Aradune said:Good questions: No permanent corpse or item loss, regardless of what system we end up with -- i can say that for certain right now. (Unless it was on a special 'iron man' shard or something).
You all heard the man... Iron Man Shard!
Although not for me, it appears this may have a place in the market.
I have been on these forums for just over 7 months now, and one thing is for sure: The death penalty is an issue that is important to many people. And there is almost as many different ideas on how it should be rolled out.
Malzuran said:Nikademis said:Malzuran said:When I started playing EQ, I was young and had a lot of free time. Now, I am working and have a family. Sometimes RL happens and I need to get away immediately. I don't have the luxury to sit and play and do CRs all day long like I use to.
Ugh, I really dislike this argument. But I've responded to it many times in the past, quite fervently and I don't have the strength to do it again. For anyone interested in my response to this, it can be found part way down the link below.
www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/3645/biggest-challenge-for-a-modern-day-group-centric-mmo/view/page/2
Nikademis,
I am just stating a fact that is my current situation. But by you saying that this game shouldn't be for anyone who has less time to play. So are you saying you this game should be prejudice against anyone who doesn't have have "5" or "10" hours to play per sitting let's say. I like the difficulty of vanilla EQ. If you are a person who can spend tons and tons of hours a day at this, kudos to you. But for someone who can't, then give them an option that's all. But of course by choosing that option, you will be penealized by the XP loss. That's all. You can still have the fun of old EQ but with a slight twist. Not an exact cookie cutter of the old EQ.
I understand your position, I really do. I think that the vast majority of us whom are here because of our love for Everquest are, in one way or another, in a similar position as you (after all, 1999 was 18 years ago). But I strongly feel that we shouldn't be compromising on the core tenants to which Pantheon was founded to cater to those with less time than some younger version of ourselves. Respectfully, what may be best for you at this point in time (according to your life, job, family, whatever it may be) does not necessarily translate into what's best for the game and the community as a whole.
If we start to bend the rules and make things more accessible to anyone who has a qualm about any of the tenants then we've gained nothing. And most importantly, the target audience to which Pantheon has claimed to be finally listening to will have been alienated in favor of convenience, instant gratification and the like. And ultimately, Pantheon will be nothing more than the status quo.
So, to answer your question - I'm not saying that "this game should be prejudice against anyone who doesn't have have "5" or "10" hours to play..." What I am saying is I think we all need to put our own personal feelings aside sometimes in favor of what's going to help Pantheon break away from the stale, meaningless genre that has become the MMORPG. And if that means that a few of us have to take our medicine and either do the best we can with what we have -OR- (god forbid) decide that Pantheon may actually not be a game we have time for, then so be it. But never dilute the solution to make it easier to swallow.
Nikademis said:Malzuran said:Nikademis said:Malzuran said:When I started playing EQ, I was young and had a lot of free time. Now, I am working and have a family. Sometimes RL happens and I need to get away immediately. I don't have the luxury to sit and play and do CRs all day long like I use to.
Ugh, I really dislike this argument. But I've responded to it many times in the past, quite fervently and I don't have the strength to do it again. For anyone interested in my response to this, it can be found part way down the link below.
www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/3645/biggest-challenge-for-a-modern-day-group-centric-mmo/view/page/2
Nikademis,
I am just stating a fact that is my current situation. But by you saying that this game shouldn't be for anyone who has less time to play. So are you saying you this game should be prejudice against anyone who doesn't have have "5" or "10" hours to play per sitting let's say. I like the difficulty of vanilla EQ. If you are a person who can spend tons and tons of hours a day at this, kudos to you. But for someone who can't, then give them an option that's all. But of course by choosing that option, you will be penealized by the XP loss. That's all. You can still have the fun of old EQ but with a slight twist. Not an exact cookie cutter of the old EQ.
I understand your position, I really do. I think that the vast majority of us whom are here because of our love for Everquest are, in one way or another, in a similar position as you (after all, 1999 was 18 years ago). But I strongly feel that we shouldn't be compromising on the core tenants to which Pantheon was founded to cater to those with less time than some younger version of ourselves. Respectfully, what may be best for you at this point in time (according to your life, job, family, whatever it may be) does not necessarily translate into what's best for the game and the community as a whole.
