Howdy, Stranger!

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

Starting Cities

123468

Comments

  • TwoTubesTwoTubes Member UncommonPosts: 328
    You seemed to pick and choose the bit that you can mold to your own opinion instead of grasping the concept of the writeup as a whole.  Which was: that it is a niche game that isn't for everyone, and isn't trying to be.

    There is going to be an announcement at twitchcon tomorrow so hopefully we will all get to experience the "vision" of what the game will be sooner than we realize...
    Zuljan
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    edited October 2017
    Mendel said:
    So, what is it about the lore ingrained in a starting city that is so fundamental to playing a specific race?  How do you expect Pantheon to support this 'feeling'?  How is this going to be different from previous games?
    What is it about any place a person grows up that makes them feel connected with it? Is it that different than the next one over? Are people from your town different from others? Probably not, but they're your people. They shared your streets, your trees, your parks, your schools, your places of concourse, all of which create a common bond.

    Having played on the pvp servers where roleplaying was still common, people grew loyal to their starting cities, the surrounding areas, and other players they "grew up" with. Much like people grow loyal to their local schools and sports franchises.

    That is what an mmorpg attempts to create to make it more believable and give characters more identity. Not only race, but your class and reputation should open and close doors. A character should be more than just an arrangement of pixels.

    EQ also had a lot more flavor than you give it credit for. I definitely think it's something Pantheon should work on to make it even more central to one's character, but a lot of that already existed. Just by virtue of the fact that you couldn't merely wander to any other town an buy, sell, quest or train, that alone created a sense of belonging. Even an allied city might not regard you high enough to offer certain quests or services.

    That common identity and shared sense of identity and belonging also fosters teamwork and community - something that's gone the way of the dodo with all these wonderful conveniences.


  • MendelMendel Member LegendaryPosts: 5,609
    Dullahan said:
    Mendel said:
    So, what is it about the lore ingrained in a starting city that is so fundamental to playing a specific race?  How do you expect Pantheon to support this 'feeling'?  How is this going to be different from previous games?
    What is it about any place a person grows up that makes them feel connected with it? Is it that different than the next one over? Are people from your town different from others? Probably not, but they're your people. They shared your streets, your trees, your parks, your schools, your places of concourse, all of which create a common bond.

    Having played on the pvp servers where roleplaying was still common, people grew loyal to their starting cities, the surrounding areas, and other players they "grew up" with. Much like people grow loyal to their local schools and sports franchises.

    That is what an mmorpg attempts to create to make it more believable and give characters more identity. Not only race, but your class and reputation should open and close doors. A character should be more than just an arrangement of pixels.

    EQ also had a lot more flavor than you give it credit for. I definitely think it's something Pantheon should work on to make it even more central to one's character, but a lot of that already existed. Just by virtue of the fact that you couldn't merely wander to any other town an buy, sell, quest or train, that alone created a sense of belonging. Even an allied city might not regard you high enough to offer certain quests or services.

    That common identity and shared sense of identity and belonging also fosters teamwork and community - something that's gone the way of the dodo with all these wonderful conveniences.
    So, the mere coincidence that they share the environment of a starting city is the main contributor to the feeling of the concept of lore?  Was there nothing that the developers did that explicitly created that common bond?  Just pile a bunch of players in a common area and that's all?  You're talking 'community' and I'm talking 'lore'.  Not the same thing at all.

    I don't blame convenience features with the loss of community.  I haven't gotten a sense of community from SW:TOR or ESO.  Even grouping in those games feels more like a bunch of individuals soloing in the same general area.  The game I felt had the best community was DAoC and even it had a convenience travel system that didn't hurt the sense of community one bit.  That community was based not on a common starting location, but rather a shared goal / objective to set the realms against each other.

    There was nothing in EQ1 that promoted the lore.  Ogre warriors from Ogguk were identical to Half Elf warriors from Feydark.  They could do the same warrior Epic quest at higher levels.  There wasn't anything at the lore level that promoted a feeling of pride or belonging.  There wasn't a vital quest that ogre warriors had to do, nor for warriors of other races.  There wasn't a compelling story line that ogres aspired to follow.  The experience (and abilities) of different races warriors were not appreciably different.

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

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 43,435
    edited October 2017
    Zuljan said:
    Kyleran said:
    Just because something is minor doesn't mean it should be done away with or is useless.  This is not a logical response:

    Kyleran said: "if it's a minor hindrance then it's mostly useless and there should be no major issue letting them start together or get together quickly."


