Pantheon Development Stream Set for October 29 (Tomorrow) | MMORPG.com

System · October 2020

Pantheon Development Stream Set for October 29 (Tomorrow) | MMORPG.com

The Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen team has announced their next live stream, set for October 29 which is tomorrow.

blackthornn · October 2020

"It will not include PvP. Additionally, contested areas are not currently in the scope of development. You can catch up on this interview and more by reading our recap here."

Really? In a pve game? The shame. Your trolling could have been left out.

Kyleran · October 2020

blackthornn said:

"It will not include PvP. Additionally, contested areas are not currently in the scope of development. You can catch up on this interview and more by reading our recap here."

Really? In a pve game? The shame. Your trolling could have been left out.

Except that... Brad himself stated Pantheon would eventually have PVP servers, just not at launch.

It's not trolling if it's true.

Alamor0 · October 2020

The Blackthorn.

achesoma · October 2020

Kyleran said:

blackthornn said:

"It will not include PvP. Additionally, contested areas are not currently in the scope of development. You can catch up on this interview and more by reading our recap here."

Really? In a pve game? The shame. Your trolling could have been left out.

Except that... Brad himself stated Pantheon would eventually have PVP servers, just not at launch.

It's not trolling if it's true.

A pvp ruleset server is still planned for launch. Just no pvp specific content or contested zones are planned for release.

Nanfoodle · October 2020

achesoma said:

Kyleran said:

blackthornn said:

"It will not include PvP. Additionally, contested areas are not currently in the scope of development. You can catch up on this interview and more by reading our recap here."

Really? In a pve game? The shame. Your trolling could have been left out.

Except that... Brad himself stated Pantheon would eventually have PVP servers, just not at launch.

It's not trolling if it's true.

A pvp ruleset server is still planned for launch. Just no pvp specific content or contested zones are planned for release.

I dont think it is, in Ben's last interview they said contested zones are not being worked on and at the end of the interview. Ben talked about not wanting to just chuck PvP into the game as an afterthought. When they put PvP into Pantheon, they wanted it to have some weight to it. It sounds like its not going to happen for launch. Its not even being worked on at the moment. IMO I think this is good news. EQ1/Pantheon is about PvE and they should focus on making that the best they can.

Slapshot1188 · October 2020

Nanfoodle said:

achesoma said:

Kyleran said:

blackthornn said:

"It will not include PvP. Additionally, contested areas are not currently in the scope of development. You can catch up on this interview and more by reading our recap here."

Really? In a pve game? The shame. Your trolling could have been left out.

Except that... Brad himself stated Pantheon would eventually have PVP servers, just not at launch.

It's not trolling if it's true.

A pvp ruleset server is still planned for launch. Just no pvp specific content or contested zones are planned for release.

I dont think it is, in Ben's last interview they said contested zones are not being worked on and at the end of the interview. Ben talked about not wanting to just chuck PvP into the game as an afterthought. When they put PvP into Pantheon, they wanted it to have some weight to it. It sounds like its not going to happen for launch. Its not even being worked on at the moment. IMO I think this is good news. EQ1/Pantheon is about PvE and they should focus on making that the best they can.

I agree. Putting PvP in as an afterthought is what happened with Vanguard at launch. I was on the factions server and it was a disaster. Focus on the core game and then if it's successful add varied server types.

Wellspring · October 2020

Nanfoodle said:

achesoma said:

Kyleran said:

blackthornn said:

"It will not include PvP. Additionally, contested areas are not currently in the scope of development. You can catch up on this interview and more by reading our recap here."

Really? In a pve game? The shame. Your trolling could have been left out.

Except that... Brad himself stated Pantheon would eventually have PVP servers, just not at launch.

It's not trolling if it's true.

A pvp ruleset server is still planned for launch. Just no pvp specific content or contested zones are planned for release.

I dont think it is, in Ben's last interview they said contested zones are not being worked on and at the end of the interview. Ben talked about not wanting to just chuck PvP into the game as an afterthought. When they put PvP into Pantheon, they wanted it to have some weight to it. It sounds like its not going to happen for launch. Its not even being worked on at the moment. IMO I think this is good news. EQ1/Pantheon is about PvE and they should focus on making that the best they can.

You can have PvP without contested zones. I don't even know what that would look like in Pantheon? Or why they are even considering creating PvP "content"?

Fighting over and contesting with other players over the PvE content is the PvP content!

Speaking as someone who is very much looking forward to PvP in Pantheon, I don't want them to spend any extra time on creating PvP systems, other than perhaps a mechanic to prevent bind camping / griefing.

All that is required for PvP is for them to enable the actual PvP combat. And if past interviews are true, VR has already built the combat system and abilities with the option to be individually modified for PvP, without changing what they do in PvE.

If they plan to launch with player duels, then I think benefit of creating a FFA PvP enabled server, will outweigh the time/cost.

I agree that PvE should be the #1 focus. However, when it comes to launch, not having at least one PvP server would be a mistake.

Once you're established on a server, that's your home. You make friends and build a community. Now, imagine 6 months after launch a PvP server is released. The impact of some guilds / players staying versus switching servers will really disrupt the community on every one of the PvE servers.

Nanfoodle · October 2020

Wellspring said:

Nanfoodle said:

achesoma said:

Kyleran said:

blackthornn said:

"It will not include PvP. Additionally, contested areas are not currently in the scope of development. You can catch up on this interview and more by reading our recap here."

Really? In a pve game? The shame. Your trolling could have been left out.

Except that... Brad himself stated Pantheon would eventually have PVP servers, just not at launch.

It's not trolling if it's true.

A pvp ruleset server is still planned for launch. Just no pvp specific content or contested zones are planned for release.

I dont think it is, in Ben's last interview they said contested zones are not being worked on and at the end of the interview. Ben talked about not wanting to just chuck PvP into the game as an afterthought. When they put PvP into Pantheon, they wanted it to have some weight to it. It sounds like its not going to happen for launch. Its not even being worked on at the moment. IMO I think this is good news. EQ1/Pantheon is about PvE and they should focus on making that the best they can.

