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

Agonizing the Bait Master_sl said:

Kicking down his door and he could only get soe to buy vanguard?

Click to expand...

Wasn't that 5 years later? Shit changes

Convo_sl said:

I meant to get clarification on that.. I think that was just a case of an interview being done prior to the feedback. I would hope so lol

Click to expand...

The dungeon finder was mentioned in another interview. They said they want to promote grouping no matter what.

Anyone expecting a copy paste of EQ is going to be disappointed.

Which one of you are going to ask him why he's tweeting for investors but was silent on the KS for a week in the AMA that's up in about 50 mins ?

BankBank_sl said:

the branding sucks. "Pantheon" is a stupid name.

Click to expand...

I agree but, I was assuming that was the least of their problems.

I want confirmation of the various reports on a dungeon finder. It looks as if they are in this see-saw of desperation of saying whatever may lend them a buck. If I'm in Brad's shoe's i'm picking one of two roads... Make Everquest the next coming (since you are targeting the niche) or revolutionize gaming. Making a little bit of this, some of that, and fill in whatever is left just isn't going to cut it. My expectation of Brad is to give me Everquest again with an upgraded engine OR try to make whatever you envisioned with Vanguard. If he starts doing whatever everyone else is doing, it being Brad no longer becomes a selling point.

I'll do it. I hate the faggot.

Dahkoht_sl said:

Which one of you are going to ask him why he's tweeting for investors but was silent on the KS for a week in the AMA that's up in about 50 mins ?

Click to expand...

when was the last time he posted here (not that i particularly blame him since just about everyone here is a cynical asshole)?

Vandyn_sl said:

The dungeon finder was mentioned in another interview. They said they want to promote grouping no matter what.

Anyone expecting a copy paste of EQ is going to be disappointed.

Click to expand...

I never did. I'm going to ask tonight in the AMA

Carl_sl said:

I'll do it. I hate the faggot.

Click to expand...

Lol

@etchezz- he went silent everywhere all at once. My biggest guess.. Is bc they did a ton of interviews and it only got them a 40k boost. I think that's when he decided to cover his bases for other funding options.

Convo_sl said:

Wasn't that 5 years later? Shit changes

Click to expand...

What changed.... people were trying to unseat wow and only big failure. Was warhammer

Agonizing the Bait Master_sl said:

What changed.... people were trying to unseat wow and only big failure. Was warhammer

Click to expand...

Are you saying that the only big failure was warhammer or did you have more to say after warhammer? Warhammer was the first huge let down after wow but it certainly wasn't the only big failure.

Agonizing the Bait Master_sl said:

What changed.... people were trying to unseat wow and only big failure. Was warhammer

Click to expand...

I would say the budgets for those other companies.. I really don't know tho. The article mentioned the companies. I don't care to look them up, but id assume they were working on their own mmo at that point. Buying the ip and giving VG a year more was probably a lot of $$. Not even SoE could do it.

Carl_sl said:

Are you saying that the only big failure was warhammer or did you have more to say after warhammer? Warhammer was the first huge let down after wow but it certainly wasn't the only big failure.

Click to expand...

yeah, no kidding. there was a game called SWTOR that he might want to check out. in fact, i'm pretty sure if you looked up failure in the dictionary, SWTOR would be the first example you'd see.

Kirun_sl said:

And how can this not also be said of EQ's CRs? You said it yourself, CRs were much easier in Uguk than the crypt of Sebilis. How was it not a "set risk per the dungeon"?

Click to expand...

Because the risk was intrinsic in the actual dungeonandyour preparation, not in an arbitrary time out set by the developers (Now there WAS arbitrary "extrinsic" elements in EQ-- and they were bad, go into that below). So depending on YOU, and YOUR choices, the risk was different. Uguk, for example, could have it's risk largely averted by purchasing cloudy pots--because you knew the mobs could not see through invis, and also were not undead. While Sebillis presented a different risk that was more difficult to avert. Going deep into Seb to farm the Mycanoid, for example--was A LOT less risky if you had an evac, or if you had a necro for summons, or a good rogue whose stealth could work on anything. The risk wasn't just "this dungeon is X dangerous, spend Y time out." There were variables connected to play choice that changed the equation.

