Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

It's got a long way to go.

2

Comments

  • PottedPlant22PottedPlant22 Member RarePosts: 800
    Mendel said:
    he doesn't think that his players will be solely comprised of EQ1 veterans. 
    You're forgetting about the people that were too young or never got to experience EQ when it was king.  

    The focus on their game is to have maybe a few hundred thousand players at max I believe.  That's to be expected with a niche game.
  • jpedrote52jpedrote52 Member UncommonPosts: 112
    @Mendel

    You truly don't understand, you don't create features inside a game to "please" a certain crowd, you create a game with a vision in mind and people that like the games vision will play it. How do you advertise a game? I have no idea but I'm pretty sure they'll do it like every other game, starting putting out more info, more adds etc.
    SovrathOshodcutbi001
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,736
    Mendel said:
    he doesn't think that his players will be solely comprised of EQ1 veterans. 
    You're forgetting about the people that were too young or never got to experience EQ when it was king.  

    The focus on their game is to have maybe a few hundred thousand players at max I believe.  That's to be expected with a niche game.
    I don't disagree with you at all.  Brad is the one who stated that he hoped his game would be closer to 10%  (of 15 million or 1.5 million) players -- see his statement quoted above.  His game he is making is exactly like the other games he's made before.  EQ1's peak was 550k.  I don't see any form of adapting the game concept to the current market reality.  Brad is the one who named these other games as harboring his potential customers.

    Peak customer base is a very different thing than a sustained customer base.  EQ1's peak of 550k probably isn't anywhere near that now.  Just judging by the number of people in the /general channels gives a rough estimate of 250-500 total people per legacy server online at any given time.  This includes a lot of afk players and people in /vendor mode and people who have removed themselves from the /general channels (it defaults to 'on' for every new character).  The various progression servers may have more robust populations, as they appear to steal a good proportion of their player base from existing servers.  Daybreak keeps the actual population numbers pretty secret, but it would be difficult to believe that the sustained player base for EQ1 is more than 50k active players.  It would not surprise me if the actual number was far lower, even as low as 10k active players.

    As far as Pantheon goes, I do not doubt that when the game launches to the world, it will draw a healthy population.  Again, I would not be surprised to see that 1.5 million population that Brad envisions in the very early game.  Retaining that number of players is going to be VR's challenge.  And they are using a game from 1999 that couldn't retain those players as their model.  I think that is what is going to bite VR, and bite hard.

    Pantheon will probably make money.  Possibly enough to be profitable considering all Inception-to-Date costs and expenses at some time post launch.   That may be 6 months post-launch, or it may be 2 years post-launch, I don't know.  I don't think Brad really knows, either.  He's hoping that it will be at that 6 month time and it will extend for multiple years into the future.

    I really hope he's right.  Not because of anything to do with Brad, or the VR staff, or their investors, or anyone's financial futures.  A vibrant, successful game that can sustain itself over a long time is what the genre needs.  A game to grab and hold customers.  That will encourage growth in the genre, even if we disagree on if Pantheon is actually evolving games, or advancing the state-of-the-art or not.  The genre don't need another EQ1 that limps along on life support.  Sadly, I think that's what Pantheon will be; an emulation of previous failures.  I just don't see anything in the Stream videos that contradicts that or convinces me otherwise.

    As I've said before, I'm glad it's not my money riding on this.




    Gdemami

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

  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,736
    @Mendel

    You truly don't understand, you don't create features inside a game to "please" a certain crowd, you create a game with a vision in mind and people that like the games vision will play it. How do you advertise a game? I have no idea but I'm pretty sure they'll do it like every other game, starting putting out more info, more adds etc.
    Brad is the one that mentioned his customers are currently playing CoD and other modern games.  Those games appeal to players who like fast action.  That's almost a defining trait, I'd say.

    So far, that's not Pantheon, or what Pantheon is trying to do.  The 'Vision' (where have I heard that term before) doesn't mesh with that desired market segment.  Feedback from a CoD player would almost certainly contain 'combat is too slow' suggestions, and if VR was really interesting in attracting those type of players, they would introduce changes to speed things up.  The embracing slow, methodical combat that could have been lifted directly from 1999 doesn't appear to be attempting in any way to appeal to Brad's stated target audience.  Feedback now would at least gives VR an opportunity to address this problematic issue before the game is released.  That is exactly how a game adapts itself to 'please' a certain crowd.

    VR may choose to ignore any cry to 'speed up combat'.  By doing so, they are not attempting to do anything specifically to attract those players.  That's their choice, choosing to not position their product to that market segment.  If so, they might need to amend Brad's historical statement about wanting to pursue that segment of gamers.  Bear hunters don't buy fishing nets, at least not for the primary reason of hunting bears.  Well, not successful (or surviving) bear hunters, anyway.

    Just because I'm looking at things from a different prospective doesn't imply I don't understand.




    Kyleran

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

  • Gyva02Gyva02 Member RarePosts: 484
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,736
    Gyva02 said:
    Another form of 'Shut up and go away' to anyone, not only me who has differing opinions.  Cute meme.

    A rhetorical question: If this game isn't for CoD players, why does Brad think some future Pantheon players are CoD players?  Why doesn't your meme simply say 'CoD players not welcome'?  Brad appears to want them, or their money.




