Tanix said: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.
So there would be regular "servers" for serious players, and the "Training wheel - Fisher Price" servers for those that want to turn it into main stream stuff we are trying to get away from?
Caine said:Tanix said: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.
So there would be regular "servers" for serious players, and the "Training wheel - Fisher Price" servers for those that want to turn it into main stream stuff we are trying to get away from?
That is kind of a blunt, but yes.
One ruleset server will be more modern ideal configutation, the other traditional ideal configuration if you will.
How each are configured to that ideal would be polled to find the median of that particular ideal, though you can start with a base foundation (ie Pantheons tenants are a good starting point to what is considered "traditional" systems, that becomes the base, and the rest is polled to find the sweet spot).
With this, not everyone will get everything they want exactly, but... you are more likely to get "acceptance" within a particular configuration style as opposed to conflicting ones being at odds. That is, for instance some people here agree generally with a position I might hold, but we may differ over specifics and could likely come to a compromise while there is no way I will ever come to a compromise with many modern mainstream design ideals as they are counter to everything I think important in a game.
Make sense?
@Tanix:
I think I understand why you would suggest something along those lines, but I seriously doubt that the conflict you have identified can be solved to your own satisfaction by the proposed solution.
Having enjoyed most of your contributions to this forum for the last year or so, my impression is that your have a very clear idea of what you want. At the risk of putting words into your mouth, I'd say that for all the important game mechanics Everquest makes a very good blue-print from your perspective. So you'd probably expect to find a server confirming to that blue-print to a large extent. You have repeatedly stated that if this or that requirement is not met, you will not play the game. I assume you imagine that those who prefer what you label "mainstream" can go play on some other servers to keep them from whining.
But what about those who insist on slow, meaningful travel but dislike harsh death penalties? Or the other way around? Now we need four rule sets, already, not even taking into acount that neither of these features can be considered simple on/off switches. Throw in PvP/PvE and we need 8, and we've only scratched the surface. As you mention yourself there are numerous variables that make up a rule set, and I just don't think it would be feasible to construct a few packages allowing everybody to find a decent match for themselves. As much as I hate the thought, I think we'll have to settle for something less than ideal from our own perspective.
Edit: I wrote the above while you were posting your last reply.
Tanix said:That is kind of a blunt, but yes.
One ruleset server will be more modern ideal configutation, the other traditional ideal configuration if you will.
How each are configured to that ideal would be polled to find the median of that particular ideal, though you can start with a base foundation (ie Pantheons tenants are a good starting point to what is considered "traditional" systems, that becomes the base, and the rest is polled to find the sweet spot).
With this, not everyone will get everything they want exactly, but... you are more likely to get "acceptance" within a particular configuration style as opposed to conflicting ones being at odds. That is, for instance some people here agree generally with a position I might hold, but we may differ over specifics and could likely come to a compromise while there is no way I will ever come to a compromise with many modern mainstream design ideals as they are counter to everything I think important in a game.
Make sense?
Some mornings I am more blunt, but open minded, I know what VR is developing within the game tenets they have laid forth. So I try not to make suggestions that go against those game tenets. If VR presents a way to incorporate some "Main Stream" concepts into Pantheon without jepardising their own tenets, I am down for it.
Yes that makes sense. If this MMORPG does not pan out, I think it will time for something else, something not yet created. I can see a multi-shard existance. Just like there is P99, and then there is EQ they have now at Heartbreak games.