    Kyleran said: "But you could be right, perhaps its not the game for them, and I'm sure the developers don't need their money.  "

    Yep, it has always been advertised as a niche game and not for everyone.  Here is an article stating Brad's opinion.  The part relevant to this discussion starts in paragraph 2 and goes from there.




    The "relevant" part is right here, where Brad clearly states this is a game focused on getting people adventuring together again.

    Not very likely they will purposely support mechanics which might inhibit this in the name or lore or unnecessary challenge.

    "We've decided to attract gamers who love to team up with each other and take on the AI -- cooperative gamers who want more than session based games but to work together in a truly persistent environment. We've decided to go after people who want to explore and experience vast handcrafted worlds with compelling storylines and quests. We've targeted the online gamer who when they experience something emotionally intense would rather experience that with other people -- that, to them at least, experiencing challenges and even overcoming them together and as a team provides for muchmore memorable shared experiences"
    Your interpretation is interesting. I think you're taking a statement a bit out of context to tailor to your argument...If he overtly said "we've decided to attract gamers who know each other in real life to team up with each other," that would be an entirely different story and I think we would all unanimously agree; however, no where does he say anything like that..he is encouraging the general population to work together; that is the only thing we can definitively confirm...the starting cities (as I explained because you had "yet to hear a good argument for starting cities") are pivotal for plot foundation and immersion.


    I never argued against starting cities, and I don't see letting people choose their race and starting city as breaking immersion.

    All through the history of RPGs there have been members of a particular race who rebelled against their society, hence there's been "good" Dark Elves and Trolls and evil Dwarves or humans.

    In fact it presents a great role playing opportunity,   I roll a DE Assassin but choose to spawn in a "good region.

    The game could easily flip my faction so I was welcomed by my gnome brothers but should I ever try to visit my homeland I would be Kill on Sight.

    Now if the game will maintain factions to the point I will never be permitted to group with a good character or race, (perhaps that's the plan, and I would support) there's no purpose (other than that's how it always was and must be) to artificially maintain such lore in the starter areas.


    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

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

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm

    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






  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 43,435
    edited October 2017
    You seemed to pick and choose the bit that you can mold to your own opinion instead of grasping the concept of the writeup as a whole.  Which was: that it is a niche game that isn't for everyone, and isn't trying to be.

    There is going to be an announcement at twitchcon tomorrow so hopefully we will all get to experience the "vision" of what the game will be sooner than we realize...
    You seem to be missing the entire point, that MMORPGs need to stop trying to cater to everyone, choose a niche, and develop your game to it.

    So he then goes on to describe his target, people who want to group first and foremost, to live an adventure together.

    Nothing in his talk states maintaining the sanctity of the lore as a requirement for making "this" game.

    When discussing what audiences he's not targeting he states, "And there are other MMOs out there focusing on different target audiences -- PvP-centric games, more storytelling and RP games that contain both online and offline experiences, and much more."

    Whoops, he doesnt appear too concerned about story telling or ROLE PLAYING, only about grouping.

    Making a more challenging,  engaging MMORPG does not preclude in any way letting people start in the city they want, as the race and class they wish.

    Be careful trying to discern who this game is not targeted to, you may find out its not who you think it is.



    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

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

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm

    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






  • TwoTubesTwoTubes Member UncommonPosts: 328
    You quoted me but I think you are mistaking me for someone who made any comments about lore.

    I was the one who mentioned that your "friends" might not agree with some of the tenants that have been laid out as the foundation of the game.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited October 2017
    I think he understood, his quoting you was to expound on your assertion that he was choosing one part to fit his mold.  He responded by adding further comments that support the idea that VR aren't focusing on RP or lore-building as the primary design philosophy, but a game that encourages group play and player interaction.  That's not the same as RP and lore focus.
    Kyleran

    image
  • TwoTubesTwoTubes Member UncommonPosts: 328
    I think you missed the point too frenchie.  We were discussing that the game has always been advertised as niche and not for everyone.  Group play/player interaction/roleplaying/lore...none of that pertained to our specific conversation.  But, that doesn't need to be repeated.

    Prealpha has been announced as starting soon.  That's exciting.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited October 2017
    Not so sure, I believe Kyleran was likely referring to the fact that, if VR is attempting to cater to the group play niche, there's no real incentive to actively preventing players from being able to play together early on by locking races to such starting cities with no recourse in linking up other than restricting their choices to the same race.

