Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Anyone else want levels to take a while?

12346

Comments

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Distopia said:
    I myself prefer leveling would never end. The moment leveling ends it turns from an RPG to an action game for me.
    I thought I was the only person who has it this way. I mean the end of leveling / progression = end of RPG part of the game.

    It is why I have difficulties calling the new breed of MMOs built around endgame where you progress to max level within a week MMORPGs. 
    I have to completely disagree with this, Role-play simply means you're playing a role. I didn't feel the RP ended once I hit a full skill build in SWG. I felt it just started as you had just fully come into playing that role. It didn't become an action game then. It also didn't take very long to finish a build, especially after learning the ropes. Many including myself could completely re-role inside of a week, unless it was BH or something which took just a bit longer. The group I played with was very much into RP, setting up RP events pretty much weekly which usually involved many large guilds. 

    RP is about imagination, suspension of disbelief, immersion, it's not about hitting arbitrary numbers and milestones. 




    and I respect that in spite of my perspective being different.

    I understand what you are saying and I have met people who share your view. I am not going to argue which view is the right one. I think there is no correct answer.

    I am just wondering what then makes an actual RPG different from a game like Battlefield where you also assume a role (assault, support,...) if you actually "role play" the game. I can also use my imagination and act like I am an actual medic running around healing my brothers in arms all immersed and everything. Am I playing an RPG then? Also, what makes an RPG different from Adventure games which I always, for my own use, "internally" classified as RPGs without progression.

    For me, the line between RPGs and other genres has always been a strong focus on progression which is correct for me, but not for others inevitably.

    I do not know if your experience is similar, but I have seen many times that gaming media said about certain game that it had  "RPG elements" by which they always referred to progression. I am not saying it proves anything, but it indicates that I am not the only person in the world with this perspective.

    I dont know...I dont want to sound like I am arguing. Just trying to explain myself.

    I get what you're saying, I didn't mean to imply you were wrong either. I just look at RP as a broader context than simply being about progression. 

    Sure a person can pretty much RP anything in games, I also agree certain adventure titles are very similar to RPGs minus progression. Yet the RPG genre tends to focus more on facilitating the act of roleplaying than most other genres, branching dialogue, a myriad of dialogue/personality choices, worlds that feel more attuned to "living" in them, IE housing, fishing, hunting, ways to make money from those actions, etc...

    Even classes and things like that are handled differently than in other genres, at least in good RPGs like CRPGs. Where different classes carry utility skills that set them apart and add functionality to a group dynamic, lock picking, perception, elemental powers that interact with the world, etc... While there are titles that skirt these lines such as GTA, red dead redemption etc..., it's not just  progression that sets RPGS apart. Those latter games usually don't go as deep in such functionality, they're more focused on action set pieces and cutscenes. 


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


  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,414
    Dullahan said:
    fivoroth said:

    I don't know. 450 hours to hit max level is a huge investment. If you made it even higher, a lot of people will just quit. Or it will limit mmorpgs to people who only play this genre. I don't play 5 hours every day probably more like 7-10 hours a week. I don't think we need to worry that's much about people who play 24/7.  Because if you want to prevent max level characters from showing too early, you will make it so that more casual people will never reach max level before they quit. This will limit who plays at max level and can cause big issues in terms of population at max level.
    You guys are still thinking about this all wrong. You're stuck in the mindset that games are only played to be beaten. As if the "real game" only starts at "end game".

    A MMO can be fun from the start if it's designed that way. A game like that has no limit to the number of hours it's fun before max level when done right.


    It really boggles my mind.  I had 4500 hours of playtime on my Paladin in EQ1. that's 10x the amount this guy is complaining about.  I have 2000 hours of Dota 2 play time.  If a game is good, it's fun.

    I really agree with you, so many of the people who play MMO's now were enticed into the genre by developers introducing single player rpg mechanics into an MMO. It had a predictable result, it exploded the playerbase, but none of them stuck around. Why? Because they played them like single player games. Burn through the content and move on to the next game.

    It's such a basic cause and effect that it is confusing that to this day there are still suits in offices at game publishers banging their heads against walls as to why they can't retain players.  That's like me complaining about not being able to lose weight while I'm eating a 18" double cheese, double pepperoni pizza for dinner every night.

    "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

  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,414
    DMKano said:
    Aelious said:
    DMKano said:
    Viper482 said:
    DMKano said:
    How do you build memories in a short 3 week game ?

    Why would you build your own community of friends in a 3 week mmo ?

    How do you REALLY define and fine tune your character in a 3 week mmo ?

    Why even call it an mmo in a 3 week game and not just a video game ?

    How fun is making an alt that may be needed by your Guild if you play the exact same content over ?

    Why craft in a 3 week game >


    Well, by reading all the replies it seems the majority don't like short 3 week games anyway.  This topic is really not needed.........However, I guess it needs to be mentioned to show developers to make mmos for us instead of their quick cash hit and run games !!!! 

    One reason I like Pantheon is that I have total faith in this development team :)

    what you are completely failing to take into account is the typical F2P player will come back at some point - as the game is zero cost - so with patches, expansions etc... F2P players come back to play for a few more weeks.

    it's not like - hey I'll play this game for 3 weeks and that's it. A good % do come back and keep coming back, because there is no fee to come back.

    So the way it looks in F2P games - it's constant churn - launch population spike, then decline as players move on 2-6 weeks later... then you have a content patch, another (smaller) spike... then players leave again etc...
     


    Now in a pure subscription model - you lose a player, it's a lot harder to "win" them back because even if they want to check out that new patch for 5minutes - they have to pay a full month price, which makes many say - no thanks.


    Dude, you've been talking this crap for the past few years, and all we have gotten out of the genre is just that....crap. If you build a great game people will want to stay and play it for more than a few weeks. Also with a sub there is more of an investment in it. Show me a legit stat that shows people come back to free to play games more than they do sub games. Because even when I have gone back to a non-sub game like ESO, I still pay the sub. People that don't want to pay subs don't pay crap anyway. Why cater to freeloaders? 


