KickStarter Pantheon - (Brad "EQ" McQuaid's new MMO)

[Xenich]

Well, there was an update on Dwarfs:

http://www.thekeepersvault.com/the-dwarves

I think they look pretty good. I like the fact that everything looks more... real? As opposed to the stylized look of most games today. They are more human like in their build, but I always preferred that take on their appearance.

They have 9 races so far, and two more coming, one of which was recently mentioned (basically, they are Minotaur race).

So 11 races total then I think for release and 13 total for classes (I think they are adding the necromancer as number 13).

From what I have been reading, the classes are going to very unique, similar to how Vanguard was with their class designs. It should be interesting to see how things turn out.


One thing is for certain, the game is looking great and it is generating a lot of buzz again. They may be due for another KS run. With all the footage and fleshed out mechanics, I think this time around they would get a lot of backing.

 

[Xenich]

This is what I was worrying about (quote from random person on MMORPG.com):

I think this will be the MMORPG to get me excited and give me that epic feeling again as I did when I first played WOW in the BC days.

See, they are all excited now that the graphics are being improved.

Thing is, this guy will be in for a complete shock come release. If his "epic feeling" is that of WoW BC, well... I see a major shitstorm of bitching and moaning coming. First it will be the complaints about death penalties and corpse recovery, then the content basically designed for groups (though possibly able to solo IF you are clever, and have the right class... ie not all classes will be able to solo well), then it will be class balance and the complexity of the systems, etc....

I know I am being cynical, but hell... after seeing this thing happen over and over again with each new MMO that showed promise, it isn't cynicism, it is reality.

The only comforting point is that I know Brad and how he deals with those who oppose his "Vision". There were many a conflicts on the EQ forums in the early days with Brad ever so nicely telling people to fuck off if they didn't like his vision (ie the door is that way). He is going to need to stick to his guns if this is to succeed. We already know that the models of today just aren't working. He needs the old school crowd or this will be a waste of time.

 

[Xenich]

Well, this is pretty cool.

https://www.pantheonrotf.com/forums/topic/1790/pv-p-and-pv-e-on-same-server-hear

Our stance is very clear, we are creating a PvE focussed game, once we are at a point that we are happy in what we have, we can get feedback on PvP numbers, if there is enough interest in a PvP server, we can open a server strictly for PvP away from the PvE servers with a few tweaks to make it fun for those members.

PvP if implemented on it's own server, will have no impact on PvE, we understand that our target audience is a very large majority in favour of strictly PvE only gameplay and we will not ever turn a blind eye to that.

So do not worry and feel threatened by PvP, if we get enough interest, we will gladly open a server and let the PvP crowd have fun but it will not impact PvE at all.

Without having to worry about PvP, you can really end up with some pretty cool systems in the game that would otherwise be a problem in PvP. Brad has already stated they won't be balancing classes between each other like we see in other games (DPS vs HPS, etc..), that they will balance based on the classes ability to contribute to the group and this really isn't feasible imo if you have PvP in the game.

 

[Norfleet]

I wouldn't say that. Good systems are made with PvP balance in mind: They're balanced because you're fighting an equivalent enemy on even terms: Someone who has the same abilities as you and can use them. PvE is generally all about whomping on a hitpoint-sink critter until it dies. This kind of balance results in characters dealing ever more excessive levels of damage to beat down ever more excessive HP bloat. It then completely flops in PvP balance because the amount of damage a character has to do to play PvE is enough to one-shot a player many times over. So you add horrible fudge-factors and other bullshit, and the entire thing is a mess, all because you couldn't design by a consistent set of rules that applied universally to all critters in the game.

So when you're fighting an opposing "Elf Warrior", it resembles no elf anyone actually has: It has 20x the HP anyone could ever rightly have while dealing a mere fraction of the damage of the equivalent player version. It gets only more ridiculous if monsters and players represent some kind of machine, where a player tank has a tiny fraction of the hitpoints of the same NPC tank.

 

[Alchemist]

Without having to worry about PvP, you can really end up with some pretty cool systems in the game that would otherwise be a problem in PvP. Brad has already stated they won't be balancing classes between each other like we see in other games (DPS vs HPS, etc..), that they will balance based on the classes ability to contribute to the group and this really isn't feasible imo if you have PvP in the game.

Yeah that definitely is good to hear. I hope they stick to their guns on this - it would be great to see the game mostly focused on interesting PvE mechanics.

Good systems are made with PvP balance in mind: They're balanced because you're fighting an equivalent enemy on even terms: Someone who has the same abilities as you and can use them.

I disagree with that strongly - MMOs have often been balanced toward PvP in recent years and this has been detrimental to game design in many ways. There are ways to make PvE interesting without resorting to the huge bag of hit points tactic. Like Xenich mentioned, Pantheon will be balanced toward to the collective capabilities of an entire group, and simply dishing out more DPS won't cut it.

