https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/blogs/151/184/community-content-and-alternate-rulesets
A few takeaways from Aradune's blog:
"I really think the idea of alternate rule-set servers/realms, while dabbled with, have never (yet) reached their true potential. I think the idea that you make a core game that appeals to a significant audience, make it as great as possible for that audience, all the while not allowing yourself to be seduced by the idea that dumbing down the game somehow yields more players, is a critical concept."
"The trick is to hold onto the core game and what really makes it tick. Do not be tempted to change what really makes your game, what gives it an identify, why there is a demand for it. But then also look at your core game and realize there are many 'variations on the theme' that, if implemented, do not threaten or violate that core, that magic, that x-factor."
"So when we think about ideal Realm populations it comes down to 'is the world the right size, not too small and not too big, such that the kind of community we want to create develops? Looking at when Realm population peaks and then at times when fewer players are on.... have we created a virtual world that feels more like a village and less like a metropolis? Do we have approximately the right number of people on for a player driven economy to exist and thrive? Do you feel like you're truly part of something, that people recognize you, that you have an opportunity to become known (or reviled, or whatever floats your boat)?
And then is there enough Content -- mobs to kill, quests to take part in, items to craft. And very importantly a large enough world that allows us to make adventuring really matter and even to reward players for doing so but again not too large? Does our target audience run into the right amount of people outside of their group or guild that it feels like a real world (remember, no instancing)? But when they do, do we have that sweet spot that exists between underpopulation (a very real danger when creating a group focused game) and over population (where people are fighting over camping spots, drops, rares, named, etc.)? How often should we refresh and revamp content vs. adding new content (a new continent, a new race, etc.)?"
There is a lot more to that blog than what I have highlighted here. There are similar statements suggested in other blogs and on other threads. It all comes down to identifying that "core vision" for the game. It needs "feel like a real world" -- so remember, no instancing. It seems like getting that player to content ratio down is an extremely important component of overall game design. There are a lot of factors at play here but using instancing as a crutch just doesn't seem like one that should be considered.
There is a difference between Goals, Ideals, Technical challenges and Pragmatism.
I personally do not see how sharding leveling zones at Ultra peak times and creating farmable raid triggers counts as dumbing down the game in any way and should be adopted to all servers. You are instead taking pragmatic steps to offset the technical challenge of not having enough prepared content to support your ideal goal play experience with the number of players required to ensure a high enough population for tactical group combat.
I still very much advocate that Core Game be based on the ideal open world where everyone is able to constantly adventure but there are rewards for being faster, smarter and better prepared.
"I really think the idea of alternate rule-set servers/realms, while dabbled with, have never (yet) reached their true potential.” - Brad
To me this doesn't say that alternate rule-sets can't introduce options that alter the core vision. To me it says that once you have the core game made to your ideal vision then there are an infinite number of options that could be explored with alternate rule-sets. This could include a specific server more tailored to those with very infrequent and short play times.
What WoW did very well was allow people to play in short bits of time virtually on demand. Most of us super fans on these boards, myself included, are not interested in a fully instanced game but it may be the only way some people will be able to experience Terminus. Again this would be on a select alternative server or two not impacting the Core Game.
If we are really shooting the moon though on an alternate rulesets, I would be asking for “Front loaded character stats and abilities with diminishing returns as you level” (i.e. logarithmic power growth by level) and volume based inventories with infinite number of objects rather than slot based inventories rather than instancing in any form. The front loaded character stats may actually make instances wholly unneeded as both the level range to adventure in and group with would greatly expand in increase your options at any given level.
Trasak said: I am still not seeing any logical reasons why alternative ruleset servers could not also include rules pertaining to zone or raid instancing. Just like raid items had different perceived value on Firona Vie than on normal servers, raid items would be known to be two orders of magnitude more rare on type A servers than type B which would in turn be 3 orders of magnitude more rare than on type C servers. Likewise a type B server could support 10 times the players as type A and type C could support maybe even 1000 times the number of players as type A. A higher population and always having something meaningful to go do will go a long way to making the game appeal to busy people with short play times who pay as much as the 18/7 players making Pantheon much more profitable. Claiming that having even a single server with some form of instancing will ruin the game for you on a server that does not just makes no sense. It strikes me as a hardline purist "only my opinion matters" mentality. Finding comprises is the essence of community matters. Would you have an objection to a server where everything spawned 10 times faster? Or one with no items stonger than what you would find on level 20 rares on a normal server. Or a server where you could only make female characters and halflings were scaled up to be taller than ogres? If you don't like the ruleset play on a different server.
