Fights need to last long enough to be able to manipulate the fights, even on trash mobs.
I miss the Vanilla days of second generation mmo's like EQ2 Vanguard and WoW.
I miss stuns, roots, sap, knock backs, freezing and self healing on mobs that you thought would be a sure loose......I love long fights and lot's of abilities
This. And also the looking for aggro's. One of the fun things in EQ was LISTENING. If you hear that "step step" you better look around. Aggro mangement is missing in many modern MMO's, at least in the easier content.
Btw I played a ranger in EQ1. So I had lots of spells to play with. In all the years I played EQ, I always preferred hybrids or caster for the extra abilities.
The key is DIFFERENT abilities, not just incremental abilities. And another key is CONSEQUENCES. Without them, none of this matters. And in many modern MMORPGs the consequences are reduced to almost nothign.
Lastly the abilities like Kick and Backstab in EQ1 were redundant. You ended up clicking them repeatedly. I like how these things were made automatic in the newer Eq. HOWEVER, these abilities might still have uses outside of automatic combat, for example backstab can be used to start a fight while in sneak mode.
I was reading Shroud of the Avatar review which in my view is pretty spot on (By the way congratulations on the reviewer, finally someone who makes real reviews instead of free advertisement). But I was more amused by the many user comments claiming that Old School concept is now outdated taking SotA as the obvious example.
Well, whoever thinks that SotA is what Old School is all about didn't understand what Old School games means to many of us (Certainly Richard Garriot didn't have a clue). Old School is a play-style where hard challenges, time invested and social interaction ALL matter, it is not just about the "Old Feel".
Pantheon should not make the same mistakes some Old School games like SotA are making, we don't want a carbon copy of 1998 games, we want a modern interpretation of older MMOs with a fresh twist. A good start for Pantheon is the choice of not having an In-game Shop, which is the only modern feature an Old School game should do without. Apart from that I believe Pantheon should enbrace many of modern features that make playng a MMO less tedious. In particular they should focus on two elements:
1) The UI Seriously, I don't understand why developers keep ignoring this fundamental feature, getting the UI right can make or break a game. All I can say is that the reason why I don't play EQ today is because I can't handle the cumbersome and clunky UI. Same reason why I could never get into FFIX. Put it simple, I want to fight Mobs, I don't want to spend my time fighting with the UI to get the most simple thing done. I noticed that Pantheon UI looks almost the same as the original EQ UI. I suggest Visionary Realms to update the UI to something more modern, something more Plug 'n Play, when I play I want to forget the UI is there.
2) Combat I am a fan of Slow Combat which is what Pantheon is aiming for, so far so good. But Slow Combat doesn't have to be boring and repetitive. I always want to be on the edge of my seat when I fight a mob, I don't want to be on autopilot, combat should be engaging and reactive, it should be about using the right skill at the right time. Taking EQ, EQ2 and Vanilla WoW as a blueprint it's a good start but I believe we should not stop there, why not adding some Action Combat in the mix, at least for Melee Classes? Of course I don't want to turn Pantheon into a mindless click fest, maybe just limit Action Skills for special Combos to use once in a while to spice up the Combat (something like Black Desert or AoC combos would be great). I also believe that VR should not understimate the importance of good Combat Animation, the visuals alone could make the Combat look more exciting.
These are so many areas Old School games can improve without betraying the Old School concept, such as crafting, economy, social features. I am not asking VR to reinvent the wheel, I still want a strong EQ feel. I just hope that they are not stuck in the 1998 and make full use of modern technology and features to revive a play-style that really never evolved since 2004.
What you want is irrelevant. What was sold to fans who paid for it, was an updating of classic EQ1 with a different story. Thats what they got their money to develop, and that's the game they're looking to deliver. Its no different than what happened with Elite: Dangerous. The dude who made that was like.. i'd like to remake this with updated graphics, and then extend it. So he ran a kickstarter, got the fans to pay for it.. and he did. And it had all the drudgery of the original to begin with before branching out.
If you don't like this style of game, move along.. nothing to see here for you.
The UI of EQ, otherwise known as The Placeholder UI, is setup so it can be modded. Few people play under the default UI, same as WoW. I assume they kept a lot of that the same. Most people will swap it for something they like, and hell.. the old skins will probably work with some quick updating. So why sweat the UI when fans will make better?
