Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Server Rulesets

    • 1434 posts
    June 10, 2015 8:27 AM PDT

    After reading about an immersion server and the very different and opposing preferences regarding soloing, boxing and contested content as of late, I am starting to think a variety of server types are in order to please even our small "niche" community and to avoid controversy.  It would offer a tailor-made experience, ideally, without any serious changes to the game.  There are limitations on server types because you wouldn't want to make the core game too hard or too easy, but without going to either extreme I think there's a lot of potential in creating different rule-sets other than PvE and PvP.

     

    For instance (and I hesitate to even discuss this), many people feel the ability to solo should be every players right and that "forced grouping" is some sort of injustice worthy of involving the ACLU.  Other players suggest that raid content should no longer be contested, and that instancing and lockout timers are absolutely necessary.  What if there were "Normal" mode servers where overworld soloing was more viable, and raid dungeons had lockout timers rather than just contested content.  Then a "Hardcore" server where soloing was possible, but harder and the game was more group dependent, and all content was open and contested.  In the spirit of risk vs reward, you could tweak the harder servers to have a slight increase to experience, coin, rare spawns, rare drops, and perhaps more drops from raid targets etc.  The normal mode servers, due to their easier and less contested nature would naturally offer less reward.  The idea would be to keep progression on both servers roughly the same pace, but to create an environment a little more in line with what certain players want without violating the tenets upon which Pantheon is based.

     

    I keep writing and deleting my ideas because I know themepark mechanics like fast travel, soloing, and instancing are immersion breaking and upsetting to a lot of people.  One does not simply make a game harder or easier and haphazardly alter the way players progress, but you can barely even bring up topics like fully contested content, prohibiting boxing, or even PvP servers here without offending someone (even though PvP servers stand to reduce the drama and number of highly competitive players on PvE servers).  The point being, I think if there were a variety of server types, it would likely be the easiest way to appeal to more players without fundamentally altering the game.

     

    A few server types I could see eventually emerging would be:

     

    • PvE
    • PvP
    • PvE/PvP No Boxing
    • Hardcore PvE/PvP
    • Hardcore PvE/PvP No Boxing
    • Immersion PvE/PvP No Boxing (obviously)
    • Hardcore Immersion PvE/PvP No Boxing
    • Hardcore, RP/Immersion PvE, No Boxing (just don't think this would work with PvP)

     

    What do you guys think?  Are there any ideas for a server type that you would like to see, and if so, what tweaks would be necessary to balance the risk vs reward?

    • 999 posts
    June 10, 2015 8:57 AM PDT

    Good post here and I see where your heads at, but, ultimately, if Pantheon is targeting a niche group-centric/old-school/hardcore audience then I prefer it to say focused on principles.  Splitting up the servers into multiple types/rulesets to cater to all will ultimately cause too low of a player base which will force everyone the need to box and/or will further reduce the population on the non-boxed servers because people will become frustrated due to low population sizes and/or the inability to find groups.

     

    I personally would just like to just have two rulesets.  A blue (PVE server) and a red (PVP server).  I think boxing and how to address it and/or provide viable alternatives to it is a separate discussion.

    • 1434 posts
    June 10, 2015 9:07 AM PDT
    Raidan said:

    Good post here and I see where your heads at, but, ultimately, if Pantheon is targeting a niche group-centric/old-school/hardcore audience then I prefer it to say focused on principles.  Splitting up the servers into multiple types/rulesets to cater to all will ultimately cause too low of a player base which will force everyone the need to box and/or will further reduce the population on the non-boxed servers because people will become frustrated due to low population sizes and/or the inability to find groups.

     

    I personally would just like to just have two rulesets.  A blue (PVE server) and a red (PVP server).  I think boxing and how to address it and/or provide viable alternatives to it is a separate discussion.

    I agree with the sentiment, and I really hesitated to even post this, but based on just the feedback in the last month alone, its clear to me that even our niche is divided on our expectations and application of the tenets and features.  In fact, I've been a little bit discouraged by it, and have become reluctant to even continue participating at times.  At this point, there seems to be a vocal majority arising that want things to be modernized to some degree, and I'd hate to think those wishes will sway VR to change Pantheon from what we are hoping for when the solution could reside in a simple switch on a different server type.

     

    I hope people don't dismiss this offhand, because I really believe if Pantheon is a success, certain server rule-sets could totally open doors for some players, with very minimal work or fundamental changes to the game.  Of course, I also believe Pantheon sits in the biggest "niche" in the MMORPG space (hardcore PvE), and stands to be much more popular than most people realize, and as such, there will be more than enough players seeking servers where things like immersion, a no boxing policy, contested content, or PvP might provide a much more desirable experience.


