Howdy, Stranger!

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

Getting Together and Staying Together - McQuaid Video Interview

AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 6,156
I came across this video interview on Brad's twitter account:



from the Nathan NAPALM




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

blastermasterKumaponTokkenArteriuscheyane

Comments

  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 6,156
    For those who have not visited Brad's twitter page, it has many matters of interest related to Pantheon. 

    https://twitter.com/aradune?lang=en


    cheyane

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

  • cheyanecheyane Member EpicPosts: 6,428
    Thanks @Amathe
    image
  • kjempffkjempff Member RarePosts: 1,635
    Innovative .. hmm .. maybe .. whatever, I feel quite indifferent about that matchmaking concept.

    I should be in the demographic for Pantheon (at least it is the closest of whatever mmos to pick from) - But when it comes to their thinking about groups as an ongoing long term thing and logging in to meet your friends at specific times and all that, it completely misses how I have always played mmos (Everquest in particular), and also how most people play mmos. They log in and form groups with whoever is available ... obviously asking friends/guildies first, but 4 of 5 times the timing just doesn't make it so that is possible - Not to mention meeting new people is fun, it is only how mmo design have evolved that has made meeting other people a chore.

    Sure you can say that you are targeting the table-top crowd, which in my opinion is not really the mmorpg crowd. It is completely possible to hit both demographic, but Pantheons most promoted features are dominantly table-top and less mmorpg like (just my opinion).

    MendelWaanHawkaya399
  • GraySealGraySeal Member UncommonPosts: 26
    I would choose to be on a server without any sort of fast travel.

    A means for a offline character to travel would be better game play but a bigger coding headache, I expect.

    Fast travel is just a bad idea for immersion in a grand size world.  The cost to this is not worth the convenience of keeping groups together.
  • Gyva02Gyva02 Member RarePosts: 482
    GraySeal said:
    I would choose to be on a server without any sort of fast travel.

    A means for a offline character to travel would be better game play but a bigger coding headache, I expect.

    Fast travel is just a bad idea for immersion in a grand size world.  The cost to this is not worth the convenience of keeping groups together.
    It's been said a thousand times, fast travel will make the world small and bypass content, this shouldn't even be thought about.  Though there is a fix and also provides that social interaction. A class with transport spells. Wanna travel fast, make friends with a porter... *shrug* 

    Ques the song "Convenience killed the Video Game" 
    Gdemami
  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,420
    The caravan system *might* be useful, but I think those situations are going to be sporadic.  If you are playing with a group of work-related friends, chances are that you're all going to leave the game at about the same time.  The result of that is that when you log in again, your group will be in relatively the same place.  I think this system might be better for people who have one or more members in radically different time zones, like 3 in the Eastern time zone and 3 in Australia.  Potentially, this can save a lot of time, but I don't know that it will have the expected impact.

    Offhand, I can think of several issues that *might* occur with a caravan system.  Does the player get to choose between Char1 and Char2, if these characters moved in different directions?  Does the player have the choice of moving or not, just because last night's group moved?  Are these intermediate spots in some kind of safe locations, or will the player enter the game to find themselves being attacked at a new location?  Which character (or characters) can move the group location?  How long will this group 'membership' (for lack of a better term) last?  If my character logs out on Wednesday night, will my character still be able to Caravan to the group when I log in again on Sunday?

    The matchmaking system is something that could help with group formation, but I'll have to see it in action.  I can use the EQ1 /lfg system to match a lot of in-game statistics, such as class and level.  The EQ1 system doesn't help when I do a /who all 31 35 and the only name returned is my own.  Adding some out-of-game statistics, such as time-zone, usual play times and session length, might be useful to build groups (especially if times are sampled by the game), information beyond this, such as hobbies, job type, etc., border on a minor security issue.  I don't know any in-game group ever formed based on "hobby = WWII model airplanes" or "like = long walks on the beach".  I don't really want eHarmony merged into a game.  I'm not sure how effective or useful this system will be as a game element.  Will there be ways (like in EQ1) for a character to hide from appearing in lists of this nature?  Hidden or otherwise excluded names will directly reduce the effectiveness of this kind of feature.

