Howdy, Stranger!

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




Last Active
Favorite Role
  • Pre-Alpha Starts Today!

    If you're paying for top tier packages just to play the game, you're doing it wrong.
    KyleranRhoklawLeFantomePottedPlant22SiugKilsinjimmywolfd_20dcutbi001ConstantineMerusand 13 others.
  • No group finder

    Pantheon will have a robust social and group-finding system, but will not fast travel you to that group. No auto-pathing, mini map, exclamation points or sparkling quest objectives. It's up to you to explore and figure things out.
  • Was all ready to pledge after the stream, then I looked at the pledge page...

    There is no way $1k pledge is the most popular. That's called marketing, my friend.

    I see no reason why you feel obligated to pledge a grand based on something a tiny image is suggesting. If you like the game, pledge whatever you want. Go the $50 route and grab a copy of the game and a few perks. If you want to test, go a little higher. No reason to feel constrained.
  • The many lessons of Agnarr

    I disagree with almost everything you said aside from your remarks on boxing, and I'm confident Pantheon will utterly fail should they follow your advice. Why? Because it's exactly why mmos have been failing for over a decade. In a word, convenience and everything that entails, has trivialized your achievements.

    1. No, they do not need instances. You cannot even compare classic EQ or Pantheon to the abomination that is Agnarr. They have upwards of 20k characters (not players) crammed on a single server designed for roughly 2,000, permitted they are spread across all level ranges. More like 1,000 if everyone is around the same level (hence the reason why all content is so heavily contested with only 1k people online on p99).

    Pantheon, like all new MMOs, will be filled with all kinds of players. It will not be primarily hardcores. Those players historically make up a tiny fraction of less than 10% according to figures cited by SOE, Blizzard and other developers I've seen comment on the topic. This will be the case in Pantheon as well.

    Should Pantheon have adequate servers with a proper player to content balance, this will not be an issue. It will mean carefully designing each area with access to the necessary content to progress and itemization that encourages spreading out the population, but it can be done.

    2. Travel in EQ already allowed for almost instantaneous travel. It just didn't allow it organically in the early levels. One had to have access to other characters or an existing relationship with other players to access ports at will. Down the line, that was almost eliminated entirely, and today on EQ you can "dial-a-port" at almost any time of day. That should not be.

    If anything, Pantheon needs to back off on fast travel from EQ. The world must matter. If players are to have a unique experience on each character playing throughout the world, you must encourage them to utilize all the content, especially that which is convenient. Otherwise, you will end up with everyone following a similar path and crowding common areas. It's critical for the very reason discussed in point one (overcrowding/combating the need for instancing).

    Let's get down to brass tacks. Time was your greatest opponent and the factor that made all things feel worthwhile in EQ. Without the time factor, it would not have been EverCrack. Everything was a battle to maximize your gains and minimize time wasted. You had to strive for efficiency if you were to achieve greatness. Otherwise, EQ would have been Rift, WoW, TERA, DDO, Guild Wars, LOTRO, SWTOR and the rest of the games that were played and disposed of shortly thereafter by the vast majority of the people who played them (even if they return every expansion).

    You must respect the time factor.

    Beyond that, the world shrinks significantly when you can go anywhere on a whim. It's just the nature of the beast. From a realism or immersion perspective, every area must matter. To establish "the feel", players need to be, once again, given a reason to go off the beaten path.

    Lastly, boat rides were hardly that extreme. Yes, if you wanted to travel all the way from one side of the map to the other on foot and by boats, it took upwards of an hour - and so it should. Each time you log on, you should be faced with decisions like this. It's all about efficiency and learning to play smart.

    You're in a virtual world (Our World Now!), not a video game where you will always be instantly gratified. In such a place, it's partly up to the player to choose wisely to progress. That means planning. It means communication and coordination with others. Those are the things that made online games gratifying. Otherwise, your achievements are hollow and ultimately feel unimportant. No, that isn't just my opinion! It's bolstered by all the evidence from games that made concessions regarding those aspects of their design.

    3. I do think what we saw in the last stream made boxing look problematic to the point of almost worthless without third party programs. That said, it should be discouraged further. Allowing it as it existed in EQ will be a serious detriment to community health and the quality of interaction in Pantheon.

    Agnarr and virtually all other mmos today are cancerous for a reason. Lets think of the things which led to positive interaction and created an environment where reputation mattered.

