Isn't Pantheon targeting the Classic MMO audience? If so, then Classic WoW isn't in the same league as Pantheon. The community on this site, and for good reason, shunned WoW when it released in 2004. It completely dumbed down the genre, opened the flood gates for non-MMO gamers to influence the direction of the MMO genre, and here we are now over a decade later and we were right.
So I don't think Pantheon has anything to worry about regarding "classic" WoW servers.
I don't think most people shunned WoW early on. The purists like myself regretted some aspects of it like the linear nature and weak death penalty, but otherwise, it wasn't that different from EQ circa 2005.
WoW classic will be good for Pantheon if the time is right. It would undoubtedly take potential players if the two launched simultaneously, but should WoW classic come out at least a few months prior, it would increase demand for a more traditional mmo experience. Pantheon would become the most comparable offering.
I don't agree, because I don't think WoW was a traditional MMO experience. I think WoW was markedly different from the games that preceeded it and defined/initially grew the genre/MMO market (except, EQ2, which launched in the same general timeframe).
The only games that survived EQ and WoW were those that put an innovative spin on the genre...
WoW opened up the market to casuals, and made it possible for them to actually be end-gamers in an MMORPG. In EQ, being an end-game raider often meant raiding 4-6 days a week. WoW made it possible to do this with less time investment. It also considerably sped up the leveling timeline for new players, compared to older MMORPGs (before ez-mode patches/expansions).
WoW also introduced the concept of gear resets - or at least popularized it. It wasn't until WoW's popularity that you could actually expect literally all of your gear to become useless after a new expansion released. This was not the case in older games - even through level cap increases. It was fairly customary to still farm items from content 1-2 expansions back, sometimes even more, in EQ or DAoC.
I don't actually think the Death Penalty in EQ was that bad. The only thing that sucked was corpse rotting, but that became largely a non-issue for most people as the game populated and you had access to more Necros, SKs, Clerics, and Paladins. The bigger issue was running across zones from Binds (often in major cities) to where your corpse was... with no gear :-P
I think WoW classic is attractive to a different type of player than EQ was, and Pantheon will be attractive to the EQ type player. I don't think Pantheon will be a failure, but I think it's going to be working with in-built limitations since the players who really revered EQ (i.e. the players who weren't extremely fickle when it comes to that type of MMORPG) are all older Gen X or Early Millennial players, these days.
The two issues that I have with EQ-type games are:
1. I don't know if I have or care to schedule the amount of time needed to play them in a progressive manner... and
2. These games are very dependent on user base size, and the attitudes of the users who play it. If the players who play Pantheon are similar to the players who played EQ, then that will be very good for the game. If they are similar to the types of players who play games like WoW or Lineage II, that may not pan out as well, because it can turn those other players off. Its community is a large reason why EQ has been able to survive. It has always had some of the most dedicated players, and the attitudes of those players are like a snapshot in gamer history. Other newer games haven't had that, which is why the communities were so fickle and the games have been so susceptible to implosion (mass exodus soon after release, toxicity, etc.).
And to be honest, judging by the forums here (at least), I don't have much faith in this games prospective community. I will take a wait and see approach to that, though.
Given my life situation, I'm probably more prone to play another WoW-like game, even though I'd prefer an EQ-like game. Having to depend so deeply on other people can render the game unplayable for some, which is why they like the solo-friendliness of WoW and it's ilk. I hate it, but it's substantially better than sitting at the zone-in yelling "LFG!"
I agree that WoW wasn't a traditional MMO, even in the beginning. That is why I said a more traditional mmo. It did incorporate some of the things we liked about the genre early on, not the least of which was that it was harder in general, encouraged more grouping, and had far less accessibility options, even if it still had instancing (the worst of all). Even leveling took longer, and was much more troublesome alone (particularly with pvp) than it has become since. Some of the more egregious factors you point out were not part of classic WoW (no gear resets, few casual raiders).
Player types are not the dichotomy you describe. There are people who enjoy both. Those with an extreme like for one of the two may not find the other nearly as enjoyable, but few rejected it altogether. That level or like or dislike is also relative in that the design of wow classic was much closer to that of EQ than current WoW or other new mmorpgs.
Thus, classic WoW will once again popularize aspects of mmorpgs that have been cast aside. Many who play it will be looking for something else to scratch that itch once it's over. That can only be a good thing for Pantheon.
I don't agree with the bolded part, because I think the appeal of WoW was:
1. The Lore backing of WoW - Warcraft.
2. WoW kept the parts of MMORPGs that made them MMORPGs (which almost all MMORPGs have, BTW), but got rid of specific "normalities" that annoyed casual players.
WoW's success was opening up the genre to casual players - those players didn't like the inconveniences and traditional time sinks built into games like EQ. That is why games that copy those convenient aspects of WoW tend to succeed better than those that copy the inconvenient aspects of games like EQ.
FFXIV is a good example. They were able to relaunch their game and still keep the subscription model, while games like ESO had to completely revamp their business model and inch more towards Pay to Win and Pay for Convenience on top of a B2P model.
Except WoW had a lot of those timesinks. Fast travel was much more limited. No instant queuing to areas or into groups. Leveling time was much much longer than what current games are. Soloing was actually much harder.
WoW's success was bringing a popular IP free of the clunkiness the genre was known for.
well, as I remember there was some clunk Servers crashing over and over the first week. Boats killing people for the first 8 months. All part of the charm.
