Forums » News and Announcements

Find Out What Brad And Corey Had To Say To MMORPG.com

    • 557 posts
    December 12, 2017 3:20 PM PST

    The problem with PVE and PVP on the same server is devs are pressured to tweak class abilities that are well-suited for PVE encounters, but overpowered for PVP.   PVE is punished for the sake of PVP.  Splitting them to different servers means the classes can be balanced for one without affecting the other.

    • 12 posts
    December 12, 2017 3:39 PM PST

    Celandor said:

    The problem with PVE and PVP on the same server is devs are pressured to tweak class abilities that are well-suited for PVE encounters, but overpowered for PVP.   PVE is punished for the sake of PVP.  Splitting them to different servers means the classes can be balanced for one without affecting the other.

    But punishing PvP for the sake of PvE is no better.  If balanced correctly or the mechanics built to compensate for flagging or not then the differences would not matter. 

    For example, if flagged for PvP then x debuff/buff applies to player/targets of player.  Either that or the PvP content needs to be scaled to a similar level that someone would encounter in PvE.  In SWG, the PvP content was only accessible when flagged.  Those that wanted to play PvE content rarely played it while flagged.   

    Even if PvP and PvE are on seperate servers the devs still have to tweak the classes.  Tie that tweak to PvP status instead of server and both exist in the same server.

    • 56 posts
    December 12, 2017 4:01 PM PST

    One thing that stood out to me was that banks were not global. I think this is a facinating idea.

    • 1434 posts
    December 12, 2017 4:21 PM PST

    Most fans of Pantheon as well as those of Vanguard and EQ freak out about too much PvP talk. They've confirmed there will be PvP, and even possibly multiple rulesets. That's enough for me. As someone who has played all the PvP MMOs, I like that it's secondary. If the PvE isn't fun first with something worth fighting over, PvP becomes meaningless. I want a solid world and proper pve content and progression, THEN and only then do I want PvP.


    This post was edited by Dullahan at December 12, 2017 5:36 PM PST
    • 2752 posts
    December 12, 2017 4:22 PM PST

    Animae said:

    Exactly what I am trying to say.  In both of the games I listed there was a mechanic for allowing both PvP and PvE content on the same server.  Doing so allows for a larger more diverse community base that supports both interests.  SWG was great because there was PvP progression that allowed for perks associated with your Rebel or Imperial participation.  Don't want to PvP then no problem but PvPers get to buy your crafted items etc.

    But does it not make more sense to have those of like minds on their own servers? Those who love PvP on PvP specific servers so that you get the most dense population and don't run into otherwise hybrid servers with low PvP participation, requiring those interested to then want/need a server transfer? Sort of how those serious about role playing mostly amass on RP specific servers.

     

     

    • 88 posts
    December 12, 2017 6:26 PM PST

    Its ironic, games that aren’t considered PvP focused have offered some most enjoyment I’ve had throughout my time gaming.  One such title was Vanguard: Saga of Heroes.  I had the privilege of playing on both PvP rulesets offered in Vanguard.  It too was developed by Brad McQuaid and it too followed Pantheon’s model with the core game focusing primarily on PvE.  The thing people don’t understand is that many games that have a “PvP focus” really don’t have any depth of play or provide meaning to PvP.  Matched-based or coverage-based PvP, which is basically the same thing, typically ends up being of little consequence.  Maps and matches are reset, winners and losers gain points to purchase specific PvP statted gear and the cycle repeats.  In open world PvP, everything is contested, and server reputations/relationships actually matter.  When Vanguard released the Ancient Port Warehouse dungeon, three opposing guilds worked against our team, attempting to prevent us from killing the key mob to compete for raid progression on the server.  PvP not only affected raiding but even the access to raiding.    Heck, I remember epic battles that ensued early in the game for rare spawns of mithril ore. 

    Not only that, stats and gear mattered.  For example, no one used the stealth detection stat on their gear in PvE but in PvP all our scouts used it, providing greater depth to crafting and even gear selection.  It also encouraged players to participate in all areas of the game.  For instance, multiple classes in Vanguard could cast invisibility on themselves or their group and as a rogue I didn’t possess an ability to counter this.  However, there was a raid boss that dropped a see invisibility cloak.  Raiding provided me the avenue to attain access to a skill I was lacking in PvP.  It made players access all areas of the game to gear their characters for PvP and while I know it wasn’t intended it sure was fricking great. 

    So, while I see many PvPers are complaining or cautious after this recent interview, I’ll offer this.   Put in the work developing an awesome in-depth game that focuses on PvE, crafting and harvesting. Provide a variety of gear and meaningful stats to offer depth.  Develop a system that distributes the best pieces of gear throughout various playstyles to offer a more inclusive experience.  Then, stick with your commitment to offer at least one PvP server at launch (and please God make it FFA so we can just kill @sshats on our faction that are talking trash or training).  You guys basically do what was done for Vanguard, and I’ll sit back and enjoy the hell out of all the meaningful PvP I’m having in your PvE focused game.

