Things in Vanguard and Pantheon, but not EQ

Adamantine

Can you name anything thats in Vanguard and Pantheon, but not in EverQuest ?

Because I'm drawing a total blank there.

Elsabolts

Who would care, life style choices comes to mind.

Adamantine

I would care, thats why I'm asking.

Xiaoki

Vanguard had the Diplomacy card game and the crafting was very different.

Dont know about Pantheon as its not out and wont be out for a while.

Adamantine

It seems it is exactly as I feared: there is hardly any reason to call Pantheon a Vanguard successor.

ultimateduck

I was unaware Pantheon was released in order to make such a comparison.

Adamantine

I have been complaining about this since day one. Pantheon seems to be a lot more an EQ successor than a Vanguard successor. None of the advantages of Vanguard over EverQuest made it into Pantheon.

svann

Big thing on VG over eq was many abilities.  You couldnt just turn autoattack on, you had to choose what to use.  You also had combat chains.  If you parry, you hit ability X next.  If your attack A crits, then you hit attack B and if that crits you hit C.  I dont remember all the connected abilities but there were a bunch.

I dont know if that will be in Pantheon.  No one here knows what all will be in Pantheon.

Wellspring

Adamantine said:

I have been complaining about this since day one. Pantheon seems to be a lot more an EQ successor than a Vanguard successor. None of the advantages of Vanguard over EverQuest made it into Pantheon.

What advantages are those exactly?

tarodin

I would love to see combos with weakness like in vanguard, a good OST, a nice crafting system. I do not know if we will see some of that in pantheon.

Amathe

Housing? Pantheon lists it as a future feature. 

asteldiancaliskan

So far:
Offensive and Defensive target.

Group mate directional arrow (i may be wrong, but i thought VG had this).

Class skills (technically any game since EQ1, but since talking specifically these games, then it kinda counts) and certain classes such as Dire Lord is clearly a direct decendant of VG Dreadknight.

Class synergy (e.g. Druids doing extra damage to wet targets, Shaman having a skill that makes target wet. VG had similar mechanic where class skills did extra damage if target suffered certain effects from other classes)

What I would like to see is the Reactive Rescue skills VG had.

Hawkaya399

asteldiancaliskan said:

So far:
Offensive and Defensive target.

Group mate directional arrow (i may be wrong, but i thought VG had this).

Class skills (technically any game since EQ1, but since talking specifically these games, then it kinda counts) and certain classes such as Dire Lord is clearly a direct decendant of VG Dreadknight.

Class synergy (e.g. Druids doing extra damage to wet targets, Shaman having a skill that makes target wet. VG had similar mechanic where class skills did extra damage if target suffered certain effects from other classes)

What I would like to see is the Reactive Rescue skills VG had.

1. EQ added group member position onto hte maps Feb 2003

2. EQ had class skills like Tracking (primarily ranger) or Feign Death (sk/monk/necro) or Apply/Make Poison (rogue) or Backstab (rogue) or Block (monk) or Research (enc/wiz/nec/mag) or Harm Touch (sk)... and a massive number of class spells.

3. EQ had some class synergy in the form of debuffing/buffing. Ex: A defense debuff makes melee hit harder. Admittedly not as specific. However, some classes worked well together, some moreso than others depending on camp.

A lot of hte modern features in other MMO's were later added to EQ as it aged. Its targeting system is very different from initial release.

asteldiancaliskan

Well you can basically rewite the narrative to make features be the same as any game -
1. Location on map is not the same as actual group directional arrow. It is a small thing, but being able to find groupmates without opening the map is a big deal to some (even moreso in a game that is not showing anyones position on a map)

2. Fine, lets be more specific. Pantheon, like VG, has an interactive combat system using skills, rather than an auto attack and one skill to use for melee. And for spellcasters, an interactive way to manage mana like VG rather that sitting between every spell.

3. Again, this is a stretch. Standard buff and debuffs is every game. Actual specific conditions applied by one class for another to take advantage was a VG feature that EQ did not have.

There is clearly some inspiration from VG, and i expect more come crafting. But considering VG is by all accounts an epic failure in the mmo industry, they would be reluctant to take too much from it, so far taking the more subtle aspects mentioned looks to be working.

svann

VG was a coding failure, not a game failure.

Pantheon can take just about anything it wants from VG and Ill be fine with it, except not the coding itself.

Wins: Combat abilities, player made housing, diplomacy game, crafting game, disciples, player made boats....

fails: chunks, pathing, crashing, lagg...

