I just hope there are no Mercs like EQ 1, it goes against everything this game is about: grouping and making friends.
If the game plans on putting mercs (NPC can be hired to group with so you can "solo") tell me now so i can unsub and write this game off.
I already don't like Progeny. I think it's a bad idea, but as long as i don't have to use it, I am ok with that.
I already hate that there is no twinking (EQ 1 style: cloak of flames on lev 1 monk, getting 36% haste) (pantheon plans on item/level scaling instead, so that CoF will be 1% haste on a lev 1 monk) /cry
I REALLY hope a lot more questions get answered in next steam.
A hardcore server would work if it was balanced by risk versus reward.
First of all, every server should be hard. However, not every server needs to be hardcore featuring the most brutal penalties.
To balance out steeper penalties and time sinks on a hardcore server, they could add a slight increase to things like coin, rare spawns, rare drops and experience. When properly balanced, both the normal and hardcore servers would progress at a similar pace, despite one being a bit harder than the other.
I honestly don't see any need for having server rulesets with varying difficulties. As long as there's a decent range of difficulty build into the world, those who want a less challenging game can choose to level up in easier areas and wait to tackle the harder content until they've geared themselves up to a point that it isn't so difficult to overcome. Having some 'easy-mode' servers would act as a giant spoiler for content, allowing people to blow through the game at an accellerated pace. That isn't good for the overall health of the game in the long run.
Elrandir said:I honestly don't see any need for having server rulesets with varying difficulties. As long as there's a decent range of difficulty build into the world, those who want a less challenging game can choose to level up in easier areas and wait to tackle the harder content until they've geared themselves up to a point that it isn't so difficult to overcome. Having some 'easy-mode' servers would act as a giant spoiler for content, allowing people to blow through the game at an accellerated pace. That isn't good for the overall health of the game in the long run.
I don't think it's a matter of having an easy mode server, as much as it's a matter of having a truly hard server that will enhance the experience for a lot of players, but would turn off the majority.
Until Pantheon declares itself a hybrid of X and Dark Souls, I don't see this being a hard core game and I don't see this needing an "easy" server that some of us can use as a testing ground for real servers. EQ wasn't a hard core game either, but many people just like to remember it as that because it was new to them. Pantheon will be like playing a NES game (a very nice and fancy one) after being on Xbox for years. It was difficult because it was one of the originals that did it all and worked out rather well. When P99 launched it was far easier because everyone had already been there and done that, even though I think it took longer than the original EQ to level.
I think what most people forget about EQ is that EQ is what you make it.
If you guild and socialized with people who group as you do, who play as you do, things will work out well for you. Try to go into Pantheon as an evil race playing an evil solo class when you can only play 10-15 hours a week then expect to not max out for a while. Instead, maybe make yourself a "good" race that travels well, a class you like that groups well, log in and group up for 2 hours. There is your productive 15 hours of gaming per 7 day week. Even in P99, it was amazing how much XP you could get done in 2 hours at a time. The only difference between that and WoW was that we had to grind it out, pull fast, kill fast, kill often, manage downtime, bathroom breaks, MDKMDKMDK!
Don't pysche yourselves out. I am a huge fan of this game, but I don't see this as difficult if you are already used to corpse runs, working together, and clearing into and out of camps in dungeons with horrible pathing. It's a group based MMO that doesn't hold your hand. Simple.
Dullahan said:I don't think it's a matter of having an easy mode server, as much as it's a matter of having a truly hard server that will enhance the experience for a lot of players, but would turn off the majority.
Until we get into testing and actually see what the game is like it's hard to know if anything like this would actually provide any benefit. Though if something like this were implemented, would it really make sense to reward players playing on such a server with more rares, better drop rates, etc.? If the point of playing on the hard core server is to have a more challenging experience, and gear acquisition is a large part of how challenges are overcome: what's the point of making it easier to gear up on these 'hard core' servers?