You can have PvP without contested zones. I don't even know what that would look like in Pantheon? Or why they are even considering creating PvP "content"?

Fighting over and contesting with other players over the PvE content is the PvP content!

Speaking as someone who is very much looking forward to PvP in Pantheon, I don't want them to spend any extra time on creating PvP systems, other than perhaps a mechanic to prevent bind camping / griefing.

All that is required for PvP is for them to enable the actual PvP combat. And if past interviews are true, VR has already built the combat system and abilities with the option to be individually modified for PvP, without changing what they do in PvE.

If they plan to launch with player duels, then I think benefit of creating a FFA PvP enabled server, will outweigh the time/cost.

I agree that PvE should be the #1 focus. However, when it comes to launch, not having at least one PvP server would be a mistake.

Once you're established on a server, that's your home. You make friends and build a community. Now, imagine 6 months after launch a PvP server is released. The impact of some guilds / players staying versus switching servers will really disrupt the community on every one of the PvE servers.

Or the other side, they dont do any other work to make PvP fun, they dont have time to make rule sets and other key elements to make PvP fun with their systems. Open a PvP server and that is the PvPers home and it flops. Dead server they have to close or let it limp along with low population.

Dont get me wrong, like in EQ1, I will have chars on PvE and PvP servers. I will pick the rule set that looks most fun but I would rather wait for it to be a full package.

Sovrath · October 2020

Wellspring said:

Nanfoodle said:

achesoma said:

Kyleran said:

blackthornn said:

"It will not include PvP. Additionally, contested areas are not currently in the scope of development. You can catch up on this interview and more by reading our recap here."

Really? In a pve game? The shame. Your trolling could have been left out.

Except that... Brad himself stated Pantheon would eventually have PVP servers, just not at launch.

It's not trolling if it's true.

A pvp ruleset server is still planned for launch. Just no pvp specific content or contested zones are planned for release.

I dont think it is, in Ben's last interview they said contested zones are not being worked on and at the end of the interview. Ben talked about not wanting to just chuck PvP into the game as an afterthought. When they put PvP into Pantheon, they wanted it to have some weight to it. It sounds like its not going to happen for launch. Its not even being worked on at the moment. IMO I think this is good news. EQ1/Pantheon is about PvE and they should focus on making that the best they can.

You can have PvP without contested zones. I don't even know what that would look like in Pantheon? Or why they are even considering creating PvP "content"?

Fighting over and contesting with other players over the PvE content is the PvP content!

Speaking as someone who is very much looking forward to PvP in Pantheon, I don't want them to spend any extra time on creating PvP systems, other than perhaps a mechanic to prevent bind camping / griefing.

All that is required for PvP is for them to enable the actual PvP combat. And if past interviews are true, VR has already built the combat system and abilities with the option to be individually modified for PvP, without changing what they do in PvE.

If they plan to launch with player duels, then I think benefit of creating a FFA PvP enabled server, will outweigh the time/cost.

I agree that PvE should be the #1 focus. However, when it comes to launch, not having at least one PvP server would be a mistake.

Once you're established on a server, that's your home. You make friends and build a community. Now, imagine 6 months after launch a PvP server is released. The impact of some guilds / players staying versus switching servers will really disrupt the community on every one of the PvE servers.

You can't really say pve should be the focus but "make sure you have a pvp server at launch."

The focus is going to be what they need to launch.

What they "could" do is have a pvp continent. Add that after. Then people could at least stay on the same server. Maybe make it so that players can build their own forts, take land, etc. And that could be an expansion.

Wellspring · October 2020

Slapshot1188 said:

Nanfoodle said:

achesoma said:

Kyleran said:

blackthornn said:

"It will not include PvP. Additionally, contested areas are not currently in the scope of development. You can catch up on this interview and more by reading our recap here."

Really? In a pve game? The shame. Your trolling could have been left out.

Except that... Brad himself stated Pantheon would eventually have PVP servers, just not at launch.

It's not trolling if it's true.

A pvp ruleset server is still planned for launch. Just no pvp specific content or contested zones are planned for release.

I dont think it is, in Ben's last interview they said contested zones are not being worked on and at the end of the interview. Ben talked about not wanting to just chuck PvP into the game as an afterthought. When they put PvP into Pantheon, they wanted it to have some weight to it. It sounds like its not going to happen for launch. Its not even being worked on at the moment. IMO I think this is good news. EQ1/Pantheon is about PvE and they should focus on making that the best they can.

I agree. Putting PvP in as an afterthought is what happened with Vanguard at launch. I was on the factions server and it was a disaster. Focus on the core game and then if it's successful add varied server types.

In Vanguard, I played on the FFA PvP server starting at launch, through PvP server merges, and stopped playing shortly after winning the ranger BOTB tournament in 2008. The reason I ultimately stopped playing was boredom waiting for new PvE content, so my guild moved on to try Age of Conan.

I can't speak to what it was like on the faction server, but the free-for-all server was the single best PvP I've ever experienced in an MMO.

The reason why PvP in Vanguard was great, was precisely because it wasn't the focus of the game. There was no penalty for dying in PvP, other than having to run back from your bind and you lost infamy points (which was just an arbitrary number for bragging rights, but had no actual benefit).

Vanguard gave players the freedom to become friends or attack other players, based on their own personality. You weren't motivated to kill people because the game told you too or gave you a reward. You also weren't penalized for killing players because the game decided PvP wasn't "nice". PvP was simply an option, that you could use or not use when interacting with other players.

Ignoring the plague of bugs that Vanguard had with both PvE and PvP, what would you have changed in Vanguard to make PvP better?

Wellspring · October 2020

Sovrath said:

Wellspring said:

Nanfoodle said:

achesoma said:

Kyleran said:

blackthornn said:

"It will not include PvP. Additionally, contested areas are not currently in the scope of development. You can catch up on this interview and more by reading our recap here."