    Where's the benefit in such a restriction, if your primary philosophy revolves around encouraging group play?  The defense that's largely been offered within the context of the thread is the lore/RP aspect, which seems clearly less important to VR than ensuring players enjoy content together.

    The two quotes he supplied offers ample evidence that VR is creating a niche game: one that focuses on player interaction and group play.  Nothing about that would conflict with allowing players to start where they like.

    EDIT- In response to your last comment, I absolutely agree.  I really look forward to seeing how this game shapes up.
    Kyleran

    image
  • TwoTubesTwoTubes Member UncommonPosts: 328
    The game will encourage grouping in general.

     Making it easy to group with a specific person by allowing one player to meet up with another, specific, person across the world right away is twisting the concept to fit a narrative.  Those players will have plenty of options to group with others.




    dcutbi001
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    The game will encourage grouping in general.

     Making it easy to group with a specific person by allowing one player to meet up with another, specific, person across the world right away is twisting the concept to fit a narrative.  Those players will have plenty of options to group with others.




    I'm not sure how that's twisting.  It seems more twisting to say it doesn't mean that because of an unrelated lore/RP value.

    If you're encouraging grouping, it's natural to encourage mechanics that would allow players to find folks to group with...  You seem to be twisting it to mean that players will be required to group with strangers, specifically.  Again, seems much more twisting to fit your own narrative than what Kyleraj is asserting..
    TwoTubesKyleran

    image
  • jpedrote52jpedrote52 Member UncommonPosts: 112
    The game will encourage grouping in general.

     Making it easy to group with a specific person by allowing one player to meet up with another, specific, person across the world right away is twisting the concept to fit a narrative.  Those players will have plenty of options to group with others.




    I'm not sure how that's twisting.  It seems more twisting to say it doesn't mean that because of an unrelated lore/RP value.

    If you're encouraging grouping, it's natural to encourage mechanics that would allow players to find folks to group with...  You seem to be twisting it to mean that players will be required to group with strangers, specifically.  Again, seems much more twisting to fit your own narrative than what Kyleraj is asserting..
    They're not required to group with strangers specifically, that's ludicrous. What everyone that supports racial starting cities and meaningful travel is saying is: the game devs want starting cities to matter, with limited travel the game world will feel a lot larger and your starting race will have more impact because it determines where in the world you start, this inherently creates a segregation between races in the early game which will make the world feel that much larger because you can't just port where ever you want (even if it's a one time thing). Now if you want to play with your friends in the early levels you have 4 options, create a character with the same starting city, create a character relatively close to their starting city or create the character race you wish and run to them, or the final one ask for help from a high level to port you. If you can't bare playing the game for 5-10 levels without your full party of friends I don't know what to tell you, this is a game that will require massive time investment and the early levels will be the least of your problems. Also even if you could port to your friends starting city you'd still be KoS if you're an evil race and that's not good for a lowbie, That's why most evil races start close to evil races and Good races start close to good races, (there are exception ofc).
  • ZuljanZuljan Member UncommonPosts: 123
    edited October 2017
    Not so sure, I believe Kyleran was likely referring to the fact that, if VR is attempting to cater to the group play niche, there's no real incentive to actively preventing players from being able to play together early on by locking races to such starting cities with no recourse in linking up other than restricting their choices to the same race.

    Where's the benefit in such a restriction, if your primary philosophy revolves around encouraging group play?  The defense that's largely been offered within the context of the thread is the lore/RP aspect, which seems clearly less important to VR than ensuring players enjoy content together.

    The two quotes he supplied offers ample evidence that VR is creating a niche game: one that focuses on player interaction and group play.  Nothing about that would conflict with allowing players to start where they like.

    EDIT- In response to your last comment, I absolutely agree.  I really look forward to seeing how this game shapes up.
    Again, nothing is stopping you from playing with your friends if you really want to (choose races with similar starting points). Apart from that, we have answered, multiple times "incentive to preventing players from starting anywhere together," explaining the immersion factor, and how it directly affects all travel, drama, and thus everything in between. 

    Check out the last Newsletter and the holistic approach to culture and anthropology they adopted for halflings. They left absolutely no stone unturned when it comes to racial qualities and cultural characteristics, going way above and beyond any other mmo, directly stating how all of this detail (the sap, the sigils and designs, geography topagraphy will ALL affect gameplay and lore in various ways). There are over 40 pages of arguments on the class/race matrix (i.e. why elves cant be paladins, halflings can't be warriors etc) which Brad and Kilsin said are absolutely necessary to achieve immersion, holistically (e.g. from travel all the way to perception and everything in between), and will not be changed for this reason.