I dont see this as a Pantheon vs WOW Classic. The reason being is its time for MMORPGS to come back to their roots. That means lower progression, slow leveling and the journey meaning more then destination. Both Pantheon and WOW Classic do this. They just do it in different ways.
Personally I am keeping an eye on Pantheon but it is not my priority. I do hope Pantheon is very successful though because if Pantheon, WOW Classic, Ashes of Creation and LoA are all successful in their own ways it will prove what I and many people like me have been saying for 10 years now. MMORPGS need to be about Journey and the content that built the genera. Not the 15 a minute weekend gamer crowd.
My Games I am interested in the future are the following
#1 Classic WOW #2 Ashes of Creation #3 Pantheon #4 Sea of Thieves and Rift Prime.
I think the spec requirements of pantheon will have a huge effect on its popularity (as with any game). People underestimate how important it is for a game to be playable on low end PCs for it to be very popular. If pantheon requires a NASA computer to look good and run smoothly (like most MMOs these days) it'll be a flop (also like most MMOs these days).
WOW NEVER did the journey,it only appeared like that to all those players playing their first ever mmorpg.
LINEAR questing ,hand holding is NOT YOUR game,it is the developers game telling you how to play and where to go.FUN,well yeah all you new players never seen anything like it before,new is always intriguing,interesting and has you wanting more.
If Pantheon ends up anything like Wow EVER,it will never see my HD.I don't want to see anything promoting instances and end game or raiding because once that is there ,then that is the ONLY thing the game becomes 24/7.
I want to see a realistic looking world with NO hand holding or flashing arrows or sparkles or marks on maps or markers over npc heads,i want the world to look immersive and not FAKE.
I still hold Brad to his comment and the ONLY reason i had hope for this game.He said he wants to make a game that "makes sense"and from where i sit,it better.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
WOW NEVER did the journey,it only appeared like that to all those players playing their first ever mmorpg.
LINEAR questing ,hand holding is NOT YOUR game,it is the developers game telling you how to play and where to go.FUN,well yeah all you new players never seen anything like it before,new is always intriguing,interesting and has you wanting more.
If Pantheon ends up anything like Wow EVER,it will never see my HD.I don't want to see anything promoting instances and end game or raiding because once that is there ,then that is the ONLY thing the game becomes 24/7.
I want to see a realistic looking world with NO hand holding or flashing arrows or sparkles or marks on maps or markers over npc heads,i want the world to look immersive and not FAKE.
I still hold Brad to his comment and the ONLY reason i had hope for this game.He said he wants to make a game that "makes sense"and from where i sit,it better.
If you want a "real" world then go outside. I personally, and not just because I disagree with everything you say, (that I can make sense out of anyway) disagree with you.
I think quite a few people think they want a real world, but I doubt it would be as popular or as fun you think it would. Want to die from a common cold? How about spend months mending a broken arm? How will you eat while said arm is healing? etc. The point being the real world isn't all that much fun ergo not many people (Developers) are willing to sink money into a life simulator (no matter what period in history) without a serious dab of high fantasy. It would suck.
Also, WoW (in Vanilla) had a pretty decent story for the time it was released, as someone pointed out, Blizzard did a good job of removing some of the clunkiness that MMORPG games were known for at that time.
Have you looked at Gloria Victis? I hate to potentially inflict your insanity on the good people that play that game, but it is close to what you describe.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
I was sad today to find the guild I joined to experience the new levelling experience in WoW was empty. It looks like people went back to their main servers. Initially there was so much enthusiasm then it must have petered out but it happened quietly as there were no farewell messages on Discord just faded away.
I wonder what will happen to classic servers and how many will actually stay. I think the people who truly love it will probably stay but for many the novelty might just wear off. Well we will have to wait and see. I think I would love the dungeon experience in Classic.
If you haven't played on the popular vanilla through Wotlk emulators over the last 2 years ... your opinion is mute. They are wild guesses based not only on no information but also against all metrics and data available from emulators.
The currently population in vanilla emulators (the popular Bliz-like ones) has never been higher. It has risen over time even over all the reported drama over the last 2 years. It has risen noticeably since Classic announcement. There are 2 servers with a constant 3-4k and 6-9k pop. 1-2 TBC and Wotlk servers also reach those numbers. Constant average logged in is a fraction of total active players per day as it has always been.
Over the last 2 days I spent around 5 hours doing constant level 25-35 open world pvp. Noob zones are packed. All zone levels are populated. Dungeons are easy to get into for vanilla era Wow. End game has many guilds for both factions for both raiding and pvp. The retention rate of their players is multiple times higher than any modern mmo on the market which is the same as when vanilla was live.
Am I comparing Classic era Wow to Pantheon? Nope. They aren't even close nor really targeting the same player base ... but all prophetic guesses based upon pure guess work is meaningless. Real data reveals it's interest. Whether or not you plan on playing on Classic is entirely up to you but don't sound like an idiot trying to pretend you know what you are talking about if you have zero experience in the history of why Classic Wow was announced.
The player retention on Classic servers will be largely held by the ultimate ability to progress through the early expansions again. That is YEARS of content. Stop thinking that you will be playing vanilla forever and nothing else.