    You are a minority representing view of a minority.

    What stats do I need to show you - just look how pretty much every MMO in existence has transitioned from P2P to F2P/B2P

    Pure P2P has ceased to exist.

    Why?

    Because players DONT STAY anymore like they did 17 years ago.

    Instead of handful MMO to choose from back in 1999-2003, now there are 100s.

    Also now we have a ton of other stuff to do like Netflix, Social media, Steam, console online games have taken off - so a modern player has a ton of stuff asking attention - focusing on a single game for months  is very rare in majority players.


    Pure P2P today is assured failure.


    You make the point yourself. There are hundreds of MMOs (though admittedly only 30ish worth playing) all vying for the same type of player. In order to carve out a place in this industry you need to bring something unique.... then people will be willing to pay for it! What you say above would be true if Pantheon intended to being the same standard model and was proposing a sub. They are not so the prediction is invalid. There is a market for the type of player Pantheon is vying for and it won't be prone to wander as much as you're assuming. I look forward to being right.

    there is a market - I never said there wasn't - it's just a very small market.

    I am not assuming anything, I've seen the market research myself as far as player number projections for EQ1 vanilla style game.


    I'd be really curious how that particular research was conducted.  I think the people claiming 150k as being the pinnacle are being extremely narrow-minded and underestimating the possibilities.

    The reality is that a HUGE chunk of the current playerbase has never experienced an old school style game, and all the experience they do have is negative because with younger generations "old = dumb and useless".  If the game releases, is good, and people are enjoying it, reviewers are enjoying it, they could end up breaking down and giving it a try, and finding that they enjoy it.

    Even something like Vanilla WoW is much closer to Pantheon than it is to modern MMOs.  There's still a TON of people who would love to have something more in that vein that what is available now.

    I really don't think that having 150k subs is completely an absurd number. Personally I would consider 400-500k a resounding success.

    "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

  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,414
    DMKano said:
    Hrimnir said:
    DMKano said:
    Aelious said:
    DMKano said:
    Viper482 said:
    DMKano said:
    How do you build memories in a short 3 week game ?

    Why would you build your own community of friends in a 3 week mmo ?

    How do you REALLY define and fine tune your character in a 3 week mmo ?

    Why even call it an mmo in a 3 week game and not just a video game ?

    How fun is making an alt that may be needed by your Guild if you play the exact same content over ?

    Why craft in a 3 week game >


    Well, by reading all the replies it seems the majority don't like short 3 week games anyway.  This topic is really not needed.........However, I guess it needs to be mentioned to show developers to make mmos for us instead of their quick cash hit and run games !!!! 

    One reason I like Pantheon is that I have total faith in this development team :)

    what you are completely failing to take into account is the typical F2P player will come back at some point - as the game is zero cost - so with patches, expansions etc... F2P players come back to play for a few more weeks.

    it's not like - hey I'll play this game for 3 weeks and that's it. A good % do come back and keep coming back, because there is no fee to come back.

    So the way it looks in F2P games - it's constant churn - launch population spike, then decline as players move on 2-6 weeks later... then you have a content patch, another (smaller) spike... then players leave again etc...
     


    Now in a pure subscription model - you lose a player, it's a lot harder to "win" them back because even if they want to check out that new patch for 5minutes - they have to pay a full month price, which makes many say - no thanks.


    Dude, you've been talking this crap for the past few years, and all we have gotten out of the genre is just that....crap. If you build a great game people will want to stay and play it for more than a few weeks. Also with a sub there is more of an investment in it. Show me a legit stat that shows people come back to free to play games more than they do sub games. Because even when I have gone back to a non-sub game like ESO, I still pay the sub. People that don't want to pay subs don't pay crap anyway. Why cater to freeloaders? 


    You are a minority representing view of a minority.

    What stats do I need to show you - just look how pretty much every MMO in existence has transitioned from P2P to F2P/B2P

    Pure P2P has ceased to exist.

    Why?

    Because players DONT STAY anymore like they did 17 years ago.

    Instead of handful MMO to choose from back in 1999-2003, now there are 100s.

    Also now we have a ton of other stuff to do like Netflix, Social media, Steam, console online games have taken off - so a modern player has a ton of stuff asking attention - focusing on a single game for months  is very rare in majority players.


    Pure P2P today is assured failure.


    You make the point yourself. There are hundreds of MMOs (though admittedly only 30ish worth playing) all vying for the same type of player. In order to carve out a place in this industry you need to bring something unique.... then people will be willing to pay for it! What you say above would be true if Pantheon intended to being the same standard model and was proposing a sub. They are not so the prediction is invalid. There is a market for the type of player Pantheon is vying for and it won't be prone to wander as much as you're assuming. I look forward to being right.

    there is a market - I never said there wasn't - it's just a very small market.

    I am not assuming anything, I've seen the market research myself as far as player number projections for EQ1 vanilla style game.


    I'd be really curious how that particular research was conducted.  I think the people claiming 150k as being the pinnacle are being extremely narrow-minded and underestimating the possibilities.

    The reality is that a HUGE chunk of the current playerbase has never experienced an old school style game, and all the experience they do have is negative because with younger generations "old = dumb and useless".  If the game releases, is good, and people are enjoying it, reviewers are enjoying it, they could end up breaking down and giving it a try, and finding that they enjoy it.

    Even something like Vanilla WoW is much closer to Pantheon than it is to modern MMOs.  There's still a TON of people who would love to have something more in that vein that what is available now.

    I really don't think that having 150k subs is completely an absurd number. Personally I would consider 400-500k a resounding success.

    150K at launch for pantheon is possible (jf they really nail the gameplay)- and about 6 months that number would be less than half (most likely around 50K)

    This would be both realistic and great for Pantheon.

    400-500K is unrealistic as far as any actual numbers I've seen - unless Pantheon changes to something that is very casual and unlike anything they've pitched so far (alienating the original backers completely - i don't think this will happen)


    You have to understand that any data you've looked at are estimates.  If you looked at the estimates for the playerbase of WoW when it came out, it ended up being horrifically wrong.  Now, again, I'm not trying to suggest that Pantheon will be like WoW and have million of players, I'm just saying that you can't put 100% faith in market research.  It's very regularly incorrect.