If we start to bend the rules and make things more accessible to anyone who has a qualm about any of the tenants then we've gained nothing. And most importantly, the target audience to which Pantheon has claimed to be finally listening to will have been alienated in favor of convenience, instant gratification and the like. And ultimately, Pantheon will be nothing more than the status quo.
So, to answer your question - I'm not saying that "this game should be prejudice against anyone who doesn't have have "5" or "10" hours to play..." What I am saying is I think we all need to put our own personal feelings aside sometimes in favor of what's going to help Pantheon break away from the stale, meaningless genre that has become the MMORPG. And if that means that a few of us have to take our medicine and either do the best we can with what we have -OR- (god forbid) decide that Pantheon may actually not be a game we have time for, then so be it. But never dilute the solution to make it easier to swallow.
I also get what you are saying to my friend. But think what you just said, "But I strongly feel that we shouldn't be compromising on the core tenants". How many "core tenants" will you have then who can take the old EQ style as it was back in 1999? Will that be enough to sustain this new game? If you are to grow and attract a bigger audience, then by going back to the old EQ days, you may do the opposite. You understand what I am saying?
Malzuran said:Nikademis said:Malzuran said:Nikademis said:Malzuran said:When I started playing EQ, I was young and had a lot of free time. Now, I am working and have a family. Sometimes RL happens and I need to get away immediately. I don't have the luxury to sit and play and do CRs all day long like I use to.
Ugh, I really dislike this argument. But I've responded to it many times in the past, quite fervently and I don't have the strength to do it again. For anyone interested in my response to this, it can be found part way down the link below.
www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/3645/biggest-challenge-for-a-modern-day-group-centric-mmo/view/page/2
Nikademis,
I am just stating a fact that is my current situation. But by you saying that this game shouldn't be for anyone who has less time to play. So are you saying you this game should be prejudice against anyone who doesn't have have "5" or "10" hours to play per sitting let's say. I like the difficulty of vanilla EQ. If you are a person who can spend tons and tons of hours a day at this, kudos to you. But for someone who can't, then give them an option that's all. But of course by choosing that option, you will be penealized by the XP loss. That's all. You can still have the fun of old EQ but with a slight twist. Not an exact cookie cutter of the old EQ.
I understand your position, I really do. I think that the vast majority of us whom are here because of our love for Everquest are, in one way or another, in a similar position as you (after all, 1999 was 18 years ago). But I strongly feel that we shouldn't be compromising on the core tenants to which Pantheon was founded to cater to those with less time than some younger version of ourselves. Respectfully, what may be best for you at this point in time (according to your life, job, family, whatever it may be) does not necessarily translate into what's best for the game and the community as a whole.
If we start to bend the rules and make things more accessible to anyone who has a qualm about any of the tenants then we've gained nothing. And most importantly, the target audience to which Pantheon has claimed to be finally listening to will have been alienated in favor of convenience, instant gratification and the like. And ultimately, Pantheon will be nothing more than the status quo.
So, to answer your question - I'm not saying that "this game should be prejudice against anyone who doesn't have have "5" or "10" hours to play..." What I am saying is I think we all need to put our own personal feelings aside sometimes in favor of what's going to help Pantheon break away from the stale, meaningless genre that has become the MMORPG. And if that means that a few of us have to take our medicine and either do the best we can with what we have -OR- (god forbid) decide that Pantheon may actually not be a game we have time for, then so be it. But never dilute the solution to make it easier to swallow.
I also get what you are saying to my friend. But think what you just said, "But I strongly feel that we shouldn't be compromising on the core tenants". How many "core tenants" will you have then who can take the old EQ style as it was back in 1999? Will that be enough to sustain this new game? If you are to grow and attract a bigger audience, then by going back to the old EQ days, you may do the opposite. You understand what I am saying?
I do my friend. It's a tough spot, for sure. Time will tell but I have confidence in the teams' ability to strike a balance. And that's also what alpha and beta are for.
I would like your corpse to expire in 36 irl hours if it is not looted or rezzed. Upon corpse expiration all gear is returned to your bank or via some other method (picture a guy pushing a cart of bodies saying "Bring out your dead!") and you have no method to recover exp once the corpse has decayed.
