Only thing that worries me about P:RotF is the fact people keep calling for it to be 'challenging' and I know that if they make this game hard, it will crash and burn, people have become so used to easier games that they no longer can handle a challenging game when it pops up from time to time.
The best example was with Wildstar, the game itself was ok, but the dungeons and raids were unforgiving and the amount of people who would fail them was unreal, it got to the point where we would only dungeon run with people we knew could already do them, and would never invite randoms to join us.
TBH I was playing on the Everquest time locked servers (new ones they opened 6 months+ ago) and the amount of people who couldn't handle even them was revealing, I think for to long now people have been coddled with easy games and no longer can handle harder ones.
“Nevertheless, the human brain, which survives by hoping from one second to another, will always endeavor to put off the moment of truth. Moist” ― Terry Pratchett, Making Money
Only thing that worries me about P:RotF is the fact people keep calling for it to be 'challenging' and I know that if they make this game hard, it will crash and burn, people have become so used to easier games that they no longer can handle a challenging game when it pops up from time to time.
The best example was with Wildstar, the game itself was ok, but the dungeons and raids were unforgiving and the amount of people who would fail them was unreal, it got to the point where we would only dungeon run with people we knew could already do them, and would never invite randoms to join us.
TBH I was playing on the Everquest time locked servers (new ones they opened 6 months+ ago) and the amount of people who couldn't handle even them was revealing, I think for to long now people have been coddled with easy games and no longer can handle harder ones.
It's a different topic, but I think the definition of "challenging" is the bottleneck here.
The challenge that I'm referring to is mostly about consequences. Death penalty, level loss, corpse runs etc.
There is a limit to how difficult content can be before people choose to avoid that content. I'm sure most of us have played games where no one beats a specific raid during the time period it was released? It doesn't get beaten by any guild on any server until a later expansion. That is an example of content that is to difficult (though I don't remember any fights in EQ being like that...maybe it has just been to long)
To your point of "it got to the point where we would only dungeon run with people we knew
could already do them, and would never invite randoms to join us."
That is how it always is with challenging games. No one pugs high end group content. I thought that was just a given because that is how it is?
Normally I see Pantheon fans complaining about things potentially being
added to the game like: character customization, housing, or non-1990s
graphics and roll my eyes. However, this time I'm 100% on board with
the OP. The idea of non-combat pets that do things for you has been forever ruined by Asia. Nothing good can come of this.
This seems promising: Brad's quote: "What I do hear loud and clear, and I do take it quite seriously, is that
some people just don't want to deal with the hassle of pets, period.
You want pet-free classes. My hope is that we can make them fun
enough that you'll change your mind. Time will tell. It's good that we
are discussing things things now rather than later "
He is listening. It still seems like they may end up inserting pets into classes who aren't "pet classes" but, they are getting a lot of feedback at least. Hopefully they will decipher all of the responses correctly.
This seems promising: Brad's quote: "What I do hear loud and clear, and I do take it quite seriously, is that
some people just don't want to deal with the hassle of pets, period.
You want pet-free classes. My hope is that we can make them fun
enough that you'll change your mind. Time will tell. It's good that we
are discussing things things now rather than later "
He is listening. It still seems like they may end up inserting pets into classes who aren't "pet classes" but, they are getting a lot of feedback at least. Hopefully they will decipher all of the responses correctly.
He may be listening, but his words "My hope is that we can make them fun enough that you'll change your mind" I agree it sounds like they are going to add them even with most people voicing they do not want non pet classes having these pets.
Vanguard pushed the boundaries as well, and I loved the hell out of it. VG had crafting that was actually a game and not just click and create. They also had fishing that had game, not just click rod click fish collect fish. And the diplomacy game which gave good crafting and adventuring buffs. Trying new stuff can be good.
And before anyone jumps on the usual bandwagon - VG had an awesome design and only failed because the coding wasnt up to the task.
Vanguard pushed the boundaries as well, and I loved the hell out of it. VG had crafting that was actually a game and not just click and create. They also had fishing that had game, not just click rod click fish collect fish. And the diplomacy game which gave good crafting and adventuring buffs. Trying new stuff can be good.