Really? Because you just demonstrated one. Instancing changes the entire server dynamic as it pertains to loot, inflation and the economy. They shouldn't be spending time rebalancing drop rates and no drop vs tradeable items for an alternate ruleset server. This is a game that's going to be tuned and balanced from a content to population perspective based on open world considerations. It's not hard to think of reasons why instancing would throw off a foundational aspect of their game. Nobody is saying it will ruin the experience if some other server has instancing, it will ruin our experience if they waste time on things that don't match their core values and tenets.
It blows my mind that people who have followed this game for months or even years are still fighting this fight when they've said outright, officially, many times that is not a thing.
@Keno
I wouldn't alter the drop rates, excpet maybe globally if it is quick and easy to do. The instance server will just have its own unique economy. Crafted items will end up being less valueable be cause its much easier to farm named. Its a trade off for having unlimited access. If you don't like how the economy functions then play on a non-instanced server. Part of the reason I didn't play on Firona Vie.
Since VR has said they wont instance this game I don't know why we keep having this discussion. A better discussion would be how to address your fears without instancing as a crutch. The problem is MMO's have used instances as a way to bandaid problems for 15 years and now people can't think of another solution.
Having a single server with instances goes against everything this game is about. Open dungeons is a key apsect of design, design philosphy, how abilities are designed, how the server is suppose to operate. Its not as simple as toggling a switch to allow players to kill each other. It fundamentally changes how things interact with each other and directly competes with a playerbase on non instanced servers.
I'm 100% against any sort of instancing even an alternate rule set, as is VR from what I've read.
Trasak said: I am still not seeing any logical reasons why alternative ruleset servers could not also include rules pertaining to zone or raid instancing. Just like raid items had different perceived value on Firona Vie than on normal servers, raid items would be known to be two orders of magnitude more rare on type A servers than type B which would in turn be 3 orders of magnitude more rare than on type C servers. Likewise a type B server could support 10 times the players as type A and type C could support maybe even 1000 times the number of players as type A. A higher population and always having something meaningful to go do will go a long way to making the game appeal to busy people with short play times who pay as much as the 18/7 players making Pantheon much more profitable. Claiming that having even a single server with some form of instancing will ruin the game for you on a server that does not just makes no sense. It strikes me as a hardline purist "only my opinion matters" mentality. Finding comprises is the essence of community matters. Would you have an objection to a server where everything spawned 10 times faster? Or one with no items stonger than what you would find on level 20 rares on a normal server. Or a server where you could only make female characters and halflings were scaled up to be taller than ogres? If you don't like the ruleset play on a different server.
Oh I would definately have a problem with the examples you laid out! 10x faster spawns? Only lvl 20 rare items dropping? Both extremes and both are way out of line. There is zero reason to release servers that would be damaging to the game and that is exactly what your example would do. Your "logical reason" is that the server type you suggested (heavily instanced) goes directly against the core tenets of the game design. I mean at that rate why not have a P2W cash shop server right? Your suggestion is downright terrible, and your examples only illustrate that further. The goal of the game is not to appeal to players with short play times! You mention profitability yet you have zero evidence to back that up, there is no guarantee your model would generate more revenue. Take a hard look at what happened to WildStar and you'll see what I mean.
What I said makes perfect sense, you are being purposefully obtuse. Compromising the integrity of the game with cheat servers would severely damage the game. It's one thing to have alternate ruleset servers such as PvP and RP it's another thing entirely when you get into a 10x faster spawn rate or instancing. You know the difference as well as I do.
Trasak said:@Keno
I wouldn't alter the drop rates, excpet maybe globally if it is quick and easy to do. The instance server will just have its own unique economy. Crafted items will end up being less valueable be cause its much easier to farm named. Its a trade off for having unlimited access. If you don't like how the economy functions then play on a non-instanced server. Part of the reason I didn't play on Firona Vie.