I still think the better solution is to have some content that's specifically designed to be more challenging. As long as there's always some section of a dungeon that's more dangerous to visit and offers the chance of a reward or two that players can wear as a badge of honor for having tackled the content, I don't think there will be a lot of complaints about the difficulty level of the game.
We have already made our stance clear folks, I will paste a quote of my below again for those who didn't read the first page.
"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 targeting 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 guys a realistic view on this subject."
Naim said:I just hope there are no Mercs like EQ 1, it goes against everything this game is about: grouping and making friends.
If the game plans on putting mercs (NPC can be hired to group with so you can "solo") tell me now so i can unsub and write this game off.
I already don't like Progeny. I think it's a bad idea, but as long as i don't have to use it, I am ok with that.
I already hate that there is no twinking (EQ 1 style: cloak of flames on lev 1 monk, getting 36% haste) (pantheon plans on item/level scaling instead, so that CoF will be 1% haste on a lev 1 monk) /cry
I REALLY hope a lot more questions get answered in next steam.
There will not be mercs. It's quite ridiculous to think they'd include something that so obviously goes completely against what they set out to accomplish.
We don't even know what Progeny is yet, so it's too early to write it off.
And while I do like classic twinking, scaled items will still be beneficial. And an argument could be made that if gifted items are too powerful, that could decrease a character's need to group, which is, as you said, something they are trying to avoid.
I'm sure there'll be plenty of juicy info in the next stream, but I think it's better to approach it with an attitude of seeing what the game has to offer, rather than looking for potential problems with it.
I am against splitting the community up. Identity politics need not apply to MMO's.
I hope this shapes up much like Everquest. There was so much content, so many zones, that seeing everything was very difficult to do. As a result, I didnt mind not seeing random_zone_98 or random_zone_99 because I didn't have the time or was not part of a guild that had the ability/desire to obtain access. I was likely horribly undergeared for such content anyway, and had a TON of other content I could alternatively do. Would it have been cool to check out random_zone_98 and random_zone_99? Sure, but I am perfectly OK with certain levels of exclusivity, mystery, and unknown if the limitation is me. This is something missing from modern day treadmill MMO's... a sense of mystery, wonder, and unknown. Everyone grinds through the same quest lines, getting the same quest rewards, visits the same zones/areas, goes through the same motions as the previous person, and all of it is universally easy and boring. Who wants to play in that kind of world? No wonder people complain about grinds all the time. In that scenario, the limitation isnt the player, its the game. Doesnt sound too fun to me.
On the whole, I feel it would find it out-of-line to ask the developers to launch a special ruleset server to fit me or my "identity group's" specific level of commitment to the game. PvP server? Totally fine, but the PvE content and requirements should remain the same.
Elrandir said:Dullahan said:I don't think it's a matter of having an easy mode server, as much as it's a matter of having a truly hard server that will enhance the experience for a lot of players, but would turn off the majority.
Until we get into testing and actually see what the game is like it's hard to know if anything like this would actually provide any benefit. Though if something like this were implemented, would it really make sense to reward players playing on such a server with more rares, better drop rates, etc.? If the point of playing on the hard core server is to have a more challenging experience, and gear acquisition is a large part of how challenges are overcome: what's the point of making it easier to gear up on these 'hard core' servers?
I still think the better solution is to have some content that's specifically designed to be more challenging. As long as there's always some section of a dungeon that's more dangerous to visit and offers the chance of a reward or two that players can wear as a badge of honor for having tackled the content, I don't think there will be a lot of complaints about the difficulty level of the game.
Yes, to answer you question. It totally makes sense for more risk to come with more reward. Not only to make it seem worthwhile, but to keep a semblance of balance between the two and prevent animosity. The point of playing hardcore isn't purely for masochism, but for greater reward.
Dekaden said:I am against splitting the community up. Identity politics need not apply to MMO's.
