So, I've been reading some of the threads that have been popping up about how people feel the game should be molded.
What I've seen lately is that there seems to be two camps formed regarding the time involvement that Pantheon will require as well as how many variations of modern comforts should be implemented.
As someone who could live with either iteration of Pantheon, I'm looking at both sides with a bit of neutrality.
I see both sides as basically being on the same team but both wanting a slightly different version of the same difficult social game.
One camp says they want basically EQ1 vanilla with little to no changes. (this camp gets told they will kill the game and stave off new players.)
The other camp says they want EQ1 vanilla with a few additions such as a LFG UI. (this camp gets told this isn't the game for them and they should hit the road.)
So I ask this; since we are on the same team why are a lot of people slinging vitriol at eachother?
I believe it's because we know and fear that this is probably our last chance to savor a truly social and difficult MMO again.
Knowing that, people are very passionate about pushing for Pantheon to be made in a certain way so that they can call it home for years to come.
Here's the kicker: Everyone is arguing over what are in the grand scale of a game, basically some variations of settings and details.
Why exactly can't we the player base and VR all have our cake and eat it too?
Just an idea but how about:
~Hardcore MegaServer 1: mostly EQ1 vanilla, getting to lvl 1 takes 4-8 hours, exp to cap takes 6+ months, 0 mana to full takes 5+ min to med up, possibly more NO DROP gear. Any new fluff mechanics and UI windows that are not integral to VR's vision to the game would be switched off on this server.
~Traditional MegaServer 1: mostly EQ1 vanilla, getting to lvl 1 takes under an hour, exp to cap takes about 3+ months, 0 mana to full takes 3-5 min, a few modern comforts such as: a very simple window showing who is LFG but would still require a tell being manually sent to that person for invite, possibly some type of assisted looting but no full on aoe auto loot.
(just throwing out numbers based on what I've read.)
Both servers will be social, both servers will still have the same difficult npcs, encounters and world.
Both servers will still take much longer the level in than just about any current MMO.
Both camps can have a place to call home, and if your lifestyle of preference changes you will have a backup playstyle server to fall back on.
Hardcore vets can join the Hardcore server.
Traditional EQ1 players as well as new MMO comers who don't have the time or interest in spending 8 hours getting to level 1 can play on the traditional server.
Personally, I would play on both servers. I would make my main (a Cleric) on the hardcore server and spend most of my time there.
On days where I have to work a lot and I only have an hour of playtime or if I want to tinker with learning a new class, I'd hop on the Traditional server for a bit of quicker (albeit still slow) exp.
EQ as well as a lot of other games have different rule type servers.
Why can't Pantheon give both sides a place to play?
While I've tinkered with a little gamedev as a hobby and I've never done anything as grand as an MMO, I do know tweaking some exp curves and adding a visual GUI representation of those who are /LFG are probably small fries for the skilled team at VR.
By changing a couple of settings VR can please a broader range of their fans all at once.
We've had PVE, PVP, RP, PVPRP, TLP servers why not Hardcore and Traditional rule sets?
What say ye?
~Imperator
I actually created a thread suggesting exactly this several months ago.
https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/1935/server-rulesets
The only thing about having an easier vs more hardcore ruleset, is that the hardcore one has to be more rewarding (risk vs reward). For instance, on a normal server, you should get less money from mobs, lower drop rates, lower chance of rare mobs spawning etc. Basically, you would want the true rate of progression on both servers to be similar, despite one server being harder. That, however, is hard to balance.
Great thread there man!
It's interesting to see some of the devs views at that time! I agree with you Dullahan, balancing the hardcore server with the traditional server would be difficult to keep progression at the same pace. I don't think artificially punishing the players with lower drop rates, etc on traditional server would be required, the game will still be HARD and difficult they would just have things like a LFG window and slow leveling but not SLOWER leveling.
Sure the traditional server players might start raiding 4 months after launch and the hardcore players start raiding 7 months after launch but both are playing at a pace they both chose and enjoy so there is no need to punish either group. (I think either pace is better than the typical first raid boss is down 2 weeks after launch in most games.)
