Howdy, Stranger!

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

Pantheon Paladin - First Game Play

13»

Comments

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • asteldiancaliskanasteldiancaliskan Member UncommonPosts: 58
    I think it is a stretch to say EQ1 was the start of the tragic mmo trend, really only so far as its success could be the cause of WoW being made. EQ1 gamestyle is as dead as any game you mentioned, whereas the WoW style, while a shell of its former self, is very much apparent in modern mmos.

    You raise an interesting point with the other games and an arguement could be made for going back to basics with them as a foundation (though if you are right that there are not enough EQ based fans to allow Pantheon to flourish, then sadly i doubt these would have much luck). Now you could argue taking a game back to basics and using all the games listed as a template may offer a bigger pool of players, but trying to cherry pick from games with very different fanbases would risk not satisfying any of them.

    I think Eq: EE is an unfair appraisal, though i understand why it is made (and i know some die hard fans would want exactly that) because it is the foundation of the combat style. But while principles are the same, i see a lot more Vanguard in the actual in combat gameplay (which is great for me because i thought VG gameplay was amazing if you got the game to run, my main criticism is that it could have done with a touch more EQ rather than the more typical games of the time). Strategic combat is not enough, being interactive is hugely important, and simply having a skill bar goes a long way to improving on EQ.

    You are right that EQ had little going for it beyond combat (and if you were melee that was hardly more than auto attack) and since combat is one of the few things partially ready to showcase i can see why an enhanced EQ is all some see. But if you expand a EQ/VG combat with a deep crafting system (i know we haven't seen that so its nothing more than words, but VG crafting system was pretty popular and I would be surprised if it wasn't at least at that standard) and you start going beyond a combat simulator.

    For me, EQ: EE would be disappointing, though still better than anything currently out there, but an EQ/VG baby without the epic failure of performance would be a perfect mmo. It may seem crazy wanting to take inspiration from an epic failure, but piss poor performance and therefore reviews kept many from experiencing a game that did amazingly well at balancing more modern style gameplay with a more community driven group focused game (though even it felt a bit closer to vanilla wow than EQ)

    I think at the moment, i agree with people's opinion that there is little of interest for those outside the EQ fanbase, so sceptical is pretty expected. But i am confident (maybe naively optimistic) that come closer to release, playing it will feel like more than simply a homage an old game. It will still be niche, but more broad than just us old, has been gamers.
    I think the focus on EQ gameplay is because it is an obvious fanbase to tap into as they understand what the games principles are about (if someone hasn't experienced it, slower combat and downtime has no appeal at all, and of course to plenty who have it holds no appeal either). As time goes on they will likely widen the focus and show why people who don't understand the appeal may want to give the game a try. Or i could be wrong and giving more credit than deservered.

    Anyway, i talk too much, so the end!
  • The user and all related content has been deleted.

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • kitaradkitarad Member LegendaryPosts: 8,028
    edited September 2018
    The issue with performance though is their chosen engine. Unity is one of the worst engines for creating a large scale multiplayer experience. Unless they also go with the 20 year old design of zone zone zone. Even in that case no amount of adjustment in the back end will fix it. I have worked with a number of teams with a number of different engines including Unity it is a terrible decision of choice.  Performance was a concern for Vanguard it will be worse or no better than with Unity. It’s a cheap solution that unfortunately will create a cheap experience. 
    I think given their budget and limited scope people are pinning too much on the shoulders of such a small ill funded and developed game. 
    I certainly hope not. Vanguard was absolutely dreadful I beta tested and played it after launch it was truly a bad experience as far as the horrible chunking and other issues that plagued it. 

    These days I am even less tolerant.

  • TEKK3NTEKK3N Member RarePosts: 1,115

    Great post. You managed to make valid and cogent points without resorting to implications of a negative or personal nature. =)

    I think many skeptics for this game, myself included, do not deny there is a group of players looking to play Everquest: Enhanced Edition. I think the big question is how many of them are out there really?
    But see that is the issue.
    That's all you guys talk about.
    Why are you so keen in convincing people that there aren't enough players interested in this kind of game?
    I just don't get it, what's in it for you?

    If a new player comes to this forums and read all your doom and gloom posts on how no one will play this game (with not facts to present), chances are that this player might just scrap Pantheon from his short list.
    I don't know, that's what you want.
    I know you have a beef with Brad Mcquaid, can't you just let it go?

