I am pretty sure that the VR team has planned into the future, if I remember right..when SOE bought up Vanguard, I heard that (during beta testing) Sigil had planning for updates to things up to seven years after game release, whether any of that was implemented once SOE took over is another matter. Give VR the benefit of the doubt, they aren't only working on OUR dream, they are working on theirs. :)
Cana
Bazgrim said:I'll try to just boil this down to bare bones. Not directed at anyone specifically. Just some things I’ve observed from my own life and these forums, so they seem applicable to share here:
1. Expectations are the enemy of happiness. Think about it... setting any kind of expectation doesn’t actually do anything. It may make you feel good while you can dwell in your blissful delusion, but it just opens up the possibility of being disappointed when reality comes knocking at your door. When reality does not end up matching the predicted reality that you created in your head, that’s disappointment and it’s obviously not very pleasant. And the natural reaction is to then get defensive of your mental happy place, so it’s only downhill from there. Being promised something and then having that promise broken is one thing. But I can't think of anything that VR has actually promised. If VR says something vague and then you jump to the nearest conclusion that fits your ideal scenario, that's on you. No one else. People often do this more than they realize. Myself included.
2. Similarly, another way to guarantee your own unhappiness is trying/pretending to control things that you actually have no control over. People naturally crave control and that's not necessarily a bad thing. But let's be real: Regardless of how much money you donated, unless you're actually writing code, you have exactly zero effect on when the game comes out. In fact, nothing you say or do will make the game release a minute sooner. So if you can't just sit back and enjoy the show, you're just going to drive yourself crazy for literally no reason.
To be clear, I'm not saying people shouldn't voice their opinions about what they want. I know VR wants to hear from people and in some cases, it makes a tangible difference. That's awesome. It's just key to remember to keep things in perspective - that maybe your opinion isn't as important as you think it is or maybe there's more to the situation than you are aware of. In fact, there's always more to the situation than you or I or anyone is aware of. It is very difficult, yet very possible, to keep your emotions in check while also being passionate. Finding that fine line is the best place to be.
Well said Doro - I hope this thread does not end up in the gutter too.
Missed this gem! Sounds a bit along the lines of the Taoist philosophy!
A wonderful outlook Baz! :)
@Dorotea, Canadina, ScoutSniper (especially), Bazgrim and others... All fantastic posts, and well worthy of considerations.
One point I wanted to elaborate on was the notion that VR is failing to hire world builders.
Having the most expansive, beautiful and eluring world is 100% meaningless if the system by which you navigate and interact with the world is a clunky POS. The foundation of the game has to be solid or the most amazing scenery is meaningful only for the most breif moment. While I do believe that building the world is important, building the underlying systems is more so.
I would personally be very disappointed to enter into the testing phases to learn that I could explore 30 amazing zones, but doing so was a pain in the ass because of the mechanics. I'd much prefer having a rich experience is 6-10 zones because the mechanics were smooth, stable and well thought out.
Word of the game state will spread (regardless of NDA) in either case. If the content is there but the gameplay sucks it's a death sentance. Fewer people will be encouraged to come investigate. If the gameplay is stellar and the only complaint is that the world isnt that big yet, people will still be drawn in to investigate and potentialy pledge their support knowing that content is a more easily achieved thing than a fun engaging foundation.
Hell, I'd rather test/beta a game that has great mechanics and big grey blobs in place of all the art, than feel as though I'm playing a dull grey blob of a game in a pretty landscape.
And last but not least, I'd rather be overwhelmed with the shear volume of interesting mechanics that all work well, from combat to crafting to diplomacy to inventory management to travel to whatever other things the devs have in mind, than be only able to smack critters with a simple stick in a bunch of different locales. Huge worlds do not equate to deep games. I want a deep game first, and a huge world second.
Hopefully noone is expecting a polished game to PLAY while we're in testing mode. :) I've seen this before then you get the leakers all exclaiming oh this game sucks oh this game has bugs then it gets all over the gaming forums, ( seen this many times over the years and you can't educate them all..unfortunately.) Mainly because people don't understand the development process. Let's go into testing with the idea that we're there to help root out that..which doesn't work. Pantheon will be the better for our efforts. Forewarned is forearmed? :)
Cana
I'd just like to add a thing or four. I mean Sniper has practically covered everything spot on and even Kilsin has addressed every concern in that single post.