Per Combat, EQ-style gameplay derives its 'edge of the seat' to when you have close quarters with the possibility of pathers and adds. And given they're going back to spawning AT BIND, possibly without gear, along with actually losing XP, of which you only get a portion back on a rezz. If you screw up, its going to hurt. So that, in turn, can generate 'edge of your seat' feelings, particularly if in a very dangerous area. I'd suggest thinking back to Howling Stones, being deep in OS, or a Plane of Fear break, but you clearly never played for very long. Early Everquest-style danger is foreign to people who never played it(or only played the current game) and have had all the sharp edges filed off in current games(including EQ1). Just getting to a camp without killing yourself or others could be an adventure. Simply zoning in to a dungeon could be an excellent way to die.
The simple fact is that the fans who laid down the money, wanted a new game with a classic EQ1-style gameplay and feel. Thats what they're getting. Hopefully they also include Quality of Life upgrades so they don't ACTUALLY replicate everything about the original game, like the Gang Warfare style Crips vs Bloods PVP Endgame Raiding of the classic era.
as an old time player i seen UI evolve from the drag to anywhere on screen UO to EQ style to WoW and beyond. If anything has certainly gone right with mmorpg its how UI evolved so doubt any newer mmorpg will ever go backwards on UI
They even have a carbon copy spell book...
With limited spell slots...
I mean... at this point.. Brad had to have made a deal with SOE for some of the UI artwork and code from EQ1. Or simply took it with him on the way out the door, after the short stint in 2013. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the combat system actually utilizes EQ1 code with some tweaks.
its hard to take an implication that Richard Garriot doesnt understand old school and given the patterns of Web Forums to see the thread go nowhere good.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Innovation is overrated. Looking at MMOs today, I see they've innovated themselves into a pit so deep, no AAA company wants to touch the genre. That's because in the name of innovation, they have done away with many things that made MMORPGs worth playing.
Pantheon may be like EQ in a lot of ways, because those key areas are the things that made MMORPGs more enjoyable for a great many people. That doesn't mean there isn't room to build on top of that. Calling it a clone is to completely ignore the things they've shown us about climates and environments, dynamic encounters, colored mana, the perception system ... oh and the fact that melee have more than 1 combat ability.
I would agree and disagree with this sentiment here. Innovation can be good within reason of the core gameplay and the core philosophy of what makes a true MMORPG. One can argue what those core values are for the design, but I welcome innovation as long as it promotes, challenge, community, variety and immersion. Those are the elements that are being lost with current titles in the industry.
Innovation is overrated. Looking at MMOs today, I see they've innovated themselves into a pit so deep, no AAA company wants to touch the genre. That's because in the name of innovation, they have done away with many things that made MMORPGs worth playing.
Pantheon may be like EQ in a lot of ways, because those key areas are the things that made MMORPGs more enjoyable for a great many people. That doesn't mean there isn't room to build on top of that. Calling it a clone is to completely ignore the things they've shown us about climates and environments, dynamic encounters, colored mana, the perception system ... oh and the fact that melee have more than 1 combat ability.
I would agree and disagree with this sentiment here. Innovation can be good within reason of the core gameplay and the core philosophy of what makes a true MMORPG. One can argue what those core values are for the design, but I welcome innovation as long as it promotes, challenge, community, variety and immersion. Those are the elements that are being lost with current titles in the industry.
Then we're in agreement. Unfortunately most innovation introduced to mmos have done anything but promote variety, immersion or community. In fact, they've undermined those aspects as much as possible.
Innovation is overrated. Looking at MMOs today, I see they've innovated themselves into a pit so deep, no AAA company wants to touch the genre. That's because in the name of innovation, they have done away with many things that made MMORPGs worth playing.
Pantheon may be like EQ in a lot of ways, because those key areas are the things that made MMORPGs more enjoyable for a great many people. That doesn't mean there isn't room to build on top of that. Calling it a clone is to completely ignore the things they've shown us about climates and environments, dynamic encounters, colored mana, the perception system ... oh and the fact that melee have more than 1 combat ability.
I would agree and disagree with this sentiment here. Innovation can be good within reason of the core gameplay and the core philosophy of what makes a true MMORPG. One can argue what those core values are for the design, but I welcome innovation as long as it promotes, challenge, community, variety and immersion. Those are the elements that are being lost with current titles in the industry.
Then we're in agreement. Unfortunately most innovation introduced to mmos have done anything but promote variety, immersion or community. In fact, they've undermined those aspects as much as possible.
I'm actually on the other side of the equation; MMORPG games are stuck in a repetitive rut because they haven't tried hard enough to push the envelope. We're subjected to experiences and conventions we've seen time and time again. Sure, there have been some failures where innovation has gone wrong. But in general, there haven't been enough developers willing to take the risk of doing something innovative.
