Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

"The Pantheon Difference" (from the official Pantheon website)

1246

Comments

  • ste2000ste2000 Member EpicPosts: 6,194
    edited July 2017
    Kilsin said:
    ste2000 said:


    I didn't discredit anyone, I spoke about the seriousness of misinformation, arguing over personal opinions, stating incorrect or unsubstantiated facts and how damaging they are to a community if left unchecked and how I try to provide the most up to date and accurate information to help stop that from happening.

    Well, as I explained in my previous post, you just misinformed people by giving your personal definition of a term which doesn't match the real meaning of the definition, undermining the person who was giving the right information.

    Pantheon doesn't focus on Alts, like it doesn't focus on Solo, although both are possible.
    Is that true or not?
    If that's true, both things (Solo and Making Alts) are not "Friendly" they are just "Possible".

    EQ wasn't "Alt Friendly" that's why people started to Box, because normally it took too long to create and level Alts, so players found a work around (as they usually do).
    Argue what you like but my definition is more accurate than yours (Actually VR definition, you are just repeating what's written in the FAQs).

    Kyleran

  • Brald_IronheartBrald_Ironheart Member UncommonPosts: 119
    People play alts for different reasons though.  What makes a game alt friendly to one person may not make it alt friendly to another person.

    http://www.mmogames.com/gamearticles/4-alt-friendly-mmos/

    Alt friendly can mean easy to level, especially for those people who want to get an additional character or characters maxed out and ready to raid at endgame.  But for those players who aren't focused on endgame, it can mean other things.  It also depends on how the game is designed.  Sandbox vs themepark is a factor there.  Not everyone likes gear grinding and raiding.  Some people just play a game for the overall experience and enjoyment it offers them.  Of course, there doesn't even really need to be an endgame if a sandbox mmorpg is designed a certain way, but that's too broad of a topic to address in this thread.

    Anyway, I do believe most people's enjoyment, regardless of their own personal preferences concerning every little detail, is largely dependent on how immersive an mmorpg is.  Does it feel more like a virtual world than just a game?  I also believe that, the more realistic and logical an mmorpg is, the more like a virtual world it will seem.  If we argue over what makes a game fun, we'll never get anywhere.  Fun means different things to different people.  But we have far less room to argue over what makes a game more logical and realistic.
    drivendawnDullahan
    Roleplayinn.com - New forum for people who love role-playing of all kinds - tabletop/pencil & paper, live-action, and role-playing in mmorpgs.
  • ste2000ste2000 Member EpicPosts: 6,194
    edited July 2017
    People play alts for different reasons though.  What makes a game alt friendly to one person may not make it alt friendly to another person.

    I understand what you are saying, but if we start to over analyze the meaning of a definition then everything loses any kind of actual meaning.

    That's why I brought up the "Solo Friendly" example.
    Even "Solo Friendly" could mean different things to different people, but common sense tell us there is a mainstream meaning attached to it.
    When we say that WoW IS "Solo Friendly" and EQ is NOT, most people would agree.
    When we say that WoW IS "Alt Friendly" and EQ is NOT, most people would agree.
    (By te way I am talking about Vanilla EQ and its first few expansions)

    Then of course you can twist and stretch the meaning of the term to suit your argument, but quite frankly you could do that with any kind of definition if you try hard enough.
    That doesn't make it right though.

    Kyleran

  • svannsvann Member RarePosts: 2,202
    They never said it wasnt solo friendly.  Thats just some people's interpretation based on what they wanted to hear.

    1. They said it is more focused on groups, but:
    2. They also said if you log in and your friends arent online then you will always be able to find something to do solo.  That is obviously catering to soloing even if it isnt the main focus.  If it was unfriendly to solo content then they couldnt have said #2.



  • ste2000ste2000 Member EpicPosts: 6,194
    edited July 2017
    svann said:
    They never said it wasnt solo friendly.  Thats just some people's interpretation based on what they wanted to hear.

    1. They said it is more focused on groups, but:
    2. They also said if you log in and your friends arent online then you will always be able to find something to do solo.  That is obviously catering to soloing even if it isnt the main focus.  If it was unfriendly to solo content then they couldnt have said #2.



