Howdy, Stranger!

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

Question for EQ1 players

1246

Comments

  • t0nydt0nyd Member UncommonPosts: 504
    edited October 2018
    DMKano said:
    t0nyd said:
    DMKano said:
    One of the concerns of extremely specialized classes is the ‘we can’t run X content because we don’t have X class’ Brad even voice this concern himself as did Clover
     (the real brains behind EQ1 and Vanguard.)
    In theory it works well but it requires a large and diverse population to pull off among other things.
    Even then it can create challenges for the player base. Hopefully Pantheon and all the other class based mmos  coming out can avoid those pitfalls. 


    I personally love Rifts solution - allow every base class to fulfill any role via changing what spec skill trees they use.

    Have a group with 2 tanks but no healer - no problem - have one switch spec to healer


     For some reason I dislike changing specs with a button click. I enjoy creating characters more than actually playing most rpg. I dislike how everyone can do everything. Id rather make a character thats either good at one thing or ok at most things. If I run into something hard, I hate being able to click a button to change my build, then defeat that mob or player. 

     I do like that with Rift, every class can do nearly everything. I just dont like being able to change a characters role on the fly or really at all. 


    You pretty much have to go for flexibility (any class can change to the desired role) - avoids having to waste time to find every role for a party (in low pop games this can be a real issue - looking to find  a healer for hours)

    OR

    Uniqueness - every class has 100% defined role - but lack of flexibility can be a real downer for groups in situations where you are missing that one group member


    Can't have it both ways sadly - longterm IMO flexibility wins out as far as longevity of the game.
     I disagree entirely. I dont care if its hard to find a group. I also dont care for forced flexibility. I also dont care for what you describe as uniqueness. Your definition of unique is my definition of generic. 

      I see no problem with any class being able to pick any role to whatever degree they want. Want a mage that can main tank, Sure. Want a mage that can off tank but deals ok damage, sure. Want a priest that can melee and off heal, sure. Want a mage that can sit in the back line, sure.

      I want a world and not simply a game of "party finder". I want choices to matter, no backsies. If you make a pure healer and want to solo, tough shit. You created the wrong character. If you want to make a pure healer than accept its drawbacks. If you want to make a jack of all trades who sucks in a party, live with it. Half the fun of MMORPG imo is doing things others dont and being successful at it. 

     I believe flexibility can exist without forced choices. If a player wants a flexible character than options should exist for them to design it. Yes your heal might not be as high as a pure healer but your sacrifice should grant you flexibility.


     

      
    craftseeker
  • cheyanecheyane Member EpicPosts: 6,392
    Having to wait about for certain classes was a huge pain in the ass for sure. Not sure I like that nor have the patience come to think of it I never had the patience but before I had no other game to go to. If Pantheon does not allow for other classes to manage the situation and if one is forced to always rely on certain classes that design is no longer favourable.
    TorvalKnytta
    image
  • delete5230delete5230 Member EpicPosts: 5,823
    One of the concerns of extremely specialized classes is the ‘we can’t run X content because we don’t have X class’ Brad even voice this concern himself as did Clover
     (the real brains behind EQ1 and Vanguard.)
    In theory it works well but it requires a large and diverse population to pull off among other things.
    Even then it can create challenges for the player base. Hopefully Pantheon and all the other class based mmos  coming out can avoid those pitfalls. 
    It doesn't have to be extremely specialized classes but plays different.  In Vanguard their were at least three tank classes and three healer classes, and from what I remember they were all equally viable. 



    HOWEVER Visionary realms took this idea one step ahead with the Perception system.  That way its not tied to the class, but the individual.  
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,119

    Plus they chose Unity. Unity for pete's sake! 
    I don't think you understand enough to say anything negative about any engine. If you did you probably wouldn't have mentioned it at all.
    blueturtle13TorvalcraftseekerPrepared
  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,826

    Plus they chose Unity. Unity for pete's sake! 
    I don't think you understand enough to say anything negative about any engine. If you did you probably wouldn't have mentioned it at all.
    Show me one mmorpg that runs Unity and runs well. I'll be here waiting. 
    mmolou

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,119

    Plus they chose Unity. Unity for pete's sake! 
    I don't think you understand enough to say anything negative about any engine. If you did you probably wouldn't have mentioned it at all.
    Show me one mmorpg that runs Unity and runs well. I'll be here waiting. 
    You are judging it based on what you've seen, not your experience with development. You are seeing what a developer has done with the engine, not what the engine is capable of doing.

