Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

FAQ, Tenets, and Features revamp.

    • 1778 posts
    August 12, 2016 2:49 PM PDT

    As requested by Brad from the cash shop thread:

     

    I think the FAQ, tenets, etc. could definitely use a refresher -- could you guys help out and maybe start a thread about where you think things could be worded better, or should be re-worded, etc.?  Would be a huge help -- thanks in advance.

     

    As I stated in that thread there could be room for changes in these 3 types:

     

    1. Being more specific (if decided yet) to help focus discussion. For instance the Death Penalty, no use talking about if it should or shouldnt be, because that has been decided. But we can talk about how it would work. If you can relate the feature to something similar from another game then citing it as an example could be helpful.

     

    2. Being less specific (if needed) to help widen discussion. It seems sometimes people see something mentioned as a vague concept and force it to this one narrow thing or view when it actually seems pretty open to debate.

     

    3. Adding new things (when known) to help people be able to find that information faster rather than search through all the forums for it. Of course this only applies if something has been decided, but there wasnt any info previously about it in the FAQ, etc. Or maybe it could be included under a seperate section called Things we are experimenting with? Like level trials and hell levels. I think Brad has chimed in on both of these things and I dont think either one is a for sure thing, but it would be things like this that aret currently mentioned that could be added.

     Edit: Better example for #3: In the patch notes from the August newsletter it was decided that AoE splash damage is not conducive to a welcoming environment. From that I think a new FAQ could be:

      Will you have friendly fire? etc etc

    Thats all I got.

     


    This post was edited by Amsai at August 12, 2016 3:02 PM PDT
    • 105 posts
    August 12, 2016 3:02 PM PDT

    The tentants are fine, they are the values of what the game is about and come across as the general path the game is going down.

    The faq is also fine though could probably do with someone from the dev team running through it and just updating anything that is outdated. It's difficult for us to know what is outdated as there isn't a great deal of confirmed information out there!

    As Amsai says, if things are decided then include that detail so we have more information.

     


    This post was edited by Kipling at August 12, 2016 3:03 PM PDT
    • 999 posts
    August 12, 2016 3:30 PM PDT

    I really think the tenets should be left alone - it's better to have a little wiggle room than be overly specific.  Plus, being too specific often will raise more questions on why is XYZ not mentioned?

    Now, what I'd like to see is a creation of stickied/locked thread where confirmed mechanics/features are consolidated so we can refer all posts opposing or asking about implemented features to that thread.

    Or, you could expand the FAQ to include the same info - but it is already large.  I'd probably just link the consolidated thread into the FAQ to not clutter it.

    Example - Stickied Thread: Confirmed Features

    1.  Cash Shop - Will there be one in Pantheon? 

    Quote by Aradune: No

    /End thread

    2.  Death Penalty - Does it exist and how harsh if so?

    Quote by Aradune: Yes and currently proposed to be between EQlaunch to VGlaunch (with links to both)

    • 112 posts
    August 12, 2016 3:41 PM PDT

    vagueries like between EQ and Vg need to be specified. just tell us what the current death penalty plans are. is it currently a 50% xp loss? is it potential de-leveling? is it potential loss of gear? just say it. not everyone played EQ or VG. if the current planned death penalty is " 20% Xploss, running back to corpse from bind, loss of items if you dont do this in x number of hours" JUST SAY IT. add in that this may change if alpha/beta tests say this is out of line.

     

    frankly, a good bit of what Mr. Mcquaid says could use better wording. the pet thread turned into a **** storm because he referred to everything under the sun as a pet (mounts, graphical buffs, temporary casted 'pets' etc).  most view a pet as something permanent, a WoW hunter or Warlock pet, for example. 'gotta cath em all' didnt help, and made it sound like everyone would be farming pets. (this has since been clarified, due to *gasp* better communication and wording)

     

    just tell us how things currently are, or currently planned. if you change it up, then tell us. we are all adults.  being vague only leads to misunderstandings.


