Howdy, Stranger!

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

Brad's posts make me worried

1356

Comments

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    Mendel said:
    JemAs666 said:
    This seems promising:
    Brad's quote:
    "What I do hear loud and clear, and I do take it quite seriously, is that some people just don't want to deal with the hassle of pets, period.  You want pet-free classes.  My hope is that we can make them fun enough that you'll change your mind.  Time will tell.  It's good that we are discussing things things now rather than later :)"

    He is listening.  It still seems like they may end up inserting pets into classes who aren't "pet classes" but, they are getting a lot of feedback at least.  Hopefully they will decipher all of the responses correctly.

    He may be listening, but his words "My hope is that we can make them fun enough that you'll change your mind"  I agree it sounds like they are going to add them even with most people voicing they do not want non pet classes having these pets.
    The quote that @JemAs666 commented on definitely sounds like a variation of "We hear you.  But you're wrong and we're right.  So we'll continue as planned."  It almost makes me think that the work for the pets for every class is already in place, and it would just be more work for them to remove.

    If I end up with another contraption like 'Shiny Bob', I'm going to be severely disappointed.
    You never played EQ, right?

    Brad have a "vision" and he isn't someone who backs down from it because the community think he should. And this is both a strenght and a weakness, what the community belives isn't always the best thing.
    Things are not always the same in theory and as implemented features. Ask Blizz, Titan was awesome in theory but boring once they tried it out.
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,825
    LegotheHutt said:
    Given all of the responses that are against the idea of having so many pets, both here and in the Pantheon thread,  I think referring to pets as a "popular feature"  is misleading to say the least. 

    ...at least in reference to this game and its target audience. 

    You are probably right that pets are thought of more highly in more recent games over the last multiple years that are geared toward a wider/different demographic.  I think that difference is where some of the confusion lies.

     



    ...because forums are a representative of major player base.

    Just more of your bias.
  • svannsvann Member RarePosts: 2,202
    Id have to agree that having too many pets out can either increase graphics lag or decrease the amount of other graphics goodies that can be added.  You can only put so much in before people's machines choke, and I dont see pets as being a high priority in the list of what can be done.
  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    edited June 2016
    Gdemami said:
    LegotheHutt said:
    Honestly I think you are misinterpreting where I am coming from

    Maybe you are formulating your point improperly/inaccurately.

    Point could be made that, despite pets being popular feature, is it a smart move to make them fundamental part of the game play, if that is the case?

    That is something I would agree with, because it does make some sense. However, that is still technically easy to solve.

    "Maybe you are formulating your point improperly/inaccurately." 

    Given all of the responses that are against the idea of having so many pets, both here and in the Pantheon thread,  I think referring to pets as a "popular feature"  is misleading to say the least. 

    ...at least in reference to this game and its target audience. 

    You are probably right that pets are thought of more highly in more recent games over the last multiple years that are geared toward a wider/different demographic.  I think that difference is where some of the confusion lies.

     



    With all due respect it's seeming more and more that a certain segment of those posters can't see past new games, nor EQ. As that is all that is spoken of more or less. There's a whole genre here going all the way back to Meridian 59 to take inspiration from, which this dev team has said more than once they're taking that into consideration in their design.

    As with every proposal that segment seems to weigh it against whether "it wasn't in EQ" or whether it's "in a new game". Like they live in a bubble where only those extremes exist. If any of those two extremes are true of said feature, it's shot down instantly without thought, all on the basis of statements like "that's not what this demographic wants".... As if they could speak for what is essentially 100's of thousands of people. at the least.....

    Point being that's no argument or justification to base anything on,  as no one speaks for a large demographic in such a manner. 








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


  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 11,825
    Distopia said:
    Point being that's no argument or justification to base anything on,  as no one speaks for a large demographic in such a manner.
    It is not even a demographic, just some unidentifiable, non-measurable, phantomed mass of people. Empty words.
  • RedsaltRedsalt Member UncommonPosts: 75
  • TwoTubesTwoTubes Member UncommonPosts: 172
    edited June 2016
    Distopia said:
    Gdemami said:
    LegotheHutt said:
    Honestly I think you are misinterpreting where I am coming from

    Maybe you are formulating your point improperly/inaccurately.