I have played both WoW and EQ (since 1999) I loved the social aspect that EQ has and the challenges that are still present. The introduction of the mercenary really killed the game imho. On the flipside WoW had a few qualities that I enjoyed. PvP being the most prominent. Other than that WoW was easy mode. Heading you everything you need until high-end. This is for the give it to me now generation. By no means am I an elitist with something against casual gamers. I like the work for my gear factor. The invis before going into a new zone kind of game play. I miss the days of getting a batphone call at 2am because Vex is respawned. I do hope that Pantheon meets the expectations that have been set. Blizzard can keep doing their thing. My wife plays WoW and loves it. I play EQ because there is a challenge. We comprise and play together to accomplish the needs of each other. When a raid needs a more dps or another cleric for Ring of scale she is there. When she needs a tank I am there. As said before it is preferance based. Both will lose players but it will be due to difficulty of game play. Or general lack of content. Like it, Flame it, or get butthurt not my problem.
I don't see classic WoW servers by Blizzard making it enough for any real impact. Likely Blizzard will use them as an excuse to say how it was a bad idea and further block other private Vanilla servers. Why you ask? Its because I doubt Blizzard will be willing to offer a TRUE classic WoW experience with possibly just the newer graphics updates included. They would be slowing down exp, bringing back talent trees including those cookie cutter builds they grew to hate, Further it means content becomes 40m and difficult again (even the private servers aren't offering a true WoW classic experience using talent tree's meant for BC expac prep and not having the true content scripts). In a way if they had a successful true WoW classic experience it would be saying they really screwed up hardcore especially after WoTLK.
A lot of people have no interest in going back to the roots of anything. Slow "this and that" makes sense when you're 13 and you feel like you have a decade of school ahead of you, with no non-educational obligations. It's a completely different thing when you have more going on in your life.
When you have a grind for XP, this sounds better in theory than in practice. In practice: a group based, grind-heavy game makes you reliant on other human beings being online for HOURS at a time in groups to grind that XP. This is what all of us would love to do, but this often does not work out. What often works out is that you have tons and tons of people with disparate playtimes and volatile schedules, and you end up having to look for specific classes (cause "Trinity") just to continue doing what you wanted to do.
This is how it was in EQ. If the same formula is used, then it will be no different here. This doesn't work nearly as well, especially when a game is niche with a comparatively smaller player base - especially with how players generally tend to bias towards specific class archetypes (an insolvable problem in Trinity MMORPG games).
While a lot of people really liked and played EQ for years, I think there are legitimate concerns regarding the "cloning" of that gaming experience in the current market.
There are many games that have had a similar formula (slower grind/progression, etc.) and many of the people here "asking for it" have not played them. So I wonder how much of this is PR'ish speech (to make it sound like the game is ushering in something that we haven't gotten - which is a false assertion) and how much can be taken seriously.
I don't see classic WoW servers by Blizzard making it enough for any real impact. Likely Blizzard will use them as an excuse to say how it was a bad idea and further block other private Vanilla servers. Why you ask? Its because I doubt Blizzard will be willing to offer a TRUE classic WoW experience with possibly just the newer graphics updates included. They would be slowing down exp, bringing back talent trees including those cookie cutter builds they grew to hate, Further it means content becomes 40m and difficult again (even the private servers aren't offering a true WoW classic experience using talent tree's meant for BC expac prep and not having the true content scripts). In a way if they had a successful true WoW classic experience it would be saying they really screwed up hardcore especially after WoTLK.
Classic Servers are a bad idea because the whole point of an MMORPG is to evolve over time. You may not like how they evolve, and that's your prerogative.
It's basically a server with a small amount of content and not much to do. The only thing that will be of any substance on such a server, is the PvP. That's pretty much why a lot of people want it.
It will be very popular for a while, but then the server population will dwindle like pretty much every other Classic or Progression server in every other MMORPG that has ever introduced them.
I don't see classic WoW servers by Blizzard making it enough for any real impact. Likely Blizzard will use them as an excuse to say how it was a bad idea and further block other private Vanilla servers. Why you ask? Its because I doubt Blizzard will be willing to offer a TRUE classic WoW experience with possibly just the newer graphics updates included. They would be slowing down exp, bringing back talent trees including those cookie cutter builds they grew to hate, Further it means content becomes 40m and difficult again (even the private servers aren't offering a true WoW classic experience using talent tree's meant for BC expac prep and not having the true content scripts). In a way if they had a successful true WoW classic experience it would be saying they really screwed up hardcore especially after WoTLK.
Classic Servers are a bad idea because the whole point of an MMORPG is to evolve over time. You may not like how they evolve, and that's your prerogative.
It's basically a server with a small amount of content and not much to do. The only thing that will be of any substance on such a server, is the PvP. That's pretty much why a lot of people want it.
It will be very popular for a while, but then the server population will dwindle like pretty much every other Classic or Progression server in every other MMORPG that has ever introduced them.
You do realize you just described the typical population decline for almost every MMORPG or online game, new, classic server or otherwise right?
The only difference might be the speed at which each declines, it's just the way of things, a steady march towards entropy.
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 don't see classic WoW servers by Blizzard making it enough for any real impact. Likely Blizzard will use them as an excuse to say how it was a bad idea and further block other private Vanilla servers. Why you ask? Its because I doubt Blizzard will be willing to offer a TRUE classic WoW experience with possibly just the newer graphics updates included. They would be slowing down exp, bringing back talent trees including those cookie cutter builds they grew to hate, Further it means content becomes 40m and difficult again (even the private servers aren't offering a true WoW classic experience using talent tree's meant for BC expac prep and not having the true content scripts). In a way if they had a successful true WoW classic experience it would be saying they really screwed up hardcore especially after WoTLK.
