EQ may have been more rigid, but those other games encouraged the multiplayer aspect far more than modern games. In fact, it was pretty foolish to try to play most first gen games alone, even if it was technically possible.
You are riding that technicality pretty hard.
I played UO much more solo than in a group. As a matter of fact I very rarely played in a group greater than 2. Sure I interacted with plenty of folks to buy things etc, but I can honestly say that 60% or MORE of the time I was out on my own, farming or skilling up something.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Most of the time when players claim a game is too easy. I ask them if they tried to do anything difficult. Pantheon looks like all other games before release. Really nice and shiny but everyone wonders how it will turn out. If you are going to make a group only game then you obviously need to make sure people can easily find groups. You will literally have to throw grouping in their face otherwise they won't understand that after the third death and looking at the really harsh death penalties. You are trying to combine two things that mmo players just don't like. Harsh death penalties and very hard to kill npc's. I've died literally 20 times trying to do a GW2 dungeon. Developers figured out long time ago that when they make things too difficult to access and too difficult to complete then the content will just sit there and no one will enjoy it. So that dungeon you worked on for 400 hours gets 1 group of visitors a month. So much wasted content because the difficulty vs rewards isn't worth the hassle.
You keep saying "the genre has been redefined" - by whom?
There are still plenty of games today where players are interacting and doing things together. My guild has been together with the same core group since eq1 back in 1999.
Nothing had changed for us.
There were players back than that soloed, there were players that grouped - same is true 15 years later.
If you dont get it then it just proves to me that developers just dont get it. Your just one of many that think the norm today is just fine. Sure people soloed back then, but that was only a few classes could do it well. Even then, the solo classes only really shined when teamed and even then, solo classes needed to team at some point to get content done so they could really progress. So in the end, all classes forced people to team and in the end made communities that were stronger. People knew their rolls teamed and speced their classes to make sure they passed the bar needed to team.
Most of todays games design classes to be many flavors of DPS. Every class can solo from 1 to top level. There is nothing driving players together so most gamers never take part of the community. They never spec their classes for teaming as all they needed to think about was the solo side of things. They get to end game and presented with a new game. Where teaming is needed and their class and play style is not geared to teaming.
Sure there are pockets of gamers like your self who have been playing together since 1999 but thats mostly because you have already been trained to think that way. Games now cater to the solo mind set and thats the problem.
"Redefined" yes thats right, this game is a rebirth of going back to the roots of what made MMOs great. Communities built on teaming. Where from low level people are encouraged to team because of how the content is made and the classes design. When people get to end game in this game. People will know their rolls in a team and have friends they made on the way because the game did hand hold them to top level. Rather it forced them to stop and talk to people to make teams. Sad you dont get that.
Most of the time when players claim a game is too easy. I ask them if they tried to do anything difficult. Pantheon looks like all other games before release. Really nice and shiny but everyone wonders how it will turn out. If you are going to make a group only game then you obviously need to make sure people can easily find groups. You will literally have to throw grouping in their face otherwise they won't understand that after the third death and looking at the really harsh death penalties. You are trying to combine two things that mmo players just don't like. Harsh death penalties and very hard to kill npc's. I've died literally 20 times trying to do a GW2 dungeon. Developers figured out long time ago that when they make things too difficult to access and too difficult to complete then the content will just sit there and no one will enjoy it. So that dungeon you worked on for 400 hours gets 1 group of visitors a month. So much wasted content because the difficulty vs rewards isn't worth the hassle.
This was always a tricky one,
One thing that always get me mad is chain quest leading up to group content. Chain quest are only good for telling a particular story. FF14 comes to mind with its 250 part chain quest story line. You end up playing the entire game solo. NO CHAIN QUEST, because who is on what part ?
As far as what your asking, one good solution is to make well known that a group dungeon is near by in a zone or a close by town ( I'm sure they can get creative with this ).