    If that isn't enough, bounce over to the 30 page FAQ, where there are countless questions that are answered with reasons all  tied to lore and immersion. Brad's entire driving slogan the past 2 months has been "I want to create a world, not a game."

    There is way more advanced NPC ai in Terminus than every seen in an mmo (and I am not only speaking for combat, although when pre-alpha was officially announced last night, they overtly said there will be advanced combat AI like when you enter the room some mobs will rush and charge the healer no matter what), for the sole point of making the world feel more immersive. An example is on a given day, guard x might leave town at 9am to go to the neighboring city to re stock on supplies. If he dies, no one gets those supplies until he respawns (a long time), and he may not even leave at 9am every day if it's snowing or whatever). The point is, quite literally everything they're designing is to make this feel like a "westworld" mmo, where the environment is alive, and culture is thriving. Everything is done to take deep strides for immersion.

    Like Legothehutt said, you are choosing to hit certain points of arguments, and while I originally saw it as bigotry, I really do believe there is just a fundamental issue in perspective, for it is blatant that not having complete liberty to play with your friends the way you want to from day 1 is just too hardcore of a concept for you to feel open to (as of now). This is like the 3rd in depth reasoning we've given, and its virtually been the same response, with a little more detail sprinkled in each time.

    Just one last bit; I can't tell you how many of my fondest/most entertaining times came from having to meet new, random people at various parts of the world in EQ/VG. People are more mature in this game, and I dont have anything fancy to say other than it's just usually a really fun experience, akin to meeting people in real life. I think it stems from the fact that you have to communicate more in this game if you want to do big things, which forces people to come together and humans are a tribal species, so it innately feels good to achieve and accomplish with others. 
    Post edited by Zuljan on
    TwoTubes
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,630
    The childish self important argument that "maybe this game is not for you" assumes that the person in question has thrown down a gauntlet that, absent a change in the game, they will not play. Or that the person is somehow unable to handle a specific game mechanic just because they prefer something else.   

    Personally, I discuss lots of issues that are not "lines in the sand" for me. I would like to be able to roll my character in or near a city where my friends will be, without necessarily choosing their race. But I will play the game whether or not that happens. I am not a "do it like I want or I quit" sort of person. 
    dcutbi001MrMelGibsonZuljan

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

  • TwoTubesTwoTubes Member UncommonPosts: 328
    edited October 2017
    Amathe said:
    The childish self important argument that "maybe this game is not for you" assumes that the person in question has thrown down a gauntlet that, absent a change in the game, they will not play. Or that the person is somehow unable to handle a specific game mechanic just because they prefer something else.   

    Personally, I discuss lots of issues that are not "lines in the sand" for me. I would like to be able to roll my character in or near a city where my friends will be, without necessarily choosing their race. But I will play the game whether or not that happens. I am not a "do it like I want or I quit" sort of person. 
    Glad you are open to alternatives Amathe.  The discussion was definitely a line in the sand because Kyleran stated his "friends" wouldn't play if they couldn't group together quickly and easily.  Thus the reason for the niche discussion about it being not for everyone.

    Kyleran said:
    "if they can't group together easily and early they won't be interested." (in the game)

    He definitely "threw down the gauntlet that, absent a change in the game, they will not play."

    Your first sentence seems to show a misunderstanding of what is being discussed.

    Zuljan
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited October 2017
    Zuljan said:
    Not so sure, I believe Kyleran was likely referring to the fact that, if VR is attempting to cater to the group play niche, there's no real incentive to actively preventing players from being able to play together early on by locking races to such starting cities with no recourse in linking up other than restricting their choices to the same race.

    Where's the benefit in such a restriction, if your primary philosophy revolves around encouraging group play?  The defense that's largely been offered within the context of the thread is the lore/RP aspect, which seems clearly less important to VR than ensuring players enjoy content together.

    The two quotes he supplied offers ample evidence that VR is creating a niche game: one that focuses on player interaction and group play.  Nothing about that would conflict with allowing players to start where they like.

    EDIT- In response to your last comment, I absolutely agree.  I really look forward to seeing how this game shapes up.
    Again, nothing is stopping you from playing with your friends if you really want to (choose races with similar starting points). Apart from that, we have answered, multiple times "incentive to preventing players from starting anywhere together," explaining the immersion factor, and how it directly affects all travel, drama, and thus everything in between. 

