^ No it isn't
Anyways, just because it was in EQ doesn't mean it is good, but I did like a lot of things about EQ. So, it's quite cute that you guys are soo dismissive and yet call us that. Hypocrites at their finest.
Fast travel is a very hot debate and one that shouldn't be boiled down to shallow smearing because people liked how EQ did it. If that is the case, then you can't reference any game either. You have to come up with an original idea on traveling, can't use boats or griffons, or walking or running because all the other games have done that already. And liking things from other games is wrong, especially if it is from the dreaded EQ game. (sarcasm)
You don't have to take that personally and get all worked up. In the case that was being talked about, fast travel had been stated to constitute developers having "failed". That was backed with the time it should take longer than (10 minutes). Druid/wiz ports are faster than that so should logically be included in that fail state, no?
If I'm considered part of the "soo dismissive" "you guys" then I'm not sure where I've called whatever number of people "us" constitutes "soo dismissive". I still think that many people (as I stated in hyperbole) just want things that were in EQ for the reason that they were in EQ, though. Ports, gates, etc with no cooldown for example; how are those not considered easy mode?
>So, it's quite cute that you guys are soo dismissive and yet call us that. Hypocrites at their finest.<
Take another look - I said that my guess was the person I was quoting liked the idea for reasons *other* than it having been in EQ. I even wound up *agreeing* with what I quoted so I could hardly have been looking for reasons to attack it and vilify the person I was quoting. I usually won't even do that when I disagree I certainly don't do it when I agree.
At the risk of repeating something for the third or fourth or 10th time - none of us feels that a feature is bad because it was in EQ. None of us objects to someone recommending a feature that was in EQ. Almost all of us feel that EQ was a wonderful game for its time and Pantheon will be all the better for emulating it in many ways. Almost all of us feel that while a feature may not be automatically good because it was in EQ, EQ worked very very well and a feature in it is more likely to be good than bad.
What you have seen, and are sensitive about, is the comment that is frequently made along the lines of "a feature is not automatically worth having just because it was in EQ. Saying that a feature was in EQ is not, in and of itself, a compelling reason to put the feature in Pantheon. It is additionally necessary to conclude that the feature works well and supports the objectives of Pantheon." Which I am sure you agree with. The comment is not always made with care and sensitivity. Sometimes someone objecting to a feature shortens it to "this is not EQ". But the longer and totally unobjectionable version I just gave is normally what is meant.
I am not worked up, it's just funny seeing people talk about how everyone wants an EQ, which as been stated several hundred times throughout the forums that that isn't the case, but is still said. Then right after that those same people say I liked this mechanic from this game etc. That's all I am pointing out. Just because you like an element in a certain game doesn't mean you want to clone the game.
Gates and ports aren't easy mode because everyone can't do them. You need to socially interact and get people to do them. That's one thing. Also, the way they have been talking about setting it up seems like you are forced to travel in the beginning of the game anyways. No ports or gates until later levels. Btw how are griffons not easy mode either? You could do them right from the start once you discovered the place. In EQ you had to wait until your 30s before you were able to port other people. Not what I would call...easy mode. Also, ports in EQ weren't always convienent. Still had some runs where you ran 10 mins, like from Surefall to Permafrost. So if the game world is designed well it won't be easy mode. Easy mode is when everyone can do everything. Take clarity. If you have clarity in your group you are 10x more efficient and kill mobs way more frequently than if you didn't. In fact, I would argue that clarity in a group saves you way more time than a port to w/e location you want to go to in means of downtime a group endures with no clarity. Soo should everyone have clarity then? No.
dorotea said:>So, it's quite cute that you guys are soo dismissive and yet call us that. Hypocrites at their finest.<
Take another look - I said that my guess was the person I was quoting liked the idea for reasons *other* than it having been in EQ. I even wound up *agreeing* with what I quoted so I could hardly have been looking for reasons to attack it and vilify the person I was quoting. I usually won't even do that when I disagree I certainly don't do it when I agree.
At the risk of repeating something for the third or fourth or 10th time - none of us feels that a feature is bad because it was in EQ. None of us objects to someone recommending a feature that was in EQ. Almost all of us feel that EQ was a wonderful game for its time and Pantheon will be all the better for emulating it in many ways. Almost all of us feel that while a feature may not be automatically good because it was in EQ, EQ worked very very well and a feature in it is more likely to be good than bad.
What you have seen, and are sensitive about, is the comment that is frequently made along the lines of "a feature is not automatically worth having just because it was in EQ. Saying that a feature was in EQ is not, in and of itself, a compelling reason to put the feature in Pantheon. It is additionally necessary to conclude that the feature works well and supports the objectives of Pantheon." Which I am sure you agree with. The comment is not always made with care and sensitivity. Sometimes someone objecting to a feature shortens it to "this is not EQ". But the longer and totally unobjectionable version I just gave is normally what is meant.
I am one of the last people that gets sensistive about topics. I might be passionate though. Typing just looks much worse rather than saying it. In fact, I was more or less just laughing at the hypocrisy that I see from the other side that shames people when they like the traveling in EQ then recommends another game and wants that type of travel, and of course there are other examples with different mechanics involved.
No one has shamed anyone, you're drawing paranoid conclusions.
Also, I don't have a problem with ports/gates, the fact that they're instant and has no cooldown is just an example of where EQ was more convenient than some other games. Its true you need to be a certain level and/or interact with others (which in itself isn't a hard thing to do). For the person gating, though, it sure isn't a hard thing to do if you happen to be a class that can do that. And yes, flight taxis are easy just like ports but don't require player interaction (that's a con) but do preserve a sense of scale for the world (which is a pro). Best case scenario would be something which'd be a combination I guess... Maybe druids could turn you into a crow and you'd be on a flight path to the druid rings or something. Maybe wizards could put you on a cloud.
Anyway I'm looking forward to being on a boat instead of levitating above one and then randomly falling through it and getting killed by aqua goblins :P
Ruar -- please ignore anybody telling you that you don't belong here. Hopefully you'll give Pantheon a chance and make a decision for yourself after you've had an opportunity to experience the actual game. Pantheon isn't going to be all things to all people but if you found it in you to pledge for this game in any capacity then there is obviously enough interest there to warrant a deeper look.