Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
If it launches: The incremental changes I expect to see.
Hawkaya399
Member RarePosts: 620
(I originally wrote this in response to another poster in another thread. But since it's off topic, decided to make my own thread. This is about what I foresee occurring in Pantheon in the months and years after it launches.)
Original post below:
Every company shifts into a state of desperation after they start seeing a fall in new subscriptions, and eventually a fall in overall subscriptions. It seems to be human nature. Instead of trying to innovate or reinvent or refortify, they fallback to what's possibly the easiest countermeasure to survive: copy.
In those days, I was excited about Vanguard. I had been following it since about 2005 or 2006 when news first started emerging. It had a more sandbox orientation with its housing system and player ships--things I welcomed because I always loved UO too. At the time, I didn't have a computer up to specs for Vanguard, but I did watch it like a hawk. AFter several months it was obvious they were falling into the same pattern. They had experienced a steep dropoff in subscriptions and interest. Business interests took over. I also remember feeling unhappy when they removed that equipment expertise thing. It was just another example of them downsizing--or watering down--the game. Later they added the tutorial island up to level 10 and that's like hte most popular trick in the book when a company has lost all hope. It's bottom of the barrel desperation. Everquest did it with the Mines of Gloomingdeep. At that point, I had lost all hope in Vanguard. I'd lost all hope in MMORPGs. It wasn't until I played Wurm Online in 2012 that I regained it and had an unbelievable run.
Of course, Wurm Online is also getting desperate. They started out much more indie than Vanguard, so they've weathered the years better. Yet every game maker is susceptible to the forces of nature, and bit by bit Wurm Online is losing its soul in the same manner as eveyr other MMO that's ever existed.
The instinctive urge to make things easier and more accessible for newer players WHEN things become scary financially is something every game maker has to be more cautious about. They want to save their own skins in a roundabout way, and that's understandable. However, don't forget the affect this will have on hte soul of the game. Ultimately, it seems every game maker fails at this. Eventually the game is a shell of its original self. Some people think this is good, but we don't all agree on that. One of the primary drivers seems to be financial. For example, Project 1999 recaptures much of the original Everquest, but it's not commercial in nature. It doesn't require payment. It's a work of love. Perhaps this is a lesson to any and all future game makers.
I don't believe ALL intentions to make a game easier or more accessible are attempts to survive. Sometimes it's just the changing moods or beliefs of a game maker. I think it can be as simple as just playing a different game for a while and then wanting to implement those things into their own game. This can have good and bad results, but I think usually they have to first check with the business people.
Everything changes, generally. I understand sometimes it's good to change something. I'm not posting here to oppose all change. Just a word of warning.
Original post below:
They did what--almost unanimously--every MMORPG company does, and that's copied what seemed to be working for others and applied it in their own game. This is something has always been going on. One example I'll offer was Anarchy Online when they created the Shadowlands expansion. They weren't trying to copy WoW because WoW didn't exist yet. No, they were trying to copy.... (wait).... (wait).... EVERQUEST. Believe it or not, but they actually had instances pre-Shadowlands. At that time, instances weren't yet mainstream. Shadowlands reduced the instances and focused on overland encounters and EQ-like mechanics.Dullahan said:svann said:Dullahan said:You are assuming that the only issue with Vanguard was coding, which it definitely was not. There were mistakes from a design perspective.svann said:Dullahan said:Succeeding a game that wasn't successful is not the wisest business model.Well, any game that comes out now would literally have to "succeed" Vanguard since it comes out later.succeed: to follow after anotherBut seriously, no one is or has ever suggested that Pantheon use Vanguard's failed coding. So really whats your point? Strawman much?Can you be more specific about what parts of the game design you think was a mistake?They had good classes, good xp system that balanced questing and sandbox, crafting that wasnt just a combine button but actually had tactics, diplomacy, group harvesting, multiple separate starting areas, factions, races that made enough of a difference that it was a real choice without making one race the only choice, player built houses and boats you could sail anywhere you wanted.The only actual game design flaw I can think of was that bards were too powerful, but then that might have just been me.No, the reason people left was definitely the flawed coding. People loved the game design.Bugs were responsible for most people leaving early on, yes, but there were still many like myself on high end systems who left for other reasons.I've discussed the issues I felt most responsible ad naseum here over the years. Very briefly, it was the the lack of risk versus reward. It was the fact that death had little to no consequence. The world was too accommodating, and the rewards were numerous and forgettable until late game.This philosophy washed over into every aspect of the game. Ultimately they normalized the prestige that players sought and which kept them logging in. The respect a virtual world like EQ demanded - pushing the player to be cautious, to be efficient, to be sociable - were all scaled back leaving a much less compelling experience. At least in my opinion.