And before anyone jumps on the usual bandwagon - VG had an awesome design and only failed because the coding wasnt up to the task.
Well, it's not like they're pushing some new territory. Every garbage cash grab MMO out of China has a very robust non-combat pet system. In WoW you can even make them fight other people's pets...
I think this is the sort of feature people looking forward to Pantheon generally wanted to get away from.
Yeah, it seems whenever a team tries to recreate a classic feel they just can't help themselves from adding modern game designs which corrupt the original vision.
WAR and ESO are two notable examples, but there are others.
Sticking to the vision seems to be beyond most devs, they just want to keep adding to the games audience by throwing in features that frequently turn away more folks than they gained.
The pet thing is not really new game design, we seen a few variants like TORs companions but the feature seems pretty original in this aplication. I am not sure it is something I want (but then I havn't seen them so I might be wrong) but the thing is that adding new ideas is more or less a must.
What needs to be done is not to just copy older games like EQ and UO (some have tried with less then good result) but to go back to that time and evolve those games in another direction.
More or less all new MMOs have evolved the same way from M59 -> EQ -> Wow and then with a bunch of features from a bunch of newer games (like LOTROs phasing to mention one). Going back to an earlier state, be that M59, EQ or even vanilla Wow and evolve that somewhere different is far easier then start from scratch and have potential.
What is a bad idea is to just copy and paste modern features into an oldstyle game, that would more or less give us a clunkier version of a modern game with slower XP rate.
This seems promising: Brad's quote: "What I do hear loud and clear, and I do take it quite seriously, is that
some people just don't want to deal with the hassle of pets, period.
You want pet-free classes. My hope is that we can make them fun
enough that you'll change your mind. Time will tell. It's good that we
are discussing things things now rather than later "
He is listening. It still seems like they may end up inserting pets into classes who aren't "pet classes" but, they are getting a lot of feedback at least. Hopefully they will decipher all of the responses correctly.
He may be listening, but his words "My hope is that we can make them fun enough that you'll change your mind" I agree it sounds like they are going to add them even with most people voicing they do not want non pet classes having these pets.
The quote that @JemAs666 commented on definitely sounds like a variation of "We hear you. But you're wrong and we're right. So we'll continue as planned." It almost makes me think that the work for the pets for every class is already in place, and it would just be more work for them to remove.
If I end up with another contraption like 'Shiny Bob', I'm going to be severely disappointed.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Ya, also, reading through more posts on the Pantheon forums, some people seem to be responding who have never been the target demographic for this game.
If you want vanity pets your opinion is invalid in this case. This game isn't being advertised toward players like you. There are plenty of other games out there.
I'm afraid there are way to many of "these" giving input.
Between this pet thread and Brad's blog about profitability and accessibility that I brought up here a couple weeks ago for discussion I am very concerned.
I actually said to myself "oh sh__ this is going to fail" when reading through info earlier today.
LegotheHutt said: This just seems like one of those things new games try to do to lure in new players, but it ends up repelling more players than it attracts.
You surely have something to back that up, right...?
It seems like these ‘pets’ everyone is talking about are just
a different flavor of buffs, spells, or armor.
Some of the examples given could be manifested in completely
different ways, it’s just a design choice the Pantheon team is interested
in. For example: the wizard who summons
a familiar to aid with mana regeneration is effectively no different than an
enchanter who has a self-only clarity spell, or a magician who summons a totem.
The only difference is that the wizard has an ethereal bird sitting on his head
instead of a glow-effect from the spell.
To me, this is the same debate as “Appearance Armor Slots”. Bear with me here:
The game provides players with different armors of different
styles
Some of these armors have objectively better stats, even if
the player doesn’t like how they look (which is subjective)
If the player chooses not to wear that armor for any reason (role playing, aesthetics, etc), they are at a
disadvantage
The pets can be seen the same way:
The game provides players with pets that are available to
their classes
Some of the pets provide benefits which give objective
bonuses to the players, even if the player doesn’t want their character to have
a pet
If the player chooses not to have a pet, they are at a
disadvantage.