    Even given that, there are only 2 mmorpgs that come to mind. Albion and Worlds Adrift. Albion is designed to work with mobile and from what little I played it, it ran fine for how it was designed. I've never touched Worlds Adrift.

    What people tend to do is get flashbacks of seeing the Unity logo on crappy android games and they immediately think it's a crappy engine.
  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,826

    Plus they chose Unity. Unity for pete's sake! 
    I don't think you understand enough to say anything negative about any engine. If you did you probably wouldn't have mentioned it at all.
    Show me one mmorpg that runs Unity and runs well. I'll be here waiting. 
    You are judging it based on what you've seen, not your experience with development. You are seeing what a developer has done with the engine, not what the engine is capable of doing.

    Even given that, there are only 2 mmorpgs that come to mind. Albion and Worlds Adrift. Albion is designed to work with mobile and from what little I played it, it ran fine for how it was designed. I've never touched Worlds Adrift.

    What people tend to do is get flashbacks of seeing the Unity logo on crappy android games and they immediately think it's a crappy engine.
    I have shipped 6 titles with Unity. I have no issue with the engine for gaming. I have issues with Unity for a large mmo project that is not lobby based. I am basing my experience by what I have played of the game not just seen. There is a reason why Unity is not the choice of 99% of mmorpg developers. Even used as strictly a render client you are forced to create a zone based game. 
    Open worlds do not work well. The only way to try is to use something like SpatialOS, which Pantheon does not use. Even Worlds Adrift which uses Unity 5 and SpatialOS runs terrible.

    So again, Unity for pete's sake.  
    Torvalmmolou

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,119

    Plus they chose Unity. Unity for pete's sake! 
    I don't think you understand enough to say anything negative about any engine. If you did you probably wouldn't have mentioned it at all.
    Show me one mmorpg that runs Unity and runs well. I'll be here waiting. 
    You are judging it based on what you've seen, not your experience with development. You are seeing what a developer has done with the engine, not what the engine is capable of doing.

    Even given that, there are only 2 mmorpgs that come to mind. Albion and Worlds Adrift. Albion is designed to work with mobile and from what little I played it, it ran fine for how it was designed. I've never touched Worlds Adrift.

    What people tend to do is get flashbacks of seeing the Unity logo on crappy android games and they immediately think it's a crappy engine.
    I have shipped 6 titles with Unity. I have no issue with the engine for gaming. I have issues with Unity for a large mmo project that is not lobby based. I am basing my experience by what I have played of the game not just seen. There is a reason why Unity is not the choice of 99% of mmorpg developers. Even used as strictly a render client you are forced to create a zone based game. 
    Open worlds do not work well. The only way to try is to use something like SpatialOS, which Pantheon does not use. Even Worlds Adrift which uses Unity 5 and SpatialOS runs terrible.

    So again, Unity for pete's sake.  

    No, most definitely no 'forced' to make a zone based game and it does not require something like spacial to work... I'll just leave you to your delusions.
    blueturtle13
  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,826


    No, most definitely no 'forced' to make a zone based game and it does not require something like spacial to work... I'll just leave you to your delusions.
    You'll see ;)
    mmolou

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,119


    No, most definitely no 'forced' to make a zone based game and it does not require something like spacial to work... I'll just leave you to your delusions.
    You'll see ;)
    See what?! Are you mental or something? Keep blaming the engine, fool.
    blueturtle13
  • iatesandiatesand Member UncommonPosts: 91
    I would also like to counter the claim "Even Worlds Adrift which uses Unity 5 and SpatialOS runs terrible."