Fair enough! It may not impact my experience on another server, but it still offends me from the sense that this is a game where, finally, player reptuation will matter, items will be rare and epic and not saturated and where the game will be intensely social. Those are defining values that instancing destroys and that bothers me because it flies in the face of their core values. That's not this game and I don't think we should try to make it be that if even in a limited area.
EppE said:Since VR has said they wont instance this game I don't know why we keep having this discussion. A better discussion would be how to address your fears without instancing as a crutch. The problem is MMO's have used instances as a way to bandaid problems for 15 years and now people can't think of another solution.
Having a single server with instances goes against everything this game is about. Open dungeons is a key apsect of design, design philosphy, how abilities are designed, how the server is suppose to operate. Its not as simple as toggling a switch to allow players to kill each other. It fundamentally changes how things interact with each other and directly competes with a playerbase on non instanced servers.
I'm 100% against any sort of instancing even an alternate rule set, as is VR from what I've read.
This.
Ouch, I actually though the level 20 item limit was an interesting idea at least, kind of like an entire server dedicated to the grey item challenge that people sometimes do in WoW. I am also hoping that Pantheon does not end up as item centric as other modern MMOs, more like items only make up about 25% of a characters power not 95%. Ill admit the rest were just kinda silly, who would want to get swarmed with 10 times faster spawn, a half-giantling female dominated server on the other hand . . .
Lets take a step back from the fully instanced or silly rules server ideas. What I have really been asking is if you believe, all of you that have shut me down like a pimpled nerd on prom night (those of us who even got to prom have been there), that alternative rule-sets could include mass market favorable functions so long as the core game was still open world.
From the several of you who have responded very negatively it does appear that you believe even the existence of such servers will we will call it poison the brand of Pantheon. I actually get that and there is a distinct argument for not diluting your product with too many options. It can send mixed messages to your customers and may spread your development into too many directions.
The only on demand content I am even interested in personally is trigger-able raids that require a consumable that takes 100+ group hours to farm and at least near launch instance sharding of zones 50% or move over capacity. After there are enough zones in all level ranges the sharding wont be needed and frankly they wont happen as people will naturally spread out more unless a specific zone has too high of rewards.
Either way if I seemed obtuse I apologies. It was most likely due to my frustration of feeling like I am not getting my point across. I fundamentally do not feel that odd alternative rule-set servers would harm either the brand or the play experience on the prime servers. I can agree to disagree on that point and most likely VR will agree with you, I've always been an outside the box oddball thinker see my forum picture.
P.S. Everquest maximum subscribed players vs WoW maximum subscribed players is all the example needed to show instancing is popular and hence profitable, Wildstar failed because it sucked in my opinion.
P.S.S. I count a 2 hour time block as a short play time btw and that is what the target play time per session that has come up in the streams.
P.S.S.S. I was also not suggesting anything be done to change the dungeons from their prime configuration, just attach a UI at the zone in to join a specific instance of the dungeon already spawned or create a new one. PvP on the other hand is actually going to require a lot of work to rewrite an entire second set of abilities for how they work on players rather than mobs.
Trasak said:P.S. Everquest maximum subscribed players vs WoW maximum subscribed players is all the example needed to show instancing is popular and hence profitable, Wildstar failed because it sucked in my opinion.
P.S. This false equivalence argument will never fly. McDonald's gets way more customers than a private 5star restaurant... does that means McDonalds makes better food?
That was just in reference to a previous statement that an instanced server would likely be profitable due to the number of people that are interested in reliable 2 hour play sessions that don’t involve a lot of sitting around waiting for groups or camp spots. I was challenged to back up the fact having an instance based server would be profitable. In my opinion instancing and the play habits it supported greatly contributed to the 12 Million peek players of WoW compared to the 550 thousand peek players of Everquest.
You are also never going to convince me that Everquest was a 5 star restaurant compared to WoWs McDonalds. At best Everquest was Frishes Bigboy in a town with no other restaurants.