Classic Servers are a bad idea because the whole point of an MMORPG is to evolve over time.
I agree that people want character progression, but I'm not sure they want their world changed quite as much. Added to, yes. destroyed, no. Personally I hate when games (like Wow and GW2) go in and wreck large swathes of much beloved lands.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Will WoW Classic receive any development? The idea of Classic is having WoW the way it was in Vanilla, I doubt they'll develop 2 versions of WoW. Any new game that has the same features to be considered competition will always have the advantage that it's actually trying to develop and flourish.
A lot of people have no interest in going back to the roots of anything. Slow "this and that" makes sense when you're 13 and you feel like you have a decade of school ahead of you, with no non-educational obligations. It's a completely different thing when you have more going on in your life.
When you have a grind for XP, this sounds better in theory than in practice. In practice: a group based, grind-heavy game makes you reliant on other human beings being online for HOURS at a time in groups to grind that XP. This is what all of us would love to do, but this often does not work out. What often works out is that you have tons and tons of people with disparate playtimes and volatile schedules, and you end up having to look for specific classes (cause "Trinity") just to continue doing what you wanted to do.
This is how it was in EQ. If the same formula is used, then it will be no different here. This doesn't work nearly as well, especially when a game is niche with a comparatively smaller player base - especially with how players generally tend to bias towards specific class archetypes (an insolvable problem in Trinity MMORPG games).
While a lot of people really liked and played EQ for years, I think there are legitimate concerns regarding the "cloning" of that gaming experience in the current market.
There are many games that have had a similar formula (slower grind/progression, etc.) and many of the people here "asking for it" have not played them. So I wonder how much of this is PR'ish speech (to make it sound like the game is ushering in something that we haven't gotten - which is a false assertion) and how much can be taken seriously.
Wonderfully said.
I also add that those same 500,000 people that played EQ1 were also the same ones that quit playing EQ1. Pantheon will have a whole new lore and 'world story' behind it. But that always causes me to wonder how long it will be before the sameness of the game mechanics and play bring about a mass wave of deja vu, highlighted by a mass exodus of players to the next thing that comes along.
EQ1 came along in an era where everything was a new experience, but it still hemorrhaged customers to other games as they came online. Pantheon will not have that same 'empty room' advantage. That simply is extremely unlikely to occur without some major game-breaking features that will change the definition of what it means to be an MMORPG. There's really no evidence of that being in the works.
There has been a lot of feedback to this type of idea from the Pantheon fan base. While I understand, appreciate and even admire the dedication of some of the individuals, most of the basis for their belief is the pre-production documentation that the Pantheon web site contains. I choose not to believe that is a credible source for information. Its closest spiritual cousin, EQ1, also proclaimed that 'Enchanters would be the masters of crafting' and that 'clerics, shamans and druids could heal equally' and that 'warriors, shadow knights and paladins could tank equally well'. These assertions made it into the release documentation even through the Gold Box edition (Original - PoP expansion). It was a number of expansions past that before the tanking and healing balance was finally achieved.
The monthly streams have failed to show that the developers are developing anything but a festival of mez, heal, FD, root and snare that results in a 'fight' where 6 characters stand around a single isolated mob to bludgeon it to death. That's the exact innovation that EQ introduced in 1999. It's also the current state-of-the-art for modern Trinity-based gameplay. I can appreciate yet another Trinity combat system, but that's simply not enough to make the marketplace sit up and take notice. So, once again, the genre won't evolve.
I am anxiously looking forward to playing Pantheon, hoping against hope that there will be something new and interesting in the mechanics. The lore doesn't interest me nearly as much as others. Books and movies can (and do) provide better stories. I'll play enough to look for a burst of inspiration, but i'll also be willing to walk if I don't find it.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
A lot of people have no interest in going back to the roots of anything. Slow "this and that" makes sense when you're 13 and you feel like you have a decade of school ahead of you, with no non-educational obligations. It's a completely different thing when you have more going on in your life.
When you have a grind for XP, this sounds better in theory than in practice. In practice: a group based, grind-heavy game makes you reliant on other human beings being online for HOURS at a time in groups to grind that XP. This is what all of us would love to do, but this often does not work out. What often works out is that you have tons and tons of people with disparate playtimes and volatile schedules, and you end up having to look for specific classes (cause "Trinity") just to continue doing what you wanted to do.
This is how it was in EQ. If the same formula is used, then it will be no different here. This doesn't work nearly as well, especially when a game is niche with a comparatively smaller player base - especially with how players generally tend to bias towards specific class archetypes (an insolvable problem in Trinity MMORPG games).
While a lot of people really liked and played EQ for years, I think there are legitimate concerns regarding the "cloning" of that gaming experience in the current market.
There are many games that have had a similar formula (slower grind/progression, etc.) and many of the people here "asking for it" have not played them. So I wonder how much of this is PR'ish speech (to make it sound like the game is ushering in something that we haven't gotten - which is a false assertion) and how much can be taken seriously.