I would bet my bank account that Vangaurd: Sage of Heroes and its development and its poor launch WEIGHS HEAVILY ON BRAD as well as the other VRi devs who worked on VG. I would bet money that they REFUSE to let this happen to PRF. Which I would bet is why they are not trying to oversell the game, overhype the game, release the game early, allow people to experience the game too early, etc etc. And without a big publisher I believe they won't sacrifice any of their vision and they won't push the game before it's finished. I pledged to this game because I believe I will enjoy it thoroughly and because I believe it will get released.
I don't believe it reads anywhere that these devs have to give explanations out to anyone so the fact that they do time and time again speaks volumes. Some of the concerns are based off assumptions. Some are based off of expectations being too high. We pledged and what is our right to have is, depending on your pledge, a PRF game or two and the items and fringe benefits we will get when the game releases. NOT answers to our questions and demands on these forums.
I followed SotA from practically its inception. Pledged when they were in alpha and DLd the game around update 15. They are now in update like 80something and in early release and I can say with utter belief that PRF already looks GORGEOUS compared to SotA, they PALE in comparison in graphics. And that the combat is ATROCIOUS in SotA and that I have NO fear that combat in PRF will be fun. Both these games are being developed by the SAME engine...Unity. So for PRF to be where it is at in its stage of development is a relief to me. SotA is in early release and there are BIG problems with it that MANY ppl have. Do you think their forums have as open discussions between the devs and community members as PRFs does? Not even close, at least for when I was following the game.
Finally, take time lines and dates with a grain of salt. They have said over and over that they don't like to give concrete dates and are trying not to because things happen and things change. They said they'd like for alpha to hit Q1Q2 2017 and EVEN IF they said "alpha WILL come Q1 no later than Q2" take it with a grain of salt. They keep saying they don't want to give dates, we then keep asking for dates, so they maybe feel pressured and give us a 'loose' date, and then we burn them at the stake when they don't deliver.
But again, VRi doesn't owe us jack at this moment. I'm sorry but they don't. They owe us a game to be released, at least I'm pretty sure that's what the pledge ensures us, and the benefits that come along with each tier of pledge. An example of when to be concerned is if they have no game released by 2020. I honestly believe 2018 is prolly not enough time to finish development. But I would be glad to be proven wrong and if they say they are on track with their goals then that's great, I have faith in the talent here. But if they come up short, I will understand because 2018 would be a monstrous feat to accomplish for practically anyone.
Just my $.02
NoobieDoo said:I would bet my bank account that Vangaurd: Sage of Heroes and its development and its poor launch WEIGHS HEAVILY ON BRAD as well as the other VRi devs who worked on VG. I would bet money that they REFUSE to let this happen to PRF. Which I would bet is why they are not trying to oversell the game, overhype the game, release the game early, allow people to experience the game too early, etc etc. And without a big publisher I believe they won't sacrifice any of their vision and they won't push the game before it's finished. I pledged to this game because I believe I will enjoy it thoroughly and because I believe it will get released.
This is a great point to make and is something that I have thought about as well when pledging originally. It gave me a lot of confidence because I can imagine the weight of pride Brad and the team have taken on their shoulders that is driving them to ensure every i is dotted and t is crossed.
Until I can see the finished product (and 99% sure after) my support is unwavering for these guys... I am not blindly following this game but I am very VERY happy to sit and watch and wait to see the finished product and base everything off that (and testing) irrelevant of the time frame (within reason of my life expectancy) ;)
Feyshtey said:One point I wanted to elaborate on was the notion that VR is failing to hire world builders.
Having the most expansive, beautiful and eluring world is 100% meaningless if the system by which you navigate and interact with the world is a clunky POS. The foundation of the game has to be solid or the most amazing scenery is meaningful only for the most breif moment. While I do believe that building the world is important, building the underlying systems is more so.