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

  • JimmydeanJimmydean Member UncommonPosts: 1,283
    Mendel said:
    @Mendel

    You truly don't understand, you don't create features inside a game to "please" a certain crowd, you create a game with a vision in mind and people that like the games vision will play it. How do you advertise a game? I have no idea but I'm pretty sure they'll do it like every other game, starting putting out more info, more adds etc.
    Brad is the one that mentioned his customers are currently playing CoD and other modern games.  Those games appeal to players who like fast action.  That's almost a defining trait, I'd say.

    So far, that's not Pantheon, or what Pantheon is trying to do.  The 'Vision' (where have I heard that term before) doesn't mesh with that desired market segment.  Feedback from a CoD player would almost certainly contain 'combat is too slow' suggestions, and if VR was really interesting in attracting those type of players, they would introduce changes to speed things up.  The embracing slow, methodical combat that could have been lifted directly from 1999 doesn't appear to be attempting in any way to appeal to Brad's stated target audience.  Feedback now would at least gives VR an opportunity to address this problematic issue before the game is released.  That is exactly how a game adapts itself to 'please' a certain crowd.

    VR may choose to ignore any cry to 'speed up combat'.  By doing so, they are not attempting to do anything specifically to attract those players.  That's their choice, choosing to not position their product to that market segment.  If so, they might need to amend Brad's historical statement about wanting to pursue that segment of gamers.  Bear hunters don't buy fishing nets, at least not for the primary reason of hunting bears.  Well, not successful (or surviving) bear hunters, anyway.

    Just because I'm looking at things from a different prospective doesn't imply I don't understand.




    He never said he was trying to cater to Call of Duty players. He was saying most of the old EQ1 players have moved onto other genres at this point because MMORPGs are an empty shell of what they used to be. He was saying there needs to be a game like Pantheon to bring us back into the MMORPG genre. I agree 100 percent with Brad.
    1AD7dcutbi001
  • Gyva02Gyva02 Member RarePosts: 484
    edited March 2018
    It's like sitting down with the creators of Monopoly and saying over and over again "you know what, this game would be a lot cooler with some chutes and ladders"

    lol, ummm, thanks but that's not what we're really making here... 
    KyleranAmathe
  • MardukkMardukk Member RarePosts: 2,220
    edited March 2018
    Eldrach said:
    However i do agree that Pantheon needs more Solo content that Everquest had. I generally loved how "Velketor" worked. You could solo spiders in the lower regions and even get some rare loot now and then while waiting for group. It was good exp and you had something to do while waiting. Velketor was sadly one of the only dungeons that had solo options in EQ, and the game suffered for it
    I love when dungeon trash has maybe a couple zone wide rare drops.  And it should def drop more cash than most open world mobs.  They have an opportunity to correct many of the wrongs going on with universal boring loot tables that have been going on for far too long.

    I do not necessarily support all dungeons being open though.  I don't have huge issues with a couple instanced dungeons.  People always lock down any rare spawns that you will never have a chance at getting, even if you find a group.  The EQ progression servers show you what happens to rare mobs with no instancing...permalock down.

    OP I think you may be right, but I honestly thought they were further along than many vaporware games we've seen.  I do think that this game will eventually release, which is saying a lot.
    Post edited by Mardukk on
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,266
    Gyva02 said:
    It's like sitting down with the creators of Monopoly and saying over and over again "you know what, this game would be a lot cooler with some chutes and ladders"
    In fairness, everything would be better with some chutes and ladders!





  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 35,987
    Gyva02 said:
    It's like sitting down with the creators of Monopoly and saying over and over again "you know what, this game would be a lot cooler with some chutes and ladders"

    lol, ummm, thanks but that's not what we're really making here... 
    Monopoly would be much cooler with some chutes and ladders.....so would Pantheon come to think of it.

    I'll dial Brad up and bounce it off of him. 

    B)
    delete5230

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

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

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

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

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

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






  • kjempffkjempff Member RarePosts: 1,654
    @1AD7 Ok I guess they upped the scope. Those 10-30k numbers are from a year or more back. However, I do not see any signs that Pantheon is trying to attract those players described. It starts to look more and more like a exact copy of Everquest mechanical wise, and of course that is a good base to build on, but that alone will not attract this wider audience (opinion). Maybe on a longer timeline they can work towards attracting those players, but right now they are almost exclusively targeting former Everquest players (opinion).

    SovrathMendel
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 35,987
    edited March 2018
    Mendel said:
    Mendel said:
    1AD7 said:
    kjempff said:
    Millions would like to play Pantheon.  
    Got to correct you there. Visionary Realms know they are making a niche product, that is not supposed to attract "millions" of players. I have heard them say numbers like 10k, and "if we get 30k players that would exceed our expectations". Let's be careful not to put the "Savior of all that is wrong with mmos" label on Pantheon as well, and project our hopes into a game - Color me cynical, but I lost faith in that ever happening.. and at least, there is no indication so far that Visionary Realms has the size or ambition to try to be that.
    At this point it looks like they are remaking Everquest with a few additions, and the audience for that is pretty much only old Everquest players. Hopefully enough to keep the game running after launch, and if the gameplay quality is good enough and there is enough content to keep players interested, then we might begin to see it grown in numbers, but a full million ? I doubt that will ever happen, it is too niche for that.