    I do not have that experience at all, are you basing your opinion on personal observations? What 6 games have you shipped using Unity?  What was the last MMO you developed? Surely you must have several under your belt to have such knowledgeable opinions? Right?

  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 5,840
    blueturtle13 said:

     I am basing my experience by what I have played of the game not just seen. 
    Not quarreling. I'm not technical and have no opinion on Unity. Just very curious what this means?

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

  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 11,826
    edited October 2018
    Amathe said:
    blueturtle13 said:

     I am basing my experience by what I have played of the game not just seen. 
    Not quarreling. I'm not technical and have no opinion on Unity. Just very curious what this means?
    Amathe said:
    blueturtle13 said:

     I am basing my experience by what I have played of the game not just seen. 
    Not quarreling. I'm not technical and have no opinion on Unity. Just very curious what this means?
    It means with my two brief play tests with the game (the last one with Jim Lee off stream) it played about how I figured it would play based on the engine they were using. Of course there is still time for things to be worked out but networking should be further along at this point. The cloud servers they are using are lower end at this point. Lack of real budget is a bigger culprit than the engine but Unity is the choice of the underfunded for mmorpg development. Designing your own engine is always advised. 
    No offense intended it is just a really poorly funded project and it shows. 
    mmolou

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,670

    Plus they chose Unity. Unity for pete's sake! 
    I don't think you understand enough to say anything negative about any engine. If you did you probably wouldn't have mentioned it at all.
    Show me one mmorpg that runs Unity and runs well. I'll be here waiting. 
    You are judging it based on what you've seen, not your experience with development. You are seeing what a developer has done with the engine, not what the engine is capable of doing.

    Even given that, there are only 2 mmorpgs that come to mind. Albion and Worlds Adrift. Albion is designed to work with mobile and from what little I played it, it ran fine for how it was designed. I've never touched Worlds Adrift.

    What people tend to do is get flashbacks of seeing the Unity logo on crappy android games and they immediately think it's a crappy engine.
    Albion is highly instanced and runs like a slideshow when there are a lot of players in a zone. They specifically had to add extra instances in town because the game engine couldn't handle the load. I own and played this game. World's Adrift has been plagued by performance issues.

    Then there is Shroud of the Avatar and Project Gorgon. PG I love but it runs like ass when there are a lot of players on the screen. Maps are zoned. Shroud is also heavily zoned and runs poorly with massive concurrency.

    You have no examples and name calling. You got nothing but salt. I guess we'll see how it goes. My guess is it will employ heavy use of instances and zones in order to mitigate performance issues.
    blueturtle13
    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

    It only took 3 people 8 words to rock Blizzard to its core.
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 5,840
    It means with my two brief play tests with the game (the last one with Jim Lee off stream) it played about how I figured it would play based on the engine they were using. 
    So you have played it! Awesome. That is what caught my eye. :) 
    Torvalblueturtle13

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

  • OscillateOscillate Member UncommonPosts: 238
    edited October 2018
    jusomdude said:
    I think it's a bad idea to stick to old ways that have a lot to do with the demise of the games they were featured in. Idk, I guess a lot of EQ1 players that still don't have a life, or shit, maybe even retired, will probably find a new home. Can't really call myself an EQ1 player... I mean I've played it for probably a total of 30ish hours.

    Can't see a lot of the people who didn't grow up with EQ1 actually being interested in playing Pantheon.



     You respond to this, disagreeing, while admitting to not really being an actual EQ1 player.... sheesh, people these days.  Everyone needs to put their 2 cents in.

    I will comment on this thread for the OP. 

    As a EQ player from 1999, I can say that it definitely made you have a deeper connection with the game and community.  You had to learn things and remember them.  If you used a map, it was from an external source.  This also forced players closer, because it made you rely on each other for help at times.

    You had to respect the game, because there was always the fear of getting lost, or killed, from venturing too far in the unknown.

    Everything, that a modern MMORPG player would tell you, that was wrong about these old games, are everything, that made these so memorial and special.

    The truth is, people are ever more egotistical and self centered today and are afraid of any social interaction, confrontation, reading, or any form of actual achievement.  

