Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Question about the new FAQ

    • 151 posts
    February 23, 2017 6:28 AM PST

    nefi said:

    Aradune said:

    My thoughts on what 'cosmetic' items are:

    Primarily they are items to change your characters appearance in a way that doesn't relate to combat -- they're for RP'ing and such, and are very important to many people in the Pantheon community.

    They *could* also, post-launch, evolve into horizontal paths of advancement and have non-combat related stats and attributes.

    Could you elaborate further? Which attributes for example?

    Cosmetic items giving certain buffs doesnt sound like anything I thought Pantheon would include. Surely there are certain stats which most people wont have any problems with but its walking on thin ice in my opinion.

     

    I could see them adding a faction boost to certain clothes. It doesnt have to be stats per se. Think of it like illusions from EQ1 changing your faction with merchants.

    • 763 posts
    February 23, 2017 7:07 AM PST

    Aradune said:

    My thoughts on what 'cosmetic' items are:

    Primarily they are items to change your characters appearance in a way that doesn't relate to combat -- they're for RP'ing and such, and are very important to many people in the Pantheon community.

    They *could* also, post-launch, evolve into horizontal paths of advancement and have non-combat related stats and attributes.

    Character Appearance (speculation)

    The fact that he mentions RP'ing, in my mind, inplies less 'pink tutu' / 'Teddybear onesie' and more 'town clothing', 'Town guard armour', 'Barkeeper', 'Bar maid' etc. Since they are to be gained through quests etc, it seems logical that raising your faction with 'Thronefast Innkeepers Guild' might allow you to buy a 'Barman' outfit. Increasing your faction with 'Thronefast Smith Guild' would allow you to buy the 'Smith Apron' and 'Protective gloves'. Questing for the City's nobility might let you gain access to 'nobility clothing' such as 'formal wear' etc.

    Non-Combat Stats/Attributes

    In terms of what these might be:

    1. Crafting bonuses (eg: Smith Apron = +10 smithing)
    2. Faction Bonuses (eg: 'Thronefast Formal Wear' = +250 Noble Faction (all), +500 Noble Faction (Thronefast)
    3. Price changes (eg: 'Sailor outfit' = -10% cost to book passage, +5 Climbing)
    4. DIPLOMACY (post-launch inception of this stolen (TM) from out of VG)
    5. Illusion (Eg: required reagent for 'Illusion: Human' is any 'Human Costume')

    My guess is this is something he would like to introduce to allow players a bit more freedom in customization, beyond only being able to mix'n'match your combat gear. On this bases, I assume it will lean more towards 'game-world compatible' looks than 'RL-world compatible' ones. The stats/attibutes could vary anywhere between faction, to stats from fishing to trading!

    Evoras, would perhaps like the idea of 'cosmetic' looks for his pets!

    • 1921 posts
    February 23, 2017 9:44 AM PST

    Lokispawn said:

    We should be doing forum polls to get a better sense of majority opinion on topics like this.

    After the fact?  Sure.  But on this topic, there really isn't any other way this could go down.  Every game that has had appearance slots has had these same features, in one form or fashion.

    Either I can enable or disable visibility of slots, and/or I can enable/disable apperance gear on a slot.  So, those two things MUST be in an appearance system because every other game that has had an appearance system has had them.  No helm.  No shoulders.  No shoes.  No (whatever).  Leather arms in the appearance slot instead of cloth because I like the look of all leather. (rowr!)

    The client side visibility option is a convenience feature that offers an option that makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to anyone but YOU.  Use it or not, it only affects YOU.  Your eyes.  Not anyone elses eyes.  Just your eyes.

    VR has literally given every opinion on the subject every possible way to enjoy their gameplay experience, and they made that choice withOUT a forum poll ahead of time.

    So, IMHO, on this topic (and I'm the first to jump up with pitchforks and torches when developers screw up) they get a big thumbs up from me.  They have made the right choice and implemented the right feature set and convenience level.

    • 157 posts
    February 23, 2017 3:53 PM PST

    vjek said:

    After the fact?  Sure.  But on this topic, there really isn't any other way this could go down.  Every game that has had appearance slots has had these same features, in one form or fashion.

    Either I can enable or disable visibility of slots, and/or I can enable/disable apperance gear on a slot.  So, those two things MUST be in an appearance system because every other game that has had an appearance system has had them.  No helm.  No shoulders.  No shoes.  No (whatever).  Leather arms in the appearance slot instead of cloth because I like the look of all leather. (rowr!)