I hope this shapes up much like Everquest. There was so much content, so many zones, that seeing everything was very difficult to do. As a result, I didnt mind not seeing random_zone_98 or random_zone_99 because I didn't have the time or was not part of a guild that had the ability/desire to obtain access. I was likely horribly undergeared for such content anyway, and had a TON of other content I could alternatively do. Would it have been cool to check out random_zone_98 and random_zone_99? Sure, but I am perfectly OK with certain levels of exclusivity, mystery, and unknown if the limitation is me. This is something missing from modern day treadmill MMO's... a sense of mystery, wonder, and unknown. Everyone grinds through the same quest lines, getting the same quest rewards, visits the same zones/areas, goes through the same motions as the previous person, and all of it is universally easy and boring. Who wants to play in that kind of world? No wonder people complain about grinds all the time. In that scenario, the limitation isnt the player, its the game. Doesnt sound too fun to me.
On the whole, I feel it would find it out-of-line to ask the developers to launch a special ruleset server to fit me or my "identity group's" specific level of commitment to the game. PvP server? Totally fine, but the PvE content and requirements should remain the same.
I agree on the idea that we shouldn't be split up too much. But I believe there's a line on the other side too. Kilsins quote has a part regarding how enough demand CAN make a new server. If an overpopulated server has 50k more people than it should, and you can somehow identify at least 50k people in that server who are interested in a server with some different ruleset...It would just be good sense to make that different ruleselt server, given that it's not too complicated to do so.
BeaverBiscuit said:Dekaden said:I am against splitting the community up. Identity politics need not apply to MMO's.
I hope this shapes up much like Everquest. There was so much content, so many zones, that seeing everything was very difficult to do. As a result, I didnt mind not seeing random_zone_98 or random_zone_99 because I didn't have the time or was not part of a guild that had the ability/desire to obtain access. I was likely horribly undergeared for such content anyway, and had a TON of other content I could alternatively do. Would it have been cool to check out random_zone_98 and random_zone_99? Sure, but I am perfectly OK with certain levels of exclusivity, mystery, and unknown if the limitation is me. This is something missing from modern day treadmill MMO's... a sense of mystery, wonder, and unknown. Everyone grinds through the same quest lines, getting the same quest rewards, visits the same zones/areas, goes through the same motions as the previous person, and all of it is universally easy and boring. Who wants to play in that kind of world? No wonder people complain about grinds all the time. In that scenario, the limitation isnt the player, its the game. Doesnt sound too fun to me.
On the whole, I feel it would find it out-of-line to ask the developers to launch a special ruleset server to fit me or my "identity group's" specific level of commitment to the game. PvP server? Totally fine, but the PvE content and requirements should remain the same.
I agree on the idea that we shouldn't be split up too much. But I believe there's a line on the other side too. Kilsins quote has a part regarding how enough demand CAN make a new server. If an overpopulated server has 50k more people than it should, and you can somehow identify at least 50k people in that server who are interested in a server with some different ruleset...It would just be good sense to make that different ruleselt server, given that it's not too complicated to do so.
If the demand is there, I'm sure a case can be made financially or otherwise. However, just because there is demand, doesnt mean it's the right move for Pantheon. The question is, should there be a special ruleset server for the "elite", or conversely, the "casuals"? I don't like the way this divides the community both in-game and out (forums, reddit, etc). The intention may be good, but I don't like the side effects.
In my opinion, the solution would be to create content and rewards that can be persued equally by all, no matter your initial server choice. Content that is both wide and deep, with easier and more difficult paths with rewards commensurate to risk. This is the correct way to design, rather than a sliding scale of difficulty for an entire server. Casual players will have content available to them, as will those that seek an extra challenge. Should a casual player decide to check out some harder content, it's available to them too, although they may need to upgrade a few pieces of gear or brush up their group-play a bit. In the "One PVE Ruleset" scenario, the player is left with no regrets regarding their initial server choice.