    Check out the last Newsletter and the holistic approach to culture and anthropology they adopted for halflings. They left absolutely no stone unturned when it comes to racial qualities and cultural characteristics, going way above and beyond any other mmo, directly stating how all of this detail (the sap, the sigils and designs, geography topagraphy will ALL affect gameplay and lore in various ways). There are over 40 pages of arguments on the class/race matrix (i.e. why elves cant be paladins, halflings can't be warriors etc) which Brad and Kilsin said are absolutely necessary to achieve immersion, holistically (e.g. from travel all the way to perception and everything in between), and will not be changed for this reason.

    If that isn't enough, bounce over to the 30 page FAQ, where there are countless questions that are answered with reasons all  tied to lore and immersion. Brad's entire driving slogan the past 2 months has been "I want to create a world, not a game."

    There is way more advanced NPC ai in Terminus than every seen in an mmo (and I am not only speaking for combat, although when pre-alpha was officially announced last night, they overtly said there will be advanced combat AI like when you enter the room some mobs will rush and charge the healer no matter what), for the sole point of making the world feel more immersive. An example is on a given day, guard x might leave town at 9am to go to the neighboring city to re stock on supplies. If he dies, no one gets those supplies until he respawns (a long time), and he may not even leave at 9am every day if it's snowing or whatever). The point is, quite literally everything they're designing is to make this feel like a "westworld" mmo, where the environment is alive, and culture is thriving. Everything is done to take deep strides for immersion.

    Like Legothehutt said, you are choosing to hit certain points of arguments, and while I originally saw it as bigotry, I really do believe there is just a fundamental issue in perspective, for it is blatant that not having complete liberty to play with your friends the way you want to from day 1 is just too hardcore of a concept for you to feel open to (as of now). This is like the 3rd in depth reasoning we've given, and its virtually been the same response, with a little more detail sprinkled in each time.

    Just one last bit; I can't tell you how many of my fondest/most entertaining times came from having to meet new, random people at various parts of the world in EQ/VG. People are more mature in this game, and I dont have anything fancy to say other than it's just usually a really fun experience, akin to meeting people in real life. I think it stems from the fact that you have to communicate more in this game if you want to do big things, which forces people to come together and humans are a tribal species, so it innately feels good to achieve and accomplish with others. 
    What are you on about with class/race limitations?  I never mentioned that.  I get that you're trying to make the holistic approach argument, but even over on the official VR forums, there are folks who dislike the idea of strictly limited starting areas for races.

    The immersion factor also doesn't really cut it regarding strictly limiting race starter cities.  I'm not sure why you would expect cities to be so racially segregated so as to precludes friendly races from living amongst one another.  I mean, certainly if VR wish to keep races completely segregated, they can write up lore to support the idea, but it quite frankly seems like stretching to attempt to defy logic; races constantly intermingle and live among or adjacent to one another unless there's some sort of strong alienation between the two due to religious or historical differences.  It seems less immersive, from that perspective, to see a city full of nothing but dwarves, than it is to see the odd human or elf mixed in there somewhere, if only as part of an academic or trade expedition.

    Nothing about your comments regarding race/class restrictions or "living world" goals precludes races living amongst one another unless there's a conscious effort to create the world that way that's not really relevant or required to create a living world or provide a high level of immersion.

    Take a look at the Witcher.  It's one of the most immersive modern RPGs ever created, and a lot of that comes from the exploration of racial co-existence, biases, and prejudices.  None of that intrigue is realistically possible if the races were all strictly divided into their own continents.  This idea that complete and utter segregation is needed for immersion just doesn't pass the smell test.

    Bigotry?  You actually implied I'm being a bigot about this?  Because I'm offering alternatives to a strictly "no fly" attitude from some users here and creating arguments to support the idea that it won't destroy all sense of identity among races, immersion, or vastness of world?  Usrs?  

    image
  • TwoTubesTwoTubes Member UncommonPosts: 328
    Many of Pantheon's target demographic played EQ during its prime.  Most of us understand what the result of PoK books was.
  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,630
    Many of Pantheon's target demographic played EQ during its prime.  Most of us understand what the result of PoK books was.
    I also played EQ pre-PoK. But I don't presume to speak for the hundreds of thousands of players who also played EQ at that time. 
    TwoTubesMendelMrMelGibson

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

  • ZuljanZuljan Member UncommonPosts: 123

    Again, nothing is stopping you from playing with your friends if you really want to (choose races with similar starting points). Apart from that, we have answered, multiple times "incentive to preventing players from starting anywhere together," explaining the immersion factor, and how it directly affects all travel, drama, and thus everything in between. 

