Dasilva said:
you have to remember though running a game nowadays costs a LOT more money than it did back in 1999, in 1999 200k players could fund and maintain a game, EQ in its heyday never reached 500k subscribers if I remember correctly, and nowadays with the cost of running a game, that just isnt a large enough playerbase really, but again its up to Pantheon what size playerbase they consider large enough for the game to actually be considered a success in their book. My point is that if the numbers they are looking for are Larger than 500k players then some sort of compromise is going to have to be made in order to attract a larger playerbase. back in 1999 we only had a few MMORPGS to choose from, nowadays there are thousands, the market is literally saturatated, so if Pantheon is to step up, its gonna have to be special.
I have seen quotes from Brad himself talking about 30k players as being able to sustain Pantheon. And the "stepping up" that Pantheon is pushing IS the return to "old school" gaming. Every other MMO out there that we can choose from is nothing more than a single player on line game.
Aradune said:On a more general topic, however, MMOs, and Pantheon specifically, is about 1. Time Invested and 2. Using skills and tactics effectively. #1 is just part of MMOs. So the person who can in general play more often -- put more hours in -- is going to generally advance more quickly. Some people don't like that, but I not only think it's inescapable, but OK. We will also probably have the option (which I'm pretty sure made it into VG) where you can create a Fellowship and voluntarily donate some of your earned exp to a buddy. That way your friend who can't play as often as you can can keep up, but at your cost -- no free lunch.
Thank you for this Brad. I won't speak for everyone (though on this point I probably could), but I really appreciate when you have the time to join the conversation.
One of the characteristics about Pantheon that has been present from the start is that it may not be for everyone. I don't think Brad, the devs or the community should be apologetic about that fact. If someone doesn't have the time they used to, that's ok, we look forward to adventuring with you when you can play. But I hope we aren't compromising the core mechanics of the game to make it more accessible. As I get older, my responsibilities increase and my free time decreases, but I am in no way expecting to reap the same benefits as quickly as someone that has more free time. And I am FINE with that!
If a game is "big budget" - then of course it needs more people spending more money in order to first recoup their investment and then make money.
Pantheon is trying to crowd fund as much as possible and (I would assume) also get additional backing.
Games being "successful" have been measured against WoW's subscription numbers now for years - with (all too often) 7 digit numbers being deemed the "success or fail" break point. "If you don't get 1 million subs, you fail!" - these statements are always made from the outside looking in with no idea at all about money involved in the game.
Let's put it this way. Say they were able to make Pantheon 100% on crowd funding. ZERO investors to pay back. How many players would it take to keep a single shard up and running while earning the company enough money to pay staff, create expansions, patch, and make a profit?
30,000 subs at $15 a month would be 5.4 million a year. Is that enough? That depends on the a whole bunch of factors that none of us who is not posting in green have access to. So anything we have to say on that - is pure conjecture.
Wandidar said:
If a game is "big budget" - then of course it needs more people spending more money in order to first recoup their investment and then make money.
Pantheon is trying to crowd fund as much as possible and (I would assume) also get additional backing.
Games being "successful" have been measured against WoW's subscription numbers now for years - with (all too often) 7 digit numbers being deemed the "success or fail" break point. "If you don't get 1 million subs, you fail!" - these statements are always made from the outside looking in with no idea at all about money involved in the game.
Let's put it this way. Say they were able to make Pantheon 100% on crowd funding. ZERO investors to pay back. How many players would it take to keep a single shard up and running while earning the company enough money to pay staff, create expansions, patch, and make a profit?
30,000 subs at $15 a month would be 5.4 million a year. Is that enough? That depends on the a whole bunch of factors that none of us who is not posting in green have access to. So anything we have to say on that - is pure conjecture.
Umm actually Brad has said 30k subs would be able to sustain Pantheon...50k would be incredable, not sure where the quote is but I know I have read him using the 30k figure.
Yup - I was (apparently badly) making the point that I have no way to say what the magic numbers are for profitability - and that anyone on any forum who does not work on the actual financials for the game likewise has no way... so statements like "they will need X people to be profitable" or "They will have to go F2P to make money" - are conjecture and nothing more.