 

[Xenich]

Good systems are made with PvP balance in mind: They're balanced because you're fighting an equivalent enemy on even terms: Someone who has the same abilities as you and can use them.

I disagree with that strongly - MMOs have often been balanced toward PvP in recent years and this has been detrimental to game design in many ways. There are ways to make PvE interesting without resorting to the huge bag of hit points tactic. Like Xenich mentioned, Pantheon will be balanced toward to the collective capabilities of an entire group, and simply dishing out more DPS won't cut it.

Yep, we have had numerous MMOs with PvP and every single one of them I have played has resulted in PvP establishing the limitations and directions of PvE classes and implementation. What I have noticed is that classes became more and more streamlined, homogenized in order to facilitate class "balance". The beauty of a PvE only game is that it doesn't matter if a class is balanced to each other, it only matters if they bring something useful to the group and game. This allows for so many more applications of skills and and game mechanics that may otherwise be prohibitive in PvP play.

 

[Xenich]

I wouldn't say that. Good systems are made with PvP balance in mind: They're balanced because you're fighting an equivalent enemy on even terms: Someone who has the same abilities as you and can use them. PvE is generally all about whomping on a hitpoint-sink critter until it dies. This kind of balance results in characters dealing ever more excessive levels of damage to beat down ever more excessive HP bloat. It then completely flops in PvP balance because the amount of damage a character has to do to play PvE is enough to one-shot a player many times over. So you add horrible fudge-factors and other bullshit, and the entire thing is a mess, all because you couldn't design by a consistent set of rules that applied universally to all critters in the game.

So when you're fighting an opposing "Elf Warrior", it resembles no elf anyone actually has: It has 20x the HP anyone could ever rightly have while dealing a mere fraction of the damage of the equivalent player version. It gets only more ridiculous if monsters and players represent some kind of machine, where a player tank has a tiny fraction of the hitpoints of the same NPC tank.

PvP vs PvE is irrelevant. It isn't an issue about that, it is the problem with PvP establishing what PvE can have because it requires all classes to be properly balanced to allow for "fair play" between each other. That ALWAYS gets in the way of PvE design and it is why a great deal of the PvP games out there have streamlined their classes, skills, and abilities because attempting to balance between classes with such becomes impossible. By not focusing on the PvP, you can have classes that might completely destroy another in PvP, but lack important group skills that only that other class can bring to a group environment or apply to a given approach. This means we can see all kinds of crowd control abilities of unique fashion (ie not having them be essentially the same between every class so that every class can properly counter every other class), combat and non-combat abilities, charm and control abilities, roots, snares, etc.... the list goes on, all of which create massive problems in PvP.

Now HP bloat and all that, well... that is a discussion in and of itself. Needless to say, you don't like PvE, you like PvP and you have made that very clear in past discussions. So, I guess this game won't be your cup of tea. Not a biggie, hell all games out right now aren't my cup of tea either. /shrug

 

[Ranselknulf]

I agree with the general sentiment that it is easier to have a PvE oriented game then make adjustments on a PvP server than the other way around.

 

[belowmecoldhands]

I started playing EQ in its first few moments after coming out mommy. It along with UO are stamped into my memory. I've moved on since then and now play Wurm Online, but even with instances and newer fudge on this bitch, I'd subscribe it and get my cream pudding ready. Brad, I'm sorry I never played Vanguard. I always kept watch on it, but I, for many a reason I won't say, stuck with EQ1 and UO player-run servers and other random MUDs, MMORPGs and sinlge plaeyr games. But this time around, Brad, I'll be there. I'll play her, get a look down below deck, and make sure when I'm older I'll be able to tell the youngins what she was like when her rose was freshly sown and her hair casted all shades of the rainbow and her eyes were like emerald suns.

Well, I'll try. I really want to be one of those people who said "Ya, I did that."

 

[Norfleet]

PvP vs PvE is irrelevant. It isn't an issue about that, it is the problem with PvP establishing what PvE can have because it requires all classes to be properly balanced to allow for "fair play" between each other.

That depends on how you define "fair play". If your PvP balance is purely based on duelling, then, yes, you're going to have a problem. If your PvP balance is based around the idea that everyone brings something to the table and that 5 of X and 0 of Y is always worse than 4 of X and 1 of Y, it doesn't matter whether or not X > Y.

By not focusing on the PvP, you can have classes that might completely destroy another in PvP, but lack important group skills that only that other class can bring to a group environment or apply to a given approach.

And why is that not also true in PvP? A battleship will always toast a destroyer, but a fleet of all battleships and no destroyers is soon to be an expensive lawn ornament on the bottom of the sea.