Good thing people didn't stop procreating in the '90s, or else creating games for people with excessive free time would indeed be a bad idea. Thankfully that is not the case, so who are we to demand that, going forward, all games be designed to cater to our busy lives? Maybe it's that demand on our time and depth of reward which created a level of exclusivity that made games worth playing night and day... or at least longer than three months.
Naturally nobody thinks it's a great idea to repeat such mistakes of having only warriors being great tanks, or only clerics being effective healers. Just because we don't want them to repeat such obvious mistakes doesn't mean we also don't want games with a focus on grouping and player interaction.
A lot of people have no interest in going back to the roots of anything. Slow "this and that" makes sense when you're 13 and you feel like you have a decade of school ahead of you, with no non-educational obligations. It's a completely different thing when you have more going on in your life.
When you have a grind for XP, this sounds better in theory than in practice. In practice: a group based, grind-heavy game makes you reliant on other human beings being online for HOURS at a time in groups to grind that XP. This is what all of us would love to do, but this often does not work out. What often works out is that you have tons and tons of people with disparate playtimes and volatile schedules, and you end up having to look for specific classes (cause "Trinity") just to continue doing what you wanted to do.
This is how it was in EQ. If the same formula is used, then it will be no different here. This doesn't work nearly as well, especially when a game is niche with a comparatively smaller player base - especially with how players generally tend to bias towards specific class archetypes (an insolvable problem in Trinity MMORPG games).
While a lot of people really liked and played EQ for years, I think there are legitimate concerns regarding the "cloning" of that gaming experience in the current market.
There are many games that have had a similar formula (slower grind/progression, etc.) and many of the people here "asking for it" have not played them. So I wonder how much of this is PR'ish speech (to make it sound like the game is ushering in something that we haven't gotten - which is a false assertion) and how much can be taken seriously.
First, something easily gained has no value. The anti "grind" argument is akin to saying you shouldn't have to read all those pesky words in a book to get to the "meat" of the story. Well, guess what, those words are what give the story gravitas.
Never the less, I don't necessarily disagree with your premise.
The issue is that "grind" is a HIGHLY subjective term, not only in what constitutes a grind (i.e. 50 hours to max, 500, 1000, whatever), but what "feels" grindy to person A doesn't "feel" grindy to person B.
However there are things that they can do to help eliminate that feeling. If I am having fun beating my way to the bottom of a dungeon with my buddies trying to get that sword I desperately want from the boss, and I happen to make a quarter of a level along the way, sweet, it wasn't grindy. The issue is when I feel I am forced to sit and kill mobs that are easier than me, or server no purpose other than to give XP, etc.
As far as it being an "insolvable" problem in trinity games, I completely disagree. The issue is an issue of ratios. If you go back and ask someone who played an enchanter or a cleric if they had issues finding a group the answer was a resounding no. However if you asked someone playing a rogue or a paladin, or whatever, the answer was yes. The issue could have been resolved through changes to group size.
Also, another solution is to soften the roles. Not remove them. So, in original EQ a cleric was a mandatory, an enchanter was pretty much a mandatory, etc. Once you got to the POP era, there were changes made that allowed other classes to fulfil that roll, they weren't as strong, but you could make it work.
So for example you could have a druid, a shaman, an enchanter (or bard, whatever) and a tank/dps, instead of a cleric, enchanters, tank, dps dps dps, etc etc.
So, nobody that's being intellectually honest is saying that original EQ had the formula perfect, all we're saying is that the pendulum has swung UTTERLY to the complete opposite direction and that somewhere in the middle is the correct place for it to be for our desired playstyle.
Also, i'm getting really tired of the "clone" argument, people these days seem to have no what nuance looks like. Just because something might share 70% of features with another thing doesn't make it a "clone".
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Grind is not a subjective term as it relates to MMORPGs. There's a difference between beating Arthus and getting a great drop, and killing 1,000 MOBs to level up. One is accomplishing a difficult feat for a great reward. The other is mindlessly killing MOBs to move an XP bar forward (or get a rare drop, or spawn a named, etc.). This is not subjective, unless you're new to MMORPGs and have barely encountered the term elsewhere (hard to imagine).
You don't get to label something as subjective just because you feel like weakening an argument that mentions it... That's not how things work :-P
Nuance is not a thing that looks like something. Nuance is a subtle difference in the meaning of something. There is nuanced between the concepts of Pantheon and EQ. One is Pantheon, one is EQ. They have different graphics engines. They have some different classes and likely will have some different spells. The lore is different, but the game still looks and plays largely like EQ with a new graphics engine. That's literally intentional, so I'm not sure how you can be getting tired about a criticism of something that was stated by the actual developers as intentional.
This is the reason why half the people here are even interested in the game.
No one is saying that's bad. People are questioning the viability - particularly the viability in terms of "lasting" of this formula in the current market.
I'm certainly getting tired of the rushed defensiveness that gets jotted down as a response to basically anything not positive someone says about this game.
----- ----- ----- To an earlier:
Druids and Shaman weren't viable healers in EQ, outside of trivial group content, until Omens of War. That was released in September, 2004. I believe that's when SOE added in the additional % Heal spell lines, and gave them bigger fast heals. Still not as good as a Cleric, though, and people would almost always take a cleric over a Druid and Shaman even after that expansion was released - buffing them. Rez was still a thing, for example ;-)
So Clerics had as close as possible to a monopoly on healing in EQ for the first 5+ years of the game.
Healers were actually the last archetype to get "balanced out" in that game.