I agree with what Kilsin said in the other thread, the worst thing for the game would be to fracture the player base on too many servers especially at launch.
There is nothing worse than an MMO launch where they have too many servers and after a few weeks half of them are empty. They end up merging, you lose your character name in the merge, the game gets bad press for closing servers, etc. Warhammer Online broke my heart with this stuff...
I'm not sure of the difficulty behind it but I hope the VR team can come up with some type of Mega server(s) idea, every single game I've played that uses a mega server(s) feels alive and healthy population wise.
I think maybe 4 mega servers total?
Hardcore (brutal, punishing and rewarding), Traditional (old school hard, not dumbed down, while also accessible to newcomers) and a PVP server for each play type (H-PVP, T-PVP.)
Launching with the right number of servers is tricky, launch with too many and everyone is spread out and servers end up closing.
Launch with too few and there are massive ques, new emergency servers have to be brought online, people have to reroll on those new servers (falling behind in progression), getting separated from their friends and then those emergency servers end up closing anyways down the line when people quit / migrate back to the original servers.
It might be a crazy idea but if VR can't or does not want to go with a few mega servers, maybe it would work to have everyone who pledged and pre ordered Pantheon, pre-reserve their server of choice in account settings so that VR can get an idea of where we all plan on playing come launch day. There will always be surprises but it might give them a heads up that hey 10,000 people plan on playing on X server and 3,000 want to play on XX server.
Just tossing ideas out there.
Raptorsbane said:So, I've been reading some of the threads that have been popping up about how people feel the game should be molded.
What I've seen lately is that there seems to be two camps formed regarding the time involvement that Pantheon will require as well as how many variations of modern comforts should be implemented.
As someone who could live with either iteration of Pantheon, I'm looking at both sides with a bit of neutrality.I see both sides as basically being on the same team but both wanting a slightly different version of the same difficult social game.
One camp says they want basically EQ1 vanilla with little to no changes. (this camp gets told they will kill the game and stave off new players.)
The other camp says they want EQ1 vanilla with a few additions such as a LFG UI. (this camp gets told this isn't the game for them and they should hit the road.)
So I ask this; since we are on the same team why are a lot of people slinging vitriol at eachother?
I believe it's because we know and fear that this is probably our last chance to savor a truly social and difficult MMO again.
Knowing that, people are very passionate about pushing for Pantheon to be made in a certain way so that they can call it home for years to come.
Here's the kicker: Everyone is arguing over what are in the grand scale of a game, basically some variations of settings and details.
Why exactly can't we the player base and VR all have our cake and eat it too?
Just an idea but how about:
~Hardcore MegaServer 1: mostly EQ1 vanilla, getting to lvl 1 takes 4-8 hours, exp to cap takes 6+ months, 0 mana to full takes 5+ min to med up, possibly more NO DROP gear. Any new fluff mechanics and UI windows that are not integral to VR's vision to the game would be switched off on this server.
~Traditional MegaServer 1: mostly EQ1 vanilla, getting to lvl 1 takes under an hour, exp to cap takes about 3+ months, 0 mana to full takes 3-5 min, a few modern comforts such as: a very simple window showing who is LFG but would still require a tell being manually sent to that person for invite, possibly some type of assisted looting but no full on aoe auto loot.
(just throwing out numbers based on what I've read.)
Both servers will be social, both servers will still have the same difficult npcs, encounters and world.
Both servers will still take much longer the level in than just about any current MMO.
Both camps can have a place to call home, and if your lifestyle of preference changes you will have a backup playstyle server to fall back on.
Hardcore vets can join the Hardcore server.
Traditional EQ1 players as well as new MMO comers who don't have the time or interest in spending 8 hours getting to level 1 can play on the traditional server.
Personally, I would play on both servers. I would make my main (a Cleric) on the hardcore server and spend most of my time there.
On days where I have to work a lot and I only have an hour of playtime or if I want to tinker with learning a new class, I'd hop on the Traditional server for a bit of quicker (albeit still slow) exp.
EQ as well as a lot of other games have different rule type servers.
Why can't Pantheon give both sides a place to play?