However this shapes up, I would not take the community down the path of segregating us by category of gamer. I cannot see how any benefits of a "separate but equal" approach would outweigh the downsides in the long run. In the end, you wind up with a bitter and divided community, with one side claiming the developers are catering to one side over the other. This already happens naturally in a lot of titles, including current day EQ, but to apply this intentionally as a design strategy would be insane. This is essentially identity politics applied to a gaming community, and it's ugly. No one wins in the end.
Why not just throw a poll out with a hardcore mechanics server and a softcore mechanics server and ask the community which one they would want to play on. If it's split, create both, if it's one sided, just create the one. What I know is pitching Pantheon as a hardcore game when it's ultimately going to be softcore/casual game is not a great strategy. Many companies have already taken that false promise approach and it has not worked out for them. You won't divide players by hardcore/casual but you're willing to divide them by whether or not they want to roleplay? Someone explain to me how that makes sense?
Zircon said:Why not just throw a poll out with a hardcore mechanics server and a softcore mechanics server and ask the community which one they would want to play on. If it's split, create both, if it's one sided, just create the one. What I know is pitching Pantheon as a hardcore game when it's ultimately going to be softcore/casual game is not a great strategy. Many companies have already taken that false promise approach and it has not worked out for them. You won't divide players by hardcore/casual but you're willing to divide them by whether or not they want to roleplay? Someone explain to me how that makes sense?
Where have you heard that it's going to be a softcore/casual game?
Someone (I'm sorry I don't remember who) shared this link a while back. https://www.reddit.com/r/MMORPG/comments/2vhlbn/did_anyone_play_on_everquests_firiona_vie/
Its another person's account EQs Firiona Vie server and its ruleset. It sounds awesome to me and the fact that Kilsin mentioned an immersion server gives me hope! I would love to see Pantheon launch with it. :) *crosses fingers*
NEXTLEVL said:Zircon said:Why not just throw a poll out with a hardcore mechanics server and a softcore mechanics server and ask the community which one they would want to play on. If it's split, create both, if it's one sided, just create the one. What I know is pitching Pantheon as a hardcore game when it's ultimately going to be softcore/casual game is not a great strategy. Many companies have already taken that false promise approach and it has not worked out for them. You won't divide players by hardcore/casual but you're willing to divide them by whether or not they want to roleplay? Someone explain to me how that makes sense?
Where have you heard that it's going to be a softcore/casual game?
Yeah Zirc you seem to be terribly misinformed. Either that or you have some ability to see the future and in that future, VR goes against everything they've ever said and makes a care bear game. Cause I sure as heck don't see that happening. Pantheon will be a very challenging game and there's no point in them releasing an alternate easy button server when the whole point of them developing this game is to appeal to gamers that want to be challenged and want to have the satisfaction of overcoming great difficulties. So it will not be all things to all people. Brad has said that since day one.
A separate roleplaying server is not really dividing the community. You can both like a challenge and be a role player. It doesn't really divide the community any more than any other server. But a Pantheon casual server is a contradiction in and of itself. Those are two very different demographics.
The whole "dividing the community" thing makes no sense to me. The only real community once the game launches will exist within each server anyway. The greater Pantheon community of all players will take a distant backseat to the people you deal with in game on a daily basis.
As such, making decisions based on trying to keep only a uniform audience makes little sense. Just having PvP servers alone will mean Pantheon's playerbase will be radically diverse... and I don't see any drawback to that. What's the worst that can happen, people might disagree on a forum thread?
If there's enough interest in a ruleset to draw thousands of people by merely toggling server settings or adjusting a few formulas, and without making drastic changes to the game, that's going to be the best business decision.
Bazgrim said:NEXTLEVL said:Zircon said:Why not just throw a poll out with a hardcore mechanics server and a softcore mechanics server and ask the community which one they would want to play on. If it's split, create both, if it's one sided, just create the one. What I know is pitching Pantheon as a hardcore game when it's ultimately going to be softcore/casual game is not a great strategy. Many companies have already taken that false promise approach and it has not worked out for them. You won't divide players by hardcore/casual but you're willing to divide them by whether or not they want to roleplay? Someone explain to me how that makes sense?