    Your numbers seem to be a bit off.  Here is an excerpt from one of Brad's blogs:


    Here's that Brad quote again.  If he's so convinced that his future players are off playing Call of Duty, where is the marketing plan that VR will use to attract these players from CoD?  And how is he planning to churn out new content as fast as CoD in order to keep those players playing Pantheon?

    I see a lot of wishful thinking, but no real plan of action or even evidence of one.  That's all VR's issue.  Right now, this game is being shown to MMORPG gamers almost exclusively, with the only limited feedback from MMORPG gamers.  What features from games like CoD or DS are they trying to incorporate into Pantheon to help attract those other players?

    It's like spending all your time and effort on building a new rod-and-reel, and expecting the elk-hunting crowd to want to buy your product.



    You must be deluded or something, Pantheon will always be an MMO, when brad referenced Call of duty and Darksouls, hes referencing that those younger player might end up enjoying the type of game Pantheon is (an oldschool MMO focussed around grouping cooperation and player interaction), he's not saying that Pantheon will resemble CoD that would be retarded.

    Also Darksoul and CoD do share in a basic level, similarities with Pantheon, Dark souls has corpse runs, and hardcore elements, it's a fantasy medieval game, and CoD has group play at is core (in the online part of the game atleast) that's the similarities Pantheon and those games have in common, and that might lead to some of that younger audience actually enjoying Pantheon.

    As for marketing, the game is in pre-alpha for christ sake, until recently the game look like a game from 2010/12, with the new graphics update, lightning etc they made it look like a 2016 game and most of the Graphics complaints stopped, but there's still much more to improve, the animations are a major point of contention that get brought up every single time and still need a lot of improvement, because you guessed it the game is still in pre-alpha. So why would they start putting heavy funding into advertising and unfinished project and possibly turning off all the possible new costumers because they're showing and unfinished product? Not to mention how hard it is to advertise an MMO, normally it's done by "deceiving" out of game cinematics that make everything look cool as shit, but VR does not have that kind of money for a proper one, So they stick to their original target audience that knows how MMORPG's play out, and are currently relying on word of mouth from players who know how the gameplay experience will be and can properly spread the workd about the game wihtout turning off the newcommers.

    [mod edit]

    So, insults aside, how will VR market this to other types of gamers when the time comes?  It is Brad's opinion that a portion of his future customers are playing other current games, not mine.  He's the one who is going to need to find a way to attract them.  What elements that will appeal to those players? 




    Clearly the answer is already out in the market, gamers left MMORPGs for fast, action oriented combat in short, intense play sessions with little to nothing to lose if unsuccessful. 

    Pantheons being developed with all of those right,? Well at least if that's who Brad plans to draw back from MOBAs, team shooters and the like. 

    Won't appeal much to the survival crowd, not enough pking, base building or server customization by players.

    Maybe there's still time to add in a BR mode?

    ;)
    Post edited by Vaross on

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

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

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing FO76 at the moment.

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

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

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






  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,736
    Jimmydean said:
    Mendel said:
    @Mendel

    You truly don't understand, you don't create features inside a game to "please" a certain crowd, you create a game with a vision in mind and people that like the games vision will play it. How do you advertise a game? I have no idea but I'm pretty sure they'll do it like every other game, starting putting out more info, more adds etc.
    Brad is the one that mentioned his customers are currently playing CoD and other modern games.  Those games appeal to players who like fast action.  That's almost a defining trait, I'd say.

    So far, that's not Pantheon, or what Pantheon is trying to do.  The 'Vision' (where have I heard that term before) doesn't mesh with that desired market segment.  Feedback from a CoD player would almost certainly contain 'combat is too slow' suggestions, and if VR was really interesting in attracting those type of players, they would introduce changes to speed things up.  The embracing slow, methodical combat that could have been lifted directly from 1999 doesn't appear to be attempting in any way to appeal to Brad's stated target audience.  Feedback now would at least gives VR an opportunity to address this problematic issue before the game is released.  That is exactly how a game adapts itself to 'please' a certain crowd.

    VR may choose to ignore any cry to 'speed up combat'.  By doing so, they are not attempting to do anything specifically to attract those players.  That's their choice, choosing to not position their product to that market segment.  If so, they might need to amend Brad's historical statement about wanting to pursue that segment of gamers.  Bear hunters don't buy fishing nets, at least not for the primary reason of hunting bears.  Well, not successful (or surviving) bear hunters, anyway.

    Just because I'm looking at things from a different prospective doesn't imply I don't understand.




    He never said he was trying to cater to Call of Duty players. He was saying most of the old EQ1 players have moved onto other genres at this point because MMORPGs are an empty shell of what they used to be. He was saying there needs to be a game like Pantheon to bring us back into the MMORPG genre. I agree 100 percent with Brad.
    Another analogy for you then.

    Brad hopes to lure former EQ1 players from modern games that they adapted to, like Call of Duty, by offering them another dose of the 1999 game play they've already abandoned.  That's like trying to convince someone that they should choose a horse-and-buggy over a car to get around.