While I've tinkered with a little gamedev as a hobby and I've never done anything as grand as an MMO, I do know tweaking some exp curves and adding a visual GUI representation of those who are /LFG are probably small fries for the skilled team at VR.
By changing a couple of settings VR can please a broader range of their fans all at once.
We've had PVE, PVP, RP, PVPRP, TLP servers why not Hardcore and Traditional rule sets?
What say ye?
~Imperator
Except that what you describe as the traditional server is what the people you call hardcore are looking for.
Krixus said:Except that what you describe as the traditional server is what the people you call hardcore are looking for.
Well I'm sure they would call them something other than Hardcore and Traditional.
Maybe name them Masochist server (for those wanting harder/slower/or same as EQ1) and Traditional server (for those wanting EQ1 difficulty with some innovations). :)
You're right really all sides of the aisle are HARDCORE by today's mmo standards, no matter what small things they add like a simple LFG window, it's still going to be much more hardcore than just about all of the other choices out there.
~Imperator
Raptorsbane said:Great thread there man!
It's interesting to see some of the devs views at that time! I agree with you Dullahan, balancing the hardcore server with the traditional server would be difficult to keep progression at the same pace. I don't think artificially punishing the players with lower drop rates, etc on traditional server would be required, the game will still be HARD and difficult they would just have things like a LFG window and slow leveling but not SLOWER leveling.
Sure the traditional server players might start raiding 4 months after launch and the hardcore players start raiding 7 months after launch but both are playing at a pace they both chose and enjoy so there is no need to punish either group. (I think either pace is better than the typical first raid boss is down 2 weeks after launch in most games.)
I think any time you reward people with more for less, its always going to diminish the sense of accomplishment. It doesn't matter which way you describe it, whether its decreases certain things on the easier server, or increases it on the harder, I think there has to be something to reward the greater effort. Its like the argument that its OK to add casual mechanics to a game because the hardcore crowd can "choose" not to use it. If there is an easier way to get to the end, most people will take it. Thus, they'd have to at least attempt to keep a balance on risk vs reward between servers.
Dullahan said:I think any time you reward people with more for less, its always going to diminish the sense of accomplishment. It doesn't matter which way you describe it, whether its decreases certain things on the easier server, or increases it on the harder, I think there has to be something to reward the greater effort. Its like the argument that its OK to add casual mechanics to a game because the hardcore crowd can "choose" not to use it. If there is an easier way to get to the end, most people will take it. Thus, they'd have to at least attempt to keep a balance on risk vs reward between servers.
Speaking just for myself I would not feel my sense of accomplishment deminished on a hardcore server if I heard someone on the traditional server had cleared a raid before me.
I know some people do feel the "harder" server should reap some greater material rewards and I understand that.
But again, speaking just for myself, I would feel doing the content in hardcore mode would give me all the satisfaction I would need, i do know some others would feel they deserve more than a feeling as a reward for doing it the hardest way.
I know what you mean Dullahan about the easy road, I think everyone has been guilty of it at some point, you really want to run somewhere and explore the world but it would be quicker to use POK book so you do it just that once, then again, and again.
Basically people are going to say the game is too easy or too hard no matter what they do.
Where most current MMOs could rate a 2 in difficulty, EQ1 vanilla rating a 9.
I was imagining the Hardcore server being a 10 (really freaking hard) due to exp being even slower than EQ1 and Traditional server being a 7 (really hard) due to it having a few very basic modern functionality.
As long as they stick to their guns and keep Pantheon's difficulty anywhere between 6 and 10 I'll be happy and will play the hell out of it.
It will be better than settling for the easy 2's that the industry has been churned out for the last 10 years or so. (half your gear upgrading during each play session, flying mounts, instant ports, instant groups, lvl cap in 48 hours of grinding, expansion raids cleared in a week, game centered around soloing, no death penalty, very little social interaction etc.)
I imagine the game will launch with one type of PVE server though which will be around an 8 in difficulty and all of us 10s and 7s will just have to live with it and be glad it's not a 2.
~Imperator
Thing is ... the 'traditional' server is what EQ was at launch. What people are asking for is basic updates that show the game wasn't made in 95 and rather it was made in 2015. No one wants to change the core of the game. They want to change the out dated look and feel of it.