Really? In a pve game? The shame. Your trolling could have been left out.

Except that... Brad himself stated Pantheon would eventually have PVP servers, just not at launch.

It's not trolling if it's true.

A pvp ruleset server is still planned for launch. Just no pvp specific content or contested zones are planned for release.

I dont think it is, in Ben's last interview they said contested zones are not being worked on and at the end of the interview. Ben talked about not wanting to just chuck PvP into the game as an afterthought. When they put PvP into Pantheon, they wanted it to have some weight to it. It sounds like its not going to happen for launch. Its not even being worked on at the moment. IMO I think this is good news. EQ1/Pantheon is about PvE and they should focus on making that the best they can.

You can have PvP without contested zones. I don't even know what that would look like in Pantheon? Or why they are even considering creating PvP "content"?

Fighting over and contesting with other players over the PvE content is the PvP content!

Speaking as someone who is very much looking forward to PvP in Pantheon, I don't want them to spend any extra time on creating PvP systems, other than perhaps a mechanic to prevent bind camping / griefing.

All that is required for PvP is for them to enable the actual PvP combat. And if past interviews are true, VR has already built the combat system and abilities with the option to be individually modified for PvP, without changing what they do in PvE.

If they plan to launch with player duels, then I think benefit of creating a FFA PvP enabled server, will outweigh the time/cost.

I agree that PvE should be the #1 focus. However, when it comes to launch, not having at least one PvP server would be a mistake.

Once you're established on a server, that's your home. You make friends and build a community. Now, imagine 6 months after launch a PvP server is released. The impact of some guilds / players staying versus switching servers will really disrupt the community on every one of the PvE servers.

You can't really say pve should be the focus but "make sure you have a pvp server at launch."

The focus is going to be what they need to launch.

What they "could" do is have a pvp continent. Add that after. Then people could at least stay on the same server. Maybe make it so that players can build their own forts, take land, etc. And that could be an expansion.

I think you're confusing PvP at it's most basic form (the ability for players to be able to attack other players) with PvP specific content (battle grounds, contested zones, etc).

What you describe a PvP continent, where there is fighting over forts, taking land, etc is not what Pantheon needs at all IMO. That's a different kind of PvP game entirely, and would take away a lot of resources that could be better used on adding more PvE content. If someone wants that kind of PvP, then there is Crowfall and Ashes of Creation, I think.

PvP in Pantheon needs to fit the game VR is making, which is a PvE game.

A PvP server in Pantheon needs to be just like the PvE server, with the addition of being able to attack other players. That's it. No battle grounds or PvP minigames. No PvP looting or rewards.

My point was about launch was that if they're going to have player duels at launch, then would it be that much of a stretch to have a server ruleset with PvP combat enabled? Obviously there will be additional systems to be built with how the game will flag people for PvP and prevent friendly fire in groups. But that dev cost (of filling the gap from player duels to a PvP ruleset server), I believe will be more than worth it for launch.

cheyane · October 2020

Wellspring said:

Sovrath said:

Wellspring said:

Nanfoodle said:

achesoma said:

Kyleran said:

blackthornn said:

"It will not include PvP. Additionally, contested areas are not currently in the scope of development. You can catch up on this interview and more by reading our recap here."

Really? In a pve game? The shame. Your trolling could have been left out.

Except that... Brad himself stated Pantheon would eventually have PVP servers, just not at launch.

It's not trolling if it's true.

A pvp ruleset server is still planned for launch. Just no pvp specific content or contested zones are planned for release.

I dont think it is, in Ben's last interview they said contested zones are not being worked on and at the end of the interview. Ben talked about not wanting to just chuck PvP into the game as an afterthought. When they put PvP into Pantheon, they wanted it to have some weight to it. It sounds like its not going to happen for launch. Its not even being worked on at the moment. IMO I think this is good news. EQ1/Pantheon is about PvE and they should focus on making that the best they can.

You can have PvP without contested zones. I don't even know what that would look like in Pantheon? Or why they are even considering creating PvP "content"?

Fighting over and contesting with other players over the PvE content is the PvP content!

Speaking as someone who is very much looking forward to PvP in Pantheon, I don't want them to spend any extra time on creating PvP systems, other than perhaps a mechanic to prevent bind camping / griefing.

All that is required for PvP is for them to enable the actual PvP combat. And if past interviews are true, VR has already built the combat system and abilities with the option to be individually modified for PvP, without changing what they do in PvE.

If they plan to launch with player duels, then I think benefit of creating a FFA PvP enabled server, will outweigh the time/cost.

I agree that PvE should be the #1 focus. However, when it comes to launch, not having at least one PvP server would be a mistake.

Once you're established on a server, that's your home. You make friends and build a community. Now, imagine 6 months after launch a PvP server is released. The impact of some guilds / players staying versus switching servers will really disrupt the community on every one of the PvE servers.

You can't really say pve should be the focus but "make sure you have a pvp server at launch."

The focus is going to be what they need to launch.

What they "could" do is have a pvp continent. Add that after. Then people could at least stay on the same server. Maybe make it so that players can build their own forts, take land, etc. And that could be an expansion.

I think you're confusing PvP at it's most basic form (the ability for players to be able to attack other players) with PvP specific content (battle grounds, contested zones, etc).

What you describe a PvP continent, where there is fighting over forts, taking land, etc is not what Pantheon needs at all IMO. That's a different kind of PvP game entirely, and would take away a lot of resources that could be better used on adding more PvE content. If someone wants that kind of PvP, then there is Crowfall and Ashes of Creation, I think.

PvP in Pantheon needs to fit the game VR is making, which is a PvE game.

A PvP server in Pantheon needs to be just like the PvE server, with the addition of being able to attack other players. That's it. No battle grounds or PvP minigames. No PvP looting or rewards.