Where have you heard that it's going to be a softcore/casual game?
Yeah Zirc you seem to be terribly misinformed. Either that or you have some ability to see the future and in that future, VR goes against everything they've ever said and makes a care bear game. Cause I sure as heck don't see that happening. Pantheon will be a very challenging game and there's no point in them releasing an alternate easy button server when the whole point of them developing this game is to appeal to gamers that want to be challenged and want to have the satisfaction of overcoming great difficulties. So it will not be all things to all people. Brad has said that since day one.
A separate roleplaying server is not really dividing the community. You can both like a challenge and be a role player. It doesn't really divide the community any more than any other server. But a Pantheon casual server is a contradiction in and of itself. Those are two very different demographics.
As long as said rulesets don't require high amounts of time/resources when it comes to balancing the game down the road, I would agree. Let's say there is a hardcore server ... and some new "extreme" raid boss. Because of the extra severe death penalty on that hardcore server, this extreme mob becomes impossible. Now the team needs to rework it, specifically for that server. This is just a single example but scenarios like this must be avoided. We already know that PVE/PVP will be designed in a way where if a change needs to be made to a PVP paladin spell, it won't screw up PVE paladins. I just think it's a slippery slope when you start to create all of these fancy rulesets. I would prefer the game to just be challenging on all servers and not even need to consider needing a hardcore server. PVE/PVP/RP has worked well in the past. I'm not saying I am completely against the idea of other server types ... just that I wouldn't want them to take away from the experience of the game as a whole. If a single dev is dedicated to a specific server type, that's one less dev working on the game that the majority of the players will be experiencing.
*Edit -- There is the caveat, of course, that if the demand is high enough and that creating said server would open up the potential of maintaining X amount of accounts, the cost of having specific devs assigned to those servers could be justified. Once you open up this can of worms, though, everybody may want a "special rulesets server" only to find that it wasn't that big of a difference and still end up quitting the game. Any server with special rules is an investment in my opinion and before investing in something like that, it needs to be unequivocally clear that the demand is there and that it will remain solvent.
Zircon said:Yeah Zirc you seem to be terribly misinformed. Either that or you have some ability to see the future and in that future, VR goes against everything they've ever said and makes a care bear game. Cause I sure as heck don't see that happening. Pantheon will be a very challenging game and there's no point in them releasing an alternate easy button server when the whole point of them developing this game is to appeal to gamers that want to be challenged and want to have the satisfaction of overcoming great difficulties. So it will not be all things to all people. Brad has said that since day one.
A separate roleplaying server is not really dividing the community. You can both like a challenge and be a role player. It doesn't really divide the community any more than any other server. But a Pantheon casual server is a contradiction in and of itself. Those are two very different demographics.
Because listen to the language being used:
We want the player to respect and even fear the environment, but also to be enticed by it. A big part of achieving this balance is making sure there is an incentive to avoid death. While the details of this system are not yet fleshed out (and will likely be tweaked and changed a bit during beta), you can expect death to be something you’d rather avoid. That said, if a death penalty is too severe, it can keep players away from some of the more challenging and rewarding content, and we are keeping this in mind as well. So death will sting, but it will also not involve losing an unreasonable amount of experience, or levels, or a permanent loss of items.
They're being vague so you can interpret that either way so they don't lose interest from either playstyle. Except of course that elephant in the room that you can't lose levels. Not losing levels is one of the telltale signs of a softcore mindset. Look I like a lot of what VR is doing thats why I pledged a long time ago, and I realize the death issue is one of the most debated topics. I empathize with the problem of solving it. "Something you'd rather avoid." It will be fun when someone in the group levels and we have them suicide back to town to go sell items and just res them back since they can't delevel.