So no. No creating 2 versions of the same game. That takes dev time and different patches for each server. It cuts into our content releases because they have to make 2 different versions. People just need to stop being so pig headed and realize that EQ died out for a reason. Remaking it now as is will not be a 'revamp' it would still be pretty dead. Either you change with the times or you remain the old guy no one talks to or wants to visit.
Enitzu said:Thing is ... the 'traditional' server is what EQ was at launch. What people are asking for is basic updates that show the game wasn't made in 95 and rather it was made in 2015. No one wants to change the core of the game. They want to change the out dated look and feel of it.
So no. No creating 2 versions of the same game. That takes dev time and different patches for each server. It cuts into our content releases because they have to make 2 different versions. People just need to stop being so pig headed and realize that EQ died out for a reason. Remaking it now as is will not be a 'revamp' it would still be pretty dead. Either you change with the times or you remain the old guy no one talks to or wants to visit.
So I agree again with your first paragraph but I think you're still off on how people around here really feel about what they want the devs to be doing. People are not as far in the past as you think. Almost all of the "hardcore" people here will straight up tell you they don't want a prettier EQ, but at the end of the day, the core values of EQ are the only reason many of us are here and we are a vocal bunch. This is a niche game, this game will not cater to the masses, yes it needs subs to survive, but at its core it is not a fast travel, fast paced, flying mount cash shop, fast twitch game. It is a throwback to EQ, and when people believe you are "attacking" the core values you are going to get defensive responses. You still seem to have not done much research about the game or you would know about a lot of new features and dynamics that they plan to introduce.
Pantz said:I trust they will find a nice balance.
Two thumbs up for Pantz's trust in the VR team to balance the game. This isn't their first picnic.
My biggest fear for Pantheon is that it comes out looking like it was designed by a committee whose good intentions turned it into a Frankenmmorpg.
There are great reasons for having multiple servers with different rule sets. I don't believe that "difficulty" is one of those. If Pantheon is well designed, there will be things to do for casual players and things to do for hard core gamers. For the basic mechanics, such as mana recovery rates or travel, we need to let the devs do their job and make Pantheon a fun yet challenging game.
The generation that grew up getting trophies for simply showing up at sporting events may not like the fact that you can't get the best gear in game after six months of playing two hours per week. Some content should be reserved for the hard core gamers who are willing to do 4 hour raids and spend many months getting geared up to survive in those zones.
That said, the game needs to be fun for everyone, regardless of how much time you can devote. In MMORPGs there always need to be something to challenge you and you should never feel that you "won" or "maxxed out" in the game. Previous games have failed in this regard because the emphasis was on the end game and not the journey. Pantheon needs to have interesting and challenging encounters for all level ranges and requires basic safeguards which prevent low level content being trivialized by undue influence of high level players. Make level 15 as much fun as level 50 and I can't see how anyone wouldn't enjoy the game whether they play for 4 hours per week or forty.
If you watched the Live Twitch feed we saw a party of level 7 players absolutely having a blast doing a crawl through an outdoor region. There were traps/puzzles to solve, respawns to deal with, gross overpulling and death... Everything you'd want to find in much higher level dungeons and elements that were basically lacking at that level in vintage EQ.
Have faith.
Krixus said:Enitzu said:Thing is ... the 'traditional' server is what EQ was at launch. What people are asking for is basic updates that show the game wasn't made in 95 and rather it was made in 2015. No one wants to change the core of the game. They want to change the out dated look and feel of it.
So no. No creating 2 versions of the same game. That takes dev time and different patches for each server. It cuts into our content releases because they have to make 2 different versions. People just need to stop being so pig headed and realize that EQ died out for a reason. Remaking it now as is will not be a 'revamp' it would still be pretty dead. Either you change with the times or you remain the old guy no one talks to or wants to visit.