My point was about launch was that if they're going to have player duels at launch, then would it be that much of a stretch to have a server ruleset with PvP combat enabled? Obviously there will be additional systems to be built with how the game will flag people for PvP and prevent friendly fire in groups. But that dev cost (of filling the gap from player duels to a PvP ruleset server), I believe will be more than worth it for launch.

Won't PvP players be dissatisfied with no rewards or specific goals aside from killing each other?

Wellspring · October 2020

cheyane said:

Won't PvP players be dissatisfied with no rewards or specific goals aside from killing each other?

The goals are exactly the same as on the ones for the PvE players. It's just harder to accomplish them on a PvP server, with the added risk of being attacked by human enemies.

Edit: By adding PvP rewards and goals, that fundamentally changes the goal of the game TO killing each other. That's why they shouldn't be added in Pantheon, because that is not the focus of this game.

Nanfoodle · October 2020

Wellspring said:

cheyane said:

Won't PvP players be dissatisfied with no rewards or specific goals aside from killing each other?

The goals are exactly the same as on the ones for the PvE players. It's just harder to accomplish them on a PvP server, with the added risk of being attacked by human enemies.

Edit: By adding PvP rewards and goals, that fundamentally changes the goal of the game TO killing each other. That's why they shouldn't be added in Pantheon, because that is not the focus of this game.

The best part of EQ1 PvP was the rule set servers. Also they ran sperate patches for these servers as they had their own unique problems. Some patches that could be used on all servers would be patched normally but some did mess up things on PvE servers if broad strokes were applied. A small team trying to do this is not possible with the money they have. If PvP server dont have the same attention as PvE servers, they will get upset and leave just on that basis.

I do also want rule set servers but is slowing down the games development on a primarily PvE game, to chuck in some PvP content thats really not fully flushed out, be a good move?

Wellspring · October 2020

Nanfoodle said:

Wellspring said:

cheyane said:

Won't PvP players be dissatisfied with no rewards or specific goals aside from killing each other?

The goals are exactly the same as on the ones for the PvE players. It's just harder to accomplish them on a PvP server, with the added risk of being attacked by human enemies.

Edit: By adding PvP rewards and goals, that fundamentally changes the goal of the game TO killing each other. That's why they shouldn't be added in Pantheon, because that is not the focus of this game.

The best part of EQ1 PvP was the rule set servers. Also they ran sperate patches for these servers as they had their own unique problems. Some patches that could be used on all servers would be patched normally but some did mess up things on PvE servers if broad strokes were applied. A small team trying to do this is not possible with the money they have. If PvP server dont have the same attention as PvE servers, they will get upset and leave just on that basis.

I do also want rule set servers but is slowing down the games development on a primarily PvE game, to chuck in some PvP content thats really not fully flushed out, be a good move?

It all comes down to the cost benefit.

Supposedly they've designed the combat systems with PvP in mind from the beginning. I think this is the right approach. Don't focus on it yet, but at least keep the ability to add PvP rulesets servers in mind when designing the rest of the server architecture.

If they've done it right, then the benefit (revenue from more players) of including a PvP ruleset server at launch, will outweigh the cost.

If they completely write-off PvP now from a development standpoint (not testing), and then try to throw it in as an afterthought right before launch, then of course it will be terrible. Brad said in his past games they didn't build them with PvP in mind from the beginning, and that's where the problems came in.

Specifically, what PvP content do you think they need to include but will slow down the PvE development too much?

Nanfoodle · October 2020

Wellspring said:

Nanfoodle said:

Wellspring said:

cheyane said:

Won't PvP players be dissatisfied with no rewards or specific goals aside from killing each other?

The goals are exactly the same as on the ones for the PvE players. It's just harder to accomplish them on a PvP server, with the added risk of being attacked by human enemies.

Edit: By adding PvP rewards and goals, that fundamentally changes the goal of the game TO killing each other. That's why they shouldn't be added in Pantheon, because that is not the focus of this game.

The best part of EQ1 PvP was the rule set servers. Also they ran sperate patches for these servers as they had their own unique problems. Some patches that could be used on all servers would be patched normally but some did mess up things on PvE servers if broad strokes were applied. A small team trying to do this is not possible with the money they have. If PvP server dont have the same attention as PvE servers, they will get upset and leave just on that basis.

I do also want rule set servers but is slowing down the games development on a primarily PvE game, to chuck in some PvP content thats really not fully flushed out, be a good move?

It all comes down to the cost benefit.

Supposedly they've designed the combat systems with PvP in mind from the beginning. I think this is the right approach. Don't focus on it yet, but at least keep the ability to add PvP rulesets servers in mind when designing the rest of the server architecture.

If they've done it right, then the benefit (revenue from more players) of including a PvP ruleset server at launch, will outweigh the cost.

If they completely write-off PvP now from a development standpoint (not testing), and then try to throw it in as an afterthought right before launch, then of course it will be terrible. Brad said in his past games they didn't build them with PvP in mind from the beginning, and that's where the problems came in.

Specifically, what PvP content do you think they need to include but will slow down the PvE development too much?

PvE focused games have made the move as of late of having PvP work differently with skills. So a Paladin attack that does an AE stun for 10 seconds, on a player character it would stun only 3 targets in the AE and last for 3 seconds. This way, when PvE skills would make PvP unbalanced, they can be balanced separately. VR would be smart to do this.

Also rule set servers take time to work out. I loved the faction based rule set in EQ1. People often think this is just flipping a few things around and turning things on and off. But this take time and planning on how that impacts everything from banking, crafting, where you buy things. Every race needs access to things that sometimes is only bought in 1 or 2 key cities.

Rewards for PvPing, PK for the sake of PKing does get old. Most people need a reward of some type to keep playing and that needs to be updated as time goes on just like PvE rewards. Also loot rules, FFA, how does that work? Weapons drop or not? No Drop items, can they be looted? Lots of planning.

