KickStarter Pantheon - (Brad "EQ" McQuaid's new MMO)

[Aenra]

i'd pay a lot more than the standard (and yet arbitrary..) 15 monthly, sure. But the game i would do that for would have had to be one hell of a package
even so, it's a dangerous ground to tread on. Will keep away a lot of people that would have otherwise taken a plunge, even if only out of curiosity's sake. Inversely, optional "extra" packages tend to give a ..dinstinctive.. aroma to online titles, so i could see anyone, myself included scoffing at a dual/triple model;

that's one hard topic. But either way, debatable. Long as reality doesn't hit them hard and they go full F2P mode, pricing model is (currently) the least of my worres. On an ideal level though, yes, a very good>great>greater online game is one i could definitely (have done so already in fact) find me ammenable to paying a lot more for. Emphasis on the magic word though, "ideal"

 

[Xenich]

People play games to unwind and solve some virtual problems. I don't think they're looking for painful or frustrating circumstances even if that can create strong virtual society. The cost is too high. It might fuel a small niche gaming population, but it's a huge risk to base a game on this.

If I'm an investor and see a game like that, I don't invest, unless it's shown these kinds of games actually can attract large audiences. But I doubt that. Wher in "brutal punishment" and "abuse" is the large audience?

EQ had over 100k subs in 2010 (last I can find official data). That was with a game that was 11 years old, had a clunky UI and controls, extremely aged graphics, and a system that was still pretty harsh (ie they hadn't got to dumbing the game down completely yet). Now this was with WoW being out for 5-6 years already and the numerous other MMOs that had come and gone.

Pantheon will have modern graphics/sound, modern UI systems, and game systems that promote rewarding play (ie, it means something when you succeed). While I don't think Pantheon will rock any boats, I think it is reasonable to assume that they can achieve success within the constraints of their goals. Do the math on sub pricing and 50-100k subs. Note that their studio is comprised of a small number of people who will end up pretty much completing most of the game themselves. Also note that they realize they are a smaller studio and that this will mean staged releases of content (ie there will be some things missing at launch).

Now you say "People play games to unwind and solve some virtual problems.", implying "casual" play style (when I use casual here, I am speaking of the modern acceptance of such. ie... an hour here and there, no real depth of play, just entertainment) and I agree, there are people who enjoy playing games in such a manner, after all WoW does have a large following. That said, there are also people who enjoy difficult play, that see progression that has many consequences to poor approach and play as rewarding and enjoyable. They aren't the majority obviously, though they do exist and based on my years of play with many 100s of people in different games over the years, there is a reoccurring theme of desire. That is, those who want such play similar to EQ to return.

So, there is a market and like I said, that market is smaller, but Brad's team understands this and know they aren't competing with mainstream. Because of this, as I have said before, they are willing to accept a certain level of success that other companies would see as a failure. Time will tell, but implying that the game "will" fail because it does not cater to mainstream mentality is I don't think a fair assessment. Remember, not everyone thinks like you. What you call "abuse" and "brutal punishment", many call challenging and consequence based game play, aka risk/reward play.

As for investors... if you seek investment from people looking to fund "mainstream" (which is what you imply with "large audience"), then you will fail. If you however seek investors who believe in the project and are willing to accept returns that are not "get rich fast" schemes that most investors seek today, then it is feasible, especially when you consider they are doing all of this work right now with a limited team and budget. It will take them longer than a traditional lifecycle of development, but keep in mind.. they are paying as they go and not like most companies who are massively in debt on release and praying for a quick return to avoid bankruptcy.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

Remember I'm going on the presumption that, as the article I linked states, "punishment" and "abuse" lend themselves to forming community. The rat hands you your ass and you run crying to the nearest person: community is born. Something like that.

Here:
http://www.gameskinny.com/9ltw7/mmos-are-not-games-where-mmo-s-go-wrong

I like games which're harsh. Is why I'm playing Wurm Online on the Chaos server. Is why I play the games I do. I played Shadowbane. I played Sullon Zek/Zek in EQ. I played hardcore mode in DA2. I've played numerous UO player-run servers in this veign as well. Lots of it full-loot pvp. And yes I may or may not have played on p1999. But they just aren't popular (even without pvp).