What was the last new game feature that changed the way we think of games, something that has become copied in every game that followed? Sadly, the only things I can think of are aspects outside the game experience -- funding, promotion, marketing, etc. The games we play are still a conglomeration of combat and crafting systems.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Innovation is overrated. Looking at MMOs today, I see they've innovated themselves into a pit so deep, no AAA company wants to touch the genre. That's because in the name of innovation, they have done away with many things that made MMORPGs worth playing.
Pantheon may be like EQ in a lot of ways, because those key areas are the things that made MMORPGs more enjoyable for a great many people. That doesn't mean there isn't room to build on top of that. Calling it a clone is to completely ignore the things they've shown us about climates and environments, dynamic encounters, colored mana, the perception system ... oh and the fact that melee have more than 1 combat ability.
I would agree and disagree with this sentiment here. Innovation can be good within reason of the core gameplay and the core philosophy of what makes a true MMORPG. One can argue what those core values are for the design, but I welcome innovation as long as it promotes, challenge, community, variety and immersion. Those are the elements that are being lost with current titles in the industry.
Then we're in agreement. Unfortunately most innovation introduced to mmos have done anything but promote variety, immersion or community. In fact, they've undermined those aspects as much as possible.
I'm actually on the other side of the equation; MMORPG games are stuck in a repetitive rut because they haven't tried hard enough to push the envelope. We're subjected to experiences and conventions we've seen time and time again. Sure, there have been some failures where innovation has gone wrong. But in general, there haven't been enough developers willing to take the risk of doing something innovative.
What was the last new game feature that changed the way we think of games, something that has become copied in every game that followed? Sadly, the only things I can think of are aspects outside the game experience -- funding, promotion, marketing, etc. The games we play are still a conglomeration of combat and crafting systems.
Well that is a little vague, and of course it will be highly subjective what areas are in need of innovation.
I personally am not that concerned about the details beyond keeping mmos highly cooperative and immersive (without convenience).
I don't think the problem plaguing mmos today is related to a lack of innovation at all. We have had plenty of new ideas injected into the genre. The problem is that they've shifted massively multiplayer games more towards massively single player games, and with that came a lacking sense of accomplishment and easier gameplay in general. I think if they fix that aspect, mmos will become successful again; regardless of how much or little innovation they have.
I think the UI should be designed with the ideal of smoothing user input to allow more game in the game. That is, it shouldnt play the game for you, but it also shouldnt make it difficult to interact.
An example of making things too easy would be the multibind in modern everquest. People frequently use the same bind key for several actions then just spam that one key. That sucks. I dont want to mash 1 button over and over multiple times a second, I want to choose what ability to hit based on circumstance. But for raiders it is the recommended setup because it loses the least amount of time between actions.
One of the problems with saying "old school should not equal archaic mechanics and UI" is that of audience. Archaic versus what? Pantheon exists because some people are seeking something different from the current offerings. So using "modern MMO's" as a catch all comparison can fail. Modern can mean different things.
I think it's best to consider things intimately connected to technical specifications. For example, classic Everquest used autoattack. But it wasn't designed that way in isolation. In those days, typing was very common to communicate. Typing requires time. Autoattack enabled you to attack AND communicate seamlessly. In today's MMO's, the increasing use of voice chat enables combat systems to be much more responsive and manual in their operations. You can be hitting keys for dodge or strike whilst communicating simply by talking into your microphone.
Another example might be the mass adoption of widescreen monitors. Because of the wider aspect ratio, it means game designers might typically utilize the extra horitizonal pixels with horizontal elements. This conserves vertical space. They might put commonly used UI in the center so up-close users aren't tempted to look widely too frequently.
Another is increasing use of gamepads and console/PC releases. This might impact how a UI is designed, since the goal is to make a UI more crossplatofrm and able to run with a single code base. And yet another to add to this list are portables. They're definitely impacting website design.
I think things like death penalty or inventory weight or respeccing mechanics are more problematic since it's not as strongly bound to technical aspects. Anytime these're in the same sentence as "archaic mechanics" I think it's asking for trouble. While it might be obviously unpopular, It's also more subjective.
For example, I can argue a high resolution picture of the Andromeda galaxy makes a low resolution picture archaic by contrast. Or a underexposed picture with faint features might also be described as archaic. But what if only the galaxy is different? Is one more archaic than another? It starts to depend on who you ask.