    That analogy implies that Brad wants to limit himself to that 550k peak population of EQ1.  I don't believe that to be the case, so even I'd hesitate to accept that analogy.  In the same blog quote (see above), he even suggests that his game hopes to be "closer to 10% than 1% " (1.5 million rather than 150k).  So he's hoping to recapture everyone who played EQ1, plus a million more people.  Maybe he's banking on a lot of 16 year old players who were barely 4 when WoW released.

    If this community doesn't like questions about how VR is going to attract CoD players, let me ask this instead.  How is Brad planning to dislodge the die hard EQ1 players that are still in EQ1 under Daybreak?  If that number is as high as 55k (which I don't believe, but it could be), that's 10% of EQ1's peak base right there.  What arguments do we anticipate will VR use to cause the Mar 16, 1999 EQ1 vet from not logging in to their competitor and into theirs?  I'd love to hear them, because I don't see anyone dislodging some current EQ1 players.  (Attachment to a character is a very real thing).

    At some point, no matter how VR defines their customer, they will need to attract them from whatever it is that they area currently doing.  If they are only building a game to appeal to that EQ1 crowd, they aren't hoping to grow anything at all.  We already know what the MMORPG market looks like under current conditions.




    Gdemami

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

  • JimmydeanJimmydean Member UncommonPosts: 1,283
    Mendel said:
    Jimmydean said:
    Mendel said:
    @Mendel

    You truly don't understand, you don't create features inside a game to "please" a certain crowd, you create a game with a vision in mind and people that like the games vision will play it. How do you advertise a game? I have no idea but I'm pretty sure they'll do it like every other game, starting putting out more info, more adds etc.
    Brad is the one that mentioned his customers are currently playing CoD and other modern games.  Those games appeal to players who like fast action.  That's almost a defining trait, I'd say.

    So far, that's not Pantheon, or what Pantheon is trying to do.  The 'Vision' (where have I heard that term before) doesn't mesh with that desired market segment.  Feedback from a CoD player would almost certainly contain 'combat is too slow' suggestions, and if VR was really interesting in attracting those type of players, they would introduce changes to speed things up.  The embracing slow, methodical combat that could have been lifted directly from 1999 doesn't appear to be attempting in any way to appeal to Brad's stated target audience.  Feedback now would at least gives VR an opportunity to address this problematic issue before the game is released.  That is exactly how a game adapts itself to 'please' a certain crowd.

    VR may choose to ignore any cry to 'speed up combat'.  By doing so, they are not attempting to do anything specifically to attract those players.  That's their choice, choosing to not position their product to that market segment.  If so, they might need to amend Brad's historical statement about wanting to pursue that segment of gamers.  Bear hunters don't buy fishing nets, at least not for the primary reason of hunting bears.  Well, not successful (or surviving) bear hunters, anyway.

    Just because I'm looking at things from a different prospective doesn't imply I don't understand.




    He never said he was trying to cater to Call of Duty players. He was saying most of the old EQ1 players have moved onto other genres at this point because MMORPGs are an empty shell of what they used to be. He was saying there needs to be a game like Pantheon to bring us back into the MMORPG genre. I agree 100 percent with Brad.
    Another analogy for you then.

    Brad hopes to lure former EQ1 players from modern games that they adapted to, like Call of Duty, by offering them another dose of the 1999 game play they've already abandoned.  That's like trying to convince someone that they should choose a horse-and-buggy over a car to get around.

    That analogy implies that Brad wants to limit himself to that 550k peak population of EQ1.  I don't believe that to be the case, so even I'd hesitate to accept that analogy.  In the same blog quote (see above), he even suggests that his game hopes to be "closer to 10% than 1% " (1.5 million rather than 150k).  So he's hoping to recapture everyone who played EQ1, plus a million more people.  Maybe he's banking on a lot of 16 year old players who were barely 4 when WoW released.

    If this community doesn't like questions about how VR is going to attract CoD players, let me ask this instead.  How is Brad planning to dislodge the die hard EQ1 players that are still in EQ1 under Daybreak?  If that number is as high as 55k (which I don't believe, but it could be), that's 10% of EQ1's peak base right there.  What arguments do we anticipate will VR use to cause the Mar 16, 1999 EQ1 vet from not logging in to their competitor and into theirs?  I'd love to hear them, because I don't see anyone dislodging some current EQ1 players.  (Attachment to a character is a very real thing).

    At some point, no matter how VR defines their customer, they will need to attract them from whatever it is that they area currently doing.  If they are only building a game to appeal to that EQ1 crowd, they aren't hoping to grow anything at all.  We already know what the MMORPG market looks like under current conditions.




    You are reading but you are not comprehending. That's okay. The game is not for you. My apologies. Hopefully we get some action oriented quest grinders in the near future for you.
    pantarojpedrote52Mardukkdcutbi001Gdemami
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,266
    edited March 2018
    Mendel said:
    Jimmydean said:
    Mendel said:
    @Mendel

    You truly don't understand, you don't create features inside a game to "please" a certain crowd, you create a game with a vision in mind and people that like the games vision will play it. How do you advertise a game? I have no idea but I'm pretty sure they'll do it like every other game, starting putting out more info, more adds etc.
    Brad is the one that mentioned his customers are currently playing CoD and other modern games.  Those games appeal to players who like fast action.  That's almost a defining trait, I'd say.