I’m seeing a lot of the same people who were advocates for ‘No
Appearance Slots’ complain that including pets will force them to ‘wear’
something they don’t want.
They're getting off track, that much is evident in the recent blogs. Leave extras like this for the first expansion or later patches. They need to focus on making the CORE game as perfect as they possibly can. Without that all the fluff in the world won't matter.
Once they have perfected: Combat Progression Zone/Level Design Crafting Trade rules Animations
Then and ONLY then should this kind of thing ever even be considered. It's one thing if there's this bar napkin idea that nobody is devoting time/energy to, but the potential indication is that they might be serious about it.
LegotheHutt said: This just seems like one of those things new games try to do to lure in new players, but it ends up repelling more players than it attracts.
You surely have something to back that up, right...?
That could be any game implementation that ended up turning people off. It wouldn't be added if everyone thought it was a bad idea.
The examples are unlimited. I guess the "more players than it attracts" part is speculation and difficult to define actual numbers in a lot of cases. Was that where your questioning stemmed from? If I had said "repelling many people", instead would that have made it more understandable? Because you are right if that is the case. There is no data for specific numbers available...but I think that is understood and we can all get the point right?
I can list a handful easily enough but that isn't really necessary. I'm not looking for agreements/disagreements on specific examples.
I figure everyone understands that this game has been advertised as targeting a niche player demographic. Having pets for most classes seem to be against what the majority in the target demographic would want.
Maybe it wasn't as self explanatory as I thought originally?
LegotheHutt said:
Was that where your questioning stemmed from?
My point is simple: Your reason to "worry" is solely based on your disagreement, yet having nothing substantial to base your opinion on.
Further more, comments such as:
"Having pets for most classes seem to be against what the majority in the target demographic would want."
is just more walking same erroneous path, you are only projecting your own bias onto others.
If we actually explore the idea of pets a bit more objectively, we will find out there are more than handful of signs that they are fairly popular feature - they are very often to be found in cash shops, there are even games basing their design around them, etc.. So why not?
It seems like these ‘pets’ everyone is talking about are just
a different flavor of buffs, spells, or armor.
Some of the examples given could be manifested in completely
different ways, it’s just a design choice the Pantheon team is interested
in. For example: the wizard who summons
a familiar to aid with mana regeneration is effectively no different than an
enchanter who has a self-only clarity spell, or a magician who summons a totem.
The only difference is that the wizard has an ethereal bird sitting on his head
instead of a glow-effect from the spell.
To me, this is the same debate as “Appearance Armor Slots”. Bear with me here:
The game provides players with different armors of different
styles
Some of these armors have objectively better stats, even if
the player doesn’t like how they look (which is subjective)
If the player chooses not to wear that armor for any reason (role playing, aesthetics, etc), they are at a
disadvantage
The pets can be seen the same way:
The game provides players with pets that are available to
their classes
Some of the pets provide benefits which give objective
bonuses to the players, even if the player doesn’t want their character to have
a pet
If the player chooses not to have a pet, they are at a
disadvantage.
I’m seeing a lot of the same people who were advocates for ‘No
Appearance Slots’ complain that including pets will force them to ‘wear’
something they don’t want.
Yes, the "pets’ everyone is talking about are just
a different flavor of buffs, spells, or armor. " That is completely correct.
That is the issue.
I'll paste my post from a page or 2 back :
"My thing is, many of the game ideas sound good to me. Why does the medium they are presented in have to be pets?
Pets
are notorious for having issues. Pathing issues, controlability
issues, response delay issues, lag issues, visibility issues etc....spacial limitations, screen clutter etc (I added a couple more)
It seems there are better ways to implement these.
LegotheHutt said:
Was that where your questioning stemmed from?
My point is simple: Your reason to "worry" is solely based on your disagreement, yet having nothing substantial to base your opinion on.