    We live in the, "Give it to me and give it to me now!"  Impatient and instant gratification generation.  

    Its a choice between the two.

    An on-rails, low risk-low reward, less rewarding and less fulfilling slot machine like gameplay.

    or

    An open world, with risk and danger, so much, that you need to rely on each other.  A game your character actually lives in.  Were you aren't expected to log in and feel like you're a hero, that has conquered the game within a month or two.  Instead, you as the term states, "Eat the Elephant" and slowly, bit by bit, learn more every time you log in and you make actual memories, with real friends.

    Debate me if you want, but the proof is there.  If you think creating WoW clones will be the next big things, you have a right to your own opinion, but history hasn't painted a very good picture of that.

    [EDIT]:  As for, "Can't see a lot of the people who didn't grow up with EQ1 actually being interested in playing Pantheon."

    All it takes is someones interest to be peaked, from years of mindlessly trying other slot machine, low effort experiences, to give a different designed MMORPG a chance.

    Perhaps, that newer gen player values reading more into things and slowly sees themselves being engaged on a deeper level.  So they keep logging in, until over time, the few people they've added to friends list, becomes guild mates, that they enjoy playing with for years.

    No real game, since EQ, has put the pieces together right so far.  They've all be clones that look like a "new EQ" but play like WoW, or a poorly done EQ, like the rushed Vanguard was.
    Post edited by Oscillate on
    craftseeker

    image
    (Akiraosc)

  • OscillateOscillate Member UncommonPosts: 238
    Dagimir said:
    This is ridiculous. How can you guys even form an opinion of everquest if you didn't play it in its heyday? The game had so many successful community building aspects to it that it promoted a healthy game environment in an mmo. It's success was how it forced people to interact in a positive manner to advance. In original everquest you could not solo. I cannot emphasize enough that the sheer difficulty of the game and not catering to the 'solo' player in an mmo is why it was a success.

    Examples of positive community aspects:

    Fast travel was only available through 2 classes. Druids and Wizards. Otherwise you would travel for what could literally be hours on foot with the chance of death and respawn at your bind point. This created taxi services and player interaction.

    Trade and barter was nearly face to face. There was no market mechanic at all. People would literally shout in chat channels to come view their wares where they would show you backpacks full of loot and you could haggle with them in prices.  The players themselves on many servers set up a trade tunnel in a neutral area so all races could come and barter.

    Fighting almost anything. If you were one of the weaker classes at the beginning of the game then a level 1 rat or a snake (that could kick) would kill your character. From the very start of the game to the end you were almost required to have a partner. This promoted the most heavily co-op and group centric mmorpg that I have ever experienced.

    These are just a few of the many examples of what everquest got right that every single other mmorpg has failed at. Yeah it's not always convenient to find a partner but that's why there are things like tradeskills, bartering, and god forbid roleplaying at the dark elf tavern with the elf and troll strippers. (Look it up)
    I'm not sure you are remembering EQ correctly. Soloing was always done in the game.
    Asheron's Call and Ultima Online got more right than EQ did. EQ was the WOW of it's day. Nothing wrong with that but let's be honest about what it was and was not. 
    Someone else commenting about EQ, that didn't even play it.   Soloing in EQ was very limited, monks, shaman, nec, etc could solo, with Enchanters being able to do the most, in the classic era of the game.  This does not imply that Everquest was not a group based game.  The vast majority of content that you did, you needed a group for, that is just fact.

    Calling EQ the "WoW of its day" has to win the award for the dumbest, un-informed comment, that I've ever read on this website, and I've been here since 2003.  Congrats dude...
    mmoloucraftseeker

    image
    (Akiraosc)

  • OscillateOscillate Member UncommonPosts: 238
    Dagimir said:
    This is ridiculous. How can you guys even form an opinion of everquest if you didn't play it in its heyday? The game had so many successful community building aspects to it that it promoted a healthy game environment in an mmo. It's success was how it forced people to interact in a positive manner to advance. In original everquest you could not solo. I cannot emphasize enough that the sheer difficulty of the game and not catering to the 'solo' player in an mmo is why it was a success.