    Point could be made that, despite pets being popular feature, is it a smart move to make them fundamental part of the game play, if that is the case?

    That is something I would agree with, because it does make some sense. However, that is still technically easy to solve.

    "Maybe you are formulating your point improperly/inaccurately." 

    Given all of the responses that are against the idea of having so many pets, both here and in the Pantheon thread,  I think referring to pets as a "popular feature"  is misleading to say the least. 

    ...at least in reference to this game and its target audience. 

    You are probably right that pets are thought of more highly in more recent games over the last multiple years that are geared toward a wider/different demographic.  I think that difference is where some of the confusion lies.

     



    With all due respect it's seeming more and more that a certain segment of those posters can't see past new games, nor EQ. As that is all that is spoken of more or less. There's a whole genre here going all the way back to Meridian 59 to take inspiration from, which this dev team has said more than once they're taking that into consideration in their design.

    As with every proposal that segment seems to weigh it against whether "it wasn't in EQ" or whether it's "in a new game". Like they live in a bubble where only those extremes exist. If any of those two extremes are true of said feature, it's shot down instantly without thought, all on the basis of statements like "that's not what this demographic wants".... As if they could speak for what is essentially 100's of thousands of people. at the least.....

    Point being that's no argument or justification to base anything on,  as no one speaks for a large demographic in such a manner. 








    I think I understand that point of view.  The thing is, all we have to go by is some forum posts, some limited gameplay videos and past experiences, so that is what people have to base their perception on.  There are a lot of EQ and VG comparisons going on because of who is making the game and players past experiences dealing with Verant, Sigil etc.

    I do agree that sometimes the loudly vocal minority (the extremists) can overshadow the quieter majority if that is what you mean?  Though, the more feedback VR get on a subject the more chance the quieter majority has to inject their ideas as well. 

    Actually, maybe I am not reading into what you are saying correctly and that is not what you meant?

    When you say:
     "As with every proposal that segment seems to weigh it against whether "it wasn't in EQ" or whether it's "in a new game". Like they live in a bubble where only those extremes exist. If any of those two extremes are true of said feature, it's shot down instantly without thought,"

    Are you saying that having those extreme views is a good thing?  I think new game design ideas can be implemented without going to one extreme or the other.  Don't you?  That seems risky.

    My personal opinion pertaining to this specific discussion, like was stated previously, is that I like a lot of the game design ideas that are being presented in the pet thread...I just think there could a better way to implement those ideas than through the use of pets.

    I am worried that the way they are proposed to be implemented will end up turning people off.

    Maybe you could clarify your points for me?

    Edit:
    Also, designing graphical extra pets/pathing/Ai etc etc seems like it might be a waste of time when they could include those same design ideas in an easier to develop format...like a buff.  That would be more efficient to produce from a time allotment perspective and, arguably, not have as many drawbacks for the players anyway. (like mentioned above).



  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Distopia said:
    Gdemami said:
    LegotheHutt said:
    Honestly I think you are misinterpreting where I am coming from

    Maybe you are formulating your point improperly/inaccurately.

    Point could be made that, despite pets being popular feature, is it a smart move to make them fundamental part of the game play, if that is the case?

    That is something I would agree with, because it does make some sense. However, that is still technically easy to solve.

    "Maybe you are formulating your point improperly/inaccurately." 

    Given all of the responses that are against the idea of having so many pets, both here and in the Pantheon thread,  I think referring to pets as a "popular feature"  is misleading to say the least. 

    ...at least in reference to this game and its target audience. 

    You are probably right that pets are thought of more highly in more recent games over the last multiple years that are geared toward a wider/different demographic.  I think that difference is where some of the confusion lies.

     



    With all due respect it's seeming more and more that a certain segment of those posters can't see past new games, nor EQ. As that is all that is spoken of more or less. There's a whole genre here going all the way back to Meridian 59 to take inspiration from, which this dev team has said more than once they're taking that into consideration in their design.

    As with every proposal that segment seems to weigh it against whether "it wasn't in EQ" or whether it's "in a new game". Like they live in a bubble where only those extremes exist. If any of those two extremes are true of said feature, it's shot down instantly without thought, all on the basis of statements like "that's not what this demographic wants".... As if they could speak for what is essentially 100's of thousands of people. at the least.....

