will be AT LEAST as harsh as it was in Vanguard."
Once you get past the enigma of WoW, I think the mass populace playing MMOs in particular don't ever realize why "new MMO X" fails to meet their expectations. I think at least part of it is that - in giving everybody access to everything - nobody is special. That is, by making everyone "heroic" - NOBODY is "heroic."
And so the thing they think they despise most - seeing other people with stuff they can't get - ultimately becomes a turn off for them - because THEY don't have stuff others might want. In short - the entitlement crowd is envious if others have more than they do - and they voice that envy loudly... but by the same token, they get bored if they don't see themselves as becoming special in the game... AND - because they demand to see (AND GET) everything for themselves... that also means everything for everyone else... so they CAN'T be special.
It's catch 22.
It will take a developer with a little bit of brass to stand up to that - and to make a game that again doesn't guarantee you anything but access to the world for your monthly fee...
Right now - McQuaid and the rest of the devs are saying things that point in that direction... and I fully expect that the game will accomplish that. As I said in a different post - Brad is 2 for 2 doing it... it's not a stretch to believe he will do it again.
I agree. This just goes to show that the majority of gamers simply do not know what they want in a game and have false illusions of what makes a lasting successful MMO. Those of us who have experienced enough to know are simply told that we are nostalgic and told to politely piss off. World of Warcraft was originally a much more hardcore mmo when it was released and the majority of popularity was built during that era. This husk of a game that remains is basically a lobby at this point. This just goes to reinforce my statement is that Pantheon must be made for the betterment of the genre and I don't write it off as a niche game.
Everquest was released in 1999. It will be 16 years since launch this month. And even with EQ, it stopped being truly difficult around 2002-2003. VG had it's difficulty as well, but not as harsh as EQ and VG's true difficulty ended in 2008-2009. And even with VG, it never had the player base to truly experience it like EQ. So there's been a void of really 12ish years without a challenging MMO and at least 6-7 if you include Vanguard launch.
Many of the gamers that started with EQ were between 15-18 year sold, so, if you assume that to be true for the WoW generation (or later), they really have not even had a chance to experience any different MMO experience outside of a casual-type MMO and it's only natural that they would scream that "my toy is the best" just because they've never had a viable alternative that could potentially steer them otherwise.
The difficult task for Pantheon though will be having a strong enough hook to keep people engaged after they realize it will not be instant gratification whether that be the casual MMO crowd that tests Pantheon's waters or the older hardcore crowd that thinks Pantheon is "the game." That dangling carrot that EQ perfected must exist in Pantheon as well.
I hope different races/class have EXP penalties, or bonuses, etc. Same scale for all is boring.
I want a Death Penalty that is exactly like early EQ, prior to all the nerfs. Make death count as the number one fear in our Character's lives... Instead of re-rolling a new character...
They are given a new life, but how/where you resume, it is up to you. But finding your corpse... is always a good place to start. Loosing a level sucks, but it will also make you a better player... or even it's own achievement, when you learn not to die so often, with rash decisions... (Ahh i can run threw Kith at night & not hug the wall = corpse run).
And, even though death is harsh, later in game it's bit won't be so brutal, because if player rez.
This mechanic also adds to the dynamics of group vs solo play. That Wizards would pay big bucks, to port a Cleric back to his corpse, for a rez... and give him nearly anything he wants.
Death has to count... and once it is feared even an odd-color snake is a threat to your life..
Hieromonk said:
I hope different races/class have EXP penalties, or bonuses, etc. Same scale for all is boring.
I want a Death Penalty that is exactly like early EQ, prior to all the nerfs. Make death count as the number one fear in our Character's lives... Instead of re-rolling a new character...
They are given a new life, but how/where you resume, it is up to you. But finding your corpse... is always a good place to start. Loosing a level sucks, but it will also make you a better player... or even it's own achievement, when you learn not to die so often, with rash decisions... (Ahh i can run threw Kith at night & not hug the wall = corpse run).
And, even though death is harsh, later in game it's bit won't be so brutal, because if player rez.
This mechanic also adds to the dynamics of group vs solo play. That Wizards would pay big bucks, to port a Cleric back to his corpse, for a rez... and give him nearly anything he wants.
Death has to count... and once it is feared even an odd-color snake is a threat to your life..