Every company shifts into a state of desperation after they start seeing a fall in new subscriptions, and eventually a fall in overall subscriptions. It seems to be human nature. Instead of trying to innovate or reinvent or refortify, they fallback to what's possibly the easiest countermeasure to survive: copy.
In those days, I was excited about Vanguard. I had been following it since about 2005 or 2006 when news first started emerging. It had a more sandbox orientation with its housing system and player ships--things I welcomed because I always loved UO too. At the time, I didn't have a computer up to specs for Vanguard, but I did watch it like a hawk. AFter several months it was obvious they were falling into the same pattern. They had experienced a steep dropoff in subscriptions and interest. Business interests took over. I also remember feeling unhappy when they removed that equipment expertise thing. It was just another example of them downsizing--or watering down--the game. Later they added the tutorial island up to level 10 and that's like hte most popular trick in the book when a company has lost all hope. It's bottom of the barrel desperation. Everquest did it with the Mines of Gloomingdeep. At that point, I had lost all hope in Vanguard. I'd lost all hope in MMORPGs. It wasn't until I played Wurm Online in 2012 that I regained it and had an unbelievable run.
Of course, Wurm Online is also getting desperate. They started out much more indie than Vanguard, so they've weathered the years better. Yet every game maker is susceptible to the forces of nature, and bit by bit Wurm Online is losing its soul in the same manner as eveyr other MMO that's ever existed.
The instinctive urge to make things easier and more accessible for newer players WHEN things become scary financially is something every game maker has to be more cautious about. They want to save their own skins in a roundabout way, and that's understandable. However, don't forget the affect this will have on hte soul of the game. Ultimately, it seems every game maker fails at this. Eventually the game is a shell of its original self. Some people think this is good, but we don't all agree on that. One of the primary drivers seems to be financial. For example, Project 1999 recaptures much of the original Everquest, but it's not commercial in nature. It doesn't require payment. It's a work of love. Perhaps this is a lesson to any and all future game makers.
I don't believe ALL intentions to make a game easier or more accessible are attempts to survive. Sometimes it's just the changing moods or beliefs of a game maker. I think it can be as simple as just playing a different game for a while and then wanting to implement those things into their own game. This can have good and bad results, but I think usually they have to first check with the business people.
Everything changes, generally. I understand sometimes it's good to change something. I'm not posting here to oppose all change. Just a word of warning.
Comments
Changes i foresee are:
Eventual mix of open overland raids and raid instances (probably popular overall)
A dilution to the death penalty (mixed response, too weak more disappointed than happy)
They are the two most obvious contentious issues even amongst rabid fans
However it doesn't have to be that way:
World of Warcraft was the exception (sorry, this gets people mad)
1) It was a quality game and bugs were fixed fast or at least fast enough.
2) It was a large game from the start.
3) It was a complete game with an ending even on release. Sure stuff were added like Battle grounds and raids but they were un-expected enhancements.
4) Vanilla was large enough to not require expansions for the first few years. (6 starting areas and two factions).
5) No greed at least in the first few years, They turned it into quality and enhanced the experience. Unlike EQ2, they never fixed anything just pumped out expansions.
Get mad that I used WoW as an example all you want, its how to be successful from start to finish.
The key to not fail is a FULL SIZE, QUALITY RELEASE, players demand this. NO buts !
