Mendel

About

Username
Mendel
Location
Marietta, GA
Joined
Visits
3,215
Last Active
Roles
Member
Points
722
Rank
Rare
Posts
1,800
Badges
35
  • Starting Cities

    DMKano said:
    Kyleran said:
    DMKano said:
    Dullahan said:
    Amathe said:
    I'm not sure what WoW has to do with my original post, other than for one guy just to insult people (while ironically calling them immature). 

    The issue is how, if at all, to accommodate players in different starting cities who know one another to be able to group together early on (in a game oriented to grouping). Doesn't have to be at level 1. But when might one reasonably expect to be able to make the journey to hook up with one's friends?

    Keep in mind that leveling is projected to be slow. Travel is expected to be slow. Naked corpse runs are a possibility. And there won't be a map (beyond whatever that very basic overview of the world thing is).  So it could be quite a while before a player could succeed at such a meet up. If that's the goal, looks like mission accomplished. But it is kind of sad, to me at least, not to be able to share the  new experience of a game with the people you want to play it with (unless you limit your race choices and play something or someone that isn't necessarily appealing to you). 

    As I'm typing, however, I do seem to recall players paying other players (with in game currency or goods) to serve as their guides and bodyguards while traveling. So that's one possibility. Except that when a game first starts out players tend to be poor and lack much to pay with. 
    One of the greatest memories for many people in EQ, was being able to get from one city to another, particular in the early levels. It was that very danger and inconvenience that made it seem more like a world than a game.


    This is true - but it was mostly dangerous due to players not knowing how to play. For many players EQ1 was their first online persistent world game and they were just in awe and mostly clueless on underlying systems.

    1. Failure to prep properly (no SoW buff)
    2. Failure to know danger spots (mob spawns, knowing safer routes etc...)
    3. Failure to zone layouts 


    If you had SoW, knew zone layouts, knew mob spawns and routes  - the above wouldn't be a problem - a level 1 could go anywhere in great safety


    Players who will play Pantheon likely have 15+ years of MMORPG experience - so even if it were like EQ1 - the mechancis, knowing how to prep right - learning the game world and mob spawns - mechanics - all of this will be known before the game even launches as all the maps/guides etc.. will already be out

    So those days of awe of simple things (due to a first experience and not knowing anything) are long gone

    The reason why games today feel like GAMES and not worlds - is because players are painfully aware of the underlying mechanics and will use them to "game the system" to their advantage starting from day1.

    The players have changed, and nothing can turn back the time on that.
    You can rest assured before the game officially launches there will be all sorts of videos posted on how to safely travel to anywhere in the game including between starter cities, something not available in 1998.

    So no good  reason not to let them start where they wish,  even if there isn't portals between cities.


    Yep - guides will start as soon as pre-alpha starts.
    That's why I asked about why some people appear to be upset at one type of immersion-breaking mechanisms (porting), but not other methods (spoiler sites).  Both accomplish the same thing (moving from A to B ) both with varying degree of immersion-breaking.  But the discussion has been roughly porting = bad, while meta-gaming = okay.  Perhaps there are unstated reasons why people think that fast travel is bad other than the breaking immersion argument.
    DMKano
  • Hidden gems on steam

    I have a couple of games in my rotation.
    • Predynastic Egypt -- it's like a specific scenario for a Civ-like game.  At first, it seems to be easy and without any replay value.  Then the random factor kicks in.  Maybe 2 hours to play a game.
    • 50 Turns -- a really simple spreadsheet-type game that only lasts 50 turns.  Tougher than it appears to be.  Maybe 30 minutes to play.
    • Darkest Dungeon -- A hard-core RP game with elements of survival.  Just when you think you've gotten it covered, one of your high level healers buys it, and you're stuck with trying to replace them.  Sneaky addictive.  Game length?  I have no idea, I've not yet won a campaign.  Abandoned a few in frustration and restarted in various huffs, yes.
    • Thea the Awakening -- Another semi-hard core RP/survival game.  Lots and lots of stuff to do (quests and the like) and crafting is limited, but exceptional.  I come back to this from time to time, and if you're not careful, it's fully capable of eating a week of your life like a video arcade ate quarters in the 80s.
    • Talisman -- a faithful adaptation of the fantasy-based board game from Games Designer Workshop (If I remember correctly).  You can play all the characters with all of the expansions.  Nice when I want an old-school feel, and I don't have to explain the rules to Zaltak pretty much every turn.
    The good thing about Steam is they have numerous sales (I usually won't buy unless it's 50% or more), and their refund policy is pretty good.  Search the games (their Queue feature is useful), and mark games you're interested as On Wishlist and Follow.  On Wishlist will alert you of sales, while the Follow will alert you to updates and new DLC for the game.