So I agree again with your first paragraph but I think you're still off on how people around here really feel about what they want the devs to be doing. People are not as far in the past as you think. Almost all of the "hardcore" people here will straight up tell you they don't want a prettier EQ, but at the end of the day, the core values of EQ are the only reason many of us are here and we are a vocal bunch. This is a niche game, this game will not cater to the masses, yes it needs subs to survive, but at its core it is not a fast travel, fast paced, flying mount cash shop, fast twitch game. It is a throwback to EQ, and when people believe you are "attacking" the core values you are going to get defensive responses. You still seem to have not done much research about the game or you would know about a lot of new features and dynamics that they plan to introduce.
Thing is, there are quite a few who have all but said what they want is a remake of the original. And I agree taht the core values need to stay in place. If you or anyone else can quote a post by me saying different then please do so I can clarify. I do not want those to change. But I do want some of the features from the original updated and simplified. Tossing a relatively new player to MMOs right into EQ, which I have tried to do, they are completely lost. Even the /who function is mind blowing to them. Now I don't think those need or should go away but we can find better ways to handle it without affecting the core values. That is what I have been getting at.
Granted no matter what anyone says atm we won't really know much of anything about the game until alpha. When we can get in and see for ourselves. We can speculate all day long but we could also all be completely off base with everything we are talking about. Seeing an hour of gameplay will not show us near what we need to see and test. Hell most of what I think could be off and already be in game for all I know.
Enitzu said:Thing is ... the 'traditional' server is what EQ was at launch. What people are asking for is basic updates that show the game wasn't made in 95 and rather it was made in 2015. No one wants to change the core of the game. They want to change the out dated look and feel of it.
So no. No creating 2 versions of the same game. That takes dev time and different patches for each server. It cuts into our content releases because they have to make 2 different versions. People just need to stop being so pig headed and realize that EQ died out for a reason. Remaking it now as is will not be a 'revamp' it would still be pretty dead. Either you change with the times or you remain the old guy no one talks to or wants to visit.
Creating rulesets is not as hard as you make it sound. For the most part, at least what I'm suggesting is a matter of changing values in a database. Furthermore, if VR can appeal to a wider audience without actually changing the game itself, it would probably yield as many, if not more players than additional content would. For instance, a roleplay server. A pvp server. A hardcore server. A server without boxing, or a combination of multiple rules. These are easy ways of broadening your potential audience, without even changing the core game.
If you really think Pantheon is a game sitting in such a small niche that it wouldn't benefit from such alternatives, you haven't done your research. Having been a part of various gaming forums on the internet for nearly 15 years, I can tell you there is no game more referenced and reflected on than EverQuest. Even Vanguard, in a buggy and unfinished beta state, managed to secure a quarter of a million pre-orders while in direct competition with WoW's The Burning Crusade. There are an absolute ton of people who will play Pantheon, and providing different rulesets is probably by far the easiest way to attract a larger portion of that niche.
I don't think it's possible or economical to satisfy all. Maintaining different ruleset servers at launch catered to different wants/needs/desires really opens up a can of worms for neverending threads from "unsatisfied" players begging for their own rulesets.
"Those people over there have their ruleset, and these people over here have theirs, why can't I have mine? What do you have against me and 'my people'?" Not sure about you guys, but I really don't want the future forums and community reduced to this. Take a peak at the EQ Progression Server forums and you'll see what I mean about quibbling over rulesets. It's downright nasty. The two sides of the coin you've pointed out are just the tip of the iceberg. Just wait until the masses arrive.
I would be OK with traditionally expected ruleset servers. PVE and PVP. Label some RP servers if deemed neccesary. These are easy to manage compared to many different servers with different drop rates, servers with more or less NO DROP items, servers with different EXP rates, different raid difficulties, mana regeneration rates, etc. This would be a patching and expansion pack nightmare. Especially at launch.
I trust Brad and the developers are on the right path, especially after seeing the live stream. Will I be 100% satisfied with every single mechanic, UI element, setting, or blade of grass in the game? No, probably not. Should I request/demand/riot until they create my very own special rules server? Rhetorical question, I know.
Dullahan said:Enitzu said:Thing is ... the 'traditional' server is what EQ was at launch. What people are asking for is basic updates that show the game wasn't made in 95 and rather it was made in 2015. No one wants to change the core of the game. They want to change the out dated look and feel of it.