    The simple fact is there has not been a game that has this sort of class interdependency, longer leveling times, lack of fast travel, etc, in a very very long time.  There are a lot of players who *might* love this that don't know it yet, or won't know it until they try it.

    I'm just saying, keep an open mind.

    "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

  • esc-joconnoresc-joconnor Member RarePosts: 1,097
    I think levels and level segregation of players is a bane on gaming. You should just be playing doing something fun and involving with the occasional skill advancement being a bonus.
  • Kunai_VaxKunai_Vax Member RarePosts: 527
    "Anyone else want levels to take a while?"
    No, not when the parts of the game that I enjoy, i.e. raiding, don't start until max level.

    Sometimes leveling is talked about as the part of the game that teaches you your class. I don't need to grind through 50, 60, 80, 100 levels to learn my rotations and class specs, and nevermind that leveling usually also includes skill upgrades or new skills per level, which leads to your end-game rotation not being available until late game anyway. The fact that in a number of games you can buy max-level tokens also undermines this argument.

    From the developers point of view, leveling also introduces adverse effects.
    In the simplest implementation, you create vast amounts of content that your players will go through once per character, to never be set foot in again. Developers have to implement extra features involving extra development effort, like level adjustments, dailies and rep grind, or collectibles, to entice gamers back into old leveling zones.

    This line of thinking of course shows that the problem doesn't lie with leveling, but rather the existence of levels and the need for character progression.

    Could you imagine a game without levels, where a character starts at the "max level" with all skills and traits and talents and specs? "Progression" would be winning through successively harder parts of the game without making your character more powerful. Your character would change only insofar as the player at the keyboard gets better (better execution of rotations, better raid awareness, less standing in fire) and skills and talents are moved around to match certain challenges (faster interrupt CD, stun resistance, AOE damage reduction).

    When i first played Vanila WoW the game was amazing and i loved every minute of it. I loved the exploration, the questing, the dungeons, the socialising and so on. All through Vanila, TBC and most of WotLK i was forever making new characters and loving the leveling experience. If the game had not taken so made bad directions since then i have little doubt in my mind that i would still be making new characters and enjoying the world. 
    I only say this as an example that it can be a worthwhile investment of time and resources if done correctly.
    Other than that i cant really fault your post. 

  • EvorasXEvorasX Member UncommonPosts: 6
    @DMKano et al
    1. Market Share (Unique = Good)
         While there may be '30-something games worth playing' which you perceive as 'alternatives' and hence 'competition' to Pantheon, you failed to group them by type. In reality, these '30-something' games all follow a fairly narrow sector of F2P models, using fairly comparable levels of 'casualness' and 'Single-player centric' theme-park gameplay. This does allow Pantheon to stand as disctinct on several fronts: predominantly with respect to 'Level of challenge' and 'Socialization/Grouping'. Thus Pantheon is not 'merely 1 of 30 clones' but 'the only game of it's type vs perhaps 4 distinct sets of F2P game models'.
        This is a good thing.

    2. Levelling (Slow = better)
        There will always be a (small) sub-set of players who power through any game in order to get to 'end level'. These 'Super achievers' (Subset of Bartle's Achievers) make a tiny % of the player-base. Thus, an MMO's levelling curve does not need to address this subset directly. They enjoy the end-game and will happily do so, vying to be the best on their server!
        The next subset of playerbase to consider are the achievers with either time or ability to climb the levels fairly quickly, but at the expense of all else. These are your 'true' Bartle achievers. This is the subset MMO developers need to be conscious of - since they represent a significant % of the playerbase and are the cause of 'server ageing' (Raising of both mean and mode player level).
        The gap between this subset and the starters/casual players is the critical area of concern. This is what determines zone populations, starter zone density, MUD-flation impact levels and overall server 'maturity'. For a server to avoid these having an adverse effect, slowing levelling is an important consideration.
        (a) Have lots of horizontal progression available.
        (b) Slow the rate of levelling directly (more exp per level needed etc)

    In any case, it is critical to get the playerbase to overcome their inherent 'love for all that was bad' about the last MMO they played. (Ref: R.Bartle 'Newbie Induction: How poor design triumphs in Virtual Worlds'). Since this necessarily will include 'casual, themepark, single-player and F2P/P2Win' games, it will be the use of 'newer' media options such as YouTube and Twitch which will likely prove instrumental for whether Pantheon subsists on a core playerbase or increases dramatically as the next generation finally gets to sample the feeling of significant challenge, distinct class roles and true social interaction not seen since 2000.

    PS I am biased in favour of Pantheon.
  • delete5230delete5230 Member EpicPosts: 6,528
    edited February 2017
    DMKano said:
    EvorasX said:
    @DMKano et al
    1. Market Share (Unique = Good)
         While there may be '30-something games worth playing' which you perceive as 'alternatives' and hence 'competition' to Pantheon, you failed to group them by type. In reality, these '30-something' games all follow a fairly narrow sector of F2P models, using fairly comparable levels of 'casualness' and 'Single-player centric' theme-park gameplay. This does allow Pantheon to stand as disctinct on several fronts: predominantly with respect to 'Level of challenge' and 'Socialization/Grouping'. Thus Pantheon is not 'merely 1 of 30 clones' but 'the only game of it's type vs perhaps 4 distinct sets of F2P game models'.
        This is a good thing.

