Tralyan said:If we take the most successful MMO to date - World of Warcraft - and agree that its success is due largely to listening to that "vocal minority"...
Yes, and World of Warcraft is exactly what we (I confidently state about the Pantheon player base) *don't* want in an MMO. They appear to have listened to every 'cool' idea that fans wanted, like expansive and easy fast travel, automatic dungeon teleporters, world-wide, multi-server auction houses, etc. and put them in because a lot of fans wanted (and shouted about) them. Very unfortunate for the fans like me (yes, I played World of Warcraft from the origin and for years) who were ok with the original conveniences in what always felt like a fun-but-lite MMO but then watched it become a rollercoaster themepark full of screaming wild-eyed kids. Yeah, those kids are having a ball (though they will probably vomit and feel awful later) but the grown-ups are in a waking nightmare.
The 'vocal minority' of which the OP speaks, I believe, is the minority of people that go to forums and complain and shout about their pet issue whether or not its implementation would be at the expense of everyone else's fun and the original idea of the game. The majority of fans just play the game because they like it and then, due to devs listening to the minority, the game changes under them into something they no longer like as much. An even smaller minority are those vocal fans that present more reasoned and thoughtful ideas but are drowned out by the masses of squeaky-wheel campaigning and eventually leave resulting in the game sliding further and further from the original design that the original fans loved.
Anyway, *excellent* post OP. I have great faith that the Pantheon team don't seem to be the kind to pander to the players, though clearly take great interest in having a dialog.
It reflects a big issue in modern life in general. Popularism sounds awesome, but it's a nightmare. Anything designed to encorporate everyone's 'cool' ideas will be an unholy mess that pleases no one.
Time and again we see good ideas that are popular because they satisfy a certain niche. They attract the people that live in that niche. People that don't live in that niche go elsewhere. All are heppy. Then the owners of the ideas sell them out and attempt to grow and diversify their audience either in order to please what they think are 'the fans' or to basically make as much money as possible and, guess what, the idea is ruined as it changes into something nothing like the original idea or becomes a nightmare mess of cool features or perhaps just a bland average of everything.
It's a big challenge to VR to stick to their guns and attempt to maintain the minority fan base they are courting. I sincerely hope they stick with the core tenets and beliefs that have attracted people like me to invest in the project. Please don't sell out to become 'more popular'.
I've been involved in the forums of Battlefield 1 and have seen the issue in action over the last 14 months. The devs (DICE) have a great level of communication with the fan base and make regular tweaks and minor changes, but some up-coming changes currently in testing are set to change the core, underlying game in a way that will fundamentally change one thing that differentiates the game from others within its genre: the gunplay. They daringly chose to make a WW1 game and the gunplay is more 'old-world' and clunky and, thus, requires more thought and consideration. Some people freaked out that the guns weren't very accurate - some people loved that you had to think more about engagement ranges to cope with inaccurate guns. Just running in guns-blazing (like most modern shooters) is not the best strategy. Tactics (movement, cover, retreat, flanking, teamwork, etc) are more important. EA/DICE are very lucky in that they used to make 'modern' shooters and, so, have a very large audience playing BF1 just because it's the next Battlefield game, but the game is also pleasing a niche audience that wanted something requiring more thought and tactics than the average hectic shooter.
So, we have a large fan base, the majority of which are used to fast-paced modern shooters. They like BF1 (because it's awesome) but wish it were more fast-paced like their other favourites. They post on the forums about how the game is 'wrong'. They get into large arguments and some issues become 'big'. They thing is, often they aren't, in essense, 'wrong' and their opinions are 'valid' *but* there are already games that meet their requirements. To encorporate their favourite 'cool idea' into BF1 would be to change it into something it is not and that is already catered for in many other, more modern, shooters.
TL;DR version: -
Imagine, I make a great game that is aimed at and greatly pleases an historically niche audience.
It is good enough that players outside that niche also enjoy it.
It becomes popular enough that it gains interest outside of its original niche.
Do I: -
A: Remain true to the original design and fans and just tweak and hone and make more content with the same feel to please the original niche.
B: Attempt to court a larger fan base by altering the original design and/or tacking on extra features additional to the design and excuse this because I am simply 'responding to user feedback'?...
quietus said:I would love a giant spider that just roams the zone and one shots people. Keep all of us on our toes for when The Stalker might appear. Have a tunnel network for its lair to try and find some loot in there. Maybe you see it roaming and think it's safe to go check the lair out. Hopefully you don't get lost or get out before it comes back.That's where my head is at. I want some things to be more powerful than the players that can become legends among the community.
yes!
the community should respect the world, being on your toes and fear of dying is what make a difference between good zone and mediocre zone.
the silverpine forest was rememberable because of "son of arugal" roaming and 1 shoting newbies who wanted to get that mageroyal...
these strong monsters are a must in order to make a "world" and not a "game"!
>When the game goes live let's not have a bunch of post's asking for more solo content it's a MMO.<
This is the mother of all non-sequitors.
If I craft to sell or give to friends/guildmates I am doing something that is a MMO feature not a single-player feature.
If I talk to friends/guildmates I am doing something that is a MMO feature not a SP feature.
If I do anything with or for a guild I am doing something that is a MMO feature not a SP feature.
If I talk in world or zone chat, ditto.
If I help new players, ditto.
If I group 2/3 of the time or half the time and want something to do when grouping isn't a convenient option, ditto.
If I think there is too much solo content I will comment, but if I think there isn't enough I will also comment.
This is a group-focused game and should have less solo content than is typical these days, but to say we aren't doing MMO things when not grouped ....just, no!