Not sure why people are arguing about the specifics of the Trinity. Both EQ2 and WoW fixed this problem, and EQ2 even went further by maintaining the Control role with their Enchanter (Illusionist/Coercer) archetype.
I follow a lot of the conversations on the forum, reddit, and various discord channels. I will admit that a decent chunk of the fan-base wants an EQ emulator. That said, VR has been very clear that Pantheon is not an emulator/remake/reskin, etc. You should read "The Pantheon Difference" page as well as the FAQ. While it's true that Pantheon is a spiritual successor to EQ in many ways, it's not just the similarities that are important ... it's also the differences. There were some major pain points with EQ that have been cited as opportunities for improvement. VR is not trying to evolve EQ alone though ... they are evolving the genre. You should check out Brad's blogs on the main forum as well because he shares plenty of insight on the who/what/when/where/why and how Terminus will be a world rather than just another video-game. There are some serious next level considerations going on in the background and I think a lot of folks will be pleasantly surprised with what VR accomplishes with Pantheon.
I follow a lot of the conversations on the forum, reddit, and various discord channels. I will admit that a decent chunk of the fan-base wants an EQ emulator. That said, VR has been very clear that Pantheon is not an emulator/remake/reskin, etc. You should read "The Pantheon Difference" page as well as the FAQ. While it's true that Pantheon is a spiritual successor to EQ in many ways, it's not just the similarities that are important ... it's also the differences. There were some major pain points with EQ that have been cited as opportunities for improvement. VR is not trying to evolve EQ alone though ... they are evolving the genre. You should check out Brad's blogs on the main forum as well because he shares plenty of insight on the who/what/when/where/why and how Terminus will be a world rather than just another video-game. There are some serious next level considerations going on in the background and I think a lot of folks will be pleasantly surprised with what VR accomplishes with Pantheon.
I'm not entirely certain that Pantheon is interested in "evolving the genre". The game play looks exactly like it was taken from a 1999 session of EQ1 and artistically enhanced. The fanbois seem to be happy with that, based on the amount of shouting down that is attempted when I voice this opinion. I will agree that Terminus will be a world, but it will be a world in much the same ways as Norrath and Azeroth were worlds. Any concepts of "next level considerations" are being kept in that background, and haven't yet been publically demonstrated (via the Streams).
Even the 'new' ideas are being implemented essentially as slight modifications of existing systems. The 'environ' concept, for instance, appears to be a cross between a permission gate and lava from EQ1. That the lava is more effective that the pittance it was in EQ1 requiring a more adequate form of preparation doesn't make it ground breaking or innovative. We've seen wide-area hostile effects before. We've seen prerequisites before - keys, flags, quests and even level requirements to enter a zone. Now, 'you must be this tall' signs around the kingdom are being relettered with signs that read 'you must have this much protection'. It isn't new, just different names applied to familiar mechanisms.
I really do hope that Pantheon will actually have some new ideas. What has been shown, though, appear to be old ideas wrapped in new descriptions. A group of players beating on a single mob isn't anything we did not see in 1999. It's not 1999 anymore. Show me something really new, before I'll concede this game is "evolving the genre".
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I don't think anyone really cares if you concede or not. Mainly because your prerequisites for evolution are contrary to its definition. Evolution is not revolution. You need to consult a dictionary.
I don't think anyone really cares if you concede or not. Mainly because your prerequisites for evolution are contrary to its definition. Evolution is not revolution. You need to consult a dictionary.
Obviously, it is clear that you do not want any non-fanboi opinions in this discussion. You attack when faced with an opinion that doesn't agree with yours. That doesn't promote any form of discussion, peculiar attitude for someone posting on a discussion forum. Why not present reasons for why you agree or disagree?
Evolution doesn't throw away 19 years of change. My understanding of evolution is just fine. Perhaps you are thinking of adaptation?
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Comments
WoW's success was bringing a popular IP free of the clunkiness the genre was known for.
Servers crashing over and over the first week.
Boats killing people for the first 8 months.
All part of the charm.
Personally I am keeping an eye on Pantheon but it is not my priority. I do hope Pantheon is very successful though because if Pantheon, WOW Classic, Ashes of Creation and LoA are all successful in their own ways it will prove what I and many people like me have been saying for 10 years now. MMORPGS need to be about Journey and the content that built the genera. Not the 15 a minute weekend gamer crowd.
My Games I am interested in the future are the following
#1 Classic WOW
#2 Ashes of Creation
#3 Pantheon
#4 Sea of Thieves and Rift Prime.
LINEAR questing ,hand holding is NOT YOUR game,it is the developers game telling you how to play and where to go.FUN,well yeah all you new players never seen anything like it before,new is always intriguing,interesting and has you wanting more.
If Pantheon ends up anything like Wow EVER,it will never see my HD.I don't want to see anything promoting instances and end game or raiding because once that is there ,then that is the ONLY thing the game becomes 24/7.
I want to see a realistic looking world with NO hand holding or flashing arrows or sparkles or marks on maps or markers over npc heads,i want the world to look immersive and not FAKE.
I still hold Brad to his comment and the ONLY reason i had hope for this game.He said he wants to make a game that "makes sense"and from where i sit,it better.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I think quite a few people think they want a real world, but I doubt it would be as popular or as fun you think it would. Want to die from a common cold? How about spend months mending a broken arm? How will you eat while said arm is healing? etc. The point being the real world isn't all that much fun ergo not many people (Developers) are willing to sink money into a life simulator (no matter what period in history) without a serious dab of high fantasy. It would suck.
