Dullahan said: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.
Think you and I are on 2 different pages here.
For example, me and a few guldies decided that we were going to camp Phinny as we all needed pieces for epics. He spawns, we called in more friends and starting going on him. Nearly have him dead when a group of 5 comes in and steals it via mem blur/wiz nukes.
I have zero issue putting in the time. I have no issue racing other guilds. I do have issue with petty bs that people clarify as 'game mechanics'. however, there are a lot of people who wouldn't even stand for half of what we put up with in the past. And if we truely are trying to make this game sustainable then we will have to concede some things. Old and out dated methods of basically hazing should be one of them. These types of things will drive away players.
The difficulty should not come from having to fight another guild over a spawn. It should come from the spawn itself. If that is not the case then VRI has failed. Time to take off the rose tinted glasses because nothing they do will recreate 99 EQ
This is an immensely important topic. Thank you, Aradune, for weighing in. I will not attempt to improve on Dullahan's list of potential servers (which seems to cover the key bases) but I will add my voice to Enitzu's in one regard.
For many people (myself included), an overscarcity of content is not fun. If I log into Pantheon after work, with the expectation of playing for a few hours, and I discover that every raid/group target of interest to me is on de-spawn or camped, I will be disappointed. I may make use of the time on something else (like tradeskilling or whatever), or I may just log off and do something else IRL that evening. If this happens regularly, it will have a major impact on my interest in continuing to play the game. I am not alone in this regard, as the folks in this thread have acknowledged.
Whatever the solution is (instances, server balancing, lockout timers, inexhaustible amounts of content), I hope that PRF makes the grouping and raiding game manageable for people with real life commitments. If a server with a modified ruleset is the best way to accomplish this, then I would urge VR to make those rulesets available as soon as possible.
Relatedly, I'll make a plug for a ruleset that I have come to consider the *ideal* ruleset, at least for me. The current ruleset on Phinigel (the EQ true-box time progression server) strikes a very, very good balance between the interests of hardcore community and the interests of the more "casual" community. (By casual I mean "casual" by EQ standards, i.e., playing 20+ hours per week but not 50+ or 80+ that some people put in.) The entire server is open world, but (i) when the population in a given zone crosses a threshold, a new "pick" of the zone is triggered, and (ii) raid instances can be created. There is still active competition for open world raid targets, and the hardcore guilds compete heavily for those kills, and the hardcore guilds are rewarded for winning that competition in the form of substantially better raid loot (because they clear the open world and instanced content each cycle). But there is also a space for more casual gamers to schedule raids and experience the raid content they want to experience. The surprising health of the Phinigel guild community (over 20 guilds actively raiding with 50-72 people each week) is a testament to the virtue of partially-instanced content. And yet the hardcore community (a smaller group of 3-4 guilds) still have their open-world competition and the rewards that go with it. Could this ruleset be tweaked? Definitely. For example, for those wanting to reward the open-world competition more, perhaps the open world targets could drop better or more loot than the instanced versions. I'm sure there are other tweaks as well.
Forgive me, but I fail to see how a completely instance-free server with an overscarcity of content (e.g., scarcity requiring guilds to agree to a "rotation" for boss kills) is a net positive for the game. And I've spent enough time playing MMOs to be pretty confident that I'm not going to suddenly discover the joy of playing on a server with overscarcity of content. So for me, and people like me, there needs to be a solution. Alternative rulesets that allow things like instancing may be the best solution.
Everquest's Sullon Zek server was the absolute best of times. I have never been able to repeat the experience of that server. The population of Sullon Zek was divided into 3 teams based on which Deity you worshipped. I was a loyal follower of Tunare, so my team was the 'Good' team. The struggle to survive and the epic conflicts between the 3 teams is what made Everquest so very interesting and challenging.
I very much hope that Pantheon can re-create a similar experience!
I really don't want to see developer resources wasted making alternate ruleset servers with instancing and mechanics adjusted to make soloing easy, just to please the people whining. This game is obviously designed for a specific demographic. This is the last game out there for those of us who want something challenging. I don't understand why this is even an issue, there are hundreds of games out there which offer the type of gameplay that those people want, yet they want to come into our last hope of a game and attempt to change the entire foundation of what it is. Let it go. Either play the game as it is, or go find something else, there's tons of options. Those of us who want something challenging and group-oriented do NOT have that option. Leave our game alone.