@Trasak - I'm confused around where your idea for instancing as an alternate server ruleset came from. What's the "problem statement" that the ruleset is trying to solve?
I also must disagree with your opinion on Wildstar :) My only real issue with Wildstar was that it wasn't big enough and I ran out of things to do. My understanding of what happened to the game after I left is that they simply couldn't put out enough new and interesting content fast enough to keep their players interested - which is a problem many level based games fall into, and something that could happen to Pantheon as well. That's not really material to this discussion, but I think we should be careful to try to look at older games objectively - whether we loved them OR hated them.
@Trasak...instancing alone isn't what made WoW popular. It was the fact that it was casual and soloable throughout lvling. When I played WoW I thought it was extremely easy to level. Also, given the time that EQ came out vs WoW, gaming in general was more popular on WoWs release. Additionally, WoW had Warcraft as a foundation. You also seem to miss the fact that several EQ developers also developed that start of WoW and used several concepts of EQ for WoW. Also, EQs peak was around 800k, but yea.
Watemper said:@Trasak...instancing alone isn't what made WoW popular. It was the fact that it was casual and soloable throughout lvling. When I played WoW I thought it was extremely easy to level. Also, given the time that EQ came out vs WoW, gaming in general was more popular on WoWs release. Additionally, WoW had Warcraft as a foundation. You also seem to miss the fact that several EQ developers also developed that start of WoW and used several concepts of EQ for WoW. Also, EQs peak was around 800k, but yea.
I have to agree here - I think WoW's initial success can be attributed to three things:
1) The accelerated pace and reduced difficulty of leveling, so that players got hooked on making progress in each and every session.
2) Overall accessibility for people with less powerful computers and the fact that more people were gaming in general.
3) The strength of the Warcraft IP in general.
EQ was amazingly successful for its time - I remember Verant/SOE scrambling to set up new servers several times just to handle the number of people wanting to play. But I consider EQ to be a first-generation MMORPG (along with UO and a few others), and WoW to be a second-generation MMORPG. So it isn't really fair to compare them directly in every aspect, even if they are both still around today. I think the fact that EQ *is* still around today, in spite of WoW's best efforts, also says something about the tradeoffs that WoW made in their design.
@Nephele
The real “problem statement” I was trying to solve was the title of the thread “Instance VS Open world”.
I understand that Pantheon is fundamentally an open world, seamless game by design. We have thread after thread discussing the pro’s and con’s of both designs. There are many players, my wife included, that are not going to enjoy having their named mob kill stolen, potentially getting trained every few minutes, and sitting around waiting for camps to open up. Some of those players may be willing to play Pantheon if there are instances, at least on the server they play on.
Rather than have the prime servers cave to the desires of the often called “carebear” crowd I was suggesting utilizing a possible alternative rule-set server that could attract players who find open world unpleasant. We can argue back and forth how much instancing contributed to WoW having 15+ times the number of peek players that Everquest did but ultimately my household will only carry one subscription rather than two because of the difference in play style between open world and at least some instancing. This unfortunately will likely also drive us to having no subscriptions as I will be “encouraged” to play a game she is willing to play. So you can call it extreme self-interest, I may still have a game on the side but it won’t be my primary game. I don’t think I am alone but I can only speak for my family. So when people freak out about the idea of having an alternate server with a form of instancing its like saying “Trasak, you don’t get to play Pantheon because you playing on your server would sully me playing on mine.”
I personally have reservations about Pantheon being large enough to support an open world game. I am not sure what the magic number would be but I think you would be hard pressed to have an open world game where you were not constantly fighting for mobs with less than 500 square miles of game zones with anything resembling a healthy server population.
I guess an even odder idea might be to have your character not bound to a specific server and every play session your guild could pick a server that was low population to log into for that day. Raids would have to almost be exclusively triggered though to combat raid guilds moving from one server to the next like locusts. This would also make the entire subscription pool the community rather than each server having its own.
Trasak said:@Nephele
The real “problem statement” I was trying to solve was the title of the thread “Instance VS Open world”.