    Point being that's no argument or justification to base anything on,  as no one speaks for a large demographic in such a manner. 








    I think I understand that point of view.  The thing is, all we have to go by is some forum posts, some limited gameplay videos and past experiences, so that is what people have to base their perception on.  There are a lot of EQ and VG comparisons going on because of who is making the game and players past experiences dealing with Verant, Sigil etc.

    I do agree that sometimes the loudly vocal minority (the extremists) can overshadow the quieter majority if that is what you mean?  Though, the more feedback VR get on a subject the more chance the quieter majority has to inject their ideas as well. 

    Actually, maybe I am not reading into what you are saying correctly and that is not what you meant?

    When you say:
     "As with every proposal that segment seems to weigh it against whether "it wasn't in EQ" or whether it's "in a new game". Like they live in a bubble where only those extremes exist. If any of those two extremes are true of said feature, it's shot down instantly without thought,"

    Are you saying that having those extreme views are a good thing?  I think new game design ideas can be implemented without going to one extreme or the other.  Don't you?  That seems risky.

    My personal opinion pertaining to this specific discussion, like was stated previously, is that I like a lot of the game design ideas that are being presented in the pet thread...I just think there could a better way to implement those ideas than through the use of pets.

    I am worried that he way they are proposed to be implemented will end up turning people off.

    Maybe you could clarify your points for me?

    Your first estimate was more in line with what I was saying, I certainly don't think those extreme views help anyone, especially in terms of MMORPG development. Applying a negative overall point of view toward a feature because of how it's handled in unrelated products is short sighted, especially when there are better implementations of that feature to look at. It's essentially an example of tunnel vision. Missing the forest for the trees, etc... 

    Hope that clears up any confusion :)





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


  • TwoTubesTwoTubes Member UncommonPosts: 172
    edited June 2016
    Distopia said:
    Distopia said:
    Gdemami said:
    LegotheHutt said:
    Honestly I think you are misinterpreting where I am coming from

    Maybe you are formulating your point improperly/inaccurately.

    Point could be made that, despite pets being popular feature, is it a smart move to make them fundamental part of the game play, if that is the case?

    That is something I would agree with, because it does make some sense. However, that is still technically easy to solve.

    "Maybe you are formulating your point improperly/inaccurately." 

    Given all of the responses that are against the idea of having so many pets, both here and in the Pantheon thread,  I think referring to pets as a "popular feature"  is misleading to say the least. 

    ...at least in reference to this game and its target audience. 

    You are probably right that pets are thought of more highly in more recent games over the last multiple years that are geared toward a wider/different demographic.  I think that difference is where some of the confusion lies.

     



    With all due respect it's seeming more and more that a certain segment of those posters can't see past new games, nor EQ. As that is all that is spoken of more or less. There's a whole genre here going all the way back to Meridian 59 to take inspiration from, which this dev team has said more than once they're taking that into consideration in their design.

    As with every proposal that segment seems to weigh it against whether "it wasn't in EQ" or whether it's "in a new game". Like they live in a bubble where only those extremes exist. If any of those two extremes are true of said feature, it's shot down instantly without thought, all on the basis of statements like "that's not what this demographic wants".... As if they could speak for what is essentially 100's of thousands of people. at the least.....

    Point being that's no argument or justification to base anything on,  as no one speaks for a large demographic in such a manner. 








    I think I understand that point of view.  The thing is, all we have to go by is some forum posts, some limited gameplay videos and past experiences, so that is what people have to base their perception on.  There are a lot of EQ and VG comparisons going on because of who is making the game and players past experiences dealing with Verant, Sigil etc.

    I do agree that sometimes the loudly vocal minority (the extremists) can overshadow the quieter majority if that is what you mean?  Though, the more feedback VR get on a subject the more chance the quieter majority has to inject their ideas as well. 

    Actually, maybe I am not reading into what you are saying correctly and that is not what you meant?

    When you say:
     "As with every proposal that segment seems to weigh it against whether "it wasn't in EQ" or whether it's "in a new game". Like they live in a bubble where only those extremes exist. If any of those two extremes are true of said feature, it's shot down instantly without thought,"

    Are you saying that having those extreme views are a good thing?  I think new game design ideas can be implemented without going to one extreme or the other.  Don't you?  That seems risky.