Wandidar said:
Yup - I was (apparently badly) making the point that I have no way to say what the magic numbers are for profitability - and that anyone on any forum who does not work on the actual financials for the game likewise has no way... so statements like "they will need X people to be profitable" or "They will have to go F2P to make money" - are conjecture and nothing more.
Agreed, and the only reason I said the 30k number was because I had heard it from Brad...but youre right, until all things are settled im sure not even Brad knows the true numbers.
Best topic on the forums! Great discussions with awesome replies keep it up.
I want a game that is difficult to level in and challenging. I want raids to take a long time to defeat but not take 10 hours to run.
Brad you really need to reconsider the camping options this was a huge part of Everquest. Don't create systems that give you less xp, loot, etc for staying in the same place and relaxing with your friends by achieving a goal your group has set out to do that night.
Aradune said:
Sorry for my brevity in advance -- this is a worthy discussion and there's not really a simple answer, but:
I do believe we can do things where you and your group can proceed through, say, a dungeon, and provide areas where you can safely log out, and then log in and continue onward the next play session. In other words, we realize that people are older, have spouses, kids, jobs, etc. Having to have long play sessions ala EQ 1 I don't believe is necessary. I believe we can recognize and accommodate the player who requires shorter play sessions WITHOUT wimping out the game.
Thoughts?
On a more general topic, however, MMOs, and Pantheon specifically, is about 1. Time Invested and 2. Using skills and tactics effectively. #1 is just part of MMOs. So the person who can in general play more often -- put more hours in -- is going to generally advance more quickly. Some people don't like that, but I not only think it's inescapable, but OK. We will also probably have the option (which I'm pretty sure made it into VG) where you can create a Fellowship and voluntarily donate some of your earned exp to a buddy. That way your friend who can't play as often as you can can keep up, but at your cost -- no free lunch.
Classic MMO's weren't about hours/day you were playing, they were about fun per hour. Why not worry more about how the quality of everyones' every hour and less about the total hours.
For someone who doesn't have time to watch a whole season of Game of Thrones in one sitting, should they make 15 minute alternate episodes so that someone with only 2 hours/night can watch the whole season in just one night?
Is watching all of a Game of Thrones season in one night better than watching 1 episode a night?
People with less free time will always be envious of people with more free time, that's a story as old as time.
But I digress, there should be pickup groups that can take someone who only has a few hours in outdoor zones, the xp rate/drop potential will just not be as good as dungeons. People in dungeons are taking on more risk and more skill required so the reward payoff makes sense. Perhaps the 2 hour/night people only have time for the harder dungeon runs on weekends. It's the way it always worked and it works fine.
Worrying about fun per hour, to me, was the slippery slope that lead toward Blizzard's mantra of "Am I having fun right now" - I think worrying about every moment in an MMO being "Fun" ultimately leads to an MMO that gets boring far too fast.
I've said this before - I want a degree of simulated realism in Pantheon - realizing that this means I will have some mundane, and dare I say "boring" moments within the broader scope of the game... but that in so doing, in adding a degree of (WELL DESIGNED) simulated realism - the moments of magic within the game will not only truly feel magic - but they too will be "real."
I don't think you are for a second suggesting the new school "Am I having fun right now" sort of a model - but I thought I'd throw this bit in anyway.
Sevens said:
Dasilva said:
you have to remember though running a game nowadays costs a LOT more money than it did back in 1999, in 1999 200k players could fund and maintain a game, EQ in its heyday never reached 500k subscribers if I remember correctly, and nowadays with the cost of running a game, that just isnt a large enough playerbase really, but again its up to Pantheon what size playerbase they consider large enough for the game to actually be considered a success in their book. My point is that if the numbers they are looking for are Larger than 500k players then some sort of compromise is going to have to be made in order to attract a larger playerbase. back in 1999 we only had a few MMORPGS to choose from, nowadays there are thousands, the market is literally saturatated, so if Pantheon is to step up, its gonna have to be special.