I'm not writing off game design as though it can't be relied on. I just think some of this is subjective and arguments will never end because people are different. They can like different things. Game design attempts to identify common elements between gamers, adn to this extent it has been largely successful, but it still falls short. Even after decades of identifying the commonalities, we're still not there.
Maybe a better way to approach this whole topic of what's archaic and what isn't is asking after almost 20 years what can we all agree SHOULD get better? This might produce a relatively short list but it'd be unanimous and reliable.
Another is increasing use of gamepads and console/PC releases. This might impact how a UI is designed, since the goal is to make a UI more crossplatofrm and able to run with a single code base. And yet another to add to this list are portables. They're definitely impacting website design.
I have yet to play an MMO with a UI designed for gamepads that I did not uninstall within a week.
If I wanted console-style gaming, I would buy a console.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
its hard to take an implication that Richard Garriot doesnt understand old school and given the patterns of Web Forums to see the thread go nowhere good.
It's not that hard, you just need to look at SotA.
By the way where did you get that quote? The original quote is this one where I actually explain why Richard Garriot doesn't have a clue.
as an old time player i seen UI evolve from the drag to anywhere on screen UO to EQ style to WoW and beyond. If anything has certainly gone right with mmorpg its how UI evolved so doubt any newer mmorpg will ever go backwards on UI
Ask Richard Garriot, he would like to disagree on that. And that's
also the reason why I started this thread, I found it unsettling that a
"modern" game like SotA has such an atrocious UI simply copy/pasted from
a 1999 game all in the name of "Old School". Well, I am an Old Schooler but that's not what I ask from an Old School game. I
just hope Brad and Co don't do the same mistake, we like Old School
concepts we don't want a copy/paste of an older game with better
graphics. All I am saying is, don't understimate the UI like many devs seems to do.
I don't know how did you get that link in my quote, unless you took it from another thread i which case.....why?
I dont have the slighest idea what you want. Yes obviously I dont want to fight the UI instead of the mobs. But whats this all about ?
It means that I don't want to spend more time fiddling with the UI than playing the game itself, if you played Darkfall for example, you will know exactly what I mean. We had to create Macros just to overcome the shitty UI which was actively hindering combat, switching between weapons for example was a challenge on itself.
That makes no sense. The UI is the tool for playing the game. To play the game, you have to learn to use the UI, no matter what.
Yeah, you definitely didn't get my point. It's not about the learning but the time and extra effort (unnecessary clicking) it takes to perform single actions which make playing the game frustrating.
To be clear, personally I don't care how the UI looks, but how easy and accesible is.
Easy and accessible is important if I want to play a game only for a short time. I am planning on playing Pantheon over years.
Thus the main attributes I would be looking for in the Pantheon UI would be powerful, allows quick reactions to new situations, allows to avoid unnecessary delays.
Now that doesn't make sense, what 'powerful' exactly means? And why powerful cannot be also accessible and intuitive? I never said I wanted a 'weak' UI by the way, so I don't understand what's your point.
Comments
Btw I played a ranger in EQ1. So I had lots of spells to play with. In all the years I played EQ, I always preferred hybrids or caster for the extra abilities.
The key is DIFFERENT abilities, not just incremental abilities. And another key is CONSEQUENCES. Without them, none of this matters. And in many modern MMORPGs the consequences are reduced to almost nothign.
Lastly the abilities like Kick and Backstab in EQ1 were redundant. You ended up clicking them repeatedly. I like how these things were made automatic in the newer Eq. HOWEVER, these abilities might still have uses outside of automatic combat, for example backstab can be used to start a fight while in sneak mode.
If you don't like this style of game, move along.. nothing to see here for you.
The UI of EQ, otherwise known as The Placeholder UI, is setup so it can be modded. Few people play under the default UI, same as WoW. I assume they kept a lot of that the same. Most people will swap it for something they like, and hell.. the old skins will probably work with some quick updating. So why sweat the UI when fans will make better?
Per Combat, EQ-style gameplay derives its 'edge of the seat' to when you have close quarters with the possibility of pathers and adds. And given they're going back to spawning AT BIND, possibly without gear, along with actually losing XP, of which you only get a portion back on a rezz. If you screw up, its going to hurt. So that, in turn, can generate 'edge of your seat' feelings, particularly if in a very dangerous area. I'd suggest thinking back to Howling Stones, being deep in OS, or a Plane of Fear break, but you clearly never played for very long. Early Everquest-style danger is foreign to people who never played it(or only played the current game) and have had all the sharp edges filed off in current games(including EQ1). Just getting to a camp without killing yourself or others could be an adventure. Simply zoning in to a dungeon could be an excellent way to die.