So no. No creating 2 versions of the same game. That takes dev time and different patches for each server. It cuts into our content releases because they have to make 2 different versions. People just need to stop being so pig headed and realize that EQ died out for a reason. Remaking it now as is will not be a 'revamp' it would still be pretty dead. Either you change with the times or you remain the old guy no one talks to or wants to visit.
Creating rulesets is not as hard as you make it sound. For the most part, at least what I'm suggesting is a matter of changing values in a database. Furthermore, if VR can appeal to a wider audience without actually changing the game itself, it would probably yield as many, if not more players than additional content would. For instance, a roleplay server. A pvp server. A hardcore server. A server without boxing, or a combination of multiple rules. These are easy ways of broadening your potential audience, without even changing the core game.
If you really think Pantheon is a game sitting in such a small niche that it wouldn't benefit from such alternatives, you haven't done your research. Having been a part of various gaming forums on the internet for nearly 15 years, I can tell you there is no game more referenced and reflected on than EverQuest. Even Vanguard, in a buggy and unfinished beta state, managed to secure a quarter of a million pre-orders while in direct competition with WoW's The Burning Crusade. There are an absolute ton of people who will play Pantheon, and providing different rulesets is probably by far the easiest way to attract a larger portion of that niche.
Different rulesets I can agree with sure. PvP server, RP server, etc. But what is being asked for is changing game fundamentals not rules. That's completely different. Even doing something like a FV server where everything is droppable takes time and creates a whole new database that they have to keep updated. It takes more work. VRI is working with an already small team on a massive project. Shooting for a 'niche' game means that the team will have to remain pretty small even after launch. So having to build different patches for different servers isn't in the best interest of the players. I get what you are saying that it could bring in more players and I agree but it will also divide the playerbase and cause delays in content. And by divide the playerbase I mean hardcore and casual. Even the hardcore guilds on the casual server will be talked down upon by people on the "hardcore" server. It's asking for trouble
Enitzu said:Dullahan said:Creating rulesets is not as hard as you make it sound. For the most part, at least what I'm suggesting is a matter of changing values in a database. Furthermore, if VR can appeal to a wider audience without actually changing the game itself, it would probably yield as many, if not more players than additional content would. For instance, a roleplay server. A pvp server. A hardcore server. A server without boxing, or a combination of multiple rules. These are easy ways of broadening your potential audience, without even changing the core game.
If you really think Pantheon is a game sitting in such a small niche that it wouldn't benefit from such alternatives, you haven't done your research. Having been a part of various gaming forums on the internet for nearly 15 years, I can tell you there is no game more referenced and reflected on than EverQuest. Even Vanguard, in a buggy and unfinished beta state, managed to secure a quarter of a million pre-orders while in direct competition with WoW's The Burning Crusade. There are an absolute ton of people who will play Pantheon, and providing different rulesets is probably by far the easiest way to attract a larger portion of that niche.
Different rulesets I can agree with sure. PvP server, RP server, etc. But what is being asked for is changing game fundamentals not rules. That's completely different. Even doing something like a FV server where everything is droppable takes time and creates a whole new database that they have to keep updated. It takes more work. VRI is working with an already small team on a massive project. Shooting for a 'niche' game means that the team will have to remain pretty small even after launch. So having to build different patches for different servers isn't in the best interest of the players. I get what you are saying that it could bring in more players and I agree but it will also divide the playerbase and cause delays in content. And by divide the playerbase I mean hardcore and casual. Even the hardcore guilds on the casual server will be talked down upon by people on the "hardcore" server. It's asking for trouble
Dismissing such a suggestion based on the liklihood that players will talk down on others is not a valid argument. Players that talk down on others will always find a reason to do so. Whether they're all playing on the same server or on a harder one. On the same server they'll simply brag that they were able to do X content first, or with less players, or without ever wiping, or without having to bring more than X healers. Elitist players will always look for a way to distinguish themselves or diminish the achievements of others.
