Pan'Theon: Rise' of th'e Fal'Len - #1 Thread in MMO

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Convo

Convo

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
8,792
662
Rift had some good group content, but it still came up lacking overall in several areas. Also there was a lack of commitment by the dev team in regards to challenge. They caved pretty fast to casuals when they would wipe on the T2 stuff. Rift isn't the greatest example as it tried too hard to be the jack of all trades game and came up short in every area. It was just ok.. I remember most of you fags hand jobbing GW2 as the next coming.. How did that work out? As much as the causal folks tell the old school players they don't really know what they want, you can say the same for the casual. Their 3 month track record with games isn't every impressive...

Not sure why you're so fixated on a group focused game, PSD? We need diversity in our MMO space, we've been lacking overall. We should have the new EQ or VG. Why not? They are games and they should be diverse and reach out to different types of players. Developers needs to stop trying to chase the market and just make a game they want to play. That's what these guys are doing.. I hope they succeed.
 
shabushabu

shabushabu

Molten Core Raider
1,410
186
Convo_sl said:
Rift had some good group content, but it still came up lacking overall in several areas. Also there was a lack of commitment by the dev team in regards to challenge. They caved pretty fast to casuals when they would wipe on the T2 stuff. Rift isn't the greatest example as it tried too hard to be the jack of all trades game and came up short in every area. It was just ok.. I remember most of you fags hand jobbing GW2 as the next coming.. How did that work out? As much as the causal folks tell the old school players they don't really know what they want, you can say the same for the casual. Their 3 month track record with games isn't every impressive...

Not sure why you're so fixated on a group focused game, PSD? We need diversity in our MMO space, we've been lacking overall. We should have the new EQ or VG. Why not? They are games and they should be diverse and reach out to different types of players. Developers needs to stop trying to chase the market and just make a game they want to play. That's what these guys are doing.. I hope they succeed.
Click to expand...
,
RIFT did have some fun Dungeons, but way too few. Group based Dungeons while leveling in Vanguard = 100+, RIFT was like 10. Not to mention the end game ( original game ) dungeons were just the leveling dungeons with extra wings.
 
F

Felmega_sl

shitlord
563
1
Quaid_sl said:
What else is there to do besides bullshit in rerolled?

The MMORPG industry is in fucking shambles. Wildstar, Black Desert, ArcheAge, Guild Wars 2, Elder Scrolls Online, and all the other 'next big things' turned out to be one disappointment after another. Titan cancelled, World of Darkness cancelled, and EQNext has a questionable direction and future. Pantheon is quite literally the only MMORPG on the market presenting even a shred of hope at this point. This is an enthusiast community after all, and our discussion topics are quite limited at this point.

If you aren't 'cheerleading' for Pantheon, what are you cheerleading for? Why participate in an oldschool MMORPG community at all? Surely there are better places to discuss vidyas in general. I don't think I see anyone just blindly 'cheerleading' anyway, especially after the events post-kickstarter.

I'm holding out hope, and will continue to discuss the game as if it has some possibility (however slim) of getting released. Other than bail on the genre entirely, it's the only real option.
Click to expand...
Good post. So much truth.
 
Convo

Convo

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
8,792
662
popsicledeath_sl said:
I missed the update where they're actually doing something! Zing!
Click to expand...
They haven't exactly been putting themselves out there atm so I don't see the issue. I'd be calling them out too if they were talking a lot of shit but not showing anything.. They haven't, they've been pretty mum overall.
 
popsicledeath

popsicledeath

Potato del Grande
7,547
11,831
So, because they stopped making false promises with shit to show for it they're now worthy? I guess I see the logic. They were saying there's a product and work was being done, but had nothing to show for it. Now that they're not saying there is anything being done, it probably means they're getting a ton of work done!
 
T

The Ancient_sl

shitlord
7,386
16
popsicledeath_sl said:
Honest question: has anyone simply played current games and only grouped?

Like Rift, for example, had some really fun dungeons and open-world rifts and shit that one benefited greatly from being in a group. Everyone said oh the game is shit because you can solo to max. But you didn't have to.