Enitzu said:Dullahan said: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.
I do have issue with petty bs that people clarify as 'game mechanics'. however, there are a lot of people who wouldn't even stand for half of what we put up with in the past. And if we truely are trying to make this game sustainable then we will have to concede some things. Old and out dated methods of basically hazing should be one of them. These types of things will drive away players.
The difficulty should not come from having to fight another guild over a spawn. It should come from the spawn itself. If that is not the case then VRI has failed. Time to take off the rose tinted glasses because nothing they do will recreate 99 EQ
This. I love the challenge/difficulty of EQ, the grind and grouping. I absolutely loathe having to fight other guilds for limited raid spawns, as they will almost always end up locked down by a mega guild or two until GM intervention. It's also entirely unappealing to those of us who work during the day and can't be there when raid mobs pop, yet are willing to put in the effort and time to raid otherwise. I don't really have any ideas as to how to handle this aside from lockout timers and fast respawns of raid content but wanting to raid and being unable to should be a thing of the past and only serves to drive many people away, far more I'd imagine than such a system serves. There has to be a better way.
Iksar said:
This. I love the challenge/difficulty of EQ, the grind and grouping. I absolutely loathe having to fight other guilds for limited raid spawns, as they will almost always end up locked down by a mega guild or two until GM intervention. It's also entirely unappealing to those of us who work during the day and can't be there when raid mobs pop, yet are willing to put in the effort and time to raid otherwise. I don't really have any ideas as to how to handle this aside from lockout timers and fast respawns of raid content but wanting to raid and being unable to should be a thing of the past and only serves to drive many people away, far more I'd imagine than such a system serves. There has to be a better way.
This. 110%.
What is wanted: The challenge, the huge learning curve, the community. The sense of accomplishment.
What is not wanted: poopsocking a spawn point for a 6 hr shift with 30 guildies and 200 other people all trying to out DPS one another for credit on a raid spawn. That's not playing a game, that's having no life. We work,have family commitments, kids that we have to bring places. Do we want to have to work hard to play the game? Yes that's why we are here. Do we want playing a game to be a second or third job? No. Having a life outside game shouldn't keep you from content in this day and age, and it doesn't make you any less of a gamer, or less deserving of pixel prizes.
I doubt any of us want a scenario where we literally walk into a cave and DPS down a raid target loot pinata that respawns 180 seconds after it dies (awww man, I didn't get any loot....Oh wait I have a reroll token...Score, Uber BP!). However if raid spawn are nothing but a situation where guilds have to designate a spawn camper of the day rotation, well, the game will have a severe drop in popularity once people hit that stage. Raiding should/needs to be something the casual guilds can also aspire to (maybe not the newest top tier content, but still reasonable). Otherwise it won't keep the sub as well as it should.
This debate generates many strong feelings and it won't be possible to satisfy both sides fully. The more things there are to do at maximum level that aren't raids (see Rift in particular) the better but raiders are likely to be an important part of the community.
Perhaps one more or less fair compromise is to have a fraction of raids that are competitive - for the mega-guild no lifers some might say. And a fraction that are not very competitive for the friendless lazy wimps some might say. Raid instances or long cooldowns for anyone that participates (perhaps their entire guild if enough guildmates are involved) are among the obvious mechanisms for the latter.
Why does this thread sound like 1896. If you dont know this is the year legal segregation started. Not going to go into how bad it would be to segregate the Pantheon population right from the get go. I am truly discouraged at how these forums have become debates on personal agendas.
@ Kilsin Thank you for your posts in this thread from about 6 months ago. They are spot on. Also, thank you for the job you do !
Boxing or no boxing, RP or not RP, immersion or less immersion, soloing or no soloing while being relatively important for different categories of players, are not fundamentally impacting everybody's enjoyment of a game .
However there is one decision which will have to be done by the developpers and this one deeply impacts (almost) everybody .
It is instancing or non instancing .
Most of the games today are instanced but we remember the early non instanced games like EQ too .
In a non instanced world there is a law which has never been broken - it always appears one or several guilds which will (try to) permanently lock "interesting" content for everybody else .
According to studies, in every MMORPG there is a hardcore minority (about 5% - 10 % of the population) playing 50+ hours/week whose motivation is only to raid and to "compete" on end game content .
