What sorts of rulesets would people like to see in the game?
I really enjoyed Firiona Vie back in the day in Everquest - having to learn languages to communicate with other players, being able to freely trade most items, roleplay, at least in the beginning, being more or less mandatory, along with name requirements. A lot of games do roleplaying servers halfway - they usually mark just a preference for roleplay, without actually enforcing anything like player names. I get that mandatory IC is difficult to enforce, of course, but providing structural constraints to foster roleplay with not a lot of staff input is always nice.
And, of course, I know that Pantheon is going to be primarily a PvE game, but it would be neat to see takes on PVP - factional, or free for all, for instance.
What does everyone think of special server rulesets?
I think it would be cool to see an "Original" server that will only run the base game at launch and won't progress through any expansions or anything like that. A "time locked" server without progression.
Or a No player trades ruleset, promoting people to work for their own gear and loot, and needing to work with each other to get the good stuff.
Ohh ohh ohh, how about a hardcore permadeath ruleset that deletes your character on death but it has boosted exp and drop rates. Corpse's on the server last much longer and players can inspect the gear on it. There would have to be ways to prevent griefing, trains, etc... from killing innocent bystanders.
I really like having alternative game modes that change the foundations of the base game as options to play around with from time to time, But it's not likely to ever be implemented. lol
PvP seems certain - RP I think they said is likely but not definite. I may have missed some later comments though. Any other rulesets - unlikely.
SilkyWhip - as a frequent permadeath player in other MMOs I note that having that as a ruleset would be a nightmare. Too much likelihood of a treasured character going bye-bye because of a crash or major bug. We should rely on our own willingness to simply delete the character after it dies.
Questaar said:I recently asked pretty much this same question. It's on page two of questions, labeled how many servers. VR will have PvP and PvE servers but that is it. VR doesn't want to break up players too much.
*sigh* I wonder if there will be a hybrid servers since I like both
SilkyWhip said:Ohh ohh ohh, how about a hardcore permadeath ruleset that deletes your character on death but it has boosted exp and drop rates. Corpse's on the server last much longer and players can inspect the gear on it. There would have to be ways to prevent griefing, trains, etc... from killing innocent bystanders.
In a recent interview between Reasoning with Roland and Joppa, Joppa mentioned he really liked the idea of a harsh-death penalty, maybe even a permadeath server.
As to those that like both pvp and pve I hope there are enough character slots that we can play on both sides. Even if there are draconian character limits e.g. no more than five characters on all servers - perhaps the limit can apply separately to each ruleset. This will encourage players to try pvp out even if they consider themselves pve-only players - since it will let them play more classes and more races.
I agree with Joppa on permadeath - I played it long before it got that name and long before the first MMO or even MUD. Very simple. You died you deleted. If you wanted to cheat you could refuse to delete - didn't hurt anyone else in a single player game. But it was still cheating. A MMO can also rely on the player to delete if he or she really means it when he or she decides to play permadeath. If they do not they are still cheating, and it still hurts no one else.
A permadeath ruleset enforced by the server produces disasterous results when a crash or exceptionally bad server lag or a lethal bug that hasn't been fixed yet permanently dooms a treasured character. When the player is on the honor system the player can, quite properly, not delete in these situations. Permadeath as a ruleset works best on temporary servers - for example a server is created for a three month contest. You get rewards for achieving certain permadeath accomplishments, and then the server is gone. Rewards are given to the account on the permanent servers.
Whilst the options are interesting, I would like to see the community split as little as possible and the experience shared as much as possible.
As I said in the similar thread, even seperate PvP isn't necessarily a good idea.
In a community-based, social game, can there be anything worse than complete segregation?
I suppose we aren't expecting megaservers and zone shards, so will have different servers just for population considerations, but it would still be good for the community in the forums, etc to have the same experience of the game.
"I would like to see the community split as little as possible"
Why? Asked out of curiousity and intent to focus the discussion not disagreement.
Assuming we have different servers, not one huge server (let us not debate the pros and cons of this - that is a different discussion), does it really matter whether we have 10 pve servers (making the number up arbitrarily), 5 pve servers and 5 pvp servers, 4 pve servers, 3 pvp servers and 3 RP servers or some other combination?
The overall community is the same regardless, communicating via forums, discord, social media or however communities communicate at the time. Only a tenth of them are on any one server, either way. Intra-server communications should be pretty much the same, regardless, as well.