Important;
The best solution is a very extravagant built in message board for each character. Listing group related content by level and nature of what needs to be accomplished. Here you can also advertise for others to join you.......not to be confused with an auto group dungeon finder, but a posting board for all to see
Most of the time when players claim a game is too easy. I ask them if they tried to do anything difficult. Pantheon looks like all other games before release. Really nice and shiny but everyone wonders how it will turn out. If you are going to make a group only game then you obviously need to make sure people can easily find groups. You will literally have to throw grouping in their face otherwise they won't understand that after the third death and looking at the really harsh death penalties. You are trying to combine two things that mmo players just don't like. Harsh death penalties and very hard to kill npc's. I've died literally 20 times trying to do a GW2 dungeon. Developers figured out long time ago that when they make things too difficult to access and too difficult to complete then the content will just sit there and no one will enjoy it. So that dungeon you worked on for 400 hours gets 1 group of visitors a month. So much wasted content because the difficulty vs rewards isn't worth the hassle.
FF14 comes to mind with its 250 part chain quest story line. You end up playing the entire game solo.
This is not true, btw. In FFXIV, you're forced into dungeons and boss fights with groups quite frequently throughout the story, otherwise you don't progress.
e type of population as there is just to wide a market now a days. People have to many choices and will just leave and go elsewhere instead of tolerating the "harshness" that was common then. If it was something people wanted in games now it would be there. As you can see it's not and your argument is very flawed.
Well first, I'm not making an argument. Second, since the game isn't finished yet we don't know for sure how people will react, do we? I expect some will be off-put by the mechanics, while others will like the game and still others may grow to like it. Regardless, the game is being marketed first and foremost to a target audience that does like these mechanics.
Ever wonder why a Scooby Doo lunch box sells for $500? It's because people miss their old toys lol. The fact that there are more modern lunch boxes available that reflect the mass market doesn't change that. There is always going to be a sub-market for classic style things.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
You keep saying "the genre has been redefined" - by whom?
There are still plenty of games today where players are interacting and doing things together. My guild has been together with the same core group since eq1 back in 1999.
Nothing had changed for us.
There were players back than that soloed, there were players that grouped - same is true 15 years later.
If you dont get it then it just proves to me that developers just dont get it. Your just one of many that think the norm today is just fine. Sure people soloed back then, but that was only a few classes could do it well. Even then, the solo classes only really shined when teamed and even then, solo classes needed to team at some point to get content done so they could really progress. So in the end, all classes forced people to team and in the end made communities that were stronger. People knew their rolls teamed and speced their classes to make sure they passed the bar needed to team.
Most of todays games design classes to be many flavors of DPS. Every class can solo from 1 to top level. There is nothing driving players together so most gamers never take part of the community. They never spec their classes for teaming as all they needed to think about was the solo side of things. They get to end game and presented with a new game. Where teaming is needed and their class and play style is not geared to teaming.
Sure there are pockets of gamers like your self who have been playing together since 1999 but thats mostly because you have already been trained to think that way. Games now cater to the solo mind set and thats the problem.
"Redefined" yes thats right, this game is a rebirth of going back to the roots of what made MMOs great. Communities built on teaming. Where from low level people are encouraged to team because of how the content is made and the classes design. When people get to end game in this game. People will know their rolls in a team and have friends they made on the way because the game did hand hold them to top level. Rather it forced them to stop and talk to people to make teams. Sad you dont get that.
I get that, everyone does.
If forced grouping and hard role defined classes are the best way to go, as you and some others suggest - why did games change and move away from this model?
Is it because developers want to make you upset and troll you?
Or maybe the masses dislike the old systems and prefer flexibility?
MMO games cater to majority, the veteran EQ1 players are not part of this playerbase.
This is why Pantheon and other indie projects exist in the first place to give the old playerbase systems they want.
But to say that new games offer nothing to those thst want to group is inaccurate - groups content exists in almost every game, you are just not forced to do it or group from level 5 onwards.
Nothing is preventing guilds from grouping and doing stuff together in new games.
Find a guild that groups and does stuff together - and you will make every new game a social group game.
I see you are just one of the developer stuck in this mode. Options are not always good for the game. Options can hurt the community, why? Because people will almost always take the easiest path. When you give people an out, most people will take it. So many options in what game to play and most of them with this mind set. What do we have? Games where people dont stick around. When they get to end game, they hop to the next game to get an easy fix of leveling again. 3-8 new MMOs later they find themselves board because quest grinding is no fun any more lol. Developers have missed the point. Sure they have more people playing today, but they are not sticking around.