    This post was edited by werzul at August 12, 2016 3:59 PM PDT
    • 781 posts
    August 12, 2016 5:04 PM PDT

    Makes sense, because as more time goes by  and more new people join the forums, they will know what has already been discussed to the point of eyes bleeding and has been finalized and already instituted into the game.  As stated above by Raidan as well :) 

    • 205 posts
    August 12, 2016 8:36 PM PDT

    werzul said:

    vagueries like between EQ and Vg need to be specified. just tell us what the current death penalty plans are. is it currently a 50% xp loss? is it potential de-leveling? is it potential loss of gear? just say it. not everyone played EQ or VG. if the current planned death penalty is " 20% Xploss, running back to corpse from bind, loss of items if you dont do this in x number of hours" JUST SAY IT. add in that this may change if alpha/beta tests say this is out of line.

     

     

    I agree. ONCE you figure this part out -- it would be nice to be more specific. I am trying to rekindle some of my long time gaming buddies to join and this is one of the first things that excite as well as worry them.

    • 1778 posts
    August 14, 2016 12:13 PM PDT

    Well we cant expect everything to be fully fleshed out yet and also some things might need to be kept secret til they are ready to be revealed. So thats why I said specify where and if they can. And thats why I said give examples if there are any.

     

     Maybe Raidan is right about the tenets not needing anything new. But features should be updated as information becomes solidified. Maybe with just links to that updated info. Because we get a lot of info that gets lost in these forums and others. A consolidation of knowledge would help. And FAQs could be likewise added to or updated. Having a stickied thread in the forums wouldnt hurt either. But please do emphasize that a subject is meant to be less specific unless you mean it to be specific.

     

     

    • 781 posts
    August 14, 2016 1:14 PM PDT

    Amsai said:

    Well we cant expect everything to be fully fleshed out yet and also some things might need to be kept secret til they are ready to be revealed. So thats why I said specify where and if they can. And thats why I said give examples if there are any.

     

     Maybe Raidan is right about the tenets not needing anything new. But features should be updated as information becomes solidified. Maybe with just links to that updated info. Because we get a lot of info that gets lost in these forums and others. A consolidation of knowledge would help. And FAQs could be likewise added to or updated. Having a stickied thread in the forums wouldnt hurt either. But please do emphasize that a subject is meant to be less specific unless you mean it to be specific.

     

     

     

    I agree with you as well Amsai, you have a very valid point and great ideas :) 

    • 200 posts
    August 14, 2016 2:26 PM PDT

    Raidan said:

    2.  Death Penalty - Does it exist and how harsh if so?

    Quote by Aradune: Yes and currently proposed to be between EQlaunch to VGlaunch (with links to both)

    If you never played EQ1 and/or VG at launch then you cannot imagine what it means.

     

    Greetings

    • 1434 posts
    August 14, 2016 2:39 PM PDT

    Between EQ and VG is like saying between hard and easy.

    • 180 posts
    August 14, 2016 2:48 PM PDT

    I think the biggest confusion for a newcomer would be what state the game in currently in.  I've seen pre-pre alpha thrown around.  Maybe this has been used because "pre-alpha" seems to be associated with some form of external testing.  

     

    I think they should call the current phase something like Pre-Alpha: Internal Testing, with the next phase Pre-Alpha: External Testing. It would add just a little bit of clarity to the state of the game.

    • 999 posts
    August 14, 2016 4:50 PM PDT

    My point on the death penalty wasn't that it was confirmed, it's just the best info we have at the moment.  I'd obviously prefer specifics, but that thread could be continually updated once info is clarified or confirmed.

    @Larirawiel

    That is why I suggested to include links to both EQs and VGs death penalties to give players a better idea.

    It's just better to have the consolidated info than see a new thread on the same topic over and over - especially once it's closer to alpha and new members continue to join.


    This post was edited by Raidan at August 14, 2016 4:56 PM PDT
    • 671 posts
    August 14, 2016 6:34 PM PDT

    werzul said:

    vagueries like between EQ and Vg need to be specified. just tell us what the current death penalty plans are. is it currently a 50% xp loss? is it potential de-leveling? is it potential loss of gear? just say it. not everyone played EQ or VG. if the current planned death penalty is " 20% Xploss, running back to corpse from bind, loss of items if you dont do this in x number of hours" JUST SAY IT. add in that this may change if alpha/beta tests say this is out of line.