    Check out the last Newsletter and the holistic approach to culture and anthropology they adopted for halflings. They left absolutely no stone unturned when it comes to racial qualities and cultural characteristics, going way above and beyond any other mmo, directly stating how all of this detail (the sap, the sigils and designs, geography topagraphy will ALL affect gameplay and lore in various ways). There are over 40 pages of arguments on the class/race matrix (i.e. why elves cant be paladins, halflings can't be warriors etc) which Brad and Kilsin said are absolutely necessary to achieve immersion, holistically (e.g. from travel all the way to perception and everything in between), and will not be changed for this reason.

    If that isn't enough, bounce over to the 30 page FAQ, where there are countless questions that are answered with reasons all  tied to lore and immersion. Brad's entire driving slogan the past 2 months has been "I want to create a world, not a game."

    There is way more advanced NPC ai in Terminus than every seen in an mmo (and I am not only speaking for combat, although when pre-alpha was officially announced last night, they overtly said there will be advanced combat AI like when you enter the room some mobs will rush and charge the healer no matter what), for the sole point of making the world feel more immersive. An example is on a given day, guard x might leave town at 9am to go to the neighboring city to re stock on supplies. If he dies, no one gets those supplies until he respawns (a long time), and he may not even leave at 9am every day if it's snowing or whatever). The point is, quite literally everything they're designing is to make this feel like a "westworld" mmo, where the environment is alive, and culture is thriving. Everything is done to take deep strides for immersion.

    Like Legothehutt said, you are choosing to hit certain points of arguments, and while I originally saw it as bigotry, I really do believe there is just a fundamental issue in perspective, for it is blatant that not having complete liberty to play with your friends the way you want to from day 1 is just too hardcore of a concept for you to feel open to (as of now). This is like the 3rd in depth reasoning we've given, and its virtually been the same response, with a little more detail sprinkled in each time.

    Just one last bit; I can't tell you how many of my fondest/most entertaining times came from having to meet new, random people at various parts of the world in EQ/VG. People are more mature in this game, and I dont have anything fancy to say other than it's just usually a really fun experience, akin to meeting people in real life. I think it stems from the fact that you have to communicate more in this game if you want to do big things, which forces people to come together and humans are a tribal species, so it innately feels good to achieve and accomplish with others. 
    What are you on about with class/race limitations?  I never mentioned that.  I get that you're trying to make the holistic approach argument, but even over on the official VR forums, there are folks who dislike the idea of strictly limited starting areas for races.

    The immersion factor also doesn't really cut it regarding strictly limiting race starter cities.  I'm not sure why you would expect cities to be so racially segregated so as to precludes friendly races from living amongst one another.  I mean, certainly if VR wish to keep races completely segregated, they can write up lore to support the idea, but it quite frankly seems like stretching to attempt to defy logic; races constantly intermingle and live among or adjacent to one another unless there's some sort of strong alienation between the two due to religious or historical differences.  It seems less immersive, from that perspective, to see a city full of nothing but dwarves, than it is to see the odd human or elf mixed in there somewhere, if only as part of an academic or trade expedition.

    Nothing about your comments regarding race/class restrictions or "living world" goals precludes races living amongst one another unless there's a conscious effort to create the world that way that's not really relevant or required to create a living world or provide a high level of immersion.

    Take a look at the Witcher.  It's one of the most immersive modern RPGs ever created, and a lot of that comes from the exploration of racial co-existence, biases, and prejudices.  None of that intrigue is realistically possible if the races were all strictly divided into their own continents.  This idea that complete and utter segregation is needed for immersion just doesn't pass the smell test.

    Bigotry?  You actually implied I'm being a bigot about this?  Because I'm offering alternatives to a strictly "no fly" attitude from some users here and creating arguments to support the idea that it won't destroy all sense of identity among races, immersion, or vastness of world?  Usrs?  
    Lol I specifically did not call you a bigot man. I said "what I initially though was bigotry" is clearly just a misunderstanding and is an issue related to perspective, and the reason I said that is because you directly quoted Kyleran's quotes, backed them up, and further extrapolated on them; therefore making yourself a part of his thought process and reasoning in its entirety. Please, tell me where I ever attempted anything ad hominem. Not sure why I have to explain things like this, and if you don't understand how the class/race matrix specifically ties into lore and culture (even with devs directly stating themselves how it affects immersion) among the other examples I tried to explain, then I'm fresh out of ideas to make you more open to the starting city design (or maybe I'm just not cut out to explain immersion).