Further more, comments such as:
"Having pets for most classes seem to be against what the majority in the target demographic would want."
is just more walking same erroneous path, you are only projecting your own bias onto others.
If we actually explore the idea of pets a bit more objectively, we will find out there are more than handful of signs that they are fairly popular feature - they are very often to be found in cash shops, there are even games basing their design around them, etc.. So why not?
Honestly I think you are misinterpreting where I am coming from.
I had 3.5 years of played time on my mage in EQ. I am a pet person. It is through all of my experience playing pet classes in many multiple games that I have become acutely aware that there are a lot of people who don't like pets.
I have heard all of the pros/cons of pets in games over the last 15ish years. I want to be able to play Pantheon for 10 years or more in the future. I want it to work out. From my experience as a "pet class player" , I see this as something that will turn a lot of people off.
Edit: I can't help but cringe when you bring up cash shops. Again, that is not the targeted demographic in question.
I don't get it. You don't want pets? You want them to explain every little detail about all the pets they are thinking about? Maybe you should want some toys with that happy meal. I think you just want something to complain about honestly. Instead of making a thread like this why not help with suggestions on how pets would be cool. Just because you don't have any good ideas on how it can be fun doesn't mean the devs or other players don't. Here we have another classic example of why new ideas are always shot down and we are stuck with another WOW clone.
I feel like I can't post this on the Pantheon forum. It hits to close to home and there are to many "yes men" over there...though there are "no men" too hah.
Brad made another post recently that really worries me. I discussed something similar a few weeks ago about a different post by Brad.
Maybe it's because when it comes from Brad directly it seems to hold more weight? I never get the same worried feeling when other devs/mods post things about game design. Maybe it's because Brad doesn't explain himself well?...though he can be long winded.
The recent one that worries me is about pets and how they want to have pets for all, or close to all, classes. They wouldn't be all combat pets like many of us are used to. They could be pets that buff or have extra storage etc. The idea was a lot of pets usable situationally in combat or in non-combat.
This just seems like one of those things new games try to do to lure in new players, but it ends up repelling more players than it attracts. Especially because of who Pantheon is targeting as its demographic.
Honestly, between this pet thing, and the whole progeny system, and some past blog posts, I'm starting to think I shouldn't have donated.
Why can't they...as the saying goes...keep it simple stupid?
The niche they are targeting wants a challenging game similar to the first gen mmos. This fluff is a waste of development time that isn't necessary to build the game that is being advertised. It has a very good chance of driving away the people who would normally stick with the game for 5-10 years if they just kept it simple.
I am really tired of seeing these same kinds of posts over the years where people equate flavor/quality of life features with somehow lessening the "challenge" or "their" game. There's a REASON games like Vanguard failed, and why there was a MASS exodus from EQ when WoW and EQ2 launched, it was because the vast majority of us (and I played EQ constantly from launch) left. We were tired of a game that was a second job with nothing else to really show for it.
If you don't like pets fine but don't transfer your personal beliefs on others when they don't impact yours. If pets can be disabled then there's no reason not to have them.
This game will utterly fail if it does not appeal to an audience wider than the "just give me very hard mobs" crowd. Am I saying it needs to be another WoW? No. But it needs to be something between EQ and say EQ2/WoW or others. In order for those of us who want somewhat of a return to the glory days of old to have a game that is lasting... it needs a sustainable market, and that means flavor and the like within the context of the game world and in balance with design goals.
I am fine with all classes having access to some sort of storage pet or maybe like the pet in Torchlight where you can give it items to go sell for you or maybe even bring for you ( say you are in deep in a dungeon and need a basic repair kit to finish off your hunt.. your pet could go get it for you ) etc.
However pets that give buffs or fight should remain with pet classes. IMO.
I am really tired of seeing these same kinds of posts over the years where people equate flavor/quality of life features with somehow lessening the "challenge" or "their" game. There's a REASON games like Vanguard failed, and why there was a MASS exodus from EQ when WoW and EQ2 launched, it was because the vast majority of us (and I played EQ constantly from launch) left. We were tired of a game that was a second job with nothing else to really show for it.