    And that's also what I said in another post.

    ste2000 said:

    When people asked VR if Pantheon was "Solo Friendly" you gave the correct answer.
    No it is not "Solo Friendly", but you can Solo although it is not as easy or efficient as playing in Group.


    Some of you guys have very loose concept of the meaning of "Friendly".
    For you everything that isn't "Unfriendly" it's automatically "Friendly"....you know that for everything there is the "Neutral" stance, it doesn't nevessarily have to be one or the other.

    Just because I say that you are not "ugly", that doesn't necessarily mean that you are "handsome".
    Or shall we use the term "Handsome" for everyone that is not "Ugly"?
    Let's not trivialize words please.

    Kyleran

  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 9,848
    Here's the thing guys. Without amazing pvp systems Pantheon will be a extremely nich. It wont reach more than 150k total players. That's even being a bit optimistic...
    MrMelGibson
  • postlarvalpostlarval Member EpicPosts: 2,003
    If they can make all of that happen, then the game will be awesome. However, that's a lot of big ticket times and my skepticism these days says I should take a wait-and-see attitude.

    I really like the idea that they will go cross-platform, which seems to be a trend these days. Adding a Linux client would round that out -- if you can produce a macOS client, then Linux isn't that much of a stretch, IMO.

    One more MMO on Mac means I'm one step closer to throwing my Windows machine in the trash. That will be a glorious day.
    KyleranMrMelGibson
    ______________________________________________________________________
    ~~ postlarval ~~

  • drivendawndrivendawn Member RarePosts: 2,127
    Just wanted to respectfully disagree about alt friendly meaning fast and easy lvling to end game. To me this just means you can easily make multiple characters with little to no restrictions and play through as you wish. Also a solo friendly game doesn't make it not old school as EQ wasn't the only old school design for MMO's.
  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    edited July 2017
    Just wanted to respectfully disagree about alt friendly meaning fast and easy lvling to end game. To me this just means you can easily make multiple characters with little to no restrictions and play through as you wish. Also a solo friendly game doesn't make it not old school as EQ wasn't the only old school design for MMO's.
    I have to disagree with that as there's no real point in making alts if it's a long/hard process to level just one toon, not in a progression based design anyway.. As you'd never truly get anywhere on any of them if you keep starting over. Unless we're talking over years and years of playing (which isn't alt friendly by any means as most won't play that long to begin with). Most alt friendly designs simply mean it isn't a long tedious slog to get through the leveling process with lots of vertical progression, nothing else really makes logical sense. GW1 is an alt friendly design, ESO as released was not ( if you planned on maxing out the end level points grind). 

    Pantheon and games of this sort are all about Progression, content will be gated behind progression be it level based or gear based. What's the point in having a bunch of toons that can't do anything because you're spending a bunch of time moving from toon to toon? Alt friendly implies the normal everyday player can get somewhere with multiple toons, not just those who play 22 hours a day.


    drivendawnste2000KyleranMrMelGibson

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,510
    ste2000 said:
    Kilsin said:

    I just try to get the most accurate and up to date information out there so people can make the best decisions and discuss the latest most accurate topics.

    When someone puts an opinion forward and states it as fact or works hard to argue in favour of their "idea", it can be the cause of many arguments and negativity.
    Your superficial way to label things create more negativity than else, though in this case it is not your fault as you just copy/pasted informations found in the official FAQs.
    "Alt Friendly" does't mean what you and VR think it means.

    The people who are asking you if the game is "Alt Friendly" are not asking you if the game is going to be boring when they play an Alt, they just want to know if it will be easy in Pantheon to make lots of Alts (easy like in WoW), they are Altoholics, and all they care is how fast they can level so they can make more Alts.
    If it takes 5-6 months to level an Alt, that's not "Alt Friendly" in their view no matter how good the content is, and they will be terribly disappointed for being mislead.

    I suggest you guys are more careful when you use catchy terminology or it could easily backfire instead of helping your cause.
    Or you can just ignore the advice and suffer the consequences later when thousands of disappointed players flood the Internet Forums with negativity, complaining that they've been mislead.
    Good luck trying to arginate that kind of flood.