I have seen quotes from Brad himself talking about 30k players as being able to sustain Pantheon. And the "stepping up" that Pantheon is pushing IS the return to "old school" gaming. Every other MMO out there that we can choose from is nothing more than a single player on line game.
And I salute Brad for taking the position he has. He could have went in the opposite direction and made a game to appeal to the WoW kiddies and try and take as big a market share as possible. Instead he is making a game that *he* would want to play, a game that I feel most of us here would want to play over any other game ever made . I feel though that this game has a chance to be something really special and to fill a great void that has been around for a long time. If it is made well, runs well and mostly bug free I think that word of mouth will spread and that this game actually has a chance to be hugely popular .
Wandidar said:
Worrying about fun per hour, to me, was the slippery slope that lead toward Blizzard's mantra of "Am I having fun right now" - I think worrying about every moment in an MMO being "Fun" ultimately leads to an MMO that gets boring far too fast.
I've said this before - I want a degree of simulated realism in Pantheon - realizing that this means I will have some mundane, and dare I say "boring" moments within the broader scope of the game... but that in so doing, in adding a degree of (WELL DESIGNED) simulated realism - the moments of magic within the game will not only truly feel magic - but they too will be "real."
I don't think you are for a second suggesting the new school "Am I having fun right now" sort of a model - but I thought I'd throw this bit in anyway.
Agreed, I think instead of saying fun/hour, which implies they want new items new zones, etc. I really mean to say that every hour I want to feel like I'm able to do something that's meaningfully progresses my character, working towards some goal.
Also instead of redesigning dungeons with safespots to camp out, which I'm not sure trapping someone in a spot so they can LFG is really much better. I would suggest building into /LFG a method for saying how much time you have to play. For example LFG 20 cleric, about 3 hours to play. Another idea would be a limited version of COH for summoners that they get early on. If our cleric was leaving our ~20 level group, we would easily take someone for 3 hours, but maybe not if we have to clear 30 minutes worth of mobs each way just to get to them, but if our summoner could COH them to us (as long as they're in the same zone, and maybe a much smaller proximity than the higher level spell) then taking the cleric would be much easier.
honestly if we are really looking towards a niche game with 30 - 50k players that is fun for us old schoolers then by all means im fully on board with the idea, if we are really looking towards a game with a million players then I am on board with that as well, my key ingredient and this is what I aim to see as a tester is to find a game that is actually successful, any game I have tested I have always remained unbiased and given my honest opinion as to what I feel is a good idea and what I feel is a bad idea, and many people do not approve of my brutal honestly necessarily. but I do believe I do my job as a tester quite thoroughly.
NOW with that being said I am not sure that camping as such like we had in eq1 is a good thing, where basically there was one instance of a zone and if all camps were taken then you were done and you had to go do something else or wait in line for a chance to get a camp, I think it would be beneficial to set up multiple zones that activate based on how many players are in that zone, so that players dont find their entire play time wasted by waiting on a waiting list for a camp spot.
as far as dungeons go, I think that it would be better to either A) make dungeons short and sweet saya t most 45 minutes ot an hour or B break them into segments like upper guk and lower guk, to where a player could do upper guk camp at the zoneline and do lower guk at another time, the days of 5 hour raids I honestly feel are pretty much over with. and I dont think that would go over to well
I like crawling. I like camping. There is room in one game for both.
To point out why it worked in EQ though... I like to think of a game like WoW as "thin and tall" and a game like EQ as "Wide and tall" - what do I mean by that?
Well - at any given level in EQ, there are multitudes of places you can go. In a game like WoW... there is one (or maybe 2), thin paths that you are funneled along. The game just needs to be a little wide.
Sevens said:
Wandidar said:
Sevens - I agree. I LOVE dungeon camps. Dungeon camps are an opportunity to not press buttons constantly. Which means you have a little more time to focus on nothing more than enjoying the time spent with the people you are there with.
One of my favorite stories about camping... A guild mate needed a drop from some mob... I don't even remember which mob it was or which dungeon it was in. The respawn time was a couple minutes - so we would kill, sit, kill, sit, kill, sit. We were doing this for a guildie.