    Examples of positive community aspects:

    Fast travel was only available through 2 classes. Druids and Wizards. Otherwise you would travel for what could literally be hours on foot with the chance of death and respawn at your bind point. This created taxi services and player interaction.

    Trade and barter was nearly face to face. There was no market mechanic at all. People would literally shout in chat channels to come view their wares where they would show you backpacks full of loot and you could haggle with them in prices.  The players themselves on many servers set up a trade tunnel in a neutral area so all races could come and barter.

    Fighting almost anything. If you were one of the weaker classes at the beginning of the game then a level 1 rat or a snake (that could kick) would kill your character. From the very start of the game to the end you were almost required to have a partner. This promoted the most heavily co-op and group centric mmorpg that I have ever experienced.

    These are just a few of the many examples of what everquest got right that every single other mmorpg has failed at. Yeah it's not always convenient to find a partner but that's why there are things like tradeskills, bartering, and god forbid roleplaying at the dark elf tavern with the elf and troll strippers. (Look it up)
    My opinion as a person that never played as hardcore as this,
    I'm very looking forward to it, but at the same time it's scary (this is making me sound like a snowflake).  Best way to explain it is like getting on a bad ass roller coaster.  Yet I'll make it work NO MATTER WHAT, just like insisting on getting on the roller coaster.  

    I think it was Amathe plans on playing slow and logging in to basking at the beautiful environment.  Maybe not them words, but it's something I would like to do. No rush I could be playing for years, and finding my crowed of people.  This I miss in my second generation games.  
    What was so 'hardcore' about Everquest? There were far more hardcore games at the time. Everquest was WOW back then. The mainstream mmorpg for a more casual mmorpg player, not the hardcore mmorpg player.
    That's cool people like it just as it is cool people like WOW after it, but EQ is NOT  nor ever was 'hardcore'  
    Reading these comments from players to young to even play EQ in 1999, is hilarious.

    I'll take it you don't even know what a CR means, much less losing a corpse with gear and spending a hours, upon hours, getting lost exp back.  

    I bet you never did original epic 1.0.

    Please, people like this, stop commenting, trying to pretend to be "special" because you end up looking dumb and having people totally discredit, anything else you have to say, like I have for this poster.
    craftseeker

    image
    (Akiraosc)

  • OscillateOscillate Member UncommonPosts: 238
    edited October 2018
    Great points Ridelynn and you nailed the real challenge these games face. The gaming landscape is not the same. Times have changed, gamers have changed and expectations have changed. 



    Pantheon is facing a real uphill battle to find success. I can understand EQ1 players salivating over the possibility to play EQ 2020 but the reality may be tougher than many realize. 
    The game could not even raise enough interest or money for it's funding. More than once.

    CU raised millions.
    Crowfall raised millions.
    Chronicles of Elyria raised millions.
    Ashes of Creation raised millions.

    Pantheon raised.....$460,000 of an $800k asking failed Kickstarter.

    I think how all this plays out will be interesting because I am curious about those who claim to want this kind of game and those who actually stay and pay for it long term.
    Plus they chose Unity. Unity for pete's sake! That shows how broke they really are. 
    Didn't Brad learn from Vanguard not to use an off the shelf engine? 

    As long as fans understand what they are getting they should be able to enjoy it. Yet threads that go on and on about Pantheon bring back.....whatever it is they want back, should pump the brakes a bit. Even the developers know this is a small game with limited appeal. It is a 20 year old game with new paint. That's it. 

    I hope enough people stick around long term to keep the fans of the project entertained. Because an mmorpg with no players is not one.
    People like you, are the ones that the first thing they look at and care about, are graphics.  

    I am not going to even dig deeper into anything you're saying in this post, because its laughable. 

    Many games have raised millions in kickstarter and have been clones, that failed.

    Not many, actually very very few, have tried to actually focus on game dynamics and build design that focuses on things that matter, within the game.

    Can we talk about the amount of money that SWTOR spent on voice acting.