    Kilsin said:


    When someone puts an opinion forward and states it as fact or works hard to argue in favour of their "idea", it can be the cause of many arguments and negativity, I just try to make sure you all have the most accurate information possible to try and minimise that, what you do with that information is your prerogative, my friend.


    That's cool, you are entitled to do so, it is your job and your duty.
    But while you do so try not to discredit the very people who are helping raising awareness of Pantheon on this Forum, it could be counter productive.
    Obviously it's not always easy to provide the right information not being part of the Dev Team, but most of us mean well and deserve more credit.

    You are a PR person and you should know the way you communicate things are as important as the message itself.
    Whether there will be negativity or not around Pantheon it's up to you and how you deal with the criticism and the people on this Forum...It's all on you, my friend.

    It's a rare day when I agree with @Ste2000, but in this case, I do.  Maybe one of us is having a 'missing medications' type day.

    I love it when people plaster the 'Pantheon Difference' section from the Pantheon website in response to a criticism or contrary opinion; it's always good for a laugh.  That information being quoted as a 'bible' by some is possibly more vague than even the original EQ documentation, which promised 'Enchanters as masters of crafting' and 'druids, shaman and clerics being interchangeable as healers'.  The language in some sections could be used to describe almost any MMORPG, or support almost any idea or implementation the developers should want to incorporate.

    There aren't details.  Promises are built on details.  I've felt that VR communications have already done worlds of harm to themselves by misleading their potential customers with vague, inaccurate descriptions that trigger their imaginations.  This practice can only lead to failed expectations.  Generally, when a customer's expectations aren't met, that is soon to be an ex-customer.

    Pantheon, with its pay-to-participate forum and now PR staff trying to control the message, may be hurting themselves by simply trying too hard to avoid criticism.  That they want only 'yes-men' on their forum is one thing, but trying to enforce a single interpretation on another forum, is, well, reprehensible.  If VR wants to describe a feature in such a way that there is no alternative position or idea, then describe it that way -- with details, not vagueness.  A development team should deal with 3 possibilities, "I want that", "I don't want that", and "I'll need to see it work before deciding", never "What does that mean".  Pantheon is surrounded by too much "What does that mean", and that's all on them.
    ste2000MrMelGibsonDullahandcutbi001

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • drivendawndrivendawn Member RarePosts: 2,127
    Distopia said:
    Just wanted to respectfully disagree about alt friendly meaning fast and easy lvling to end game. To me this just means you can easily make multiple characters with little to no restrictions and play through as you wish. Also a solo friendly game doesn't make it not old school as EQ wasn't the only old school design for MMO's.
    I have to disagree with that as there's no real point in making alts if it's a long/hard process to level just one toon, not in a progression based design anyway.. As you'd never truly get anywhere on any of them if you keep starting over. Unless we're talking over years and years of playing (which isn't alt friendly by any means as most won't play that long to begin with). Most alt friendly designs simply mean it isn't a long tedious slog to get through the leveling process with lots of vertical progression, nothing else really makes logical sense. GW1 is an alt friendly design, ESO as released was not ( if you planned on maxing out the end level points grind). 

    Pantheon and games of this sort are all about Progression, content will be gated behind progression be it level based or gear based. What's the point in having a bunch of toons that can't do anything because you're spending a bunch of time moving from toon to toon? Alt friendly implies the normal everyday player can get somewhere with multiple toons, not just those who play 22 hours a day.


    I see what you mean and will concede that point as you have laid it out very well there. When I think about the Progeny system will make it even less alt. friendly. 
     
    MrMelGibson
  • Brald_IronheartBrald_Ironheart Member UncommonPosts: 119
    edited July 2017
    @ste2000 - Yes, I suppose the first thing that might occur to many mmorpg players when they hear the term "Alt-Friendly" is that it won't be hard to level more than one character. 
    Post edited by Brald_Ironheart on
    ste2000
    Roleplayinn.com - New forum for people who love role-playing of all kinds - tabletop/pencil & paper, live-action, and role-playing in mmorpgs.
  • ste2000ste2000 Member EpicPosts: 6,194
    edited July 2017
    I see what you mean and will concede that point as you have laid it out very well there. When I think about the Progeny system will make it even less alt. friendly. 
     