    2. Levelling (Slow = better)
        There will always be a (small) sub-set of players who power through any game in order to get to 'end level'. These 'Super achievers' (Subset of Bartle's Achievers) make a tiny % of the player-base. Thus, an MMO's levelling curve does not need to address this subset directly. They enjoy the end-game and will happily do so, vying to be the best on their server!
        The next subset of playerbase to consider are the achievers with either time or ability to climb the levels fairly quickly, but at the expense of all else. These are your 'true' Bartle achievers. This is the subset MMO developers need to be conscious of - since they represent a significant % of the playerbase and are the cause of 'server ageing' (Raising of both mean and mode player level).
        The gap between this subset and the starters/casual players is the critical area of concern. This is what determines zone populations, starter zone density, MUD-flation impact levels and overall server 'maturity'. For a server to avoid these having an adverse effect, slowing levelling is an important consideration.
        (a) Have lots of horizontal progression available.
        (b) Slow the rate of levelling directly (more exp per level needed etc)

    In any case, it is critical to get the playerbase to overcome their inherent 'love for all that was bad' about the last MMO they played. (Ref: R.Bartle 'Newbie Induction: How poor design triumphs in Virtual Worlds'). Since this necessarily will include 'casual, themepark, single-player and F2P/P2Win' games, it will be the use of 'newer' media options such as YouTube and Twitch which will likely prove instrumental for whether Pantheon subsists on a core playerbase or increases dramatically as the next generation finally gets to sample the feeling of significant challenge, distinct class roles and true social interaction not seen since 2000.

    PS I am biased in favour of Pantheon.

    Have you ever tried to get any "new generation" player into P99?

    I couldn't get a single one to last more than 3 days.

    I think it's delusional when people equate any video game that was made in 1999 as a gauge of 2017 players. JUST YOUTUBE ANYTHING EVERQUEST 1, AND THIS WOULD TURN ANY YOUNGER PLAYRE OFF.


    Lets be realistic the game is dated.  Without saying anything bad about the depth and fun you can have with EQ1 its OLD,  very very old !


    I'm very nostalgic to older video games.  I'm old, I played pong back in the late 70s.  But one day I decided to see what's up with this classic mmo called Everquest 1, its one that I never played.

    The Youtube guy made a character and entered the world and walked up to the first NPC and had to type /give me weapon or something like that........I INSTANTLY TURNED IT OFF, AND NEVER LOOKED BACK !...........The game is old !!!!!


    This delusional thinking of confusing video game with stick figures from something made for 2017 is just wrong !!!!!

    Pantheon is being made to capture that group centric feeling, not a stick figure feeling.  At least I hope not, if so it will fail.


    I haven't mentioned "old school " once.  There's a reason for that:

    Most here cant handle that phrase because that sink back to 1999
  • craftseekercraftseeker Member RarePosts: 1,740
    DMKano said:
    EvorasX said:
    @DMKano et al
    1. Market Share (Unique = Good)
         While there may be '30-something games worth playing' which you perceive as 'alternatives' and hence 'competition' to Pantheon, you failed to group them by type. In reality, these '30-something' games all follow a fairly narrow sector of F2P models, using fairly comparable levels of 'casualness' and 'Single-player centric' theme-park gameplay. This does allow Pantheon to stand as disctinct on several fronts: predominantly with respect to 'Level of challenge' and 'Socialization/Grouping'. Thus Pantheon is not 'merely 1 of 30 clones' but 'the only game of it's type vs perhaps 4 distinct sets of F2P game models'.
        This is a good thing.

    2. Levelling (Slow = better)
        There will always be a (small) sub-set of players who power through any game in order to get to 'end level'. These 'Super achievers' (Subset of Bartle's Achievers) make a tiny % of the player-base. Thus, an MMO's levelling curve does not need to address this subset directly. They enjoy the end-game and will happily do so, vying to be the best on their server!
        The next subset of playerbase to consider are the achievers with either time or ability to climb the levels fairly quickly, but at the expense of all else. These are your 'true' Bartle achievers. This is the subset MMO developers need to be conscious of - since they represent a significant % of the playerbase and are the cause of 'server ageing' (Raising of both mean and mode player level).
        The gap between this subset and the starters/casual players is the critical area of concern. This is what determines zone populations, starter zone density, MUD-flation impact levels and overall server 'maturity'. For a server to avoid these having an adverse effect, slowing levelling is an important consideration.
        (a) Have lots of horizontal progression available.
        (b) Slow the rate of levelling directly (more exp per level needed etc)

    In any case, it is critical to get the playerbase to overcome their inherent 'love for all that was bad' about the last MMO they played. (Ref: R.Bartle 'Newbie Induction: How poor design triumphs in Virtual Worlds'). Since this necessarily will include 'casual, themepark, single-player and F2P/P2Win' games, it will be the use of 'newer' media options such as YouTube and Twitch which will likely prove instrumental for whether Pantheon subsists on a core playerbase or increases dramatically as the next generation finally gets to sample the feeling of significant challenge, distinct class roles and true social interaction not seen since 2000.

    PS I am biased in favour of Pantheon.

    Have you ever tried to get any "new generation" player into P99?

    I couldn't get a single one to last more than 3 days.
    Strangely my son took up P99 in the last twelve months and lured me back into the game, more than three months so far. I suppose he had played Everquest before, but only for a few days when he was around nine.
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    DMKano said:


    there is a market - I never said there wasn't - it's just a very small market.

    I am not assuming anything, I've seen the market research myself as far as player number projections for EQ1 vanilla style game.

    This is a fact - it's not an assumption.

    Rofl, market research conducted by the same people who concluded the best option for MMOs was to make them massively single player lobby games, no doubt.


  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    edited February 2017
    DMKano said:


    Which has been more successful than EQ1, DAoC, AC, AO and all gen1 games put together.

    Not sure whats so funny about that.

    You might hate the style but the amount of money pulled in by modern lobby games like Overwatch, Destiny, COD etc....
     
    Its an order of magnitude bigger than mmorpgs.

    Hello?
    Yes, and cars are a bigger industry than motorcycles. Apples and oranges. And I like how you tried to conflate all lobby games with MMO lobby games to lend credibility to your argument.

    There were also over 2 BILLION more people on the internet when Destiny came out, than when first gen MMOs were in their prime.

    Hello?


  • Viper482Viper482 Member EpicPosts: 3,186
    edited February 2017
    DMKano said:
    Viper482 said:
    DMKano said:
    How do you build memories in a short 3 week game ?