     

    frankly, a good bit of what Mr. Mcquaid says could use better wording. the pet thread turned into a **** storm because he referred to everything under the sun as a pet (mounts, graphical buffs, temporary casted 'pets' etc).  most view a pet as something permanent, a WoW hunter or Warlock pet, for example. 'gotta cath em all' didnt help, and made it sound like everyone would be farming pets. (this has since been clarified, due to *gasp* better communication and wording)

     

    just tell us how things currently are, or currently planned. if you change it up, then tell us. we are all adults.  being vague only leads to misunderstandings.

     

    EverQuest & Vanguard are older MMORPGs, with an oldschool death mechanic. Where early EQ be the harshest, and VG being somewhat more carebear.

     

    In early EQ, you could spend a few weeks getting to lvl 10, and after a change of pace you go to a new area and die 3x in a row and are barely holding on to lvl 9, & days hehind where you were....   AND you are in need of some serious help getting your corpses & belongings back. (the first 2 attempts didn't go so well....)

    Additionally, what made early EQ's death mechanic so brutal, was there were no "early rezes" by Cleric's, etc.  So....  many still complain (cringe) about the harshnest of early EQ death mechnic. Which only lasted 6months or so.. before it was nerfed, & then once more again...  many more times. (That is why Brad says "early EQ" & "early VG".). 

    I am not sure on the actual % of EXP lost, but I know it was slightly more than 20%(?) early on. But, Your Character died with everything they had on, & the only way to get it back, was retrieve your corpse. After death, you spawned naked at your bind point. If that bind point was in a bad spot, you could have a cycle of repeated deaths. Most people bound in, or near cities...  because being naked in early EQ was dangerous.

    So, more often than not, after death... you open up your friends list and got an adaquate crowd together for a "Corpse Run". Some corpse runs are as easy as having another aggro a mob away, that was standing over your corpse. Many more were group wipes and took 45m. And yet again (risk vs reward) early on, "corpse runs" could mean 30 person effort, sometimes with several guilds assiting. Nobody wants another to loose their equipment...

    In early EQ, You had a limited time to recover your corpse, or you oost everything. Everything.

     

    Vanguard, was handled much different.

    The EXP loss was a debt incurred, & no actual loss of exp. When you died, you left a tombstone instead of a corpse and you spawned at bind point choice. After spawning, you do not have to travel back to your tombstone, nor do you have to go on a "corpse run". Instead, you can visit a "shrine" and have your tombstone summoned for a small fee (no exp). Or, you can travel back to where you died and loot your own tombstone to get your unprotected belonging back + a certain % of EXP back. You can also be rezed by another player.

    In VG, you can essentially use death as a way to port home... and many did.

     

     

    Personally, Day 1 EQ had the perfect exp curve & death penalty loss. EQ death mechanic should be the fundmental basis for PRF.

    I think the rest of the mechanics of how death is done, needs to change to modern tech, and to suite the fact that your Character just died.. and that is not a trivial thing and should be the most avoided thing in game. I have many ideas on this, and many people have version of their own. Once Pantheon's Alpha starts, & we get new forums, I think is when you will see Visionary Realms & the community flush these things such as this, out more.

    Whatever it ends up being, I can tell you that Pantheon is based on oldschool principals...  and death within Terminus will have a better mechanic than both EQ & VG. More accountable to the world.

     

    • VR Staff
    • 587 posts
    August 16, 2016 1:51 AM PDT

    Great thread -- thanks for starting it per my request.

     

    Good stuff so far.

     

    What would be most helpful would be:

     

    1. Existing re-write of tenets or FAQ questions (new tenet, or new FAQ question and then the answer)

     

    2. Additional tenets or FAQ Q&As.

     

    3. Delete any?

    • 763 posts
    August 16, 2016 3:13 AM PDT

    Response #1: Considering the TENETS

    TENETS (in numberical order as per the Pantheon official web-page): changes indicated in bold.


    2. A requirement that classes have identities. No single player should be able to do everything on their own.

    change to

    2. A requirement that classes have distinct identities and roles. No single player should be able to do everything on their own.

    ensures you reinforce the 'non-overlapping roles' aspect that is unlike most modern MMOs

    ---

    3. A belief that game economies should be predicated on delaying and minimizing item value deflation.

    change to

    3. A belief that game economies should be primarily player centric and predicated on delaying and minimizing item value deflation.

    explicitly putting players, as a whole, front-and-centre to drive this MMO.