To pass the time, on a whim, I started a game of "who's hotter" in group chat. I began the game with two names of famous people who were truly hot - but - after several rounds, the whole thing devolved into comparisons like "Who's hotter, Mrs. Roper or Aunt Clara" (look 'em up if you don't get the reference) - and it was a BLAST. All of us there, for several days afterward referenced the event in guild chat with nobody admitting who actually started devolving the compares - and making fun of each other for some of the more ludicrous ones.
It was a camp that was more sit than kill... and one of the most memorable evenings for me in EQ, because it just got SOOOO incredibly silly.
That doesn't mean all dungeons need to be camps - but it would be nice for he game to have crawls AND camps.
Agreed 100% just I am getting the vibe that the dungeons will be crawls. And one thing I must stress is that when Im talking about "camps" I dont mean like camping a certain mob for a certain drop but just grabbing the Left Courtyard in Karnors Castle and just spending the day there.
P.S Mrs Roper was much hotter...she was a horny old coot where as Aunt Clara was to spacey
There will be crawls and camps.
Sevens said:
Wandidar said:
If a game is "big budget" - then of course it needs more people spending more money in order to first recoup their investment and then make money.
Pantheon is trying to crowd fund as much as possible and (I would assume) also get additional backing.
Games being "successful" have been measured against WoW's subscription numbers now for years - with (all too often) 7 digit numbers being deemed the "success or fail" break point. "If you don't get 1 million subs, you fail!" - these statements are always made from the outside looking in with no idea at all about money involved in the game.
Let's put it this way. Say they were able to make Pantheon 100% on crowd funding. ZERO investors to pay back. How many players would it take to keep a single shard up and running while earning the company enough money to pay staff, create expansions, patch, and make a profit?
30,000 subs at $15 a month would be 5.4 million a year. Is that enough? That depends on the a whole bunch of factors that none of us who is not posting in green have access to. So anything we have to say on that - is pure conjecture.
Umm actually Brad has said 30k subs would be able to sustain Pantheon...50k would be incredable, not sure where the quote is but I know I have read him using the 30k figure.
Yes 30k would be good, 50k incredible. By keeping our company small and working on one project, if you do the math, that's a lot of money coming in, allowing us to build the team a bit and start cranking out expansions and such.
Just some EQ factoids:
EQ peaked at ~550k subscribers.
EQ cost $8M to make, and took three years.
EQ is one of the most, if not the most, profitable enterprises Sony has ever created. It has made over $500M for the company.
EQ remains to this day a profitable game, with enough subscribers to pay for Expansions and a decent sized dev team.
Aradune said:
Sevens said:
Wandidar said:
Sevens - I agree. I LOVE dungeon camps. Dungeon camps are an opportunity to not press buttons constantly. Which means you have a little more time to focus on nothing more than enjoying the time spent with the people you are there with.
One of my favorite stories about camping... A guild mate needed a drop from some mob... I don't even remember which mob it was or which dungeon it was in. The respawn time was a couple minutes - so we would kill, sit, kill, sit, kill, sit. We were doing this for a guildie.
To pass the time, on a whim, I started a game of "who's hotter" in group chat. I began the game with two names of famous people who were truly hot - but - after several rounds, the whole thing devolved into comparisons like "Who's hotter, Mrs. Roper or Aunt Clara" (look 'em up if you don't get the reference) - and it was a BLAST. All of us there, for several days afterward referenced the event in guild chat with nobody admitting who actually started devolving the compares - and making fun of each other for some of the more ludicrous ones.
It was a camp that was more sit than kill... and one of the most memorable evenings for me in EQ, because it just got SOOOO incredibly silly.
That doesn't mean all dungeons need to be camps - but it would be nice for he game to have crawls AND camps.
Agreed 100% just I am getting the vibe that the dungeons will be crawls. And one thing I must stress is that when Im talking about "camps" I dont mean like camping a certain mob for a certain drop but just grabbing the Left Courtyard in Karnors Castle and just spending the day there.