    Again, the video isn't of any in-game examples of either system.  Instead, we see a dungeon crawl from a previous play-along session (and a different host).  The audio of Brad explaining the system is just that, an audio clip of Brad 'selling' the system.  There's no indication of how far along this is, or any explanation of how this will operate in-game.

    To future video producers, please stop telling me how brilliant and innovative is.  Show me the system in operation; don't tell me what someone thinks it will do.  These things tend to vary wildly between the pre-implementation hype and the finished product.  (*enchanters will be the masters of crafting*).  Offline movement and a group finder aren't new or innovative, conceptually.



    Kyleran

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

  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 6,156
    I grouped in EQ because: (a) it was usually needed, as soloing was dangerous, (b) because the game gave a group xp bonus, (c) it made possible fighting mobs that dropped better stuff, (d) for fun with old friends or new ones; and (e) because I could never find my way and needed to follow someone who could.

    That's why most people grouped.

    Every one of those reasons are easily replicated.

    So I'm not sure why the new systems are needed?

    Don't get me wrong. I have an open mind. But I don't think this is necessary to incentivize grouping. 

    Mendel

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

  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 16,616
    He starts by basically describing the sad design that is Wow,auto warping to a dungeon with people you don't know then finish then leave.There is a REASON this is just bad but even Brad doesn't get it.

    The reason is because you are only going there for LOOT,it is what i call a loot run,nothing related to the game world or LORE or why you are even going there.Even if such a game supports reasoning,YOU the player are still only going to do it if there is loot.

    I have to keep chiming in on FFXI because of an idea that proves ALL of these devs WRONG.
    That idea was Besieged an awesome event that often had groups break up and leave just so they could take part.The best part>>NO LOOT,people were not there for loot,the biggest reason was FUN.
    I don't need a reward to have fun,i don't need a world first to have fun,i don't need a pat on the back to have fun,i don't need a #1 rank or a Platinum or Gold rank to have fun.

    What Brad is describing is in essence EQ1/ FFXI all over again but i feel he is still going to miss out on a BETTER version of EQ1.He mentions a group of 6 ,i have no problem there as 6 seems to be a number that works well albeit if classes are done BETTER than what EQ series has done then even 4-5 would work.

    Where i feel he will leave the game short is MOST of that "group"that 6 man activity will be in isntances/dungeons instead of the choice of being out doors.Also most games do not allow interaction outside the group,that defeats the purpose of a MMO world,a world where player interaction is realistic and not bound by computer code barriers.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 16,616
    edited July 30
    For the most part,i feel Brad has the right idea for a MMO,he mentions co op 6 man group and raid.Raid is just a super bad idea though,it alienates some if not a large portion of the player base.

    I have stated it MANY times, a RAID does NOT do a single thing for combat that a 6 man group cannot do even better.The reason 6 man is better is because there is likely no saving grace if your group messes up,no back up tanks,multiple healers,multiple rezzers to SPAM your way to victory.

    FFXi got it right to the point a 2 man co op could do what a full group could do and often even better.Not going to explain why because it would take too long.

    So my gut feeling is that Brad will coem close,he will deliver a grouping game design but still take a backseat to FFXI's design which is why i don't have confidence in Pantheon being my next mmorpg stop along the way.I feel Pantheon will simply be EQ3.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • MendelMendel Member EpicPosts: 3,420
    Amathe said:
    I grouped in EQ because: (a) it was usually needed, as soloing was dangerous, (b) because the game gave a group xp bonus, (c) it made possible fighting mobs that dropped better stuff, (d) for fun with old friends or new ones; and (e) because I could never find my way and needed to follow someone who could.

    That's why most people grouped.

    Every one of those reasons are easily replicated.

    So I'm not sure why the new systems are needed?

    Don't get me wrong. I have an open mind. But I don't think this is necessary to incentivize grouping. 

    My reasons for grouping were almost identical.  I was a very social (and vocal) player.  I knew about the vaunted XP bonus, but it wasn't enough of a bonus to offset solo XP gains.  A good necro could solo whites and yellows and gain more XP than a grouped character mowing through blues.  (In the early days, there wasn't a lt.blue con.  So a group thinking they were killing blues, could have been mixing blue and lt.blue mobs, confusing the issue).