Some sort of corpse hunter type system would be cool too. Maybe you get a bounty for dragging a corpse to a safe spot in the zone. If a corpse does not arrive at the safe spot in 10 minutes it warps back to its original spot (anti-griefing)
I have heard lots of interesting ideas and am anxiously waiting to see what they come up with.
Maximis said:Some sort of corpse hunter type system would be cool too. Maybe you get a bounty for dragging a corpse to a safe spot in the zone. If a corpse does not arrive at the safe spot in 10 minutes it warps back to its original spot (anti-griefing)
Like I mentioned earlier, I say to have a click option on your bind(nexus) point to summon your corpse to you. This way you will get your corpse back but you will loose all your death XP. This way, yes it will hurt a bit but you get your corpse back and you can retry your attempt or call it quits for that time. Again, this is just another option on the table to think about.
Malzuran said:Maximis said:Some sort of corpse hunter type system would be cool too. Maybe you get a bounty for dragging a corpse to a safe spot in the zone. If a corpse does not arrive at the safe spot in 10 minutes it warps back to its original spot (anti-griefing)
Like I mentioned earlier, I say to have a click option on your bind(nexus) point to summon your corpse to you. This way you will get your corpse back but you will loose all your death XP. This way, yes it will hurt a bit but you get your corpse back and you can retry your attempt or call it quits for that time. Again, this is just another option on the table to think about.
Yup. What you describe here (and from your earier post) is very close, if not identical, to the system in Vanguard that I previously spoke of. Again, we'll see. It could be a happy medium.
Nikademis said:Malzuran said:Maximis said:Some sort of corpse hunter type system would be cool too. Maybe you get a bounty for dragging a corpse to a safe spot in the zone. If a corpse does not arrive at the safe spot in 10 minutes it warps back to its original spot (anti-griefing)
Like I mentioned earlier, I say to have a click option on your bind(nexus) point to summon your corpse to you. This way you will get your corpse back but you will loose all your death XP. This way, yes it will hurt a bit but you get your corpse back and you can retry your attempt or call it quits for that time. Again, this is just another option on the table to think about.
Yup. What you describe here (and from your earier post) is very close, if not identical, to the system in Vanguard that I previously spoke of. Again, we'll see. It could be a happy medium.
Gosh. All these death talks reminds me of all the times I've died on EQ and I would loot everything from my corpse but to leave one item on my corpse in the hopes of finding a cleric to rez my sorry arse and get some of my XP back. lol Ahhh good times baby, good times. :D
Malzuran said:Gosh. All these death talks reminds me of all the times I've died on EQ and I would loot everything from my corpse but to leave one item on my corpse in the hopes of finding a cleric to rez my sorry arse and get some of my XP back. lol Ahhh good times baby, good times. :D
;D Good times indeed! Can't wait to get in game!
I don't really like the click summon the corpse plan, seems too much the easy way out.
I feel there needs to be something final about death to really make it respected. by "final" I think the potential to be the end of your fighting for the night like old school was the desperate corpse run.
What I haven't read yet was just the same as old school EQ, all your gear left on your corpse, you can recover it anytime and continue the fight, with the differance being, at the 1 week corpse rot your items would be sent to you via mail, not lost.
So you could choose to corpse run, or wait out the timer. in extreme situations, you take the exp loss and play your alt for the next week while you wait for your items.
Nikademis said:Malzuran said:Nikademis said:Malzuran said:When I started playing EQ, I was young and had a lot of free time. Now, I am working and have a family. Sometimes RL happens and I need to get away immediately. I don't have the luxury to sit and play and do CRs all day long like I use to.
Ugh, I really dislike this argument. But I've responded to it many times in the past, quite fervently and I don't have the strength to do it again. For anyone interested in my response to this, it can be found part way down the link below.
www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/3645/biggest-challenge-for-a-modern-day-group-centric-mmo/view/page/2
Nikademis,
I am just stating a fact that is my current situation. But by you saying that this game shouldn't be for anyone who has less time to play. So are you saying you this game should be prejudice against anyone who doesn't have have "5" or "10" hours to play per sitting let's say. I like the difficulty of vanilla EQ. If you are a person who can spend tons and tons of hours a day at this, kudos to you. But for someone who can't, then give them an option that's all. But of course by choosing that option, you will be penealized by the XP loss. That's all. You can still have the fun of old EQ but with a slight twist. Not an exact cookie cutter of the old EQ.