If you don't like pets fine but don't transfer your personal beliefs on others when they don't impact yours. If pets can be disabled then there's no reason not to have them.
This game will utterly fail if it does not appeal to an audience wider than the "just give me very hard mobs" crowd. Am I saying it needs to be another WoW? No. But it needs to be something between EQ and say EQ2/WoW or others. In order for those of us who want somewhat of a return to the glory days of old to have a game that is lasting... it needs a sustainable market, and that means flavor and the like within the context of the game world and in balance with design goals.
I'll break it down because I like friendly discussions. I'm going to
stop referring to the "target demographic" for the game. I'm sure we
all have a basic understanding of who the game is being targeted at. It
seems like I am wasting a lot of time reminding people of that. It
shouldn't be necessary I don't think.
It seems like you read the
original post and based your response on that. (I admit I didn't go
into much detail in the original post...there is a lot that was skimmed
over) so I take some credit for that. There is a multiple page thread
on the Pantheon forum that was nicely linked by JemAs in post 2 of this
thread and a lot more in depth discussion later in this thread as well.
Stevon said: "I am really tired of seeing these same kinds of posts over the years
where people equate flavor/quality of life features with somehow
lessening the "challenge" or "their" game."
Not sure why you got
that idea? Flavor can be great. My point was about pets specifically
and how many people aren't fond of them. This is probably not the
best area to be spending a lot of your time in when we are talking about
a game in development that is a long way off. The bit about a
"challenging game" was just about the type of player that this game is
being targeted at. (I guess I can't get away from explaining the target
demographic ;/ ) It didn't say that pets, or added flavor, would lessen
the challenge. Those two things are usually independent of each other.
Stevon said: "There's a REASON games like Vanguard failed, and why there was a MASS
exodus from EQ when WoW and EQ2 launched, it was because the vast
majority of us (and I played EQ constantly from launch) left. We were
tired of a game that was a second job with nothing else to really show
for it. "
I don't want to turn this into a debate about why VG failed or why EQ didn't last. I
have to say that I have a different view than you mentioned, When I
left EQ I was raiding everyday in PoP/GoD and loving that part of it.
The time wasn't the issue, but I digress. To say " We were
tired of a game that was a second job with nothing else to really show
for it. " , while I understand where you are coming from and there is
truth behind that for a lot of people, I'm sure you realize it is a much
more complicated issue than that. That doesn't really address this
topic.
Stevon said: If you don't like pets fine but don't transfer your personal beliefs on
others when they don't impact yours. If pets can be disabled then
there's no reason not to have them.
I'll quote myself from a few posts up: "I had 3.5 years of played time on my mage in EQ. I am a pet person. It
is through all of my experience playing pet classes in many multiple
games that I have become acutely aware that there are a lot of people
who don't like pets. I have heard all of the pros/cons of pets in games over the last 15ish
years. I want to be able to play Pantheon for 10 years or more in the
future. I want it to work out. From my experience as a "pet class
player" , I see this as something that will turn a lot of people off."
Even
if they can be disabled you will still have to turn them on in groups
so you know what is the most efficient way to play with the rest of your
group depending on what pets others have out (I'm not sure if I
explained that well but I think you get my meaning?) . Having 10-12
physical bodies in a normal 6 person group seems like it could be
streamlined much better from a game design perspective. I don't even want to think about raids.
Stevon said: "This game will utterly fail if it does not appeal to an audience wider
than the "just give me very hard mobs" crowd. Am I saying it needs to
be another WoW? No. But it needs to be something between EQ and say
EQ2/WoW or others. In order for those of us who want somewhat of a
return to the glory days of old to have a game that is lasting... it
needs a sustainable market, and that means flavor and the like within
the context of the game world and in balance with design goals."
Now
we are in 100% agreement. Well said. I just don't think "pets for
everyone" (I'm exaggerating) is the best use of development time as far
as adding flavor.