    Why would you build your own community of friends in a 3 week mmo ?

    How do you REALLY define and fine tune your character in a 3 week mmo ?

    Why even call it an mmo in a 3 week game and not just a video game ?

    How fun is making an alt that may be needed by your Guild if you play the exact same content over ?

    Why craft in a 3 week game >


    Well, by reading all the replies it seems the majority don't like short 3 week games anyway.  This topic is really not needed.........However, I guess it needs to be mentioned to show developers to make mmos for us instead of their quick cash hit and run games !!!! 

    One reason I like Pantheon is that I have total faith in this development team :)

    what you are completely failing to take into account is the typical F2P player will come back at some point - as the game is zero cost - so with patches, expansions etc... F2P players come back to play for a few more weeks.

    it's not like - hey I'll play this game for 3 weeks and that's it. A good % do come back and keep coming back, because there is no fee to come back.

    So the way it looks in F2P games - it's constant churn - launch population spike, then decline as players move on 2-6 weeks later... then you have a content patch, another (smaller) spike... then players leave again etc...
     


    Now in a pure subscription model - you lose a player, it's a lot harder to "win" them back because even if they want to check out that new patch for 5minutes - they have to pay a full month price, which makes many say - no thanks.


    Dude, you've been talking this crap for the past few years, and all we have gotten out of the genre is just that....crap. If you build a great game people will want to stay and play it for more than a few weeks. Also with a sub there is more of an investment in it. Show me a legit stat that shows people come back to free to play games more than they do sub games. Because even when I have gone back to a non-sub game like ESO, I still pay the sub. People that don't want to pay subs don't pay crap anyway. Why cater to freeloaders? 


    You are a minority representing view of a minority.

    What stats do I need to show you - just look how pretty much every MMO in existence has transitioned from P2P to F2P/B2P

    Pure P2P has ceased to exist.

    Why?

    Because players DONT STAY anymore like they did 17 years ago.

    Instead of handful MMO to choose from back in 1999-2003, now there are 100s.

    Also now we have a ton of other stuff to do like Netflix, Social media, Steam, console online games have taken off - so a modern player has a ton of stuff asking attention - focusing on a single game for months  is very rare in majority players.


    Pure P2P today is assured failure.

    WoW and FFXIV were two of the top MMOs of 2016. Both sub-model MMO's.

    The original MMO fanbase was niche, still is. I don't care what the "majority" wants, I only care about what I, the MMO fan, wants. I do not want a multiplayer experience, I want an MMO with a living, thriving economy and community, like back in the day. I don't give crap about what you want, I don't need you to have this experience for me to enjoy it. F2p MMOs are crap. Just because you like them does not change MY opinion of them. Get over yourself dude, no one cares anymore about your internet persona you created that has connections and a magical "deep" understanding of this genre that we plebs will never comprehend. It is laughable.
    Make MMORPG's Great Again!
  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Dullahan said:
    DMKano said:


    Which has been more successful than EQ1, DAoC, AC, AO and all gen1 games put together.

    Not sure whats so funny about that.

    You might hate the style but the amount of money pulled in by modern lobby games like Overwatch, Destiny, COD etc....
     
    Its an order of magnitude bigger than mmorpgs.

    Hello?
    Yes, and cars are a bigger industry than motorcycles. Apples and oranges. And I like how you tried to conflate all lobby games with MMO lobby games to lend credibility to your argument.

    There were also over 2 BILLION more people on the internet when Destiny came out, than when first gen MMOs were in their prime.

    Hello?

    To be completely fair, just because the market is larger doesn't mean you can expect to sell more. Try selling some antiquated technology. There might be a niche market for it, but it's unlikely that the size of that market changes much regardless of the population size. 

    What would be super interesting to see would be the age demographics for people interested in Pantheon. My guess is that it's mostly the 30+ crowd who have been playing MMOs for a decade or more. People who have been programmed to be persistent and that waiting is worthwhile. Anybody 30 and under are more likely to be accustomed to constant and frequent progression in MMOs, similar to what you see now. Also, it's due to popularized MMO-esque games like Destiny and The Division where progression is much more rewarding. 

    Can we agree that Pantheon is a niche game? If so then why are you arguing about numbers? We know it'll be a subset of the mass market, but there's really no way to tell what that subset actually looks like. What we DO know is that similar "old school" projects (like SotA) have had difficulties maintaining numbers. So what's the solution to that? Ignoring the realities of this genre isn't going to all of a sudden make millions flock to it, it'll only serve to make the game appear to under-perform when it doesn't meet the expectations that the community set for it. 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    edited February 2017
    CrazKanuk said:
    Dullahan said:
    DMKano said:


    Which has been more successful than EQ1, DAoC, AC, AO and all gen1 games put together.

    Not sure whats so funny about that.

    You might hate the style but the amount of money pulled in by modern lobby games like Overwatch, Destiny, COD etc....
     
    Its an order of magnitude bigger than mmorpgs.

    Hello?
    Yes, and cars are a bigger industry than motorcycles. Apples and oranges. And I like how you tried to conflate all lobby games with MMO lobby games to lend credibility to your argument.

    There were also over 2 BILLION more people on the internet when Destiny came out, than when first gen MMOs were in their prime.

    Hello?

    To be completely fair, just because the market is larger doesn't mean you can expect to sell more. Try selling some antiquated technology. There might be a niche market for it, but it's unlikely that the size of that market changes much regardless of the population size. 

    What would be super interesting to see would be the age demographics for people interested in Pantheon. My guess is that it's mostly the 30+ crowd who have been playing MMOs for a decade or more. People who have been programmed to be persistent and that waiting is worthwhile. Anybody 30 and under are more likely to be accustomed to constant and frequent progression in MMOs, similar to what you see now. Also, it's due to popularized MMO-esque games like Destiny and The Division where progression is much more rewarding. 