Wellspring

Amathe said:

Housing? Pantheon lists it as a future feature. 

Not trying to nit pick, but EQ1 has housing now too. 

MMOman101

Xiaoki said:

Vanguard had the Diplomacy card game and the crafting was very different.

***Snip****

I think Vanguard also had some very unique and interesting classes.  Not sure they are comparable to EQ really. 

Also the Bugs.................so many environmental bugs. 

Sheawanna

diplomacy 

Sheawanna

although from last stream diplomacy is something they are considering . 

Dullahan

Succeeding a game that wasn't successful is not the wisest business model.

svann

Dullahan said:

Succeeding a game that wasn't successful is not the wisest business model.

Well, any game that comes out now would literally have to "succeed" Vanguard since it comes out later. 

succeed:  to follow after another

But seriously, no one is or has ever suggested that Pantheon use Vanguard's failed coding.  So really whats your point?  Strawman much?

Dullahan

svann said:

Dullahan said:

Succeeding a game that wasn't successful is not the wisest business model.

Well, any game that comes out now would literally have to "succeed" Vanguard since it comes out later. 

succeed:  to follow after another

But seriously, no one is or has ever suggested that Pantheon use Vanguard's failed coding.  So really whats your point?  Strawman much?

You are assuming that the only issue with Vanguard was coding, which it definitely was not. There were mistakes from a design perspective. They flew too close to the sun, the sun being the mainstream. My belief is that by keeping it more like the original they would have had a more compelling game and something that wasn't available anywhere else, including live EQ at that point.

Utinni

Hard to say since pantheon is a few years from complete.

svann

Dullahan said:

svann said:

Dullahan said:

Succeeding a game that wasn't successful is not the wisest business model.

Well, any game that comes out now would literally have to "succeed" Vanguard since it comes out later. 

succeed:  to follow after another

But seriously, no one is or has ever suggested that Pantheon use Vanguard's failed coding.  So really whats your point?  Strawman much?

You are assuming that the only issue with Vanguard was coding, which it definitely was not. There were mistakes from a design perspective.

Can you be more specific about what parts of the game design you think was a mistake? 

They had good classes, good xp system that balanced questing and sandbox, crafting that wasnt just a combine button but actually had tactics, diplomacy, group harvesting, multiple separate starting areas, factions, races that made enough of a difference that it was a real choice without making one race the only choice, player built houses and boats you could sail anywhere you wanted.

The only actual game design flaw I can think of was that bards were too powerful, but then that might have just been me.

No, the reason people left was definitely the flawed coding.  People loved the game design.

Dullahan

svann said:

Dullahan said:

svann said:

Dullahan said:

Succeeding a game that wasn't successful is not the wisest business model.

Well, any game that comes out now would literally have to "succeed" Vanguard since it comes out later. 

succeed:  to follow after another

But seriously, no one is or has ever suggested that Pantheon use Vanguard's failed coding.  So really whats your point?  Strawman much?

You are assuming that the only issue with Vanguard was coding, which it definitely was not. There were mistakes from a design perspective.

Can you be more specific about what parts of the game design you think was a mistake? 

They had good classes, good xp system that balanced questing and sandbox, crafting that wasnt just a combine button but actually had tactics, diplomacy, group harvesting, multiple separate starting areas, factions, races that made enough of a difference that it was a real choice without making one race the only choice, player built houses and boats you could sail anywhere you wanted.

The only actual game design flaw I can think of was that bards were too powerful, but then that might have just been me.

No, the reason people left was definitely the flawed coding.  People loved the game design.

Bugs were responsible for most people leaving early on, yes, but there were still many like myself on high end systems who left for other reasons.

I've discussed the issues I felt most responsible ad naseum here over the years. Very briefly, it was the the lack of risk versus reward. It was the fact that death had little to no consequence. The world was too accommodating, and the rewards were numerous and forgettable until late game.

This philosophy washed over into every aspect of the game. Ultimately they normalized the prestige that players sought and which kept them logging in. The respect a virtual world like EQ demanded - pushing the player to be cautious, to be efficient, to be sociable - were all scaled back leaving a much less compelling experience. At least in my opinion.

Sovrath

Dullahan said:

I've discussed the issues I felt most responsible ad naseum here over the years. Very briefly, it was the the lack of risk versus reward. It was the fact that death had little to no consequence. The world was too accommodating, and the rewards were numerous and forgettable until late game.

Little consequence? You died, got xp debt and dropped quite a few items. I recall making my way through a spider cave that I was too low for and trying my best not to aggro anything so I could get my stuff.

Was a blast!