    Voice acting.....

    LOOOOOL
    craftseeker

    image
    (Akiraosc)

  • OscillateOscillate Member UncommonPosts: 238
    Dagimir said:
    This is ridiculous. How can you guys even form an opinion of everquest if you didn't play it in its heyday? The game had so many successful community building aspects to it that it promoted a healthy game environment in an mmo. It's success was how it forced people to interact in a positive manner to advance. In original everquest you could not solo. I cannot emphasize enough that the sheer difficulty of the game and not catering to the 'solo' player in an mmo is why it was a success.

    Examples of positive community aspects:

    Fast travel was only available through 2 classes. Druids and Wizards. Otherwise you would travel for what could literally be hours on foot with the chance of death and respawn at your bind point. This created taxi services and player interaction.

    Trade and barter was nearly face to face. There was no market mechanic at all. People would literally shout in chat channels to come view their wares where they would show you backpacks full of loot and you could haggle with them in prices.  The players themselves on many servers set up a trade tunnel in a neutral area so all races could come and barter.

    Fighting almost anything. If you were one of the weaker classes at the beginning of the game then a level 1 rat or a snake (that could kick) would kill your character. From the very start of the game to the end you were almost required to have a partner. This promoted the most heavily co-op and group centric mmorpg that I have ever experienced.

    These are just a few of the many examples of what everquest got right that every single other mmorpg has failed at. Yeah it's not always convenient to find a partner but that's why there are things like tradeskills, bartering, and god forbid roleplaying at the dark elf tavern with the elf and troll strippers. (Look it up)
    My opinion as a person that never played as hardcore as this,
    I'm very looking forward to it, but at the same time it's scary (this is making me sound like a snowflake).  Best way to explain it is like getting on a bad ass roller coaster.  Yet I'll make it work NO MATTER WHAT, just like insisting on getting on the roller coaster.  

    I think it was Amathe plans on playing slow and logging in to basking at the beautiful environment.  Maybe not them words, but it's something I would like to do. No rush I could be playing for years, and finding my crowed of people.  This I miss in my second generation games.  
    What was so 'hardcore' about Everquest? There were far more hardcore games at the time. Everquest was WOW back then. The mainstream mmorpg for a more casual mmorpg player, not the hardcore mmorpg player.
    That's cool people like it just as it is cool people like WOW after it, but EQ is NOT  nor ever was 'hardcore'  
    lol I think you're just trolling tio troll...EQ was hard...You died often...It was not easy to solo for most classes...You had to be very careful both traveling and when you were fighting not to get adds....To say it was WoW is ridiculous.
    Agree to disagree. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I am trolling. It means I have a different point of view ;)
    Yeah, because being factually wrong (compared to any other mmorpg at the time) is a "point of view"

    That isn't a PoV man, that is bad logic. 
    craftseeker

    image
    (Akiraosc)

  • OscillateOscillate Member UncommonPosts: 238
    edited October 2018
    Rhoklaw said:
    Since Pantheon was first announced, fans of EQ were claiming it as a spiritual successor to EQ, which EQ2 kind of failed to do. Some claim EQ was the WoW of it's era, but WoW and it's horribly simple game design weren't introduced for another 4-5 years. If any EQ game was like WoW, it would be EQ2.

    All games back then were a bit more hardcore versus games today. To say UO or AC were hard but EQ was not is just biased nonsense and coming from a certain few, it doesn't surprise me you continue down that path.

    We get it. Some of you love the new easy mode MMO's that focus more on youthful twitch combat and pretty graphics. Well, there are some of us who prefer story, content and choice.

    Pantheon is very much like EQ and while Brad did point out it's NOT EQ's spiritual successor, is simply because he wants Pantheon to have it's own identity, which it does.

    Today's MMOs focus solely on action combat and flashy graphics for entertainment. I'm not talking about WoW either obviously, nor SWTOR, ESO, FFXIV, GW2 or EQ2. All of those games use traditional combat and the trinity system, except of course GW2. They are all however heavily focused on dungeon raids, crafting and story content. The games I'm referring to are the Asian F2P MMOs who have time and time again published the exact same crap over the past 5 years. From ArcheAge, Black Desert Online, Blade and Soul, Revelation Online and Bless Online. To me, those games are more like fantasy FPS, then an actual adventure focused, story driven type games.