    ---

    5. An understanding that a truly challenging game is truly rewarding.

    change to

    5. An understanding that to be a truly rewarding experience, a game must be truly challenging.

    OR

    5. An understanding that only a truly challenging game is truly rewarding.

    needed for clarity. Ie you cannot have a rewarding game unless it is challenging.

    ---

    13. A belief that the greatest sense of accomplishment comes when it is shared - and earned.

    change to

    13. A belief that the greatest sense of accomplishment comes when it is shared - and hard earned.

    small change, but puts focus back on high challenge to balance 'greatest'.

    ---

    14. An agreement that player levels should be both meaningful and memorable.

    change to

    14. An agreement that player levels should be both meaningful and memorable achievements.

    here it is essenctial to reinforce that 'levels' are actual achievements in their own right (hence the 'ding' as an important milestone) and not a 'means to an end' ie rush to end-game and ignore the gazillion of dings over the 3 nights it takes to get to max-level from level-1. It links in with the idea os 'slower' paced advancement.

     

    Possible EXTRA Tenet:

    16. The belief that your journey through our rich world is just as rewarding as the destination you seek to eventually reach.

    here, I beleive that we need to establish a tenet to cover PACE. Players need to understand that there is no need to rush 10 levels in one night ... and that it is not possible in any case. A sense of achievement must be gained by enjoying the ride through an immersive world as you journey towards your ultimate goal. This dovetails neatly with the other tenets that cover downtime and social play. This is a game to enjoy AS you play.. not just once you have 'finished' it.

     

    Response #2: Considering the FAQ

    to follow at some point...

    • 1778 posts
    August 16, 2016 7:26 AM PDT

    Nice Evoras. Small changes but wording does matter :)

     

    Tenet # 12.  A sincere commitment to creating a world where a focus on cooperative play will attract those seeking a challenge.

              Edit:  A sincere commitment to creating a world where a focus on cooperative and interdependent play will attract those seeking a challenge.

     

    New Tenet:  A belief that a truly interdependent grouping experience should be more than just a handful of people that just happen to be attacking the same target.

                      (maybe could be worded better, Im no wordsmith)

     

    NEW FAQ: Will there be friendly fire?

       Answer: No.

                 (I might be jumping to conclusions, but I based this off the patch notes from August newsletter. And of course this could change based on server ruleset?)

     

     

     

     


    This post was edited by Amsai at August 16, 2016 11:45 AM PDT
    • 279 posts
    August 16, 2016 10:19 AM PDT
    Evoras I disagree with your #2 if there are 13 individual roles how would that work in practice. Distinct identity sure, but a role almost has to be shared otherwise some classes with less desireable roles will be shunned.

    I'll give an example if there is say and healer that does not heal as well as say cleric over a duration why would I ever invite them? If I need heals I need heals that would thusly pigeonhole me into needing a cleric. Unless I wanted to do easier content with a less adequate hhealer.Why would I want to be forced to group with certain classes just because the role is absolutely necessary.

    Another example let's say one DPS has more sustainable dps then any other class. But there are classes that do more dps but then have to med for long periods of time (thusly reducing their overall damage throughput). Why would I want them in my group.

    Another example being tanks, let's say one tank takes substantially less damage but cannot hold aggro very well which reduces the groups dps which reduces our ability to clear content efficiently. Why would I ever group with them?

    Long story short: I can't see 13 individual roles working for 13 classes, it would be a balancing nightmare.

    • 1778 posts
    August 16, 2016 11:13 AM PDT

    @Sunmistress

    He didnt specifically say individual roles (though maybe he meant that, but Ill assume he didnt). I think he just meant an emphasis on role interdependency and getting away from jack of all trade type roles. So it still could easily include classes that can do 1 or 2 roles. But I would assume most would agree that a single class shouldnt be able to do all roles or even most. I also assume he means the 4 main roles (tank, healer, dps, CC). But I would want class specialties to be somewhat unique. We dont need to be giveing everyone FD, disarm trap, lockpicking, teleports, etc. 