My concern is somehow Pantheon will overshoot and not anticipate the lack of interest.

I was also going on the assumption Boogie was right in the interview about EQ being a very social world, unique from others BECAUSE of the downtime and the lack of hand holding which led to grouping (inability to solo.... journeying to freeport with a guide because you don't have a map, risking a long corpse run if you die). Both agreed some amount of downtime incited the social world (through conversations while resting/running). It's just not every day you hear this from a game designer or game maker.

Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45XrbsBt34c

I mostly am agreeing with them. What I worry about is a lot of others don't. If these things Brad and Boogie were talking about are taken seriously by Brad and Brad actually tries to inject some downtime and forced grouping into Pantheon (through things like lack of hand holding) then it's possible the money doesn't come in, if Brad doesn't realize these things are unpopular.

I see the same enthusiasm in PvP MMORPGs running up through the development cycle and finally to launch. Players and developers are like "It's going to be great!" Then when the game comes around, reality hits, painfully so. BAM, like that!!!! Somehow the formerly excited players slowly quit. And the expected new players never materialize. It's a goddamn shame.

I'll believe Pantheon can get thousands to play when it happens. Right now I don't believe it. There're certainly thousands of players who play similar games or want something similar. The problem is getting them to stop playing the games they're playing presently to switch over to Pantheon. It's a terrible prospect to deal with such a small audience whom're already somewhat entrenched in other games. I'm sure many will try Pantheon if it manages to reach a launch date, but how many will stay?

It's too much risk. I just don't see him doing it.

I'll say it whether you like it or not Xenich. Brad isn't dumb. He knows these things he talked about with Boogie aren't popular. He knows people don't trust him in the industry. He knows gamers make jokes about him. He let his knowledge be known to me when he gently tried to tell Boogie "Not as harsh, bro, but it'll be there." I think Brad is going to pull back in the last year (or two) of the development cycle. He's going to try to make the game more accessible. Why? Because he knows he's fighting a dragon too powerful. This is a fight for someone else, someone younger. Brad has a family. A daughter. He doesn't want to let her down. He needs the money. He needs the success. Doesn't want another failure. It's a battle.

For his sake, I hope it plays more like WoW in 2005 than EQ in 1999. I'll play it no matter what they do, though.

 

[Xenich]

Time will tell.

I don't want a "WoW of 2005". That WoW wasn't all that amazing of a game. It was a linear theme park ride.

I would rather him stick to his guns and fail than attend to mainstream. Lets be honest, another WoW 2005 is going to fail right out of the gate. Just like every other WoW clone. I won't play the shit, won't even bother with it. Either he sticks to EQ/Vanguard, or he has already lost me as a customer. The people who want WoW like will rush in, bitch, whine, shit on the game and move on, just like they did in every other game out there. Keep in mind, your argument... been made over and over, and over, and over with every MMO release. The result? FTP garbage that nobody gives a shit about.

It is either as Brad has planned, or there is no point. Pack up shop, who gives a fuck.

 

[KevinV12000]

Xenich, I could not agree more. I remember on the Vanguard forums before its launch we heard the same things, especially regarding the "need" for PvP and "class balance." Eventually, the continual barrage of comments from people who ulitimately had no interest in a Vanguard-type MMO ended up winning, as they nearly always do. This resulted in a massive re-working, just before it was shown to the Microsoft backers, who of course then wisely pulled out. People forget this about Vanguard's development, focusing on Brad and other personal stories that eventually came out of Sigil, but I remember the slow disaster as it unfolded, and it was the DEMAND for PvP that killed it.

I will never, have never, understood why PvP enthusiasts don't just play PvP games, console or otherwise, and leave the rest of us alone. They're like Justin Timberlake fans showing up at a jazz concert and demanding the latest pop tune. GO SEE JUSTIN DOUCHEBAGS, LEAVE MY JAZZ ALONE.