P.S Mrs Roper was much hotter...she was a horny old coot where as Aunt Clara was to spacey
There will be crawls and camps.
That "clomping" sound you all just heard was me jumping up to do a happy dance - and - because I can't dance - falling flat on my face. But hey, I'm still thrilled to hear this!
I never believed this "Peole will have no more time" mantra that one hears from time to time.
It is a red herring.
I have posted several times statistics (on statistically significant samples) about different aspects of MMOs.
Nobody seems to realize that the average time played on EQ (yes EQ in its golden age 2000 - 2003) was between 20 and 30 h/week.
That means basically 10 hours during the week end and one hour or 2 here and there during the week.
This kind of numbers enters EASILY in a free time Schedule of everybody even with job, kids and wife.
It did in 2000 and it does in 2015. I played around 25 hours / week in EQ and I will play around that number in 2015 on another game too.
So this mantra of "People have no more time" actually applies only on a very small minority (between 5 and 10%) who were playing more than 50 hours/week on EQ.
Yes this kind of numbers is incompatible with job, kids and family. But honestly, they are not compatible with school and university either.
So yes the category of players who played 50h/week in 2000 will no more play 50h/week in 2015 especially if they acquired a job and family in the meantime.
And my point is that it doesn't matter in the great scheme of things because they are only 5-10% of potential Pantheon players.
So some of them will play less and some of them will not play at all. No big deal in either case.
The big question mark is whether the Young generation of 2015 will appear in greater numbers in a game like Pantheon and provide this fringe category playing large numbers of hours.
I believe that it will appear but even if I am wrong it doesn't really matter because these players don't constitute the mass of a player basis.
The only consequence I see is that raids whose duration in EQ was beyond good and evil (easily 8 + hours) is something that will probably not exist in Pantheon.
Deadshade said:
I never believed this "Peole will have no more time" mantra that one hears from time to time.
It is a red herring.
I have posted several times statistics (on statistically significant samples) about different aspects of MMOs.
Nobody seems to realize that the average time played on EQ (yes EQ in its golden age 2000 - 2003) was between 20 and 30 h/week.
That means basically 10 hours during the week end and one hour or 2 here and there during the week.
This kind of numbers enters EASILY in a free time Schedule of everybody even with job, kids and wife.
It did in 2000 and it does in 2015. I played around 25 hours / week in EQ and I will play around that number in 2015 on another game too.
So this mantra of "People have no more time" actually applies only on a very small minority (between 5 and 10%) who were playing more than 50 hours/week on EQ.
Yes this kind of numbers is incompatible with job, kids and family. But honestly, they are not compatible with school and university either.
So yes the category of players who played 50h/week in 2000 will no more play 50h/week in 2015 especially if they acquired a job and family in the meantime.
And my point is that it doesn't matter in the great scheme of things because they are only 5-10% of potential Pantheon players.
So some of them will play less and some of them will not play at all. No big deal in either case.
The big question mark is whether the Young generation of 2015 will appear in greater numbers in a game like Pantheon and provide this fringe category playing large numbers of hours.
I believe that it will appear but even if I am wrong it doesn't really matter because these players don't constitute the mass of a player basis.
The only consequence I see is that raids whose duration in EQ was beyond good and evil (easily 8 + hours) is something that will probably not exist in Pantheon.
Agreed, and when was the 50+/hr weeks ever 'required', maybe in T1 raid guilds?
There were many games I was a part of the top of top crew so to speak. I just don't have the desire for that any more. People just need to let go of being #1, it's not the only way to have fun.
The only problem I ever had with the time aspect was I always wanted to be in the top tier "elite" players not because I wanted to be 1st or whatever but because I enjoy playing with people that are as skilled as I am. The problem is the "elite" players tend to play a lot of hours. If you are an "elite" player in skill but your time available doesn't match that normal "elite" player amount you get left behind. Then you are generally playing with the second string. That has always been my only issue.
EDIT: I'll add that in EQ I played on Tallon Zek one of the team PVP servers. PVP took up a substantial amount of time. If I was on a blue server I probably would have been max level in no time and wouldn't be "left behind" so to say.