While I do not wish to discuss whether it is legitimate or no, good or bad, the one certain thing is that it will happen in every non instanced world .
So as (and not if) it will happen, the developpers will have to deal with the consequences - a good 90 % of the population will complain and be unhappy as they will be excluded from the "end game" content because they are just "dirty casuals" and do not "deserve" or "are not entitled" to the "end game" loot .
All these arguments I included in "" really exist and have been repeatedly made over almost 2 decades on EQ :)
Now as other posters already mentionned, the by far most popular EQ server today is Phinnigel and this is because Phinnigel is the only server where the originally non instanced content was instanced .
According to some estimations, Phinnigel's population is as large or larger as the population of all other EQ servers combined .
A real time and size experiment has been made to measure the popularity between a non instanced TLP Ragefire and an instanced TLP Phinnigel . The result in terms of popularity is crushingly in favor of Phinnigel despite the fact that XP rates are slower on Phinnigel than on Ragefire ! This is surely something that deserves some consideration .
I do not say that I have a solution to this very difficult problem .
But I would like to stress that if Pantheon should be totally non instanced, the developpers better study and find the answers to the "content locking" problem (f.ex lock outs ?) because it would happen as surely as the day follows night .
Pyde said:Why does this thread sound like 1896. If you dont know this is the year legal segregation started. Not going to go into how bad it would be to segregate the Pantheon population right from the get go. I am truly discouraged at how these forums have become debates on personal agendas.
@ Kilsin Thank you for your posts in this thread from about 6 months ago. They are spot on. Also, thank you for the job you do !
You're very welcome my friend, I appreciate the kind words, thank you :)
I agree with those that don't feel instancing is automatically wrong. Instancing everything - awful. Instancing most things - awful. I suspect most of us agree.
Instancing some things where there is a reason to do so - not awful. Instancing is a good way to prevent content monopoly - I am not saying the only way or the best way but definitely a good way.
AlexisSummerwood said:I guess for me my first thought on this topic is what is the benefit of isolating the RP community on a server of their own?
I hear what you are saying, but I think the reason for separate servers is the idea that a majority of RP players want to be in a place where it can be reasonably assumed that everyone else on the server is interested in roleplaying as opposed to having to seek out those who might be interested. While I think it's fine if some RP players roll characters on PvE servers, I think having their own home is much more appealing to the majority of them.
Deadshade said:Iksar said:Bazgrim said:@Deadshade, Rewatch the last live stream. Around the 01:46:30 mark, Aradune talks about other ways to prevent content monopoly.
I can't find it on either of the December streams around that mark.
Neither can I .
Sorry I wasn't clear. Try this video starting at 37:45.
My 2 cp on this is that I don't want to play a game that is dominated by boxers. My preference would be to play on a server that doesn't allow boxing at all. I'd consider playing on a 2 box server.
I understand that people boxing can bring in a lot of revenue for a company, but in the end it needs to be about what is right for the game and the experience you want your players to have. I hope that experience doesn't include one guy running 6 toons and bottlenecking you on progression/gear.
Ok, I considered starting a new thread, but this thread has some information and comments by Kilsin and Brad that I think are useful as well as other discussion on the topic.
I want to continue this discussion, but with a more specific focus on it. First, I understand that people are worried about breaking up the community into numerous shards where there is massive division and the community then dwindles due to it, but I think you can achieve some segregation to attend to play expectations that are at exact odds from each other and then identify “tolerable” features that can be compromised on within those sub groups.
I see an increasing trend on what is expected in game play, and it does concern me because the differences of opinion are not something that can be remedied I think. That is, if some people get what they want, I doubt I will play the game and it is entirely possible if I get what I want, nor will they. This isn’t an ultimatum on VR, it just a reality to what I want and am willing to accept in my last try of an MMO.
So, as has already been discussed, re have realm rule-sets. So far, I see the discussion focused specifically on concepts that are not specific to game mechanics, rather play styles such as PvP/Role playing, Bots/No Bots, etc…
I would rather see more of realm rule set based on “ideology” as the core design factor, not simply elements of individual features. I think that if the realm is established on this, you can more cleanly provide for players without turning things into a list of realms with numerous micro differences.
Now some of you have seen my arguments, and I would like to think that I have been consistent to a set ideology over that of picking features based on individual subjective preference. Everything I argue for I try to hold to a given ideological standard that focuses on if the feature expands game play and enhances it. This is why I argue against many modern mainstream features as I see them as harming game play.