Why? Because the content dose not train them to. It dose not help them form communities. The death of MMOs are at the hands of the developers looking for a quick buck. Every part of an MMO needs to be designed to encourage teaming. Even solo content should give bigger rewards if you do it teamed. Scale solo content so people want to do it teamed. Every part of an MMO should train people to work together, so when they get to end game, they dont want to MMO hop. Why? Because they made friends and they have been working together for so long to get to top level, they want to keep doing that. Playing the same game they have since level 5. Not a different game once they hit end game.
You keep saying "the genre has been redefined" - by whom?
There are still plenty of games today where players are interacting and doing things together. My guild has been together with the same core group since eq1 back in 1999.
Nothing had changed for us.
There were players back than that soloed, there were players that grouped - same is true 15 years later.
If you dont get it then it just proves to me that developers just dont get it. Your just one of many that think the norm today is just fine. Sure people soloed back then, but that was only a few classes could do it well. Even then, the solo classes only really shined when teamed and even then, solo classes needed to team at some point to get content done so they could really progress. So in the end, all classes forced people to team and in the end made communities that were stronger. People knew their rolls teamed and speced their classes to make sure they passed the bar needed to team.
Most of todays games design classes to be many flavors of DPS. Every class can solo from 1 to top level. There is nothing driving players together so most gamers never take part of the community. They never spec their classes for teaming as all they needed to think about was the solo side of things. They get to end game and presented with a new game. Where teaming is needed and their class and play style is not geared to teaming.
Sure there are pockets of gamers like your self who have been playing together since 1999 but thats mostly because you have already been trained to think that way. Games now cater to the solo mind set and thats the problem.
"Redefined" yes thats right, this game is a rebirth of going back to the roots of what made MMOs great. Communities built on teaming. Where from low level people are encouraged to team because of how the content is made and the classes design. When people get to end game in this game. People will know their rolls in a team and have friends they made on the way because the game did hand hold them to top level. Rather it forced them to stop and talk to people to make teams. Sad you dont get that.
I get that, everyone does.
If forced grouping and hard role defined classes are the best way to go, as you and some others suggest - why did games change and move away from this model?
Is it because developers want to make you upset and troll you?
Or maybe the masses dislike the old systems and prefer flexibility?
MMO games cater to majority, the veteran EQ1 players are not part of this playerbase.
This is why Pantheon and other indie projects exist in the first place to give the old playerbase systems they want.
But to say that new games offer nothing to those thst want to group is inaccurate - groups content exists in almost every game, you are just not forced to do it or group from level 5 onwards.
Nothing is preventing guilds from grouping and doing stuff together in new games.
Find a guild that groups and does stuff together - and you will make every new game a social group game.
I see you are just one of the developer stuck in this mode. Options are not always good for the game. Options can hurt the community, why? Because people will almost always take the easiest path. When you give people an out, most people will take it. So many options in what game to play and most of them with this mind set. What do we have? Games where people dont stick around. When they get to end game, they hop to the next game to get an easy fix of leveling again. 3-8 new MMOs later they find themselves board because quest grinding is no fun any more lol. Developers have missed the point. Sure they have more people playing today, but they are not sticking around.
Why? Because the content dose not train them to. It dose not help them form communities. The death of MMOs are at the hands of the developers looking for a quick buck. Every part of an MMO needs to be designed to encourage teaming. Even solo content should give bigger rewards if you do it teamed. Scale solo content so people want to do it teamed. Every part of an MMO should train people to work together, so when they get to end game, they dont want to MMO hop. Why? Because they made friends and they have been working together for so long to get to top level, they want to keep doing that. Playing the same game they have since level 5. Not a different game once they hit end game.
Well said, Nanfoodle. I'm glad Pantheon is not catering to the masses. There is a very specific need for a specific niche of players that is not being fulfilled by today's be-everything-to-everyone MMO's. While I encourage everyone to give Pantheon a fair shake, it's safe to say this wont be for everyone. VR has made it clear they wont be catering to the masses.
It's no secret that EQ has maintained one of the most loyal subscription bases at a time when player loyalty is at an all-time low. VR is tapping into the "why" and "how" of EQ's success. Is there enough market to support a game that, above all else, encourages player interaction and cooperation as the standard gameplay experience? I believe so, yes, and they will have some very loyal subscribers if they execute well.
Have a hard to believing anyone who thinks Brad Mcquaid wasn't mostly responsible for Vanguards failing. Definitely not when they say something like "MAY NOT be perfect."