    Can we agree that Pantheon is a niche game? If so then why are you arguing about numbers? We know it'll be a subset of the mass market, but there's really no way to tell what that subset actually looks like. What we DO know is that similar "old school" projects (like SotA) have had difficulties maintaining numbers. So what's the solution to that? Ignoring the realities of this genre isn't going to all of a sudden make millions flock to it, it'll only serve to make the game appear to under-perform when it doesn't meet the expectations that the community set for it. 
    The whole "niche" "mainstream" classifications are ambiguous and misleading. We're talking about EQ, which was more popular than pretty much any current MMO on the market outside of WoW (largely due to China). Is half a million players niche today? I don't think so.

    So how niche is it really. Depending on how polished and well executed Pantheon is, I think it has the potential to rival many of the games we commonly call mainstream.

    Does that mean it would therefore be mainstream? Probably not, because it will be different than the usual games. However, describing games as niche to refer to their potential audience is not really very descriptive.


  • Nightbringe1Nightbringe1 Member UncommonPosts: 1,335
    edited February 2017
    Yudore said:
    I think level cap should take roughly 3 months when playing 4 to 5 hours a day.

    I'm curious what others think, post below!

    I think level cap should take ~6 month when playing 4-5 hours a day, with a strong encouragement to invest significant time and effort into gearing and up and advancing skills as you level.

    Simply farming XP should not be sufficient for either.

    Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
    Benjamin Franklin

  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,557
    edited February 2017
    DMKano said:

    Which has been more successful than EQ1, DAoC, AC, AO and all gen1 games put together.
    How do you propose success be measured?

    Total box/download sales?

    Total revenue from subscriptions/cash shop sales?

    Total number of players?

    Player satisfaction?

    Market share of then existing market?

    Percentage of player retention over time?

    Return on investment to investors? 

    Player, press and industry feedback as to quality?

    Advancement of the genre through innovation?

    Years in operation?

    You really can't fairly compare the success of two games without choosing your criteria.

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

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Dullahan said:
    The whole "niche" "mainstream" classifications are ambiguous and misleading. We're talking about EQ, which was more popular than pretty much any current MMO on the market outside of WoW (largely due to China). Is half a million players niche today? I don't think so.


    What are you basing that on? Because it had 500k players for a short time? Define popularity here?

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


  • CrazKanukCrazKanuk Member EpicPosts: 6,130
    Dullahan said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Dullahan said:
    DMKano said:


    Which has been more successful than EQ1, DAoC, AC, AO and all gen1 games put together.

    Not sure whats so funny about that.

    You might hate the style but the amount of money pulled in by modern lobby games like Overwatch, Destiny, COD etc....
     
    Its an order of magnitude bigger than mmorpgs.

    Hello?
    Yes, and cars are a bigger industry than motorcycles. Apples and oranges. And I like how you tried to conflate all lobby games with MMO lobby games to lend credibility to your argument.

    There were also over 2 BILLION more people on the internet when Destiny came out, than when first gen MMOs were in their prime.

    Hello?

    To be completely fair, just because the market is larger doesn't mean you can expect to sell more. Try selling some antiquated technology. There might be a niche market for it, but it's unlikely that the size of that market changes much regardless of the population size. 

    What would be super interesting to see would be the age demographics for people interested in Pantheon. My guess is that it's mostly the 30+ crowd who have been playing MMOs for a decade or more. People who have been programmed to be persistent and that waiting is worthwhile. Anybody 30 and under are more likely to be accustomed to constant and frequent progression in MMOs, similar to what you see now. Also, it's due to popularized MMO-esque games like Destiny and The Division where progression is much more rewarding. 

    Can we agree that Pantheon is a niche game? If so then why are you arguing about numbers? We know it'll be a subset of the mass market, but there's really no way to tell what that subset actually looks like. What we DO know is that similar "old school" projects (like SotA) have had difficulties maintaining numbers. So what's the solution to that? Ignoring the realities of this genre isn't going to all of a sudden make millions flock to it, it'll only serve to make the game appear to under-perform when it doesn't meet the expectations that the community set for it. 
    The whole "niche" "mainstream" classifications are ambiguous and misleading. We're talking about EQ, which was more popular than pretty much any current MMO on the market outside of WoW (largely due to China). Is half a million players niche today? I don't think so.

    So how niche is it really. Depending on how polished and well executed Pantheon is, I think it has the potential to rival many of the games we commonly call mainstream.

    Does that mean it would therefore be mainstream? Probably not, because it will be different than the usual games. However, describing games as niche to refer to their potential audience is not really very descriptive.

    Yes, you're right, Everquest did have 500,000 subscribers at one point. However, when WoW released that number was cut to like 200k in less than a year. So what does that mean? Does it mean that Everquest had run out of steam? Or does it mean that it was only popular because of a lack of choice? 

    You know what, though, I'm not here to rain on your parade, so if you really want to hang your hat on 500,000 subscribers, go for it. Fuck, WoW had 10 million at one point, so the true market is at least 10 million. Most of those people are disgruntled, too, so they're looking for a new game, and Pantheon offers what most MMORPG players have been asking for. Therefore, if they are able to deliver a great game, there's absolutely no reason that they shouldn't be able to secure 10% of those WoW numbers, so 1 million people, and that's being conservative! So the sky is the limit! 

    Crazkanuk

    ----------------
    Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
    Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
    Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
    Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
    Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
    ----------------

  • Mylan12Mylan12 Member UncommonPosts: 281
    DMKano said:
    Viper482 said:
    DMKano said:
    Viper482 said:
    DMKano said:
    How do you build memories in a short 3 week game ?

    Why would you build your own community of friends in a 3 week mmo ?

    How do you REALLY define and fine tune your character in a 3 week mmo ?

    Why even call it an mmo in a 3 week game and not just a video game ?

    How fun is making an alt that may be needed by your Guild if you play the exact same content over ?

    Why craft in a 3 week game >


    Well, by reading all the replies it seems the majority don't like short 3 week games anyway.  This topic is really not needed.........However, I guess it needs to be mentioned to show developers to make mmos for us instead of their quick cash hit and run games !!!! 