I would personally be very disappointed to enter into the testing phases to learn that I could explore 30 amazing zones, but doing so was a pain in the ass because of the mechanics. I'd much prefer having a rich experience is 6-10 zones because the mechanics were smooth, stable and well thought out.
Word of the game state will spread (regardless of NDA) in either case. If the content is there but the gameplay sucks it's a death sentance. Fewer people will be encouraged to come investigate. If the gameplay is stellar and the only complaint is that the world isnt that big yet, people will still be drawn in to investigate and potentialy pledge their support knowing that content is a more easily achieved thing than a fun engaging foundation.
Hell, I'd rather test/beta a game that has great mechanics and big grey blobs in place of all the art, than feel as though I'm playing a dull grey blob of a game in a pretty landscape.
And last but not least, I'd rather be overwhelmed with the shear volume of interesting mechanics that all work well, from combat to crafting to diplomacy to inventory management to travel to whatever other things the devs have in mind, than be only able to smack critters with a simple stick in a bunch of different locales. Huge worlds do not equate to deep games. I want a deep game first, and a huge world second.
This is a great post and I'm not suggesting you have concerns related to design, however, since you mentioned some design related aspects and I've seen some complaints along these lines, I felt the need to elaborate on this a bit ( or possibly kick a dead horse ;) ) because many of the concerns related to design are premature at this point. Furthermore, if we found, what we think, is a serious design flaw, why would we assume that a team of professional game designers missed this if we, the players, who have no game design experience, did not?
In distributed systems, there is a popular implementation of hexagonal architecture called the onion architecture. I have also seen game designers apply the onion metaphor to game design as well. They start with a core game concept or "moment" that captures the essence of the game and then begin iterating on that idea. Once this core game "moment" is vetted, feels right, is fun, sets the right tone, etc, they start iterating on this core game concept by adding more design layers. Each additional layer requires going back to the center of the onion and working your way back out to ensure the integrity of the inner layers is maintained as new layers are added. This also implies that the most key features of the game are the inner layers of the onion with the core being the essence of the entire game.
Why is this important? This is important because, as players, we get overly concerned and obsess over game design mechanics that we think the designers are going to miss unless we grace them with our expert opinions :). The problem is that as players, we're looking at the onion from the outside. We're not experienced game designers and we aren't participating in the design process with the team making the game. We're outsiders looking in. So, going back to the onion metaphor, the layers we see and obsess over are the outer layers of the onion or the least important and most elementary layers of the game. This is another example of where players run the risk of looking silly. Obsessing over these parts of the game is like believing that someone who has a PhD in math needs to be reminded that 1+1 is 2. Given the level of experience we're dealing with here, do we really need to spend time worrying about this?
If you ever get an opportunity to work in a game studio and sit in design sessions or hang out with designers, you'll find that they obsess and I mean obsess over every aspect of the game in ways you and I can't imagine. As a programmer, I would sometimes find this practice frustrating because they were always tweaking, making changes, or throwing things out, for seemingly very petty reasons. However, I soon learned that all these seemingly petty obsessions are what add detail and richness to the game. You really want game designers to obsess over, not just rules and mechanics, but more importantly, story, look, feel, mood, tone, immersion, etc.
It's all the trivial things that you and I would think are petty which, move a game from the good column into the GREAT column! If you're in to cooking then you realize one ingredient doesn't make a dish. It's about knowing what kind of dining experience you want to provide and then mixing the right ingredients together, in a way, that captures the essence of your dish, in terms of flavor and presentation. Cooking on the surface might seem simple, however, understanding how to do it right is an art form that requires both knowledge and many years of experience. Just like a master chef, game designer pour the same level of passion and experience into creating the perfect game play experience that speaks to players in a meaningful way.
So, the need for builders, why they're important, concerns about clunky world environment navigation, and other design related concerns are not things we need to worry about? TRUST ME, I'm sure they're more aware of what's required here than we are. If we get to a week before launch and a trailer is released with place holder art, then maybe it's time be concerned, however, the fact that we're not seeing a bunch of untextured models running around in the t-pose position right now is amazing. I'm likely kicking a dead horse, I know, however, I'm hoping to provide some small amount of perspective in terms of not only game development but also where our time and effort, as players is best spent.