    • 1434 posts
    August 16, 2016 11:19 AM PDT

    Roles will always overlap in some ways. The important point is that they don't overlap in all of the same ways. For instance, a wizard and a summer both have powerful nukes, but one has a pet and the other has more crowd control and teleports.

    • 279 posts
    August 16, 2016 11:21 AM PDT
    Yeh I probably read that wrong or read into it poorly. It reminded me of something I despised about early EQ: some classes were just not viable in groups or raids.
    • 763 posts
    August 16, 2016 2:49 PM PDT

    @Sunmistress

    Perhaps I didn't edit the original Tenet enough. :) What I mean to say was that:

    2. A requirement that all classes will fill specific roles, and that each class will have a distinct identity. No single player should be able to do everything on their own.

     

    By this I mean - each class with have

    (i) a role ... eg Healer .. and

    (ii) a disctinct identity ... eg Shaman (HoT, some CC), Cleric (Direct Heal, rez), Druid (port, HoT)

    not that there would be 13 different 'roles'.

    Thus,

    there may be '3 healer classes'

    Shaman (HoT, some CC), Cleric (Direct Heal, rez), Druid (port, HoT)

    and each presents a distinct focus as its identity.

    there may be '3 tank classes',

    Warrior (AC, mega aggro), Pally (AC, some heals/buffs) and DireLord (AC, death-magic)

    etc.

    In answer to your concern:

    All classes will (should be) viable...

    some will be harder to master than others,

    some will be make better combinations with some classes but not with others.

    Each Group will have to judge for themselves what combinations they want and how it affects play

     


    This post was edited by Evoras at August 16, 2016 2:50 PM PDT
    • 363 posts
    August 16, 2016 3:48 PM PDT

    werzul said:

    vagueries like between EQ and Vg need to be specified. just tell us what the current death penalty plans are. is it currently a 50% xp loss? is it potential de-leveling? is it potential loss of gear? just say it. not everyone played EQ or VG. if the current planned death penalty is " 20% Xploss, running back to corpse from bind, loss of items if you dont do this in x number of hours" JUST SAY IT. add in that this may change if alpha/beta tests say this is out of line.

     

    frankly, a good bit of what Mr. Mcquaid says could use better wording. the pet thread turned into a **** storm because he referred to everything under the sun as a pet (mounts, graphical buffs, temporary casted 'pets' etc).  most view a pet as something permanent, a WoW hunter or Warlock pet, for example. 'gotta cath em all' didnt help, and made it sound like everyone would be farming pets. (this has since been clarified, due to *gasp* better communication and wording)

     

    just tell us how things currently are, or currently planned. if you change it up, then tell us. we are all adults.  being vague only leads to misunderstandings.

     

    Well said. Give us more information on what YOU GUYS are planning so we can stop specualting so much. We don't mind if you change stuff later, it happens. 

    • VR Staff
    • 587 posts
    August 17, 2016 12:52 AM PDT

    Anistosoles said:

    werzul said:

    vagueries like between EQ and Vg need to be specified. just tell us what the current death penalty plans are. is it currently a 50% xp loss? is it potential de-leveling? is it potential loss of gear? just say it. not everyone played EQ or VG. if the current planned death penalty is " 20% Xploss, running back to corpse from bind, loss of items if you dont do this in x number of hours" JUST SAY IT. add in that this may change if alpha/beta tests say this is out of line.

     

    frankly, a good bit of what Mr. Mcquaid says could use better wording. the pet thread turned into a **** storm because he referred to everything under the sun as a pet (mounts, graphical buffs, temporary casted 'pets' etc).  most view a pet as something permanent, a WoW hunter or Warlock pet, for example. 'gotta cath em all' didnt help, and made it sound like everyone would be farming pets. (this has since been clarified, due to *gasp* better communication and wording)

     

    just tell us how things currently are, or currently planned. if you change it up, then tell us. we are all adults.  being vague only leads to misunderstandings.

     

    Well said. Give us more information on what YOU GUYS are planning so we can stop specualting so much. We don't mind if you change stuff later, it happens. 

    We would rather identify the information most people want to know and then attempt to answer that as clearly and as accurately as possible.