People talk about EQ like it forced you to group, and contrast it to newer games as if they forced you to solo. Rift was pretty fun if you focused on group content.

Again, this is why I find the arguments strange sometimes, and make jokes about how it's only the anti-social losers who want forced grouping, because that's the only way they'll get groups, where other people simply choose to group with friends in games that don't force grouping.

I didn't play EQ2, but my guild went there and everyone pretty much only ever grouped and raided and they had fun. Wasn't Wildstar all about grouping? Isn't it such that all the games on the 'failed mmorpg' list could, and often were, consumed by people wanting and willing to group?

Do all games but EQ1 fail because they have solo content, or even encourage it, or are their other reasons they're considered failures despite often being far more popular than EQ, and often more technically sound, bigger, more innovative, etc.

Really, why is it that a game is released where you not only can group, but it's subjectively more fun to group and you're rewarded better for grouping, but people will claim it's just a solo-centric game that sucks and we need EQ1 back.

Are we really sure it's not that more modern games people aren't forced to group with the few anti-social degenerates that could still get groups in EQ1 because grouping was forced and certain classes were needed?

Logical conclusion: you actually are just a bunch of anti-social fucktards who miss EQ1 because you COULD be grouping and socializing in more modern games, you just don't because of the anti-social fucktard part, so need a game where people need you and group with you even if they don't like you or want you.
Click to expand...
Why is there an actual discussion in this thread, this is not what the Pantheon thread is for!


I disagree with some of what you say popsicledeath. Modern MMOs fail in a way that EQ succeeded by even allowing you to play the game solo. I understand why that is an attractive option it game design, it certainly broadens your player baseimmensely, but you will lose that community that people are missing. If people can solo, they will solo. Your Rift examples are not on par with the absolute reliance you had on other people in EQ.
 
Convo

Convo

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
8,792
662
popsicledeath_sl said:
So, because they stopped making false promises with shit to show for it they're now worthy? I guess I see the logic. They were saying there's a product and work was being done, but had nothing to show for it. Now that they're not saying there is anything being done, it probably means they're getting a ton of work done!
Click to expand...
Oh. Didn't realize we were working in the PSD pace of updates format. Makes more sense now. My bad! Why don't you just lay out what you want to see from them?

For context. Still isn't as bad as the EQN update roll out. I guess that's why it hasn't bothered me yet.
 
Convo

Convo

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
8,792
662
popsicledeath_sl said:
For what they've said to match up to what they've produced, preferably when they've said they already did it or have it?
Click to expand...
I'm not being dense or trolling here, I swear.. Like what? What do you need to see that's been stated in an update. An update from Joppa that is.

It's been pretty clear what's been going on recently.
 
popsicledeath

popsicledeath

Potato del Grande
7,547
11,831
I'm not talking about right this second because it's clear they don't have shit. I think you're right and they learned to shut their mouths.

Their disconnect started early on, talking about how the classes and lore were fleshed out far more than they actually had been. They seemed to be making shit up and blaming the arduous process of clicking 'submit' on a KS update page as the reason we weren't getting any proof or depth on the things they were saying.

All the way to the last video update, where, for instance, they talked about all the game mechanics and animations and all sorts of shit they were working on or had done, and meanwhile all we got was a still-life fly-over of "in game" assets that could have been pieced together by any amateur running Unity in a matter of hours.

Oh, not to mention art they claimed was being worked on for the project, that was then just re-hashed shit from years back.

I'm not asking for proof of concept or a beta build or some shit. It's just they've never really seemed to be on the same page between what is being said about the project and what's actually being done, until now, I guess, when they aren't really saying anything. So, yeah, Joppa at least learned to keep the team quiet. That's about the only (and best?) progress they've made.
 
Rangoth

Rangoth

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,879
1,957
I'm not really a Pantheon lover any more but I did want to chime in on the grouping thing as I find that discussion interesting.