    You may also have the wrong idea about reaching friends, maybe seeing things a little too black and white (i.e. you can still get to your friends from level 1, unless it's like a distance of skargol trying to get across to wild's end). Granted it would be extremely difficult depending on the area, but I'm sure it could be done. If not, you're presumably looking at like a level 10-20 time frame, which is really not too demanding in my opinion. 

    If you thought the Witcher was that immersive then I think you'll find Pantheon even better (or maybe your idea of immersion is different). The Witcher shined in it's decision making and replay ability, but it was a lot of the same yellow brick road quests, gather 10 heads, and the cities themselves and the people were almost exclusively human, with almost all of the architecture and land looking very similar during travel. I'd like to hear specifically how you think the Witcher created cultural identities and immersion that are near comparable to what is being created here. The decision making allowed for you to save some, let others die, and ultimately create new endings or quest possibilities, but that is not the same kind of immersion they're going for here at all, and can only be accomplished in a single player rpg (generally speaking).
  • TwoTubesTwoTubes Member UncommonPosts: 328
    edited October 2017
    @Amathe Now you are just lashing out because of the previous post a bit up the page.  No one presumes to speak for hundreds of thousands of players.  That is absurd.  I'm guessing you understand the effect PoK books had on EQ and how that relates to this conversation?
  • ZuljanZuljan Member UncommonPosts: 123
    Amathe said:
    The childish self important argument that "maybe this game is not for you" assumes that the person in question has thrown down a gauntlet that, absent a change in the game, they will not play. Or that the person is somehow unable to handle a specific game mechanic just because they prefer something else.   

    Personally, I discuss lots of issues that are not "lines in the sand" for me. I would like to be able to roll my character in or near a city where my friends will be, without necessarily choosing their race. But I will play the game whether or not that happens. I am not a "do it like I want or I quit" sort of person. 
    Most people are in this boat. I don't think the designs are at all perfect (no elven clerics, paladins, ogres as druids seems strange, many other features not tied to race), but I understand and respect their direction, design and desire to create a truly new, fresh mmo with its own standards for fantasy. Seeing their take on the halflings and gnomes so far, I think most people are really beginning to appreciate VR's approach and are starting to "trust" their direction a little more. My goal was to give Kyleran and Frenchie or their friends even more faith in the design.

    Kyleran said his friends and others would absolutely not play with this inaccessible design, so my goal was to try to let them see a broader scope or perspective and be more open to the format, not say "this game isn't for you." With that said, sometimes when all the cards have been laid out and each party has said their piece, if everyone still disagrees and one party feels it is too hardcore or will completely take away their fun, then it may not be the right fit for them, and more often than not discussions just get toxic and are sometimes better to just let go of.
  • ZuljanZuljan Member UncommonPosts: 123
    edited October 2017
    Amathe said:
    Many of Pantheon's target demographic played EQ during its prime.  Most of us understand what the result of PoK books was.
    I also played EQ pre-PoK. But I don't presume to speak for the hundreds of thousands of players who also played EQ at that time. 
    What he was trying to say is PoK made everyone accessible to everyone (exactly what people are lobbying for here), making everything at arms reach and it ruined the game in many ways (namely immersion) for it took away the need to ever actually do hard travelling or even go back to your home or explore, for even guild masters, crafting, portal stones anywhere; everything was there, similar to Irongorge or Orgrimmar and the design people want here.

    It's just vital for this design that our decisions all have a heavy sense of risk/reward consequence. By making travel dangerous and time consuming (among other aspects in this game that will require time and careful decision making), you feel you actually made a big decision, even if it was just to travel to Skargol to hunt for the day. Getting their, you're going to have to take a boat, go through a bunch of KoS guards, maybe weather, who knows what else; if you die and have to run all the way back, that is a pain in the ass for a bunch of reasons. Suddenly what used to be a vestigial decision in other MMOs (just pay a griffon to travel to this city), becomes a huge decision (i.e. maybe next time I'm not going to skargol without a full group etc because I just spent 3 hours on a corpse run today). It also allows individual player skill to shine in a variety of ways. Going to be a lot of unskilled players dying a lot while trying to get to a group whose main tank or something had to go to leave or whatnot.
  • MendelMendel Member LegendaryPosts: 5,609
    Many of Pantheon's target demographic played EQ during its prime.  Most of us understand what the result of PoK books was.
    Some saw the PoK books as totally evil.  Some saw them as a good thing that cut boring time down, allowing them to get to their camps, groups, raids, quests, crafting, etc. quickly.  I'm probably somewhere in between those extremes -- I valued the convenience, but didn't learn any 'overland' travel routes I didn't already know.  Since most of them were trivial content, I appreciated the lack of having a 4 hour journey through harmless content just to get to the new camp.