Contested, how will that work? World bosses? Raid bosses? Zones? More rule set servers they make, the more development time is needed just to figure out what all these things will mean and how they will work.

Also, each patch they would need to look at how it would touch on each PvP rule set server. Will changing something break something? This will slow down updates for the entire game and require more staff. They dont have that resource.

This is just a few things I thought of on the top of my head and I am sure there is a dozen more as to why VR has put PvP on hold. As they put it, when they can give it time, that its not an after thought.

Kyleran · October 2020

Wellspring said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Nanfoodle said:

achesoma said:

Kyleran said:

blackthornn said:

"It will not include PvP. Additionally, contested areas are not currently in the scope of development. You can catch up on this interview and more by reading our recap here."

Really? In a pve game? The shame. Your trolling could have been left out.

Except that... Brad himself stated Pantheon would eventually have PVP servers, just not at launch.

It's not trolling if it's true.

A pvp ruleset server is still planned for launch. Just no pvp specific content or contested zones are planned for release.

I dont think it is, in Ben's last interview they said contested zones are not being worked on and at the end of the interview. Ben talked about not wanting to just chuck PvP into the game as an afterthought. When they put PvP into Pantheon, they wanted it to have some weight to it. It sounds like its not going to happen for launch. Its not even being worked on at the moment. IMO I think this is good news. EQ1/Pantheon is about PvE and they should focus on making that the best they can.

I agree. Putting PvP in as an afterthought is what happened with Vanguard at launch. I was on the factions server and it was a disaster. Focus on the core game and then if it's successful add varied server types.

In Vanguard, I played on the FFA PvP server starting at launch, through PvP server merges, and stopped playing shortly after winning the ranger BOTB tournament in 2008. The reason I ultimately stopped playing was boredom waiting for new PvE content, so my guild moved on to try Age of Conan.

I can't speak to what it was like on the faction server, but the free-for-all server was the single best PvP I've ever experienced in an MMO.

The reason why PvP in Vanguard was great, was precisely because it wasn't the focus of the game. There was no penalty for dying in PvP, other than having to run back from your bind and you lost infamy points (which was just an arbitrary number for bragging rights, but had no actual benefit).

Vanguard gave players the freedom to become friends or attack other players, based on their own personality. You weren't motivated to kill people because the game told you too or gave you a reward. You also weren't penalized for killing players because the game decided PvP wasn't "nice". PvP was simply an option, that you could use or not use when interacting with other players.

Ignoring the plague of bugs that Vanguard had with both PvE and PvP, what would you have changed in Vanguard to make PvP better?

If not for the fact Vanguard was mostly a failure from a commercial point of view, I'm sure the FFA PVP servers would have devolved into a total shitshow like almost every FFA PVP server in any game ever.

Some players don't need a good reason to kill others, just making other people miserable is all the incentive they need.

I recall some days being relentlessly spawn camped by the opposing faction and struggling to recover my corpse which had something of value on it, recovering lost experience I think which one lost forever with each new death.

If MMORPG history has proven anything it is if PVP is to be viable in any form it needs to be heavily restricted and managed to keep the inmates from over running the asylum.

I just don't see the Pantheon team being able to manage any sort of PVP option until at least a year or so post release.

Nor do I think they lose all that many potential customers if they don't do so at the launch.

Wellspring · October 2020

Nanfoodle said:

Wellspring said:

Nanfoodle said:

Wellspring said:

cheyane said:

Won't PvP players be dissatisfied with no rewards or specific goals aside from killing each other?

The goals are exactly the same as on the ones for the PvE players. It's just harder to accomplish them on a PvP server, with the added risk of being attacked by human enemies.

Edit: By adding PvP rewards and goals, that fundamentally changes the goal of the game TO killing each other. That's why they shouldn't be added in Pantheon, because that is not the focus of this game.

The best part of EQ1 PvP was the rule set servers. Also they ran sperate patches for these servers as they had their own unique problems. Some patches that could be used on all servers would be patched normally but some did mess up things on PvE servers if broad strokes were applied. A small team trying to do this is not possible with the money they have. If PvP server dont have the same attention as PvE servers, they will get upset and leave just on that basis.

I do also want rule set servers but is slowing down the games development on a primarily PvE game, to chuck in some PvP content thats really not fully flushed out, be a good move?

It all comes down to the cost benefit.

Supposedly they've designed the combat systems with PvP in mind from the beginning. I think this is the right approach. Don't focus on it yet, but at least keep the ability to add PvP rulesets servers in mind when designing the rest of the server architecture.

If they've done it right, then the benefit (revenue from more players) of including a PvP ruleset server at launch, will outweigh the cost.

If they completely write-off PvP now from a development standpoint (not testing), and then try to throw it in as an afterthought right before launch, then of course it will be terrible. Brad said in his past games they didn't build them with PvP in mind from the beginning, and that's where the problems came in.

Specifically, what PvP content do you think they need to include but will slow down the PvE development too much?

1) PvE focused games have made the move as of late of having PvP work differently with skills. So a Paladin attack that does an AE stun for 10 seconds, on a player character it would stun only 3 targets in the AE and last for 3 seconds. This way, when PvE skills would make PvP unbalanced, they can be balanced separately. VR would be smart to do this.

2) Also rule set servers take time to work out. I loved the faction based rule set in EQ1. People often think this is just flipping a few things around and turning things on and off. But this take time and planning on how that impacts everything from banking, crafting, where you buy things. Every race needs access to things that sometimes is only bought in 1 or 2 key cities.

3) Rewards for PvPing, PK for the sake of PKing does get old. Most people need a reward of some type to keep playing and that needs to be updated as time goes on just like PvE rewards. Also loot rules, FFA, how does that work? Weapons drop or not? No Drop items, can they be looted? Lots of planning.

4) Contested, how will that work? World bosses? Raid bosses? Zones? More rule set servers they make, the more development time is needed just to figure out what all these things will mean and how they will work.