I would pay 25 or even 35 a month for a game that was devoted to the EQ/Vanguard style and, just like a nice nightclub cover change, the sub fee keeps out the kids and the riff-raff. If Brad sticks to his guns and this company delivers an EVE-business-model MMO that appeals to computer gamers (i.e. not video gamers), I think it will not only be viable but lucrative. Making a clear statement that PvP and avoiding the resulting never-ending circle jerk over "class balance," artificially imposed on a game model by the need for each class to be able to battle each other class in some console epeen contest, would go a long way to beginning to attract those paying customers.

 

[Xenich]

Yep, I have seen this over and over before. It is always the "If you don't cater to mainstream, your game will fail!" which results in them attempting to half ass please mainstream which pisses off the initial core audience. That core audience leaves the game in disgust and shortly after, that mainstream audience they catered to gets bored and moves on as well leaving a half eaten carcass of a game that attends to none. Every game since WoW has been a clone, an attempt to capture the "convenience" crowd and every game that attempts this be it partially or fully has failed. So, what have they got to lose? If they make a mainstream game... it will fail, if they make a half assed mainstream game... it will fail. It seems to me that what has not been tried is making a game that is true to these older principals of play, that is to the level of quality to which EQ and Vanguard were for their time.

So, considering they are going to fail regardless, why bother with attending to mainstream at all?

 

[Aenra]

I will never, have never, understood why PvP enthusiasts don't just play PvP games, console or otherwise, and leave the rest of us alone

ooh, i could tell you... but even here, i would get banned for my use of language while doing so...

 

[KevinV12000]

So...it *is* you! I knew it!

 

[Aenra]

So...it *is* you! I knew it!

wot

 

[Kane]

People forget this about Vanguard's development, focusing on Brad and other personal stories that eventually came out of Sigil, but I remember the slow disaster as it unfolded, and it was the DEMAND for PvP that killed it.

vanguard failed because it is shit

 

[Norfleet]

Making a clear statement that PvP and avoiding the resulting never-ending circle jerk over "class balance," artificially imposed on a game model by the need for each class to be able to battle each other class in some console epeen contest, would go a long way to beginning to attract those paying customers.

"Class Balance" as commonly screamed about isn't a necessity of PvP, either. That's ARENA balance, which enforces that each class be somehow directly viable against, and thus essentially a reskinned copy of, every other class. It doesn't have to be that way. You put a light cruiser against a battleship, you wind up as scrap pretty much every time. Doesn't mean light cruisers have no reason to exist in a PvP game and that light cruisers must therefore be made into a separate-but-equal battleship.

The same applies to PvE. It's probably actually easier to create totally fucked class balance in PvE, in fact. In PvP, classes don't have to directly balance against each other, they just have to all be useful in ways that will sink your force if you don't have the correct set of functionalities. In PvE, you have much harder problem. First, every class must somehow be independently viable, or else it is impossible for anyone to pass chunks of solo content. This enforces a lot of functionality overlap. Then, you need to somehow create a system where every class is equally USEFUL. Otherwise you end up with STO's situation of DPS Online, where only one class, played by more than half the population is really necessary to beat any PvE content and every other class is basically a hindrance to the only metric that matters in PvE, completion time (And yet strangely, these unbalanced classes find that they're needed in PvP: Because class balance in PvE is actually HARDER to do right than PvP).

The situation, of course, only worsens when the developers have a pet class. If you have a game in which the devs all preferentially are favoring playing one class, THAT class is going to wind up the favored child of the game. Watch out for that.

 

[Xenich]

First, every class must somehow be independently viable, or else it is impossible for anyone to pass chunks of solo content. This enforces a lot of functionality overlap.

This is a more modern design philosophy. EQ didn't design classes to be able to solo, they designed them to "bring" something to the group. Soloing in EQ was often due to emergent game play and the fact that a class could solo or not was irrelevant to EQ's focus.

Then, you need to somehow create a system where every class is equally USEFUL.

This one was a complaint by some, but it wasn't often because a class wasn't useful, rather it was due to some players being "dense". My friend played a druid, I played a monk and many times we took on roles (him the main healer, me the main tank, in group content that is) that we were claimed "incapable" of doing because we understood the limitations and function of our class. A druid didn't have the complete heal during that time, they had lesser heals and regen heals (heals over time). A monk was not a AC based mitigation tank, rather an avoidance tank. This made them very unreliable in the consistency of damage they took. The healer had to pay attention to spikes, learn the rhythm of damage flow. A cleric had a much harder time healing a monk because their heal, while complete was very slow casting. A druid on the other hand had a much faster cast direct heal, though not as powerful as a cleric. The druids timing of the direct heal with the combination of a regen heal allowed them to heal me as a main tank for group situations.