    PhaserlightScorchien
  • Why the Pub is wortless here at mmorpg.

    I, for one, am absolutely satisfied with the fact that the MMORPG pub forum has no worts.
    Sadly, the general lack of sobriety exhibited here seems to indicate the presence of wort in a relatively large quantity.
    KyleranMadFrenchie
  • 'Play Nice, Play Fair' - Blizz to Crack Down on Bad Behavior - Overwatch - MMORPG.com

    Turael said:

    Sovrath said:


    Arskaaa said:

    what about people who report others for fun?


    Probably doesn't matter, you still have to have done something toxic.





    It's mentioned in the last sentence:

    "...and functionality that will allow us to more aggressively penalize players who attempt to abuse the in-game reporting tool."
    I wonder if they've caught on to the idea of monetizing use of the reporting tool.  Ya wanna complain?  It's gonna cost ya.
    Kyleran
  • The many lessons of Agnarr

    ste2000 said:
    Mendel said:
    ste2000 said:


    If that 'niche' market was so lucrative, why has it taken almost 20 years before another company stepped in to supply that demand?  You may believe that this niche still exists, but the entire game-developing business community has not agreed with that opinion, otherwise we'd be knee-deep with old-school harsh EQ1 clones.  Can't name an EQ1 clone?  Neither can I.  Perhaps there's a reason for that.


    Dude you keep repeating the same things.
    Maybe you don't appreciate my wall of text as it looks like you keep missing vital information.
    I'll try to be more concise.

    We could not possibly know if there is an Old School market because no one made an Old School game since 2004.
    If you don't make a product, how do you know if it sells or not?
    Pretty easy concept to grasp.

    Many years ago the Industry thought that the 2D Isometric market was dead because "hey who wants to play 2D games when there is 3D?....The RPG market evolved we should all move on"
    For many years 2D RPGs disappeared, no one wanted to make them.
    Fast forward many years and we had the resurgence of 2D RPGs like 'Divinity Original Sin' to name one.
    Yes they are still a niche compared to the 3D RPG market, but they are profitable and certainly they are not dead (like many people wrongly thought).
    You guys are making the same absurd assumption, at least I hope you realize that.

    No one bothered to try to clone EQ1 for nearly 20 years.  Businesses didn't bother with serving the 'niche' EQ1 gamer, because they figured that those players that made up that 'old school' market had moved on to the newer offerings, represented by WoW.  You see all sorts of WoW-clones, so much so that term has become a staple among players, analysts and industry professionals alike.  As far as I understand, no one prevented other companies from emulating EQ1 instead of WoW, and that certainly appears like a business decision to me.

    If refuting me at every turn is supposed to be an attempt to convince me, I fail to see any information to disrupt my position.  The position that that 'old school' market is still there because no one produced a game to serve that demand ignores the possibility of other things happening to the people who made up that market.  That market could have been absorbed.  That market could have changed.  That market could have simply vanished.  Numerous things could have happened to that segment of the gaming population, even remaining intact as a community populating EQ1 and the various vanilla server incarnations.

    You are always free to disagree, but if you choose to follow along with your own assumption, please bring something more potent of an argument beyond "Nuh ugh!  You're wrong."  Please don't assume you know what I comprehend and what I don't.
    MrMelGibsonGdemami