So, I would like to VR attempt to resolve this issue by maybe a process of data collection and eventually a polling structure to find a common ground for a given realm.
I think the differences between modern mainstream MMOs and games of old like EQ are pretty clearly segregated. Be it travel, death penalties, etc.. in “most” cases there is a clear segregation between the ideals of those players. We see this on the board daily, with one side agreeing generally with each other and these two sides come to disagreement on the board due to the conflicting ideologies. Within those ideologies, there is contests, but most can come to fair compromise on given positions. The point is that you can get both sides to agree within their own groups over differences, but you will not usually get agreements across those boundaries between the two.
So what is my idea? Well… I am sure someone has either talked about it or maybe even specified it here, but this was the first thread I found that got close to it.
My idea is first for VR to data collect on the basis of ideology. You categorize based on general features and collect responses to first establish what they are on a general grounds (Ie you pick a tenant of concept and hold all design exactly to it). An example could be a list as such:
Travel
Death penalty
Loot restrictions and design (ie boe, bop, or other systems)
Weight restrictions (ie coin weight, item weight, bag space, etc…)
Combat time
Down time
Visual design (ie first person vs 3rd person due to the pros/cons of game play)
etc…
The point is to create a distinct boundary for each concept to which that ideology drives.
I can look at each of those topics and from the perspective of the ideology, design the features accordingly, always holding them to that with each evaluation.
So, if VR can do this and develop a core list of these concepts and then we can now have the basis for two different types of game play servers. Note, this is about game play specifically in terms of mechanics in play, not concepts of Role playing, PvP, etc.. those are more social constructs that have an effect on game play, my focus is game play first.
Once this list is established, then… the next step would be to identify the elements of each topic according to the ideology.
Death penalty for instance is a struggle between the differences of not having one, or having it very limited (ie the opposing side of the ideologies) versus the need to have an extreme and punishing one. You can easily take the ideology that thinks there should be a harsh penalty in death and come to a reasonable agreement here, while you can never come to such an agreement with opposing idealogy.
So, you go through each and establish a core sub tenant for that realms design based on specific discussion within that subgroup. With each iteration, you define “what” is the tenant of that groups ideology and you best try to pick the feature that would be generally accepted between those sub opinions of that particular ideology.
That is, you ask for more discussion on those particulars for that sub group. The discussions then become about the levels of severity within the context of that sub group. For instance, it could be travel time. In that sub group, all would want travel to be a major obstacle and what is accepted between would differ, but you could establish a median between them.
Once all this data is collected and correlated, you can now find that median for that ideology and create a realm rule-set which attends directly to that concept of thinking. The result would be giving an experience to everyone formed into a package they are more amiable to.
It means, those who like mainstream features could have a realm configured within “reach” of their expectations, rather than being in constant fear of having to accept an opposing ideology feature set. Would this segregate the community? Yes, but the community is already segregated and the fact is, you aren’t going to get completely conflicting ideologies playing together for long. If this were true, all of the people who are following this game for their love of old school design would already being playing modern MMOs consistently.
I think this kills two birds with one stone. It allows those of old school ideology to congregate on a realm designed within that very context and it allows more modern mainstream players to experience the game closer to their expectations. The benefit here is that either side can still choose to experience the game in different rule sets, so you still have the chance of the new generation coming over and playing on the more traditional rule sets and the opposite.
With this, it is a more of a general segregation, so it only splits the community through a general difference, and not specifically to multiple detailed ones outside of general (PvP/PvE).
Dullahan said: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.
See I am all for all of that, except for competing with guilds. If it is a PVP server, fine...but I am wanting PVE. I am more on the hardcore side of the aisle to most people on the forums, but I would want the raid mob to be the obstacle and not some zerg poop socking guild. This is why I am on the aisle of encounter locking only raid mobs. Most everything else I am for in terms of a corpse run death penalty, because that seems to be the only type of system that makes me respect the enviroment, travel time being more meaningful than even EQ, and of course no designed solo content. I don't think I will budge from my position on those things. There are other areas that I moved to in the middle a little, but if you give too much ground than you get a washed down type of game. Which is why I don't trust in the middle ground approach anyways. Everytime I agree in the middle about something with someone that same person will then discuss the same postition he had with me from the start and still try to convince people of that. I have seen very few people actually budge from their respective places though.