I can see an argument that pvp splits the concerns of that community into different and occasionally competing areas. Roleplaying less so, though there would be a diversion of developer time into purely RP issues such as name enforcement. No-boxing, or permadeath or other rulesets the same. Yet I am not sure you mean any of this by "split the community".
It is self-evident that not having one megaserver splits the community. Which has both plusses and minuses. It is not so self-evident that having a variety of rulesets splits the community (as distinct from requiring more developer time and effort than having a single ruleset).
disposalist said:Whilst the options are interesting, I would like to see the community split as little as possible and the experience shared as much as possible.
As I said in the similar thread, even seperate PvP isn't necessarily a good idea.
In a community-based, social game, can there be anything worse than complete segregation?
I suppose we aren't expecting megaservers and zone shards, so will have different servers just for population considerations, but it would still be good for the community in the forums, etc to have the same experience of the game.
You make a good point. If VR decides to enable special-ruleset servers then I hope the special rule-set servers are 1) limited in number and 2) managed/administrated by VR.
The last thing I want to see are privately managed servers.
dorotea said:"I would like to see the community split as little as possible"
Why? Asked out of curiousity and intent to focus the discussion not disagreement.
Assuming we have different servers, not one huge server (let us not debate the pros and cons of this - that is a different discussion), does it really matter whether we have 10 pve servers (making the number up arbitrarily), 5 pve servers and 5 pvp servers, 4 pve servers, 3 pvp servers and 3 RP servers or some other combination?
The overall community is the same regardless, communicating via forums, discord, social media or however communities communicate at the time. Only a tenth of them are on any one server, either way. Intra-server communications should be pretty much the same, regardless, as well.
I can see an argument that pvp splits the concerns of that community into different and occasionally competing areas. Roleplaying less so, though there would be a diversion of developer time into purely RP issues such as name enforcement. No-boxing, or permadeath or other rulesets the same. Yet I am not sure you mean any of this by "split the community".
It is self-evident that not having one megaserver splits the community. Which has both plusses and minuses. It is not so self-evident that having a variety of rulesets splits the community (as distinct from requiring more developer time and effort than having a single ruleset).
I guess I am largely talking about the splitting the 'concerns' of the community you mention (and the inevitable splitting of dev/CS concerns/time).
Separate PvP servers means potentially a significant proportion of the community, that might have been happy playing on PvE servers, will try PvP and stay there. I think PvP is different enough in playstyle and emphasis that I disagree "the overall community is the same regardless". I think it will lead to separation and lack of diversity in both communities. If not separated, it will lead to confusion in forums, etc.
As an example, in recent versions of Battlefield, the game is released on both console and PC. Playing a first person shooter with a console controller is very different to mouse and keyboard. Often arguments occur in forums between players having quite different takes on issues in the game, and on the things they want devs to do to address them, only for folks to realise, sometimes after lengthy and heated arguments, that folks on one side of the argument are console players and folks on the other are PC and that both are 'right', but have understandably differing experiences and needs.
An answer in the Battlefield example is to configure, tweak and balance the game differently for console and PC, but that, of course, is another (similar) issue about dev resources...
So, what I'm saying is, by their nature, if a setting like "PvP On" or "Permadeath" is a big enough deal that it requires a completely different server, it is a big enough deal to have players playing very differently and have different experiences of the game. If not, why bother having the separate servers in the first place?
With 100 separate PvE servers, though you do see different servers ending up with somewhat different 'feels', it is never different enought that all players can't discuss the same things in the same forums without misunderstandings, confusion and argument.
disposalist said:Separate PvP servers means potentially a significant proportion of the community, that might have been happy playing on PvE servers, will try PvP and stay there.
I think you are making an unsupported and IMO unjustified assumption here.
I think it is fairly certain that there will be more Players who wish to enjoy both Pvp & PvE than there will be 'hard-core, committed PvP only' Players. I see no reason to expect those Players who enjoy both to arbitrarily limit themselves to only playing on one server. I myself am primarily PvE, but I have every intention of trying out the PvP server. If I find it to my liking, I expect to make friends there in addition to having friends on the PvE server I start on. I may well find among my PvE friends a few who play on the PvP server and arrange to join up with them when I go try it out.
So, what I'm saying is, by their nature, if a setting like "PvP On" or "Permadeath" is a big enough deal that it requires a completely different server, it is a big enough deal to have players playing very differently and have different experiences of the game. If not, why bother having the separate servers in the first place?