    My personal opinion pertaining to this specific discussion, like was stated previously, is that I like a lot of the game design ideas that are being presented in the pet thread...I just think there could a better way to implement those ideas than through the use of pets.

    I am worried that he way they are proposed to be implemented will end up turning people off.

    Maybe you could clarify your points for me?

    Your first estimate was more in line with what I was saying, I certainly don't think those extreme views help anyone, especially in terms of MMORPG development. Applying a negative overall point of view toward a feature because of how it's handled in unrelated products is short sighted, especially when there are better implementations of that feature to look at. It's essentially an example of tunnel vision. Missing the forest for the trees, etc... 

    Hope that clears up any confusion :)





    Fair enough, though, I do think the people who are saying they want EQ with better graphics are few and far between.  Those are basically the extremists in question on one end right? 

    When people compare a game design feature to one in another game that is almost always because most ideas are just a rehash of something that has already been done.  People with a lot of mmorpg experience have likely played something similar to most every idea out there.

    Whether the view point is positive, or "negative", like you mentioned.  I don't consider that short sighted.  All we can do is base our view on what we have experienced...otherwise it is just a dream with our head in the clouds and no realistic point of view to base it on.

    My issue, more often than not, is people who inject their ideas without having experienced anything similar. (there was a lot of that going on when the progeny system was discussed). 

    Blind speculation, or what you "think you might like" without having an actual reference point isn't the most helpful contribution to a conversation usually.  At least if you have played something similar you can talk about what you liked and didn't like about that system even if it doesn't end up being exactly like what ends up in this game.
  • tokinitokini Member UncommonPosts: 372
    Mr Mquaid also said, and i quote, "gotta collect em all" in terms of how he wants peopel to think of pets.  when asked if this meant that everyone, could potentially get every pet (out side of those specific to a class), he has sort of evaded the question, and instead listed some ideas of class specific pets. frankly he came across a bit sarcastic and butt-hurt because his idea that he is determined to have in game, was not greeted with rousing applause. instead saying essentially, 'well, lets see YOUR ideas if you're so smart'. why would people have ideas about something they dont want?

    and no, all the complaining isnt about pets that are just a 'buff' that follows the player around.  would you add gear to a walking buff?
  • AraduneAradune Sigil Games CEOMember RarePosts: 294
    Hey all, while I don't mind at all to see similar topics regarding Pantheon pop up on multiple sites and threads, please do check out https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/3470/the-first-warning-bell , especially my posts there, to get a more clear picture of what we were discussing (not setting in stone, btw) and my replies to questions as they related to my first post.  

    It was/is definitely a passionate discussion, which is good!  Stirring up the pot, debating issues, MMO theorycrafting, etc. are what the boards should be all about and why we try hard to participate as much as time permits.

    thanks,
    -Brad

    --

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Brad McQuaid
    CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
    www.pantheonmmo.com
    --------------------------------------------------------------

  • RallydRallyd Member UncommonPosts: 95
    Aradune said:
    Hey all, while I don't mind at all to see similar topics regarding Pantheon pop up on multiple sites and threads, please do check out https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/3470/the-first-warning-bell , especially my posts there, to get a more clear picture of what we were discussing (not setting in stone, btw) and my replies to questions as they related to my first post.  

    It was/is definitely a passionate discussion, which is good!  Stirring up the pot, debating issues, MMO theorycrafting, etc. are what the boards should be all about and why we try hard to participate as much as time permits.

    thanks,
    -Brad
    Considering there is now "Keepsake Vanity Pet" listed among the rewards for pledges, it seems like this actually IS set in stone.

    Actions speak louder than words, vanity pets are incredibly unimmersive, NPC's that are immune to damage and follow you around looking silly reminding you you're playing a game.

    "We're not going to concern ourselves with the fact that there may be other MMO fans who may not like our game." - Brad McQuaid

    Well I think I can safely say that vanity pets are disliked, to say the least, by a vast majority of your target audience; so who and what is this being considered for?  Surely not MMO fans who may not like your game without concessions towards new games.