May not? No, absolutely no. You practically idolize the guy in the end of your post, which makes me think you're not actually thinking clearly, or rationally about the game he's making; not something that inspires any amount of trust in your opinion.
Have a hard to believing anyone who thinks Brad Mcquaid wasn't mostly responsible for Vanguards failing. Definitely not when they say something like "MAY NOT be perfect."
May not? No, absolutely no. You practically idolize the guy in the end of your post, which makes me think you're not actually thinking clearly, or rationally about the game he's making; not something that inspires any amount of trust in your opinion.
Well, I did fall out the back of a pickup truck and landed on my head. I shook it off, walked up the hill and made the posting.
Have a hard to believing anyone who thinks Brad Mcquaid wasn't mostly responsible for Vanguards failing. Definitely not when they say something like "MAY NOT be perfect."
May not? No, absolutely no. You practically idolize the guy in the end of your post, which makes me think you're not actually thinking clearly, or rationally about the game he's making; not something that inspires any amount of trust in your opinion.
Well, I did fall out the back of a pickup truck and landed on my head. I shook it off, walked up the hill and made the posting.
If you say so. Brad's only the guy that fired most of his employees in a parking lot, but I'm sure he cares about you.
I see you are just one of the developer stuck in this mode. Options are not always good for the game. Options can hurt the community, why? Because people will almost always take the easiest path. When you give people an out, most people will take it. So many options in what game to play and most of them with this mind set. What do we have? Games where people dont stick around. When they get to end game, they hop to the next game to get an easy fix of leveling again. 3-8 new MMOs later they find themselves board because quest grinding is no fun any more lol. Developers have missed the point. Sure they have more people playing today, but they are not sticking around.
Why? Because the content dose not train them to. It dose not help them form communities. The death of MMOs are at the hands of the developers looking for a quick buck. Every part of an MMO needs to be designed to encourage teaming. Even solo content should give bigger rewards if you do it teamed. Scale solo content so people want to do it teamed. Every part of an MMO should train people to work together, so when they get to end game, they dont want to MMO hop. Why? Because they made friends and they have been working together for so long to get to top level, they want to keep doing that. Playing the same game they have since level 5. Not a different game once they hit end game.
This is spot on, but we can't possibly expect or demand that all MMOs be made this way. Its clear that more people want to play MMOs like any other single player game, and then leave after a month or two. That option should exist.
The problem is the continual propaganda from MMO apologists like DMKano who pretend that because ONE MMO had real success and all others followed, that somehow proves that there is only a few "oldschool" players who would still enjoy an MMO built on multiplayer gameplay that encourages a long term commitment to a game. This is patently false, and unsubstantiated being that there have been no games since EQ that launched a successful game in that format!
IFF this game releases (sometime in 2017 and although they have received 'seed funding' I am not sure of that) and IFF it is a runaway success achieving over 1 million subscribers in the first three months (way, way beyond anyone's expectations including mine) then it may cause the big studios to reexamine their development schedules and make other games like this.
But make them mad? Nope, never. At most a couple of people will get fired for being bad prophets but that will be it.
No, they weren't designed around multiplayer content. EQ may have been, but Lineage, UO, and AC were not really. There was just content in those games and you could choose to tackle at any group size from 1 to a hundred.
That's not to say there wasn't content that was multiplayer, like sieges, but the core game didn't require it. Farming mobs, bosses, dungeons, or other players was all a personal choice as to how it was approached.
In fact it was a tradeoff. Solo, duo or small group meant you got a better share of the xp and loot, but greater risk of loss for failure. Going in a group meant fewer drops but safer farming and possibly better xp if you could farm fast enough. That's where the tougher content (like lower dungeon levels, upper tower levels, etc) paid off for groups - they could farm the higher xp mobs faster than you could solo or duo them. But that didn't mean you couldn't do it solo successfully.
EQ may have been more rigid, but those other games encouraged the multiplayer aspect far more than modern games. In fact, it was pretty foolish to try to play most first gen games alone, even if it was technically possible.
You are riding that technicality pretty hard.
No I'm not. I was there. It let me play however I wanted. The experience was so new no one thought about game play in those terms.
Did you even play a game that wasn't EQ? It wasn't foolish to solo. It was a smart leveling and item farming strategy. The most powerful players soloed all the time. It was how you got the best xp and could keep your drops.