5) Also, each patch they would need to look at how it would touch on each PvP rule set server. Will changing something break something? This will slow down updates for the entire game and require more staff. They dont have that resource.

This is just a few things I thought of on the top of my head and I am sure there is a dozen more as to why VR has put PvP on hold. As they put it, when they can give it time, that its not an after thought.

Thanks for sharing. Responses, numbered by each paragraph.

1) Skills working differently in PvP -- According to past interviews with VR, exactly what you described how it's already built.

2) If faction rulesets are difficult, then VR could at least launch with a free-for-all PvP server, where there are no teams, like they had in Vanguard.

3) Yes, PvP for the sake of PvP does get old. But you're forgetting that Pantheon is a PvE game. The PvE is the content, PvP just allows people to work out disputes between players themselves. When your guild bands together and finally kills the world boss, while holding back the hordes of other players trying to stop you, the loot from the kill is the reward. Just like it's the reward in PvE.

An argument could also be made that PvE content gets old, without PvP being involved.

4) Contested mobs & bosses would work just like it does for PvE. Whatever rules they have in place for who gets credit for a kill when opposing groups engage the same mob on an PvE server, would be the same on a PvP server.

I don't understand how having PvP enabled would change PvE encounters?

Contested zones, I don't know what is meant by that. But I don't see that being a necessary feature for a PvP ruleset server.

5) I see PvP in Pantheon following a more simplified approach. If they've designed PvP like you describe in point 1, where they can tweak it independently from PvE, I don't see how changes to one will break the other? Everything on the PvP and PvE servers will be the same, except for the rules that allow players to attack each other. On a PvP server, it may be free-for-all or a team based system. On a PvE server, attacking other players will only be available through /duel or in a specific pvp enabled area, like the EQ1 arena.

The difference between a PvE and PvP server are not that different. So patches should be universal. That's the only way that it works.

Nanfoodle · October 2020

Kyleran said:

Wellspring said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Nanfoodle said:

achesoma said:

Kyleran said:

blackthornn said:

"It will not include PvP. Additionally, contested areas are not currently in the scope of development. You can catch up on this interview and more by reading our recap here."

Really? In a pve game? The shame. Your trolling could have been left out.

Except that... Brad himself stated Pantheon would eventually have PVP servers, just not at launch.

It's not trolling if it's true.

A pvp ruleset server is still planned for launch. Just no pvp specific content or contested zones are planned for release.

I dont think it is, in Ben's last interview they said contested zones are not being worked on and at the end of the interview. Ben talked about not wanting to just chuck PvP into the game as an afterthought. When they put PvP into Pantheon, they wanted it to have some weight to it. It sounds like its not going to happen for launch. Its not even being worked on at the moment. IMO I think this is good news. EQ1/Pantheon is about PvE and they should focus on making that the best they can.

I agree. Putting PvP in as an afterthought is what happened with Vanguard at launch. I was on the factions server and it was a disaster. Focus on the core game and then if it's successful add varied server types.

In Vanguard, I played on the FFA PvP server starting at launch, through PvP server merges, and stopped playing shortly after winning the ranger BOTB tournament in 2008. The reason I ultimately stopped playing was boredom waiting for new PvE content, so my guild moved on to try Age of Conan.

I can't speak to what it was like on the faction server, but the free-for-all server was the single best PvP I've ever experienced in an MMO.

The reason why PvP in Vanguard was great, was precisely because it wasn't the focus of the game. There was no penalty for dying in PvP, other than having to run back from your bind and you lost infamy points (which was just an arbitrary number for bragging rights, but had no actual benefit).

Vanguard gave players the freedom to become friends or attack other players, based on their own personality. You weren't motivated to kill people because the game told you too or gave you a reward. You also weren't penalized for killing players because the game decided PvP wasn't "nice". PvP was simply an option, that you could use or not use when interacting with other players.

Ignoring the plague of bugs that Vanguard had with both PvE and PvP, what would you have changed in Vanguard to make PvP better?

If not for the fact Vanguard was mostly a failure from a commercial point of view, I'm sure the FFA PVP servers would have devolved into a total shitshow like almost every FFA PVP server in any game ever.

Some players don't need a good reason to kill others, just making other people miserable is all the incentive they need.

I recall some days being relentlessly spawn camped by the opposing faction and struggling to recover my corpse which had something of value on it, recovering lost experience I think which one lost forever with each new death.

If MMORPG history has proven anything it is if PVP is to be viable in any form it needs to be heavily restricted and managed to keep the inmates from over running the asylum.

I just don't see the Pantheon team being able to manage any sort of PVP option until at least a year or so post release.

Nor do I think they lose all that many potential customers if they don't do so at the launch.

If I could I would click agree and insightful ==)

Nanfoodle · October 2020

Thanks for sharing. Responses, numbered by each paragraph.

1) Skills working differently in PvP -- According to past interviews with VR, exactly what you described how it's already built.

2) If faction rulesets are difficult, then VR could at least launch with a free-for-all PvP server, where there are no teams, like they had in Vanguard.

3) Yes, PvP for the sake of PvP does get old. But you're forgetting that Pantheon is a PvE game. The PvE is the content, PvP just allows people to work out disputes between players themselves. When your guild bands together and finally kills the world boss, while holding back the hordes of other players trying to stop you, the loot from the kill is the reward. Just like it's the reward in PvE.

An argument could also be made that PvE content gets old, without PvP being involved.

4) Contested mobs & bosses would work just like it does for PvE. Whatever rules they have in place for who gets credit for a kill when opposing groups engage the same mob on an PvE server, would be the same on a PvP server.

I don't understand how having PvP enabled would change PvE encounters?

Contested zones, I don't know what is meant by that. But I don't see that being a necessary feature for a PvP ruleset server.