    So far, that's not Pantheon, or what Pantheon is trying to do.  The 'Vision' (where have I heard that term before) doesn't mesh with that desired market segment.  Feedback from a CoD player would almost certainly contain 'combat is too slow' suggestions, and if VR was really interesting in attracting those type of players, they would introduce changes to speed things up.  The embracing slow, methodical combat that could have been lifted directly from 1999 doesn't appear to be attempting in any way to appeal to Brad's stated target audience.  Feedback now would at least gives VR an opportunity to address this problematic issue before the game is released.  That is exactly how a game adapts itself to 'please' a certain crowd.

    VR may choose to ignore any cry to 'speed up combat'.  By doing so, they are not attempting to do anything specifically to attract those players.  That's their choice, choosing to not position their product to that market segment.  If so, they might need to amend Brad's historical statement about wanting to pursue that segment of gamers.  Bear hunters don't buy fishing nets, at least not for the primary reason of hunting bears.  Well, not successful (or surviving) bear hunters, anyway.

    Just because I'm looking at things from a different prospective doesn't imply I don't understand.




    He never said he was trying to cater to Call of Duty players. He was saying most of the old EQ1 players have moved onto other genres at this point because MMORPGs are an empty shell of what they used to be. He was saying there needs to be a game like Pantheon to bring us back into the MMORPG genre. I agree 100 percent with Brad.
    Another analogy for you then.

    Brad hopes to lure former EQ1 players from modern games that they adapted to, like Call of Duty, by offering them another dose of the 1999 game play they've already abandoned.  That's like trying to convince someone that they should choose a horse-and-buggy over a car to get around.

    That analogy implies that Brad wants to limit himself to that 550k peak population of EQ1.  I don't believe that to be the case, so even I'd hesitate to accept that analogy.  In the same blog quote (see above), he even suggests that his game hopes to be "closer to 10% than 1% " (1.5 million rather than 150k).  So he's hoping to recapture everyone who played EQ1, plus a million more people.  Maybe he's banking on a lot of 16 year old players who were barely 4 when WoW released.

    If this community doesn't like questions about how VR is going to attract CoD players, let me ask this instead.  How is Brad planning to dislodge the die hard EQ1 players that are still in EQ1 under Daybreak?  If that number is as high as 55k (which I don't believe, but it could be), that's 10% of EQ1's peak base right there.  What arguments do we anticipate will VR use to cause the Mar 16, 1999 EQ1 vet from not logging in to their competitor and into theirs?  I'd love to hear them, because I don't see anyone dislodging some current EQ1 players.  (Attachment to a character is a very real thing).

    At some point, no matter how VR defines their customer, they will need to attract them from whatever it is that they area currently doing.  If they are only building a game to appeal to that EQ1 crowd, they aren't hoping to grow anything at all.  We already know what the MMORPG market looks like under current conditions.






    Some of those "EQ" players have probably moved on from that type of game play and some have played EQ to death and want something new but cast in the same mold.

    It's very possible that people playing EQ right now might want a different world to explore. And, some of them might think "feh" forget it, I have years of work into my characters.

    I don't think Brad wants to limit the game but he is somewhat realistic in what the game is.

    No businessman is going to turn away customer but any good businessman is going to create a product for a certain set of customers. If they get people outside that demographic so much the better.

    I was never an Everquest player. I was a lineage 2 player. And yes, I do miss the interconnectedness (word?) of the community, of having to band together to overcome certain obstacles. And I mostly soloed. Still, my best memories in these games are with others.
    pantaroGdemami



  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 7,031
    Jimmydean said:
    You are reading but you are not comprehending. That's okay. The game is not for you. My apologies. Hopefully we get some action oriented quest grinders in the near future for you.
    Oh he comprehends. But this is not an honest debate. Some people come here and simply pretend to discuss an "issue." But it's not in good faith. Every post by them is the same. Filler. Filler. Trash the game or ask a rhetorically negative question about the game. Filler. Filler. Trash the game. Etc. They just use the pretext of raising and discussing "issues" to give Pantheon a beat down. That's all this is about. 
    jpedrote52dcutbi001GdemamiLonestryder

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

  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,736
    Jimmydean said:
    Mendel said:
    Jimmydean said:
    Mendel said:
    @Mendel

    You truly don't understand, you don't create features inside a game to "please" a certain crowd, you create a game with a vision in mind and people that like the games vision will play it. How do you advertise a game? I have no idea but I'm pretty sure they'll do it like every other game, starting putting out more info, more adds etc.
    Brad is the one that mentioned his customers are currently playing CoD and other modern games.  Those games appeal to players who like fast action.  That's almost a defining trait, I'd say.

    So far, that's not Pantheon, or what Pantheon is trying to do.  The 'Vision' (where have I heard that term before) doesn't mesh with that desired market segment.  Feedback from a CoD player would almost certainly contain 'combat is too slow' suggestions, and if VR was really interesting in attracting those type of players, they would introduce changes to speed things up.  The embracing slow, methodical combat that could have been lifted directly from 1999 doesn't appear to be attempting in any way to appeal to Brad's stated target audience.  Feedback now would at least gives VR an opportunity to address this problematic issue before the game is released.  That is exactly how a game adapts itself to 'please' a certain crowd.