/sigh
oneADseven said:As long as said rulesets don't require high amounts of time/resources when it comes to balancing the game down the road, I would agree. Let's say there is a hardcore server ... and some new "extreme" raid boss. Because of the extra severe death penalty on that hardcore server, this extreme mob becomes impossible. Now the team needs to rework it, specifically for that server. This is just a single example but scenarios like this must be avoided. We already know that PVE/PVP will be designed in a way where if a change needs to be made to a PVP paladin spell, it won't screw up PVE paladins. I just think it's a slippery slope when you start to create all of these fancy rulesets. I would prefer the game to just be challenging on all servers and not even need to consider needing a hardcore server. PVE/PVP/RP has worked well in the past. I'm not saying I am completely against the idea of other server types ... just that I wouldn't want them to take away from the experience of the game as a whole. If a single dev is dedicated to a specific server type, that's one less dev working on the game that the majority of the players will be experiencing.
*Edit -- There is the caveat, of course, that if the demand is high enough and that creating said server would open up the potential of maintaining X amount of accounts, the cost of having specific devs assigned to those servers could be justified. Once you open up this can of worms, though, everybody may want a "special rulesets server" only to find that it wasn't that big of a difference and still end up quitting the game. Any server with special rules is an investment in my opinion and before investing in something like that, it needs to be unequivocally clear that the demand is there and that it will remain solvent.
I never said "extra severe", I would just want an actual penalty. Not deaths that are 95%+ mitigated by res, and
bool canLoseLevel = true;
If a boss can be killed on a softcore server you won't hear a peep from us on the hardcore server. I will go out of my way to mock anyone who complains about a boss mob after joining a 'hardcore' server. It would be an afront to the hardcore server itself if they changed a boss mechanic, pfft to that. It would just be that much more epic when said boss you describe goes down on a hardcore server.
A hardcore server would be perfect because everyone would be on the same page that death is not an option, and that no one is allowed to complain about it.
Zircon said:oneADseven said:As long as said rulesets don't require high amounts of time/resources when it comes to balancing the game down the road, I would agree. Let's say there is a hardcore server ... and some new "extreme" raid boss. Because of the extra severe death penalty on that hardcore server, this extreme mob becomes impossible. Now the team needs to rework it, specifically for that server. This is just a single example but scenarios like this must be avoided. We already know that PVE/PVP will be designed in a way where if a change needs to be made to a PVP paladin spell, it won't screw up PVE paladins. I just think it's a slippery slope when you start to create all of these fancy rulesets. I would prefer the game to just be challenging on all servers and not even need to consider needing a hardcore server. PVE/PVP/RP has worked well in the past. I'm not saying I am completely against the idea of other server types ... just that I wouldn't want them to take away from the experience of the game as a whole. If a single dev is dedicated to a specific server type, that's one less dev working on the game that the majority of the players will be experiencing.
*Edit -- There is the caveat, of course, that if the demand is high enough and that creating said server would open up the potential of maintaining X amount of accounts, the cost of having specific devs assigned to those servers could be justified. Once you open up this can of worms, though, everybody may want a "special rulesets server" only to find that it wasn't that big of a difference and still end up quitting the game. Any server with special rules is an investment in my opinion and before investing in something like that, it needs to be unequivocally clear that the demand is there and that it will remain solvent.
I never said "extra severe", I would just want an actual penalty. Not deaths that are 95%+ mitigated by res, and
bool canLoseLevel = true;
If a boss can be killed on a softcore server you won't hear a peep from us on the hardcore server. I will go out of my way to mock anyone who complains about a boss mob after joining a 'hardcore' server. It would be an afront to the hardcore server itself if they changed a boss mechanic, pfft to that. It would just be that much more epic when said boss you describe goes down on a hardcore server.
A hardcore server would be perfect because everyone would be on the same page that death is not an option, and that no one is allowed to complain about it.
I share your sentiment my friend and that is why I not only started a thread to spell that observation out, but have also dedicated a significant amount of time toward trying to stir up conversations that could unearth a potential solution.
oneADseven said:I share your sentiment my friend and that is why I not only started a thread to spell that observation out, but have also dedicated a significant amount of time toward trying to stir up conversations that could unearth a potential solution.