5) I see PvP in Pantheon following a more simplified approach. If they've designed PvP like you describe in point 1, where they can tweak it independently from PvE, I don't see how changes to one will break the other? Everything on the PvP and PvE servers will be the same, except for the rules that allow players to attack each other. On a PvP server, it may be free-for-all or a team based system. On a PvE server, attacking other players will only be available through /duel or in a specific pvp enabled area, like the EQ1 arena.

The difference between a PvE and PvP server are not that different. So patches should be universal. That's the only way that it works.

Each area you answered it has much more depth. I will pick on just one as an example. World boss. Who gets the loot? First to tag? First to get to 40% of the mobs health? If you start killing players who first tagged, does their damage to the world boss get counted? How many players who tagged first need to die before its not that raids boss? Can you wait till the World boss is at 10% health, kill the raid that tagged the boss and claim the loot? How does this work in dungeons? Same rules?

Each answer means different things turned on and off. This is just a few questions on world bosses. How many systems in the game need to be taken planning that may give different things to consider. MMOs are huge and slapping a few rules to a sever and not planning how it impacts the entire game will make a bad gaming experience. VG is just such a case. They just dont have the man power to make it worth doing and as pointed out above, how many players will they earn for the effort? Just not worth their time IMO.

Wellspring · October 2020

Kyleran said:

Wellspring said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Nanfoodle said:

achesoma said:

Kyleran said:

blackthornn said:

"It will not include PvP. Additionally, contested areas are not currently in the scope of development. You can catch up on this interview and more by reading our recap here."

Really? In a pve game? The shame. Your trolling could have been left out.

Except that... Brad himself stated Pantheon would eventually have PVP servers, just not at launch.

It's not trolling if it's true.

A pvp ruleset server is still planned for launch. Just no pvp specific content or contested zones are planned for release.

I dont think it is, in Ben's last interview they said contested zones are not being worked on and at the end of the interview. Ben talked about not wanting to just chuck PvP into the game as an afterthought. When they put PvP into Pantheon, they wanted it to have some weight to it. It sounds like its not going to happen for launch. Its not even being worked on at the moment. IMO I think this is good news. EQ1/Pantheon is about PvE and they should focus on making that the best they can.

I agree. Putting PvP in as an afterthought is what happened with Vanguard at launch. I was on the factions server and it was a disaster. Focus on the core game and then if it's successful add varied server types.

In Vanguard, I played on the FFA PvP server starting at launch, through PvP server merges, and stopped playing shortly after winning the ranger BOTB tournament in 2008. The reason I ultimately stopped playing was boredom waiting for new PvE content, so my guild moved on to try Age of Conan.

I can't speak to what it was like on the faction server, but the free-for-all server was the single best PvP I've ever experienced in an MMO.

The reason why PvP in Vanguard was great, was precisely because it wasn't the focus of the game. There was no penalty for dying in PvP, other than having to run back from your bind and you lost infamy points (which was just an arbitrary number for bragging rights, but had no actual benefit).

Vanguard gave players the freedom to become friends or attack other players, based on their own personality. You weren't motivated to kill people because the game told you too or gave you a reward. You also weren't penalized for killing players because the game decided PvP wasn't "nice". PvP was simply an option, that you could use or not use when interacting with other players.

Ignoring the plague of bugs that Vanguard had with both PvE and PvP, what would you have changed in Vanguard to make PvP better?

If not for the fact Vanguard was mostly a failure from a commercial point of view, I'm sure the FFA PVP servers would have devolved into a total shitshow like almost every FFA PVP server in any game ever.

Some players don't need a good reason to kill others, just making other people miserable is all the incentive they need.

I recall some days being relentlessly spawn camped by the opposing faction and struggling to recover my corpse which had something of value on it, recovering lost experience I think which one lost forever with each new death.

If MMORPG history has proven anything it is if PVP is to be viable in any form it needs to be heavily restricted and managed to keep the inmates from over running the asylum.

I just don't see the Pantheon team being able to manage any sort of PVP option until at least a year or so post release.

Nor do I think they lose all that many potential customers if they don't do so at the launch.

I'll give you that point. There are always people who get pleasure out of griefing others, and most people will soon quit a game where they get punished all the time. But the exact same thing happens in PvE games does it not? People will abuse the game mechanics in EQ1 to train other players or kill steal camps.

If you add incentives to PvP, like full loot or other rewards, then sure, MMORPG history show it becomes a toxic mess.

But what other games have had PvP like Vanguard? Where killing other players is simply allowed, but not incentivized, and the real content is still PvE?

If the EQ1 progression servers are any indication, which were PvE ruleset, Visionary Realms is going to have to manage toxic behavior on those servers just as much, if not more so. Because on a PvP ruleset server players can resolve disputes themselves. On a PvE server, the only legal way to resolve disputes is by petitioning GMs.

Wellspring · October 2020

Each area you answered it has much more depth. I will pick on just one as an example. World boss. Who gets the loot? First to tag? First to get to 40% of the mobs health? If you start killing players who first tagged, does their damage to the world boss get counted? How many players who tagged first need to die before its not that raids boss? Can you wait till the World boss is at 10% health, kill the raid that tagged the boss and claim the loot? How does this work in dungeons? Same rules?

Each answer means different things turned on and off. This is just a few questions on world bosses. How many systems in the game need to be taken planning that may give different things to consider. MMOs are huge and slapping a few rules to a sever and not planning how it impacts the entire game will make a bad gaming experience. VG is just such a case. They just dont have the man power to make it worth doing and as pointed out above, how many players will they earn for the effort? Just not worth their time IMO.

This has been a fun discussion. I'm sure I'm over-simplifying things. But at the same time, I think you're over-complicating them. Reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

Who gets the loot? It's the same rules on the PvP servers as whatever rule they have for PvE. If it's first to tag in PvE, then it's first to tag in PvP. If it's first to 50% on the PvE servers, then it's the same on PvP servers.

On a PvE server, if a solo player brings an NPC's health to 5% and then dies during combat (either by the mob they're fighting or another wandering mob / train), VR will have a rule for who gets credit if another player swoops in and finishes off the NPC.