As with any complex problem there are often multiple, layered causes that are equally complex. It's never "one thing" that causes it.

However I do believe one of the MAJOR contributors to the lack of modern grouping is the "quest for xp" and "dungeons for loot at max" concept. Basically, if you are under max, it becomes nearly impossible to group in a useful way. Between everyone being on a different quest or different part of a quest, the push to max being the only real focus which then means looking for a group or running dungeons just really isn't worth it, means that groups are simply not effective. Yes when I try new games I do with old guildies and friends and grouping can be fun, and lower level dungeons can be interesting, but it just does not fit with the average "flow" of the game.

The only time I saw non-max dungeon grouping(at a noteworthy level) was when people got stuck on an "elite" quest or had a quest that required the completion of a dungeon, or something like rift where you can "group" with other people to take out rifts but you never actually join a group, it's just cooperative essentially. And even then some people just wait until they are high enough to beast mode older elite quests.

Then you max and join dungeon finder to get hooked up with 4 others and wafflestomp a dungeon for points/loot. I think people often refer to "forced grouping" when they mean "forced interaction". And at the level EQ had it will never be back, just accept that. Between the time commitment(from players), investment to produce a good game(from producers), and the total societal shift to instant gratification any game with forced interaction will always be niche, which is fine, those can succeed now-a-days, but it will never have the graphics or player base and if it's level based it will be dead at lower levels like pretty much every other older game.
 
shabushabu

shabushabu

Molten Core Raider
1,410
186
Rangoth_sl said:
I'm not really a Pantheon lover any more but I did want to chime in on the grouping thing as I find that discussion interesting.

As with any complex problem there are often multiple, layered causes that are equally complex. It's never "one thing" that causes it.

However I do believe one of the MAJOR contributors to the lack of modern grouping is the "quest for xp" and "dungeons for loot at max" concept. Basically, if you are under max, it becomes nearly impossible to group in a useful way. Between everyone being on a different quest or different part of a quest, the push to max being the only real focus which then means looking for a group or running dungeons just really isn't worth it, means that groups are simply not effective. Yes when I try new games I do with old guildies and friends and grouping can be fun, and lower level dungeons can be interesting, but it just does not fit with the average "flow" of the game.

The only time I saw non-max dungeon grouping(at a noteworthy level) was when people got stuck on an "elite" quest or had a quest that required the completion of a dungeon, or something like rift where you can "group" with other people to take out rifts but you never actually join a group, it's just cooperative essentially. And even then some people just wait until they are high enough to beast mode older elite quests.

Then you max and join dungeon finder to get hooked up with 4 others and wafflestomp a dungeon for points/loot. I think people often refer to "forced grouping" when they mean "forced interaction". And at the level EQ had it will never be back, just accept that. Between the time commitment(from players), investment to produce a good game(from producers), and the total societal shift to instant gratification any game with forced interaction will always be niche, which is fine, those can succeed now-a-days, but it will never have the graphics or player base and if it's level based it will be dead at lower levels like pretty much every other older game.
Click to expand...
My friend, someone is going to wake up one day and realize that there is more you can do with an always on Broadband connection to other players than has been done in the past. Once the revenue curve flattens and it will, there will need to be innovation again and the one thing we are today is more connected to each other via the Internet than we were back in 1999. I love the prospect of teaming up with others in group, raid etc and conquering something bigger than we could accomplish alone through squad based tactical combat and with each member of a squad a specialist in his/her area. That shit is what hooked me on D&D, most party based RPGs and of course early MMOs, there is something cool about getting a group of people together to tackle something bigger than us... you can't achieve that in any social setting i am aware other than scavenger hunts and other not so interesting games IRL. Its fun shit to me and it will come back.

Personally i would love to see when device connectivity is leveraged by gaming in a more MMO-ish and disruptive fashion, I want to have to play on my phone and my PC and my PS4 and my watch and my ETC. ... I want to play that.
 
E

etchazz

Trakanon Raider
2,707
1,056
popsicledeath_sl said:
Honest question: has anyone simply played current games and only grouped?