    This post was edited by Dullahan at June 11, 2015 6:27 AM PDT
    • 179 posts
    June 10, 2015 11:41 AM PDT

    If I was going to create more then one server type I would start off with the basics. I think with the developer size that we have they will start off with a few different servers. I'm pretty positive a PVP server won't be in at launch this has been discussed before.

    PVE

    PVP

    RP - You could set up rules that players not box on this type of server IMHO. I think it fits the RP server well. I think Dullahan mentioned the same thing earlier.

    The developers aren't going to be able to please everyone and with such a small team it would be really hard to create multiple server types. If they could pull it off I would support more then the basic type of servers.

    Maybe more like the following

    PVE - Normal server with lockout and play nice policy

    PVE - Hardcore no lockout timers and no play nice policy

    PVP - Everything is free game only the strong survive

    RP - No boxing allowed and more like P99. If more than one player requires access to the server from the same IP they need to contact support. Take some of the ideas from other post like signing an agreement to follow x/y/z rule. If people aren't following the rules they will be moved off the server to one of their liking.

    I think you can build a group game like EQ1/Vanguard and add some new ideas into the mix without losing to much especially with special rule servers. People that enjoy playing the game can find which type of server they prefer and move their. They join a server with like minded players and probably will enjoy themselves a lot more in game. A lot of the ideas above are the same as the ones posted above. I can think of some other cool server ideas also like the below.

    PVE - Only one character allowed. No name changes. No character deletion. You can only ever join one guild. Just throwing out weird ideas it's fun.

    PVE - If your character dies it goes back to level one. Loved this server back in the day.

    PVE - You can only play with other races that are friendly with your starting city. For example you can never group up with an Ogre if you are a High elf.

     

     

     

    • 999 posts
    June 10, 2015 4:31 PM PDT
    Dullahan said:

    I agree with the sentiment, and I really hesitated to even post this, but based on just the feedback in the last month alone, its clear to me that even our niche is divided on our expectations and application of the tenets and features.  In fact, I've been a little bit discouraged by it, and have become reluctant to even continue participating at times.  At this point, there seems to be a vocal majority arising that want things to be modernized to some degree, and I'd hate to think those wishes will sway VR to change Pantheon from what we are hoping for when the solution could reside in a simple switch on a different server type.

    I hope people don't dismiss this offhand, because I really believe if Pantheon is a success, certain server rule-sets could totally open doors for some players, with very minimal work or fundamental changes to the game.  Of course, I also believe Pantheon sits in the biggest "niche" in the MMORPG space (hardcore PvE), and stands to be much more popular than most people realize, and as such, there will be more than enough players seeking servers where things like immersion, a no boxing policy, contested content, or PvP might provide a much more desirable experience.

    I wasn't meaning to be rude or dismissive to your post.  If Pantheon ultimately has the player base, and the player base is screaming for rule-specific servers, then by all means, create rule-specific servers.  I suppose we would know closer to the end of Beta what the population estimates are for Pantheon's launch.  And, realistically, with my real life obligations today, I would do better on a non hardcore PVE server; although, I wouldn't choose that server knowing today what my experiences were from a hardcore PVE server at EQ1 launch.  My thoughts on that below...

     

    This is where I think the issue becomes (outside of my previous thoughts of thinning the population).  If you told players (me included) before playing EQ1 what many of the negative experiences would be, they probably or may shied away from a game that "hardcore" and I may have selected a "normal" non-hardcore server.  But, having experienced it firsthand, you realize what that real sense of immersion/danger/difficulty added to the game.  But, if people are wanting the experience of EQ1 replicated, it won't occur by having servers catered to all.  EQ1 was cruel and the world did not adapt to you, you adapted to it, and you shared those experiences with your peers which created that strong, cohesive, memorable community and experience.  The separate rule-sets may have a more familiar feel to casuals and introduce some lesser hardcore players to Pantheon, which would be good for Pantheon's development dollars, but I would argue it would be a negative in recapturing the magical experience of EQ1.  It's really just hedonism, if you give people an option to avoid pain and pleasure-seek, most will, but if they don't have the option then they can learn to adapt to the challenges/pain and instead of not receiving pleasure/rewards - you are rewarded with a greater satisfaction/achievement.

     

    Time permitting, I'll try to create a thread in a few days brainstorming some ideas to assist in grouping, grouping time commitments, and obtaining groups, which is really where I think the fear lies.