    Yep this is the point of the whole "Alt Friendly" discussion.
    Pantheon is not "Alt Friendly", even if the FAQs say so, because the rest of the design doesn't match with the "Alt Friendly" philosophy.

    In Pantheon you can make Alts and enjoy leveling them, that can be true, but the whole design is not built to make you want to have many Alts, you will probably focus on 2-3 characters.
    With the Progeny System it makes even less sense claiming the game is "Alt Friendly".

  • jpedrote52jpedrote52 Member UncommonPosts: 112
    @Mendel

    "There aren't details.  Promises are built on details.  I've felt that VR communications have already done worlds of harm to themselves by misleading their potential customers with vague, inaccurate descriptions that trigger their imaginations.  This practice can only lead to failed expectations.  Generally, when a customer's expectations aren't met, that is soon to be an ex-customer."

    There aren't any details because nothing is set in stone, testing is yet to begin, and providing detailed information of systems not yet tested or mechanics not yet implemented will lead to massive speculation, with no form of testing the actual game and giving reliable feedback. This will only damage the development of the game and will render all feedback useless because no-one actually tested the game, only speculated about the outcome. This would do fuck all for the game development. That's why no much information is available. Once the game enters Alpha and Beta feedback and critics will be relevant again because there's first hand knowledge and experience with the mechanics and systems of the game.

    Failed expectation are inevitable in video-games, things could always be better, that's why having long testing phases will help shape the game in a way that will please most backers, feedback and input about specific situations and mechanics is a lot more valuable when the testers actually have access to the game and has I said before releasing info just to appease the masses will only result in a shit-hole of arguing over details and mechanics that no-one has tested result in completely useless feedback.

  • ste2000ste2000 Member EpicPosts: 6,194
    edited July 2017
    Mendel said:

    It's a rare day when I agree with @Ste2000, but in this case, I do.  Maybe one of us is having a 'missing medications' type day.

    There aren't details.  Promises are built on details.  I've felt that VR communications have already done worlds of harm to themselves by misleading their potential customers with vague, inaccurate descriptions that trigger their imaginations.  This practice can only lead to failed expectations.  Generally, when a customer's expectations aren't met, that is soon to be an ex-customer.

    Unfortunately most Devs still struggle with this concept.
    Failed expectations is what create negativity around a game, SotA is the latest example.
    If you claim a game is going to be UO spiritual successor, it better be.
    People hold you accountable for your wild claims, and rightly so.

    What @Kilsin doesn't understand is that I am trying to help them by setting the record straight, telling what kind of game Pantheon is going to be, without using fancy PR words which could be easily misinterpreted by the majority of the players.
    I am not here to sell the game, unlike him, so I am gonna be honest about it.
    But I want this game to succeed (badly) so I will keep all the PR claims in check and translate it into plain English so people don't get bamboozled by fancy words.
    And by doing so, I am actually doing VR a big favor.

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Distopia said:
    Just wanted to respectfully disagree about alt friendly meaning fast and easy lvling to end game. To me this just means you can easily make multiple characters with little to no restrictions and play through as you wish. Also a solo friendly game doesn't make it not old school as EQ wasn't the only old school design for MMO's.
    I have to disagree with that as there's no real point in making alts if it's a long/hard process to level just one toon, not in a progression based design anyway.. As you'd never truly get anywhere on any of them if you keep starting over. Unless we're talking over years and years of playing (which isn't alt friendly by any means as most won't play that long to begin with). Most alt friendly designs simply mean it isn't a long tedious slog to get through the leveling process with lots of vertical progression, nothing else really makes logical sense. GW1 is an alt friendly design, ESO as released was not ( if you planned on maxing out the end level points grind). 

    Pantheon and games of this sort are all about Progression, content will be gated behind progression be it level based or gear based. What's the point in having a bunch of toons that can't do anything because you're spending a bunch of time moving from toon to toon? Alt friendly implies the normal everyday player can get somewhere with multiple toons, not just those who play 22 hours a day.


    I see what you mean and will concede that point as you have laid it out very well there. When I think about the Progeny system will make it even less alt. friendly. 
     