These things allowed risk to become something intrinsic the players specific choices, the risk he assumed might be different depending on the choices he made vs the dangers of the dungeon. The strategy of actually planning groups to suit needs andlimitrisk? Those are strategic choices that don't exist in modern MMO's--heck, WoW went on a crusade during LK to actively make sure each class could bring everything by homogenizing the buffs down to 8 categories. (And that's because a lot of this has problems...It's no fun not being able to group because you miss one class BUT I think that was a design flaw in EQ--everything is connected though, so it's hard to talk without literally making a design document with all the things I could pick apart. But the main thing is, varied risk, choice and "need", can be fun. Ironically, WoW vanilla had a lot more of these elements before the great "homogenization" began. )

Now, there is some overlap between WoW's arbitrariness and EQ's. The distances between your bind and the CR in EQ?Arbitraryand like WoW, I felt this was poor design. And some of the strategic choices to limiting risk? Like resurections, were too needed and did not have enough alternatives, which was also poor design. So yes, CR's themselveswerea primitive mechanic. But they were a mechanic that had acoreto them (Not the actual CR itself, but it's effects) that could have been iterated on to produce a more interesting design--but they were just forgotten. And I feel like EQ had a lot of these little accidental gems; if someone would go back and really break them down to get a feel for what made them work, and what made them bad and then refine them? You could make a really good game that was more oriented toward strategy, rather than arcade twitch (And there's nothing wrong with arcade twitch. I think WoW is a fantastic game...But it took the genre in one direction, I just think the other direction could use it's own "WoW" to come in and refine it into a modern a game).

Kirun_sl said:

You seem to be under this assumption thatallconsequences in EQ could be mediated. I just showed you a fairly frequent example of when they couldn't. You even set yourself up with another, by acknowledging that clerics were the only class with res.

Click to expand...

Uhh, should I go back and quote myself saying,repeatedly, that a lot of the elements were bad? That when risk couldn't be mediated it was poor design? That a lot of EQ's mechanics were accidental, but there were some core elements that were really good? I don't know how I could have been more clear that I believe essentially all the design elements I talked about would need to be iterated on...Screw it, read the next response, I WILL actually go quote myself because I can't stand retread arguments where I have to clarify what I already clarified.

Kirun_sl said:

The issue is, you seem to think that this was all some sort of grand design, laid forth by the developers. The vast, vast majority of that "layered difficulty" you covet was nearly entirely the result of accidents/unintended emergent gameplay. I just don't think it's possible for that to be recreated(at least, not purposely), without a massive undertaking that would likely dwarf the cost of SWTOR. You're cherry picking all these examples of "layered difficulty" and shouting..."SEE! INTELLIGENT DESIGN!". Not much different than a religious person pointing to a banana, saying that it fits "perfectly" in the hand of a human, and correlating that with "intelligent design!".

Click to expand...

Soooo, everything I said? And yes, I'm cherry picking the examples of layered difficulty...Because as I said MANY times before, the CR mechanic itself wasn't very good--it had qualities within it that produced these effects andTHOSE EFFECTS? Are what a game developer interested in producing a modern "strategic" MMORPG should focus on; not the bad parts of the mechanics. I've said this numerous times, pretty clearly.

Lithose_sl said:

There were deeper issues at play there,and some of them EQ just got stupid lucky revealing(Like again, how CR's had a organic risk vs reward to them since the risk changed depending on the setting and classes available--now I don't think CR's are a great mechanic themselves BUT that hidden nugget of "difficulty"? That's something that is great.)

Click to expand...

Lithose_sl said:

That's all fair. Like I said,I don't think CR's in and of themselves were a great mechanic--I think they had a lot of benefits AS a layered consequence that most people glossed over. If we really examine why CR's,in some cases,were good; it's possible to see why sometimes punishing the player in an "intrinsic" way in regards to his risk? Feels "fairer" to the player than simply having an arbitrary "SIT IN THE CORNER!" feel. Now, EQ's death penalties had both, which is why I said CRs are still a bad mechanic.

But yeah,I don't think CR's are a good mechanic.I also think WoW is harder on a tactical level. But there is something to be said of a game that gives you choices and then provides consequence.EQ stumbled a little onto that--they didn't do it well, but it was there, buried under the crappy balance and mechanics. WoW, I feel, kind of lost it--but I wish someone would go back, and iterate on those concepts and make a game about choice, consequence and strategy that could fit into a modern game without the bad aspects EQ had in it.