LegotheHutt said:
Honestly I think you are misinterpreting where I am coming from
Maybe you are formulating your point improperly/inaccurately.
Point could be made that, despite pets being popular feature, is it a smart move to make them fundamental part of the game play, if that is the case?
That is something I would agree with, because it does make some sense. However, that is still technically easy to solve.
"Maybe you are formulating your point improperly/inaccurately."
Given all of the responses that are against the idea of having so many pets, both here and in the Pantheon thread, I think referring to pets as a "popular feature" is misleading to say the least.
...at least in reference to this game and its target audience.
You are probably right that pets are thought of more highly in more recent games over the last multiple years that are geared toward a wider/different demographic. I think that difference is where some of the confusion lies.
This seems promising: Brad's quote: "What I do hear loud and clear, and I do take it quite seriously, is that
some people just don't want to deal with the hassle of pets, period.
You want pet-free classes. My hope is that we can make them fun
enough that you'll change your mind. Time will tell. It's good that we
are discussing things things now rather than later "
He is listening. It still seems like they may end up inserting pets into classes who aren't "pet classes" but, they are getting a lot of feedback at least. Hopefully they will decipher all of the responses correctly.
He may be listening, but his words "My hope is that we can make them fun enough that you'll change your mind" I agree it sounds like they are going to add them even with most people voicing they do not want non pet classes having these pets.
The quote that @JemAs666 commented on definitely sounds like a variation of "We hear you. But you're wrong and we're right. So we'll continue as planned." It almost makes me think that the work for the pets for every class is already in place, and it would just be more work for them to remove.
If I end up with another contraption like 'Shiny Bob', I'm going to be severely disappointed.
You never played EQ, right?
Brad have a "vision" and he isn't someone who backs down from it because the community think he should. And this is both a strenght and a weakness, what the community belives isn't always the best thing. Things are not always the same in theory and as implemented features. Ask Blizz, Titan was awesome in theory but boring once they tried it out.
Comments
The best example was with Wildstar, the game itself was ok, but the dungeons and raids were unforgiving and the amount of people who would fail them was unreal, it got to the point where we would only dungeon run with people we knew could already do them, and would never invite randoms to join us.
TBH I was playing on the Everquest time locked servers (new ones they opened 6 months+ ago) and the amount of people who couldn't handle even them was revealing, I think for to long now people have been coddled with easy games and no longer can handle harder ones.
― Terry Pratchett, Making Money
The challenge that I'm referring to is mostly about consequences. Death penalty, level loss, corpse runs etc.
There is a limit to how difficult content can be before people choose to avoid that content. I'm sure most of us have played games where no one beats a specific raid during the time period it was released? It doesn't get beaten by any guild on any server until a later expansion. That is an example of content that is to difficult (though I don't remember any fights in EQ being like that...maybe it has just been to long)
To your point of "it got to the point where we would only dungeon run with people we knew could already do them, and would never invite randoms to join us."
That is how it always is with challenging games. No one pugs high end group content. I thought that was just a given because that is how it is?
Brad's quote:
"What I do hear loud and clear, and I do take it quite seriously, is that some people just don't want to deal with the hassle of pets, period. You want pet-free classes. My hope is that we can make them fun enough that you'll change your mind. Time will tell. It's good that we are discussing things things now rather than later
He is listening. It still seems like they may end up inserting pets into classes who aren't "pet classes" but, they are getting a lot of feedback at least. Hopefully they will decipher all of the responses correctly.
And before anyone jumps on the usual bandwagon - VG had an awesome design and only failed because the coding wasnt up to the task.
I think this is the sort of feature people looking forward to Pantheon generally wanted to get away from.
What needs to be done is not to just copy older games like EQ and UO (some have tried with less then good result) but to go back to that time and evolve those games in another direction.
More or less all new MMOs have evolved the same way from M59 -> EQ -> Wow and then with a bunch of features from a bunch of newer games (like LOTROs phasing to mention one). Going back to an earlier state, be that M59, EQ or even vanilla Wow and evolve that somewhere different is far easier then start from scratch and have potential.