    It's obvious we have plenty of mainstream and recent MMOs to suit any millennial gamer's palette. Pantheon is suited more towards veteran gamers who played D&D or table top games. Players who know what role-playing is. Players who play just as much for the social and grouping aspects as the individual tasks like crafting or exploration.
    WOW at launch did not have horribly simple game design.
    why do you take it as an insult? It isn't 
    No one said EQ was not hard. 
    No one said anything at all about twitch combat but you. 
    What story do you think Pantheon will have? Like EQs? ;)

    What content are you talking about? Statically placed mobs standing around waiting to get murdered?
    All while running on a terrible Unity engine? I'm not sure once you actually get your hands on the game you will feel the same ;)


    Also, why the shade on 30+ year old gamers? What do people younger than you have to do with Pantheon?
    So if they are in their 30's they are not veteran gamers who do not know how to roleplay? Wow friend, kind of a douche thing to think and say. I hope you are not the target audience for a game like Pantheon if that is how you really think and feel. 


    "No one said EQ was not hard"

    Your direct quote:

    What was so 'hardcore' about Everquest? There were far more hardcore games at the time. Everquest was WOW back then. The mainstream mmorpg for a more casual mmorpg player, not the hardcore mmorpg player.
    That's cool people like it just as it is cool people like WOW after it, but EQ is NOT  nor ever was 'hardcore' 
    [mod edit]
    Post edited by Vaross on

    image
    (Akiraosc)

  • OscillateOscillate Member UncommonPosts: 238
    cheyane said:
    Dagimir said:
    Dagimir said:
    This is ridiculous. How can you guys even form an opinion of everquest if you didn't play it in its heyday? The game had so many successful community building aspects to it that it promoted a healthy game environment in an mmo. It's success was how it forced people to interact in a positive manner to advance. In original everquest you could not solo. I cannot emphasize enough that the sheer difficulty of the game and not catering to the 'solo' player in an mmo is why it was a success.

    Examples of positive community aspects:

    Fast travel was only available through 2 classes. Druids and Wizards. Otherwise you would travel for what could literally be hours on foot with the chance of death and respawn at your bind point. This created taxi services and player interaction.

    Trade and barter was nearly face to face. There was no market mechanic at all. People would literally shout in chat channels to come view their wares where they would show you backpacks full of loot and you could haggle with them in prices.  The players themselves on many servers set up a trade tunnel in a neutral area so all races could come and barter.

    Fighting almost anything. If you were one of the weaker classes at the beginning of the game then a level 1 rat or a snake (that could kick) would kill your character. From the very start of the game to the end you were almost required to have a partner. This promoted the most heavily co-op and group centric mmorpg that I have ever experienced.

    These are just a few of the many examples of what everquest got right that every single other mmorpg has failed at. Yeah it's not always convenient to find a partner but that's why there are things like tradeskills, bartering, and god forbid roleplaying at the dark elf tavern with the elf and troll strippers. (Look it up)
    I'm not sure you are remembering EQ correctly. Soloing was always done in the game.
    Asheron's Call and Ultima Online got more right than EQ did. EQ was the WOW of it's day. Nothing wrong with that but let's be honest about what it was and was not. 
    I actually remember it very well and if you read my post you would see that I didn't say there was absolutely no soloing. Yes soloing was done to a very minimal extent and it was not nearly as effective as a team. The early days of everquest didn't have nearly the same abilities or gear that came with the first expansion in Kunark. Your super rare items and gear for max level characters were literally replaced by low end gear with expansions. In today's everquest a level 10 has better gear than a level 50 had back then. The power jumps with each expansion from  gear inflation, skills, and spells made soloing a much more viable option. 
    "In original everquest you could not solo."
    is actually what you said ;)
    Of course you could solo wizards and druids were quad kiting and levelling solo. A necro can solo even a whole room in Guk and this was before Ruins of Kunark was out. I mean saying you could not solo isn't an accurate recollection of my own experience in EQ and I played from April 1999.
    Yet, no where do you mention Enchanters.  ;)

    image
    (Akiraosc)

  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,304
    Oscillate said:
    Great points Ridelynn and you nailed the real challenge these games face. The gaming landscape is not the same. Times have changed, gamers have changed and expectations have changed. 