    One reason I like Pantheon is that I have total faith in this development team :)

    what you are completely failing to take into account is the typical F2P player will come back at some point - as the game is zero cost - so with patches, expansions etc... F2P players come back to play for a few more weeks.

    it's not like - hey I'll play this game for 3 weeks and that's it. A good % do come back and keep coming back, because there is no fee to come back.

    So the way it looks in F2P games - it's constant churn - launch population spike, then decline as players move on 2-6 weeks later... then you have a content patch, another (smaller) spike... then players leave again etc...
     


    Now in a pure subscription model - you lose a player, it's a lot harder to "win" them back because even if they want to check out that new patch for 5minutes - they have to pay a full month price, which makes many say - no thanks.


    Dude, you've been talking this crap for the past few years, and all we have gotten out of the genre is just that....crap. If you build a great game people will want to stay and play it for more than a few weeks. Also with a sub there is more of an investment in it. Show me a legit stat that shows people come back to free to play games more than they do sub games. Because even when I have gone back to a non-sub game like ESO, I still pay the sub. People that don't want to pay subs don't pay crap anyway. Why cater to freeloaders? 


    You are a minority representing view of a minority.

    What stats do I need to show you - just look how pretty much every MMO in existence has transitioned from P2P to F2P/B2P

    Pure P2P has ceased to exist.

    Why?

    Because players DONT STAY anymore like they did 17 years ago.

    Instead of handful MMO to choose from back in 1999-2003, now there are 100s.

    Also now we have a ton of other stuff to do like Netflix, Social media, Steam, console online games have taken off - so a modern player has a ton of stuff asking attention - focusing on a single game for months  is very rare in majority players.


    Pure P2P today is assured failure.

    WoW and FFXIV were two of the top MMOs of 2016. Both sub-model MMO's.

    The original MMO fanbase was niche, still is. I don't care what the "majority" wants, I only care about what I, the MMO fan, wants. I do not want a multiplayer experience, I want an MMO with a living, thriving economy and community, like back in the day. I don't give crap about what you want, I don't need you to have this experience for me to enjoy it. F2p MMOs are crap. Just because you like them does not change MY opinion of them. Get over yourself dude, no one cares anymore about your internet persona you created that has connections and a magical "deep" understanding of this genre that we plebs will never comprehend. It is laughable.

    Both WoW and FFXIV are not top 2 MMOs by a longshot - where are you getting your metrics?

    Also neither game is pure sub - both make a significant profit from their cash shops.

    Cash shops ARE the money maker.

    Hearthstone made a lot more money than WoW and FFXIV in 2016.

    Yeah.
    So what you are saying that every game maker should pick out the game(s) that are making the most money and just clone or copy it. Nothing else should ever be made. All them WoW clones did not seem to do that well but guess they did the right thing according to this logic. Of course if all the games are copies of each other then the player has no reason to leave what he is playing now and try the new game as its the same.
     You need to talk to Ford and GM, the pickup sells the best and makes the most money, they should not waste their time making anything else. 
     
     
  • RhoklawRhoklaw Member LegendaryPosts: 7,299
    After playing on P99 for a while, I had forgotten just how slow vanilla EQ was. I think it took me a whole day just to reach level 8-10. This only works on PvE focused games though as PvP focused games usually have little to no PvE content and are more focused on endgame PvP content. Except of course Blizzard who for some reason felt it necessary to speed up leveling as well as offer instant high level characters for sale.

    I do prefer to actually feel like I'm earning a level through diligence and hard work, instead of being given a trophy level because I learned how to talk to an NPC.

  • AdamantineAdamantine Member RarePosts: 4,444
    Well, ideally, assuming that level 100 is maxlevel at release (which it probably wont, but correct accordingly), and you're playing 4 hours per day:

    Level 1-10: About a day
    Level 11-20: About three days (total, so additional 2 days)
    Level 20-30: About a week (additional 4 days)
    Level 30-40: About two weeks (additional 7 days)
    Level 40-50: About a month (additional 14 days)
    Level 50-60: About two months (additional 28 days)
    Level 70-80: About four months (additional 56 days)
    Level 80-90: About eight months (additional 112 days)
    Level 90-100: About two to three+ years (additional 448+ days => the last levels have a real slowdown as well)

    In short the traditional "endgame" shouldnt exist as such.

    Also, there should be raid style content from level 50 on. You'll need two groups for these early raids, and they wont be too complex and hard just yet. You'll need three groups and increasing complexity later.

    From level 90 on you should be considered "maxlevel" of sorts. All top gear should be wearable at level 90, its just hard to actually get it. An actual level 100 should be a rare sight.

    And yes there will always be people who can manage faster. One will have to install mechanisms to stop them. For example it should be necessary from level 10 on to solve quests to actually continue leveling. And you should need to find items in the game to level skills. With such mechanisms one can make speedruns much harder.

    Please set a sig so I can read your posting even if somebody "agreed" etc with it. Thanks.
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 4,061
    CrazKanuk said:
    Dullahan said:
    The whole "niche" "mainstream" classifications are ambiguous and misleading. We're talking about EQ, which was more popular than pretty much any current MMO on the market outside of WoW (largely due to China). Is half a million players niche today? I don't think so.

    So how niche is it really. Depending on how polished and well executed Pantheon is, I think it has the potential to rival many of the games we commonly call mainstream.

    Does that mean it would therefore be mainstream? Probably not, because it will be different than the usual games. However, describing games as niche to refer to their potential audience is not really very descriptive.

    Yes, you're right, Everquest did have 500,000 subscribers at one point. However, when WoW released that number was cut to like 200k in less than a year. So what does that mean? Does it mean that Everquest had run out of steam? Or does it mean that it was only popular because of a lack of choice? 