Couldnt agree more, I want this game to treat me as a grown adult who can make my own decisions and will GLADLY suffer the consequences of said decisions. I dont need Brad and Co to hold my hand, wipe my nose and make silly airplanes noises to get me to eat my peas...Make a world and let me live in it and LEAVE me alone!! No dailies, no welfare epics, no uber stat gear for doing a 15 mins kill 5 mob quest. I want this game to make me DEPEND on the community, to actually NEED to talk and socialize with my fellow players...and If Im a butt head that should only make it harder on me to succeed if no one will help. Not only do the naked corpse runs teach you to fear death but it teaches you how to work with the other members of the community, you may need your corpse summoned from the deepest part of the dungeon or a rez or even a port to the zone you died in... This is honestly my last hope for a community driven MMORPG. I know the Devs read this and I know that it gets to Brad so I hope they all take this to heart...give us the game we need, give us a community we can be a part of but most of all....Give us back the Magic!
Hieromonk said:
I hope different races/class have EXP penalties, or bonuses, etc. Same scale for all is boring.
I want a Death Penalty that is exactly like early EQ, prior to all the nerfs. Make death count as the number one fear in our Character's lives... Instead of re-rolling a new character...
They are given a new life, but how/where you resume, it is up to you. But finding your corpse... is always a good place to start. Loosing a level sucks, but it will also make you a better player... or even it's own achievement, when you learn not to die so often, with rash decisions... (Ahh i can run threw Kith at night & not hug the wall = corpse run).
And, even though death is harsh, later in game it's bit won't be so brutal, because if player rez.
This mechanic also adds to the dynamics of group vs solo play. That Wizards would pay big bucks, to port a Cleric back to his corpse, for a rez... and give him nearly anything he wants.
Death has to count... and once it is feared even an odd-color snake is a threat to your life..
I agree. Equal death penalty to EQ1 (in the early days) is my vote too. Like you said, death has to count. Visionary Realms cannot compromise on that.
Sure, people may complain about corpse runs, but they will also play the game longer for it. And I know what you're thinking... They're playing longer because they just died at the bottom of a dungeon and have to go get their corpse before going to bed. Well okay that too :), but also they will be playing the game longer overall because of the challenge and community that comes with a meaningful death mechanic.
Two things to say:
1) There is a certain segment of the nay-sayer population who will point at the 96% rez in EQ and say "EQ DIDN'T HAVE A HARSH DEATH PENALTY!"
2) In some ways - I thought the ORIGINAL EQ2 death penalty felt more punishing than the EQ death penalty. Why? With EXP loss, I died, I recovered - then I played. I was able to get over it because I saw my exp bar moving. With the way they had debt and the ability to get your shard (if you were able to) to get some exp back... you sometimes had a "carrot on a stick" sort of thing where - if you weren't able to get back to your shard you sort of had EXP waiting to be recovered that was just out of reach... AND (and I know this might sound odd) - I actually find that for me personally, debt feels more punishing than EXP loss. Why? Because with EXP loss, I die - and like I said - start seeing my EXP rising again. With Debt, I get to watch (until I recover) my exp bar sit idle while my debt bar reduces.
I think that if you made the penalties actually as tough as they were in EQ (the amount of EXP you lost) as Debt - it would feel more punishing than the EXP loss... even though you would never de-level.
I'm not advocating anything here by the way - I'm just saying how the two different penalties make me personally feel when I play.
pandering to the lowest common denominator has permeated all of our society here in the US. everyone has to be equal, if someone is special then others are left out and this can not be allowed to happen.
did you know that sports dont keep score anymore until kids reach high school? its really no surprise that this mindset has come into MMOs
Wandidar said:
Two things to say:
1) There is a certain segment of the nay-sayer population who will point at the 96% rez in EQ and say "EQ DIDN'T HAVE A HARSH DEATH PENALTY!"
2) In some ways - I thought the ORIGINAL EQ2 death penalty felt more punishing than the EQ death penalty. Why? With EXP loss, I died, I recovered - then I played. I was able to get over it because I saw my exp bar moving. With the way they had debt and the ability to get your shard (if you were able to) to get some exp back... you sometimes had a "carrot on a stick" sort of thing where - if you weren't able to get back to your shard you sort of had EXP waiting to be recovered that was just out of reach... AND (and I know this might sound odd) - I actually find that for me personally, debt feels more punishing than EXP loss. Why? Because with EXP loss, I die - and like I said - start seeing my EXP rising again. With Debt, I get to watch (until I recover) my exp bar sit idle while my debt bar reduces.
I think that if you made the penalties actually as tough as they were in EQ (the amount of EXP you lost) as Debt - it would feel more punishing than the EXP loss... even though you would never de-level.