You might be right, but do you think SOE exists in isolation? EQ2 was changing all throughout its life in the same manner. What, you don't think the game developers at SOE never played WoW? EQ2 fell below expectations. Comparatively, EQ1 remained high in subscribers. They got desperate for sure. EQ2 never stopped trying to make itself easier and more accessible--like every other MMO--in an attempt to survive financially.
Get this. EQ2 released just weeks before WoW. They saw some moderate success, but below what they wanted. Then WoW releases a couple weeks later. In a matter of a few short months it has a million subscribers. EQ2 never exceed 350k subs in tis life. In fact, it only sligthly exceed EQ1 subs in 2007 when it had 200k. It has followed EQ1 since then with a gradual decline. By Q2 2005 WoW has 3.5 million. Can you even for a moment imagine hte pain SOE business heads are feeling when they see the unimaginable success WoW is experiencing? Ooh, the hit to their pride! And you don't htink they became slightly depserate? You don't think this had anyting to do with the changes EQ2 underwent? These changes, like in almost every other MMO, are why so many EQ2 players later wanted classic or progression servers.
SOE is a company like every other company.
If your game is failing and your playerbase is dwindling away, then obviously what you were doing wasn't working well enough to continue with, and changes must happen.
Will that alter or sometimes even destroy your vision/soul of your project? It's pretty likely.
But, do you attempt to save the game by copying success, or just watch it die?
The ability to suddenly "innovate or reinvent or refortify" costs money, and more(?) importantly, time. When you are in financial desperation mode and your game is fading away, both of those are luxuries that you probably cannot afford.
No one likes seeing a game they love getting a complete foundational makeover, but most of the time, when that happens, it's the last card in their hand.
It's a lot easier to photo-scan a book than to write a new one from scratch. Sometimes it is better to save a bastard copy of a book than to have nothing to read.
Anarchy Online wasn't dead when it made Shadowlands, but it was concerned both with the popularity of EVerquest and its own future. Maybe me using the word desperate is too strong. A more appropriate word might be uneasy. Peer pressure acts teh same way. Popularity is a strong pressure. Almost as much as money.
But, let's be honest, the majority of games change from their original core and vision over time regardless of peer pressure or success.
I think fixing what isn't broken is an even bigger danger than trying to copy.
Developers, by default, want to change and evolve things, try out new systems, etc.
Any type of change is really a double-edged sword. When developers are actually trying to innovate and do their own thing, this irks and drives away just as many customers as trying to adapt ideas from another game.
The fundamental problem is that people don't like change. Games like EQ and WoW weren't trying to copy anyone with some of their massive system changes, back then. They were just trying to evolve their worlds and experiences. They also drove away many customers with those changes(Cataclsym, PoP, etc.)
New staff, newer tech, new ideas, etc., lead dev teams to want to make changes. I don't think there's really any way to avoid a game changing from its roots.
A lot of times, big changes were things that the developers wanted from the start, but were just unable to get into the game due to time constraints, generational tech limitations, etc.
I've never seen an MMO where things aren't constantly changing in major ways. I don't think there's a dev team out there who thinks their game shouldn't change and adapt to their constantly evolving vision, although, I'm sure some of them regret the changes they made afterwards.
So, do you regularly change things along the way, prior to financial issues?
If you don't, then your game stagnates and people leave anyway.
Sure, you can say that all these throwback servers like P99 and TLP, etc., show that some people really like things to stay the same forever, but that's a pretty small minority.
TL:DR -- At any rate, I think my point is that MMOs are going to change, fundamentally, regardless of financial issues. An MMO, by its very nature, simply cannot maintain the status quo. It just doesn't work, nor would any creative developer ever want it to do so. I'm not saying games have to go full NGE, but no MMO will resemble its early self 5+ years down the road.
I dont fault SOE for trying to make changes to increase popularity, i blame them for choosing to focus on the wrong things. There is a reason for them having a poor rep and its because time and again they have chosen poorly.