    You know what, though, I'm not here to rain on your parade, so if you really want to hang your hat on 500,000 subscribers, go for it. Fuck, WoW had 10 million at one point, so the true market is at least 10 million. Most of those people are disgruntled, too, so they're looking for a new game, and Pantheon offers what most MMORPG players have been asking for. Therefore, if they are able to deliver a great game, there's absolutely no reason that they shouldn't be able to secure 10% of those WoW numbers, so 1 million people, and that's being conservative! So the sky is the limit! 
    My question about Pantheon's market share has always been -- where are these 1 million / 500k / 200k / <your projected number here> at now?  What game will Pantheon raid and take away their player base?  The best case I can come up with is somewhere between 10k and 20k people, and even that is going to devastate games like P99, EQ1, EQ2 and other games with anemic populations already.  Maybe people will flock to Pantheon from places like SW:TOR and LotRO (both older, trinity-based games with strong, compelling IPs), but I don't see that happening without a significant marketing effort, and I am unaware that VR has plans for such a campaign.

    When projecting numbers for Pantheon, please keep in mind what these potential players are doing now.  (There's only around 250-300 who are regularly commenting on sites like MMORPG.com, so it's very unlikely we are a hoard of unattached players waiting for Pantheon.  Unless the vaunted subscription rate is going to be in the $350 (US) per month, we simply aren't going to cut it financially).

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

  • danwest58danwest58 Member RarePosts: 2,012
    Mendel said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Dullahan said:



    My question about Pantheon's market share has always been -- where are these 1 million / 500k / 200k / <your projected number here> at now?  What game will Pantheon raid and take away their player base?  The best case I can come up with is somewhere between 10k and 20k people, and even that is going to devastate games like P99, EQ1, EQ2 and other games with anemic populations already.  Maybe people will flock to Pantheon from places like SW:TOR and LotRO (both older, trinity-based games with strong, compelling IPs), but I don't see that happening without a significant marketing effort, and I am unaware that VR has plans for such a campaign.

    When projecting numbers for Pantheon, please keep in mind what these potential players are doing now.  (There's only around 250-300 who are regularly commenting on sites like MMORPG.com, so it's very unlikely we are a hoard of unattached players waiting for Pantheon.  Unless the vaunted subscription rate is going to be in the $350 (US) per month, we simply aren't going to cut it financially).
    I am not sure what you are saying here?  Are you saying there will only be a few thousand players playing Pantheon?  
  • Mylan12Mylan12 Member UncommonPosts: 281
    danwest58 said:
    Mendel said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Dullahan said:



    My question about Pantheon's market share has always been -- where are these 1 million / 500k / 200k / <your projected number here> at now?  What game will Pantheon raid and take away their player base?  The best case I can come up with is somewhere between 10k and 20k people, and even that is going to devastate games like P99, EQ1, EQ2 and other games with anemic populations already.  Maybe people will flock to Pantheon from places like SW:TOR and LotRO (both older, trinity-based games with strong, compelling IPs), but I don't see that happening without a significant marketing effort, and I am unaware that VR has plans for such a campaign.

    When projecting numbers for Pantheon, please keep in mind what these potential players are doing now.  (There's only around 250-300 who are regularly commenting on sites like MMORPG.com, so it's very unlikely we are a hoard of unattached players waiting for Pantheon.  Unless the vaunted subscription rate is going to be in the $350 (US) per month, we simply aren't going to cut it financially).
    I am not sure what you are saying here?  Are you saying there will only be a few thousand players playing Pantheon?  
    Yeah its hard to figure out some of these posts. The guild I was in while in EQ had 3 blizzard developers in it and I started hearing about WoW years before they announce it or even named it. Heck I should have been telling them that EQ only had around 450K people and that is all they can ever plan to have playing WoW.
    Wonder where all them other people that ended up playing WoW came from as EQ only went down to around 200K, they didn't all come from it.
     I not sure what the point of all the posts by people saying that Pantheon will only have 100K, 10K, 2K or even a half dozen playing it. We will not know until the game is finished and released and then we shall all see how well or bad it does. It seems some people just enjoy being doomsayers and they infest every game forum.
     Hmmm Maybe someone should make a game for doomsayers as we see a few dozens of them around in every forum.

  • danwest58danwest58 Member RarePosts: 2,012
    Mylan12 said:
    danwest58 said:
    Mendel said:
    CrazKanuk said:
    Dullahan said:



    My question about Pantheon's market share has always been -- where are these 1 million / 500k / 200k / <your projected number here> at now?  What game will Pantheon raid and take away their player base?  The best case I can come up with is somewhere between 10k and 20k people, and even that is going to devastate games like P99, EQ1, EQ2 and other games with anemic populations already.  Maybe people will flock to Pantheon from places like SW:TOR and LotRO (both older, trinity-based games with strong, compelling IPs), but I don't see that happening without a significant marketing effort, and I am unaware that VR has plans for such a campaign.

    When projecting numbers for Pantheon, please keep in mind what these potential players are doing now.  (There's only around 250-300 who are regularly commenting on sites like MMORPG.com, so it's very unlikely we are a hoard of unattached players waiting for Pantheon.  Unless the vaunted subscription rate is going to be in the $350 (US) per month, we simply aren't going to cut it financially).
    I am not sure what you are saying here?  Are you saying there will only be a few thousand players playing Pantheon?  
    Yeah its hard to figure out some of these posts. The guild I was in while in EQ had 3 blizzard developers in it and I started hearing about WoW years before they announce it or even named it. Heck I should have been telling them that EQ only had around 450K people and that is all they can ever plan to have playing WoW.
    Wonder where all them other people that ended up playing WoW came from as EQ only went down to around 200K, they didn't all come from it.
     I not sure what the point of all the posts by people saying that Pantheon will only have 100K, 10K, 2K or even a half dozen playing it. We will not know until the game is finished and released and then we shall all see how well or bad it does. It seems some people just enjoy being doomsayers and they infest every game forum.
     Hmmm Maybe someone should make a game for doomsayers as we see a few dozens of them around in every forum.

    Yea I agree that we will not know what this game or any game will do until it is out.  Hell look at Rift it was known as a WOW killer and well the game is a mess right now.  

    I do think people have their hopes that this could be a large game.  I think that is a fair opinion to have.  I personally hope this game becomes large enough that it will show that you do not have to clone WOW to be successful.  
Sign In or Register to comment.