VR has said "When we do PvP, we want to do it right, which means a different set of mechanics and formulae to make sure we can balance PvP without messing up PvE and vice versa." THAT is the reason to have a separarate PvP server, to be able to run a PvP designed Client on that server.
I know many PvPers say they would be happy to have 'no balance' whatsoever, and that is what they are very likely to find at release. But assuming Pantheon is successful after release (and that the PvP servers holds enough players for VR to keep it running), then over time it is inevitable that Players there will find issues that they perceive as oppressive, pointless, unbalanced, unfair, stupid, etc. (Unless they aren't really human beings LoL) VR clearly wants to be able to adjust and refine the server rules - and yes, that dreaded 'Class Balance' - to the best of their skills in order to make that part of the game as satisfying as the PvE part, even if they don't get around to it until after release.
Jothany said:disposalist said:Separate PvP servers means potentially a significant proportion of the community, that might have been happy playing on PvE servers, will try PvP and stay there.I think you are making an unsupported and IMO unjustified assumption here.
I think it is fairly certain that there will be more Players who wish to enjoy both Pvp & PvE than there will be 'hard-core, committed PvP only' Players. I see no reason to expect those Players who enjoy both to arbitrarily limit themselves to only playing on one server. I myself am primarily PvE, but I have every intention of trying out the PvP server. If I find it to my liking, I expect to make friends there in addition to having friends on the PvE server I start on. I may well find among my PvE friends a few who play on the PvP server and arrange to join up with them when I go try it out.
Well, by "potentially" I meant 'possibly' and "significant" I meant not necessarily a majority, but notable.
I myself tend to play lots of alts, sometimes on different servers if I discover people I know are playing on others, but I know that can be to the detriment of my guild activities on a 'main' account, for example *shrug*. Not 'spoiling' it, exactly, but not ideal.
Maybe those playing PvP servers will also play PvE, though it depends how it's implemented perhaps, whether they feel they want or need to.
Jothany said:So, what I'm saying is, by their nature, if a setting like "PvP On" or "Permadeath" is a big enough deal that it requires a completely different server, it is a big enough deal to have players playing very differently and have different experiences of the game. If not, why bother having the separate servers in the first place?VR has said "When we do PvP, we want to do it right, which means a different set of mechanics and formulae to make sure we can balance PvP without messing up PvE and vice versa." THAT is the reason to have a separarate PvP server, to be able to run a PvP designed Client on that server.
I know many PvPers say they would be happy to have 'no balance' whatsoever, and that is what they are very likely to find at release. But assuming Pantheon is successful after release (and that the PvP servers holds enough players for VR to keep it running), then over time it is inevitable that Players there will find issues that they perceive as oppressive, pointless, unbalanced, unfair, stupid, etc. (Unless they aren't really human beings LoL) VR clearly wants to be able to adjust and refine the server rules - and yes, that dreaded 'Class Balance' - to the best of their skills in order to make that part of the game as satisfying as the PvE part, even if they don't get around to it until after release.
Yes, understood. And, as someone pledging to a game with a clear PvE focus enshrined in the tenets and vision, I would prefer no effort is funneled away, unless, of course, they become so successful that it truly has no impact on the PvE game. Sure, I hope that happens.
I know I sometimes sound 'anti-PvP' and that is what people keep grabbing onto when they read such comments, which is why I keep saying "it's just a design choice, not a criticism or judgement of PvP" and "I just want an MMORPG that is PvE focused for a change, so PvE can be its best, as the genre has gone the other way for so long".
Disposalist - I agree that the more different rulesets there are the more fragmented the game will be, the more players will be pulling in different directions and the more developer time will be spent on things that are relevant to the special rulesets and *not* relevant to the core game. In other words - everything you said. I don't see how any reasonable person could not agree. The question then becomes, obviously, what is the trade-off? Do the benefits of fragmentation outweigh the costs? Jothamy is not disagreeing either - not on this rather basic point but rather expressing the view that for many people the benefits will outweigh the costs.
One operating assumption. There will be servers supporting the core game - pve servers let us call them. Any alternate ruleset servers will not cripple these either by diverting so many resources that VR can not afford to properly support them, or by attracting so many people that the pve servers will not have enough people to be viable. If this assumption is not valid, your argument is compelling and there should be no alternate ruleset servers. End of story.
For any alternate ruleset we then deal with three questions. Ruleset by ruleset. What additional resources will be needed to support it. How much will it split community concerns into differing and perhaps inconsistant paths. How much new business will it bring. New business meaning people that will play the game if the ruleset is available and not play the game otherwise. If I would subscribe regardless of whether there was a XYX ruleset server, and would stay with the game for the same length of time, there is no benefit to VR to adding an extra ruleset for me even if I would like some extra variety.