I understand that Pantheon is fundamentally an open world, seamless game by design. We have thread after thread discussing the pro’s and con’s of both designs. There are many players, my wife included, that are not going to enjoy having their named mob kill stolen, potentially getting trained every few minutes, and sitting around waiting for camps to open up. Some of those players may be willing to play Pantheon if there are instances, at least on the server they play on.
Rather than have the prime servers cave to the desires of the often called “carebear” crowd I was suggesting utilizing a possible alternative rule-set server that could attract players who find open world unpleasant. We can argue back and forth how much instancing contributed to WoW having 15+ times the number of peek players that Everquest did but ultimately my household will only carry one subscription rather than two because of the difference in play style between open world and at least some instancing. This unfortunately will likely also drive us to having no subscriptions as I will be “encouraged” to play a game she is willing to play. So you can call it extreme self-interest, I may still have a game on the side but it won’t be my primary game. I don’t think I am alone but I can only speak for my family. So when people freak out about the idea of having an alternate server with a form of instancing its like saying “Trasak, you don’t get to play Pantheon because you playing on your server would sully me playing on mine.”
I personally have reservations about Pantheon being large enough to support an open world game. I am not sure what the magic number would be but I think you would be hard pressed to have an open world game where you were not constantly fighting for mobs with less than 500 square miles of game zones with anything resembling a healthy server population.
I guess an even odder idea might be to have your character not bound to a specific server and every play session your guild could pick a server that was low population to log into for that day. Raids would have to almost be exclusively triggered though to combat raid guilds moving from one server to the next like locusts. This would also make the entire subscription pool the community rather than each server having its own.
Gotcha, thanks :)
I think this is an area where we have to have a little bit of faith in VR - but I definitely understand and appreciate your concerns and your skepticism about world size. I know I'll personally be disappointed if the world feels too small, and I'll definitely be providing feedback to the devs during Alpha and Beta about what to do if that's the case. But I also think it's possible for them to make the world big enough, as long as there is enough depth and challenge to force us all to slow down as we move through it.
Case in point: When EQ launched, Norrath did not feel small at all. This is because it was dangerous to run through, it took a lot of time to level up to make it not dangerous, and there were literally no fast travel options. You were even forced to wait for boats to cross the oceans.
Now, years later, you log into P99 or another emulator (or worse, the actual Daybreak game), and the world feels stupidly small. The actual size of the world hasn't changed (It's actually gotten larger than the early days, via expansions). But those other factors did change along the way.
So, I think it's eminently possible for VR to build a zone-based world that feels large enough to support all of us in the way that we want. There's a lot more to that equation than just the available land mass however. Until we're able to evaluate the entire experience, and how everything actually comes out when it's all fit together, it's impossible for any of us to say whether it's good enough or not. My plan is to wait until I can give feedback on the whole before I judge too harshly, rather than just the parts :)
@Riahuf22
If VR is able to follow through with the concept of “no best in slot” with multiple similar items droping in the world then the 30 guild members showing up issue will not likely happen. This also assumes that there are no brutally over powered items like the fungi tunic in Pantheon, as a no-drop item off the keepers guardians it was appropriate a tradeable item off of a mob duo-able by a level 60 shaman and cleric not so much.
Again I don’t think it is right for us to insist on instancing or sharding for all servers. There are plenty of people who are honestly looking forward to the brutal competition that a small purely open world can only deliver. They should have the right to play that way. If it was somehow decided to make instances the default I would be championing the idea of having at least one server with no instancing.
Trasak said:There are many players, my wife included, that are not going to enjoy having their named mob kill stolen, potentially getting trained every few minutes, and sitting around waiting for camps to open up.
Oh come on, seriously? These things are few and far between. Trained every few mintues? smdh
dorotea said:Will someone come to my camp after I have spent hours waiting for a boss to spawn and take it away from me?
Will someone that wants my camp train my group so they can steal it?
Will a high level come over and kill every mob in half a zone so that people at the level of the zone will have nothing until the mobs respawn - and not even then if he or she comes back?
Tanix - we understand that you get a big thrill out of competing with other players. You don't seem to understand that most of us do *not* when it reaches these extremes. A few rules so that competition is mostly fair will go a long way to make the game a lot more pleasant for almost all of us.