    Yep when the chief component of a game is constant progression, which I'm sure will be an ongoing thing in Pantheon's future updates, it simply hurts the viability of alts for the average player. That's something for the dedicated hardcore crowd in such a game. Everyone else will be having a hard enough time progressing one character through such systems. 

    ste2000KyleranMrMelGibson

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • drivendawndrivendawn Member RarePosts: 2,127
    Distopia said:
    Distopia said:
    Just wanted to respectfully disagree about alt friendly meaning fast and easy lvling to end game. To me this just means you can easily make multiple characters with little to no restrictions and play through as you wish. Also a solo friendly game doesn't make it not old school as EQ wasn't the only old school design for MMO's.
    I have to disagree with that as there's no real point in making alts if it's a long/hard process to level just one toon, not in a progression based design anyway.. As you'd never truly get anywhere on any of them if you keep starting over. Unless we're talking over years and years of playing (which isn't alt friendly by any means as most won't play that long to begin with). Most alt friendly designs simply mean it isn't a long tedious slog to get through the leveling process with lots of vertical progression, nothing else really makes logical sense. GW1 is an alt friendly design, ESO as released was not ( if you planned on maxing out the end level points grind). 

    Pantheon and games of this sort are all about Progression, content will be gated behind progression be it level based or gear based. What's the point in having a bunch of toons that can't do anything because you're spending a bunch of time moving from toon to toon? Alt friendly implies the normal everyday player can get somewhere with multiple toons, not just those who play 22 hours a day.


    I see what you mean and will concede that point as you have laid it out very well there. When I think about the Progeny system will make it even less alt. friendly. 
     
    Yep when the chief component of a game is constant progression, which I'm sure will be an ongoing thing in Pantheon's future updates, it simply hurts the viability of alts for the average player. That's something for the dedicated hardcore crowd in such a game. Everyone else will be having a hard enough time progressing one character through such systems. 

    I will admit that is why I loved classless systems like AC and FFXI's all classes on one character approach. Not that I am asking for that here as VR has already ruled those ideas out.
    DistopiaMrMelGibson
  • svannsvann Member RarePosts: 2,202
    edited July 2017
    Alt-friendly doesnt necessarily mean easy leveling.

    If you reach end game and have nothing left to do except play on alts thats not alt friendly.  Thats a poor design resulting in players playing classes they didnt want to.
  • KilsinKilsin Member RarePosts: 507
    ste2000 said:
    Kilsin said:
    ste2000 said:



    It isn't superficial by any means, "Alt Friendly" generally means the ability to create and play an alternate character.  You will have extra character slots in Pantheon and the ability to create alternate characters, therefore we are alt friendly. It's as simple as that, my friend.

    Nope it doesn't mean that.
    Every MMORPG allows you to have Alts, therefore they are all "Alt Friendly"?
    The "Friendly" bit means that it is easier than other games to make Alts, so since all the MMORPG let you create Alts, being "Alt Friendly" means that some games make it easier than others.

    It's the same with the "Solo Friendly" definition.
    All MMORPGs offers some kind of Solo play, but some focus more on Solo Content than others therefore they are labeled "Solo Friendly".
    When people asked VR if Pantheon was "Solo Friendly" you gave the correct answer.
    No it is not "Solo Friendly", but you can Solo although it is not as easy or efficient as playing in Group.

    That's the answer you should have given regarding the "Alt Friendly" definition.
    Pantheon is not "Alt Friendly", but it is possible to have several Alts if you put enough dedication.

    Why when people ask if Pantheon is "Solo Friendly" you (as VR) say it isn't, while if someone ask you if it is "Alt Friendly" you say that it is?
    Both things are possible in Pantheon, but both are not the focus of the game.
    So it's either both of the things are "Friendly" or none of them are.
    Simple as that.

    Can you link me the definition of alt friendly then, please? As it seems we both have different understandings of the meaning. 