    • 288 posts
    June 10, 2015 7:39 PM PDT

    I had the same concern when I first read this, while I love the idea of alternate ruleset servers, I am apprehensive about having "easier" servers, even if they weren't titled as such.  The reason is because I feel it would diminish the accomplishment of those of us who play on the hard servers.  I know when they first released hard-mode dungeons in WoW, I felt that it was unfair that a bunch of noobs could experience the exclusive content that was available to the best players, simply because they can do the "easy-mode" version.  I am down with alternate ruleset servers as long as they don't make the game easier, only harder.

     

    But then you go down the pidgeon-hole of having hard-mode servers be the only hard servers at all, because the regular servers are made to be easy to make the hard servers not seem overly ridiculous.  It's a tough road the travel.


    This post was edited by Rallyd at June 10, 2015 7:41 PM PDT
    • 9115 posts
    June 10, 2015 8:11 PM PDT

    My only concern is separating and dividing the community. We cannot please everyone 100% of the time, we know that and we will not be trying too, but by splitting into so many servers, it would essentially tear apart the fundamental core of this game and what we are trying to build on, the community, which this type of game relies heavily on to survive just like it did with EQ and VG.

     

    I would imagine that we will have PvE, RP and PvP servers (maybe an Immersion server if there is enough interest later on), the amount of those servers will depend on the population obviously, but I cannot personally imagine there being many more. If there is demand for a different ruleset server then that will be something we would look into without a doubt but there would need to be significant interest to put a new ruleset server online and maintain it long term with a healthy population and experience for our community.

     

    We have to remember that we are not chasing after the large numbers that WoW, ArcheAge and ESO attract, we are targetting a much smaller niche audience that will need to rely on each other and community spirit to succeed. We can have mature conversations and disagree about what we like and dislike but we will not be able to put a server up for every disagreement just so a few can round around by themselves with one extra or one less feature/mechanic, we need to be realistic and work together to overcome these small differences.

     

    Not trying to be a party pooper by any means, I just want to manage expectations and give you guy's a realistic view on this subject. I appreciate the post and thought that went into it Dullah, if there is enough interest we will always investigate that path further when we get to it.


    Just a reminder for everyone too; Soloing will be tough, Boxing will be difficult and player interaction will matter a lot as we are building the game around group dynamics and challenge, so even though we are fresh from discussing multiboxing in other threads, please don't let it take over your train of thought and induce bad memories of gold farmers and botters, it will be different in pantheon and we will actively rally against cheaters, gold farmers and exploits while keeping a close eye on the games balance and synergy overall.

    • 1434 posts
    June 10, 2015 8:46 PM PDT

    I guess I wasn't really clear enough, but my intentions are really quite the opposite of what is being suggested.  

     

    I don't expect rulesets to introduce enough variety to attract WoW numbers, but I'm more concerned that with all the demands for convenience, that a "hardcore" version of the game still exist for those who want it.  My intention is NOT to make the game easier by any means.

     

    I'm tired of instances.  I'm tired of soloing.  I'm tired of the "the game starting at endgame."  I'm tired of seeing contested content and competition removed from the genre I love.  Apparently a lot of people here aren't tired of those things.  With the announcement of soloing being viable for all classes, I just want to make sure that those of us who don't give a **** about being able to solo still have a chance of seeing a truly hard game again, even if that means playing on a server with a harder ruleset.

    • 288 posts
    June 10, 2015 8:54 PM PDT

    I as well am concerned that solo content for all classes may result in a game that is not as group interdependent as I would like it to be, and the talk of raid lockouts and fast respawns on raid content, really makes me concerned that this game will go the themepark VG direction instead of the mostly un-soloable EQ direction, where contested content is king and difficulty is at the forefront of gameplay.

    • 578 posts
    June 10, 2015 9:31 PM PDT
    Dullahan said: With the announcement of soloing being viable for all classes, I just want to make sure that those of us who don't give a **** about being able to solo still have a chance of seeing a truly hard game again, even if that means playing on a server with a harder ruleset.

    I haven't heard of this. Last I knew classes can hold their own but the content will revolve around grouping so soloing won't be much of a thing in Pantheon.

    So maybe I missed something? I want the same thing you do! I prefer to get xp in a group with friends banging out dungeons and castles and what have you from the jump. I want to start grouping at like level 10 and never look back.

    • 9115 posts
    June 10, 2015 10:31 PM PDT
    Dullahan said:

    I guess I wasn't really clear enough, but my intentions are really quite the opposite of what is being suggested.  

     

    I don't expect rulesets to introduce enough variety to attract WoW numbers, but I'm more concerned that with all the demands for convenience, that a "hardcore" version of the game still exist for those who want it.  My intention is NOT to make the game easier by any means.