 

[Xenich]

Was just reading about another topic on the Pantheon site: Trivial Loot Code.

This one I hate. This is also one of those things where I was actually for it until I was able to fully experience it in various games over the years. After that, I despise it and think it takes away a lot of the joy of development progression. There are many reasons someone would go back to older content, but a common one is that due to EQs rare drop system, you sometimes were unable to get that item before you leveled out of the range of exp for that area. So, you would go back on your own and camp the area by yourself and eventually get the item. I remember doing this in SoL A on my monk to get the Lava Pendant. It was a long camp, but well worth it for an item that was major for a monk (ie its weight was very low, it it had a nice str boost, save for fire AND AC) and it was something I used for a long time before it was replaced.

With a TLC system, I would have been out of luck. EQ had drop-able items and no TLC for years and there was no real problem. People complain about a higher level camping a spawn, taking up what a group of level could do? Sure, this happened a bit, but I saw more positives from it than negatives to be honest. Often if the class had buffs, or special spells (rez or the like), they would buff people in the dungeon and rez them if they came by. In many cases, the player would say they were just looking for a specific item and the other players could run by and loot whatever else there was. I saw this on Test all the time, but I also saw it on the production server I played on as well.

Now the concern people have is "abuse", but here is the thing. EQ was an extremely social reliant game. That is, if you were an ass, unskilled, confrontational, etc... you didn't get groups and you didn't get raids, which... meant you were relegated to playing a class solo and doing lots of boring solo farming (if you could even solo at all). The moral of the story? Don't piss off people in a group dependent game, it will be "game over" for you. I saw many people end up quitting EQ because they made the blacklist for poor behavior (ie training constantly, loot stealing, incompetent, camp griefing, etc...). The community can handle things so much better than ignorant mechanics that punish everyone regardless of their intention.

 

[Xenich]

People forget this about Vanguard's development, focusing on Brad and other personal stories that eventually came out of Sigil, but I remember the slow disaster as it unfolded, and it was the DEMAND for PvP that killed it.

vanguard failed because it is shit

Vanguard was pushed out far too early because Microsoft switched teams on Brad who was promised full creative control and given a specific timeline to completion. That new team demanded mainstream features and when Brad did not comply, they pulled funding forcing Brad to release it early to cover costs. Obviously the game was in bad shape on release and Brad, in order to save the game decided to sell it off to SoE. SoE didn't want the game to compete with EQ2 and so it was left to flail about for years until they tried to mainstream it with FTP which eventually killed it.

The release was shit, the bugs were defintely shit, but if you think the game play, the system design, the world systems, etc... were shit? That would be a pretty stupid comment to make.

 

[Norfleet]

Was just reading about another topic on the Pantheon site: Trivial Loot Code.

What do you mean by this? Personally, my favored loot system is the "Cold Dead Hands" system where you simply get whatever was actually on your victim's corpse, no more, no less. This is mostly the simulationist in me, though. There's certainly something to be said for the entire "monsters randomly may or may not drop random things that have nothing to do with them and shouldn't rightly be there" system, but it's definitely more newfangled than the traditional "cold dead hands" system.

 

[Xenich]

Was just reading about another topic on the Pantheon site: Trivial Loot Code.

What do you mean by this? Personally, my favored loot system is the "Cold Dead Hands" system where you simply get whatever was actually on your victim's corpse, no more, no less. This is mostly the simulationist in me, though. There's certainly something to be said for the entire "monsters randomly may or may not drop random things that have nothing to do with them and shouldn't rightly be there" system, but it's definitely more newfangled than the traditional "cold dead hands" system.

The TLC system was implemented by various MMOs tp penalize players who were outside of the level range of the given target. The idea was that if the target was lets say level 10, and the range to which that mob stopped giving exp was 14, then it would also not drop any rewards it may have if you were 15+.

In EQ, there were rare named mobs that dropped special loot relevant to that mob. The idea of TLC was that people could only gain that loot if they were in the given level range. EQ applied this in some raid mobs such as Lady Vox and Nagafen by putting in code that would expel the player outside of the zone on engage. In EQ2, they put in code that made these named mobs drop nothing if they were outside of that level range.

 

[Norfleet]

I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of such an act would be other than trolling, especially if you can't NOT level since they've taken away the tools normally used to prevent levelling, like suiciding to incur XP loss. Then again, they've usually made low-level items not worth having...but then, why?

 

[Aenra]

Trivial Loot Code

I don't always follow the tech jargon, is this the system preventing mobs from dropping -any- loot past a certain level threshold?
Please tell me that's not it.. no one could be so fucking stupid as to implement it. It only has purpose in seriouzzz PvP games. But in Pantheon?

 

[Norfleet]

That would only make sense as an anti-newbie-bashing measure in PvP, yes. But these are mobs, that randomly drop things. They don't have inventories.

 

[Aenra]

For someone posting so much in the MMO subforum, your comment is found a touch lacking

Barring low level looting has nothing to do with unmotivating people from PKing lower levels. At all. It has everything to do with PvP games' economy structure and underlying systems, but this being about Pantheon, i will not open such a discussion here.
As stated just above, this is a bad measure to take for any strict themepark. No matter the reasoning behind it, and reasoning there can be. One aspect of it related directly to monetisation and crafting mode implementation. The rest being related to sheer dumbfuckery

 

[Norfleet]

Barring low level looting has nothing to do with unmotivating people from PKing lower levels. At all.

Well, obviously, noobslayers mostly just do it for the lulz.

It has everything to do with PvP games' economy structure and underlying systems, but this being about Pantheon, i will not open such a discussion here.

I'm not really following, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Why would you wish to forbid players from going back and collecting low-level tchotchkies of dubious utility, given the nature of such games to make low-level items worthless?

 

[Xenich]

I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of such an act would be other than trolling, especially if you can't NOT level since they've taken away the tools normally used to prevent levelling, like suiciding to incur XP loss. Then again, they've usually made low-level items not worth having...but then, why?

Not sure why, some argue it as a means to avoid high levels farming the spots 24/7 or players farming to make money for the AH, making it near impossible for a group of the proper level to even attempt the camp as a group requires effort and time to get into a certain location while a high level can run right through without issues. Even so, I don't remember this being a huge issue. EQ was highly socially dependent, so if you were an ass screwing over the players, it usually ended in you never finding a group. I think a lot of the player poor behavior was taken care of by the players and no "special rule" to save players from themselves was needed.

EQ only did it for major raid bosses and only as a tester for the two I mentioned. I never saw them do it again on later bosses. My guess as to why they did it on the two dragons (vox and naggy) was because that was one of the first real "raid" mobs of EQ and that is where people needed to learn how to play. So, having a single player rush in and kill them easily solo essentially put the mob on perma-camp with no chance for a raid to attempt them (like I said, it took a while to organize the raid). One of the reason people went back there too was because they both dropped very useful items that were helpful regardless of level.

 

[Xenich]

Trivial Loot Code

I don't always follow the tech jargon, is this the system preventing mobs from dropping -any- loot past a certain level threshold?
Please tell me that's not it.. no one could be so fucking stupid as to implement it. It only has purpose in seriouzzz PvP games. But in Pantheon?

That is it, but don't worry, it isn't being implemented, this is just something that was brought up randomly on the forums for discussion.

 

[Xenich]

I'm not really following, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Why would you wish to forbid players from going back and collecting low-level tchotchkies of dubious utility, given the nature of such games to make low-level items worthless?

Let me just say I do not approve of this, but here are some possible reasons why:

Possible reason 1:

EQ dungeon runs aren't easy events. It takes a tad bit of time and skill to maneuver through some dungeons, especially to the end bosses deep in. A higher level player often will have no agro of mobs, so they can run through the dungeon surgically killing off the place holder spawns of all the named areas without contest and extremely quickly. What would take a group a couple of hours to circle an entire dungeon of named areas can be done in minutes by a high level player, essentially allowing them to take all the spawns without contest or effort. That is, a single player then can camp an entire dungeon. This presents a problem for the group of the dungeons level as they now have to compete with someone who they are unqualified by any means to do so.

Possible reason 2:

EQs loot system is comprised of a list of rare loots. There is usually 1-2 common items and the rest are all small percentage chance items that can drop ONLY off that named mob. That is, each named mob had its own loot table. Those rares were very rare and you could spend weeks camping a mob and never see it drop. As the previous example, forming a group to get in and camp for such a mob took a tad bit of time to setup (depending on the group), but the more important fact is that it took a "group" to do these camps. So, you were filling in a camp with 6 people. A higher level player can do this by themselves (with little to no risk or effort). Add in the fact that these items are extremely rare and such a drop can provide quite a boost to income when sold and this was a prime spot for farmers and the like essentially making the group content inaccessible for people who are appropriately level. Imagine an entire dungeon filled with solo campers farming rare drops to be sold on the market. It can be a problem, though to be honest while I did see it from time to time, It was never to the level of needing TLC put in as the mobs spawned every 30 mins so someone eventually got what they were looking for. Only the latest content for the most sought after items had the issue of camping for cash, so farming for days to get a rare drop in an older content dungeon was less efficient than grouping (or cleverly figuring out how to solo it) for the latest item to sell on the market.

I am sure there are more, but like I said, I never saw this as a real problem on EQ. Maybe with the Vox/Naggy raids, but that was because those mobs were on a 7 day timer, so it was really frustrating to try and get 50 people together, clear to the boss, get ready to buff and setup only to find a guy ran past you and solo'd it in a few minutes. So, I can understand why they would put level restrictions on raid bosses at times, though I think there are better ways to deal with such.

In the end, I find that social issues (ie griefing, harassment, etc...) are better solved by the community. Now that requires the game to be group dependent and focused. This way, people are required to have good social standing or they run into major problems. Having nobody willing to group with you in a group dependent game has a way of running off the majority of those types.

That said, TLC is a terrible implementation. It is a nanny approach the penalizes everyone for the actions of a few. If the community can not manage itself, then people should stick to playing solo games. Putting in all of these restrictions and gimmicks to try and force people to behave themselves is stupid. You let the community deal with it and if that doesn't work, you have a GM step in and deal with it.

 

[Aenra]

short version, because if you are really interested, you can find everything you need with a bit of googleing:

- PvP games:
.Good because economy must be not be influenced by the possibility of higher levels doing "safe" farmings of low level mats. Goes beyond personal gains (farm safely, auction, profit by purchasing gear, upgrades, etc) and affects inflation, which before you say it, is nothing like a themepark's inflation, no.
.Good because when/if crafting important, and PKs always being a possibility, it encourages grouped play, as many lowbies in same farm zone, much angst in the forums, not much done ingame.
.Good because it allows for metrics to have a depth. Segmented data, per level, item, tier

- PvE games:
.Bad because it can mean incoming monetisation, if not already considered. Players overlevel a mob/area, still need something from it, we focus on them needing it as we plan to 'offer' it through ""other"" ways in the course of their gameplay. This is a good way to plan in advance for an eventual F2P conversion when reality checks need be signed.
.Doubly bad because even if the above does not stand?
.It disencourages friends helping you out. No insentive to farm together. Only worth it for "end game stuff, don't bother man, you'll outlevel it anyway" "why don't you buy it" "do you really need that?" "we get bonus XP if grouped, will outlevel it faster if together"
.It disencourages you being a completionist the good ole hard way, namely by working for it. A wonder to some even today. Makes you prefer buying it from another. That creeping in of the ADHD syndrome.
.It breaks immersion, presents the game as non-organic. I will level, i won't make it, i should stop. Maybe i should kill myself, lose some XP. Let me check my XP again. Let me calculate how many more mobs before i'm out of luck.
.Allows for a very early AH/marketplace prices fuckup, as "smart" lowbies will sell junk at high prices. If unchecked, you got an economy down the drain. Dangerous if not planned for. And Brad snorts his economy. He does not plan it.
.Doubly bad since, precisely due to the above, devs must also be fucking stupid to even dare consider it publicly