Also, WoW (in Vanilla) had a pretty decent story for the time it was released, as someone pointed out, Blizzard did a good job of removing some of the clunkiness that MMORPG games were known for at that time.
Have you looked at Gloria Victis? I hate to potentially inflict your insanity on the good people that play that game, but it is close to what you describe.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
I wonder what will happen to classic servers and how many will actually stay. I think the people who truly love it will probably stay but for many the novelty might just wear off. Well we will have to wait and see. I think I would love the dungeon experience in Classic.
The currently population in vanilla emulators (the popular Bliz-like ones) has never been higher. It has risen over time even over all the reported drama over the last 2 years. It has risen noticeably since Classic announcement. There are 2 servers with a constant 3-4k and 6-9k pop. 1-2 TBC and Wotlk servers also reach those numbers. Constant average logged in is a fraction of total active players per day as it has always been.
Over the last 2 days I spent around 5 hours doing constant level 25-35 open world pvp. Noob zones are packed. All zone levels are populated. Dungeons are easy to get into for vanilla era Wow. End game has many guilds for both factions for both raiding and pvp. The retention rate of their players is multiple times higher than any modern mmo on the market which is the same as when vanilla was live.
Am I comparing Classic era Wow to Pantheon? Nope. They aren't even close nor really targeting the same player base ... but all prophetic guesses based upon pure guess work is meaningless. Real data reveals it's interest. Whether or not you plan on playing on Classic is entirely up to you but don't sound like an idiot trying to pretend you know what you are talking about if you have zero experience in the history of why Classic Wow was announced.
The player retention on Classic servers will be largely held by the ultimate ability to progress through the early expansions again. That is YEARS of content. Stop thinking that you will be playing vanilla forever and nothing else.
You stay sassy!
By no means am I an elitist with something against casual gamers. I like the work for my gear factor. The invis before going into a new zone kind of game play. I miss the days of getting a batphone call at 2am because Vex is respawned. I do hope that Pantheon meets the expectations that have been set. Blizzard can keep doing their thing. My wife plays WoW and loves it. I play EQ because there is a challenge. We comprise and play together to accomplish the needs of each other. When a raid needs a more dps or another cleric for Ring of scale she is there. When she needs a tank I am there.
As said before it is preferance based. Both will lose players but it will be due to difficulty of game play. Or general lack of content. Like it, Flame it, or get butthurt not my problem.
When you have a grind for XP, this sounds better in theory than in practice. In practice: a group based, grind-heavy game makes you reliant on other human beings being online for HOURS at a time in groups to grind that XP. This is what all of us would love to do, but this often does not work out. What often works out is that you have tons and tons of people with disparate playtimes and volatile schedules, and you end up having to look for specific classes (cause "Trinity") just to continue doing what you wanted to do.
This is how it was in EQ. If the same formula is used, then it will be no different here. This doesn't work nearly as well, especially when a game is niche with a comparatively smaller player base - especially with how players generally tend to bias towards specific class archetypes (an insolvable problem in Trinity MMORPG games).
While a lot of people really liked and played EQ for years, I think there are legitimate concerns regarding the "cloning" of that gaming experience in the current market.
There are many games that have had a similar formula (slower grind/progression, etc.) and many of the people here "asking for it" have not played them. So I wonder how much of this is PR'ish speech (to make it sound like the game is ushering in something that we haven't gotten - which is a false assertion) and how much can be taken seriously.
Classic Servers are a bad idea because the whole point of an MMORPG is to evolve over time. You may not like how they evolve, and that's your prerogative.
It's basically a server with a small amount of content and not much to do. The only thing that will be of any substance on such a server, is the PvP. That's pretty much why a lot of people want it.
It will be very popular for a while, but then the server population will dwindle like pretty much every other Classic or Progression server in every other MMORPG that has ever introduced them.
The only difference might be the speed at which each declines, it's just the way of things, a steady march towards entropy.
"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
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I also add that those same 500,000 people that played EQ1 were also the same ones that quit playing EQ1. Pantheon will have a whole new lore and 'world story' behind it. But that always causes me to wonder how long it will be before the sameness of the game mechanics and play bring about a mass wave of deja vu, highlighted by a mass exodus of players to the next thing that comes along.
EQ1 came along in an era where everything was a new experience, but it still hemorrhaged customers to other games as they came online. Pantheon will not have that same 'empty room' advantage. That simply is extremely unlikely to occur without some major game-breaking features that will change the definition of what it means to be an MMORPG. There's really no evidence of that being in the works.
There has been a lot of feedback to this type of idea from the Pantheon fan base. While I understand, appreciate and even admire the dedication of some of the individuals, most of the basis for their belief is the pre-production documentation that the Pantheon web site contains. I choose not to believe that is a credible source for information. Its closest spiritual cousin, EQ1, also proclaimed that 'Enchanters would be the masters of crafting' and that 'clerics, shamans and druids could heal equally' and that 'warriors, shadow knights and paladins could tank equally well'. These assertions made it into the release documentation even through the Gold Box edition (Original - PoP expansion). It was a number of expansions past that before the tanking and healing balance was finally achieved.