    In my personal experience, I have always interpreted it as being able to create and play alts without limitations/restrictions and I base my experience on a wide range of games over the years (like most of us) but I am mainly referring to EQ and VG. Both of those games allowed me to create alts with little to no restrictions, so in my mind, they were alt friendly, I could switch to them whenever I wanted, create a decent number of them and both games had enormous grinds, locked/keyed content, faction grinds, raiding, focus on character progression and yet I still managed to have fun playing my alternate characters without being hindered or restricted so I would love to see what you are basing your statement on that shows I am wrong.
    svanndcutbi001Kiori001

    Community & Web Manager | Visionary Realms, Inc.
    Visit our Development Website. | Facebook | Twitter

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    edited July 2017
    Kilsin said:


    In my personal experience, I have always interpreted it as being able to create and play alts without limitations/restrictions and I base my experience on a wide range of games over the years (like most of us) but I am mainly referring to EQ and VG. Both of those games allowed me to create alts with little to no restrictions, so in my mind, they were alt friendly, 

    When I think "friendly" be it casual friendly, solo friendly, Alt friendly. I think there's an abundance of game to enjoy for those people, a truly worth while experience where you're not going to be left wanting more. Because if that's not true those people would be better off in another game. 

    Alt friendly just seems to logically suggest that alts are a worthwhile practice to get into. Yet that's really not the case if the design itself requires lots of progression to get to the best parts of the game, be it dungeons, PVP, or what have you. When a game offers lots of progression and gates things behind it, the most friendly way to play is on one character. 

    Considering that where would you say Pantheon sits in all of this? Doable for the average player to make alts and get the best experience, or more worthwhile to focus on one toon if you want to see the bread and butter of the game?

    This is especially an important factor when it comes to the game's progression, in terms of expansions, if they're the type that constantly raises the leveling curve it gets even less alt friendly. 
    MrMelGibson

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • svannsvann Member RarePosts: 2,202
    edited July 2017
    Distopia said:
    Kilsin said:


    In my personal experience, I have always interpreted it as being able to create and play alts without limitations/restrictions and I base my experience on a wide range of games over the years (like most of us) but I am mainly referring to EQ and VG. Both of those games allowed me to create alts with little to no restrictions, so in my mind, they were alt friendly, 

    When I think "friendly" be it casual friendly, solo friendly, Alt friendly. I think there's an abundance of game to enjoy for those people, a truly worth while experience where you're not going to be left wanting more. Because if that's not true those people would be better off in another game. 

    Alt friendly just seems to logically suggest that alts are a worthwhile practice to get into. Yet that's really not the case if the design itself requires lots of progression to get to the best parts of the game, be it dungeons, PVP, or what have you.
     The entire journey should be fun not just the end game, and from what I hear Pantheon is aiming for that.  So because the entire game is fun (beginning, middle and end) it should be just as fun to start a new character since he doesnt necessarily have to get to end game to have fun.
    Kilsindcutbi001Kiori001
  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    edited July 2017
    svann said:
    Distopia said:
    Kilsin said:


    In my personal experience, I have always interpreted it as being able to create and play alts without limitations/restrictions and I base my experience on a wide range of games over the years (like most of us) but I am mainly referring to EQ and VG. Both of those games allowed me to create alts with little to no restrictions, so in my mind, they were alt friendly, 

    When I think "friendly" be it casual friendly, solo friendly, Alt friendly. I think there's an abundance of game to enjoy for those people, a truly worth while experience where you're not going to be left wanting more. Because if that's not true those people would be better off in another game. 

    Alt friendly just seems to logically suggest that alts are a worthwhile practice to get into. Yet that's really not the case if the design itself requires lots of progression to get to the best parts of the game, be it dungeons, PVP, or what have you.
     The entire journey should be fun not just the end game, and from what I hear Pantheon is aiming for that.  So because the entire game is fun (beginning, middle and end) it should be just as fun to start a new character since he doesnt necessarily have to get to end game to have fun.




    Let's put it this way, a game like ESO as it is now offers what you're saying, because nothing at all is behind a progression wall. Not even it's expansions/DLC. So it's really not problematic to split your focus across many things. You can do anything you want at any time. 

    When hard progression gates are in play all of that changes. You have set areas to play in, those areas will have different content options, yes, but it's all tied into progression, especially if it's a gear based game. You'll be worthless for groups if you're not keeping your character up to the standards required to tackle the next tier of content. ALl of this implies grind. The more of that there is the less alt friendly it is by default. 