    I repeat, no one knows how many players could be really interested in playing Pantheon.
    No one knows, I don't, you don't.
    How about we wait until it launch and then we can verify it?
    Just a thought.

  • TEKK3NTEKK3N Member RarePosts: 1,115
    Kyleran said:
    Then I guess I can only suggest waiting till the game is further along in development. Pantheon doesn't have $200 million to burn and so the pace of development may not go as quickly as we'd like.
    Apparently even with $200M there is no guarantee of quicker delivery.

    I'll just have to go play one of the other indie MMOs that's almost ready to launch

    Oh wait....nm

    :)
    Totally true, but VR actually does not have that kind of money (not even kickstart money), so at least VR should get the benefit of the doubt.

    We shouldn't put Pantheon and Star Citizen on the same level IMO, I don't think the expectation should be the same.
    I compare Pantheon with Crowfall, Camelot U, CoE and SotA.
    And in my view they are doing a pretty good job compared to those 4, considering they raised less money .

    Maybe you don't trust Brad Mcquaid, but Chris Perkins, the Game director, looks like down to earth and a serious guy.
    It doesn't make big announcements or empty promises like others. He is working in silence and, in my opinion he is delivering what people expect from a game like Pantheon.

  • MendelMendel Member LegendaryPosts: 5,609
    TEKK3N said:

    Great post. You managed to make valid and cogent points without resorting to implications of a negative or personal nature. =)

    I think many skeptics for this game, myself included, do not deny there is a group of players looking to play Everquest: Enhanced Edition. I think the big question is how many of them are out there really?
    But see that is the issue.
    That's all you guys talk about.
    Why are you so keen in convincing people that there aren't enough players interested in this kind of game?
    I just don't get it, what's in it for you?

    If a new player comes to this forums and read all your doom and gloom posts on how no one will play this game (with not facts to present), chances are that this player might just scrap Pantheon from his short list.
    I don't know, that's what you want.
    I know you have a beef with Brad Mcquaid, can't you just let it go?

    I repeat, no one knows how many players could be really interested in playing Pantheon.
    No one knows, I don't, you don't.
    How about we wait until it launch and then we can verify it?
    Just a thought.

    I agree.  No one knows how many people are in this market demographic.  I've never said otherwise.  VR is pinning a lot of hope that this number is large enough and that they can capture enough to be a sustainable, viable company.

    But, VR doesn't have to do a single thing in order for people to avoid their game.  It may be ignorance, misunderstanding, unformed or wrong perceptions.  What VR does need to do is attract people to this older mechanic.  All too often, people on this board have replied to my concerns that "they will come".  I haven't seen VR doing anything to appeal to anyone other than the core EQ player from 1999.  Even those core-EQ players who might really enjoy Pantheon that have buried themselves into other games need to be notified.  (MMORPG.com and other industry sites aren't going to attract the 'wayward' customer back into the folds of Pantheon.  VR is going to need to do this work themselves).

    Maybe I'm ahead of the curve, but I don't know that VR has plans of how to attract customers to their product.  So far, they've seemed to take a "Field of Dreams" approach - "build it, and people will come".  The game play as seen in the streams isn't likely to attract anyone except the hard core audience that, as you point out (and I have addressed many times) is an unknown quantity.  Does VR have access to industry inside information that proves both the size and interest level of this market?  Maybe they do, but then again, maybe they don't.  They are simply taking the stance that 'EQ1/VG was good; anything else was bad".  When this design philosophy excludes WoW and any/every thing they did, I think it presents a very fair question -- who are the people they hope to play and where are they now?

    It's entirely possible that I'm completely wrong.  However, at this time, the question is still fair.  Sure, it plays a bit at armchair businessman rather than an armchair designer, but design doesn't drive the industry, business practices do.  That's partly why the industry has drifted from the purchase plus subscription model towards cash shops.  There have been precious few marketing campaigns for MMORPG products, something that mobile games have adopted wholeheartedly.  Consequently, mobile games have vast numbers of people playing (and paying) their games, while MMORPGs seem to struggle to capture a sustainable number of customers.

    I ask this question, not because I have 'information' to back up the negative position, nor from any malice towards Pantheon.  I ask because I haven't seen VR address this and in hopes that someone can point me at some obscure game where there are hundreds of thousands of former EQ1 players waiting for an 'EQ with improved graphics'.  I'd like to know of such an enclave.