    Between this and mentoring/caravans... starting to wonder if you're really interested in creating the game your target audience is looking for, or are you using your target audience's backing to go after the majority of MMO gamers in the interest of wealth.
  • AmsaiAmsai Member UncommonPosts: 299

    @Rallyd

    I don't think that's very fair. Who are you to speak for all? I know you and I don't come from the same gaming background but I did sign up for Pantheon. So your opinion is exactly that, no? Further more I have yet to see fans of EQ or VG ALWAYS agree on the same thing. Are you suggesting that anyone that doesn't always agree with you isn't a True EQ fan? The vanity pets thing I sort of get, that feels out of place to me as well. But mentoring and caravan seem less like "Is it oldschool enough?" and more a personal hang up. I'm not even particularly vested in either of those. Oh and that last accusation was a bit low. Maybe he just is trying to create a fun game based on cool ideas?


  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Rallyd said:

    Considering there is now "Keepsake Vanity Pet" listed among the rewards for pledges, it seems like this actually IS set in stone.

    Actions speak louder than words, vanity pets are incredibly unimmersive, NPC's that are immune to damage and follow you around looking silly reminding you you're playing a game.

    "We're not going to concern ourselves with the fact that there may be other MMO fans who may not like our game." - Brad McQuaid

    Well I think I can safely say that vanity pets are disliked, to say the least, by a vast majority of your target audience; so who and what is this being considered for?  Surely not MMO fans who may not like your game without concessions towards new games.

    Between this and mentoring/caravans... starting to wonder if you're really interested in creating the game your target audience is looking for, or are you using your target audience's backing to go after the majority of MMO gamers in the interest of wealth.
    First if you read what Brad is saying in the main thread, you'll see he doesn't like the idea of pure Vanity pets either. He wants them to offer utility or he will likely scrap the system. 

     " If we cannot set up a system where any class can interact and benefit from collecting pets that is more than just cosmetic, we'll likely ditch that part of the system.  Or at least make that part of it lower priority -- I've nothing against the cosmetic, but do feel compelled to put the majority of our development time into systems that truly affect the game (whether it be pets, weather, or whatever).
    "


    Why people keep using the word vanity pets in regard to this issue I have no idea. 

    Secondly I don't see how pets are some form of invitation to the greater MMO populace... I would think pets mean squat to anyone that doesn't like the focus in general (old school game-play).


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


  • shalissarshalissar Member UncommonPosts: 508
    edited June 2016
    NOooooo, don't ruin my super serious virtual world with pets! Pets are for babies!
    God I hate this site.

    I do think though it should be one of the last things they think about.
  • TillerTiller Member EpicPosts: 8,308
    edited June 2016
    JemAs666 said:
    Here is the link to the thread for those interested.  https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/3470/the-first-warning-bell/view/page/1

    I tend to agree with the OP about the pets, but his post does exclude a lot of information / discussion including examples from Brad.
    lol @ that post where the guy claims mounts are pets xD (1st page 2nd post down.)


  • AraduneAradune Sigil Games CEOMember RarePosts: 294
    edited June 2016
    Rallyd said:
    Aradune said:
    Hey all, while I don't mind at all to see similar topics regarding Pantheon pop up on multiple sites and threads, please do check out https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/3470/the-first-warning-bell , especially my posts there, to get a more clear picture of what we were discussing (not setting in stone, btw) and my replies to questions as they related to my first post.  

    It was/is definitely a passionate discussion, which is good!  Stirring up the pot, debating issues, MMO theorycrafting, etc. are what the boards should be all about and why we try hard to participate as much as time permits.

    thanks,
    -Brad
    Considering there is now "Keepsake Vanity Pet" listed among the rewards for pledges, it seems like this actually IS set in stone.

    Actions speak louder than words, vanity pets are incredibly unimmersive, NPC's that are immune to damage and follow you around looking silly reminding you you're playing a game.

    "We're not going to concern ourselves with the fact that there may be other MMO fans who may not like our game." - Brad McQuaid

    Well I think I can safely say that vanity pets are disliked, to say the least, by a vast majority of your target audience; so who and what is this being considered for?  Surely not MMO fans who may not like your game without concessions towards new games.