I understand your position, I really do. I think that the vast majority of us whom are here because of our love for Everquest are, in one way or another, in a similar position as you (after all, 1999 was 18 years ago). But I strongly feel that we shouldn't be compromising on the core tenants to which Pantheon was founded to cater to those with less time than some younger version of ourselves. Respectfully, what may be best for you at this point in time (according to your life, job, family, whatever it may be) does not necessarily translate into what's best for the game and the community as a whole.
If we start to bend the rules and make things more accessible to anyone who has a qualm about any of the tenants then we've gained nothing. And most importantly, the target audience to which Pantheon has claimed to be finally listening to will have been alienated in favor of convenience, instant gratification and the like. And ultimately, Pantheon will be nothing more than the status quo.
So, to answer your question - I'm not saying that "this game should be prejudice against anyone who doesn't have have "5" or "10" hours to play..." What I am saying is I think we all need to put our own personal feelings aside sometimes in favor of what's going to help Pantheon break away from the stale, meaningless genre that has become the MMORPG. And if that means that a few of us have to take our medicine and either do the best we can with what we have -OR- (god forbid) decide that Pantheon may actually not be a game we have time for, then so be it. But never dilute the solution to make it easier to swallow.
Needs to be quoted again, very good post.
Rallyd said:Nikademis said:Malzuran said:Nikademis said:Malzuran said:When I started playing EQ, I was young and had a lot of free time. Now, I am working and have a family. Sometimes RL happens and I need to get away immediately. I don't have the luxury to sit and play and do CRs all day long like I use to.
Ugh, I really dislike this argument. But I've responded to it many times in the past, quite fervently and I don't have the strength to do it again. For anyone interested in my response to this, it can be found part way down the link below.
www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/3645/biggest-challenge-for-a-modern-day-group-centric-mmo/view/page/2
Nikademis,
I am just stating a fact that is my current situation. But by you saying that this game shouldn't be for anyone who has less time to play. So are you saying you this game should be prejudice against anyone who doesn't have have "5" or "10" hours to play per sitting let's say. I like the difficulty of vanilla EQ. If you are a person who can spend tons and tons of hours a day at this, kudos to you. But for someone who can't, then give them an option that's all. But of course by choosing that option, you will be penealized by the XP loss. That's all. You can still have the fun of old EQ but with a slight twist. Not an exact cookie cutter of the old EQ.
I understand your position, I really do. I think that the vast majority of us whom are here because of our love for Everquest are, in one way or another, in a similar position as you (after all, 1999 was 18 years ago). But I strongly feel that we shouldn't be compromising on the core tenants to which Pantheon was founded to cater to those with less time than some younger version of ourselves. Respectfully, what may be best for you at this point in time (according to your life, job, family, whatever it may be) does not necessarily translate into what's best for the game and the community as a whole.
If we start to bend the rules and make things more accessible to anyone who has a qualm about any of the tenants then we've gained nothing. And most importantly, the target audience to which Pantheon has claimed to be finally listening to will have been alienated in favor of convenience, instant gratification and the like. And ultimately, Pantheon will be nothing more than the status quo.
So, to answer your question - I'm not saying that "this game should be prejudice against anyone who doesn't have have "5" or "10" hours to play..." What I am saying is I think we all need to put our own personal feelings aside sometimes in favor of what's going to help Pantheon break away from the stale, meaningless genre that has become the MMORPG. And if that means that a few of us have to take our medicine and either do the best we can with what we have -OR- (god forbid) decide that Pantheon may actually not be a game we have time for, then so be it. But never dilute the solution to make it easier to swallow.
Needs to be quoted again, very good post.
Thanks very much @Rallyd. I appreciate the kind words ;)
It's sad that people always resort to the "no one will play it" argument when people suggest that Pantheon should more strictly adhere to the tenants that gave us EverQuest. There is nothing to support that such a game wouldn't be successful again. There is nothing even remotely comparable.
What's more, EQ thrived at a time when most people didn't even know what an "MMORPG" was. EQ felt foreign to even avid PC gamers like myself. Today, despite more forgiving gameplay, players are actually much more capable of adapting to a harsher ruleset. That obviously doesn't mean everyone will choose to play a game under those terms, because the central theme is cooperative play versus soloability and accessibility that reigns supreme in current MMOs.