ScoutSniper said:
This is a great post and I'm not suggesting you have concerns related to design, however, since you mentioned some design related aspects and I've seen some complaints along these lines, I felt the need to elaborate on this a bit ( or possibly kick a dead horse ;) ) because many of the concerns related to design are premature at this point. Furthermore, if we found, what we think, is a serious design flaw, why would we make the assumption that a team of professional game designers missed this if we, the players, who have no game design experience, did not?
This statement confuses me. What is this forum for? Have all of my, and all of everyone else's, posts gone ignored because VR already considered it and we are considered inexperienced? That's pretty arrogant, even for a small team making a niche game.
BeaverBiscuit said:ScoutSniper said:
This is a great post and I'm not suggesting you have concerns related to design, however, since you mentioned some design related aspects and I've seen some complaints along these lines, I felt the need to elaborate on this a bit ( or possibly kick a dead horse ;) ) because many of the concerns related to design are premature at this point. Furthermore, if we found, what we think, is a serious design flaw, why would we make the assumption that a team of professional game designers missed this if we, the players, who have no game design experience, did not?
This statement confuses me. What is this forum for? Have all of my, and all of everyone else's, posts gone ignored because VR already considered it and we are considered inexperienced? That's pretty arrogant, even for a small team making a niche game.
You're making a broad statement, I'm focusing on something more narrow. You seem to be suggesting that i'm talking about every opinion in the forums. I'm speaking specifically about things related to complaints: animations being off, sounds not being right, game play that seems clunky, and other design (possibly art) polish issues that aren't relavant right now. I'm not talking about discussions related to hey I want to see the ranger class have these abilities or I'd like to have magic work like this or discussions related to crafting systems, lore, story, etc. Hopefully that answers your question...
EDIT: But the core reason tied back to the VR isn't hiring bulders complaint, which I realize has been sufficiently addressed, but I sometimes feel the need to kick a dead horse :)
ScoutSniper said:BeaverBiscuit said:ScoutSniper said:
This is a great post and I'm not suggesting you have concerns related to design, however, since you mentioned some design related aspects and I've seen some complaints along these lines, I felt the need to elaborate on this a bit ( or possibly kick a dead horse ;) ) because many of the concerns related to design are premature at this point. Furthermore, if we found, what we think, is a serious design flaw, why would we make the assumption that a team of professional game designers missed this if we, the players, who have no game design experience, did not?
This statement confuses me. What is this forum for? Have all of my, and all of everyone else's, posts gone ignored because VR already considered it and we are considered inexperienced? That's pretty arrogant, even for a small team making a niche game.
You're making a broad statement, I'm focusing on something more narrow. You seem to be suggesting that i'm talking about every opinion in the forums. I'm speaking specifically about things related to complaints related to, animations being off, sounds not being right, game play that seems clunky, and other design polish issues that aren't relavant right now. I'm not talking about discussions related to hey I want to see the ranger class have these abilities or I'd like to have magic work like this or discussions related to crafting systems you like. Hopefully that answers your question...
If you have played Bethesda games, you know that game design experience doesn't make you a God. You will probably have things pointed out to you you would never have found yourself, designwise. You will get things wrong. I don't see why comments on design aren't relavant. Just because we haven't gotten into the world yet we have experience, imagination, creativity, and logic to lead the way to possibly good advice.
BeaverBiscuit said:ScoutSniper said:BeaverBiscuit said:ScoutSniper said:
This is a great post and I'm not suggesting you have concerns related to design, however, since you mentioned some design related aspects and I've seen some complaints along these lines, I felt the need to elaborate on this a bit ( or possibly kick a dead horse ;) ) because many of the concerns related to design are premature at this point. Furthermore, if we found, what we think, is a serious design flaw, why would we make the assumption that a team of professional game designers missed this if we, the players, who have no game design experience, did not?
This statement confuses me. What is this forum for? Have all of my, and all of everyone else's, posts gone ignored because VR already considered it and we are considered inexperienced? That's pretty arrogant, even for a small team making a niche game.