    Between this and mentoring/caravans... starting to wonder if you're really interested in creating the game your target audience is looking for, or are you using your target audience's backing to go after the majority of MMO gamers in the interest of wealth.
    There isn't 'now' a vanity pet reward in the pledges -- they've been there since the kickstarter.  Tempting to remove them, but when we do alter the original pledges some people get up in arms about that.

    Thank you to the poster further down who actually read through everything I posted and even quoted my feelings about vanity/cosmetic pets.

    Caravans fit in quite nicely with our emphasis on grouping and were in VG.

    Mentoring is an important part of onboarding new players. 

    But I also explained in detail our reasoning there.

    Not concerned with your assertion that some of these ideas may alienate our target audience -- much more important to bring up newer ideas and have a conversation with our audience about them.  Definitely not concerned that introducing the idea of some pets that level up or are useful to 2/3rds of our classes to the community for discussion is going to drive people away, nor caravans and a mentoring system that will likely last 10 levels or so.  Said from the beginning that Pantheon is not an EQ-clone.

    --

    --------------------------------------------------------------
    Brad McQuaid
    CCO, Visionary Realms, Inc.
    www.pantheonmmo.com
    --------------------------------------------------------------

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,516
    edited June 2016
    As I posted on the official forums, I believe this was entirely a misunderstanding.

    A few of Brad's posts about pets provided very general information that seemed to suggest everyone would eventually get pets. Of course, what we think of as pets are mobs that fight for us. In reality, Brad was referring to many different things generically as pets such as mounts or even boats (in all fairness, he did call them sub-pets). But, because we don't normally think of mounts or boats as pets and the original information was not placed in context of specific classes, this ambiguity caused us to speculate that everyone, regardless of class, would be collecting and using pets.

    I'm not saying some of the stuff didn't merit scrutiny, only that there is now more information including some conceptual info regarding classes and possible pets (subject to change).

    Aradune said:
    If I mistyped something or wasn't clear enough, I do apologize, but the desire is not that *every* class has some sort of pet. But most of them will, and I think they make sense. Let's take a look:
    1. Cleric -- maybe, but I don't see a strong reason here.
    2. Crusader -- Crusaders/Paladins have a long history of being able to summon (e.g. not have to buy) a faithful steed.
    3. Warrior -- don't see this one making a lot of sense, although the squire idea people brought up was interesting.
    4. Dire Lord -- Necros have pets -- necro/warrior hybirds should have pets, yes?
    5. Ranger -- this may be 'newer', but I think having a hound or other canine companion to help you hunt and forage is pretty strong.
    6. Rogue -- Don't really see this.
    7. Monk -- the same -- don't really see this.
    8. Summoner -- Obviously yes.
    9. Enchanter -- Pretty traditional
    10. Wizard -- Pretty traditional
    11. Druid -- very traditional
    12. Shaman -- very traditional

    So 4/12 pets unlikely -- but 2/3rds of our classes pretty much make sense to have some sort of pet. You said: "but I am not liking the thought of everyone having a +1 with them everywhere they go". Did you read through my posts and examples? I clearly stated they would NOT be with you all of the time (and explained, in context, why they wouldn't).


  • User836User836 Member UncommonPosts: 117

    Some want pets following them around, some don't. No way of knowing which group is bigger / how large a proportion have a definitive stance on the issue.

    Some don't like vanity pets and prefer the pets to provide some benefit. Again, not possible to know how many people think functional pets are a superior feature to vanity pets.

    What an individual gamer thinks about these things is irrelevant when the game is made for thousands of people.

    What might be a good compromise or a way to cover your bases? I think having the pet system as described but allowing for "invisible pets" for those who don't like pets but don't want to miss out on the buff/boost a pet provides. Examples: rats, ferrets, insects, inanimate trinkets such as stone idols that can be carried hidden on the character's person but provide "pet" buffs might work.

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 34,579
    User836 said:

    Some want pets following them around, some don't. No way of knowing which group is bigger / how large a proportion have a definitive stance on the issue.

    Some don't like vanity pets and prefer the pets to provide some benefit. Again, not possible to know how many people think functional pets are a superior feature to vanity pets.

    What an individual gamer thinks about these things is irrelevant when the game is made for thousands of people.