    Hence why I asked the question I did, because rather than argue about the subjective meanings of terms, we might as well get to the important point... Is pantheon a constant game of progression, will it be a constant game of progression going forward? Put another way: Is the goal here a game of soft caps that constantly rise in height as well as challenge or hard caps that aren't so hard to reach? that seems to be the real question that started this debate.  


    MrMelGibsonKyleran

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    svann said:

     The entire journey should be fun not just the end game, and from what I hear Pantheon is aiming for that.  So because the entire game is fun (beginning, middle and end) it should be just as fun to start a new character since he doesnt necessarily have to get to end game to have fun.
    I also wanted to hit on a separate matter here. The expectation of it all being worthwhile and engaging, I don't expect that, I really don't think anyone should. At best by nature of the model there are going to be at least slightly generic grindy bits, that are usually best experienced only once. That's the very nature of progression in these games. Not to mention the damn near impossible feat of offering hundreds of hours of compelling content.  
    MrMelGibsonKyleran

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • drivendawndrivendawn Member RarePosts: 2,127
    Distopia said:
    svann said:

     The entire journey should be fun not just the end game, and from what I hear Pantheon is aiming for that.  So because the entire game is fun (beginning, middle and end) it should be just as fun to start a new character since he doesnt necessarily have to get to end game to have fun.
    I also wanted to hit on a separate matter here. The expectation of it all being worthwhile and engaging, I don't expect that, I really don't think anyone should. At best by nature of the model there are going to be at least slightly generic grindy bits, that are usually best experienced only once. That's the very nature of progression in these games. Not to mention the damn near impossible feat of offering hundreds of hours of compelling content.  
    This is true but I will say with multiple factions (as Pantheon will have) it can help for a new beginner experience. As you start in other zones with some different quests, even story lines and lore and such.
    DistopiaMrMelGibson
  • ste2000ste2000 Member EpicPosts: 6,194
    edited July 2017
    Kilsin said:
    ste2000 said:

    Can you link me the definition of alt friendly then, please? As it seems we both have different understandings of the meaning. 

    In my personal experience, I have always interpreted it as being able to create and play alts without limitations/restrictions and I base my experience on a wide range of games over the years (like most of us) but I am mainly referring to EQ and VG. Both of those games allowed me to create alts with little to no restrictions, so in my mind, they were alt friendly, I could switch to them whenever I wanted, create a decent number of them and both games had enormous grinds, locked/keyed content, faction grinds, raiding, focus on character progression and yet I still managed to have fun playing my alternate characters without being hindered or restricted so I would love to see what you are basing your statement on that shows I am wrong.
    Basically you are describing almost any MMORPG out there, making them all "Alt Friendly", therefore the definition loses its purpose.
    Since you seems to have such a loose concept of the word "Friendly" we might as well claim that Pantheon is "Solo Friendly", "Casual Friendly", "Sandbox Friendly" and "PvP Friendly"... I mean why not?
    Anything can be done in the game in one way or the other, let's just call Pantheon "THE Friendly Game" shall we?

    Seriously though, you wouldn't say Pantheon is "Solo Friendly" even if we all know that you can Solo, and even though it is not as efficient as playing in Group.
    So why you say Pantheon is "Alt Friendly" only because it is possible to make and level few Alts?
    Just because the game is NOT "Alt Unfriendly" doesn't make it automatically "Alt Friendly", the same can be said for games that are NOT "Solo Unfriendly" doesn't make the game suddenly "Solo Friendly" there is also a "Neutral" Stance in between which is where Pantheon sits in both cases.
    On top of that, Pantheon has also a Progeny System which clearly invites you to keep playing the same character, so claiming that Pantheon is "Alt Friendly" makes even less sense.

    Anyway I don't want to keep repeating myself, I think I hijacked the thread long enough.
    I invite you to read all my posts and also Distopia and Mendel posts which cover the issue comprehensively.
    If you still don't understand what the fuss is about, I don't know what else to say, everyone else seem to have understood the point by now.

    DistopiaKyleran

Sign In or Register to comment.