Many people have suggested differing rulesets, including hard mode, easy mode, permadeath, restrictions on multi-boxing, and the like. Probably the two most common rulesets in MMOs are pvp and roleplaying so I focus on these - which does not reflect any disagreement with the benefits of other rulesets.
Roleplaying. Probably no enormous fracture of community interests. The game will be the same in all respects. A few different mechanics such as OOC and IC chat channels. A more restrictive naming policy and diversion of VR resources to enforce such and respond to complaints. Moderate to minimal splitting of the community. On the other hand, probably even less benefit to VR. Few people will subscribe if there is a RP server and not subscribe otherwise. If they like Pantheon's core elements they will play, and roleplay or not as they choose. If they do not like the core elements - they will not. History supports this opinion - few MMOs bother to keep roleplaying servers and those that do may have them in name only with no special rules or no enforcement of any rules. VR can easily attach a RE tag to one or more normal pve servers - roleplaying encouraged. No special rules but if you want a critical mass of roleplayers come here. Thus VR tentatively plans not to have a roleplaying ruleset server.
PVP is most certainly a horse of a different color. PVP will require more resources in many ways. PVP will fracture the community into clearly competing interests. Though less so if things like "balancing" are done ruleset by ruleset, unlike other MMOs. That will divert even more VR resources but will mean that PVP cries to "nerf the paladin it is impossible to kill" will not endanger *my* paladin on a pve server. PVP will assuredly bring in players that would not play a purely pve game. Perhaps in significant numbers. History says they will not stay as long as pve players - they get bored faster or find the details of the PVP system not to their liking or some great new PVP game comes along and they go to it. But while they are here they will be paying, and quite a few will stay indefinitely although history says PVP servers experience faster drop-offs in population than pve servers, all else being equal.
I express no opinion here on what ruleset(s) VR should try - I this is merely to reflect how I analyze their choices.
I prefer not having the community fragmented across multiple servers, especially if it's the same rule set. I would be interested in a multiverse approach, where the difference between each server is not along traditional divisions (like PvE, RP, etc) but rather its more like various alternative realities. Ideally, we could actually switch between them. Obviously this is more work, but a MMO that did this would really be several games in one and have great replayability.
For instance, we could have alternate reality servers like these:
I sm not suggesting this be built for launch, but it would make for an awesome expansion.
At one point special ruleset servers were very much on the table if not part of The Vision. I really hope they continue to be a thing come release and beyond.
A post I inserted into a great thread about Alternate Ruleset Realms
-------------------
Great thread, great ideas! 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. So much so that I decided to interrupt your brainstorming and discussions to dig a little deeper into MMO world building, world size, content creation, etc.
First we must realize that while the core game is appealing to many, there are also groups within our target audience who prefer rules and systems that differ just a bit from other people in the larger group. Not so much that we’re not all equally excited, but enough to pay attention to, and how important it is to craft a world that supports ‘games within games.’
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.
It's a fine line, sure, but I honestly haven't found it truly that hard to delineate between the two. That's why it was so important for us to get the core tenets of the game up onto our webpage. To have a detailed FAQ (that is due for another update, btw). To list the differentiators -- what makes the game unique, what approaches to MMO design make Pantheon stand out. And then, of course, to also list ideas and mechanics that are new, or at least the approach to implementing them new and with a different spin and approach.
But once you've established that there's just an incredible opportunity to even further dial your game to support multiple 'sub audiences', groups within your target audience who, while they're all super excited about Pantheon, definitely prefer certain mechanics over others (PvP being an obvious but great example).
...
Maybe the way to experiment with rule sets is in little sub-zones, like the old Arena in EverQuest 1.
For example, imagine being inside a tavern where PvP is allowed, but you can only be knocked unconscious instead of killed (maybe damage is done against Stamina or Endurance or whatever). Outside the tavern, the usual rules apply. So now we can have bar fights.
In the Shadow of the Valley of Death, death might be permanent, or had a worse death penalty. Or perhaps your character rises as an NPC Undead Doppelganger until slain a second time.
These test areas could be tied to Events, with a start and end date, so that VR could gather data from a wider player base, rather than a single test server.
Iksar said:I really want a forced first person view only server.
Yes!! and with no multi-boxing would be perfect.