This means we can see all kinds of crowd control abilities of unique fashion (ie not having them be essentially the same between every class so that every class can properly counter every other class), combat and non-combat abilities, charm and control abilities, roots, snares, etc.... the list goes on, all of which create massive problems in PvP.

And how is that not fundamentally true of PvP also? Sure, you could install a pile of anti-torpedo-boat weapons on a battleship, but only at the cost of making it a less effective battleship and no less expensive, while still being worse at the job. All these arguments can be equally applied to PvP. The reason a PvE-centric game falls apart in PvP balance is not because you're fighting in PvP or PvE, but because "PvE-Centric" design invariably involves lazy shortcuts. You're no longer fighting other battleships and destroyers (or warriors, or wizards, or what-have-you). You're fighting things which in no way mechnically resemble the things your players are. This is "PvE Balance", a game that essentially discards any notion of balance because what you're fighting is mechnically unrelated to what you are. You may be humanoids, fighting other humanoids, or ships, fighting other ships, but their things and your things are mechanically unrelated and resemble each other only by sharing a common visual skin. That's the nature of "PvE" balance.

I agree with the general sentiment that it is easier to have a PvE oriented game then make adjustments on a PvP server than the other way around.

Only because "PvE game balance" isn't really a thing. All PvE games generally revolve around defeating hitpoint-sink bosses that follow predictable patterns of canned attacks. All games that balance around this kind of logic simply don't really HAVE PvP that's the same game anymore. If such a game even has PvP, it's basically an entirely unrelated game that happens to share a database.

 

[Xenich]

That depends on how you define "fair play". If your PvP balance is purely based on duelling, then, yes, you're going to have a problem. If your PvP balance is based around the idea that everyone brings something to the table and that 5 of X and 0 of Y is always worse than 4 of X and 1 of Y, it doesn't matter whether or not X > Y.

Ok, now... how are you going to balance those classes for PvP AND PvE now? You see, you are saying you are going to balance them as per what they bring to the table. I agree, you can balance PvP that way, but PvP and PvE are not the same. Fighting a player and fighting a computer AI are not the same (nor do they need to be designed to be). Certain skills work with PvE, but are horribly overpowered mechanics in PvP. So... now we have a problem as both have to compromise design to fit a balance "within" each other. This is why every PvP/PvE game known to date is the way it is and why people like me hate them. I like PvP, make a full on designed around and for PvP like you mentioned and I am on board. I like PvE, make a full on designed around and focused on PvE system and I am on board. Make the game a hybrid and well... enjoy, I ain't buying it. I have seen every game out since the inception of MMOs attempt this and they always end up with garbage.

And why is that not also true in PvP? A battleship will always toast a destroyer, but a fleet of all battleships and no destroyers is soon to be an expensive lawn ornament on the bottom of the sea.

Sure, if you are making a PvP balanced system, for PvP, balance around PvP focus. Lets consider the issue here though. You are fine with them completely ignoring the PvP side in terms of balance? You have no problems with lets say... a single class group mezzing 5+ guys, then charming one, fearing each at a time while the charmed player kills each of them and there nothing really they can do about it? You are fine with that? Or... are you going to say that there needs to be things in the game that allows those 5 players to escape from such a situation, or... well.. have a higher resist rate or different reaction, maybe the spell will have to work differently etc? Something tells me you will have "exceptions" as to what is allowed and that is the very point I am making. One will dictate to the other how things are designed. Now you may have this idealistic view that with the right balancing among all aspects of design and play, that such can be achieved, well... my response is: Where is that game and why aren't you playing it?

And how is that not fundamentally true of PvP also? Sure, you could install a pile of anti-torpedo-boat weapons on a battleship, but only at the cost of making it a less effective battleship and no less expensive, while still being worse at the job. All these arguments can be equally applied to PvP. The reason a PvE-centric game falls apart in PvP balance is not because you're fighting in PvP or PvE, but because "PvE-Centric" design invariably involves lazy shortcuts. You're no longer fighting other battleships and destroyers (or warriors, or wizards, or what-have-you). You're fighting things which in no way mechnically resemble the things your players are. This is "PvE Balance", a game that essentially discards any notion of balance because what you're fighting is mechnically unrelated to what you are. You may be humanoids, fighting other humanoids, or ships, fighting other ships, but their things and your things are mechanically unrelated and resemble each other only by sharing a common visual skin. That's the nature of "PvE" balance.

Real players are not the same as NPCs, nor should they be. PvE is about playing against a system, PvP is about competition between another player(s). They play differently, have different focuses, limitations and certain mechanics don't work well with PvP that are fine in a PvE system. How many times have we seen CC abilities removed/diminished from PvP games because they are overpowered or have extreme abuse issues. People don't like being treated like an NPC. They want it to be about skill play, not be subject to a dice roll and a game mechanic that rapes them. There are forums and forums of games drenched with the tears of players who whine and cry about such mechanics. That is the point. Now this amazing game you think that can be made, well... awesome, amazing, wonderful! When it gets made, you can prove me wrong, but I won't argue with the idealist who says it will work after it has continually failed over and over again. It is like listening to a communist go on about how it can work if it was the way they envisioned it.