    VR is betting on capturing a sizable group of people to play their game.  I'm simply pointing out that this is a risk to the project, something that VR will need to address at some time.  Maybe it's not time for a strong marketing campaign.  I haven't heard of plans that VR has to market their product.  Maybe someone knows.  The "Gabbo is coming" type campaign may seem silly, but it can be effective.



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

  • WellspringWellspring Member EpicPosts: 1,464
    Mendel said:
    TEKK3N said:

    Great post. You managed to make valid and cogent points without resorting to implications of a negative or personal nature. =)

    I think many skeptics for this game, myself included, do not deny there is a group of players looking to play Everquest: Enhanced Edition. I think the big question is how many of them are out there really?
    But see that is the issue.
    That's all you guys talk about.
    Why are you so keen in convincing people that there aren't enough players interested in this kind of game?
    I just don't get it, what's in it for you?

    If a new player comes to this forums and read all your doom and gloom posts on how no one will play this game (with not facts to present), chances are that this player might just scrap Pantheon from his short list.
    I don't know, that's what you want.
    I know you have a beef with Brad Mcquaid, can't you just let it go?

    I repeat, no one knows how many players could be really interested in playing Pantheon.
    No one knows, I don't, you don't.
    How about we wait until it launch and then we can verify it?
    Just a thought.

    I agree.  No one knows how many people are in this market demographic.  I've never said otherwise.  VR is pinning a lot of hope that this number is large enough and that they can capture enough to be a sustainable, viable company.

    But, VR doesn't have to do a single thing in order for people to avoid their game.  It may be ignorance, misunderstanding, unformed or wrong perceptions.  What VR does need to do is attract people to this older mechanic.  All too often, people on this board have replied to my concerns that "they will come".  I haven't seen VR doing anything to appeal to anyone other than the core EQ player from 1999.  Even those core-EQ players who might really enjoy Pantheon that have buried themselves into other games need to be notified.  (MMORPG.com and other industry sites aren't going to attract the 'wayward' customer back into the folds of Pantheon.  VR is going to need to do this work themselves).

    Maybe I'm ahead of the curve, but I don't know that VR has plans of how to attract customers to their product.  So far, they've seemed to take a "Field of Dreams" approach - "build it, and people will come".  The game play as seen in the streams isn't likely to attract anyone except the hard core audience that, as you point out (and I have addressed many times) is an unknown quantity.  Does VR have access to industry inside information that proves both the size and interest level of this market?  Maybe they do, but then again, maybe they don't.  They are simply taking the stance that 'EQ1/VG was good; anything else was bad".  When this design philosophy excludes WoW and any/every thing they did, I think it presents a very fair question -- who are the people they hope to play and where are they now?

    It's entirely possible that I'm completely wrong.  However, at this time, the question is still fair.  Sure, it plays a bit at armchair businessman rather than an armchair designer, but design doesn't drive the industry, business practices do.  That's partly why the industry has drifted from the purchase plus subscription model towards cash shops.  There have been precious few marketing campaigns for MMORPG products, something that mobile games have adopted wholeheartedly.  Consequently, mobile games have vast numbers of people playing (and paying) their games, while MMORPGs seem to struggle to capture a sustainable number of customers.

    I ask this question, not because I have 'information' to back up the negative position, nor from any malice towards Pantheon.  I ask because I haven't seen VR address this and in hopes that someone can point me at some obscure game where there are hundreds of thousands of former EQ1 players waiting for an 'EQ with improved graphics'.  I'd like to know of such an enclave.

    VR is betting on capturing a sizable group of people to play their game.  I'm simply pointing out that this is a risk to the project, something that VR will need to address at some time.  Maybe it's not time for a strong marketing campaign.  I haven't heard of plans that VR has to market their product.  Maybe someone knows.  The "Gabbo is coming" type campaign may seem silly, but it can be effective.



    The game is still in development. Who knows how much longer it's going to take? They haven't announced a release date.

    It does them no good to advertise to new players now, except burn money. They have secured the funding needed as of now. Any additional pledge packages at this point, are just a bonus. And most new players aren't going to pledge, but wait until they can free trial the game before buying in. Again, why try to attract new generation of players now?

    I think you're trying to put the cart before the horse. The game has a long ways to go before release. Seems silly to question their marketing strategy at this stage of the game. 

    2) Also, just because they didn't tell you their marketing plans, doesn't mean they don't have any. 

    3) has VR said anywhere they needed hundreds of thousands of players to be sustainable? They've always said this is a game with a small niche audience. 