Maybe not exactly this, how about letting people like me create hardcore characters that double down on XP loss for a 20% XP boost, or something in that direction. Take my character to the altar of cleansing to wash my characters noob off and apply the modifier. Something that could possibly be permanent, but definitely not easy to toggle. All items always stay on corpse when killed.
oneADseven said:Zircon said:oneADseven said:As long as said rulesets don't require high amounts of time/resources when it comes to balancing the game down the road, I would agree. Let's say there is a hardcore server ... and some new "extreme" raid boss. Because of the extra severe death penalty on that hardcore server, this extreme mob becomes impossible. Now the team needs to rework it, specifically for that server. This is just a single example but scenarios like this must be avoided. We already know that PVE/PVP will be designed in a way where if a change needs to be made to a PVP paladin spell, it won't screw up PVE paladins. I just think it's a slippery slope when you start to create all of these fancy rulesets. I would prefer the game to just be challenging on all servers and not even need to consider needing a hardcore server. PVE/PVP/RP has worked well in the past. I'm not saying I am completely against the idea of other server types ... just that I wouldn't want them to take away from the experience of the game as a whole. If a single dev is dedicated to a specific server type, that's one less dev working on the game that the majority of the players will be experiencing.
*Edit -- There is the caveat, of course, that if the demand is high enough and that creating said server would open up the potential of maintaining X amount of accounts, the cost of having specific devs assigned to those servers could be justified. Once you open up this can of worms, though, everybody may want a "special rulesets server" only to find that it wasn't that big of a difference and still end up quitting the game. Any server with special rules is an investment in my opinion and before investing in something like that, it needs to be unequivocally clear that the demand is there and that it will remain solvent.
I never said "extra severe", I would just want an actual penalty. Not deaths that are 95%+ mitigated by res, and
bool canLoseLevel = true;
If a boss can be killed on a softcore server you won't hear a peep from us on the hardcore server. I will go out of my way to mock anyone who complains about a boss mob after joining a 'hardcore' server. It would be an afront to the hardcore server itself if they changed a boss mechanic, pfft to that. It would just be that much more epic when said boss you describe goes down on a hardcore server.
A hardcore server would be perfect because everyone would be on the same page that death is not an option, and that no one is allowed to complain about it.
I share your sentiment my friend and that is why I not only started a thread to spell that observation out, but have also dedicated a significant amount of time toward trying to stir up conversations that could unearth a potential solution.
We have made our stance pretty clear on this and there is no solution needed, there is nothing to fix, we will have as many normal servers, separate PvP servers and possibly some RP/Different ruleset servers as needed after launch but we have things in place and you will see them when we release testing and that is when we will take feedback on board when people can actually get in and experience what we have in place, rather than debating them on the forums with hardly any information to base their arguments on, it is much better to wait and try out what we have implemented, on our servers when we are ready for you all to do that, than to try and "fix" things without knowing what is in place.
We understand people are impatient and waiting to test but these things cannot be and will not be rushed, once it is ready you can all jump in and help us test our systems, mechanics and features and give feedback to help us improve and tweak them to better suit the game and our community, that way we also hear many more voices than just a few vocal ones on the forums which allows us to get a much better understanding of the wider community and majority consensus. :)
Zircon said:oneADseven said:I share your sentiment my friend and that is why I not only started a thread to spell that observation out, but have also dedicated a significant amount of time toward trying to stir up conversations that could unearth a potential solution.
Maybe not exactly this, how about letting people like me create hardcore characters that double down on XP loss for a 20% XP boost, or something in that direction. Take my character to the altar of cleansing to wash my characters noob off and apply the modifier. Something that could possibly be permanent, but definitely not easy to toggle. All items always stay on corpse when killed.
I have proposed the idea of cursed areas which might offer a similar type of effect, except they would be controlled to specific locations. Definitely fascinated by any kind of risk/reward multiplier that could be used whether it's something we can use like you propose or areas we can congregate for that more hardcore kind if environment.