    VR may choose to ignore any cry to 'speed up combat'.  By doing so, they are not attempting to do anything specifically to attract those players.  That's their choice, choosing to not position their product to that market segment.  If so, they might need to amend Brad's historical statement about wanting to pursue that segment of gamers.  Bear hunters don't buy fishing nets, at least not for the primary reason of hunting bears.  Well, not successful (or surviving) bear hunters, anyway.

    Just because I'm looking at things from a different prospective doesn't imply I don't understand.




    He never said he was trying to cater to Call of Duty players. He was saying most of the old EQ1 players have moved onto other genres at this point because MMORPGs are an empty shell of what they used to be. He was saying there needs to be a game like Pantheon to bring us back into the MMORPG genre. I agree 100 percent with Brad.
    Another analogy for you then.

    Brad hopes to lure former EQ1 players from modern games that they adapted to, like Call of Duty, by offering them another dose of the 1999 game play they've already abandoned.  That's like trying to convince someone that they should choose a horse-and-buggy over a car to get around.

    That analogy implies that Brad wants to limit himself to that 550k peak population of EQ1.  I don't believe that to be the case, so even I'd hesitate to accept that analogy.  In the same blog quote (see above), he even suggests that his game hopes to be "closer to 10% than 1% " (1.5 million rather than 150k).  So he's hoping to recapture everyone who played EQ1, plus a million more people.  Maybe he's banking on a lot of 16 year old players who were barely 4 when WoW released.

    If this community doesn't like questions about how VR is going to attract CoD players, let me ask this instead.  How is Brad planning to dislodge the die hard EQ1 players that are still in EQ1 under Daybreak?  If that number is as high as 55k (which I don't believe, but it could be), that's 10% of EQ1's peak base right there.  What arguments do we anticipate will VR use to cause the Mar 16, 1999 EQ1 vet from not logging in to their competitor and into theirs?  I'd love to hear them, because I don't see anyone dislodging some current EQ1 players.  (Attachment to a character is a very real thing).

    At some point, no matter how VR defines their customer, they will need to attract them from whatever it is that they area currently doing.  If they are only building a game to appeal to that EQ1 crowd, they aren't hoping to grow anything at all.  We already know what the MMORPG market looks like under current conditions.




    You are reading but you are not comprehending. That's okay. The game is not for you. My apologies. Hopefully we get some action oriented quest grinders in the near future for you.
    I already think this game is not likely to be for me, but I'm willing to give VR the opportunity to change my mind.

    But stating 'this game is not for you' doesn't add anything constructive to the discussion.  It's just another attempt to plug your fingers in your ears to not hear ideas or questions you don't want to hear.  Shouting down the opposition is never constructive in the long run.  'Shut up and go away' doesn't attempt to convince anyone with an open mind that your side is 'right'.  Even posting a cutest meme in an attempt to end a conversation does noting to refute the idea being expressed.

    All these tactics do is convince the opposition of exactly how closed the other guy's mind is.  That has pretty much been true throughout all recorded history, and I'd be willing to bet that it extends far into prehistory as well.




    pantaro

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

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,266
    Mendel said:
    Jimmydean said:
    Mendel said:
    Jimmydean said:
    Mendel said:
    @Mendel

    You truly don't understand, you don't create features inside a game to "please" a certain crowd, you create a game with a vision in mind and people that like the games vision will play it. How do you advertise a game? I have no idea but I'm pretty sure they'll do it like every other game, starting putting out more info, more adds etc.
    Brad is the one that mentioned his customers are currently playing CoD and other modern games.  Those games appeal to players who like fast action.  That's almost a defining trait, I'd say.

    So far, that's not Pantheon, or what Pantheon is trying to do.  The 'Vision' (where have I heard that term before) doesn't mesh with that desired market segment.  Feedback from a CoD player would almost certainly contain 'combat is too slow' suggestions, and if VR was really interesting in attracting those type of players, they would introduce changes to speed things up.  The embracing slow, methodical combat that could have been lifted directly from 1999 doesn't appear to be attempting in any way to appeal to Brad's stated target audience.  Feedback now would at least gives VR an opportunity to address this problematic issue before the game is released.  That is exactly how a game adapts itself to 'please' a certain crowd.

    VR may choose to ignore any cry to 'speed up combat'.  By doing so, they are not attempting to do anything specifically to attract those players.  That's their choice, choosing to not position their product to that market segment.  If so, they might need to amend Brad's historical statement about wanting to pursue that segment of gamers.  Bear hunters don't buy fishing nets, at least not for the primary reason of hunting bears.  Well, not successful (or surviving) bear hunters, anyway.

    Just because I'm looking at things from a different prospective doesn't imply I don't understand.




    He never said he was trying to cater to Call of Duty players. He was saying most of the old EQ1 players have moved onto other genres at this point because MMORPGs are an empty shell of what they used to be. He was saying there needs to be a game like Pantheon to bring us back into the MMORPG genre. I agree 100 percent with Brad.
    Another analogy for you then.