    Pantheon is facing a real uphill battle to find success. I can understand EQ1 players salivating over the possibility to play EQ 2020 but the reality may be tougher than many realize. 
    The game could not even raise enough interest or money for it's funding. More than once.

    CU raised millions.
    Crowfall raised millions.
    Chronicles of Elyria raised millions.
    Ashes of Creation raised millions.

    Pantheon raised.....$460,000 of an $800k asking failed Kickstarter.

    I think how all this plays out will be interesting because I am curious about those who claim to want this kind of game and those who actually stay and pay for it long term.
    Plus they chose Unity. Unity for pete's sake! That shows how broke they really are. 
    Didn't Brad learn from Vanguard not to use an off the shelf engine? 

    As long as fans understand what they are getting they should be able to enjoy it. Yet threads that go on and on about Pantheon bring back.....whatever it is they want back, should pump the brakes a bit. Even the developers know this is a small game with limited appeal. It is a 20 year old game with new paint. That's it. 

    I hope enough people stick around long term to keep the fans of the project entertained. Because an mmorpg with no players is not one.
    People like you, are the ones that the first thing they look at and care about, are graphics.  

    I am not going to even dig deeper into anything you're saying in this post, because its laughable. 

    Many games have raised millions in kickstarter and have been clones, that failed.

    Not many, actually very very few, have tried to actually focus on game dynamics and build design that focuses on things that matter, within the game.

    Can we talk about the amount of money that SWTOR spent on voice acting.

    Voice acting.....

    LOOOOOL
    Please educate us, then.  Exactly where did you come to the conclusion that @Bluetutrle13 is all about graphics.  Or how the 1999 mindset is still alive and kicking somewhere in the marketplace.  Or that Pantheon is attempting anything that wasn't in EQ1.  Or how Unity is a good choice for a robust MMORPG experience.

    To your statement that 'very very few have tried to focus on game dynamics',  I'd contend that this is almost completely opposite of the truth.  My opinion is that every game developed since EQ1 has focused on game dynamics.  Things that matter in any game are the decisions that the player has to make, and the interface used to input these decisions.  EQ1's original user interface was derided by many, both players and designers.

    I suspect that you are merely trolling anyone who questions anything about Pantheon.  I'd encourage you to stick around and prove me that you're capable of more than "nuh uh, you're wrong".  We know what your opinion is; tell us why you've come to that opinion.



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

  • KnyttaKnytta Member UncommonPosts: 404

    Always a risk, but i think that is why while each class has a defined role, they all bring some utility. Even in EQ smart play meant you did not have to have an enchanter, admittedly in later lvls it was nearly a must to have a slower, but even then you had the choice of bard and shaman. In Pantheon, with all the ghetto cc around, the only risk is again how essential slow becomes (and in EQ it was a few years before it was too vital...PoP i think)
    Mid level and later you could group in non traditional groups and be successful and have fun. One of the most fun groups I ever had was in Dreadlands where we had a group with 3 Chanters, one Mage and me as a Shaman for Slows and Healing (that no one needed). Pantheon must succeed in creating something where you are more successful in a group but the groups can be different. 
    AmatheMendel

    Chi puo dir com'egli arde é in picciol fuoco.

    He who can describe the flame does not burn.

    Petrarch


  • UtinniUtinni Member RarePosts: 1,029
    I think pantheon will soften a lot of the 1999 type mechanics. Death penalties will likely be much more bearable, maps will be available, chat channels most likely.

    The things that made those things enjoyable for me were support classes, downtime, non-instanced content, camps for loot/xp. 
    Mendel
Sign In or Register to comment.