Like Rift, for example, had some really fun dungeons and open-world rifts and shit that one benefited greatly from being in a group. Everyone said oh the game is shit because you can solo to max. But you didn't have to.

People talk about EQ like it forced you to group, and contrast it to newer games as if they forced you to solo. Rift was pretty fun if you focused on group content.

Again, this is why I find the arguments strange sometimes, and make jokes about how it's only the anti-social losers who want forced grouping, because that's the only way they'll get groups, where other people simply choose to group with friends in games that don't force grouping.

I didn't play EQ2, but my guild went there and everyone pretty much only ever grouped and raided and they had fun. Wasn't Wildstar all about grouping? Isn't it such that all the games on the 'failed mmorpg' list could, and often were, consumed by people wanting and willing to group?

Do all games but EQ1 fail because they have solo content, or even encourage it, or are their other reasons they're considered failures despite often being far more popular than EQ, and often more technically sound, bigger, more innovative, etc.

Really, why is it that a game is released where you not only can group, but it's subjectively more fun to group and you're rewarded better for grouping, but people will claim it's just a solo-centric game that sucks and we need EQ1 back.

Are we really sure it's not that more modern games people aren't forced to group with the few anti-social degenerates that could still get groups in EQ1 because grouping was forced and certain classes were needed?

Logical conclusion: you actually are just a bunch of anti-social fucktards who miss EQ1 because you COULD be grouping and socializing in more modern games, you just don't because of the anti-social fucktard part, so need a game where people need you and group with you even if they don't like you or want you.
Click to expand...
Honest answer: In EQ, it took time to level up. It also took time to get somewhere else. Because of these two things, you got to know the players around you. Whether you were soloing or not, you saw the same people day after day, week after week, month after month. You asked for help for CR's, you asked for ports, you asked for SoW's, you asked for haste, because no one class had all these spells, they created an interdependency among the players. In every modern MMO, you reach max level in less than a week, have no need to talk to anyone, group with random people with a dungeon finder, and never see them again. Modern MMO's have created all kinds of shortcuts in order to expedite the path to the finish line. Everquest was all about enjoying the ride.
 
D

Draegan_sl

2 Minutes Hate
10,034
3
The Ancient_sl said:
Why is there an actual discussion in this thread, this is not what the Pantheon thread is for!


I disagree with some of what you say popsicledeath. Modern MMOs fail in a way that EQ succeeded by even allowing you to play the game solo. I understand why that is an attractive option it game design, it certainly broadens your player baseimmensely, but you will lose that community that people are missing. If people can solo, they will solo. Your Rift examples are not on par with the absolute reliance you had on other people in EQ.
Click to expand...
I disagree with this completely there are communities in every game if you look for them. For you, I imagine it's part nostalgia, part age and mostly just not liking the games that have been released over the last decade. If you don't like a game, you're really not going to look for "community".
 
Greyform

Greyform

Bronze Knight of the Realm
431
17
The thread title should be Pantheon: "Rise of the Geriatric" which should include me, but there is no way I would ever play a game that supplants time sinks for content again. I find it amusing that anyone sitting at their desk for hours on end waiting for something to happen while killing time by chatting believe they were having "fun". I think there are a lot better ways to socially interact with other people than what basically amounted to a chat room, with a little gaming on the side.

Kids "snap chat" "Facetime" and text. That's their version of our EQ. they do this while playing a multitude of games or incorporate it in just about every activity they do. They have no need for this style of game to fill their need to interact with other people. They're in constant nonstop contact with all of the friends at all hours. That's their "community". I just think this style of game has run its course.
 
Convo

Convo

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
8,792
662
I don't think Pantheon is aiming to capture the attention of kids. I think they are aware they will most likely sustain a small but loyal fan base.. anything else is gravy. There will certainly be some teenagers who pick it up, but who knows how successful it will be with the under 25 crowd? Seems like people posting in this thread have different expectations on what is considered a success. The game is a success in my eyes if they profit, maintain a good population and continue to release content.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.