Nydan said:
The only problem I ever had with the time aspect was I always wanted to be in the top tier "elite" players not because I wanted to be 1st or whatever but because I enjoy playing with people that are as skilled as I am. The problem is the "elite" players tend to play a lot of hours. If you are an "elite" player in skill but your time available doesn't match that normal "elite" player amount you get left behind. Then you are generally playing with the second string. That has always been my only issue.
EDIT: I'll add that in EQ I played on Tallon Zek one of the team PVP servers. PVP took up a substantial amount of time. If I was on a blue server I probably would have been max level in no time and wouldn't be "left behind" so to say.
So all the top tier players are playing a lot of hours, agreed, but all players who play a lot of hours are not top tier. I'm not sure there's a correlation between skill level and hours played but it's an interesting discussion. By your logic based on playing time, then, wouldn't people infer that you're not an 'elite' player?
Easy now, no where did I use any absolutes in my statement...
Build this math equation. "elite" "tend" to play more. Let's say there are 4 "elite". 2 play 50 hours a week (players A and B). The other two play 15 hours a week (players C and D). What are the odds that player C knows and has a good relationship with player A? What are the odds for the same with player D?
Bonus: What are the odds that player A and B play together and act as force multipliers for each other further compounding the difference between A and B compared to C and D?
Jason said:
I like this thread, but for me personally I really don't have the time that I used to, or to phrase it better : My priorities have changed. When I wasn't married I thought nothing of working 8 hours, sleeping 5 hours and gaming a good 8+ hours. Now that I am married, I am not going to neglect my wife for several hours at a time when I can be spending time with her. I would love it if she gamed with me, but I am not holding my breath.
This is the same thing for me. I am a grad student right now and my long time girl friend is a good 3 hour drive from me. I work my ass off during the week and drive 3+ hours each way to see her. When Im there Im spending every second with her. It has really altered my time commitments and I don't see anything wrong with that. I played EQ a lot but I wasn't very good or a particularly smart player so I didn't progress fast. I think I could spend a little less time and still enjoy Pantheon as long as I can get a group relatively easily. I also am super hopeful about the 2017 time range in theory I should be Dr. cram9030 by then and living with my girl friend giving me 6+ more hours a week to play when I don't have to drive!!! ;)
Nydan said:
Easy now, no where did I use any absolutes in my statement...
Build this math equation. "elite" "tend" to play more. Let's say there are 4 "elite". 2 play 50 hours a week (players A and B). The other two play 15 hours a week (players C and D). What are the odds that player C knows and has a good relationship with player A? What are the odds for the same with player D?
Bonus: What are the odds that player A and B play together and act as force multipliers for each other further compounding the difference between A and B compared to C and D?
Is your point that two players who play less hours are less likely to play together? If we're assuming all these hours are random, then sure. I disagree that two players who play every night together for 4 hours are less likely to be as skilled as two people who play together 16 hours a day. They will(should) have more character progression, which could easily be mistaken for skill. They will have more inside game knowledge due to their /played, which could be also be mistaken for skill. Now if you play sporadic hours and are grouping with new players every time rather than 'elite' (whatever that means) players you're used to, then yes, I agree that you would expect a slower progression overall. However, if the expectations are to log in at random times, and for much shorter periods of time, but still be as progressed as friends who are playing 12 hours a day, my personal opinion, whether popular or not, is those expectations are unrealistic and not in line with classic style.
I don't know who I'd be playing Pantheon with, but I don't mind meeting new players and becoming friends with players I find skilled and have compatible hours. I have no doubt that I can find good players to level with on a consistent basis. EQ was not anti-social.
well now that Aradune a name I know well :) has stated 30k would be great 50k would be amazing then I can confidently say that going back to the hardcore roots of EQ1 might actually be a good idea, because a lot of people have been looking for that kind of game for a long time, I do gotta say though the fear type raids 5 hours raiding 45 hours of corpse runs, would probably be a bad idea...and as I have stated I would love to see more skill based classes, Animal Tamer, Thief, etc also playstyle versatility, something I really love about being able to play as who you want to be so to speak