The simple fact is that the fans who laid down the money, wanted a new game with a classic EQ1-style gameplay and feel. Thats what they're getting. Hopefully they also include Quality of Life upgrades so they don't ACTUALLY replicate everything about the original game, like the Gang Warfare style Crips vs Bloods PVP Endgame Raiding of the classic era.
Seriously.. that part can stay dead.
With limited spell slots...
I mean... at this point.. Brad had to have made a deal with SOE for some of the UI artwork and code from EQ1. Or simply took it with him on the way out the door, after the short stint in 2013. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the combat system actually utilizes EQ1 code with some tweaks.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
More like.... 'LOADING, PLEASE WAIT...'
Sometimes you didn't even have the opportunity to see the call. Ahh yes.. those were the days.
Or a roamer mob at dungeon or zone entrance.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
What was the last new game feature that changed the way we think of games, something that has become copied in every game that followed? Sadly, the only things I can think of are aspects outside the game experience -- funding, promotion, marketing, etc. The games we play are still a conglomeration of combat and crafting systems.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I personally am not that concerned about the details beyond keeping mmos highly cooperative and immersive (without convenience).
I don't think the problem plaguing mmos today is related to a lack of innovation at all. We have had plenty of new ideas injected into the genre. The problem is that they've shifted massively multiplayer games more towards massively single player games, and with that came a lacking sense of accomplishment and easier gameplay in general. I think if they fix that aspect, mmos will become successful again; regardless of how much or little innovation they have.
An example of making things too easy would be the multibind in modern everquest. People frequently use the same bind key for several actions then just spam that one key. That sucks. I dont want to mash 1 button over and over multiple times a second, I want to choose what ability to hit based on circumstance. But for raiders it is the recommended setup because it loses the least amount of time between actions.
I think it's best to consider things intimately connected to technical specifications. For example, classic Everquest used autoattack. But it wasn't designed that way in isolation. In those days, typing was very common to communicate. Typing requires time. Autoattack enabled you to attack AND communicate seamlessly. In today's MMO's, the increasing use of voice chat enables combat systems to be much more responsive and manual in their operations. You can be hitting keys for dodge or strike whilst communicating simply by talking into your microphone.
Another example might be the mass adoption of widescreen monitors. Because of the wider aspect ratio, it means game designers might typically utilize the extra horitizonal pixels with horizontal elements. This conserves vertical space. They might put commonly used UI in the center so up-close users aren't tempted to look widely too frequently.
Another is increasing use of gamepads and console/PC releases. This might impact how a UI is designed, since the goal is to make a UI more crossplatofrm and able to run with a single code base. And yet another to add to this list are portables. They're definitely impacting website design.
I think things like death penalty or inventory weight or respeccing mechanics are more problematic since it's not as strongly bound to technical aspects. Anytime these're in the same sentence as "archaic mechanics" I think it's asking for trouble. While it might be obviously unpopular, It's also more subjective.
For example, I can argue a high resolution picture of the Andromeda galaxy makes a low resolution picture archaic by contrast. Or a underexposed picture with faint features might also be described as archaic. But what if only the galaxy is different? Is one more archaic than another? It starts to depend on who you ask.
I'm not writing off game design as though it can't be relied on. I just think some of this is subjective and arguments will never end because people are different. They can like different things. Game design attempts to identify common elements between gamers, adn to this extent it has been largely successful, but it still falls short. Even after decades of identifying the commonalities, we're still not there.
Maybe a better way to approach this whole topic of what's archaic and what isn't is asking after almost 20 years what can we all agree SHOULD get better? This might produce a relatively short list but it'd be unanimous and reliable.
I have yet to play an MMO with a UI designed for gamepads that I did not uninstall within a week.
If I wanted console-style gaming, I would buy a console.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
By the way where did you get that quote?
The original quote is this one where I actually explain why Richard Garriot doesn't have a clue.
I don't know how did you get that link in my quote, unless you took it from another thread i which case.....why?
We had to create Macros just to overcome the shitty UI which was actively hindering combat, switching between weapons for example was a challenge on itself.
Yeah, you definitely didn't get my point.
It's not about the learning but the time and extra effort (unnecessary clicking) it takes to perform single actions which make playing the game frustrating.
Now that doesn't make sense, what 'powerful' exactly means?
And why powerful cannot be also accessible and intuitive?
I never said I wanted a 'weak' UI by the way, so I don't understand what's your point.
I had no issues with the Vanguard interface, there I prefer the interface from EQ.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin