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).
Then I misunderstood your comment about bigotry. I don't personally even have a reason to widen starting city options, as I don't play with real life friends. But, in a game with group play as it's primary focus, if only follows logically that you'd need a large detriment to justify restricting the opportunity.
I backed up Kyleran's post as an alternative that's more palatable to players than forcing one starting area. I offered another alternative in the form of a single-time opportunity to complete a quest that would allow you to be travel in real-time (not a port or instant travel) to another starter area with the assistance of NPC caravans. It allows for the developers to create an immersive and logical way for players to meet up with one another early on, and could be balanced on the idea that a player could choose to immediately undertake the endeavor alone or spend time laboring for an NPC entity in return for protection during the travel (again, all in real-time, not a loading screen or instant port). It's an option that would fit within an immersive experience and wouldn't be a constant option available to the player (being a single opportunity quest), so the vastness of the world remains intact.
Both would require timesinks, but the player could choose to immediately venture on their own and risk the consequences of repeatedly dying, or spend time completing a specialized quest to curry the favor of a caravan they could make the trip with more reliably. None of that would preclude the idea that a new player could also simply ask a more powerful player for assistance from the get-go. If they were able to such a benefactor, they would enjoy the convenience of having a guide/protection without having to spend time in a quest. Player interaction would still be, by far, the best way to make the trip if players so wanted prior to becoming powerful enough to reliably make the trip on their own.
I've already mentioned I look forward to Pantheon. I disdain cross-realm grouping, auto-port queues and the devaluing of player interaction within the PvE content of an MMORPG. Reputations should matter, and that's been lost along the way from the first-gen MMORPGs to the modern offerings.
However, I just don't see such a restrictive starting choice as a great way to go about encouraging such player interaction. If it makes sense for the lore, more power to VR, but it would be the exception, not the rule, that races are so segregated as to disallow any adventurer to start their story anywhere but their own race's capital/starting city. Player choice is a good thing, so long as it doesn't destroy the aforementioned values of reputation, interdependency, and player interaction. I fail to see how allowing a player to start their lives in more than one area destroys those values. I also fail to see how, if VR was to implement a logical and lore-appropriate quest as I mentioned, it would destroy immersion. Obviously, I could see races that are hostile towards one another rejecting an adventurer wholesale if they are of the hostile race. But races that are either neutral or fairly fond of one another? It makes little sense that they would not accept the offered services of a mercenary/adventurer just because they weren't of the same exact race, unless every kingdom is composed solely of racists of the most egregious order.
To offer an example for clarity of point: if I were in need of herbs for medicine for my dying cousin, and an alien zapped down into my living room tonight and offered to go get them for me, I would be cautious, sure, but I wouldn't outright refuse to take them from the alien once he returned with exactly what I needed simply because he's not a Caucasian human being.
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.
Every reply I've given has directly refuted the argument that allowing players to start where they will destroys the lore some how.
I've even offered multiple options including a neutral starting city, setting the characters faction to that of the starting city, allowing a one time fast travel options between cities, someone even suggested a caravan between cities.
Yet for all your claims that I'm ignoring the arguments in favor of the lore the other side is failing to come up with any reasonable arguments against my points.
Instead I get suggestions that my friends and I lack character, that this isn't the game for us, or that it is a niche game. (Which favors grouping according to Brads post)
Speaking of which, the header of that post said it was part of a much needed course correction, perhaps the heavy emphasis on grouping means less of a focus on lore concerns, who knows?
Fact is, nothing in any part of Brads post refutes any of my suggestions, which you must clearly realize as you've abandoned it to reference other documentation and divert the conversation to other topics.
As I've stated before, none of this matters because Brads going to make the game he wishes regardless of the conversation here.
Only thing really left to do is start taking bets on the final outcome.
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
In Project 1999 the minute a character is made they come out and are shouting for a port off the place. This is the reality.
It was never like this in the original Everquest but everyone playing this genre now knows all the tricks. They buy all the fast earning experience items and turn them in to jump through the harder levels to get to to where they get spells or better abilities. People are no longer hampered by any faction restrictions or distance they solve every obstacle easily and not quite in the way it was intended.
People will create porter alts immediately and get that going like Dial-a-Porter and whatever you were hoping about old school ain't going to happen in the way you imagined. Everyone wised up. This is how it will be in Pantheon.
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.
Every reply I've given has directly refuted the argument that allowing players to start where they will destroys the lore some how.
I've even offered multiple options including a neutral starting city, setting the characters faction to that of the starting city, allowing a one time fast travel options between cities, someone even suggested a caravan between cities.
Yet for all your claims that I'm ignoring the arguments in favor of the lore the other side is failing to come up with any reasonable arguments against my points.
Instead I get suggestions that my friends and I lack character, that this isn't the game for us, or that it is a niche game. (Which favors grouping according to Brads post)
Speaking of which, the header of that post said it was part of a much needed course correction, perhaps the heavy emphasis on grouping means less of a focus on lore concerns, who knows?
Fact is, nothing in any part of Brads post refutes any of my suggestions, which you must clearly realize as you've abandoned it to reference other documentation and divert the conversation to other topics.
As I've stated before, none of this matters because Brads going to make the game he wishes regardless of the conversation here.
Only thing really left to do is start taking bets on the final outcome.
You have no problem agreeing you took a quote from Brad completely out of context (thus ubsubstantiating that argument in its entirety), but even then your evidence is "the fact is there is nothing saying he doesn't say that he isn't designing people to all start off together?" I'm sorry, cogent reasoning or any kind of reason does not permit one to take thoughts or ideas expressed by someone out of context, and then say "well it can't be wrong if he doesn't outright say it isn't" lol. Furthermore, you say there is nothing to refute your argument...or did you just not read the paragraphs of examples and evidence from us (including direct quotes from multiple devs regarding why/how starting cities and restrictions are necessary to supplement immersion by means of travel among many other listed details), or did you miss the 25 lore related responses from devs in similar questions on the FAQ I told you to review, or maybe you just missed the 50+ pages of back and forth on the ideas you think are actually able to work, that have not only been done in multiple MMOs before, but even EQ did already with the PoK stone.
Your ideas are long outdated and discussed, where, on the contrary, at least Sovrath, Amathe and others have given nascent ideas the community has actually never heard of and may be implemented (and I passed those on directly to development, which were also bounced back and forth for a few pages recently for you to reference). You provided nothing to the discussion that is constructive or that hasn't already been discussed months or a decade ago in other games.
Your entire attitude is negative, the only person sounding like an upset child saying "this is all just pointless discussion because Brad is going to ignore everything anyway." So you're saying you're literally arguing for no reason at all, which is complete bigotry, not to mention Brad and Kilsin have in the past and continue to tell us when we've come up with a solid, well rounded idea ready for development (again, why are you so afraid to read the forums?).
Even Frenchie goes out of his way - in depth, with premise and examples - to articulate and argue his thoughts. He cleared up his thoughts, with premises and conclusions, and has positive enough attitude and outlook to say he made a mistake interpreting what I said, and anyone can tell he is trying to provide constructive criticism for the game, apart from his admitted excitement for the game.
You stand alone in your methodology of reasoning and premises to support your conclusions as a whole in this thread. Last straw for me was when you take yet another non-sequitur leap and a quote out of context, saying I or others said you and your friends "lack character," by us simply suggesting the game may be too hardcore in starting city design for you or them to want to play (the EXACT thing you yourself said at the start, which catalyzed this entire discussion lol). Pure toxic.
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).
Then I misunderstood your comment about bigotry. I don't personally even have a reason to widen starting city options, as I don't play with real life friends. But, in a game with group play as it's primary focus, if only follows logically that you'd need a large detriment to justify restricting the opportunity.
I backed up Kyleran's post as an alternative that's more palatable to players than forcing one starting area. I offered another alternative in the form of a single-time opportunity to complete a quest that would allow you to be travel in real-time (not a port or instant travel) to another starter area with the assistance of NPC caravans. It allows for the developers to create an immersive and logical way for players to meet up with one another early on, and could be balanced on the idea that a player could choose to immediately undertake the endeavor alone or spend time laboring for an NPC entity in return for protection during the travel (again, all in real-time, not a loading screen or instant port). It's an option that would fit within an immersive experience and wouldn't be a constant option available to the player (being a single opportunity quest), so the vastness of the world remains intact.
Both would require timesinks, but the player could choose to immediately venture on their own and risk the consequences of repeatedly dying, or spend time completing a specialized quest to curry the favor of a caravan they could make the trip with more reliably. None of that would preclude the idea that a new player could also simply ask a more powerful player for assistance from the get-go. If they were able to such a benefactor, they would enjoy the convenience of having a guide/protection without having to spend time in a quest. Player interaction would still be, by far, the best way to make the trip if players so wanted prior to becoming powerful enough to reliably make the trip on their own.
I've already mentioned I look forward to Pantheon. I disdain cross-realm grouping, auto-port queues and the devaluing of player interaction within the PvE content of an MMORPG. Reputations should matter, and that's been lost along the way from the first-gen MMORPGs to the modern offerings.
However, I just don't see such a restrictive starting choice as a great way to go about encouraging such player interaction. If it makes sense for the lore, more power to VR, but it would be the exception, not the rule, that races are so segregated as to disallow any adventurer to start their story anywhere but their own race's capital/starting city. Player choice is a good thing, so long as it doesn't destroy the aforementioned values of reputation, interdependency, and player interaction. I fail to see how allowing a player to start their lives in more than one area destroys those values. I also fail to see how, if VR was to implement a logical and lore-appropriate quest as I mentioned, it would destroy immersion. Obviously, I could see races that are hostile towards one another rejecting an adventurer wholesale if they are of the hostile race. But races that are either neutral or fairly fond of one another? It makes little sense that they would not accept the offered services of a mercenary/adventurer just because they weren't of the same exact race, unless every kingdom is composed solely of racists of the most egregious order.
To offer an example for clarity of point: if I were in need of herbs for medicine for my dying cousin, and an alien zapped down into my living room tonight and offered to go get them for me, I would be cautious, sure, but I wouldn't outright refuse to take them from the alien once he returned with exactly what I needed simply because he's not a Caucasian human being.
I really respect the time and effort you put into this response. I had faith you would provide one, which is why I didnt saying anything when you commented about not being able to properly reply to me. You took a well rounded approach that made it clear to me where you're coming from in addition to your ability to be more amorphous/malleable in your thought process, leaving you more open to some of the exciting (but admittedly transgressive) approaches they are taking to give their mmo a truly fresh, original feel.
I just got to work, so now I have to hit you with the "have to give you a better explanation later" thing when I have the time my friend. We should all be aiming to be constructive like this as a community, as opposed to the direction others have chosen to take. None of us would be here if we didn't care about this game in some capacity. It makes no sense for us not to put in our due diligence to research forums and such before jumping to negative conclusions. Thanks again for taking the high road man.
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.
Still nothing about lore. Even the Iksar class quests that you mention aren't mandatory to playing an Iksar. Neither were the various newbie class armor quests that were added in the Velious-Luclin era. The community forming had nothing to do with the lore that 989 / Verant / SOE put in the game.
And wasn't inconvenience one of the main arguments for Pantheon not incorporating any form of fast travel to allow people to group with friends in this very thread? Post PoP, it was simple to book to Pok, rebind, and book to Qeynos or Butcherblock and level up from level 1. (Not that there were many players with new characters by that time).
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Every reply I've given has directly refuted the argument that allowing players to start where they will destroys the lore some how.
I haven't been following this whole lore development but of course it doesn't break lore.
People travel, people go places. What, if there was a game based off my life players would have to start in a small town in Connecticut? When they were old enough "not to be in a small town in Connecticut"?
that's like saying if you see someone who is Asian then they must be from an Asian country when they could have been born "anywhere".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Every reply I've given has directly refuted the argument that allowing players to start where they will destroys the lore some how.
I haven't been following this whole lore development but of course it doesn't break lore.
People travel, people go places. What, if there was a game based off my life players would have to start in a small town in Connecticut? When they were old enough "not to be in a small town in Connecticut"?
that's like saying if you see someone who is Asian then they must be from an Asian country when they could have been born "anywhere".
You're beginning to outline the exact point that's somehow being missed. They don't want Asians born "anywhere" AKA real life, where they retain no Asian culture/way of life because they grew up in America or wherever instead. By forcing you to grow up in North Korea for instance, you're being forced (and only at the immediate beginning!) to be engrossed by that race's culture and story-driven lore, and gain values and perspective (for better or worse) that you would not gain growing up anywhere else...Forced to feel the Skars, struggle and curse put upon them in their ashen, dark land and all of their hatred and fury that comes along with it...forced to deal with the hurt the elves feel because their original world and life tree was destroyed, only to be sent to Terminus by their gods tomeet the same fate of pain and strife, causing the elves to become divided, with some not believing in the gods anymore. Many of the races are directly at war/dubious to one another and were completely dismantled because of other races.
What is your reasoning for denying the fact that segregated countries (or states in your minor example) does not directly impact one's culture, lore, mores and values by an Asian growing up anywhere?. You can't have true immersion, a true north korean with north korean values by allowing him to grow up in the land of the free or somewhere in Europe; they're going to be an entirely difference person in a multitude of ways. They want us to truly think, feel, and be a part of the world and fighting for our race. It's literally a driving force that sets this game apart, and I'm having a hard time seeing how this continues to be overlooked.
Still nothing about lore. Even the Iksar class quests that you mention aren't mandatory to playing an Iksar. Neither were the various newbie class armor quests that were added in the Velious-Luclin era. The community forming had nothing to do with the lore that 989 / Verant / SOE put in the game.
And wasn't inconvenience one of the main arguments for Pantheon not incorporating any form of fast travel to allow people to group with friends in this very thread? Post PoP, it was simple to book to Pok, rebind, and book to Qeynos or Butcherblock and level up from level 1. (Not that there were many players with new characters by that time).
The reputation that allows you to bank in one place and not another is based on lore. In an open roleplaying game, lore should not bind you (you can choose to change faction), it should influence you. Still, nothing a developer does will magically transform players into roleplayers.
At the same time, just because it doesn't force you to only group with your alliance, it doesn't mean it should encourage players to skip that part of the game. I contend that part of what made EQ so great was that it was created for roleplayers, and had that flavor and atmosphere which caused players to immerse themselves in their character's backstory and culture. Those who played EQ know it worked, and did not need to be forced.
This is probably getting away from the topic and into game theory, but the idea is to encourage players to seek out others, generally from their own starting race or faction, in order to survive from the very start. Shared adversity breeds community. The game should constantly seek to bring people together. Someone that wants to go somewhere else should have to make that choice on their own, otherwise people would most likely all gravitate to the same places using this character creation instant travel option, rendering content and backstory pointless.
For illustrative purposes: someone creates a halfling. They're born in the Shire. They grew up there. They're level one and they decide they want to become an adventurer. What is more believable at this point? To go outside the gates with your fellow halflings discovering the outskirts of your home, or magically transporting to the orc capital where you are bequeathed a magical disguise to start your journey having never left your home?
It's not that hard to know which one makes more sense. An mmorpg shouldn't just be a game; it should be a world.
I respect roleplay and roleplayers. I also respect concerns about immersion. So point well taken, except ....
I become a bit dubious when roleplay is used to justify some things but not others.
For example, ever since there has been a way to write (or draw) there have been maps. From an article, "Archaeologists have discovered what they believe is man's earliest map, dating from almost 14,000 years ago."
The idea that a culture or major city would not have any maps available is absurd. But a lot of people insist that the residents of Pantheon must stumble blindly on, without the benefit of mapping. Nary a word about roleplay or immersion concerns on that one.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I respect roleplay and roleplayers. I also respect concerns about immersion. So point well taken, except ....
I become a bit dubious when roleplay is used to justify some things but not others.
For example, ever since there has been a way to write (or draw) there have been maps. From an article, "Archaeologists have discovered what they believe is man's earliest map, dating from almost 14,000 years ago."
The idea that a culture or major city would not have any maps available is absurd. But a lot of people insist that the residents of Pantheon must stumble blindly on, without the benefit of mapping. Nary a word about roleplay or immersion concerns on that one.
There already is a world map. I wouldn't be surprised if crude overworld maps exist in-game in some form. They just won't be extensively detailed or show your gps location.
I would actually be all for there being a cartography tradeskill.
I respect roleplay and roleplayers. I also respect concerns about immersion. So point well taken, except ....
I become a bit dubious when roleplay is used to justify some things but not others.
For example, ever since there has been a way to write (or draw) there have been maps. From an article, "Archaeologists have discovered what they believe is man's earliest map, dating from almost 14,000 years ago."
The idea that a culture or major city would not have any maps available is absurd. But a lot of people insist that the residents of Pantheon must stumble blindly on, without the benefit of mapping. Nary a word about roleplay or immersion concerns on that one.
I dont think anyone at all has asked that there be no maps of cities, and very few that want no maps of adventure zones.
What I think would be fun is if there were actual world features by which someone could learn to guide themselves.
For example, in our world, if you draw a line that connects the horns of a crescent moon and then extend this line down to the horizon, in northern latitudes this will give an approximate indication of south.
Also, moss grows either on the north or south side of trees (depending on what hemisphere you are in).
What if there were things like this in Pantheon, where you could orient yourself based on the actual game world, rather than just sense headings or the ilk.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
While I did not quote Brad out of context, not sure where you are getting this from, I will do so now.
Amathe said: "But it is kind of sad, to me at least, not to
be able to share the new experience of a game with the people you want
to play it with (unless you limit your race choices and play something
or someone that isn't necessarily appealing to you). " to which I suggested players be permitted to select their starting city.
Amathe also said: "What I did do is suggest a discussion of how
to accomodate friends wanting to play together early in the game, that
of course should be done in a way not to ruin the game's many
challenges. " to which I agreed, and continued the discussion with ideas such as one time travel options.
MadFrenchie apparently agreed with me, "Yes, I don't see how it would be game-breaking
for immersion to allow players to start in areas that aren't indigenous
to their race. Or, at least, a few options. I'm not so sure locking
races to one specific starting area would be well-received." - As noted, he provided a novel way to accomplish it with the caravan idea, not bad, but it is extra programming that could be avoided since it's of interest to a small group of players.
Sovrath also agreed with me, "Actually I think that players should be able to pick a starting point no matter their starting race city." - Whoa, the bastion of reason, on my side no less.
MadFrenchie continued with his support, " There's a difference between creating a
challenging and vast world to explore, and needlessly preventing players
from being able to reliably find one another, specifically in the early
game." (is he really a closet hater like me?)
Amathe, ever the voice of reason, tried to fend off the hostile fans, " There are more issues to facilitating playing
together than distance and travel dangers. That's why I thought it was
an issue worth discussing." -Which I've been doing, arguing against pointless distance and travel in one specific situation, I actually support travel mechanics in a very big way which I mentioned.
At this point DMKano summed up the situation, "The reason is - many think the only way to do this is the way it was done back in 1999, and any deviation = bad." to which Gdemami actually agreed "...entire game in a nutshell, beyond hopeless." (he almost never agrees with anyone....)
MadFrenchy, still on my side, "Eh I agree that there should be some kind of
options regarding where a player starts their adventure to help those
who want to start a game together, as well as some kind of travel system
that gets a player in the vicinity of the area they wish to explore" though we were talking about whether meta gaming could be restricted, answer, no.
Amathe came back with, "It seems axiomatic to me that, in a game where
the content is intended to be 80% or more for groups, sending a brand
new player cross-continent(s) at the outset to solo search for his
friends runs contrary to that intention."
In the interest of being "fair and balanced" Sovrath replied, "No it doesn't.
And that person's friends can run to meet him/her as well."
Amathe once again tried to redirect everyone to the question, "The issue is what if anything can be done to
enable friends to START OUT playing together without having to limit
themselves to just one or two races/classes to make that possible (the
alternative being trying to cross the whole damn world at level 1)."
It's true, Amathe and Sovrath started a conversation about ideas to let people group up and sneak around the city together, an idea that I did not disagree with, but Dullahan nixed that conversation, "I'll explain why that would have a negative
impact on the game, even if it's just a 1 time thing and not a symptom
of a bigger problem."
You say I added nothing of value to the conversation, but I offered the following idea to make it more palletable to the purists, "Truthfully, I'd sort of like starting in the
middle of no where, with the time honored amnesia backstory, no idea who
I am, or was, and a clean slate to forge my destiny.
From there I
might wander into a dwarves town, and being an Orc they might throw me
into prison, or make me a slave from which I'd have to escape.
Or I might go another direction and run into a troll village, where I might be tolerated, if not necessarily warmly welcomed."
I thought it offered some interesting role playing opportunities, but no one cared to comment.
MadFrenchie was still hanging with me, "Echoing what @Kyleran said above me, there's no sense in discussing it if you guys simply want to pose a false dichotomy.
Allowing
one to complete a quest early on in the game that would allow them to,
say, join an NPC caravan and ride to another starter area to join
someone they started the game with seems like a net gain. Specifically
if it's a one-time opportunity quest that cannot be revisited or
repeated after that point."
I even provided a way for the devs to make more money, "Or...they could just let players start where
they wish, what the hell, sell it as an extra you can buy for each
character if desired, More revenue for the Devs, everybody wins."
MadFrenchie, still hanging with me, "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."
Amathe too, but he's taking a reasonable view, "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. " Which would be my view too, won't keep me from playing if they dont do it, I dont' rely on friends to play games.
Finally, I keep being accused of "bigotry", so I had to look it up to make sure, " intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."
I am not the person in this conversation being intolerant of other people's opinions, but again, my character is called into question by stating I'm being childish, toxic or whatever ad hominem people decide to bring up when I present alternate views which it's pretty clear I'm not "standing alone" on.
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
"..........MadFrenchy, still on my side, "Eh I agree that there should be some kind of
options regarding where a player starts their adventure to help those
who want to start a game together, as well as some kind of travel system
that gets a player in the vicinity of the area they wish to explore" though we were talking about whether meta gaming could be restricted, answer, no.
Amathe came back with, "It seems axiomatic to me that, in a game where
the content is intended to be 80% or more for groups, sending a brand
new player cross-continent(s) at the outset to solo search for his
friends runs contrary to that intention."
In the interest of being "fair and balanced" Sovrath replied, "No it doesn't.
And that person's friends can run to meet him/her as well."
Amathe once again tried to redirect everyone to the question, "The issue is what if anything can be done to
enable friends to START OUT playing together without having to limit
themselves to just one or two races/classes to make that possible (the
alternative being trying to cross the whole damn world at level 1)."
It's true, Amathe and Sovrath started a conversation about ideas to let people group up and sneak around the city together, an idea that I did not disagree with, but Dullahan nixed that conversation, "I'll explain why that would have a negative
impact on the game, even if it's just a 1 time thing and not a symptom
of a bigger problem."
You say I added nothing of value to the conversation, but I offered the following idea to make it more palletable to the purists, "Truthfully, I'd sort of like starting in the
middle of no where, with the time honored amnesia backstory, no idea who
I am, or was, and a clean slate to forge my destiny.
From there I
might wander into a dwarves town, and being an Orc they might throw me
into prison, or make me a slave from which I'd have to escape.
Or I might go another direction and run into a troll village, where I might be tolerated, if not necessarily warmly welcomed."
I thought it offered some interesting role playing opportunities, but no one cared to comment.
MadFrenchie was still hanging with me, "Echoing what @Kyleran said above me, there's no sense in discussing it if you guys simply want to pose a false dichotomy.
Allowing
one to complete a quest early on in the game that would allow them to,
say, join an NPC caravan and ride to another starter area to join
someone they started the game with seems like a net gain. Specifically
if it's a one-time opportunity quest that cannot be revisited or
repeated after that point."
I even provided a way for the devs to make more money, "Or...they could just let players start where
they wish, what the hell, sell it as an extra you can buy for each
character if desired, More revenue for the Devs, everybody wins."