    I. Players absolutely needed each other.
    The world was dangerous and punishing. If you died, you lost your body, your experience, and ultimately your time. To retrieve your items and experience, you often needed other people. Darting into a dungeon naked to recover your body was a death wish. You would end up compounding your loss without help.

    There was no boxing to save you in classic EQ. You could not even alt+tab. A tiny subset of players had the capability of multiboxing, let alone the additional computers and internet connection (the days of dial-up) to facilitate it.

    This meant people actually had to rely on each other. A player that offered to lend a helping hand meant the world, because without them you could lose your entire night of playtime. That is exactly how drastic it should be in Pantheon if we want that level of positive interaction and appreciation to exist between fellow players.

    4. The loot system in EQ was perfect in risk (time) versus reward. It should not even be touched. This goes back to time. Reduce the necessary time, you reduce the necessary reward, you reduce playtime, you ultimately reduce the longevity of your game.

    See comments under point 2. See the following threads:
    Discussion 1
    Discussion 2

    5. Again, Agnarr cannot be compared to Pantheon. The players on Agnarr make up a tiny fraction of the population on your average MMO server. As someone who was 50 on EQ live and most other mmos I've played before 95% of the people who played these games, I can tell you that this is not an issue.

    Beyond that, Agnarr is probably about 5% as hard as EQ. That is about how long it takes compared to how long it took during the classic era on live. Put aside the fact that player knowledge is 5000% higher. There is almost no contested content as it existed in EQ, the exp rate is dramatically higher, and the penalties reduced to almost nothing.

    As such, all of these factors funnel everyone into the same spots, looking for the same items and stuck in the same level ranges. The normal curve that would exist on a normal server, especially in a new game, would be entirely different.

    6. Agnarr is an abomination for all of the reasons stated in 6, and it's the antithesis of the design tenets of EQ, and everything that made it glorious. See above references to time and the danger of convenience above.

    7. Instancing is cancer. Placing 10x the capacity of a server into one server is not at all representative of how things existed in EQ live, nor how it would work in Pantheon.

    Furthermore, there are many, many viable solutions to counter the problems that exist both on Agnarr, as well as EQ historically. I would copy paste everything here, but this post is already running long.

    Exhibit A.
    Exhibit B.

    Instancing is lazy.

    XodicKyleranGdemamiDistopiadeniterNycteliosWellspringHawkaya399Scummholdenfiveand 3 others.
  • Player's Choice Awards - Most Wanted MMO of 2017 a Awards at MMORPG.com

    ... aaand Moo legends jumps 3% in an hour. Autobots, roll out.

    Image result for robot cow

  • Pantheon will be at Twitch Con this weekend

    KumaponJustsomenoobGnogJamesGoblinAmatheGyva02Mawneedrivendawndcutbi001Rhoklawand 1 other.
  • Pantheon: THE MOST WANTED MMO OF 2017, did you or want to pledge now?

    It took me a while before I pledged to Pantheon. Even if they came with some good ideas, I wasn't sold on the kickstarter. Once they posted the first big update when they gave us important info during a roundtable, and showed great progress in the video department, I gained confidence in the game.

    The way I see it, Pantheon is probably the last chance at the type of MMORPG with emphasis on the virtual world, RPG and immersion side of the equation. If my pledge helps make that a reality, it's well worth the risk.
  • Lets get real regarding the graphics in Pantheon

    If we're going to have an honest conversation about graphics, comparing a pre-rendered environment with maximum effects to an alpha stream recording isn't really a fair comparison.

    Watching that Ashes video again for the second time, the big difference is a max quality cinematic recording, and a ton of ambient lighting, lighting effects, reflections, and high resolution textures (grass, flora, fauna, water). Add a little animation to show all the grass and leaves blowing in the wind and rippling of the water, and you truly have a thing of beauty. And also something that would run like complete shit on a 1080p live stream.

    They have plenty of time to add similar light, shadow, camera fx and higher quality object and npc animations. That has nothing to do with the engine, for anyone who has seen some of the more impressive Unity videos. They actually just began really putting resources into this aspect of the game, so we can expect things will only improve drastically between now and launch.
  • Another thing from EQ I don't want to see

    Torval said:
    Kyleran said:
    Torval said:
    Kyleran said:
    Torval neither wants to cooperatively play in a group nor play a MMO for more than 6 weeks at a time.

    Your arguments falls on deaf ears. ;)
    Wait what? You're speaking for me now? Oh, Is that your weak attempt to rattle me? I hope you have something better than that, like something of substance to add to the conversation.