Fundamental changes describe something of importance. Adding PvP does indeed change a game on a fundamental level. However, its a change that does not require altering the underlying game (underlying, or fundamental) outside of potentially reducing PvP damage or disabling particular abilities in PvP. Fundamentals would include things such as creating different MOB AI, reworking mechanics, changing class abilities, designing different itemization, offering different content; those are examples of the underlying systems in an MMO. Changing those things is a lot of work, and continue to be a lot of work as the game moves forward. Changing a server setting or db value to PvP=True, 3rdPersonCamera=disabled or modifying drop rates like coinLoot*=.25 would not be examples of those things.
I am by no means a dev of any kind. So pretending I know how hard or easy game design is simply won't happen. But I do know that having to do things twice is generally a bad move. In any business.
While I agree that the fundamental things you listed as being big changes are in fact big changes, personally i feel like having to alter things like xp rates and such over thousands of mobs in a game to be a pretty big one as well. Granted it really only has to be done once with each content patch but it is more work. It is also a lot more room for error. Say for instance they were to do this. What happens when a simple typo causes a 0.3% xp rate to go to 9.3%? Changing things like this aren't needed. Do you really feel like there needs to be this 'hardcore' and 'casual' difference between 2 servers? I just feel like it's asking for a lot more trouble then it would be worth because these changes wouldn't bring near as many people as you think. They only way they would is if that casual server changed the core concepts to appeal to a broader audience and no one wants that.
Enitzu said:I am by no means a dev of any kind. So pretending I know how hard or easy game design is simply won't happen. But I do know that having to do things twice is generally a bad move. In any business.
While I agree that the fundamental things you listed as being big changes are in fact big changes, personally i feel like having to alter things like xp rates and such over thousands of mobs in a game to be a pretty big one as well. Granted it really only has to be done once with each content patch but it is more work. It is also a lot more room for error. Say for instance they were to do this. What happens when a simple typo causes a 0.3% xp rate to go to 9.3%? Changing things like this aren't needed. Do you really feel like there needs to be this 'hardcore' and 'casual' difference between 2 servers? I just feel like it's asking for a lot more trouble then it would be worth because these changes wouldn't bring near as many people as you think. They only way they would is if that casual server changed the core concepts to appeal to a broader audience and no one wants that.
Stuff like that can be altered by a sort of global variable. You don't have to change each mob, you simply say:
xp=[variables](location,mobLevel,groupMembers,etc)+hardcoreServerModifier
Yes, based on what I see on these forums I genuinely do believe a few rulesets can serve to please a far greater portion of the population, and that it can be done without seriously altering the base game. While at least most of us are happy with Pantheon as its described on the site, some seem to take exception (you in particular) with many of the details. As someone who thinks some of the core concepts upon which the game is being designed are problematic, I'd think such a solution would be appealing to you especially; yet somehow, you oppose this too which only seems to reveal that you're actually more interested in influencing players and the powers that be to change the game to be more in line with what you want.
I also never suggested there be a "casual server." Personally, I proposed normal servers (according to the game description), and then Hardcore servers which would be even harder offering none of the convenience that some folks are so adamant about VR incorporating into Pantheon. And then other rulesets too...
I dislike the entire concept of servers running anything other than your traditional PVP or PVE server designations. I know what I'm getting into with PVP - people are going to try to kill me on the reg. I either accept that and jump in or I opt for PVE protection.
When you start changing variables associated with core gameplay mechanics, you're facilitating the old "grass is greener..." conundrum. "Damn this epic is taking me forever! Why the hell did I sign up for hardcore mode?" or "Sup homie, you've been playing [some game] since launch too? Nice! I'm level 32. Wait, what? You're level 58 already? How... ahh, casual server. Cool story bro." You get the point.
And you can forget about server transfers/consolidations with the OP's suggestions. #justkillme
I trust VRI to make a game that suits its intended audience. It's really up each of us to decide whether or not we fall into that category.
Talvy
I don't quite understand why y'all oppose something like this. It makes no sense to me. There have been servers with different rulesets since there have been mmo's and I've never heard anyone talk down to someone else in the sort of hypotheticals y'all have cited as examples. I think that if you hang out with people like that you may wanna reconsider your friends. :)
If the demand is there and the resources available at VR they have said they are fans of servers with different rule sets. Again, I'll refer to the FAQ (which no one else seems to have read) Something like FV is exactly what I'm hoping for.