    Of more importance to an individual's XP gain was the ZEM, the Zone Experience Modifier.  This was an early attempt to 'encourage' the players to move to less crowded zones.  Unfortunately, this didn't seem to have that effect.  All too frequently, the zones with bonus ZEMs were the uncrowded zones with plenty of space, and the necro and druid soloers were already merrily kiting away in those zones.  SOE basically stopped advertising the ZEM sometime after Kunark.

    A group finder, especially one that everyone ignores or can /roleplay to hide their name, will not do much to help groups form.



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

  • AmatheAmathe Member LegendaryPosts: 6,156
    I was a ranger on a dial up connection. Death was frequent. And harsh. I needed whatever help I could get.
    Kyleran

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

  • some-clueless-guysome-clueless-guy Member UncommonPosts: 216
    I applaud the idea, it makes sense to pair people with similar interest together since making friends is some times enough to keep you glued to one game. The problem I see however is that all those questions lead to them hoarding on their servers a trove of metadata that hackers will love to get their hands on. Given how much valuable any kind of metadata seems to be these days, and how often MMO developers or publishers have to apologize for a security breach that compromised this or that... Well I just hope they are taking it seriously, preparing for it rather than planning to apologize when it happens.
    AmatheArteriusKyleran
  • UtinniUtinni Member RarePosts: 1,241
    kjempff said:
    Innovative .. hmm .. maybe .. whatever, I feel quite indifferent about that matchmaking concept.

    I should be in the demographic for Pantheon (at least it is the closest of whatever mmos to pick from) - But when it comes to their thinking about groups as an ongoing long term thing and logging in to meet your friends at specific times and all that, it completely misses how I have always played mmos (Everquest in particular), and also how most people play mmos. They log in and form groups with whoever is available ... obviously asking friends/guildies first, but 4 of 5 times the timing just doesn't make it so that is possible - Not to mention meeting new people is fun, it is only how mmo design have evolved that has made meeting other people a chore.

    Sure you can say that you are targeting the table-top crowd, which in my opinion is not really the mmorpg crowd. It is completely possible to hit both demographic, but Pantheons most promoted features are dominantly table-top and less mmorpg like (just my opinion).

    My table top group plays once every two weeks. Even then sometimes folks cant make it. There's no way my friends could commit to a few nights a week even from home.
  • BruceYeeBruceYee Member RarePosts: 1,690
    Wizardry said:
    For the most part,i feel Brad has the right idea for a MMO,he mentions co op 6 man group and raid.Raid is just a super bad idea though,it alienates some if not a large portion of the player base.

    I have stated it MANY times, a RAID does NOT do a single thing for combat that a 6 man group cannot do even better.The reason 6 man is better is because there is likely no saving grace if your group messes up,no back up tanks,multiple healers,multiple rezzers to SPAM your way to victory.

    FFXi got it right to the point a 2 man co op could do what a full group could do and often even better.Not going to explain why because it would take too long.

    So my gut feeling is that Brad will coem close,he will deliver a grouping game design but still take a backseat to FFXI's design which is why i don't have confidence in Pantheon being my next mmorpg stop along the way.I feel Pantheon will simply be EQ3.
    EQ3 sounds pretty good right about now though.

    If anyone else except McQuaid was saying the things that were being spoken about in the video like matchmaking questions I would think they are just empty words or a sales gimmick like nodes in that other game but seeing as it's him I'll believe it because of his history/experience. He talked about how he meets people who met in a game and got married or stayed good friends. Noticing and caring about stuff like that is something special IMO. Grouping, friendships and huge world aside I hope the progression is done really well with a variety of paths so what you chose feels unique. Also, a masterfully created loot chase would be nice too.
    Arterius
  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 34,509
    Was difficult to process the info from Brad with that fawning sycophant of a streamer yammering away, a classic example of why I dislike gaming videos. 

    The matchmaker might be a good idea if I was looking for a mate, but normally I am just seeking people are interested in efficiently completing the game content and perhaps chatting it up a bit while doing so.