I think it's quite the opposite. I don't think Visionary Realms has to strike a balance at all. I think Pantheon could be as harsh or harsher than EverQuest and it will still be successful. On the other hand, the closer Pantheon is to the mainstream, the more competition it will have and the less successful it will be. It needs to stand out unapologetically.
Dullahan said:It's sad that people always resort to the "no one will play it" argument when people suggest that Pantheon should more strictly adhere to the tenants that gave us EverQuest. There is nothing to support that such a game wouldn't be successful again. There is nothing even remotely comparable.
What's more, EQ thrived at a time when most people didn't even know what an "MMORPG" was. EQ felt foreign to even avid PC gamers like myself. Today, despite more forgiving gameplay, players are actually much more capable of adapting to a harsher ruleset. That obviously doesn't mean everyone will choose to play a game under those terms, because the central theme is cooperative play versus soloability and accessibility that reigns supreme in current MMOs.
I think it's quite the opposite. I don't think Visionary Realms has to strike a balance at all. I think Pantheon could be as harsh or harsher than EverQuest and it will still be successful. The closer Pantheon is to the mainstream, the more competition it will have and the less successful it will be. It needs to stand out, unapologetically.
@Dullahan and I have long been precisely on the same page, on this topic and many others - well said bud!
I had a very similar response lined up before I was provoked into my diatribe above, HA!
Dullahan said:It's sad that people always resort to the "no one will play it" argument when people suggest that Pantheon should more strictly adhere to the tenants that gave us EverQuest. There is nothing to support that such a game wouldn't be successful again. There is nothing even remotely comparable.
You need to remember this. When EQ came out, there wasn’t really a good MMO that people played at that time. Maybe UO but it was a distant 2nd. Yuck. From a perspective of trying to market this game to the public and hope that it will capture a big audience, would you want to put all eggs in one basket and say screw it, let’s go back to old EQ style? Is that a smart thing to do? To need to understand, the old EQ still exists. What is the player base? It is profitable? Does anyone wanna play it still? Do you want to sub and play it? Ask yourself these questions.
Dullahan said:What's more, EQ thrived at a time when most people didn't even know what an "MMORPG" was. EQ felt foreign to even avid PC gamers like myself. Today, despite more forgiving gameplay, players are actually much more capable of adapting to a harsher ruleset. That obviously doesn't mean everyone will choose to play a game under those terms, because the central theme is cooperative play versus soloability and accessibility that reigns supreme in current MMOs.
Again, EQ at the time was really the only game at that time that captured a big audience. Why? Was there anything else like it? Your 2nd choice was UO. Again, yuck, ewww!
I don’t mind the harsh or harsher ruleset but you need to have a slightly better way out for some people. IE, don’t have mounts or flight paths. Make players run to their destination. IF players don’t wanna run there, ask or pay other players to help. If you die and need a CR, either run back yourself to CR yourself or if you cannot, use the click bind(nexus) point to CR but it will cost you the loss of XP or pay a necro to corpse summon. These are just examples of giving players the options. It is still harsh but remains fun. To completely zero out everything but one option, it could be a turn off. Idk. I may turn out well or it may not. Do you want to gamble and loose?
Dullahan said:I think it's quite the opposite. I don't think Visionary Realms has to strike a balance at all. I think Pantheon could be as harsh or harsher than EverQuest and it will still be successful. On the other hand, the closer Pantheon is to the mainstream, the more competition it will have and the less successful it will be. It needs to stand out unapologetically.
Remember. This is a business of developing a game. Ultimately, you want the company grow and be profitable. To completely be just one sided and ignore all else, is it good business strategy you think? If you are to cough up all the money to do this game yourself, would you just make all the decisions one sided decisions?
Ashvaild said: I think a lot of people are exaggerating the amount of time a regular cr would take. You would generally bind in a nearby zone or near east commons and then port to a zone near where you died. I never had cr's that were 8hrs, etc. Not hard to ask for help. People were always more than willing to give a rez or port to help with a cr. They understood. (I also always tipped them after getting my corpse back).
Have you ever done a Plane of Fear raid and entire raid wiped when it was vanilla? If you have, then you will understand what I am talking about. Whew! It wassn't fun but it was sure memorable though. It was a 2-3hr CR. My old guildies and I we all still talk about it now. Brings back a lot of memories.