Still need that like button for you, Dullahan.
Dullahan said:Enitzu said:I am by no means a dev of any kind. So pretending I know how hard or easy game design is simply won't happen. But I do know that having to do things twice is generally a bad move. In any business.
While I agree that the fundamental things you listed as being big changes are in fact big changes, personally i feel like having to alter things like xp rates and such over thousands of mobs in a game to be a pretty big one as well. Granted it really only has to be done once with each content patch but it is more work. It is also a lot more room for error. Say for instance they were to do this. What happens when a simple typo causes a 0.3% xp rate to go to 9.3%? Changing things like this aren't needed. Do you really feel like there needs to be this 'hardcore' and 'casual' difference between 2 servers? I just feel like it's asking for a lot more trouble then it would be worth because these changes wouldn't bring near as many people as you think. They only way they would is if that casual server changed the core concepts to appeal to a broader audience and no one wants that.
Stuff like that can be altered by a sort of global variable. You don't have to change each mob, you simply say:
xp=[variables](location,mobLevel,groupMembers,etc)+hardcoreServerModifier
Yes, based on what I see on these forums I genuinely do believe a few rulesets can serve to please a far greater portion of the population, and that it can be done without seriously altering the base game. While at least most of us are happy with Pantheon as its described on the site, some seem to take exception (you in particular) with many of the details. As someone who thinks some of the core concepts upon which the game is being designed are problematic, I'd think such a solution would be appealing to you especially; yet somehow, you oppose this too which only seems to reveal that you're actually more interested in influencing players and the powers that be to change the game to be more in line with what you want.
I also never suggested there be a "casual server." Personally, I proposed normal servers (according to the game description), and then Hardcore servers which would be even harder offering none of the convenience that some folks are so adamant about VR incorporating into Pantheon. And then other rulesets too...
So because I asked for an option to enable auto loot rather than clicking each item, having a lfg window rather than doing /who all x however many times, and purposed modifying mana regen that means that I should be happy that people are asking for seperate servers for hardcore and 'traditional'? Lol. None of what I purposed goes against a single one of the game tennets or core concepts of the game like you would lead people to believe. I have stated numerous times I do not want those to change. They are the basis of the game and the reason I am here. What I want is some of the tedium taken out of EQ. Just because a game is tedious and has big time sinks doesn't make it a good game or even a hard game. It simply makes it tedious. If shaving 30 seconds off of forming a party is in your mind 'hardcore' then we have way different definitions and it would explain alot of the debate we've been having.
For me hardcore defines people who have the ability to spend 40+ hours a week in game. People who strive to be the very best at what they do. Hardcore does not mean masochist. It does not mean that I want to spend 25 of my 40 hours half afk waiting on a mana bar to fill up. I want the game to keep me engaged in it. If you find fault in that then I'm not sure what to say to you.
And yes I am 100% against dividing the playerbase by categories.
Raptorsbane said:
What say ye?
~Imperator
Actually, time sinks are exactly what makes a game like Pantheon hard. There are 2 different ways for a game to be hard, twitch skills/don't stand in the fire ala WoW and Action based combat games like BDO and Blade and Soul, or EQ-esque time-based progression, or some combination of the both. If you remove any of the factors that cause a player to take more time to accomplish any task, you are affecting the difficulty, and tenets of the game.
That being said, the difference between having an LFG window and /who all X are nearly irrelevant. They both serve the same purpose, at approximately the same speed, however I would prefer a simple LFG window, as long as it doesn't give away more information than I want it to.
Modifying mana regen? This is an extremely slippery slope, resource management is at the very heart of what made EQ great, everything in the game revolved around it.. changing this in any way can have dramatic effects on the game as a whole, and should not be trifled with. You may only see the effect that waiting on your personal mana regen gives you, but you need to look past yourself, at all of the systems of the game, and realize that mana regeneration being that slow, was absolutely critical. I'm not gonna go into detail and spell it out for you because to be honest, this post would be 5 pages long.. but suffice it to say, it is extremely critical.