    4) Pointing out the risk is obvious. Obviously there is a risk they don't get enough players to be viable, but that's a risk with any game. Do you not think they took that into account from the start? This is the game Brad and his team want to make. And enough players and investors have believed in Brad's vision to fund them this far.

    I don't get it. What's your point? Why do you care if they take this risk?
    --------------------------------------------
  • WellspringWellspring Member EpicPosts: 1,464
    The issue with performance though is their chosen engine. Unity is one of the worst engines for creating a large scale multiplayer experience. Unless they also go with the 20 year old design of zone zone zone. Even in that case no amount of adjustment in the back end will fix it. I have worked with a number of teams with a number of different engines including Unity it is a terrible decision of choice.  Performance was a concern for Vanguard it will be worse or no better than with Unity. It’s a cheap solution that unfortunately will create a cheap experience. 
    I think given their budget and limited scope people are pinning too much on the shoulders of such a small ill funded and developed game. 
    No offense, but just because you and your team couldn't get Unity to perform well, doesn't mean Brad and his crew can't do it. I have much more faith in Brads dev and hiring skills than yours.

    What MMOs have you built again?
    jimmywolf
    --------------------------------------------
  • TEKK3NTEKK3N Member RarePosts: 1,115
    edited September 2018
    Mendel said:
    TEKK3N said:


    I agree.  No one knows how many people are in this market demographic.  I've never said otherwise.  VR is pinning a lot of hope that this number is large enough and that they can capture enough to be a sustainable, viable company.

    But, VR doesn't have to do a single thing in order for people to avoid their game.  It may be ignorance, misunderstanding, unformed or wrong perceptions.  What VR does need to do is attract people to this older mechanic.  All too often, people on this board have replied to my concerns that "they will come".  I haven't seen VR doing anything to appeal to anyone other than the core EQ player from 1999. 

    Your view seems more clear to me now.
    So, you are saying that even if this type of games could interest a decent amount of players, VR might not be able to reach it because, marketing.
    Or lack of it.
    And by marketing I don't mean just the expansive bit (advertising) but the whole strategy.

    I actually agree with you on that.
    Pantheon is difficult to market, there is no doubt about it.
    I really don't know how VR will go about it, I don't see Millions getting spent for advertising, that's for sure.

    Pantheon is not Twirtchable (I invented a new word I think), so that's not an option either.

    All I can say is, word of mouth and good Beta reviews.
    That's why I am against Early Access and Open Alphas, to me they just give any game a bad reputation before they can stand on their own feet.
    Pantheon should do a Closed Alpha, a Closed Beta and a short week Open Beta, when the game is ready, like the old days.
    If the open beta goes well, good reviews will come, word of mouth will spread.

    If they fuck up offering an Early Access, the game is doomed.
    Early Access is just a quick cash grab for half backed games they have no intention to finish, so those devs don't care about the negative reviews.
    VR should, they absolutely should care.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • TEKK3NTEKK3N Member RarePosts: 1,115
    Unity is not designed for MMORPGs, and has limits.
    But it can be adapted if you work on it hard enough.

    An example on how bad Unity can be for MMORPGs is SotA.
    Portalarium didn't work on it, instead they settled for a cheap work around by designing very small zones, which in my opinion is part of the reason why the game is just bad.
    At least, for me, frequent loading screens are game breaking (personal opinion).

    VR though, worked for a whole year on Unity, before starting building the game.
    I am confident that Pantheon will be in a much better place than SotA.
    Is it going to be AAA quality?
    I don't think people expect that, i certainly don't.

    Pantheon is a game that can be played even with an high ping, because of the slow combat, furthermore I don't think it requires a state of the art, last generation, engine to work as intended.
    But we shall see.
    AmatheOctagon7711
  • MendelMendel Member LegendaryPosts: 5,609
    The issue with performance though is their chosen engine. Unity is one of the worst engines for creating a large scale multiplayer experience. Unless they also go with the 20 year old design of zone zone zone. Even in that case no amount of adjustment in the back end will fix it. I have worked with a number of teams with a number of different engines including Unity it is a terrible decision of choice.  Performance was a concern for Vanguard it will be worse or no better than with Unity. It’s a cheap solution that unfortunately will create a cheap experience. 
    I think given their budget and limited scope people are pinning too much on the shoulders of such a small ill funded and developed game. 
    No offense, but just because you and your team couldn't get Unity to perform well, doesn't mean Brad and his crew can't do it. I have much more faith in Brads dev and hiring skills than yours.