Click to expand...

You really need to read my whole post, I've been responding to two of you, but you've been quoting the other responses so I'm assuming you're reading it all when I respond back--needless to say it's frustrating when you reply with essentially what I said in a previous post, or completely mangle the point in order to get it to fit into a more simplistic binary of "good and bad". CRs had good and bad elements, in different situations they were more bad than good. The trick of iterating on a design and refining it, is extracting how it worked well, and dismissing how it worked poorly. Ironically, WoW's littler graveyard "time" punishment? Extracted a BAD part of the CR, which is why I mentioned it as being anemic and poor, that arbitrary time cost was bad, even in EQ. A dynamic time, or resource cost depending on risks the player assumed? That is good. But WoW just kind of abandoned any real examination of it because it didn't fit their overall design theme (IE Action.)

Kirun_sl said:

This is your most blatant "clouded by nostalgia" statement yet. You're under the assumption that "the big bad" always got exponentially riskier. Did you play EQ? Because facing down Trakanon at the end of Kunark was no more "difficult" or "risky" than facing down Vox at the end of launch. Hell, EQ only ever gotlessrisky as time went on, more tools to deal with CR tedium became more readily available, more players at level cap, etc. Not much different than WoW.

Click to expand...

The point of the post was that there WAS risk. There was risk inherent the deeper in a dungeon the boss was. They could make a boss more difficult by not only making it technically more difficult to execute, but also by making it more difficult toget to and CR from. At no point did I say, ANYWHERE, that risk increased *PER END GAME BOSS* (So Vox vs Trak). I said, very clearly, that "end game" bosses weremorerisky than Flippy Dark Paw (Or in that case, Orc 01, which refers to an orc out in the world vs Grosh Hellscream--If I die to either, the effect is the same).

The developershadthat lever to pull in order to add a different feel to bosses, without JUST making them harder on a technical execution level, they could make them harder by forcing players to approach with more tools at their disposal. And thisWASinherent in different designs. For example; some Kunark dungeon design was specifically made one way in order to increase risk (You never got keyed for Charsis did you?)...Even Seb had a different way out than in (Even if it was trivial to get to) and that's because, on some level, they were trying to make it "more risky"...Of course, they were bad at exploiting that design element so it was usually pretty obtuse and arbitrary (Warriors stuck in Seb anyone?). But itwasthere. Dungeons could feel aesthetically different because they presented different forms of risk. This was VERYprimitivein EQ, but it is a concept that could be iterated on to make agoodmechanic in a modern game.

The lack of different feelings of consequence between mobs? Takes away depth, it makes them closer to one dimensional abstracts. Garrosh is literally only different from an over world orc due to the difficulty he presents and his graphical texture. His lair? His environment? What he does?Justvisual candy. A more holistic design, like say one that includes risk, would make those deep, dark recesses of dungeons not only LOOK different, but inspire different sets of feeling in the player/ In literature, or movies, you'd call it SHOWING, not telling. You should be able to inspire feelings in your audience organically, through a natural consequence of events. Instead of just saying "derp, this guy is dangerous because his Guitar Hero pattern is freaking hard bro! And that's why he drops the Dread Blade 01, because he's hard! (Not because he is in place that is filled with, you know, actual dread to get to...Do you see how risk, consequence and all that jazz can create narratives far deeper than what's capable with one dimensional difficulty design?)

But the point is, my example was showing the difference in risk between things within an expansion or tier system. I specifically used an normal mob vs Garrosh and NOT say, LK vs Garrosh. Because the point is to create a aesthetic contrast between types of mobs depending on their status on the world--and to make difficulty a scale that doesn't have to slide in just one direction. Now, COULD you make certain end game bosses more risky? Sure, again, they had one way dungeons in Kunark to make them "scarier" than the old world, but it was a pretty obtuse/poor mechanic and often failed at different levels (Seb, for instances was "riskier" to go deep into than Perma, but on a raid level, it didn't translate well.). Still, they tried and insomecases they succeeded (But usually only in a limited way). Still, those cases? That layered risk creating an aesthetic and a different difficulty curve? That deserves to be looked at.