I played UO, and playing solo meant getting ganked. Did you actually play UO when there was no hiding in safe zones or are you just talking?
No, I actually played Lineage. The real pvp game. You know the one that is more popular than all the other first gen games put together. AC is basically in hobby mode. Do UO and EQ even have half a million subs combined now?
You could easily get ganked in Lineage as well, but people didn't unless they wanted to start a war. Random idiot ganking was fairly rare. A smart player knew how to escape and overpowered PK.
So no, I didn't walk around the world with a group all the time because I was scared. Good players didn't need groups to carry them. Belonging to a good guild in a pvp game is important.
Theres more people playing both UO and EQ in their current state where I live than Lineage. Like most people in the West, I honestly couldn't care less about asian grinders.
No, I actually played Lineage. The real pvp game. You know the one that is more popular than all the other first gen games put together. AC is basically in hobby mode. Do UO and EQ even have half a million subs combined now?
You could easily get ganked in Lineage as well, but people didn't unless they wanted to start a war. Random idiot ganking was fairly rare. A smart player knew how to escape and overpowered PK.
So no, I didn't walk around the world with a group all the time because I was scared. Good players didn't need groups to carry them. Belonging to a good guild in a pvp game is important.
Theres more people playing both UO and EQ in their current state where I live than Lineage. Like most people in the West, I honestly couldn't care less about asian grinders.
Yep, there was a reason they didn't compare the numbers of Asian MMOs and Western ones, they were completely different in focus, play, and cultural attendance to which most western players could give two shits about. I beta tested lineage and it played exactly as all the Asian mmo grinders did, bland pointless meaningless grinds with tons of bots perma camping spawns for RMT. Was a waste of time game in my opinion, but then so were most Asian MMOs.
I see you are just one of the developer stuck in this mode. Options are not always good for the game. Options can hurt the community, why? Because people will almost always take the easiest path. When you give people an out, most people will take it. So many options in what game to play and most of them with this mind set. What do we have? Games where people dont stick around. When they get to end game, they hop to the next game to get an easy fix of leveling again. 3-8 new MMOs later they find themselves board because quest grinding is no fun any more lol. Developers have missed the point. Sure they have more people playing today, but they are not sticking around.
Why? Because the content dose not train them to. It dose not help them form communities. The death of MMOs are at the hands of the developers looking for a quick buck. Every part of an MMO needs to be designed to encourage teaming. Even solo content should give bigger rewards if you do it teamed. Scale solo content so people want to do it teamed. Every part of an MMO should train people to work together, so when they get to end game, they dont want to MMO hop. Why? Because they made friends and they have been working together for so long to get to top level, they want to keep doing that. Playing the same game they have since level 5. Not a different game once they hit end game.
This is spot on, but we can't possibly expect or demand that all MMOs be made this way. Its clear that more people want to play MMOs like any other single player game, and then leave after a month or two. That option should exist.
The problem is the continual propaganda from MMO apologists like DMKano who pretend that because ONE MMO had real success and all others followed, that somehow proves that there is only a few "oldschool" players who would still enjoy an MMO built on multiplayer gameplay that encourages a long term commitment to a game. This is patently false, and unsubstantiated being that there have been no games since EQ that launched a successful game in that format!
Failing the Kickstarter should be a pretty good indicator of just how few "oldschool" mmorpg players are out there. If there was a real market for this type of game it would have gotten CU type funding.
Pantheons core(slower leveling,group based) are severely lacking in the genre and as a "newschool" player these core mechanics are very appealing. However, if i wanted to play a RTS i would just play a actual RTS. I imagine most people did a full stop once they read about combat.
Failing the Kickstarter should be a pretty good indicator of just how few "oldschool" mmorpg players are out there. If there was a real market for this type of game it would have gotten CU type funding.
..........
It should not need to be said, yet again, that there was considerable resistance to the initial Kickstarter because of Brad McQuaid and his reputation. This was amplified by poor presentation of the Kickstarter itself. Therefore the failure of the Kickstarter does not provide and indicator or "oldschool mmorpg players" most of us refused to contribute to the Kickstarter.
As for CU I kicked in to that Kickstarter knowing I would never play a PvP game, I contributed to it to encourage successful niche games competently developed.