     

    I'm tired of instances.  I'm tired of soloing.  I'm tired of the "the game starting at endgame."  I'm tired of seeing contested content and competition removed from the genre I love.  Apparently a lot of people here aren't tired of those things.  With the announcement of soloing being viable for all classes, I just want to make sure that those of us who don't give a **** about being able to solo still have a chance of seeing a truly hard game again, even if that means playing on a server with a harder ruleset.

    No one has said that we will make the game easier or bow to those demands for convenience mate, which is what I was suggesting in my "very general" post above that was carefully worded and not directed at any person in particular. So please don't think that I am misunderstanding and targeting you, I have to be broad and explain everything correctly for those who read this, so the correct information gets delivered. 

     

    We have always stated from the beginning that we intend to make a tough, challenging, group-focused game that gets back to the core roots of what EQ and VG started off as, not what they turned into, and not everyone will be happy with that decision or like our game, we understand that but as I said, we are not making this game for everyone, we are making this game for you guys, our niche target audience, and ourselves!



    Not all classes will solo well either, classes will most likely struggle with down time and need the help of at least a small group to do anything worthwhile, just like in early EQ/VG. It promotes player and group interaction that stimulates the community, but I cannot go into any more details than that at this time.



    I really think you guys are over-thinking this, and it's hard for us to reassure you without discussing sensitive internal topics that are not ready for external discussion yet.


    This post was edited by VR-Mod1 at June 11, 2015 4:28 AM PDT
    • 338 posts
    June 11, 2015 5:13 AM PDT

    Only 2 server types needed ... Blue and Red...

     

     

    Kiz~

    • 610 posts
    June 11, 2015 5:25 AM PDT
    Angrykiz said:

    Only 2 server types needed ... Blue and Red...

     

     

    Kiz~

    Wrong

    • 1434 posts
    June 11, 2015 6:01 AM PDT

    I'm sure most of us would be happy with just a normal server, or a PvP server, but I really found the talks of an immersion server very interesting.

     

    https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/1922/idea-suggestion-realism-immersion-server

     

    Right now, beggers can't be choosers, I guess.  I will say opposing PvP servers will only come back and bite you.  Just because the competitive players who like PvP don't have a server to do it, doesn't mean they won't play Pantheon.


    This post was edited by Dullahan at January 16, 2017 10:07 AM PST
    • VR Staff
    • 587 posts
    June 11, 2015 10:06 AM PDT

    It's true that even the group of people who are now (and of course this group will grow once we really push awareness/marketing/PR) interested in the game are divided in some areas.  But I welcome this and have no issue with it.  And 'alternate rule-set servers' are indeed, IMHO, the way to handle many of these differences in tastes.  Having a few different types of PvP servers makes a lot of sense.  RP/Immersion servers are awesome (one of the last things I did before leaving SoE in 2001 was create the Firiona Vie RP server, and while it was a bit 'nerfed' later on, I think the original rule-set was pretty sweet).  Hard core servers would also be very cool.  Harecore RP PvE would be my personal choice.

     

    A lot of it depends, at least shortly after launch, on how many servers total we launch with.  The more servers, the more variety we can accommodate.  The number of servers at launch depends on two things:  1. how popular the game is at launch (e.g. how many players) and 2. how many players we come up with needing to make a viable server population (too many and the fight over resources becomes of negative and you have to deal with crowding (something we have to be more sensitive about because we are mostly non-instanced); too few and you're in a lonely world, which hurts socialization/community building and also makes it a pain to find a group).

     

    Also, then, as the game grows after launch, as the word spreads, etc., I am confident we'll have to launch more servers.  So some of the alternate rule-set servers may have to wait until some time after launch.     


    This post was edited by Aradune at June 12, 2015 10:12 AM PDT
    • 25 posts
    June 11, 2015 11:28 AM PDT

    I think different rulesets are great. HardcorePVE (one sub only, no group = deadmeat) , PVP(own or be owned), RelaxedPVE (scaled for a more relaxed atmosphere maybe? multibox etc.). 

    Personally i would like to have a account on both one on the hardcore and one a more relaxed style of play. if i decide to have more than one account then i would head over to the PVE-relaxed. having different rulesets are awesome. peeps want to be a part of the pantheon even if there life is pulling them away off and on by family or work. Everyone has different life constraints and play styles. When my family doesn't need me or anything else then i am on hardcore!!!

  • June 11, 2015 11:43 AM PDT
    Aradune said:

    It's true that even the group of people who are now (and of course this group will grow once we really push awareness/marketing/PR) interested in the game are divided in some areas.  But I welcome this and have no issue with it.  And 'alternate rule-set servers' are indeed, IMHO, the way to handle many of these differences in tastes.  Having a few different types of PvP servers makes a lot of sense.  RP/Immersion servers are awesome (one of the last things I did before leaving SoE in 2001 was create the Firiona Vie RP server, and while it was a bit 'nerfed' later on, I think the original rule-set was pretty sweet).  Hard core servers would also be very cool.  Harecore RP PvE would be my personal choice.