You're making a broad statement, I'm focusing on something more narrow. You seem to be suggesting that i'm talking about every opinion in the forums. I'm speaking specifically about things related to complaints related to, animations being off, sounds not being right, game play that seems clunky, and other design polish issues that aren't relavant right now. I'm not talking about discussions related to hey I want to see the ranger class have these abilities or I'd like to have magic work like this or discussions related to crafting systems you like. Hopefully that answers your question...
If you have played Bethesda games, you know that game design experience doesn't make you a God. You will probably have things pointed out to you you would never have found yourself, designwise. You will get things wrong. I don't see why comments on design aren't relavant. Just because we haven't gotten into the world yet we have imagination, creativity, and logic to lead the way to possibly good advice.
Again, you're talking about the products of design which, you interact with as a player. That isn't design, that's what design produces. In other words, the story is not design, it is one product of the design process. I'm talking about the iterative process that goes into creating those products, which is based on industry experience. For example, if you have thoughts about the game story or lore, share your thoughts, however, if you're going to complain that the story isn't 100% fleshed out right now, then I might suggest you're off base. It's likely many of the things we see in the game right now are going to change or be thrown out completely so complaining about anything related to design polish at this point makes no sense.
ScoutSniper said:BeaverBiscuit said:ScoutSniper said:BeaverBiscuit said:ScoutSniper said:
This is a great post and I'm not suggesting you have concerns related to design, however, since you mentioned some design related aspects and I've seen some complaints along these lines, I felt the need to elaborate on this a bit ( or possibly kick a dead horse ;) ) because many of the concerns related to design are premature at this point. Furthermore, if we found, what we think, is a serious design flaw, why would we make the assumption that a team of professional game designers missed this if we, the players, who have no game design experience, did not?
This statement confuses me. What is this forum for? Have all of my, and all of everyone else's, posts gone ignored because VR already considered it and we are considered inexperienced? That's pretty arrogant, even for a small team making a niche game.
You're making a broad statement, I'm focusing on something more narrow. You seem to be suggesting that i'm talking about every opinion in the forums. I'm speaking specifically about things related to complaints related to, animations being off, sounds not being right, game play that seems clunky, and other design polish issues that aren't relavant right now. I'm not talking about discussions related to hey I want to see the ranger class have these abilities or I'd like to have magic work like this or discussions related to crafting systems you like. Hopefully that answers your question...
If you have played Bethesda games, you know that game design experience doesn't make you a God. You will probably have things pointed out to you you would never have found yourself, designwise. You will get things wrong. I don't see why comments on design aren't relavant. Just because we haven't gotten into the world yet we have imagination, creativity, and logic to lead the way to possibly good advice.
Again, you're talking about the products of design which, you interact with as a player. That isn't design, that's what design produces. In other words, the story is not design, it is one product of the design process. I'm talking about the iterative process that goes into creating those products, which is based on industry experience. For example, if you have thoughts about the game story or lore, share your thoughts, however, if you're going to complain that the story isn't 100% fleshed out right now, then I might suggest you're off base. It's likely many of the things we see in the game right now are going to change or be thrown out completely so complaining about anything related to design polish at this point makes no sense.
It makes plenty of sense. Again, you can make predictions on design just like you can predict about anything else. If you post at all why can't it be on design? because some things will be thrown out? VR has confirmed that several things are set in stone. Some other things they may simply not think to change. Viva la development forums to help them along the way.
BeaverBiscuit said:
It makes plenty of sense. Again, you can make predictions on design just like you can predict about anything else. If you post at all why can't it be on design? because some things will be thrown out? VR has confirmed that several things are set in stone. Some other things they may simply not think to change. Viva la development forums to help them along the way.
What ScoutSniper is trying to point out is that it's rather unproductive to tell developers what's wrong with their product when you have no idea what the specifics of the product are. It's like telling Ford that the Mustang concept car you saw a few pictures of in a magazine is going to handle like crap, and here's why! Or saying that the whole car is obviously going to be a failure and you can prove it because no self-respecting muscle car designer would ever paint one with a checkerboard pattern, yellow lines and weird circles with crosshair marks, when the reality is that those patterns are all there to gather testing data on performance or crash testing and have nothing at all to do with any future aesthetics.