At the end of the day, even if your game could be made and was everything you claimed, a game like this is not it. They aren't some AAA studio with 100's of millions of bucks and hundreds of employees to throw at the enormous amount of effort it would take to achieve what you want. These guys are limited and PvP WILL take away from PvE due to their limited budget. That is a fact.

 

[Norfleet]

Ok, now... how are you going to balance those classes for PvP AND PvE now? You see, you are saying you are going to balance them as per what they bring to the table. I agree, you can balance PvP that way, but PvP and PvE are not the same. Fighting a player and fighting a computer AI are not the same (nor do they need to be designed to be).

Ah, but SHOULD they actually be so different? The only reason they're different ie because the computer AI is stupid, for various technical constraints that may or may not apply. This results in the NPCs being given stat-bloat to compensate for the fact that they are stupid, which then results in HP bloat vs. DPS bloat, which breaks your PvP because players don't have that kind of HP bloat.

Certain skills work with PvE, but are horribly overpowered mechanics in PvP. So... now we have a problem as both have to compromise design to fit a balance "within" each other. This is why every PvP/PvE game known to date is the way it is and why people like me hate them. I like PvP, make a full on designed around and for PvP like you mentioned and I am on board. I like PvE, make a full on designed around and focused on PvE system and I am on board. Make the game a hybrid and well... enjoy, I ain't buying it. I have seen every game out since the inception of MMOs attempt this and they always end up with garbage.

On this, I kinda agree. This is because all compromise solutions to date have been terrible, half-assed affairs. If you make PvP-centric mechanics played by dumb-as-bricks NPCs that you must kill en-masse, the game is boring. If you make PvE-centric mechanics, the PvP is terrible. If you try to compromise the two in this manner, EVERYTHING sucks.

But there's no reason it has to be this way.

Sure, if you are making a PvP balanced system, for PvP, balance around PvP focus. Lets consider the issue here though. You are fine with them completely ignoring the PvP side in terms of balance? You have no problems with lets say... a single class group mezzing 5+ guys, then charming one, fearing each at a time while the charmed player kills each of them and there nothing really they can do about it? You are fine with that?

No, this isn't fine. Honestly, this isn't fine in PvE either, but NPCs lack the ability to complain about this. You have one class which can essentially shut down 5 enemies unopposed by anything. If, on the other hand, fancy EW and hacking is countered by its own defenses...these defenses can be things that enemy NPCs can also use.

Where is that game and why aren't you playing it?

I wish I knew, because if I knew of a game that hadn't taken such crappy short-cuts and wasn't too far gone for me to bother getting involved with, I'd already be playing it. The alternative to this is making such a game, and then I wouldn't be playing it because devs don't get to play their own games.

Real players are not the same as NPCs, nor should they be.

Why shouldn't they? If you're fighting NPCs that represent beings just like yourself, why should they NOT be like real players? After all, the ideal case is that it becomes impossible to distinguish players from NPCs and that the world is seamless, no?

People don't like being treated like an NPC. They want it to be about skill play, not be subject to a dice roll and a game mechanic that rapes them.

But why should PvE be different? Shouldn't PvE *ALSO* be about skill play? NPCs wouldn't like being treated that way either, if they had the capability to complain about it. When you match your wits against a similar NPC, representing a human enemy like yourself (as opposed to something simply way out there like a dragon, for which you can make up any rules you want), shouldn't it behave and have the same capabilities as you do?

At the end of the day, even if your game could be made and was everything you claimed, a game like this is not it. They aren't some AAA studio with 100's of millions of bucks and hundreds of employees to throw at the enormous amount of effort it would take to achieve what you want. These guys are limited and PvP WILL take away from PvE due to their limited budget. That is a fact.

And so we'll get another bland themepark-esque MMO where you pummel hitpoint-sink enemies with increasingly more outlandish numbers while PvP is a joke of a sideshow that nobody seriously cares about. Let's hope the auction house is good, then. In these games, the auction house becomes the real PvP.

 

[Xenich]

Ah, but SHOULD they actually be so different? The only reason they're different ie because the computer AI is stupid, for various technical constraints that may or may not apply. This results in the NPCs being given stat-bloat to compensate for the fact that they are stupid, which then results in HP bloat vs. DPS bloat, which breaks your PvP because players don't have that kind of HP bloat.