     

    A lot of it depends, at least shortly after launch, on how many servers total we launch with.  The more servers, the more variety we can accommodate.  The number of servers at launch depends on two things:  1. how popular the game is at launch (e.g. how many players) and 2. how many players we come up with needing to make a viable server population (too many and the fight over resources becomes of negative and you have to deal with crowding (something we have to be more sensitive about because we are mostly non-instanced); too few and you're in a lonely world, which hurts socialization/community building and also makes it a pain to find a group).

     

    Also, then, as the game grows after launch, as the word spreads, etc., I am confident we'll have to launch more servers.  So some of the alternate rule-set servers may have to wait until some time after launch.     

     

    I consider this a perfect approach to arriving at a solution which will be enjoyable and exciting for all.   You don't get to post a ton, but when you do it gets me thinking about playing Pantheon.  :)

    • 60 posts
    January 16, 2017 12:58 AM PST

    I read through most of the thread but I might of missed if this was answered but have they confirmed if there will be specific rules on PvP shards? For example increased exp gain, loot 1 item, etc? I really hope they don't increase the exp gained on PvP shards and just make it exactly like PvE rules. The reason I ask this is because the Red P99 EQ server does the bonus exp thing and I hate that. 

    Also for people rolling on PvP shards, what kind of death penalty rules would you enjoy seeing or would you prefer there to be no death penalty in open PvP(other than the usual one that they decide for in PvE shards obviously)? I personally think being able to loot 1 item off the body would be cool(if they were within the same level range). They could also allow the player that died to choose 1 item that won't be able to be stolen.


    This post was edited by Stephen at January 16, 2017 1:02 AM PST
    • 510 posts
    January 16, 2017 6:28 AM PST

    Would be an interesting testbed to create a limited HUD server - no community chat, no world chat, total open PvP, etc. that type of play.  There was an Ironman server in EQ once - total open PvP and the highest lvl player at the end got some kind of award - don't recall.  I think it was won by a druid though.  I think it would be fun to host a Ruleset-of-the-Month event.  Try every kind of setting out.  Hand out goodies to participants.

    • 409 posts
    January 16, 2017 6:50 AM PST

    An immersion server?

    • 510 posts
    January 16, 2017 7:01 AM PST

    I would LOVE to see a server that worked with Occulus, or VR Gear etc.

    • 510 posts
    January 16, 2017 7:01 AM PST

    Double post - sorry.


    This post was edited by Nephretiti at January 16, 2017 7:02 AM PST
    • 556 posts
    January 16, 2017 8:50 AM PST

    I see the argument from both sides here. There will be people who want things to be more "hardcore" in the sense of Vanilla EQ/P99 and there will be those (like me) who want that same feeling but simply do not want to poop-sock a game to be able to accomplish something. I don't really recall ever seeing anyone here ask for more soloability but I could have missed that one I suppose. 

    Personally, I think Brad's approach is the right one. Start with the normal PvE, PvP, RP servers and expand from there. If anything at all maybe have a lockout server and a non lock out PvE server if the population provides. Although if that was done, you'd find a very small minority on the non lockout I'd bet. Racing to bosses is and was fun. Being blocked by a mega guild for weeks to months that poop socks said bosses is not. It's the entire reason P99 began a forced rotation and the reason The TLPs were in such bad shape. Hell they progressed the servers just so one guild would move on to new targets. 

    As for the no box servers, well I'm all for those. As someone who does box when able I would much prefer that it didn't exist. Granted I like the fact that I can have a trader/bank alt parked somewhere I can trade stuff to in order to sell but it doesn't make or break anything for me

    • 1434 posts
    January 16, 2017 9:23 AM PST

    As long as there are no easy servers. Pantheon should go from hard to extreme. If people want to raid in Pantheon and don't want to have to compete with other guilds and sometimes spend ridiculous amounts of time to kill a raid mob when it pops, then they shouldn't raid or should stick to the more casual raid content.


    This post was edited by Dullahan at January 16, 2017 9:24 AM PST
    • 1281 posts
    January 16, 2017 9:30 AM PST

    Nephretiti said:

    I would LOVE to see a server that worked with Occulus, or VR Gear etc.

    I cannot imagine it would be popular enough to dedicate an entire server to it exclusively. I see VR support added in the future, but being available regardless of server. I see no reason to limit it per server anyways.