    Brad hopes to lure former EQ1 players from modern games that they adapted to, like Call of Duty, by offering them another dose of the 1999 game play they've already abandoned.  That's like trying to convince someone that they should choose a horse-and-buggy over a car to get around.

    That analogy implies that Brad wants to limit himself to that 550k peak population of EQ1.  I don't believe that to be the case, so even I'd hesitate to accept that analogy.  In the same blog quote (see above), he even suggests that his game hopes to be "closer to 10% than 1% " (1.5 million rather than 150k).  So he's hoping to recapture everyone who played EQ1, plus a million more people.  Maybe he's banking on a lot of 16 year old players who were barely 4 when WoW released.

    If this community doesn't like questions about how VR is going to attract CoD players, let me ask this instead.  How is Brad planning to dislodge the die hard EQ1 players that are still in EQ1 under Daybreak?  If that number is as high as 55k (which I don't believe, but it could be), that's 10% of EQ1's peak base right there.  What arguments do we anticipate will VR use to cause the Mar 16, 1999 EQ1 vet from not logging in to their competitor and into theirs?  I'd love to hear them, because I don't see anyone dislodging some current EQ1 players.  (Attachment to a character is a very real thing).

    At some point, no matter how VR defines their customer, they will need to attract them from whatever it is that they area currently doing.  If they are only building a game to appeal to that EQ1 crowd, they aren't hoping to grow anything at all.  We already know what the MMORPG market looks like under current conditions.




    You are reading but you are not comprehending. That's okay. The game is not for you. My apologies. Hopefully we get some action oriented quest grinders in the near future for you.
    I already think this game is not likely to be for me, but I'm willing to give VR the opportunity to change my mind.





    But based on what?

    Are you ok without cutting edge graphics, slow combat and a reliance on community in order to progress in the game?

    Are you ok with a small community that is most likely playing this becuase they prefer "old school games"?

    If yes then that's great. But if you answer "no" to any of that then you have to do some soul searching as each point really feels like a pillar of what the game and the community is about.
    Kyleran



  • XarkoXarko Member EpicPosts: 1,168
    If melee stays bad you can always try some magic. Some of the new spell effect look nice imo.
  • jpedrote52jpedrote52 Member UncommonPosts: 112
    Mendel said:
    @Mendel

    You truly don't understand, you don't create features inside a game to "please" a certain crowd, you create a game with a vision in mind and people that like the games vision will play it. How do you advertise a game? I have no idea but I'm pretty sure they'll do it like every other game, starting putting out more info, more adds etc.
    Brad is the one that mentioned his customers are currently playing CoD and other modern games.  Those games appeal to players who like fast action.  That's almost a defining trait, I'd say.

    So far, that's not Pantheon, or what Pantheon is trying to do.  The 'Vision' (where have I heard that term before) doesn't mesh with that desired market segment.  Feedback from a CoD player would almost certainly contain 'combat is too slow' suggestions, and if VR was really interesting in attracting those type of players, they would introduce changes to speed things up.  The embracing slow, methodical combat that could have been lifted directly from 1999 doesn't appear to be attempting in any way to appeal to Brad's stated target audience.  Feedback now would at least gives VR an opportunity to address this problematic issue before the game is released.  That is exactly how a game adapts itself to 'please' a certain crowd.

    VR may choose to ignore any cry to 'speed up combat'.  By doing so, they are not attempting to do anything specifically to attract those players.  That's their choice, choosing to not position their product to that market segment.  If so, they might need to amend Brad's historical statement about wanting to pursue that segment of gamers.  Bear hunters don't buy fishing nets, at least not for the primary reason of hunting bears.  Well, not successful (or surviving) bear hunters, anyway.

    Just because I'm looking at things from a different prospective doesn't imply I don't understand.




    So because I like one type of game I cannot enjoy another? A completely different one? that's what you're saying right? if that's what you're saying then you're wrong, I enjoy playing fps games, a lot, but when i go and play and MMO i don't expect fps gameplay elements, just as When I go play EU4 i don't expect RPG elements and so on and so on, different games are different what a fucking shocker, and I believe most people will have the same opinion when they change the genre of game they don't the games to play the same, at least any reasonable person, not someone like you obviously.

    You might just be playing dumb and ignoring what I pointed out earlier, about the similarities between games like Dark souls, Cod, to a game like Pantheon, but I'll point them out again. Darks souls has corpse runs, medieval setting and is regarded as an hardcore game, 3 similarities with Pantheon. CoD has group play whit team mates, like many other online FPS games that's where the fun lies in playing together with other friends, that's where Pantheon relates to CoD and some of it's player base (not all) and that's the player base Brad is referring too, the ones that enjoy and social shared group play experience.
    Sovrath1AD7Gdemami
  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,534
    I agree with OP, development does seem slow. The higher the quality and detail, the slower the pace. I like where they're heading, but it's a game targeting players like myself who like highly social/cooperative mmos, something not currently available.