MadFrenchie, still hanging with me, "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."
Amathe too, but he's taking a reasonable view, "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. " Which would be my view too, won't keep me from playing if they dont do it, I dont' rely on friends to play games.
Finally, I keep being accused of "bigotry", so I had to look it up to make sure, " intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."
I am not the person in this conversation being intolerant of other people's opinions, but again, my character is called into question by stating I'm being childish, toxic or whatever ad hominem people decide to bring up when I present alternate views which it's pretty clear I'm not "standing alone" on.
Done adding fuel to your hate campaign. I don't know if you had a bad week or what, but you're typing an essay for one purpose; self gratification (once again). You add nothing constructive/positive to discussion, or any innovative ideas to better this game or people's outlook toward it, which is the entire purpose of the thread. You've made it clear, multiple times, "this entire discussion is pointless and will go unheard," in addition to clearly having an entirely different outlook on immersion, which makes it clear why you made no effort to understand the design despite my multiple efforts to try to get you to open up. Everyone else commenting here (even those I or others initially clashed with) eventually opened up in some way or another, like any other discussion with people who ultimately want a positive outcome from an argument.
I have no time for toxic people, and no desire to spend any more of my time giving you sincere efforts to try to improve your Pantheon experience, for I honesly feel you have no desire to do so. At this point, I don't have any respect left for your opinions, but that isn't out of anger or a personal vendetta. If you cool down and go read back over our discussions and people's responses compared to your own, maybe you'll see I have nothing personally against you, and I am very open to reason (as I have proven with 3 people in this discussion alone and even defend @delete5230 and other people who are constantly getting literally bullied on by toxic people who think they're better than others, similar to what I've seen you doing here). My point is I want people to be happy and enjoy their time; both on this website and in Pantheon or any game for that matter. I go as far to directly name and give credit to these players in the open and closed forums of Pantheon development in the past as well as tell them when they've come up with a great idea. My intentions are constructive, and I wholeheartedly don't think yours are. I won't be responding to anything else from you in the future. I did my best. Good luck in your mmo travels man.
What I think would be fun is if there were actual world features by which someone could learn to guide themselves.
For example, in our world, if you draw a line that connects the horns of a crescent moon and then extend this line down to the horizon, in northern latitudes this will give an approximate indication of south.
Also, moss grows either on the north or south side of trees (depending on what hemisphere you are in).
What if there were things like this in Pantheon, where you could orient yourself based on the actual game world, rather than just sense headings or the ilk.
I really hope we don't get anything as watered down/boring as sense heading too. There are 20ish pages of ongoing (recent) discussion on the Pantheon forums about maps, cartography, sense heading, and basically all of the ways we can "improve" map functions or like you said, at least make it feel more organic/immersive. I couldn't find the topic yet, but I'll post the link once I get some time here at work. Some ideas you might find interesting.
@Kyleran I don't have any problem with you or your expression of your opinions. None of you really, although obviously my views are aligned with some people more than others (and occasionally someone's post may ruffle my feathers).
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
No, you presume to speak for every except those explicitly arguing against instant travel.
Really? Then quote where I spoke for anyone besides myself.
In fact, if you read what I said you would see this:
"But it is kind of sad, to me at least, not to be able to share the new experience of a game with the people you want to play it with (unless you limit your race choices and play something or someone that isn't necessarily appealing to you)."
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I really don't understand the controversy here. Part of the fun of EQ early on was traveling across the world. I remember when I was around level 12, I first visited Freeport. I was one of the only erudites in any group I joined. It was almost prestigious at that point to have a low level character from across the world in that region.
That was something unique to older mmorpgs. Instead of focusing on accommodations and making everything accessible, they just created a world which naturally provided players with ways to stand out and be exceptional.
I really don't understand the controversy here. Part of the fun of EQ early on was traveling across the world. I remember when I was around level 12, I first visited Freeport. I was one of the only erudites in any group I joined. It was almost prestigious at that point to have a low level character from across the world in that region.
That was something unique to older mmorpgs. Instead of focusing on accommodations and making everything accessible, they just created a world which naturally provided players with ways to stand out and be exceptional.
Just this same small group of 2-4 people that have always doubted/had a tough time "understanding" features of Pantheon. Can read through the old thread topics and clearly see its the same names of people who are on here all day making the same similar types of irrational comments we see here lol. Just have to take the good with the bad like any online chat and know when to stop feeding the trolls. Pantheon is going to be a solid game when it's said and done : )
I really don't understand the controversy here. Part of the fun of EQ early on was traveling across the world. I remember when I was around level 12, I first visited Freeport. I was one of the only erudites in any group I joined. It was almost prestigious at that point to have a low level character from across the world in that region.
That was something unique to older mmorpgs. Instead of focusing on accommodations and making everything accessible, they just created a world which naturally provided players with ways to stand out and be exceptional.
While traveling was certainly different, as others have mentioned, many other first-gen MMORPGs utilized travel systems.
Namely my first, DAoC, had the horse system. Of course, it cost money, which was also actually a precious commodity back then (something else I wish MMORPGs would jring back).
I just don't believe it's an all-or-nothing thing. It isn't a deal breaker, but would he if there were no travel options AND the world itself was largely devoid or boring to traverse. It isn't something that's turned me off to Pantheon completely, as I don't generally play with friends from outside a game and would have no real need to move immediately from a starting area assigned to my race.. But I also know that I'm not everyone, and Zuljan and I had an in-depth discussion of both sides and an idea I feel would he a pretty good alternative that doesn't sacrifice the primary gameplay goals VR is going for. Either way, I'll be trying the game out as soon as possible, just wish it were further along so that ASAP wasn't so far from now!
I really don't understand the controversy here. Part of the fun of EQ early on was traveling across the world. I remember when I was around level 12, I first visited Freeport. I was one of the only erudites in any group I joined. It was almost prestigious at that point to have a low level character from across the world in that region.
That was something unique to older mmorpgs. Instead of focusing on accommodations and making everything accessible, they just created a world which naturally provided players with ways to stand out and be exceptional.
While traveling was certainly different, as others have mentioned, many other first-gen MMORPGs utilized travel systems.