    The original FAQ, btw, was put together very similar to this -- where people created questions (and sometimes their own answers) and we looked through them and created the FAQ.  My hope is that we can do something very similar for the revision and IMHO so far so good :)

    • 112 posts
    August 17, 2016 7:37 AM PDT

    Aradune said:

    Anistosoles said:

    werzul said:

    vagueries like between EQ and Vg need to be specified. just tell us what the current death penalty plans are. is it currently a 50% xp loss? is it potential de-leveling? is it potential loss of gear? just say it. not everyone played EQ or VG. if the current planned death penalty is " 20% Xploss, running back to corpse from bind, loss of items if you dont do this in x number of hours" JUST SAY IT. add in that this may change if alpha/beta tests say this is out of line.

     

    frankly, a good bit of what Mr. Mcquaid says could use better wording. the pet thread turned into a **** storm because he referred to everything under the sun as a pet (mounts, graphical buffs, temporary casted 'pets' etc).  most view a pet as something permanent, a WoW hunter or Warlock pet, for example. 'gotta cath em all' didnt help, and made it sound like everyone would be farming pets. (this has since been clarified, due to *gasp* better communication and wording)

     

    just tell us how things currently are, or currently planned. if you change it up, then tell us. we are all adults.  being vague only leads to misunderstandings.

     

    Well said. Give us more information on what YOU GUYS are planning so we can stop specualting so much. We don't mind if you change stuff later, it happens. 

    We would rather identify the information most people want to know and then attempt to answer that as clearly and as accurately as possible.

    The original FAQ, btw, was put together very similar to this -- where people created questions (and sometimes their own answers) and we looked through them and created the FAQ.  My hope is that we can do something very similar for the revision and IMHO so far so good :)

     

    i would just like to say this, and along what Anistosoles said.  many times while in development, a dev team has talked of ideas, game mechanincs, various features. i understand grandiose ideas must often give way to feasiblity. what i would ask is that if at some point a certain feature has been changed from what we have been told, or possibly removed or not in at launch, etc., let us know as soon as possible. WAR made the mistake of saying what, 6 capitol cities? launching with 2 and players were left wondering. numerous featurs (some even on the damn box) for age of conan not in or not working, no advance word. i am confident this will not be the case with VR.

    personally any and all information about various game features, whatever state they may be in, would be welcome. if at some point said feature changes in some way, just let us know. you let us watch several hours of basic low level combat with placeholder graphics in your streams, no reason not to divulge info on the prototype stages of the more interesting and unique aspects of the game :)

    • VR Staff
    • 587 posts
    August 17, 2016 10:05 AM PDT

    werzul said:

    Aradune said:

    Anistosoles said:

    werzul said:

    vagueries like between EQ and Vg need to be specified. just tell us what the current death penalty plans are. is it currently a 50% xp loss? is it potential de-leveling? is it potential loss of gear? just say it. not everyone played EQ or VG. if the current planned death penalty is " 20% Xploss, running back to corpse from bind, loss of items if you dont do this in x number of hours" JUST SAY IT. add in that this may change if alpha/beta tests say this is out of line.

     

    frankly, a good bit of what Mr. Mcquaid says could use better wording. the pet thread turned into a **** storm because he referred to everything under the sun as a pet (mounts, graphical buffs, temporary casted 'pets' etc).  most view a pet as something permanent, a WoW hunter or Warlock pet, for example. 'gotta cath em all' didnt help, and made it sound like everyone would be farming pets. (this has since been clarified, due to *gasp* better communication and wording)

     

    just tell us how things currently are, or currently planned. if you change it up, then tell us. we are all adults.  being vague only leads to misunderstandings.

     

    Well said. Give us more information on what YOU GUYS are planning so we can stop specualting so much. We don't mind if you change stuff later, it happens. 

    We would rather identify the information most people want to know and then attempt to answer that as clearly and as accurately as possible.