    As for potential players, niche does not mean only a few thousand people. It's just targeting a segment, which can vary in size. Millions played EQ and Vanguard, and tens of thousands still play crusty old 20 yr old EQ, so the idea that only a few thousand will play Pantheon is highly unlikely. How many will depend on the level of quality and amount of content at launch.
    AraduneOshoThunder073dcutbi001


  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,736
    Sovrath said:
    Mendel said:
    Jimmydean said:
    <trimmed priors to continue the discussion>
    He never said he was trying to cater to Call of Duty players. He was saying most of the old EQ1 players have moved onto other genres at this point because MMORPGs are an empty shell of what they used to be. He was saying there needs to be a game like Pantheon to bring us back into the MMORPG genre. I agree 100 percent with Brad.
    Another analogy for you then.

    Brad hopes to lure former EQ1 players from modern games that they adapted to, like Call of Duty, by offering them another dose of the 1999 game play they've already abandoned.  That's like trying to convince someone that they should choose a horse-and-buggy over a car to get around.

    That analogy implies that Brad wants to limit himself to that 550k peak population of EQ1.  I don't believe that to be the case, so even I'd hesitate to accept that analogy.  In the same blog quote (see above), he even suggests that his game hopes to be "closer to 10% than 1% " (1.5 million rather than 150k).  So he's hoping to recapture everyone who played EQ1, plus a million more people.  Maybe he's banking on a lot of 16 year old players who were barely 4 when WoW released.

    If this community doesn't like questions about how VR is going to attract CoD players, let me ask this instead.  How is Brad planning to dislodge the die hard EQ1 players that are still in EQ1 under Daybreak?  If that number is as high as 55k (which I don't believe, but it could be), that's 10% of EQ1's peak base right there.  What arguments do we anticipate will VR use to cause the Mar 16, 1999 EQ1 vet from not logging in to their competitor and into theirs?  I'd love to hear them, because I don't see anyone dislodging some current EQ1 players.  (Attachment to a character is a very real thing).

    At some point, no matter how VR defines their customer, they will need to attract them from whatever it is that they area currently doing.  If they are only building a game to appeal to that EQ1 crowd, they aren't hoping to grow anything at all.  We already know what the MMORPG market looks like under current conditions.




    You are reading but you are not comprehending. That's okay. The game is not for you. My apologies. Hopefully we get some action oriented quest grinders in the near future for you.
    I already think this game is not likely to be for me, but I'm willing to give VR the opportunity to change my mind.





    But based on what?

    Are you ok without cutting edge graphics, slow combat and a reliance on community in order to progress in the game?

    Are you ok with a small community that is most likely playing this becuase they prefer "old school games"?

    If yes then that's great. But if you answer "no" to any of that then you have to do some soul searching as each point really feels like a pillar of what the game and the community is about.
    Limiting my choices to limit a response.  You're better than that.

    My major disagreements with Pantheon's goals are thinking that the answers can only be found by reverting back to Brad's first efforts at this MMORPG thing.   I think he can do better than rehashing the same things that worked in 1999 but were summarily replaced by newer mechanism that had far more success, by any tangible means of measuring success.  I had hoped that he was aiming a bit higher than that.

    But, I am not okay with a small community wanting to return the genre to 'old school'.  They can emulate the anecdotal ostrich as much as they want.  I can't change ostriches, I can't change other people.  All I can do is express my own wishes and desires and opinions.

    My contributions now, while the game is still in development have a far, far better change of making some difference in the future direction of games.  It's a venue where other developers might see these ideas for the generation-after-next of games.   I'm realistic enough to know that anything said here is unlikely to affect the development of Pantheon in particular.  But there is a better chance of a pre-launch idea affecting how Pantheon develops (no matter how minute that change is) than the chance of a post-launch idea being incorporated.  Excuse me while I vainly attempt to make something more to my liking.

    The ostriches are ordering more sand, and I don't want what they want in the short term to be the sole direction of where the genre thinks it needs to head.

    Call it my personal windmill to tilt at.  I really don't want to deny anyone the game they want.  I also wouldn't want anyone to be mislead by their own enthusiasm for any game, disappointment isn't fun.  And I certainly don't want the market to get the wrong ideas and swamp us with Pantheon-clones in 5-7 years time.




    Gyva02

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

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,266
    Mendel said:

    Limiting my choices to limit a response.  You're better than that.





    no, I just wanted to address that bit without having a long giant post taking up room . Let's not be part of the tin-foil hat crowd shall we?



  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 28,266
    edited March 2018
    Mendel said:


    My major disagreements with Pantheon's goals are thinking that the answers can only be found by reverting back to Brad's first efforts at this MMORPG thing.   I think he can do better than rehashing the same things that worked in 1999 but were summarily replaced by newer mechanism that had far more success, by any tangible means of measuring success.  I had hoped that he was aiming a bit higher than that.






    And to address this, "this" is the game he wants to make. you want better? You want "higher" (so called) then make your own game.

    These are the things he holds dear and since he has limited resources he will do what he can but still adhere to a game that is his vision. Because in the end, it's his company to grow or flounder. He could develop toward your ideals (and others) but that's not going to get him anywhere, especially if his company fails. Better to create what you know and what you want than to create toward someone else's ideal.

    And "again" I just took this bit to address this bit and not to have a very long post taking up room.
    Gdemami



Sign In or Register to comment.