    The client side visibility option is a convenience feature that offers an option that makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to anyone but YOU.  Use it or not, it only affects YOU.  Your eyes.  Not anyone elses eyes.  Just your eyes.

    VR has literally given every opinion on the subject every possible way to enjoy their gameplay experience, and they made that choice withOUT a forum poll ahead of time.

    So, IMHO, on this topic (and I'm the first to jump up with pitchforks and torches when developers screw up) they get a big thumbs up from me.  They have made the right choice and implemented the right feature set and convenience level.

     

    I'm 100% with you bro. The reason I mentioned the poll thing is so members here on the forums could see for themselves and get a better sense of where they stand VS. the rest of the crowd on polarizing opinions like this, among others, like the Auction House thread, etc.

     

    • 2752 posts
    February 23, 2017 4:43 PM PST

    Kilsin said:

    We are not sure about this yet mate, the polls were not really setup the way we wanted for this site, it is actually more beneficial to have full control over the polls ourselves so we can construct targeted questions and get specific feedback, the way that they were setup was pretty messy and not very helpful to us with such limited answers to pick from that were user created.


    Sometimes there were great questions but the options to choose from was so limited that we couldn't get proper feedback and so they largely went to waste. So we are still undecided how we will handle this for the new site.

    Kilsin said:

    We had polls and turned them off as they were being misused and abused for popularity and points towards the achievement system, they actually lowered the quality of the content and discussions and were the cause of a lot of arguments as the person who created the polls usually made them with a lack of answers or options for everyone to properly choose from, they are not something I would like to see on the new forums unless they are VR controlled for us to gather specific targeted feedback on some topics.

     

    Player polls would only make this kind of thing worse. It isn't worth knowing where you stand vs the rest of the crowd, only worth knowing where VR stands and reconciling with that/seeing how it plays out. They are well past the time of taking 99% of suggestions and more on track for waiting until alpha/beta testing to see how the things they have chosen work out.

    • 187 posts
    February 23, 2017 5:12 PM PST

    I think polls should only be used for what VR can't make a decision about. Maybe they're split down the middle at the office, maybe they're too close to the issue...

     

    Really, too many games listen to players, who often will vote against the very things that would actually make the game better. If people had gotten to vote on CRs in EQ, EQ would never have been half so popular for so long. CRs are a central tool for creating genuine-feeling terror in people and thus making losses feel REAL. That improves the game, but most people would think they were against it. It's not until in retrospect that all of us EQ vets understand how immensely powerful that dynamic was.

     

    Polls should be limited to places Devs are undecided, not used very often. And Devs should remember that they're setting out to make a game that feels real. That means feelings of adversity. Adversity creates bonds, as well as memories and brings people back again and again... even while they cry and complain about it. Players can easily lead you astray because they will naturally want the least adversity possible--but it's that adversity that actually makes the game memorable and addictive (for lack of a better term).

    • 1618 posts
    February 24, 2017 10:52 AM PST

    Amris said:

    I think polls should only be used for what VR can't make a decision about. Maybe they're split down the middle at the office, maybe they're too close to the issue...

     

    Really, too many games listen to players, who often will vote against the very things that would actually make the game better. If people had gotten to vote on CRs in EQ, EQ would never have been half so popular for so long. CRs are a central tool for creating genuine-feeling terror in people and thus making losses feel REAL. That improves the game, but most people would think they were against it. It's not until in retrospect that all of us EQ vets understand how immensely powerful that dynamic was.

     

    Polls should be limited to places Devs are undecided, not used very often. And Devs should remember that they're setting out to make a game that feels real. That means feelings of adversity. Adversity creates bonds, as well as memories and brings people back again and again... even while they cry and complain about it. Players can easily lead you astray because they will naturally want the least adversity possible--but it's that adversity that actually makes the game memorable and addictive (for lack of a better term).

    Exactly. VR has the vision.  These forums are to gather opinions when they want them. But, in the end, it's their game to develop, not ours. 

    Crowd funding is not the same as crowd developing. 

    • 279 posts
    February 24, 2017 11:36 AM PST

    In this very thread they say feedback from the community helped them to come to make this compromise. It seems that I'm in the small minority giving negative feedback on the change here so there should be nothing to worry about. They don't have to listen but it doesn't mean you shouldn't give your feedback.