Katalyzt said:Kilaen said:JDNight said:What then?
Find a necro, buy a coffin and summon the corpse to zoneline. There was always a way, even if it wasn't quite what you wanted. EQ1 made masochists out of us all, almost..
Since Brad confirmed that there will be no such thing as permanent gear loss in Pantheon there will be all the time in the world to get your corpse back. The only reason I like the idea of a super punitive summon corpse option is for people (like me) who work and have kids so they only have a few hours a night to play. Even if I wanted to try and recover my corpse, if my timing doesn't align right with the people I need to help me, I may not be able to play my character in an effort to progress for days on end. Ultimately, depending on the weekend, it could take 5-12 days, in the worst case scenario, until I have a chance to play my geared and capable character again. I'm in the camp for gear dropping on corpses and corpse runs, but I like the idea of an extremely punitive rip cord that can be pulled to make the game playable for people that are stuck. On top of that fail safe, last ditch mechanic being super punitive, I think it should also be on a 72-96 real time refresh. I know this is a really hard area to strike a balance in, so I don’t envy the position of the devs on this one.
Don't forget out rezzes and allowing people to /drag your corpse too.... A total wipe in the depths of a dungeon may take some time, tho.
Dullahan said:Aradune said:I hear you loud and clear. I would add that significant exp loss at death, most of which can be recovered when you return to your corpse, can be pretty compelling as well.
I don't think much, if any, of your experience should be restored by simply returning to your corpse (ala Vanguard). I think that would be a missed opportunity to rely on other players, which was so much of what made EQ an amazing experience. I know it's hard to not succomb to the trends that allow self-sufficiency, but those really were the things that made players appreciate one another and provided the opportunities that ultimately brought people together.
Personally, I think normal resurrection spells should restore around 50%, and anything higher should require reagents.
Rez and dragging corpses creates interdependency.
Ashvaild said: I think a lot of people are exaggerating the amount of time a regular cr would take. You would generally bind in a nearby zone or near east commons and then port to a zone near where you died. I never had cr's that were 8hrs, etc. Not hard to ask for help. People were always more than willing to give a rez or port to help with a cr. They understood. (I also always tipped them after getting my corpse back).
Lol, you just reminded me of a Moto myself (Wizard) and my Druid friend had "Neckid folk fly free"
I love this thread and can't wait to explore dungeons with ya'll in the face of potential CR. I just wanted to comment on one theme running through the anti-CR/CR-lite position here, which is a concern that Pantheon needs to be marketable to gamers with less time to play, or less flexible real lives, or less tolerance for harsh death penalties. For example,
Malzuran said: You need to remember this. When EQ came out, there wasn’t really a good MMO that people played at that time. Maybe UO but it was a distant 2nd. Yuck. From a perspective of trying to market this game to the public and hope that it will capture a big audience, would you want to put all eggs in one basket and say screw it, let’s go back to old EQ style? Is that a smart thing to do? To need to understand, the old EQ still exists. What is the player base? It is profitable? Does anyone wanna play it still? Do you want to sub and play it? Ask yourself these questions.
I couldn't agree more with the sentiments of Dullahan/Nikademis in rejecting the idea that a game needs to be easy, or that death penalties need to be less harsh, to attract a sufficient audience to make this game viable. The risk of loss increases the satisfaction and social value of success, and gamers of all ages who seek to be challenged (and rewarded for intelligent gameplay) will come to understand harsh death penalties as a good thing. Also, as Dullahan and others noted, modern day gamers are generally more skilled than gamers back in the early 2000's, when MMORGPs were in their nascency. Modern day gamers will be attracted to the challenge, they will try the game, and they will subscribe. Build it and they will come. Players who are turned away from Pantheon because of its difficulty and harsh death penalties will be able to find other games to their liking.