I see you are just one of the developer stuck in this mode. Options are not always good for the game. Options can hurt the community, why? Because people will almost always take the easiest path. When you give people an out, most people will take it. So many options in what game to play and most of them with this mind set. What do we have? Games where people dont stick around. When they get to end game, they hop to the next game to get an easy fix of leveling again. 3-8 new MMOs later they find themselves board because quest grinding is no fun any more lol. Developers have missed the point. Sure they have more people playing today, but they are not sticking around.
Why? Because the content dose not train them to. It dose not help them form communities. The death of MMOs are at the hands of the developers looking for a quick buck. Every part of an MMO needs to be designed to encourage teaming. Even solo content should give bigger rewards if you do it teamed. Scale solo content so people want to do it teamed. Every part of an MMO should train people to work together, so when they get to end game, they dont want to MMO hop. Why? Because they made friends and they have been working together for so long to get to top level, they want to keep doing that. Playing the same game they have since level 5. Not a different game once they hit end game.
This is spot on, but we can't possibly expect or demand that all MMOs be made this way. Its clear that more people want to play MMOs like any other single player game, and then leave after a month or two. That option should exist.
The problem is the continual propaganda from MMO apologists like DMKano who pretend that because ONE MMO had real success and all others followed, that somehow proves that there is only a few "oldschool" players who would still enjoy an MMO built on multiplayer gameplay that encourages a long term commitment to a game. This is patently false, and unsubstantiated being that there have been no games since EQ that launched a successful game in that format!
Failing the Kickstarter should be a pretty good indicator of just how few "oldschool" mmorpg players are out there. If there was a real market for this type of game it would have gotten CU type funding.
Pantheons core(slower leveling,group based) are severely lacking in the genre and as a "newschool" player these core mechanics are very appealing. However, if i wanted to play a RTS i would just play a actual RTS. I imagine most people did a full stop once they read about combat.
The success of a kickstarter has a great deal to do with marketing, plain and simple. CU did a great job, and was prepared. Crowfall did a great job, and was prepared. But lets be honest here, Pantheon came with nothing but a few ideas and a logo. No marketing ahead of time, demo videos, or even word of mouth. They were not prepared. They posted a kickstarter pretty much out of the blue, and it still made half a million of the 800k goal.
I dare say if McQuaid and VR had the millions that Jacobs and Coleman had to begin development and prepare their kickstarters with, it would have been a different story.
Most of the time when players claim a game is too easy. I ask them if they tried to do anything difficult. Pantheon looks like all other games before release. Really nice and shiny but everyone wonders how it will turn out. If you are going to make a group only game then you obviously need to make sure people can easily find groups. You will literally have to throw grouping in their face otherwise they won't understand that after the third death and looking at the really harsh death penalties. You are trying to combine two things that mmo players just don't like. Harsh death penalties and very hard to kill npc's. I've died literally 20 times trying to do a GW2 dungeon. Developers figured out long time ago that when they make things too difficult to access and too difficult to complete then the content will just sit there and no one will enjoy it. So that dungeon you worked on for 400 hours gets 1 group of visitors a month. So much wasted content because the difficulty vs rewards isn't worth the hassle.
FF14 comes to mind with its 250 part chain quest story line. You end up playing the entire game solo.
This is not true, btw. In FFXIV, you're forced into dungeons and boss fights with groups quite frequently throughout the story, otherwise you don't progress.
Except it kind of is. They essentially "force" the higher level players to participate in old content by adding daily quests for queuing up for those old dungeons and such. So when you queue for it as a new comer it basically pops instantly, almost nobody talks about the dungeon because usually most of the players running it have done it 500 times already and just carry the new person through it. Its really surface level grouping. You don't have to rely on each other because the content it faceroll easy for the players doing it as part of their daily quests.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Have a hard to believing anyone who thinks Brad Mcquaid wasn't mostly responsible for Vanguards failing. Definitely not when they say something like "MAY NOT be perfect."
May not? No, absolutely no. You practically idolize the guy in the end of your post, which makes me think you're not actually thinking clearly, or rationally about the game he's making; not something that inspires any amount of trust in your opinion.