No, they are different because they are a different approach. Remember the statement I made in a previous discussion? You have a hammer, everything is a nail to you. You can't accept anything outside of the perspective of PvP play style. PvE and PvP are different approaches, play styles, mechanics, etc... You don't see this because you make the mistake of seeing PvP as a linear evolution to PvE. You make the same argument as those who claim turn based is archaic. We disagree here, there is no more discussion to be had.

On this, I kinda agree. This is because all compromise solutions to date have been terrible, half-assed affairs. If you make PvP-centric mechanics played by dumb-as-bricks NPCs that you must kill en-masse, the game is boring. If you make PvE-centric mechanics, the PvP is terrible. If you try to compromise the two in this manner, EVERYTHING sucks.

But there's no reason it has to be this way.

But it is... and it has been this way every single game developed. Right, wrong, good, bad... them there is the results. It is also why I am very against of having PvP added. I have been there, done that, not going to work. Why? Because these guys didn't even go into the picture of making their game with this thought, do we honestly believe they can achieve what countless games in the past who actually focused on such have failed to do? Not going to happen. It will be shit, guaranteed.

No, this isn't fine. Honestly, this isn't fine in PvE either, but NPCs lack the ability to complain about this. You have one class which can essentially shut down 5 enemies unopposed by anything. If, on the other hand, fancy EW and hacking is countered by its own defenses...these defenses can be things that enemy NPCs can also use.

You make the assumption that such mechanics are overpowered. You have no clue as to how the encounters are designed and if this approach by this type of character is within the encounter design. Like I said before, everything is a nail to you and you only see things via PvP mechanics and approach. You attempt to balance everything as if it were PvP (ie every ability done must have a counter mechanic ability) and fail to see the difference between PvE focus and style vs that of PvP. You complain about HP bloat, but dismiss the aspect of "endurance" brought to encounters and all of the aspects of play that come from such (ie the longer you fight, the more mistakes you can make, the more chances for various other mechanics to complicate your encounter). You dismiss this because you see things in the eyes of a PvP who tends to be that of action/time based approach and style. IT is about the drop, the get in and out, the, tit for tat FPS like play. This is why you miss the point of many PvE style of mechanics. Again, this is an issue that further discussion will be useless. I won't discuss how everything is a nail to you.

I wish I knew, because if I knew of a game that hadn't taken such crappy short-cuts and wasn't too far gone for me to bother getting involved with, I'd already be playing it. The alternative to this is making such a game, and then I wouldn't be playing it because devs don't get to play their own games.

That was my point. Thing about being an idealist is that they can safely sit in the comfort of their own mind on how perfect their idea is. Realists are idealists who put their idea to the test. No disrespect, but old age has produced too much reality for me to accept idealism without practicality.

Why shouldn't they? If you're fighting NPCs that represent beings just like yourself, why should they NOT be like real players? After all, the ideal case is that it becomes impossible to distinguish players from NPCs and that the world is seamless, no?

Should all games be the same? We are back to the nail again. PvP mechanics are not an evolution of PvE mechanics. Playing against a person has different qualities and rewards, playing against a machine does not mean that it is trying to be like another person. PvE isn't about just playing against an AI, it is about playing against a system, overcoming all kinds of obstacles of different types and styles. It isn't about the nail you keep making it out to be. You argue every encounter as if it should be just like playing a player. Thinking that PvE is essentially just due to the fact that AI isn't advanced is missing the entire point of what a game is in general.

Solitare isn't an attempt at trying to simulate another player. Many games aren't about an opposing player. They are about systems, obstacles, and the means to apply solutions and strategies to overcome, meet, etc.... Gaming is not the definition of player versus player. Just because the NPCs look like other players does not mean that an encounter should play like them. You may think that is the only reason to play, but to think that is the only way would be pretty silly.

But why should PvE be different? Shouldn't PvE *ALSO* be about skill play? NPCs wouldn't like being treated that way either, if they had the capability to complain about it. When you match your wits against a similar NPC, representing a human enemy like yourself (as opposed to something simply way out there like a dragon, for which you can make up any rules you want), shouldn't it behave and have the same capabilities as you do?

Skilled play can be achieved in many ways. PvP is not PvE... seriously, you are being pretty obtuse about this here. You should reasonably understand the points here, your failure to grasp this makes me think you are trolling.

And so we'll get another bland themepark-esque MMO where you pummel hitpoint-sink enemies with increasingly more outlandish numbers while PvP is a joke of a sideshow that nobody seriously cares about. Let's hope the auction house is good, then. In these games, the auction house becomes the real PvP.

So you thought your "ideal" would be best served arguing with a game that has declared from day 1 that it is PvE only focused? I mean, really?

Also, you mention "themepark". That tells me you have no fucking clue about this game. Where did you get that idea that it was going to be such? They stated that the game would have no quest hubs, no question marks over their heads. Quests would not be the main source of progression and would be spread throughout the game in many different ways as a means of discovery (similar to EQ).