    What might be a good compromise or a way to cover your bases? I think having the pet system as described but allowing for "invisible pets" for those who don't like pets but don't want to miss out on the buff/boost a pet provides. Examples: rats, ferrets, insects, inanimate trinkets such as stone idols that can be carried hidden on the character's person but provide "pet" buffs might work.

    But, but if it isn't made exactly as "We" (the Royal we) envision it then it will surely fail I tell you, fail hard just you wait and see. ;)

    "See normal people, I'm not one of them" | G-Easy & Big Sean

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing POE at the moment.

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding, but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • Jean-Luc_PicardJean-Luc_Picard Member LegendaryPosts: 8,070
    Loke666 said:
    You never played EQ, right?

    Brad have a "vision" and he isn't someone who backs down from it because the community think he should. And this is both a strenght and a weakness, what the community belives isn't always the best thing.
    Things are not always the same in theory and as implemented features. Ask Blizz, Titan was awesome in theory but boring once they tried it out.
    This worked back then when there was almost no concurrence to EQ. Yeah, you had UO and AC1, but both were in a different league, EQ was the only theme park mob grinder back then.
    This doesn't work anymore nowadays.
    "The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn in Star Wars.
    After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that nor does the ability to write.
    CPU: Core I7 9700k (4.90ghz) - GPU: Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti G1 Gaming - RAM: 16GB Kingston HyperX Savage DDR4 3000 - Motherboard: Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra - PSU: Antec TruePower New 750W - Storage: Kingston KC1000 NVMe 960gb SSD and 2x1TB WD Velociraptor HDDs (Raid 0) - Main display: Philips 40PUK6809 4K 3D TV - Second display: Philips 273v 27" gaming monitor - VR: Pimax 8K headset and Razer Hydra controllers - Soundcard: Sony STR-DH550 AV Receiver HDMI linked with the GPU and the TV, with Jamo S 426 HS 3 5.0 speakers and Pioneer S-21W subwoofer - OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bits.

  • Gobstopper3DGobstopper3D Member RarePosts: 859
    I played a game some years back (name escapes me) where you had pets that provided diff buffs (health/mana/stamina regen, ect) and/or extra storage when out.  They weren't persistent however.  When you got into a fight, the pet would run away (disappear) and when it was over, would return.  I'm not a big pet fan, but the system seemed to work ok and I didn't see it causing any problems.  I didn't play the game long though as it had some other issues I just couldn't get past.

    Bottom line..It sounds like they are happening and you will have to wait and see how they are implemented.  Give it a chance.  If you don't like how it's done, you can always not play the game.  I for one am waiting until release before I plunk any money down on a game.

    I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.

  • Kayo83Kayo83 Member UncommonPosts: 397
    edited June 2016
    Well im slighty more disappointed now after more has been said about it TBH. Mainly because up until now Ranger looked like it was going to get rid of the cliche pet for this game. I gave my opinion on pets on page one; a few combat pets for specific classes like Summoner or Ranger (if you hate seeing me happy), is fine. Id appreciate a Ranger "spec" that didnt include one but either way, fair enough. "Utility" pets with bank space, or out of combat buffs like run speed, mana regen, etc? ... sure, so long as they come with the consequences (able to die, costly rez, etc). Id also be fine if more of the other classes had long CD abilities with pets, say a necromancer that can raise a handful of undead for some burst damage.

    Any more and I just dont think I can get behind the game that plays like that for every class. Its flashbacks of SWTOR all over again and I dont think Pantheon is going to have the in depth story interaction which got me through to end game, where you didnt really need them anymore. Yes, im exaggerating, but that "everyone gets a pet" thing brings a PTSD twitch to my eye. Thats coming from someone who doesnt care if another player wants to have a 100 yard conga line of pets following them around. So long as I dont get gimped for choosing not to have one out all the time (particularly combat).

    Ill reserve judgement until more details emerge but this subject is definitely a potential deal breaker for me.
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 6,208
    edited June 2016
    I spent years looking forward to Everquest Next. I remember spirited discussions about how that game should be made. And now look.

    The only post that Brad could make that would concern me is an announcement that they are not going to make the game.

    Anything short of that extremity and I am willing to give whatever his team designs a try. 

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

  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,413
    How anyone who claims to be an EQ fan could have been excited about EQ:Next is beyond me.

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

Sign In or Register to comment.