    The original FAQ, btw, was put together very similar to this -- where people created questions (and sometimes their own answers) and we looked through them and created the FAQ.  My hope is that we can do something very similar for the revision and IMHO so far so good :)

     

    i would just like to say this, and along what Anistosoles said.  many times while in development, a dev team has talked of ideas, game mechanincs, various features. i understand grandiose ideas must often give way to feasiblity. what i would ask is that if at some point a certain feature has been changed from what we have been told, or possibly removed or not in at launch, etc., let us know as soon as possible. WAR made the mistake of saying what, 6 capitol cities? launching with 2 and players were left wondering. numerous featurs (some even on the damn box) for age of conan not in or not working, no advance word. i am confident this will not be the case with VR.

    personally any and all information about various game features, whatever state they may be in, would be welcome. if at some point said feature changes in some way, just let us know. you let us watch several hours of basic low level combat with placeholder graphics in your streams, no reason not to divulge info on the prototype stages of the more interesting and unique aspects of the game :)

    It's definitely true that we talk and brainstorm internally, sometimes about pertinent issues and sometimes about crazy ideas that wouldn't fit into the game until sometime after launch, if ever.  My creative team is absolutely astounding.  Their ability to innovate and come up with mechanics that will both make Pantheon a better game in general, but also help differentiate it vs. other MMOs, is amazing and incredibly appreciated.

    I tried to avoid the more 'out there' ideas in the FAQ, etc., or at least refer to them as post-launch.  I didn't want to eradicate them because I want you guys to know the Grand Vision a bit and be thinking about where the game may be going after launch.  But I also didn't want to spend too much time on them because the focus should primarily be on what we plan to launch with.

    You are correct that numbers and quantities seem extra subject to change... how many capital cities, etc., and so we have to be careful there.  Lastly, you bring up holding some things back to there is some surprise when people finally make it into the game -- I totally agree and am not a fan of spoilers at all.  I certainly do not want our web page, FAQ, message boards, etc. to devolve into a 'strategy guide' that is realy just a bunch of hints, guidelines, and explanations to help people power level as efficiently as possible.

    And we still, of course, are in a state of flux -- smack dab in the middle of our next major development milestone where many of the Pantheon Differentiors are being defined in detail and implemented in the game code and tools.  So certainly some things are going to change.   We definitely try to not talk about or go into much detail regarding issues that are still coming together and therefore likely to change.  I'll usually say what I can say, note that what I am saying is not set in stone, and say finally that more detail is forthcoming.

    All that said, along with the mea culpa that what we want to avoid sometimes isn't avoided, and we do have to announce things have changed, I'd really like to see the FAQ updated (and possibly the tenets as well).  I want to see an update both to correct anything that may have changed, but also to include any additional informaition about a system or feature that was released after the FAQ was put together.  Lastly, I'd like to see new questions for the FAQ.... more is known about the game and oftentimes answers lead to more questions.  Also, many more people are now following the game in earnest than when the new web site was launched late last year -- i want to hear from you guys as well -- you may have different perspectives and therefore different quesitons, with some of them appropriate to add to the FAQ.

    Let me reiterate my thanks to those of you who are already posting to this thread new quetsions and answers.  Let me also encourage the rest of you to help out as well.  The more FAQ question authors we have the more comprehensive the FAQ will be in terms of its questions and what it covers.  

    That's pretty much it -- please keep it up and sometime in the next couple of weeks we'll do a major second revision to the FAQ (and any others areas that pop up).  Please keep the questions commuity driven -- I want to answer quesitons you guys actually have, not assume you might be interested in knowing something and then arbitrarily adding it.  Don't worry about language or grammar either, espeically if you are not a nastive English speaker (e.g. Australians) -- if your question doesn't sound 'faq-like' we will re-word it for you.  Also, when the FAQ is finally updated and made public facing, please do not be bummed or hurt that your question didn't make it in.  Sometimes FAQ questions turn out to be too detail oriented and we leave them out of the FAQ so as not to bog it down.  Also, straightforward as I like to be, some questions are going to be ones we simply don't want to answer right now.  This could be for a variety of reasons.  We may not be ready.  We may not, as a team, have thought the issue all of the way through.  Also, the question may be uncessarily controversial, even though the author didn't mean it to be.... or the answer could involve something we need to keep under the wraps on because it's already in the PR and Marketing plans and we don't want to screw those up and answer something prematurely, stealing PR/Markeing thunder.

    thanks all,


    This post was edited by Aradune at August 17, 2016 10:20 AM PDT