As for whether VR needs to relax death penalties and other punitive mechanics to earn money from the game, only time will tell, but I can tell you this: there are not many things for which I'd throw down $1,000, and there are definitely no video games other than PRF for which I'd consider throwing down $1,000, but I have gladly done so for PRF for the chance of playing an MMO that is worthwhile again. The many people (myself included) who have contributed $1,000 or more for the development of this game are a testament to how strongly we believe in the core tenets that have been laid out (including death penalties) and did not do so in order to have it watered down for gamers who want to eliminate all the inconveniences associated with EQ-style gameplay because of their busy real life commitments. We contributed (and many more will contribute and subscribe) because of the promise of challenging gameply, harsh death penalties and the other game tenets make the game thrilling when you wander outside your comfort zone.
Personally, I would support a system that involves substantial experience loss on death (subject to rezzing for experience recovery) and permanent decay loss of items left on an unrecovered corpse after a substantial period of time (e.g., 14 days). I don't understand the strong opposition to potential item loss--the point of playing the game is to have a challenge and thrill in gaming each day, not to amass a bunch of digital icons with stat modifiers, right??
Gnog said:I love this thread and can't wait to explore dungeons with ya'll in the face of potential CR. I just wanted to comment on one theme running through the anti-CR/CR-lite position here, which is a concern that Pantheon needs to be marketable to gamers with less time to play, or less flexible real lives, or less tolerance for harsh death penalties. For example,
Malzuran said: You need to remember this. When EQ came out, there wasn’t really a good MMO that people played at that time. Maybe UO but it was a distant 2nd. Yuck. From a perspective of trying to market this game to the public and hope that it will capture a big audience, would you want to put all eggs in one basket and say screw it, let’s go back to old EQ style? Is that a smart thing to do? To need to understand, the old EQ still exists. What is the player base? It is profitable? Does anyone wanna play it still? Do you want to sub and play it? Ask yourself these questions.
I couldn't agree more with the sentiments of Dullahan/Nikademis in rejecting the idea that a game needs to be easy, or that death penalties need to be less harsh, to attract a sufficient audience to make this game viable. The risk of loss increases the satisfaction and social value of success, and gamers of all ages who seek to be challenged (and rewarded for intelligent gameplay) will come to understand harsh death penalties as a good thing. Also, as Dullahan and others noted, modern day gamers are generally more skilled than gamers back in the early 2000's, when MMORGPs were in their nascency. Modern day gamers will be attracted to the challenge, they will try the game, and they will subscribe. Build it and they will come. Players who are turned away from Pantheon because of its difficulty and harsh death penalties will be able to find other games to their liking.
As for whether VR needs to relax death penalties and other punitive mechanics to earn money from the game, only time will tell, but I can tell you this: there are not many things for which I'd throw down $1,000, and there are definitely no video games other than PRF for which I'd consider throwing down $1,000, but I have gladly done so for PRF for the chance of playing an MMO that is worthwhile again. The many people (myself included) who have contributed $1,000 or more for the development of this game are a testament to how strongly we believe in the core tenets that have been laid out (including death penalties) and did not do so in order to have it watered down for gamers who want to eliminate all the inconveniences associated with EQ-style gameplay because of their busy real life commitments. We contributed (and many more will contribute and subscribe) because of the promise of challenging gameply, harsh death penalties and the other game tenets make the game thrilling when you wander outside your comfort zone.
Personally, I would support a system that involves substantial experience loss on death (subject to rezzing for experience recovery) and permanent decay loss of items left on an unrecovered corpse after a substantial period of time (e.g., 14 days). I don't understand the strong opposition to potential item loss--the point of playing the game is to have a challenge and thrill in gaming each day, not to amass a bunch of digital icons with stat modifiers, right??
Crushed it! In other words, don't bite the hand that feeds you...
Well said @Gnog. Very well articulated. And I don't just say that because I agree with your sentiment.
P.S. You can be in my dungeon group any day ;)
@Gnog
I could almost fully agree with you, except for item loss. Different strokes for different folks I suppose. I guess I would feel differently if this was like some sandbox PvP game with "throw away" inventory and resource system designed around item loss or if it encounters were not contested or all item drops were common instead of rare. But none of that is the case, so with rare items that might have taken months or years to collect on the line, I dont think thats very healthy to be able to lose those items because you could not retrieve your corpse. Thats a bit steep for my taste, might as well make characters meaningless and introduce permadeath while were at it. Fortunately, according to Brad, we wont have to worry about corpse or item loss.