Namely my first, DAoC, had the horse system. Of course, it cost money, which was also actually a precious commodity back then (something else I wish MMORPGs would jring back).
I just don't believe it's an all-or-nothing thing. It isn't a deal breaker, but would he if there were no travel options AND the world itself was largely devoid or boring to traverse. It isn't something that's turned me off to Pantheon completely, as I don't generally play with friends from outside a game and would have no real need to move immediately from a starting area assigned to my race.. But I also know that I'm not everyone, and Zuljan and I had an in-depth discussion of both sides and an idea I feel would he a pretty good alternative that doesn't sacrifice the primary gameplay goals VR is going for. Either way, I'll be trying the game out as soon as possible, just wish it were further along so that ASAP wasn't so far from now!
And if you or anyone else need or want a familiar name to group with, I'd love to group with any of you guys. I'm part of a top 3 EQ/WoW/FF etc guild (almost certain we had more world firsts than any other), and our entire roster is anxiously awaiting Pantheon, so there will be a healthy array of high skilled players of varying classes scattered throughout Terminus to suit all players' needs.
Like you mentioned, there are a lot unknown details about the game, so it is entirely possible they botch travel (or any sort of design that we lack info on for that matter). I do not blindly support VR/Pantheon. Myself and a couple others are responsible for providing quite lengthy, even emotionally imbalanced (maybe ad hominem at times) responses to VR Devs for keeping us in the dark and giving such little/political detail ("it'll be ready soon" etc) about progress on a monthly basis (about 6 months ago).
We were ostracized by most of the blind followers on the development forums (threads are locked but still viewable 30ish pages), but eventually, the arguments spread like cancer, and the developers realized they could do a better job at a few things, which resulted in a lot of changes for the better. Some may think I favor this or that, but I honestly don't. I just want a quality, hardcore/challenging mmorpg to succeed. And like Kyleran has said in another thread (complete coincidence/irony that I quote him here); if Pantheon does not succeed, it is highly unlikely we ever see another mmorpg of this sort be produced again.
I really don't understand the controversy here. Part of the fun of EQ early on was traveling across the world. I remember when I was around level 12, I first visited Freeport. I was one of the only erudites in any group I joined. It was almost prestigious at that point to have a low level character from across the world in that region.
That was something unique to older mmorpgs. Instead of focusing on accommodations and making everything accessible, they just created a world which naturally provided players with ways to stand out and be exceptional.
Just this same small group of 2-4 people that have always doubted/had a tough time "understanding" features of Pantheon. Can read through the old thread topics and clearly see its the same names of people who are on here all day making the same similar types of irrational comments we see here lol. Just have to take the good with the bad like any online chat and know when to stop feeding the trolls. Pantheon is going to be a solid game when it's said and done : )
There's a small group of people who aren't taking the word of a company that hasn't yet produced a product. I suppose you could call me one. I tend to make the same type of statements because no one has yet to substantially refute any of the statements I've made. I just don't happen to fall in line with the rest of the group mentality, believing that what has been stated has been shown or attempted. It's happened with almost every MMORPG I've seen -- the pre-game hype doesn't match the delivered functionality.
If you'd like to actually discuss what the detractors are saying, feel free to actually look at the ideas presented and discuss / debate those. That promotes the purpose of a forum -- to discuss ideas. You are indirectly calling people names and questioning their comprehension abilities. Those who are presenting alternative ideas aren't stooping to name-calling. That's happened enough, already, and it doesn't help the discussion.
If you don't like the group of people who question VR's decisions, why do you choose to try to shout them down or insult them? Are you that unsure of your own convictions and beliefs that you are afraid of different opinions and interpretations?
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Comments
I backed up Kyleran's post as an alternative that's more palatable to players than forcing one starting area. I offered another alternative in the form of a single-time opportunity to complete a quest that would allow you to be travel in real-time (not a port or instant travel) to another starter area with the assistance of NPC caravans. It allows for the developers to create an immersive and logical way for players to meet up with one another early on, and could be balanced on the idea that a player could choose to immediately undertake the endeavor alone or spend time laboring for an NPC entity in return for protection during the travel (again, all in real-time, not a loading screen or instant port). It's an option that would fit within an immersive experience and wouldn't be a constant option available to the player (being a single opportunity quest), so the vastness of the world remains intact.
Both would require timesinks, but the player could choose to immediately venture on their own and risk the consequences of repeatedly dying, or spend time completing a specialized quest to curry the favor of a caravan they could make the trip with more reliably. None of that would preclude the idea that a new player could also simply ask a more powerful player for assistance from the get-go. If they were able to such a benefactor, they would enjoy the convenience of having a guide/protection without having to spend time in a quest. Player interaction would still be, by far, the best way to make the trip if players so wanted prior to becoming powerful enough to reliably make the trip on their own.
I've already mentioned I look forward to Pantheon. I disdain cross-realm grouping, auto-port queues and the devaluing of player interaction within the PvE content of an MMORPG. Reputations should matter, and that's been lost along the way from the first-gen MMORPGs to the modern offerings.
However, I just don't see such a restrictive starting choice as a great way to go about encouraging such player interaction. If it makes sense for the lore, more power to VR, but it would be the exception, not the rule, that races are so segregated as to disallow any adventurer to start their story anywhere but their own race's capital/starting city. Player choice is a good thing, so long as it doesn't destroy the aforementioned values of reputation, interdependency, and player interaction. I fail to see how allowing a player to start their lives in more than one area destroys those values. I also fail to see how, if VR was to implement a logical and lore-appropriate quest as I mentioned, it would destroy immersion. Obviously, I could see races that are hostile towards one another rejecting an adventurer wholesale if they are of the hostile race. But races that are either neutral or fairly fond of one another? It makes little sense that they would not accept the offered services of a mercenary/adventurer just because they weren't of the same exact race, unless every kingdom is composed solely of racists of the most egregious order.
To offer an example for clarity of point: if I were in need of herbs for medicine for my dying cousin, and an alien zapped down into my living room tonight and offered to go get them for me, I would be cautious, sure, but I wouldn't outright refuse to take them from the alien once he returned with exactly what I needed simply because he's not a Caucasian human being.