The monthly streams have failed to show that the developers are developing anything but a festival of mez, heal, FD, root and snare that results in a 'fight' where 6 characters stand around a single isolated mob to bludgeon it to death. That's the exact innovation that EQ introduced in 1999. It's also the current state-of-the-art for modern Trinity-based gameplay. I can appreciate yet another Trinity combat system, but that's simply not enough to make the marketplace sit up and take notice. So, once again, the genre won't evolve.
I am anxiously looking forward to playing Pantheon, hoping against hope that there will be something new and interesting in the mechanics. The lore doesn't interest me nearly as much as others. Books and movies can (and do) provide better stories. I'll play enough to look for a burst of inspiration, but i'll also be willing to walk if I don't find it.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
Naturally nobody thinks it's a great idea to repeat such mistakes of having only warriors being great tanks, or only clerics being effective healers. Just because we don't want them to repeat such obvious mistakes doesn't mean we also don't want games with a focus on grouping and player interaction.
First, something easily gained has no value. The anti "grind" argument is akin to saying you shouldn't have to read all those pesky words in a book to get to the "meat" of the story. Well, guess what, those words are what give the story gravitas.
Never the less, I don't necessarily disagree with your premise.
The issue is that "grind" is a HIGHLY subjective term, not only in what constitutes a grind (i.e. 50 hours to max, 500, 1000, whatever), but what "feels" grindy to person A doesn't "feel" grindy to person B.
However there are things that they can do to help eliminate that feeling. If I am having fun beating my way to the bottom of a dungeon with my buddies trying to get that sword I desperately want from the boss, and I happen to make a quarter of a level along the way, sweet, it wasn't grindy. The issue is when I feel I am forced to sit and kill mobs that are easier than me, or server no purpose other than to give XP, etc.
As far as it being an "insolvable" problem in trinity games, I completely disagree. The issue is an issue of ratios. If you go back and ask someone who played an enchanter or a cleric if they had issues finding a group the answer was a resounding no. However if you asked someone playing a rogue or a paladin, or whatever, the answer was yes. The issue could have been resolved through changes to group size.
Also, another solution is to soften the roles. Not remove them. So, in original EQ a cleric was a mandatory, an enchanter was pretty much a mandatory, etc. Once you got to the POP era, there were changes made that allowed other classes to fulfil that roll, they weren't as strong, but you could make it work.
So for example you could have a druid, a shaman, an enchanter (or bard, whatever) and a tank/dps, instead of a cleric, enchanters, tank, dps dps dps, etc etc.
So, nobody that's being intellectually honest is saying that original EQ had the formula perfect, all we're saying is that the pendulum has swung UTTERLY to the complete opposite direction and that somewhere in the middle is the correct place for it to be for our desired playstyle.
Also, i'm getting really tired of the "clone" argument, people these days seem to have no what nuance looks like. Just because something might share 70% of features with another thing doesn't make it a "clone".
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
You don't get to label something as subjective just because you feel like weakening an argument that mentions it... That's not how things work :-P
Nuance is not a thing that looks like something. Nuance is a subtle difference in the meaning of something. There is nuanced between the concepts of Pantheon and EQ. One is Pantheon, one is EQ. They have different graphics engines. They have some different classes and likely will have some different spells. The lore is different, but the game still looks and plays largely like EQ with a new graphics engine. That's literally intentional, so I'm not sure how you can be getting tired about a criticism of something that was stated by the actual developers as intentional.
This is the reason why half the people here are even interested in the game.
No one is saying that's bad. People are questioning the viability - particularly the viability in terms of "lasting" of this formula in the current market.
I'm certainly getting tired of the rushed defensiveness that gets jotted down as a response to basically anything not positive someone says about this game.
----- ----- ----- To an earlier:
Druids and Shaman weren't viable healers in EQ, outside of trivial group content, until Omens of War. That was released in September, 2004. I believe that's when SOE added in the additional % Heal spell lines, and gave them bigger fast heals. Still not as good as a Cleric, though, and people would almost always take a cleric over a Druid and Shaman even after that expansion was released - buffing them. Rez was still a thing, for example ;-)
So Clerics had as close as possible to a monopoly on healing in EQ for the first 5+ years of the game.
Healers were actually the last archetype to get "balanced out" in that game.
Not sure why people are arguing about the specifics of the Trinity. Both EQ2 and WoW fixed this problem, and EQ2 even went further by maintaining the Control role with their Enchanter (Illusionist/Coercer) archetype.
Even the 'new' ideas are being implemented essentially as slight modifications of existing systems. The 'environ' concept, for instance, appears to be a cross between a permission gate and lava from EQ1. That the lava is more effective that the pittance it was in EQ1 requiring a more adequate form of preparation doesn't make it ground breaking or innovative. We've seen wide-area hostile effects before. We've seen prerequisites before - keys, flags, quests and even level requirements to enter a zone. Now, 'you must be this tall' signs around the kingdom are being relettered with signs that read 'you must have this much protection'. It isn't new, just different names applied to familiar mechanisms.
I really do hope that Pantheon will actually have some new ideas. What has been shown, though, appear to be old ideas wrapped in new descriptions. A group of players beating on a single mob isn't anything we did not see in 1999. It's not 1999 anymore. Show me something really new, before I'll concede this game is "evolving the genre".
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Evolution doesn't throw away 19 years of change. My understanding of evolution is just fine. Perhaps you are thinking of adaptation?
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.