I'm not advocating anything here by the way - I'm just saying how the two different penalties make me personally feel when I play.
Exp debt is what they had in Vanguard as well. It's a meaningful death mechanic, up until you reach max level imo. At lvl 50 in Vanguard it didn't matter if you died a thousand times at that point. Sure you got more exp debt, but it capped out at a certain point, and until they raise the level cap having max debt didn't matter.
In EQ with exp loss, even at max level you had to be mindful of your deaths. You had to keep a bit of an exp cushion in order to be safe enough to die without losing your level.
Perhaps you could combine the two? Have exp loss, but show in red on your exp bar the amount of experience you had lost?
DJay said:
Today I was watching the Pax East speech about FFXIV and their new raid they are placing into the game. When describing the raid they announced that this would have two tiers of difficultly. The first tier would be an easy version to allow players to enjoy the story and lore while the second would be for players looking for a challenge. This isn't something really new in the genre and they are definitely following the lead of World of Warcraft with their Looking for Raid system. What irked me was that she snickered when saying there was a second tier that was for players looking for a challenge.
When games were originally designed they were designed to be so challenging that they couldn't be won. You basically went to your limit and set your personal high score in the game. Now it seems like almost a novelty to have difficult content in a game. I don't know if this is just a culture shift or a generational thing, but I find it extremely upsetting that the majority of games are being made for these hyper casual players. I've always joked that when Everquest was made it was made for nerds and today's games are made for dumb people. I know this is an exaggeration of the truth, but it is disheartening to think we have fallen this far so quickly.
There also seems to be a fallacy in game design in general these days that designing hardcore content is a waste of time because only a small portion of your player base gets to experience it themselves. I look at it as a goal to accomplish and while a player with less time will take much longer to accomplish those goals it doesn't make them any less satisfying. I also compare it to American football; 99% of the population cannot play football at the NFL level, but it doesn't make it less enjoyable for them to watch or play. People need something to aspire towards and without these top level players it doesn't push the level of what can be accomplished.
Lastly do you think this has has to do with the modern design practice of making the majority of the game solo content. Is it against human nature to want to be alone the majority of the time since for most of the history of the human race we have had to work together for survival? Shouldn't games made to be played with lots of people require you to interact with them the majority of the time for success ? I was discussing this on the mmorpg forums the other day and most players think that the design of the game should be 80% soloable while I believe that the numbers should be reversed and that 80% of the content should require a group.
Is this genre doomed itself because of the rampant growth and pop culture success. Has gaming development in general across all genre's become dumbed down as a result of mass appeal?
Only one way to answer such a grand post....
YES
Hieromonk said:
I hope different races/class have EXP penalties, or bonuses, etc. Same scale for all is boring.
Personally if this is ever implemented I will take my leave of Pantheon. Nothing and I mean nothing caused a rift of group more then in what to me is the dumbest game mechanic I have seen to date. Group after group after group in EQ1 told me to go away when they realized I was DE SK. It was not until I established myself as a solid player and reliable person, by having people group with my friends and me. Time after time peeps join , and then immediately left, "Not taking that XP bif". That mechanic going away was the best change EQ made with exception to Kunark and Velious expansions. If I did not have a solid foundation of RL players to group with, I would have probably quit EQ before I reached level 15.
This is the sole reason I do not player P1999, until removed I have better things to do, like watching a chiapet grow.
There are mechanics a game needs, there are mechanics added to support the group play, Call of the hero was one of the best, taken to new heights in VG where every healer had similar spell. Then there are mechanics that serve no real purpose, or use, and different XP for classes and races? Well that's the biggest one I Can think of.
What possible benefit does this mechanic serve? And how is that boring? Like every car having a braking device boring?
As far as XP loss over XP debt? I am indifferent both can be made harsh, however I want everyone to remember back, I mean pull off the blinders and remember really old EQ:
Exmortis the CoolSK: "Hey looking for some fearless players to join in me Dalnir, fun, excitement and danger await!"
Masses: "No way I could die." / "No way I am nearing a level I might lose XP" / "I just levelled an hour ago no way I might die and lose a level!" / add a dozen or so more.
One lone player: "Awesome dude I will go, Dalnir rocks!"
Exmortis the CoolSK: "Well its just you and me, rogue and SK won't cut it, but I have friends coming on in 2 hours"
One lone player: "Aw man I have to go in three, oh well friend me dude no one goes there, and I am in any time."
Exmortis than wanders around sulking cuz he hates to solo. or once again sit in OT pulling to a zone line with the safe masses.
