Specialty Server Types? (Question Inside)

From anyone's experience, has open world PvP distracted from the world in anyway? Like, do you find players don't even participate in the lore or world and just fight each other?

I typically play on basic servers but I think you should have many types of specialty servers so people can have game play they enjoy. Like 5 or even 10 different adaptation of the game rules I think would be cool.

This is where EQ Next can really up the ante. Most MMO's forget the last three letters: Roleplaying Game! Every online game I have played, I have joined and RP server, and there are some core groups of roleplayers. Although there needs to be more. We need the game developer to support roleplayers, and not take the cheap way out be labeling a server RP. Be interactive and stop thinking we only care about loot. I will take a great experience/story over loot.

Everquest originally explored this model There were times when GMs would log on as a special character and create a story. I remember a Dark Elf disciple of Innoruuk appearing in Greater Faydark. Being one of the first Level 70 Gnomish Warriors on the server, I acted as one of the few Gnomish Protectors. Long story short we had a two hour roleplaying session, and the best part about it, people who normally don't roleplay got into it! There wasn't any loot, just a great story that I still remember 14 years later.

That is what Everquest Next needs. Roleplying interaction, not just a static AI. Be Gamemasters or allow roleplayers to alter the story. You are letting us create the terrain, now let us tell our own stories.

I voted for Role Playing but I could also go for a "hardcore" or "special" server, especially as described by many in their signatures. They've referred to them as a "throwback" server, where things are a bit more challenging.

I think a server that had a lot more challenging elements versus a spoon fed PvE server would be wonderful. This would cater to veteran players and, I believe it would also bring in more "mature" players. IMHO, a server like this would deter (what I call) next-gen insta-gratification players, which in turn may result in a more enjoyable and compatible server community.

Yes and yes. I've had situations where a group of people get together and sit on a questing area, picking off people who had no desire to PvP. I've also had situations where entire zones are closed off to the non PvPing player because "That's just where they do the World PvP. Don't go there unless you want to join" That is why I am a fervent detractor of open world PvP unless it is on PvP servers. I know some people read my examples and said "Yes! That makes the game more fun!" But it doesn't make it more fun to me, and I know I'm not alone in this.

Make pvp weapons are fine in pve...

Raid weapons, make them like some of the old Vex Thal weapons, bane weapons against only the bosses inside Vex Thal and some of them also worked on the Emperor... Same as spells, would need bane spells to hit the top bosses where all the normal damage spells could hurt the minions/trash

Roleplay Servers with name restrictions. - Name restrictions on ALL servers... and please enforce it like they did in the old days in EQ... it got too slack later on

The thing is im not anti-pvp, I'm anti immersion breaking. If I'm talking to someone and I get ambushed and i ask you what is going on and i get no reply and it is just like a psycho slashing away it just kills it for me. If you had a reason to fight and i had a reason to fight, then let's fight! But blocking off areas just for the sake of doing it just seems dumb to me, but maybe that's just me.

PvP with choice/consequences would break this. PvP should be a choice and a consequence, not a ruleset server. There is no reason you should be able to, or want to attack someone in real life for "no reason".

There should be no "separate" game. Having one big game with all the rules is what a Sand Box game is.

I want a special rule set rp server with hardcore elements like limited fast travel, but I went with special rule set with my vote.

Fair enough, Sir Francis. My point was that, allowing Open World PvP leads to unintended consequences. In those I listed above, entire pieces of the game world were closed off due to it. That could spell disaster for a game like EQN. For instance, say that they open a rallying call in the Oasis of Marr. Great idea for most every server. But on ONE PvE server, that is where the community has decided the Open World PvP battles take place. Now the non PvPer has a choice; ignore the rallying call or try to avoid the battles. And the PvPers, who responsibly took their PvP to a certain zone so as NOT to bug the general populace, finds themselves in a position of scapegoat for the people who want to take part in the story, but can't.

I understand what you're talking about, but I just want to say that lumping everyone to one server just doesn't work. People's preferences are too different. Say we did have that..

So a dwarf RPer is questing and has the mob that he needs stolen by someone else. He may go "'Ey there, laddie. Did you not see me about go toe to toe with this beastie here?" to which he may get a 'lol u mad?'. Makes for a terrible experience for both individuals: breaks immersion for the RPer and kills off the last remaining brain cells for the other guy cuz long wurdz are hard and RPers are bound to use them (remember, ogres are smart now.. unless they took a few too many clubs to the head). Some people, like myself, also do not enjoy getting ganked when trying to accomplish something or when needing to afk for a RL emergency. Family isn't going to wait for you to run to a safe spot. Also, open pvp lets one guild excel above others and wipe their raids so that no one else may progress. I've lived it and it's not fun simply because you got one group of jerks not letting you play.

There definitely needs to be separation into, at least, the classic 3: PVE, PVP, PVE(RP). PVP(RP) sounds like a good idea, though, would be interesting to see that in action.

If the devs are truly going to make sure each world is updated according to the unique environment created by the players of each server, then I have absolutely no problem with there being multiple servers. However, as I have seen from SOE's behavior in the past, I find that hard to swallow. I have worked on MUDs and a MMO before - cost/benefit would diminish very quickly for SOE due to the cost of hiring more staff to handle catering content updates for each "unique world".

I'm a long time EVE Online player, so I know first hand both the benefits and detriments of having a single server. I'm a firm believer that the benefits tend to out-weigh the detriments. However, you are correct - there needs to be a competent staff of engineers making sure the architecture can support it. Another thing that helps is the amount of content available - the bigger the world is, and not just empty but full of stuff to do everywhere, the easier it is to keep the population spread out. Dynamically generated content, as the devs seem to be alluding to, would help with that as well.