    What MMOs have you built again?
    I have done work on 2 (mmo) titles and over 21 titles total with 11 having multiplayer thank you very much and this is not a question of Brad doing anything. 
    Brad is not in any way involved in how the networking is done through Unity. Daniel is. Daniel is a talented guy for sure but you can't force a round peg through a square hole. Unity was and is a poor choice. Just wait and see. You are pinning much hope on a very small budget title with very limited scope and resources. I think it is disingenuous to expect so much of this little title. I think everyone should just keep things in perspective. I hope it turns out to be everything EQ1 fan's want and more. Just try and understand what you are actually going to get. 
    The core market for this game already seems to have unrealistic expectations for Pantheon.  That is only going to disappoint the core fans.  VR isn't really doing much to manage their future customers' expectations.  I really hope that doesn't burn either VR or the fans of Pantheon.  No one needs another struggling company and these forums flooded with even more disgruntled players.  Contented players play.  Upset players post here.



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

  • asteldiancaliskanasteldiancaliskan Member UncommonPosts: 58
    To be fair, name any upcoming mmo which doesn't have its core fanbase having unrealistic expectations. Hell, Bless had released and failed twice and STILL had people eagerly awaiting release and believing it to be great this time
    Octagon7711jimmywolf
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,630
    It remains to be seen who the core fan base will be. I think we know who the intended core fan base is. And also who the pre-launch core fan base is. The actual core fan base will be the people who play the game and who keep playing it over time.
    Mendel[Deleted User]jimmywolf

    EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests

  • Tiamat64Tiamat64 Member RarePosts: 1,545
    Mendel said:

    I have done work on 2 (mmo) titles and over 21 titles total with 11 having multiplayer thank you very much and this is not a question of Brad doing anything. 
    Brad is not in any way involved in how the networking is done through Unity. Daniel is. Daniel is a talented guy for sure but you can't force a round peg through a square hole. Unity was and is a poor choice. Just wait and see. You are pinning much hope on a very small budget title with very limited scope and resources. I think it is disingenuous to expect so much of this little title. I think everyone should just keep things in perspective. I hope it turns out to be everything EQ1 fan's want and more. Just try and understand what you are actually going to get. 
    The core market for this game already seems to have unrealistic expectations for Pantheon.  That is only going to disappoint the core fans.  VR isn't really doing much to manage their future customers' expectations.  I really hope that doesn't burn either VR or the fans of Pantheon.  No one needs another struggling company and these forums flooded with even more disgruntled players.  Contented players play.  Upset players post here.



    At least in one regard, VR has already stated they expect the game to only have a small playerbase.  Many of Pantheon's white knights and fans continue to argue that the game will be the next big thing with millions of players despite the company itself saying that won't be the case.

    In the end, crazy fanboys will fan away even if the company says otherwise.


    I can't speak for how much VR has been toning down or up the hype in other aspects though since I haven't been paying that much attention to their statements. *shrug*
  • kitaradkitarad Member LegendaryPosts: 8,028
    Yes the developers of Pantheon have been very moderate about their expectations. No extravagance or expectation for a large player base. Unfortunately the fans of the game are not that wise.

  • TEKK3NTEKK3N Member RarePosts: 1,115
    edited September 2018
    kitarad said:
    Yes the developers of Pantheon have been very moderate about their expectations. No extravagance or expectation for a large player base. Unfortunately the fans of the game are not that wise.
    Honestly, I have only seen a few very out spoken fans say it would be huge success.
    Me too, but plenty of people saying the opposite.
    All you have to do is to scroll through Pantheon threads, I rarely read posts saying Pantheon will be a blockbuster, and those few posts belong to the same few people.

    Yet I invite people to count how many posts talk about how Pantheon will be a failure stating always the same tired excuse that it doesn't appeal to the cool crowd.
    And when you point that out, some get defensive, and accuse you being aggressive.

    I am really baffled frankly.
    [Deleted User]
  • kitaradkitarad Member LegendaryPosts: 8,028
    edited September 2018
    I don't pay much attention to the Pantheon threads but I have noticed a few of them. You may be right that they are the usual suspects but some are annoying enough for you to wish they would fall flat on their face but that would mean the game would fail too for that to happen which I would not like to see. I happen to want to play Pantheon very much. It's my Everquest fix. P99 is okay and I do enjoy playing there but would like a new game.

Sign In or Register to comment.