As much as I didn't mind XP loss or corpse runs, I do not like losing a level, it does cause caution after a recent level up, especially in a slow levelling game. However saying that I am up for a challenge anytime, and I have never turned down a group for a place we even have a remote chance of surviving, but that's not the norm, and be ready for the "I might die or lose XP" whining.
In Vanguard because it was debt, I never did have any issues with danger vs getting people to go a dungeon. It also was a measure of you play, players that joined and whine dof XP debt load, were the ones you did not want (same as old EQ2).
Corpse runs can also contribute to the above, example of Dalnir was picked for a reason, as a melee a CR was hell back to there. I loved this dungeon and have some of my fondest memories there, like the day we found out AE stun goes through walls...LOL what a train! However for every two whines of "I might DIE" I got one "Dude I'm bound in OT, and that's a long ass CR, sorry maybe when I play a caster I will go."
Just remember what you ask for, what you wish for, and sometimes what you get isn't what you hoped it would be.
I hate to solo, that's what crafting is for.
Wellspring said:
Wandidar said:
Two things to say:
1) There is a certain segment of the nay-sayer population who will point at the 96% rez in EQ and say "EQ DIDN'T HAVE A HARSH DEATH PENALTY!"
2) In some ways - I thought the ORIGINAL EQ2 death penalty felt more punishing than the EQ death penalty. Why? With EXP loss, I died, I recovered - then I played. I was able to get over it because I saw my exp bar moving. With the way they had debt and the ability to get your shard (if you were able to) to get some exp back... you sometimes had a "carrot on a stick" sort of thing where - if you weren't able to get back to your shard you sort of had EXP waiting to be recovered that was just out of reach... AND (and I know this might sound odd) - I actually find that for me personally, debt feels more punishing than EXP loss. Why? Because with EXP loss, I die - and like I said - start seeing my EXP rising again. With Debt, I get to watch (until I recover) my exp bar sit idle while my debt bar reduces.
I think that if you made the penalties actually as tough as they were in EQ (the amount of EXP you lost) as Debt - it would feel more punishing than the EXP loss... even though you would never de-level.
I'm not advocating anything here by the way - I'm just saying how the two different penalties make me personally feel when I play.
Exp debt is what they had in Vanguard as well. It's a meaningful death mechanic, up until you reach max level imo. At lvl 50 in Vanguard it didn't matter if you died a thousand times at that point. Sure you got more exp debt, but it capped out at a certain point, and until they raise the level cap having max debt didn't matter.
In EQ with exp loss, even at max level you had to be mindful of your deaths. You had to keep a bit of an exp cushion in order to be safe enough to die without losing your level.
Perhaps you could combine the two? Have exp loss, but show in red on your exp bar the amount of experience you had lost?
Even EXP loss in EQ wasn't really a penalty at max - at least not once you had established a death buffer.
Because you were max and weren't going to go up another level - most folks built themselves at least enough EXP to eat a death or two, and then (after it was implemented) - flipped to 100% AA gain.
The answer might be that there needs to be something different at max - or maybe not. Maybe a perk to being max is that you feel a little more powerful because death doesn't sting as much.
It's probably a good debate to have.
So I will touch on some subjects raised here in the thread. I didn't want to quote each one out and make individual post, but I think everyone has valuable input.
First in regards to death penalties. I don't think we have much worries here because they have stated it would be at least on vanguards difficulty. I personally don't mind having de-levels because it kept people honest and its the only way to ensure that max level players upkeep their standard of play. Adding buffers before raids so you didn't drop a level mid raid was a vital part of the experience in EQ. At this point I'm simply not concerned how they handle it because anything is better than today's standard of paying 2 copper.
Second in regards to racial advantages. Just like classes I feel its important to give each race a uniqueness to it that goes beyond cosmetics. A Halfling warrior simply cannot be as strong as an ogre warrior starting off if you want to approach this realistically. What you could do to offset these starting stat issues is by introducing racial faction quest that allow you to align with another race to gain an epic item or ability that buffers that stat. An example would be an epic ogre earring that wearable by small races only that grants them a huge strength gain. The important thing is to realize that not every class and race are not created equal from the start.
I also want to encourage members to stop saying " If they don't do everything exactly the way I want it than I will just walk away from this game." You may have had a bad experience with something in another game or it may be a pet peeve, but you're here from a reason and that's because there simply isn't any games like this being made anymore. Suggest ways to make it better, but don't just give ultimatums.