Why are you here anyway? I mean, you don't like the game, it isn't focused on anything you want, so why bother?

You are narcissist? I mean, no offense, but narcissism runs extremely high with the PvP crowd. /shrug

BTW, I think it is pretty clear how you think and how I think as it pertains to these systems. There is no need to dicuss with you on this further I think.

 

[Norfleet]

You dismiss this because you see things in the eyes of a PvP who tends to be that of action/time based approach and style. IT is about the drop, the get in and out, the, tit for tat FPS like play.

Actually, the truth is, I've never really LIKED that kind of play, either. A real long time ago, I played games where battles were mighty affairs that could last for hours between skilled opponents as they would strike, counter-strike, maneuver, and manipulate, while the truly bad could manage to get themselves killed before the first shot was fired. Alas, Generation ADHD seems to have put a stop to such epic duels and brought us this. Nowadays, all we have are generation of children that can't manage to focus for longer than 5 minutes, let alone 5 hours or 5 days.

That was my point. Thing about being an idealist is that they can safely sit in the comfort of their own mind on how perfect their idea is. Realists are idealists who put their idea to the test. No disrespect, but old age has produced too much reality for me to accept idealism without practicality.

Well, the ancient Roman principle of "Omnia Merdae Sunt" applies, as always. I, too, have seen shit game after shit game. Everything is shit, you ultimately make do with the best you can find until it dies and you're forced to dig further down the barrel.

Solitare isn't an attempt at trying to simulate another player. Many games aren't about an opposing player. They are about systems, obstacles, and the means to apply solutions and strategies to overcome, meet, etc.... Gaming is not the definition of player versus player. Just because the NPCs look like other players does not mean that an encounter should play like them. You may think that is the only reason to play, but to think that is the only way would be pretty silly.

Well, I find it silly that for some bizarre reason, an enemy creature that happens to be otherwise physically the same as yours has basically nothing in common except the skin. Even in a purely PvE world, such as, say, a single-player one, it's jarring when enemies that should otherwise be physically similar to you simply aren't. Throwing in more players doesn't change this.

Skilled play can be achieved in many ways. PvP is not PvE... seriously, you are being pretty obtuse about this here. You should reasonably understand the points here, your failure to grasp this makes me think you are trolling.

I'm not entirely convinced whomping on a hitpoint sink enemy and following a pattern and response really counts. I suppose skill in cat-herding might qualify as a skill, but I'm not sure this is truly "play".

Also, you mention "themepark". That tells me you have no fucking clue about this game. Where did you get that idea that it was going to be such? They stated that the game would have no quest hubs, no question marks over their heads. Quests would not be the main source of progression and would be spread throughout the game in many different ways as a means of discovery (similar to EQ).

Well, we'll see. I honestly consider a static world that dispenses the same quests over and over to everyone in a static and unchanging world to be themepark-esque, even if it is not outright completely themepark. All MMOs since Everquest have basically been themepark-esque, with the peak form being reached in WoW.

Why are you here anyway? I mean, you don't like the game, it isn't focused on anything you want, so why bother?

I don't like anything unless I get paid to like it, period. What I want is irrelevant. What matters is what value ultimately materializes. Besides, there isn't even a game and no actual hard evidence such a thing will ever actually materialize, so at this point it's all just theory and debate.

 

[Xenich]

Why are you here anyway? I mean, you don't like the game, it isn't focused on anything you want, so why bother?

I don't like anything unless I get paid to like it, period. What I want is irrelevant. What matters is what value ultimately materializes. Besides, there isn't even a game and no actual hard evidence such a thing will ever actually materialize, so at this point it's all just theory and debate.

Yeah, that is a complete load of shit.

 

[SerratedBiz]

So this is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object.

 

[Norfleet]

Yeah, that is a complete load of shit.

How so? I see no reason I should like anything when I'm not being compensated for doing so in some way. Or did you mean the game being vaporware? Better, more substantative tech demos have ultimately failed to materialize a game.

 

[Xenich]

Yeah, that is a complete load of shit.

How so? I see no reason I should like anything when I'm not being compensated for doing so in some way. Or did you mean the game being vaporware? Better, more substantative tech demos have ultimately failed to materialize a game.

I guess you were just sounding edgy with "I don't like anything unless I get paid to like it, period. ", though I think you meant "paid" as in you get value for your time?

 

[belowmecoldhands]

If I understand right, the argument between the two of you revolves around the difference between a non-player and a player. Norfleet thinks non-players should or eventually will become players. Pvp is an incremental evolution of Pve. Pve will become Pvp.