HOWEVER:At no point do I think these mechanics were golden. Nor do I think they are universals (Venril Sathir CR vs Trak). I think, however, they had elements in them that were stokes ofaccidentalgenius. (And yes, I said the developers got lucky before)....If someone were go back and look at WoW vanilla, and then look at some of these mechanics in EQ--and design their game with the goal of making consequence and risk an intrinsic factor in how your character approaches the game world? And how that world "feels" (Like deep dungeons being riskier than open world)--Withouthaving the arbitray bad elements that were found in EQ? I think that could be a game deeply enjoyable for a large portion of the RPG crowd--because a lot of RPG enthusiasts also like strategy games.

These elements were mainly ignored, not because they didn't have potential but because WoW pulled a lot of it's design goals fromaction--which isn't surprising since their main RPG before WoW was an action RPG. So they purposely left out most elements that didn't adhere to those fundamental principles, and instead refined the elements of EQ that did come closer to their Action RPG roots (And mainly refined them up in a way that made them more approachable for people outside the market). This produced a good game--but adifferentgame than if someone who was using a strategy base had done the refining. (Every once in a while, they will dabble in it--like the limited time bosses, or like I said, the different lengths for Graveyards, but you can tell the game was not designed to accommodate this style of aesthetic, so they always feel pretty "bad" in WoW.)

What I would like is if say, Firaxis or Software or Eidos (Thief, Dues EX), looked at EQ and WoW vanilla, and then went and made the game with the design theme of "strategic choice or consequence". For example: What Firaxis did to Xcom, modernized and made the strategy features more approachable and refined, but keeping the best elements of their core gameplay. If someone can do for the strategy in MMO world design, what WoW did for the action in it? I think they'd make a great game. But yes, on the whole, the actual mechanics in EQ, like the CR itself were primitive and clunky; the point though is that a lot of those forgotten mechanics had some great effects within them, that could be refined into something amazing, but very different from WoW's direction.

Understand? I think you've become so lost in being contradictory with the Rose Colored glass people here, that you can't admit the things EQ gotveryright--even if they just got lucky and even if those things were buried under other poor design choices. Again, there is a reason why WoW chose to copy EQ.Youcan learn as much from why they chose to base their game on EQ, as the neck beards here could learn from playing P99 for a couple months and realizing why WoW made the changes it did. You're kind of lost in your own "side" at this point, and you're trying to box me into the opposite "side"...But I have no problem with saying many of EQ's systems were shit, and that WoW was a great game--I can also say that there was a specific magic in EQ's design that was hidden under that shit and some of it got left behind by WoW's design "direction".

etchazz_sl said:

yeah, no kidding. there was a game called SWTOR that he might want to check out. in fact, i'm pretty sure if you looked up failure in the dictionary, SWTOR would be the first example you'd see.

Click to expand...

In my eyes there were so many failures between warhammer and now I can't even remember them all. Every year has seen releases, every year has seen the next cool thing on the horizon. Every year has seen mass exoduses from the new release.

etchazz_sl said:

yeah, no kidding. there was a game called SWTOR that he might want to check out. in fact, i'm pretty sure if you looked up failure in the dictionary, SWTOR would be the first example you'd see.

Click to expand...

Doubt it. They're making a lot of cash store money from SW idiots. A failure in terms of what most people want from an MMO, but not a failure financially (just like Pantheon, they knew to cash in on the diehards).

Carl_sl said:

In my eyes there were so many failures between warhammer and now I can't even remember them all. Every year has seen releases, every year has seen the next cool thing on the horizon. Every year has seen mass exoduses from the new release.

Click to expand...

AoC

DickTrickle_sl said:

Doubt it. They're making a lot of cash store money from SW idiots. A failure in terms of what most people want from an MMO, but not a failure financially (just like Pantheon, they knew to cash in on the diehards).

Click to expand...

This thread is confusing the shit out of me, am I drunk or are you suggesting that pantheon will be a financial succes?

This AMA better be entertaining. Make it so.

I am Brad McQuaid, CCO for Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen. AMA! : gaming

Hot off the grill, go forth!

I threw my softball question out there to get the ball rolling.

DickTrickle_sl said:

Doubt it. They're making a lot of cash store money from SW idiots. A failure in terms of what most people want from an MMO, but not a failure financially (just like Pantheon, they knew to cash in on the diehards).

Click to expand...

you do realize that SWTOR cost like $300 million to make? i don't think anyone who is in charge is calling this game a success. this game was a nightmare of fukushima proportions.