DJay said:
I also want to encourage members to stop saying " If they don't do everything exactly the way I want it than I will just walk away from this game." You may have had a bad experience with something in another game or it may be a pet peeve, but you're here from a reason and that's because there simply isn't any games like this being made anymore. Suggest ways to make it better, but don't just give ultimatums.
Not meant as ultimatum. One person, especially me cannot hold an entire game hostage. I am old, I have fewer years ahead then behind, I am also far beyond playing half good game because there is nothing else. I used to game no less than 5hrs nightly and 10 every sat and/or sun. I now game maybe 10 to 15hrs a week on a good week. I go many days with out even launching one.
For me gaming is slowing moving aside for other endeavors, so, there are features and mechanics I simply will not play with. This is not meant as an ultimatum, again one person does not hold Pantheon hostage, it is just a statement of honestly how I feel. After all it is just a game, if it meets my desires I will play it, if it doesn't I won't. Same judgment I make before playing any and every game; MMO, RTS, Simulation or what ever. I have become more jaded though, you bet with the crapware we see from game companies today can anyone blame me? These days I find Good Ole Games as my last haven before the lights go out, but here's to hopen VRI changes that.
Pantheon represents the last new MMO I may play, I had thought Vanguard was, shake me silly that I may have been mistaken. I say may, because a lot can happen from now to release (if its does, lets be honest, every game is vaporware until it isn't.).
DJay said:
There also seems to be a fallacy in game design in general these days that designing hardcore content is a waste of time because only a small portion of your player base gets to experience it themselves. I look at it as a goal to accomplish and while a player with less time will take much longer to accomplish those goals it doesn't make them any less satisfying. I also compare it to American football; 99% of the population cannot play football at the NFL level, but it doesn't make it less enjoyable for them to watch or play. People need something to aspire towards and without these top level players it doesn't push the level of what can be accomplished.
While I agree with the spirit of your post, I see that part above as very wrong. IMO it IS a waste of developer time to design content so difficult that only few people can realistically do it. And since such content is only experienced by few, that means it will also only be tested by very few. Which means that if the content is done by more people down the road (when it becomes easier due to mudflation/level increases) the devs may have to go back and fix/re-tune it later, wasting even more time that could be spent on new content.
I don't want ultra-uber-elite only content. I want challenging content for all players. And I really (REALLY!) hope that in Pantheon we can get away from the mantra "challenging = time consuming".
Sarim said:
DJay said:
There also seems to be a fallacy in game design in general these days that designing hardcore content is a waste of time because only a small portion of your player base gets to experience it themselves. I look at it as a goal to accomplish and while a player with less time will take much longer to accomplish those goals it doesn't make them any less satisfying. I also compare it to American football; 99% of the population cannot play football at the NFL level, but it doesn't make it less enjoyable for them to watch or play. People need something to aspire towards and without these top level players it doesn't push the level of what can be accomplished.
While I agree with the spirit of your post, I see that part above as very wrong. IMO it IS a waste of developer time to design content so difficult that only few people can realistically do it. And since such content is only experienced by few, that means it will also only be tested by very few. Which means that if the content is done by more people down the road (when it becomes easier due to mudflation/level increases) the devs may have to go back and fix/re-tune it later, wasting even more time that could be spent on new content.
I don't want ultra-uber-elite only content. I want challenging content for all players. And I really (REALLY!) hope that in Pantheon we can get away from the mantra "challenging = time consuming".
I couldn't disagree more. I did not say that all the content needs to be ultra challenging, but if you don't have a high ceiling cap than that top percentile player simply won't stay in your game. You must have goals in a game that are difficult to achieve or whats the point?
As far as the issue about time consuming content well I think this falls almost in the same area. Most games made today have artificial gates to prevent players from progressing at their own rate. Limiting players consumption is not acceptable in this genre and one of the great things about MMORPG's is that sinkhole of time that you can invest to be the best. It's funny that the majority of players who find themselves against this are old school players who don't have enough time to play anymore. Simply put it's going to take you much longer to reach the same goal as a player who plays 60 hours a week, but thats life.
Lets be honest here. First off this is a business, Video game companies are here to make Money. With that being said, MMORPG's have gone the "solo friendly" route because it brought them in GOOD MONEY. (aka more players with that play-style). Before we start insisting that Pantheon have "harsh death penalties" or 80% of its content NEEDS to require a group to play. ARE YOU AS PLAYERS WILLING TO PAY MORE because we all know that AT BEST this will be a niche game (If it gets 500k players that would be a massive success). Assuming Pantheon will have most of what we hope for game wise (open world, meaningful itemization, death penalties travel, raids group play ETC).