    Besides, posting social characteristics such as "cranky old fk," "elitist prig," and social maladroit doesn't usually get too many takers.  ;)

    Caravan system is OK I guess, I can see it working but it needs a queue of sorts, meaning I should be able to delegate to my friends the authority to add my character to the caravan in case I'm not around to do it.

    Either that or make it so we can join a caravan from our cell phones without having to log into the full game.



    "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 POE 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






  • RhoklawRhoklaw Member EpicPosts: 6,602
    Didn't have time to listen to the entire video right now, but it almost sounds like Pantheon has an in-game version of Facebook, lol. Sorry, just poking fun.

  • Mylan12Mylan12 Member UncommonPosts: 224
    kjempff said:
    Innovative .. hmm .. maybe .. whatever, I feel quite indifferent about that matchmaking concept.

    I should be in the demographic for Pantheon (at least it is the closest of whatever mmos to pick from) - But when it comes to their thinking about groups as an ongoing long term thing and logging in to meet your friends at specific times and all that, it completely misses how I have always played mmos (Everquest in particular), and also how most people play mmos. They log in and form groups with whoever is available ... obviously asking friends/guildies first, but 4 of 5 times the timing just doesn't make it so that is possible - Not to mention meeting new people is fun, it is only how mmo design have evolved that has made meeting other people a chore.

    Sure you can say that you are targeting the table-top crowd, which in my opinion is not really the mmorpg crowd. It is completely possible to hit both demographic, but Pantheons most promoted features are dominantly table-top and less mmorpg like (just my opinion).

     Funny I guess but that is exactly how I played early EQ1. I meet up with my static group and we go do something. I of course did group with other people sometimes on raids but early on that was for the most part two dragons. 
     
  • BazgrimTVBazgrimTV Member UncommonPosts: 20
    Rhoklaw said:
    Didn't have time to listen to the entire video right now, but it almost sounds like Pantheon has an in-game version of Facebook, lol. Sorry, just poking fun.
    You're not really that far off imo haha. Although it's really more like a dating site :P in fact, many of us that have been following the game since Brad first introduced this idea a while ago have been referring to it as "pHarmony" lol.
    Rhoklaw
  • kjempffkjempff Member RarePosts: 1,635
    Wizardry said:
    He starts by basically describing the sad design that is Wow,auto warping to a dungeon with people you don't know then finish then leave.There is a REASON this is just bad but even Brad doesn't get it.

    The reason is because you are only going there for LOOT,it is what i call a loot run,nothing related to the game world or LORE or why you are even going there.Even if such a game supports reasoning,YOU the player are still only going to do it if there is loot.
    ...
    Yes, this is exactly my thoughts whenever people complain about dungeon/group finders. It is not very much a problem with finders, but rather the setting in which they used - Change the game design, and finders will be viewed differently. Not tha I am a huge fan of finders, it just annoy me that people think they can solve something by trying to fix the effect and not the cause.
    On top of that Imagine what would happem if the the game design required actual co-op and that players had to communicate..suddenly the problem with spamming dungeons with strangers you never talk to .. Then maybe not use cross server matchmaking and a living world you may actually meet them again, maybe even form some casual relation to.
  • qwert666qwert666 Member UncommonPosts: 17
    None of this is new. He did the Caravan system in Vanguard, and both Vanguard and Everquest had a match making system. It didn't teleport you together, it was just a LFG tool which let you find people around the same level and then you all meet at the dungeon. 

    The staying together thing doesn't seem like much of an issue. In EQ you go to a dungeon because you need the exp. and any maybe items too, but exp was everything. People would play in a dungeon together for 8 hours straight or more. Vanguard didn't succeed with this because quests were the bulk of the exp, so once you have completed your few objectives in a dungeon, people would leave so they can move somewhere else. 

    The main issue with people not talking to each other in other games, is that there is zero downtime. That wasn't a problem in EQ because you had to plan what you were doing and where you would go, sometimes you would meet at a dungeon and find it was too tough so people would say lets go to another place instead. Also with downtime you get people chatting while they rest. 


Sign In or Register to comment.