I do think you are right that the ultimate goal should be the fun and adventure and comraderie of it all. But that doesnt mean rewards are worthless or have no meaning to people. Every game I have ever played that had a dungeon or tomb always had a boss and always had loot. I mean I know loot is actually a 4 letter word, but its not a 4 letter word. Nothing wrong with wanting or wanting to protect and keep what took blood sweat and tears to earn right? Why cant it be all of the above? My 5 pillars are challenge, exploration, interdependent group content, comraderie, and loot. Each as important as the next.
All this being said, if you cant recover your corpse after 14 days, something is seriously wrong with you or the game lol. Im thinking coma, or your corpse got stuck in the wall, or a server glitch deleted your corpse (Good luck with that one GM). Otherwise how can you not recover a corpse after 14 days???
Malzuran said:You need to remember this. When EQ came out, there wasn’t really a good MMO that people played at that time. Maybe UO but it was a distant 2nd. Yuck.
EQ also did well against plenty of other MMOs. They were actually bigger when there was more competition than early on when it was just UO and Meridian. By 2003, there were more than half a dozen BIG mmos out (with bigger budgets) with at least half a dozen other smaller ones. They were still crushing it, and in my opinion (its right), they would have crushed it longer had they stuck to the original vision. Compromising is what put them directly against World of Warcraft. They would have lost subs either way, but it would have been far less. Everyone I knew moved to WoW, because by 2004, there really wasn't much difference.
Malzuran said:From a perspective of trying to market this game to the public and hope that it will capture a big audience, would you want to put all eggs in one basket and say screw it, let’s go back to old EQ style? Is that a smart thing to do?
Yes, I think they should. If the options are put their eggs in the casual basket and compete with 5 $200+ million MMOs, then yes their time and money is better spent focusing on being as different as possible. They will utterly fail at trying to be mainstream.
Malzuran said:To need to understand, the old EQ still exists. What is the player base? It is profitable? Does anyone wanna play it still? Do you want to sub and play it? Ask yourself these questions.
No, sorry. The EQ I love does not exist, and has not existed for well over a decade. There is nothing currently available that is even comparable to classic EQ, unless you count an emulator run with two static servers on a shoestring budget with no ongoing development.
Malzuran said:is is a business of developing a game. Ultimately, you want the company grow and be profitable. To completely be just one sided and ignore all else, is it good business strategy you think? If you are to cough up all the money to do this game yourself, would you just make all the decisions one sided decisions?
Yes, one of the best ways in business to create a strong brand is to create a unique product for an untapped niche. That is business 101. Again, the worst thing they could do is throw their hat in the ring with industry powerhouses and hope to do well. It would be financial and business suicide.
Dullahan said:Malzuran said:From a perspective of trying to market this game to the public and hope that it will capture a big audience, would you want to put all eggs in one basket and say screw it, let’s go back to old EQ style? Is that a smart thing to do?
Yes, I think they should. If the options are put their eggs in the casual basket and compete with 5 $200+ million MMOs, then yes their time and money is better spent focusing on being as different as possible. They will utterly fail at trying to be mainstream.
I really don't understand why everything is so black or white with some of you guys, its either completely hardcore or completely watered down, casual, WoW clone based on the comments I read. There is an in between or even something in between that leans more towards hardcore, it does not have to be one way or the other. As I recall the core tenets were never defined as being as hard or harder then EQ1. The game is supposed to be a challenge again and with many comments from Brad clearly stating this is "NOT" EQ1 and he does "NOT" intend to bring in all aspects of EQ1, just the ones that make sense.
Death penalties are great, they encourage people to think before jumping into situation, they help community and can be a great way to include a gold sink as well. But, in early EQ, I had at least a handful of friends that completely stopped playing because of corpse rot, which is a perfect example of something that is not needed and could go the way of softening the blow without removing the penalty of death. A system that (after a perdetermined amount of time) allows one to retrieve their corpse by some other method (i.e. NPC corpse summoning for a fee) is also a great way to stick the idea of death should be feared, without alienating that guy who for whatever reason just can't seem to get back to his corpse.
I guess more of my point is that you can have a death penalty without driving away what is probably a decent percentage of your target demographic for this game. This issue does "NOT" have to be black or white. Remember, the truely hardcore and even more the truely casual are most likely only going to be a small percentage of the target demographic, everyone else falls somewhere in between. That in between percentage is whats going to keep the lights on.