What are you willing to pay for it? (14 hell 19.99 a month IMO won't cut it).
In my opinion at least 59.99 box + 24.99 monthly (Dev's DO NOT give the client away for free, that reeks of desperation and your cutting your own bottom line out).
Strykr619 said:
Lets be honest here. First off this is a business, Video game companies are here to make Money. With that being said, MMORPG's have gone the "solo friendly" route because it brought them in GOOD MONEY. (aka more players with that play-style). Before we start insisting that Pantheon have "harsh death penalties" or 80% of its content NEEDS to require a group to play. ARE YOU AS PLAYERS WILLING TO PAY MORE because we all know that AT BEST this will be a niche game (If it gets 500k players that would be a massive success). Assuming Pantheon will have most of what we hope for game wise (open world, meaningful itemization, death penalties travel, raids group play ETC).
What are you willing to pay for it? (14 hell 19.99 a month IMO won't cut it).
In my opinion at least 59.99 box + 24.99 monthly (Dev's DO NOT give the client away for free, that reeks of desperation and your cutting your own bottom line out).
For its time Everquest was extremely successful with those same penalties during the time period it was released. In terms of popularity and time eras; Everquest having 500k subs was like having 8 million subs today. People simply did not pay to play games online and it was not part of pop culture. Given the choice 99% of humans will always take the easiest solution to a problem. If you give them a choice they will say they want the thing they consider easiest regardless if its good for them or not. Current day players simply don't know what they want because they don't know any better. Design decisions were made along the way that gave the new breed an easier route and it's lead to a genre completely littered with garbage.
So speaking meagerly that this game day 1 gets 500k buys; with that alone this company would be a huge success for a low budget small company. Large studios have operated off these numbers for almost a decade so there is no reason a small one can't. Unlike your assumption tho I don't think this game will have any issues hitting at least 2 million buys. Archeage had terrible reviews and almost no lasting power, but it had like 3 million buys day 1. In this current climate a game with even average word of mouth will do that with twitch promotion and pre existing following from everquest and Vanguard.
With all that said when a person comes into the game and they die and lose 5% of their experience do I think they will quit if their having fun ? Absolutely no chance in hell. There will be less than 1% of players who choose to leave this game based off of death penalties. We aren't talking perma death and the assumption that making your life a bit more difficult can't also be rewarding is just plain wrong.
Strykr619 said:
Lets be honest here. First off this is a business, Video game companies are here to make Money. With that being said, MMORPG's have gone the "solo friendly" route because it brought them in GOOD MONEY. (aka more players with that play-style). Before we start insisting that Pantheon have "harsh death penalties" or 80% of its content NEEDS to require a group to play. ARE YOU AS PLAYERS WILLING TO PAY MORE because we all know that AT BEST this will be a niche game (If it gets 500k players that would be a massive success). Assuming Pantheon will have most of what we hope for game wise (open world, meaningful itemization, death penalties travel, raids group play ETC).
What are you willing to pay for it? (14 hell 19.99 a month IMO won't cut it).
In my opinion at least 59.99 box + 24.99 monthly (Dev's DO NOT give the client away for free, that reeks of desperation and your cutting your own bottom line out).
I believe the contrary to this, paying for a box has burned me more times than I can shake a stick at, I don't even buy games that cost 60$ before I can even try it. The best message you can send to players is that you are here for the long haul and intend to make a great game playable for years. Having no up-front price, F2P with no limitations for the first couple levels then you must subscribe or get out.
Raidan said:
Everquest was released in 1999. It will be 16 years since launch this month. And even with EQ, it stopped being truly difficult around 2002-2003. VG had it's difficulty as well, but not as harsh as EQ and VG's true difficulty ended in 2008-2009. And even with VG, it never had the player base to truly experience it like EQ. So there's been a void of really 12ish years without a challenging MMO and at least 6-7 if you include Vanguard launch.
As a counter example, I found Eve to be an enjoyable, challenging, and hardcore MMO in the period you describe.
*minor edit for clairity
Gawd said:
pandering to the lowest common denominator has permeated all of our society here in the US. everyone has to be equal, if someone is special then others are left out and this can not be allowed to happen.
This reminds me of the 1975 version of Rollerball, "The game was created to demonstrate the futility of individual effort." (at 2:16 in the trailer) The price of achieving equality of outcomes is just too high, be it a fictional world or the real one.