I've only ever heard VR state things being set in stone in regard to core tenents. Everything else they've said comes with the caveat, "We'll have to see how it works out in testing.". How can you argue with that? They have a design goal. If they didnt they'd become one of the many MMO's that have either failed to reach market or never gain a solid customer base because the production was just a hodge-podge of things that never really seemed to be pulling the project in a consistent direction. (Tabula Rasa, anyone?) The specific systems cannot be set in stone until they are tried in tandem with everything else and either tweaked or thrown out entirely if they don't mesh with the foundational goals. "Make a fun game" isnt a plan. It's a hope, and hope isn't a strategy.
If you think the core tenents, the foundational goals, are flawed then that's a different conversation. But VR has been more consistent in their adherence to those goals than most other games I've been a part of the pre-release community for, and I've been in my fair share.
All this is why I've largely backed off of my posting on these forums. First, I dont know how a lot of these ideas will fit together in the end, so it's not fair for me to comment too much. Second, I see a really new idea here on the forums about once every 3-4 months. All the conversations have been had, re-had, and beaten far past death for over a decade on 100s of titles. We're not breaking new ground here, and any new ground that VR is attempting they are wise to keep under wraps at this stage of development. Ultimately I have realized that I was willing to pledge to this team because I know their roots, and I know their pedigree. I know what they can do if given the resources, and I must have a degree of faith that they will produce something I'm interested in playing for the long term. I'm under no illusions that my specific opinions will sway the course of the game, nor should they.
None of this is to say that I havent heard a thing or two that gives me concern. I think I'll always have heartburn over the idea of Progeny, for instance. But I've come to the conclusion that I cant fairly judge it until I try it in the way that VR impiments it, and no amount of screaming bloody murder about it here is going to change the outcome. If the developers were swayed every time even a vocal group raises a stink about something the game would quickly go off the rails into disjointed tangents.
Feyshtey said:BeaverBiscuit said:
It makes plenty of sense. Again, you can make predictions on design just like you can predict about anything else. If you post at all why can't it be on design? because some things will be thrown out? VR has confirmed that several things are set in stone. Some other things they may simply not think to change. Viva la development forums to help them along the way.
What ScoutSniper is trying to point out is that it's rather unproductive to tell developers what's wrong with their product when you have no idea what the specifics of the product are. It's like telling Ford that the Mustang concept car you saw a few pictures of in a magazine is going to handle like crap, and here's why! Or saying that the whole car is obviously going to be a failure and you can prove it because no self-respecting muscle car designer would ever paint one with a checkerboard pattern, yellow lines and weird circles with crosshair marks, when the reality is that those patterns are all there to gather testing data on performance or crash testing and have nothing at all to do with any future aesthetics.
EXACTLY!!! This example illustrates what I was trying to say perfectly. Thanks! You can say whatever you want on the forums, I was never suggesting you can't. However, if you stand in front of a Ford engineer and say what the guy in Feyshtey example is saying, you might look and sound foolish, which does you (and all of us) a disservice, in the long run. When you look foolish to a dev team, your voice becomes diminished and the louder you get the more credibility you lose. When that happens, even making a good point falls on deaf ears unless you work hard to redeem yourself. So by keeping the conversation productive, we improve the quality of our collective voices and maximize the use of the development teams time which, can stay focused on addressing meaningful issues related to moving the game in a positive direction.
I enjoyed EQ1, I enjoyed Vanguard. I would like that lightning to strike again, maybe for a last time, so I pledged.
Things will take as long as they take. MMOs have always been a work in progress, thats what I am expecting. Not months, years.
I will play alpha/beta helping as I can. There will be lots and lots of problems, bugs, deficiencies, tuning, tweaking, reworking.
Pantheon may not reach maturity until a year or more after official release. Anyone that is expecting amazing magic instantly is deceiving themselves.
I liked EQ1 and Vanguard so this seems a logical place to be.
jpedrote said:Deadshade said:Well, you see, there is this 80/20 Pareto law which is more a 70/30 that any computer development (approximately) follows .
With constant ressources it takes 30 % of the total time to get 70 % of a project done and the problem are the last 30 % .