Hmm. I think natural skill is always better than made-up stuff. Aiming by actually moving my view to the correct spot is what I consider natural and far more engaging. If my aim automatically centers on the correct spot if I'm within X distance then it's not as natural. Or if I simply press a single key on my keyboard and my aiming isn't based on my view location/orientation but is based on my aiming skill which is 93. 93 means I'll have an 88% chance of hitting. That to me is even less natural than the former example.

I can do things to non-players I could never do to real players. Non-players will roam around a made-up universe 24/7 without complaint. I could immobilize a non-player and keep them there indefinitely without them complaining. There's an advantage to this IF the player still is having fun or is still finding enough challenges. Now, the challenges in Pvp are distinctly more real than the ones in Pve, but that doesn't mean players in Pve aren't feeling challenged or aren't having fun. That's what matters.

I understand, I think, what Xenich is saying. You can stun a non-player for several minutes, and it'll stay stunned and you can be attacking several other non-players in the meantime. When you're done dispatching them then you'll finally kill the stunned non-player. This kind of tactic or procedure would not work in Pvp. Players do not want to be stunned for several minutes with nothing to do. Additionally, there's nothing wrong with having an ability (with a large cooldown) which can instantly kill a non-player. If this was Pvp, however, players might not like being instantly killed because, for htem at least, it feels unfair. And because of these examples and others, Pvp/Pve games have to usually find a way to balance it all, so the two systems can work alongside each other.

But where do I stand? Pve? Pvp? Well, I've always preferred to play on Pvp servers or in Pvp games, namely, for the extra challenge. But I also always have liked good Pve. Sadly, most Pvp games I've play3ed have rotten Pve. They almost always push/shove you into doing Pvp. For example, I recall playing Shadowbane. It did have Pve, but it was very shallow compared to something like EQ. Not only was the (pve) combat less involving, but the world was shallow: no dungeons, no quests, no factions, no lore, few (if any) unique items to find, boring spawn/pathing layouts, etc. The pve was an afterthought thrown in to get players ready for Pvp and act as a farming ground. In fact, it even stated in the Shadowbane manual that Pve was not the thing to focus on.

Yet I play in Wurm Onlie now on a pvp server. Wurm Online is principally a sandbox. It's not an MMORPG like EQ was. Dungeons are player-made and are just mostly mines. Quests are more like tasks and not central to the game. Lore is minimal because players are the focus. Items are mostly all player-made. The main, and signficiant difference, betwen Wurm Online and Shadowbane is the sandbox is hugely deeper and the environment you live in is not broken. In Shadowbane, the places players could build looked like the moon - everyting was flat and no trees. The Pve areas were the only interesting places in the whole game - there were tres and other variations in the terrain. If the places players could build looked lik the Pve areas it would have been much better. I also think Wurm Online doesn't push you as much to do Pvp. It's sandbox-centric. It DID start out with a greater emphasis on Pvp, however. Every server was Pvp. That waned and now almost everybody plays on the non-pvp servers.

Ok so anyway, I'm sorry for getting lost in the distinctions between thoe games. I guess what I'm trying to get across is I fall between Pve and Pvp because they both give me something I won't have otherwise. BUT if I had to make a judgmental on Pantheon, on whether it should have a Pvp server or not, I think I'd say no. Why? Because I don't think Pvp is popular enough. And also because even the most popular form of Pvp, namely the instanced stuff which enforces fairness, is not my piece of cake. For me, Pvp isn't Pvp without the unfairness of open-world and ffa. I hope Pantheon instead focuses on something else.

 

[Norfleet]

I guess you were just sounding edgy with "I don't like anything unless I get paid to like it, period. ", though I think you meant "paid" as in you get value for your time?

I'm not seeing anything edgy about it, but yeah, I want something for it if I'm expected to like something. If I'm telling you I liked something, I'm telling you I got some moolah-worth out of it. The obvious and most direct method is if someone outright pays me to say that, but I like things that get me money, period. Real money, in-game money, what matters is MONEY. I don't like it unless I get paid. And everything is shit, so if I'm not getting paid, then it's just shit shit, as opposed to profitable shit.

 

[Xenich]

I can respect the PvPer who wants the rich world of a PvE one, but with PvP ruleset. I honestly think there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe what is needed is for a game to first flesh out and release its PvE game, then... do as EQ did, essentially turn on PvP on a server. I think most people who remember PvP fondly, often refer to EQ. So, there may be something there that such a recipe of development provided over a game that tried to focus on PvP as the core. That said though, they need to only work on PvE for Pantheon and gauge PvP after the fact. If it has a lot of interest, they can do just as they did on EQ and if that interest is persistent, they can, just like they did on EQ, tweak the rules on the PvP servers.