I have a hard time believing anyone who just blindly assumes that Brad was *mostly* responsible for Vanguards failures. There's always multiple parts to every story, and frankly i'm sick of most people just acting like it was 100% it his fault, or even 80% his fault. Do you think he was the one that made the decision to release the game 6 months or more early? Or do you think its more likely that the company that just recently bought out the previous publisher's rights put him in a rock and a hard place, and didn't honor the previou companies commitments? Did Brad have too many aspirations and lacked a firm grasp of the scope of the game? Absolutely. But that doesn't put it all on his shoulders. I can't believe you people will sit here and lambast someone for dreaming big. There are a lot worse things he could have done.
Seriously getting sick of this "Brad McQuaid is the ruiner of all things good" meme.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
EQ may have been more rigid, but those other games encouraged the multiplayer aspect far more than modern games. In fact, it was pretty foolish to try to play most first gen games alone, even if it was technically possible.
You are riding that technicality pretty hard.
That is mostly because content in western MMO's hadn't really evolved much farther than the asian games you were complaining about after this post.... what's better... grinding mobs solo, or in a group? I prefer a group.. it goes by faster...
As the game-play evolved so did the dependency on grouping. As there could be more to the game than allowing folks to make it a warzone, with a non-combative trade class...or a case-study on mob genocide.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
UO = Pvp Heaven alot of freedom cool Game you could do alot of things, but pvp theft and murder no laws ruined it for me. Being swarmed by a group of 10 years old who just like your hard earned belongings and make you really angry cause you dont want to run around in 50 man groups all the time to play a save game is getting really on your nerves after awhile.
WoW = Casual Introduction to Mmo Games with alot of casuality and Quests hubs which lead you on rails but as long as you dont realize that you got some great fun it even has a good Endgame (i heard). Alot of Instances which led to less bottlenecks but led to more casualisation of content basicaly you could go and do whatever you like without the need to care for the Game World since the Game World caters to your needs.
EQ = Rough World hard to start in, difficult to get into at start, built to Team up, with alot of skills that help Teammates a ton and make you so much more efficient if grouped. Along with a non instanced coherent World where you can feel other players since if there 5 groups in a Dungeon the Dungeon is Crowded and you cant just open new instance no 1-1000 you either gotta wait till ppl leave or find another place you want to be. You had to talk to ppls you had to interact with them it was favorable to do so you even had to travel the World at start but some classes had skills to shorten thoose trips. You had to keep a good reputation or ppls would be able to ruin your gaming experience, they where able to lead bad Mobs to you and get you killed, or keep camping a spot you would have liked just cause they hate you you cant do that in todays games because of Leashing but you could back then(its kinda like in rl a good reputation helps). No instances are the way to go for a real MMO.
And yep there different kind of Players with different needs but i think alot of us are social beings who like to work in a team which has a certain impact upon our World we life in be it Game or RL. Thoose are EQ/Pantheon players.
Comments
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
This was always a tricky one,
One thing that always get me mad is chain quest leading up to group content. Chain quest are only good for telling a particular story. FF14 comes to mind with its 250 part chain quest story line. You end up playing the entire game solo. NO CHAIN QUEST, because who is on what part ?
As far as what your asking, one good solution is to make well known that a group dungeon is near by in a zone or a close by town ( I'm sure they can get creative with this ).
Important;
The best solution is a very extravagant built in message board for each character. Listing group related content by level and nature of what needs to be accomplished. Here you can also advertise for others to join you.......not to be confused with an auto group dungeon finder, but a posting board for all to see
Ever wonder why a Scooby Doo lunch box sells for $500? It's because people miss their old toys lol. The fact that there are more modern lunch boxes available that reflect the mass market doesn't change that. There is always going to be a sub-market for classic style things.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Why? Because the content dose not train them to. It dose not help them form communities. The death of MMOs are at the hands of the developers looking for a quick buck. Every part of an MMO needs to be designed to encourage teaming. Even solo content should give bigger rewards if you do it teamed. Scale solo content so people want to do it teamed. Every part of an MMO should train people to work together, so when they get to end game, they dont want to MMO hop. Why? Because they made friends and they have been working together for so long to get to top level, they want to keep doing that. Playing the same game they have since level 5. Not a different game once they hit end game.
It's no secret that EQ has maintained one of the most loyal subscription bases at a time when player loyalty is at an all-time low. VR is tapping into the "why" and "how" of EQ's success. Is there enough market to support a game that, above all else, encourages player interaction and cooperation as the standard gameplay experience? I believe so, yes, and they will have some very loyal subscribers if they execute well.