So if I directly apply this law to Pantheon, I conclude that it will be either 100 % finished around 2021 or it will be released earlier in a less than 90 % finished state .
Unless the ressources triple :)
That's some terrible math, how can you say that 70% of the project took 30% of the time, that's ludicrous, MMO's are the games that take the longest to create, VR doing 70% of the work in 30% of the time would mean they would spend the next 5 years doing the finishing touches? Ye I don't think so.
i dont think you understand what he was saying.
Taledar said:jpedrote said:Deadshade said:Well, you see, there is this 80/20 Pareto law which is more a 70/30 that any computer development (approximately) follows .
With constant ressources it takes 30 % of the total time to get 70 % of a project done and the problem are the last 30 % .
So if I directly apply this law to Pantheon, I conclude that it will be either 100 % finished around 2021 or it will be released earlier in a less than 90 % finished state .
Unless the ressources triple :)
That's some terrible math, how can you say that 70% of the project took 30% of the time, that's ludicrous, MMO's are the games that take the longest to create, VR doing 70% of the work in 30% of the time would mean they would spend the next 5 years doing the finishing touches? Ye I don't think so.
i dont think you understand what he was saying.
Yeah, it depends on how work percentages are defined. A quick analogy to explain...
Let's say it's your job to collect 9 sticks and 1 Boeing 747. You have collected all 9 sticks, but lack your Boeing 747.
By Deadshade's math: You are 90% of the way through the job because you have collected 9/10 items. Your work percentages have been split according to some metric of "task quantity".
By jpedrote's math: You are 0.01% of the way through the job because you have put in a small portion of required the work. Your work percentages have been split according to a metric of "task difficulty/length".
Both approaches to describing the world using percentages are meaningful and give a different insight into where one is as far as completing the task. Unfortunately there can be serious confusions that come when one doesn't understand the meaning.
Edit: Note that I'm not trying to demean Deadshade's math by providing such an aggregious example. There's more nuance when it comes to something so complex as game development.
Second Edit: I'm no longer sure that I have a correct understanding of jpedrote's issue with the math/meaning.... oh well.
Hokanu said:@ScoutSniper
Well said mate, approaching "issues" like this would normally be tackled by the use of common sense, thank you for taking the time to explain it so clearly and simply for those who needed it.
In saying that and to be fair, without some basic knowledge of business from the inside some of these things may not be easily understood without some direction. I hope people have a good read of your response to understand these things a bit more.
@CanadinaXegony
Empathy.. where has that gone recently in this world huh? :(
Empathy seems to be a rare critter these days. "Walk a mile in the other guy's shoes" seems to have gone the way of the dodo. :)
ScoutSniper said:BeaverBiscuit said:ScoutSniper said:BeaverBiscuit said:ScoutSniper said:
This is a great post and I'm not suggesting you have concerns related to design, however, since you mentioned some design related aspects and I've seen some complaints along these lines, I felt the need to elaborate on this a bit ( or possibly kick a dead horse ;) ) because many of the concerns related to design are premature at this point. Furthermore, if we found, what we think, is a serious design flaw, why would we make the assumption that a team of professional game designers missed this if we, the players, who have no game design experience, did not?
This statement confuses me. What is this forum for? Have all of my, and all of everyone else's, posts gone ignored because VR already considered it and we are considered inexperienced? That's pretty arrogant, even for a small team making a niche game.
You're making a broad statement, I'm focusing on something more narrow. You seem to be suggesting that i'm talking about every opinion in the forums. I'm speaking specifically about things related to complaints related to, animations being off, sounds not being right, game play that seems clunky, and other design polish issues that aren't relavant right now. I'm not talking about discussions related to hey I want to see the ranger class have these abilities or I'd like to have magic work like this or discussions related to crafting systems you like. Hopefully that answers your question...
If you have played Bethesda games, you know that game design experience doesn't make you a God. You will probably have things pointed out to you you would never have found yourself, designwise. You will get things wrong. I don't see why comments on design aren't relavant. Just because we haven't gotten into the world yet we have imagination, creativity, and logic to lead the way to possibly good advice.