    Harder to accomplish and challenge in combat aren't the same thing. It's not challenging for the solo player that PC mitigation and damage output doesn't compare to the mob.

    In a PvP battle a level 5 player isn't challenged by a level 50 player.

    Using damage numbers and health to define challenge means that the only thing needed is more people. In modern and old school raid mechanics using dps checks is the lowest common denominator as a challenge.

    Challenge is defined by the need for tactics and strategy in a possible scenario. If the scenario is impossible there is no challenge to it and the outcome is predictable.

    We weren't talking about numbers of mobs or environment before. We were talking about increasing the health and damage of a single mob.
    Actually I was making observations on your gaming preferences based on recent statements by you in these forums.

    He was trying to convince you about grouping and playing long term, neither of which you favor.

    As to the question of challenge from higher DPS of course one solution is to zerg it down, but on some games the diminishing return on rewards makes it undesireable.

    In DAOC my Mentalist can attack a low level green or blue mob and burn it down easily, but for very low reward. 

    Yellow con is more challeging, have to kite them for one cycle, but they normally go down unless the resist RNG demon comes into play.

    Orange cons are dicey, higher resist rates and HPs require several kite runs and every now and then go south, but they provide the maximum experience the cap will allow.

    Reds, well I won't do them solo, resist rates are too high, you end up burning too much mana which you have to sit off to regen and due to exp cap, usually not worth it.

    Every class is different in DAOC, Bards can't beat a blue solo at times, while pet classes such as chanters and necros can solo some low purples in the right scenario. (which they normally only do when powerleveling someone) But they don't kite, pets tank and they melee or blast mob down.

    So I see a lot of combat variance and possibility just from increasing the damage and DPS on a mob.

    As for randomness, if you had seen my guildmates and I struggle with a standard Bard lvl 50 Epic quest last night you'd understand how unpredictable the PVE from a 15 year old game could be.  We wiped hard for over 2 hours, they were still at it when I logged at midnight.

    Was descibed by some in ZAM back in 2003 as "too easy"  Guess we just suck.   ;)
    My gaming preferences, which depend on the game and who I am gaming with, and even more so your fairly rude condescending observations of them are completely irrelevant to the point. You can make underhanded personal jabs to try and strengthen your point but they don't actually matter to the argument.

    Class variance (relative strength/weakness regarding dps, mits, heals, cc, etc) really has nothing to do with scaling either. The post Distopia made about scaling sums it up. Scaling doesn't equate directly to challenge. It could be argued that there is an indirect correlation, but that really applies as it relates to simple dps/hps/mit timer/checks and those are about the crudest form of mechanics checks you can make in an encounter.

    Which goes back to the OPs point that simple mob encounters, single reward commodity based interactions with mobs, are something he would rather not see in Pantheon. Dullahan somehow correlated that with solo people should get bad rewards and groups should get good rewards because group mobs are harder.

    The entire argument revolves around the idea that merely adding health/damage to a mob doesn't make it harder if the group also scales in power the same way. Thus DMKano's point that groups are generally safer, easier, and faster at most everything. If that's true then why is easier play rewarded more if "risk vs reward" is the desired result? The answer I think is because the intended play is group based so you reward players for doing it how you want regardless of whether it's more challenging.
    Its an mmorpg. If you don't want to design the game to be harder by requiring more player, coordination and social interaction, developers should stick to making single player games. That and players have plenty of those games to choose from, we don't need another.

    It's also more than just scaling mobs health up. It can be tons of different mechanics that require group synergies and collaborative efforts, that otherwise cannot be overcome with less people or even multiple people of the same class in many cases.
  • Pantheon vs Wow Classic

    Darksworm said:

    If what you said was true, then Pantheon would have 0 reason to exist, because players could simply just play EQ right now.  The only reason why people are excited about this game, is because it's basically EverQuest with a graphics overhaul.  It really doesn't have any more than that to offer players, from what we've seen.  It's purely a nostalgia play.  The developers are pretty transparent about that.
    This is not the case. Nostalgia is a much abused and overused term, especially in the realm of video games. While it plays a part, it is not the primary purpose of the game nor the reason people will be playing it.

    The objective is to recreate the gameplay EQ offered, because it's more enjoyable to a lot of people. It has nothing to do with warm fuzzy feelings. It has everything to do with a more cooperative, rewarding, and immersive fantasy experience in what resembles a virtual world more than merely a video game. That is what the developers have communicated they are creating, while the word nostalgia doesn't even appear in their stated tenets or features.