@Tanix:
Various flavors of PvP ruleset servers can actually have significant mechanical differences. For instance, Brad Mcquaid mentioned that they might eventually implement special rulesets that allowed things like territory control. Something like that is bound to tie in with factions or racial groups (maybe guilds?) and their presence/dominance within the game world. Different types of PvP servers also have different mechanics deciding validity of targets for attacking and ability usage and maybe even restricted access to perception triggers and quests, based on the player's hardcoded allegiance that was decided at character creation.
And in the case of RP ruleset servers, there are often additional restrictions imposed on players with the intent to enhance immersion. It's very much based in ideology as you call it and not just a playstyle. In addition, to players who are interested in RP it's particularly important that they share an environment primarily with other players who will also engage in RP. If roleplayers have to find each other and coordinate in communities outside the game and designate a random server as the unsanctioned RP server by themselves you just won't get a thriving RP community for the game. For one, there's too many hurdles for newcomers to find these communities so they'll eventually die out as people move on. And even when they do manage to find one another, there's no rules in place to stop someone else with malign intent from actively trying to ruin the immersion for them. Which will make un-fun experiences more common than they need to be.
I do think there's a grain of truth in your argument that players will have to settle for a compromise when it comes to server selection based on mechanics (and rules), but simplifying the segregation to just 4 types: hardcore/casual FFA PvP/PvE isn't the answer. It might work for you because hardcore PvE is all you're looking for in terms of mechanics and special rulesets outside the norm aren't something you're particularly interested in, but to others it's exactly those special rulesets and associated mechanics (like RP or team-based PvP) that are the biggest factor in their server selection.
Kaeldorn said:@Tanix:
Various flavors of PvP ruleset servers can actually have significant mechanical differences. For instance, Brad Mcquaid mentioned that they might eventually implement special rulesets that allowed things like territory control. Something like that is bound to tie in with factions or racial groups (maybe guilds?) and their presence/dominance within the game world. Different types of PvP servers also have different mechanics deciding validity of targets for attacking and ability usage and maybe even restricted access to perception triggers and quests, based on the player's hardcoded allegiance that was decided at character creation.
And in the case of RP ruleset servers, there are often additional restrictions imposed on players with the intent to enhance immersion. It's very much based in ideology as you call it and not just a playstyle. In addition, to players who are interested in RP it's particularly important that they share an environment primarily with other players who will also engage in RP. If roleplayers have to find each other and coordinate in communities outside the game and designate a random server as the unsanctioned RP server by themselves you just won't get a thriving RP community for the game. For one, there's too many hurdles for newcomers to find these communities so they'll eventually die out as people move on. And even when they do manage to find one another, there's no rules in place to stop someone else with malign intent from actively trying to ruin the immersion for them. Which will make un-fun experiences more common than they need to be.
I do think there's a grain of truth in your argument that players will have to settle for a compromise when it comes to server selection based on mechanics (and rules), but simplifying the segregation to just 4 types: hardcore/casual FFA PvP/PvE isn't the answer. It might work for you because hardcore PvE is all you're looking for in terms of mechanics and special rulesets outside the norm aren't something you're particularly interested in, but to others it's exactly those special rulesets and associated mechanics (like RP or team-based PvP) that are the biggest factor in their server selection.
Yes, those are layers (icing on a cake) and I understand that, but there is a basis for the core concept of game play which I am talking about and this is the division that exists between modern MMO gamers and those of older systems.
My point is, Pantheon WILL be inundated by mainstream (it already has on many levels which is obvious by some of the arguments here), so.. they can either "fight it" which is a losing battle, or they can join it (which is also a losing battle), or... they can do what I suggest. That is, the basis for both are differences in core mechanic play styles. You can devide base on those, then build from that core (later adding and adjusting as you spoke with RP and PvP servers). The point is, by its basic default, Mainstream and Older MMO game systems are at odds. Either one side loses, or both do. You can't please both under the same concept of design, but under my suggestion, you could attend to the differings on a Realm level hopefully without too much design differences (ie most of the differences would be back end adjustments on penalties, abilities, etc...). That is, if travel is a point of contest, it is easy to attend to one idealogy who wants faster travel, ease of travel, etc... while allowing the other to have more restrained controlled system.
The result is, the best of both world, literally.