What is a bad idea is to just copy and paste modern features into an oldstyle game, that would more or less give us a clunkier version of a modern game with slower XP rate.
If I end up with another contraption like 'Shiny Bob', I'm going to be severely disappointed.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
If you want vanity pets your opinion is invalid in this case. This game isn't being advertised toward players like you. There are plenty of other games out there.
I'm afraid there are way to many of "these" giving input.
Between this pet thread and Brad's blog about profitability and accessibility that I brought up here a couple weeks ago for discussion I am very concerned.
I actually said to myself "oh sh__ this is going to fail" when reading through info earlier today.
It seems like these ‘pets’ everyone is talking about are just a different flavor of buffs, spells, or armor.
Some of the examples given could be manifested in completely different ways, it’s just a design choice the Pantheon team is interested in. For example: the wizard who summons a familiar to aid with mana regeneration is effectively no different than an enchanter who has a self-only clarity spell, or a magician who summons a totem. The only difference is that the wizard has an ethereal bird sitting on his head instead of a glow-effect from the spell.
To me, this is the same debate as “Appearance Armor Slots”. Bear with me here:
The pets can be seen the same way:
I’m seeing a lot of the same people who were advocates for ‘No Appearance Slots’ complain that including pets will force them to ‘wear’ something they don’t want.
Once they have perfected:
Combat
Progression
Zone/Level Design
Crafting
Trade rules
Animations
Then and ONLY then should this kind of thing ever even be considered.
It's one thing if there's this bar napkin idea that nobody is devoting time/energy to, but the potential indication is that they might be serious about it.
The examples are unlimited. I guess the "more players than it attracts" part is speculation and difficult to define actual numbers in a lot of cases. Was that where your questioning stemmed from? If I had said "repelling many people", instead would that have made it more understandable? Because you are right if that is the case. There is no data for specific numbers available...but I think that is understood and we can all get the point right?
I can list a handful easily enough but that isn't really necessary. I'm not looking for agreements/disagreements on specific examples.
I figure everyone understands that this game has been advertised as targeting a niche player demographic. Having pets for most classes seem to be against what the majority in the target demographic would want.
Maybe it wasn't as self explanatory as I thought originally?
Further more, comments such as: "Having pets for most classes seem to be against what the majority in the target demographic would want."
is just more walking same erroneous path, you are only projecting your own bias onto others.
If we actually explore the idea of pets a bit more objectively, we will find out there are more than handful of signs that they are fairly popular feature - they are very often to be found in cash shops, there are even games basing their design around them, etc.. So why not?
That is the issue.
I'll paste my post from a page or 2 back :
"My thing is, many of the game ideas sound good to me. Why does the medium they are presented in have to be pets?
Pets are notorious for having issues. Pathing issues, controlability issues, response delay issues, lag issues, visibility issues etc....spacial limitations, screen clutter etc (I added a couple more)
It seems there are better ways to implement these.
Everyone having pets out sounds horrible."
Buffs are just so much more efficient.
I had 3.5 years of played time on my mage in EQ. I am a pet person. It is through all of my experience playing pet classes in many multiple games that I have become acutely aware that there are a lot of people who don't like pets.
I have heard all of the pros/cons of pets in games over the last 15ish years. I want to be able to play Pantheon for 10 years or more in the future. I want it to work out. From my experience as a "pet class player" , I see this as something that will turn a lot of people off.
Edit: I can't help but cringe when you bring up cash shops. Again, that is not the targeted demographic in question.
If you don't like pets fine but don't transfer your personal beliefs on others when they don't impact yours. If pets can be disabled then there's no reason not to have them.
This game will utterly fail if it does not appeal to an audience wider than the "just give me very hard mobs" crowd. Am I saying it needs to be another WoW? No. But it needs to be something between EQ and say EQ2/WoW or others. In order for those of us who want somewhat of a return to the glory days of old to have a game that is lasting... it needs a sustainable market, and that means flavor and the like within the context of the game world and in balance with design goals.