Other than the worry of it taking from development time, I think PVP is fine in any game providing it is PvP on a PvP server with a separate rule set. This way, it doesn't have an effect on PvE. Personally, I like PvE more than PvP these days. I used to be into all the PvP games of old, the perm-death MUDs, heavy competition FPS games, etc... but my fondest memories were of long difficult battles of endurance and attrition in EQ. The fights took forever, were merciless on execution, but they gave a sense of accomplishment that I never seemed to get from PvP.

 

[Xenich]

I guess you were just sounding edgy with "I don't like anything unless I get paid to like it, period. ", though I think you meant "paid" as in you get value for your time?

I'm not seeing anything edgy about it, but yeah, I want something for it if I'm expected to like something. If I'm telling you I liked something, I'm telling you I got some moolah-worth out of it. The obvious and most direct method is if someone outright pays me to say that, but I like things that get me money, period. Real money, in-game money, what matters is MONEY. I don't like it unless I get paid.

Ok, that was it then, I didn't take it as you meant it. Now I understand, that is fine. I agree, I don't play games I don't like either. I was happy with Vanguard before they killed it, and well.... I tried going back to several others and it was hopeless. Even EQ was turned into a FTP PTW treadmill for the ADD. Gaming is dead for me. There are only two hopes for the future for me. The first is this game and the second is the Vanguard EMU project. If they don't come through, I doubt I will see another MMO worth playing again. The generations growing up aren't inspiring any hope for the future.

 

[Norfleet]

I can respect the PvPer who wants the rich world of a PvE one, but with PvP ruleset.

That's precisely what I want. Because PvP ruleset is, fundamentally, "fair". The idea is that it shouldn't matter what's controlling my opponent, whether it's a live human being or an AI: The rules are symmetrical, and therefore, should be challenging, assuming the AI isn't shit, but then, most players are shit, too.

I honestly think there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe what is needed is for a game to first flesh out and release its PvE game, then... do as EQ did, essentially turn on PvP on a server.

Whereas I see the way to do it as designing a balanced and fair ruleset, essentially, a PvP ruleset, from the outset, and then making your AI capable of handling this ruleset, as opposed to creating a completely different game and then trying to hamhandedly bolt PvP onto it by fudging the rules with arbitrary scaling factors to account for the fact that a player warrior entity is nothing like a comparable NPC warrior entity. This is my simulationist view speaking, really. When I fight an elf warrior, I want to be fighting something that obeys the rules of an elf warrior as we all know them. When I duel an enemy battleship, I want to be fighting an actual enemy battleship, with all the strengths and weaknesses known to that class of vessel, not some giant hitpoint brick that wears its skin. Whether the other player is a human or an AI is secondary.

I think most people who remember PvP fondly, often refer to EQ. So, there may be something there that such a recipe of development provided over a game that tried to focus on PvP as the core.

I know a guy who was one of the higher-ups of one of the EQ PvP guilds. He does indeed remember it fondly, but what he remembers most fondly about it was the hilarious brokenness of the mechanics. This, well, honestly, parallels my own PvP experiences in PvE games, where the entertainment value of the PvP lies not in playing the game via the ruleset, but by undermining it. Doing stuff like training mobs onto your foes and generally wreaking havoc. That's what the EQ PvPers loved. It wasn't the ruleset of the PvP, but the way you could cause grief and destruction through the fact that the ruleset was *BAD*. This is certainly entertaining, but it is not what I would consider a design goal.

Other than the worry of it taking from development time, I think PVP is fine in any game providing it is PvP on a PvP server with a separate rule set. This way, it doesn't have an effect on PvE. Personally, I like PvE more than PvP these days.

But that's just it. PvP in a vacuum is boring, and PvE without PvP in such a ruleset is just grinding. The satisfaction of PvP is partially the hunt, but also partially the impact it has on the world. PvE without PvP is hollow: You're not funding any great enterprise of war by doing it.

I used to be into all the PvP games of old, the perm-death MUDs, heavy competition FPS games, etc... but my fondest memories were of long difficult battles of endurance and attrition in EQ. The fights took forever, were merciless on execution, but they gave a sense of accomplishment that I never seemed to get from PvP.

Yeah, a long, hard-fought battle is certainly more fascinating than the "drop-based" battles that are common to many bolted-on PvP systems or even dedicated ones (but at least there, it's a design goal, not a hackjob). The clash of mighty warships is not a conflict that should be decided in mere seconds unless you manage to hit a magazine, preferrably by skill rather than luck.

 

[Nael]

As an unrelated aside, McQuaid looks old and tired as shit.

Maybe not though. Wasn't he drummed out of Sigil for being a drug addict or something, or am I thinking of something or someone else?

 

[Xenich]

As an unrelated aside, McQuaid looks old and tired as shit.

Maybe not though. Wasn't he drummed out of Sigil for being a drug addict or something, or am I thinking of something or someone else?

I heard things like that, even bought into them for a while. Now... well... does anyone have any evidence to support this or is this one of those internet gossip things?