Yaladan I do not especially want to play a game where my big thrill is "Woot - finally after a week I got a boss despite all the campstealers, killstealers, trainers that killed me 6 times and a few high levels that wandered past and turned the zone into a wasteland".
LOL you are so full of crap ! obviosly you arent one of us from the golden age of everquest
anyone who have been in that game knew that even the best equiped player can be overwhlemed by a bunch of mob easily
why are you even here if you just want another modern generic retarded instanced MMO ???? ? trying to ruins the last hope of us by swaying the developers to your path of ruin? lets instance this game to hell?
this forum needs an overhaul and i need to dislike this dude's reply to oblivion
Keno Monster said:Trasak said:There are many players, my wife included, that are not going to enjoy having their named mob kill stolen, potentially getting trained every few minutes, and sitting around waiting for camps to open up.
Oh come on, seriously? These things are few and far between. Trained every few mintues? smdh
I guess we can only wait and see how common these thing are in game. As far as the trains I was remembering Karnors, Unrest and Old Seb, it at least felt like you could not go two spawn cycles without at least one train but I did say potential not certain. You have to admit though that waiting for camps to open up is likely at launch without sharding because the population will be so bottom heavy and kill stealing is pretty much a guarantied even if it is rarely intentional.
Trasak said:Keno Monster said:Trasak said:There are many players, my wife included, that are not going to enjoy having their named mob kill stolen, potentially getting trained every few minutes, and sitting around waiting for camps to open up.
Oh come on, seriously? These things are few and far between. Trained every few mintues? smdh
I guess we can only wait and see how common these thing are in game. As far as the trains I was remembering Karnors, Unrest and Old Seb, it at least felt like you could not go two spawn cycles without at least one train but I did say potential not certain. You have to admit though that waiting for camps to open up is likely at launch without sharding because the population will be so bottom heavy and kill stealing is pretty much a guarantied even if it is rarely intentional.
Kc entrance trains where mostly due to groups disbanding or failing, but had little to no consequences to actual camps,only entrance groups were affected and they usually had no camps except whatever comes in the first two bridges and buildings.
((LOL you are so full of crap ! obviosly you arent one of us from the golden age of everquest
anyone who have been in that game knew that even the best equiped player can be overwhlemed by a bunch of mob easily
why are you even here if you just want another modern generic retarded instanced MMO ???? ? trying to ruins the last hope of us by swaying the developers to your path of ruin? lets instance this game to hell?
this forum needs an overhaul and i need to dislike this dude's reply to oblivion ))
1. No I am not - I am from the MUDs and the golden age of Dark Age of Camelot. And the not so golden age when we played computer games from tape recorders before the floppy drive was invented.
2. Even today a well equipped player can be overwhelmed by a bunch of mobs. Back in the day *one* mob could overwhelm a well equipped player. Depending on class, and the mob.
3. Modern generic retarded instanced MMO? But what do you *really* think? If you read what I said and got that from it - no reply would help.
4. Oblivion was a good game - far better than ESO was when they moved the franchise to the MMO stage, But I don't remember replying to it.
MauvaisOeil said:Trasak said:Keno Monster said:Trasak said:There are many players, my wife included, that are not going to enjoy having their named mob kill stolen, potentially getting trained every few minutes, and sitting around waiting for camps to open up.
Oh come on, seriously? These things are few and far between. Trained every few mintues? smdh
I guess we can only wait and see how common these thing are in game. As far as the trains I was remembering Karnors, Unrest and Old Seb, it at least felt like you could not go two spawn cycles without at least one train but I did say potential not certain. You have to admit though that waiting for camps to open up is likely at launch without sharding because the population will be so bottom heavy and kill stealing is pretty much a guarantied even if it is rarely intentional.
Kc entrance trains where mostly due to groups disbanding or failing, but had little to no consequences to actual camps,only entrance groups were affected and they usually had no camps except whatever comes in the first two bridges and buildings.
Yeah, any big dungeoned area like Unrest, Lguk, Karnors, etc...never had camps effected by trained mobs, except for the entrance camps, which it was easy to escape from their, and people waiting at the zoneline for a group, which is a no brainer since all trains in the zone usually lead to one zoneline usually.