    In EQ1, I didn't find the PoK books any more immersion breaking than the loading screen between normal zones.  Some here seem to touch-and-go portals and the zoning screens as two different things.  Both break immersion in almost the same way.  How many of the original EQ1 zones had your character travelling West, only to hit a zone and find you're now travelling East?  People adapted.  (Ocean of Tears was the only one I remember, but there may have been others).

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

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    Had a long response to ya @Zuljan attempting to explain my perspective, but MMORPG mobile site formatting tools suck and it was giving me a too many characters error, so I'll have to try and rephrase it sometime once I'm able to get on my desktop.


    GG, MMORPG.com!
    XarkoMrMelGibson

    image
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    Mendel said:
    Dullahan said:
    Mendel said:
    So, what is it about the lore ingrained in a starting city that is so fundamental to playing a specific race?  How do you expect Pantheon to support this 'feeling'?  How is this going to be different from previous games?
    What is it about any place a person grows up that makes them feel connected with it? Is it that different than the next one over? Are people from your town different from others? Probably not, but they're your people. They shared your streets, your trees, your parks, your schools, your places of concourse, all of which create a common bond.

    Having played on the pvp servers where roleplaying was still common, people grew loyal to their starting cities, the surrounding areas, and other players they "grew up" with. Much like people grow loyal to their local schools and sports franchises.

    That is what an mmorpg attempts to create to make it more believable and give characters more identity. Not only race, but your class and reputation should open and close doors. A character should be more than just an arrangement of pixels.

    EQ also had a lot more flavor than you give it credit for. I definitely think it's something Pantheon should work on to make it even more central to one's character, but a lot of that already existed. Just by virtue of the fact that you couldn't merely wander to any other town an buy, sell, quest or train, that alone created a sense of belonging. Even an allied city might not regard you high enough to offer certain quests or services.

    That common identity and shared sense of identity and belonging also fosters teamwork and community - something that's gone the way of the dodo with all these wonderful conveniences.
    So, the mere coincidence that they share the environment of a starting city is the main contributor to the feeling of the concept of lore?  Was there nothing that the developers did that explicitly created that common bond?  Just pile a bunch of players in a common area and that's all?  You're talking 'community' and I'm talking 'lore'.  Not the same thing at all.

    I don't blame convenience features with the loss of community.  I haven't gotten a sense of community from SW:TOR or ESO.  Even grouping in those games feels more like a bunch of individuals soloing in the same general area.  The game I felt had the best community was DAoC and even it had a convenience travel system that didn't hurt the sense of community one bit.  That community was based not on a common starting location, but rather a shared goal / objective to set the realms against each other.

    There was nothing in EQ1 that promoted the lore.  Ogre warriors from Ogguk were identical to Half Elf warriors from Feydark.  They could do the same warrior Epic quest at higher levels.  There wasn't anything at the lore level that promoted a feeling of pride or belonging.  There wasn't a vital quest that ogre warriors had to do, nor for warriors of other races.  There wasn't a compelling story line that ogres aspired to follow.  The experience (and abilities) of different races warriors were not appreciably different.

    Comparing DAoC is apples and oranges. You had community exclusively with your race or allied races. It was build in, whereas EQ was designed without those hardcoded constraints. It also didn't have the sort of fast travel being talked of here, and the only places you could hope to go to were those within your own faction, which was supported by lore.

    In EQ, there was a common goal that created community, and it was surviving against a harsh world with players that shared a common area, backstory, and path. When everything including other races were hostile to you, you had to seek out others of your own kind.

    If you started as a ogre, you couldn't easily survive in Faydark among the elves. You had no way to bank, train or even buy provisions. You could get quest items, but couldn't turn them in. In that way, backstory and lore shaped their experience. In a game that took a long time to progress in, it was inconvenient to travel back across continents through hostile territory every day.

    At endgame, content did become shared, but there were a lot of unique items that came out of cities in the early game (see iksar class quests), and I think it would be great for Pantheon expand that and offer this sort of thing from the start. Maybe not possible though, as that means more content which requires more time and resources.


Sign In or Register to comment.