Also I'm not opposed to adding instances of areas to help with load balancing. Although I would make sure the system is designed such that the staff can analyze what caused the over load so they might be able to rework/design some things to reduce the chance of that happening in the future.

We will see what happens, I guess.

That is why I said Roleplay Servers need separated. However the "special rules" of a Roleplay server don't separate the gameplay. If you played SWG you would remember the guilds that roleplayed almost nothing but Stormtroopers, who would patrol down streets asking for IDs and flag themselves against rebel guilds for pvp just to be immersive and actually be part of the world.

We need a living and breathing immersive world. Each time you add rules, you not only limit player choice and gameplay, you add massive amounts of work and bugs to the developers.

Do you want to play 5 mini-games, or one completed game?

Remember, this isn't a themepark. Ruleset servers are bad for the game as a whole, because it limits "choices" and "consequences"

You should not be flagged for PvP unless you make the choice to be, however that is the consequence of your actions, and it IS immersive.

I picked PVP only because I'd rather have a PVP server than only having battleground/arena matches, which are not real PVP in my opinion.

It needs to be FFA PVP. None of this racial sides junk that other games have.

I'd prefer if all rulesets included PVP, but I'll take what I can get.

I usually pick normal servers.

I don't enjoy being constantly hunted on a PVP Server though I do enjoy faction combat in an open world environment.

While RP can be a nicer community I find it exhausting and limiting staying in character.

I agree with you on this, although i think some server separation would be good for a few reasons. It'll be cool to compare servers and over population could be pretty annoying but I think since the game may be huge it may not be that bad. But I would love PvP with consequence. Maybe something along the lines of what archeage was trying to do with the pirates and such

from a pvp player perspective though,I see why it could annoy them on a regular server that they rarely find another player that wants to engage in combat with them..probably explains why pvp server got many votes too..Must say this made me very curious to how they are planning to implement pvp;will it be faction vs faction,wvw,players able to put themselves into pvp mode (like a status),...how?

Open world PvP just turns into a fighting game really

Yes, but now your playing mini-games. If you made a server with all rules the players who "PvPed" would be playing by there own server anyways. However it also gives the options for PvE players to fight when they want to. It doesn't limit them to choices, and it makes the game more immersive because people just don't attack people for no reason. It also makes the game fun and less restrictive, it makes villains villains and good guys good guys.

The second you limit the server to four mini games is the second you not only divide the game's balance and dev teams, you limit the gameplay of others.

I could go deeply into this, but just think about my words.

Player choice and player consequences are all about what a Sandbox game is. If you want a living breathing world you need to have one server with all types of gameplay, even if you make a "roleplay" server for example, you will still have people logging on it going: LOL U WT FTW named Gandalf and Frodo Bagginz and putting mounts in roleplay areas just to disrupt gameplay.

Take Antonia Bayle for example on EQ2/EQ1, people flock to it just because it says Roleplay. Let the "Community" decide what the roleplay server is. Players will make a Roleplay server of their own, I also encourage the developers to make things like "sitting" and such for this.

Hardcore servers are worse. Now you have 2 games you must balance for, do WE really need that? Now we have 2x less updates because now they have to balance for each game.

PvP only servers, Now your consequences of attacking another faction no longer matter on a PvE server, now you just break immersion. No, PvP and PvE should not be separated, it should be a choice. If it was a choice they would not play with each other anyways, why do you need an entire mini-game just for that. Now you have "3" games to balance for.

If its all together and based on your choice then you will see a beautiful flower that plays itself, CHOICES and CONSEQUENCES should be the games drive, not separation.

I like Aazimars suggestions for a hardcore server. The problem with perma-death is other players. There is an element of humanity who will go out of their way to grief others on a perma death server. Think Priest of Discord issues, training in Mistmoore and Karnor's (both sides at once -ugh!)etc. Im not sure how agro will work but these players WILL find a way to exploit a game weakness to ruin it for other people.

That being said there should be special rule sets for at least a few servers to give people different experiences and find a version of EQN that works for them.

Classic or Basic servers. Standard, casual, user friendly. You can transfer on/off between these servers
PVP. Transfer off but not onto these servers
Hardcore. Transfer off but not onto these servers
RP. Transfer on/off between these servers.

Honestly I want to play on a server that has as near to EQ1 rules as possible. The idea of death meaning something, causes the game to have a different dynamic. Classes that have group roles, CROWD CONTROL, class based teleporting, evacs, pulling mobs as a skill, all of these things made EQ the best MMO to date.

If you had a good group in EQ it was because the people in your group were able to demonstrate it. It wasn't just about "omfg I can do leet dps".

In fact I really hope there is no damage meters allowed in this game. It ruined WoW for me, having people nuke on the pull so they could compete for dps supremacy and wipe raids made for an aweful experience at times.

Btw Marth it's no surprise you want COH being an ex-mage

I really like the COH aspect as a time saver and a class based perk of having a mage in your group. That's what made EQ stand apart. Mages for COH, Rogues for CR not just DPS, Necros for CR, mana, dps and ressing!, Wizards/druids for porting/evaccing/snares and roots, Warriors for tanking, Clerics for the real heals, Shamans for slowing, Monks for pulling and who didn't like having a bad *** enchanter pulling and parking mobs for your group, it was just great!