I've even offered multiple options including a neutral starting city, setting the characters faction to that of the starting city, allowing a one time fast travel options between cities, someone even suggested a caravan between cities.
Yet for all your claims that I'm ignoring the arguments in favor of the lore the other side is failing to come up with any reasonable arguments against my points.
Instead I get suggestions that my friends and I lack character, that this isn't the game for us, or that it is a niche game. (Which favors grouping according to Brads post)
Speaking of which, the header of that post said it was part of a much needed course correction, perhaps the heavy emphasis on grouping means less of a focus on lore concerns, who knows?
Fact is, nothing in any part of Brads post refutes any of my suggestions, which you must clearly realize as you've abandoned it to reference other documentation and divert the conversation to other topics.
As I've stated before, none of this matters because Brads going to make the game he wishes regardless of the conversation here.
Only thing really left to do is start taking bets on the final outcome.
"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
It was never like this in the original Everquest but everyone playing this genre now knows all the tricks. They buy all the fast earning experience items and turn them in to jump through the harder levels to get to to where they get spells or better abilities. People are no longer hampered by any faction restrictions or distance they solve every obstacle easily and not quite in the way it was intended.
People will create porter alts immediately and get that going like Dial-a-Porter and whatever you were hoping about old school ain't going to happen in the way you imagined. Everyone wised up.
This is how it will be in Pantheon.
Your ideas are long outdated and discussed, where, on the contrary, at least Sovrath, Amathe and others have given nascent ideas the community has actually never heard of and may be implemented (and I passed those on directly to development, which were also bounced back and forth for a few pages recently for you to reference). You provided nothing to the discussion that is constructive or that hasn't already been discussed months or a decade ago in other games.
Your entire attitude is negative, the only person sounding like an upset child saying "this is all just pointless discussion because Brad is going to ignore everything anyway." So you're saying you're literally arguing for no reason at all, which is complete bigotry, not to mention Brad and Kilsin have in the past and continue to tell us when we've come up with a solid, well rounded idea ready for development (again, why are you so afraid to read the forums?).
Even Frenchie goes out of his way - in depth, with premise and examples - to articulate and argue his thoughts. He cleared up his thoughts, with premises and conclusions, and has positive enough attitude and outlook to say he made a mistake interpreting what I said, and anyone can tell he is trying to provide constructive criticism for the game, apart from his admitted excitement for the game.
You stand alone in your methodology of reasoning and premises to support your conclusions as a whole in this thread. Last straw for me was when you take yet another non-sequitur leap and a quote out of context, saying I or others said you and your friends "lack character," by us simply suggesting the game may be too hardcore in starting city design for you or them to want to play (the EXACT thing you yourself said at the start, which catalyzed this entire discussion lol). Pure toxic.
I just got to work, so now I have to hit you with the "have to give you a better explanation later" thing when I have the time my friend. We should all be aiming to be constructive like this as a community, as opposed to the direction others have chosen to take. None of us would be here if we didn't care about this game in some capacity. It makes no sense for us not to put in our due diligence to research forums and such before jumping to negative conclusions. Thanks again for taking the high road man.
And wasn't inconvenience one of the main arguments for Pantheon not incorporating any form of fast travel to allow people to group with friends in this very thread? Post PoP, it was simple to book to Pok, rebind, and book to Qeynos or Butcherblock and level up from level 1. (Not that there were many players with new characters by that time).
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
People travel, people go places. What, if there was a game based off my life players would have to start in a small town in Connecticut? When they were old enough "not to be in a small town in Connecticut"?
that's like saying if you see someone who is Asian then they must be from an Asian country when they could have been born "anywhere".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
What is your reasoning for denying the fact that segregated countries (or states in your minor example) does not directly impact one's culture, lore, mores and values by an Asian growing up anywhere?. You can't have true immersion, a true north korean with north korean values by allowing him to grow up in the land of the free or somewhere in Europe; they're going to be an entirely difference person in a multitude of ways. They want us to truly think, feel, and be a part of the world and fighting for our race. It's literally a driving force that sets this game apart, and I'm having a hard time seeing how this continues to be overlooked.
At the same time, just because it doesn't force you to only group with your alliance, it doesn't mean it should encourage players to skip that part of the game. I contend that part of what made EQ so great was that it was created for roleplayers, and had that flavor and atmosphere which caused players to immerse themselves in their character's backstory and culture. Those who played EQ know it worked, and did not need to be forced.
This is probably getting away from the topic and into game theory, but the idea is to encourage players to seek out others, generally from their own starting race or faction, in order to survive from the very start. Shared adversity breeds community. The game should constantly seek to bring people together. Someone that wants to go somewhere else should have to make that choice on their own, otherwise people would most likely all gravitate to the same places using this character creation instant travel option, rendering content and backstory pointless.
For illustrative purposes: someone creates a halfling. They're born in the Shire. They grew up there. They're level one and they decide they want to become an adventurer. What is more believable at this point? To go outside the gates with your fellow halflings discovering the outskirts of your home, or magically transporting to the orc capital where you are bequeathed a magical disguise to start your journey having never left your home?
It's not that hard to know which one makes more sense. An mmorpg shouldn't just be a game; it should be a world.
I become a bit dubious when roleplay is used to justify some things but not others.
For example, ever since there has been a way to write (or draw) there have been maps. From an article, "Archaeologists have discovered what they believe is man's earliest map, dating from almost 14,000 years ago."
The idea that a culture or major city would not have any maps available is absurd. But a lot of people insist that the residents of Pantheon must stumble blindly on, without the benefit of mapping. Nary a word about roleplay or immersion concerns on that one.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I would actually be all for there being a cartography tradeskill.
For example, in our world, if you draw a line that connects the horns of a crescent moon and then extend this line down to the horizon, in northern latitudes this will give an approximate indication of south.
Also, moss grows either on the north or south side of trees (depending on what hemisphere you are in).
What if there were things like this in Pantheon, where you could orient yourself based on the actual game world, rather than just sense headings or the ilk.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Amathe said: "But it is kind of sad, to me at least, not to be able to share the new experience of a game with the people you want to play it with (unless you limit your race choices and play something or someone that isn't necessarily appealing to you). " to which I suggested players be permitted to select their starting city.