VR and the team has my full support.
-Dekaden
May not? No, absolutely no.
You practically idolize the guy in the end of your post, which makes me think you're not actually thinking clearly, or rationally about the game he's making; not something that inspires any amount of trust in your opinion.
Well, I did fall out the back of a pickup truck and landed on my head. I shook it off, walked up the hill and made the posting.
If you say so.
Brad's only the guy that fired most of his employees in a parking lot, but I'm sure he cares about you.
The problem is the continual propaganda from MMO apologists like DMKano who pretend that because ONE MMO had real success and all others followed, that somehow proves that there is only a few "oldschool" players who would still enjoy an MMO built on multiplayer gameplay that encourages a long term commitment to a game. This is patently false, and unsubstantiated being that there have been no games since EQ that launched a successful game in that format!
and IFF it is a runaway success achieving over 1 million subscribers in the first three months (way, way beyond anyone's expectations including mine)
then it may cause the big studios to reexamine their development schedules and make other games like this.
But make them mad? Nope, never. At most a couple of people will get fired for being bad prophets but that will be it.
Pantheons core(slower leveling,group based) are severely lacking in the genre and as a "newschool" player these core mechanics are very appealing. However, if i wanted to play a RTS i would just play a actual RTS. I imagine most people did a full stop once they read about combat.
As for CU I kicked in to that Kickstarter knowing I would never play a PvP game, I contributed to it to encourage successful niche games competently developed.
I dare say if McQuaid and VR had the millions that Jacobs and Coleman had to begin development and prepare their kickstarters with, it would have been a different story.
This game releases and it sucks?
I mean, I know, I know, that's never happened in an MMORPG before....But just what if.........?
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
I have a hard time believing anyone who just blindly assumes that Brad was *mostly* responsible for Vanguards failures. There's always multiple parts to every story, and frankly i'm sick of most people just acting like it was 100% it his fault, or even 80% his fault. Do you think he was the one that made the decision to release the game 6 months or more early? Or do you think its more likely that the company that just recently bought out the previous publisher's rights put him in a rock and a hard place, and didn't honor the previou companies commitments? Did Brad have too many aspirations and lacked a firm grasp of the scope of the game? Absolutely. But that doesn't put it all on his shoulders. I can't believe you people will sit here and lambast someone for dreaming big. There are a lot worse things he could have done.
Seriously getting sick of this "Brad McQuaid is the ruiner of all things good" meme.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
As the game-play evolved so did the dependency on grouping. As there could be more to the game than allowing folks to make it a warzone, with a non-combative trade class...or a case-study on mob genocide.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
UO = Pvp Heaven alot of freedom cool Game you could do alot of things, but pvp theft and murder no laws ruined it for me. Being swarmed by a group of 10 years old who just like your hard earned belongings and make you really angry cause you dont want to run around in 50 man groups all the time to play a save game is getting really on your nerves after awhile.
WoW = Casual Introduction to Mmo Games with alot of casuality and Quests hubs which lead you on rails but as long as you dont realize that you got some great fun it even has a good Endgame (i heard). Alot of Instances which led to less bottlenecks but led to more casualisation of content basicaly you could go and do whatever you like without the need to care for the Game World since the Game World caters to your needs.
EQ = Rough World hard to start in, difficult to get into at start, built to Team up, with alot of skills that help Teammates a ton and make you so much more efficient if grouped. Along with a non instanced coherent World where you can feel other players since if there 5 groups in a Dungeon the Dungeon is Crowded and you cant just open new instance no 1-1000 you either gotta wait till ppl leave or find another place you want to be. You had to talk to ppls you had to interact with them it was favorable to do so you even had to travel the World at start but some classes had skills to shorten thoose trips. You had to keep a good reputation or ppls would be able to ruin your gaming experience, they where able to lead bad Mobs to you and get you killed, or keep camping a spot you would have liked just cause they hate you you cant do that in todays games because of Leashing but you could back then(its kinda like in rl a good reputation helps).
No instances are the way to go for a real MMO.
And yep there different kind of Players with different needs but i think alot of us are social beings who like to work in a team which has a certain impact upon our World we life in be it Game or RL. Thoose are EQ/Pantheon players.