Your post once again proves my point.
Maybe you are formulating your point improperly/inaccurately.
Point could be made that, despite pets being popular feature, is it a smart move to make them fundamental part of the game play, if that is the case?
That is something I would agree with, because it does make some sense. However, that is still technically easy to solve.
However pets that give buffs or fight should remain with pet classes. IMO.
It seems like you read the original post and based your response on that. (I admit I didn't go into much detail in the original post...there is a lot that was skimmed over) so I take some credit for that. There is a multiple page thread on the Pantheon forum that was nicely linked by JemAs in post 2 of this thread and a lot more in depth discussion later in this thread as well.
Stevon said:
"I am really tired of seeing these same kinds of posts over the years where people equate flavor/quality of life features with somehow lessening the "challenge" or "their" game."
Not sure why you got that idea? Flavor can be great. My point was about pets specifically and how many people aren't fond of them.
This is probably not the best area to be spending a lot of your time in when we are talking about a game in development that is a long way off.
The bit about a "challenging game" was just about the type of player that this game is being targeted at. (I guess I can't get away from explaining the target demographic ;/ ) It didn't say that pets, or added flavor, would lessen the challenge. Those two things are usually independent of each other.
Stevon said:
"There's a REASON games like Vanguard failed, and why there was a MASS exodus from EQ when WoW and EQ2 launched, it was because the vast majority of us (and I played EQ constantly from launch) left. We were tired of a game that was a second job with nothing else to really show for it. "
I don't want to turn this into a debate about why VG failed or why EQ didn't last.
I have to say that I have a different view than you mentioned, When I left EQ I was raiding everyday in PoP/GoD and loving that part of it. The time wasn't the issue, but I digress.
To say " We were tired of a game that was a second job with nothing else to really show for it. " , while I understand where you are coming from and there is truth behind that for a lot of people, I'm sure you realize it is a much more complicated issue than that. That doesn't really address this topic.
Stevon said:
If you don't like pets fine but don't transfer your personal beliefs on others when they don't impact yours. If pets can be disabled then there's no reason not to have them.
I'll quote myself from a few posts up:
"I had 3.5 years of played time on my mage in EQ. I am a pet person. It is through all of my experience playing pet classes in many multiple games that I have become acutely aware that there are a lot of people who don't like pets. I have heard all of the pros/cons of pets in games over the last 15ish years. I want to be able to play Pantheon for 10 years or more in the future. I want it to work out. From my experience as a "pet class player" , I see this as something that will turn a lot of people off."
Even if they can be disabled you will still have to turn them on in groups so you know what is the most efficient way to play with the rest of your group depending on what pets others have out (I'm not sure if I explained that well but I think you get my meaning?) . Having 10-12 physical bodies in a normal 6 person group seems like it could be streamlined much better from a game design perspective.
I don't even want to think about raids.
Stevon said:
"This game will utterly fail if it does not appeal to an audience wider than the "just give me very hard mobs" crowd. Am I saying it needs to be another WoW? No. But it needs to be something between EQ and say EQ2/WoW or others. In order for those of us who want somewhat of a return to the glory days of old to have a game that is lasting... it needs a sustainable market, and that means flavor and the like within the context of the game world and in balance with design goals."
Now we are in 100% agreement. Well said. I just don't think "pets for everyone" (I'm exaggerating) is the best use of development time as far as adding flavor.
"Maybe you are formulating your point improperly/inaccurately."
Given all of the responses that are against the idea of having so many pets, both here and in the Pantheon thread, I think referring to pets as a "popular feature" is misleading to say the least.
...at least in reference to this game and its target audience.
You are probably right that pets are thought of more highly in more recent games over the last multiple years that are geared toward a wider/different demographic. I think that difference is where some of the confusion lies.
Brad have a "vision" and he isn't someone who backs down from it because the community think he should. And this is both a strenght and a weakness, what the community belives isn't always the best thing.
Things are not always the same in theory and as implemented features. Ask Blizz, Titan was awesome in theory but boring once they tried it out.