Amathe also said: "What I did do is suggest a discussion of how to accomodate friends wanting to play together early in the game, that of course should be done in a way not to ruin the game's many challenges. " to which I agreed, and continued the discussion with ideas such as one time travel options.
MadFrenchie continued with his support, " There's a difference between creating a challenging and vast world to explore, and needlessly preventing players from being able to reliably find one another, specifically in the early game." (is he really a closet hater like me?)
Amathe, ever the voice of reason, tried to fend off the hostile fans, " There are more issues to facilitating playing together than distance and travel dangers. That's why I thought it was an issue worth discussing." -Which I've been doing, arguing against pointless distance and travel in one specific situation, I actually support travel mechanics in a very big way which I mentioned.
At this point DMKano summed up the situation, "The reason is - many think the only way to do this is the way it was done back in 1999, and any deviation = bad." to which Gdemami actually agreed "...entire game in a nutshell, beyond hopeless." (he almost never agrees with anyone....)
It's true, Amathe and Sovrath started a conversation about ideas to let people group up and sneak around the city together, an idea that I did not disagree with, but Dullahan nixed that conversation, "I'll explain why that would have a negative impact on the game, even if it's just a 1 time thing and not a symptom of a bigger problem."
You say I added nothing of value to the conversation, but I offered the following idea to make it more palletable to the purists, "Truthfully, I'd sort of like starting in the middle of no where, with the time honored amnesia backstory, no idea who I am, or was, and a clean slate to forge my destiny.
From there I might wander into a dwarves town, and being an Orc they might throw me into prison, or make me a slave from which I'd have to escape.
Or I might go another direction and run into a troll village, where I might be tolerated, if not necessarily warmly welcomed."
Allowing one to complete a quest early on in the game that would allow them to, say, join an NPC caravan and ride to another starter area to join someone they started the game with seems like a net gain. Specifically if it's a one-time opportunity quest that cannot be revisited or repeated after that point."
MadFrenchie, still hanging with me, "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."
Amathe too, but he's taking a reasonable view, "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. " Which would be my view too, won't keep me from playing if they dont do it, I dont' rely on friends to play games.
Finally, I keep being accused of "bigotry", so I had to look it up to make sure, " intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."
I am not the person in this conversation being intolerant of other people's opinions, but again, my character is called into question by stating I'm being childish, toxic or whatever ad hominem people decide to bring up when I present alternate views which it's pretty clear I'm not "standing alone" on.
"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
I have no time for toxic people, and no desire to spend any more of my time giving you sincere efforts to try to improve your Pantheon experience, for I honesly feel you have no desire to do so. At this point, I don't have any respect left for your opinions, but that isn't out of anger or a personal vendetta. If you cool down and go read back over our discussions and people's responses compared to your own, maybe you'll see I have nothing personally against you, and I am very open to reason (as I have proven with 3 people in this discussion alone and even defend @delete5230 and other people who are constantly getting literally bullied on by toxic people who think they're better than others, similar to what I've seen you doing here). My point is I want people to be happy and enjoy their time; both on this website and in Pantheon or any game for that matter. I go as far to directly name and give credit to these players in the open and closed forums of Pantheon development in the past as well as tell them when they've come up with a great idea. My intentions are constructive, and I wholeheartedly don't think yours are. I won't be responding to anything else from you in the future. I did my best. Good luck in your mmo travels man.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
No, you presume to speak for every except those explicitly arguing against instant travel.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
In fact, if you read what I said you would see this:
"But it is kind of sad, to me at least, not to be able to share the new experience of a game with the people you want to play it with (unless you limit your race choices and play something or someone that isn't necessarily appealing to you)."
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
That was something unique to older mmorpgs. Instead of focusing on accommodations and making everything accessible, they just created a world which naturally provided players with ways to stand out and be exceptional.
Namely my first, DAoC, had the horse system. Of course, it cost money, which was also actually a precious commodity back then (something else I wish MMORPGs would jring back).
I just don't believe it's an all-or-nothing thing. It isn't a deal breaker, but would he if there were no travel options AND the world itself was largely devoid or boring to traverse. It isn't something that's turned me off to Pantheon completely, as I don't generally play with friends from outside a game and would have no real need to move immediately from a starting area assigned to my race.. But I also know that I'm not everyone, and Zuljan and I had an in-depth discussion of both sides and an idea I feel would he a pretty good alternative that doesn't sacrifice the primary gameplay goals VR is going for. Either way, I'll be trying the game out as soon as possible, just wish it were further along so that ASAP wasn't so far from now!
Like you mentioned, there are a lot unknown details about the game, so it is entirely possible they botch travel (or any sort of design that we lack info on for that matter). I do not blindly support VR/Pantheon. Myself and a couple others are responsible for providing quite lengthy, even emotionally imbalanced (maybe ad hominem at times) responses to VR Devs for keeping us in the dark and giving such little/political detail ("it'll be ready soon" etc) about progress on a monthly basis (about 6 months ago).
We were ostracized by most of the blind followers on the development forums (threads are locked but still viewable 30ish pages), but eventually, the arguments spread like cancer, and the developers realized they could do a better job at a few things, which resulted in a lot of changes for the better. Some may think I favor this or that, but I honestly don't. I just want a quality, hardcore/challenging mmorpg to succeed. And like Kyleran has said in another thread (complete coincidence/irony that I quote him here); if Pantheon does not succeed, it is highly unlikely we ever see another mmorpg of this sort be produced again.
If you'd like to actually discuss what the detractors are saying, feel free to actually look at the ideas presented and discuss / debate those. That promotes the purpose of a forum -- to discuss ideas. You are indirectly calling people names and questioning their comprehension abilities. Those who are presenting alternative ideas aren't stooping to name-calling. That's happened enough, already, and it doesn't help the discussion.
If you don't like the group of people who question VR's decisions, why do you choose to try to shout them down or insult them? Are you that unsure of your own convictions and beliefs that you are afraid of different opinions and interpretations?
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.