Again, you're talking about the products of design which, you interact with as a player. That isn't design, that's what design produces. In other words, the story is not design, it is one product of the design process. I'm talking about the iterative process that goes into creating those products, which is based on industry experience. For example, if you have thoughts about the game story or lore, share your thoughts, however, if you're going to complain that the story isn't 100% fleshed out right now, then I might suggest you're off base. It's likely many of the things we see in the game right now are going to change or be thrown out completely so complaining about anything related to design polish at this point makes no sense.
You make so much sense, actually articulating things that are beyond my skills. I've been a game tester over and over again. I am guessing some of these folks, well its their first time encountering a game that is ACTUALLY in pre-alpha state....not polished ready for market. Some games over the past years, have been advertising they were in alpha when in reality they were beta and ready to market. Let in hundreds of eager "testers" mainly to sell the game, not real testing. In the old days no way were you let anywhere near the REAL testing..nor did you have ANY inside information on what was going on behind the scenes. Here too in Pantheon, we are limited as to what they can tell us, due to legal issues, competition with other games coming to market, and just what's going on behind the scenes that most of us DON'T have the skills to help with. :) Hopefully after these conversations the people participating here will have a better idea of how things work, progress ..etc. Again ScoutSniper thanks for your input, much appreciated. :)
Cana
Nanoushka said:Personally I don't really get the negative comments. It's being built, the devs are obviously passionate about it and the vision is slowly but steadily becoming reality. It'll take the time it takes. Of course I'd love to play it now but that simply isn't happening yet. Patience is all it takes, I don't see a reason to despair. At all.
It would be fine if people discussed it as it being their feeling. That's ok of course. I do find it a bit obnoxious and silly tho when people start stating things as 'facts' and 'truth', and call everyone who has patience and faith 'naive fanboys'. The conversation basically ends there. It would be better if they'd contemplate whether they truly are wronged by the devs or whether it's simply (a lack of) managing expectations. To me it seems the latter but I may be missing something.
Unfortunately, in today's "now...Now...NOW!" culture, some folks expect a game of this magnitude to take no more than 1 or 2 years to develop. Sorry, but if you are one of those people, then THBBTTHHH!!! Sure, if the team had unlimited resources available to them...both in staff and dollars--it could be done quicker. But do we REALLY want a game that has all that available, only to churn out another one of "those games?" I sure as hell don't. If the game isn't available by 2018, I might start to worry. 2020? I might start to lose interest and kiss my funded dollars goodbye. (No, I would not ask for a refund. I believe in what they are doing, so I would let my pledge stand.) However it turns out, I will come back to the game when it is released and make my decision then.
To those who are questioning the progress of this game: What game development are you comparing this to? Seriously, its not like EA Sports is funding this project!
jstjamesesq said: Kilsin: Thank you very much for the information. I don't post very often as I prefer to just read and take everything in rather that clutter the place up. Your efforts have helped me recruit many real life friends and convinced them to pledge. I look forward to this games eventual release as this games promise is immense. Keep up the good work.
You're very welcome my friend and that is great to hear, sounds like you have been busy! Thank you we appreciate the support a lot :)
I hope VR takes all the time the Devs feel is needed. I don't see a reason/need for any kind of rush. I guess the best way to put it is to think of it as patiently camping the Pantheon. It's how we dealt with favored Mobs in EQ. Then after the Mob spawned we enjoyed, savored even... the struggle to not only survive the encounter but to also enjoy the rewards... Futhermore, does anyone here really want a flawed game due to rushiness? Devs forbid we end up with a game like..../hiss.../crosses self... ( WoW ). I don't know if anyone here played Warhammer onlin or not. That game had vast potential. Unfortunately it was rushed into production and that my new found friends, my future companions in Pantheon killed Warhammer. I suggest we wait patiently and camp Pantheon and once the mayhem begins.....we'll all have loads of fun, fun and fun!
Take Pantheon for the evolution in gaming it soo... enticingly promisses to be. While it seems somewhat based on EQ, Pantheon is going to be very different. Lets kick back, read about development progress, contribute our thoughts and ideas, and drool for the moment the game goes live.