    I got faith in you and if you need help testing you know who to call.         

    • 1281 posts
    December 13, 2017 5:22 AM PST

    MMORPG: Does race choice effect class choice?

    BRAD: We haven't released all the details yet. There will be innate abilities and pluses and minuses. Like maybe Ogre is not bashable but maybe he also has issues fitting into a certain area. There's pluses and minuses to the races. Same with the classes. It's really about variety and where you're at. It's very situational and gear is very important. We really want people to think who am I, who's in my group, where am I, what are we going against and what should my strategy be? Progress to the next area, names boss mob, etc. It could be completely different.

    So I find the comments in there about race class combinations interesting. He ask about races affecting classes, but Brad talks about racial abilities. I interperated that question as whether or not the game is all race all class (ARAC) or racial class restrictions.

    Considering there is an official thread about the topic a few post down from this one, I find this curious. It kind of sounds like they are considering going ARAC or have changed their minds on the race/class combos.

     *edit* Grammar


    This post was edited by bigdogchris at December 13, 2017 6:30 AM PST
    • 2886 posts
    December 13, 2017 5:45 AM PST

    bigdogchris said:

    MMORPG: Does race choice effect class choice?

    BRAD: We haven't released all the details yet. There will be innate abilities and pluses and minuses. Like maybe Ogre is not bashable but maybe he also has issues fitting into a certain area. There's pluses and minuses to the races. Same with the classes. It's really about variety and where you're at. It's very situational and gear is very important. We really want people to think who am I, who's in my group, where am I, what are we going against and what should my strategy be? Progress to the next area, names boss mob, etc. It could be completely different.

    So I find the comments in there about race class combinations interesting. He ask about races effecting classes, but Brad talks about racial abilities. I interperated that question as whether or not the game is all race all class (ARAC) or racial class restrictions.

    Considering there is an official thread about the topic a few post down from this one, I find this curious. It kind of sounds like they are considering going ARAC or have changed their minds on the race/class combos.

    I find that extremely hard to believe. Again, if that were the case, they wouldn't announce it cryptically in an interview with MMORPG.com at TwitchCon. I see no real reason to believe that's the case. It's much more likely that Brad misunderstood the question or it's just more bad reporting. (Especially considering the misuse of "affect" and "effect.") I'm gonna guess Brad just misunderstood a poorly phrased question. I can tell you first hand that everyone's brains were pretty much fried by the end of TwitchCon :P But I think that question could easily be interpreted as "will an Elf Wizard be the same as a Gnome Wizard or will your race affect your class?" Thus their comments about how race choice will be more than just cosmetic.

    • 1281 posts
    December 13, 2017 6:27 AM PST

    Bazgrim said:

    I find that extremely hard to believe. Again, if that were the case, they wouldn't announce it cryptically in an interview with MMORPG.com at TwitchCon. I see no real reason to believe that's the case. It's much more likely that Brad misunderstood the question or it's just more bad reporting. (Especially considering the misuse of "affect" and "effect.") I'm gonna guess Brad just misunderstood a poorly phrased question. I can tell you first hand that everyone's brains were pretty much fried by the end of TwitchCon :P But I think that question could easily be interpreted as "will an Elf Wizard be the same as a Gnome Wizard or will your race affect your class?" Thus their comments about how race choice will be more than just cosmetic.

    Yeah, it's possible some things were lost in translation. There were a few other spelling mistakes too. It's possible the author was a non-native English speaker and didn't phrase the question right or changed the question he asked for the written piece after the fact.

    I should have corrected that in my statement and said 'affect'. Sorry.


    This post was edited by bigdogchris at December 13, 2017 6:29 AM PST
    • 19 posts
    December 13, 2017 6:31 AM PST

    Solid read for sure.

    • 3852 posts
    December 13, 2017 9:40 AM PST

    I recommend that none of us get too excited about one interview which comes well before even alpha testing.

    Even if the question was correctly phrased, perfectly understood, accurately answered and the answer correctly given (none of which is a 100% certainty and I speak from long experience dealing with reporters of various types)  there is a LOT of time for decisions to change.

    People back in the office can say "You said WHAT????" and the matter may be reconsidered. The person talking can have a change of opinion as months go by. Testing may produce numerous good reasons for changes - testing is INTENDED to provide feedback leading to changes it isn't just to catch outright bugs.

    While I wouldn't push for VR to release any more information than they are comfortable with, once they HAVE released information through other channels it might be good for them to summarize here what they have said there with any explanations that they consider appropriate. Of course these forums are just one option the newsletter is another.


    This post was edited by dorotea at December 13, 2017 9:42 AM PST