VR haven't said what the rules will be, but if it's like EQ1 the damage is reset when the solo player (or for groups, everyone in the group) dies. Then whoever does the most damage of it's remaining 5% health, will get credit.

On a PvP server, it would be the exact same. Death by another player or death by an NPC is still death, when it comes to determining who gets credit for an unkilled mob.

The one complexity that a PvP server will add is how exp loss is applied. If you die to another player you likely won't lose exp. If you die to an NPC, then you will lose exp. What happens if you are attacked by another player during combat with an NPC and die? I think the most logical & easiest answer (keeping the rules the same as the PvE servers), is go by whoever gets the killing blow. If a NPC gets the last blow, then you lose exp. If the player gets the last blow, then you don't lose exp.

Nanfoodle · October 2020

Wellspring said:

Each area you answered it has much more depth. I will pick on just one as an example. World boss. Who gets the loot? First to tag? First to get to 40% of the mobs health? If you start killing players who first tagged, does their damage to the world boss get counted? How many players who tagged first need to die before its not that raids boss? Can you wait till the World boss is at 10% health, kill the raid that tagged the boss and claim the loot? How does this work in dungeons? Same rules?

Each answer means different things turned on and off. This is just a few questions on world bosses. How many systems in the game need to be taken planning that may give different things to consider. MMOs are huge and slapping a few rules to a sever and not planning how it impacts the entire game will make a bad gaming experience. VG is just such a case. They just dont have the man power to make it worth doing and as pointed out above, how many players will they earn for the effort? Just not worth their time IMO.

This has been a fun discussion. I'm sure I'm over-simplifying things. But at the same time, I think you're over-complicating them. Reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

Who gets the loot? It's the same rules on the PvP servers as whatever rule they have for PvE. If it's first to tag in PvE, then it's first to tag in PvP. If it's first to 50% on the PvE servers, then it's the same on PvP servers.

On a PvE server, if a solo player brings an NPC's health to 5% and then dies during combat (either by the mob they're fighting or another wandering mob / train), VR will have a rule for who gets credit if another player swoops in and finishes off the NPC.

VR haven't said what the rules will be, but if it's like EQ1 the damage is reset when the solo player (or for groups, everyone in the group) dies. Then whoever does the most damage of it's remaining 5% health, will get credit.

On a PvP server, it would be the exact same. Death by another player or death by an NPC is still death, when it comes to determining who gets credit for an unkilled mob.

The one complexity that a PvP server will add is how exp loss is applied. If you die to another player you likely won't lose exp. If you die to an NPC, then you will lose exp. What happens if you are attacked by another player during combat with an NPC and die? I think the most logical & easiest answer (keeping the rules the same as the PvE servers), is go by whoever gets the killing blow. If a NPC gets the last blow, then you lose exp. If the player gets the last blow, then you don't lose exp.

By your idea of how it would work, would cause people to wait as long as possible before attacking a raid/team taking on a world boss. This would also, when the tagging raid/team would be at their lowest in strength. Using up mana etc to kill the world boss.

This would cause more gank style PvP. I would rather for the sake of ganking and PvP, that even if a team/raid was killed, the world boss would still be theirs unless the mob fully reset. Leaving the attacking raid/team to have to have to earn the kill on the world boss. What type of PvP does VR want? More gank?

Wellspring · October 2020

Nanfoodle said:

Wellspring said:

Each area you answered it has much more depth. I will pick on just one as an example. World boss. Who gets the loot? First to tag? First to get to 40% of the mobs health? If you start killing players who first tagged, does their damage to the world boss get counted? How many players who tagged first need to die before its not that raids boss? Can you wait till the World boss is at 10% health, kill the raid that tagged the boss and claim the loot? How does this work in dungeons? Same rules?

Each answer means different things turned on and off. This is just a few questions on world bosses. How many systems in the game need to be taken planning that may give different things to consider. MMOs are huge and slapping a few rules to a sever and not planning how it impacts the entire game will make a bad gaming experience. VG is just such a case. They just dont have the man power to make it worth doing and as pointed out above, how many players will they earn for the effort? Just not worth their time IMO.

This has been a fun discussion. I'm sure I'm over-simplifying things. But at the same time, I think you're over-complicating them. Reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

Who gets the loot? It's the same rules on the PvP servers as whatever rule they have for PvE. If it's first to tag in PvE, then it's first to tag in PvP. If it's first to 50% on the PvE servers, then it's the same on PvP servers.

On a PvE server, if a solo player brings an NPC's health to 5% and then dies during combat (either by the mob they're fighting or another wandering mob / train), VR will have a rule for who gets credit if another player swoops in and finishes off the NPC.

VR haven't said what the rules will be, but if it's like EQ1 the damage is reset when the solo player (or for groups, everyone in the group) dies. Then whoever does the most damage of it's remaining 5% health, will get credit.

On a PvP server, it would be the exact same. Death by another player or death by an NPC is still death, when it comes to determining who gets credit for an unkilled mob.

The one complexity that a PvP server will add is how exp loss is applied. If you die to another player you likely won't lose exp. If you die to an NPC, then you will lose exp. What happens if you are attacked by another player during combat with an NPC and die? I think the most logical & easiest answer (keeping the rules the same as the PvE servers), is go by whoever gets the killing blow. If a NPC gets the last blow, then you lose exp. If the player gets the last blow, then you don't lose exp.

By your idea of how it would work, would cause people to wait as long as possible before attacking a raid/team taking on a world boss. This would also, when the tagging raid/team would be at their lowest in strength. Using up mana etc to kill the world boss.

This would cause more gank style PvP. I would rather for the sake of ganking and PvP, that even if a team/raid was killed, the world boss would still be theirs unless the mob fully reset. Leaving the attacking raid/team to have to have to earn the kill on the world boss. What type of PvP does VR want? More gank?

It would be the same strategy on PvE servers would it not? Wait and then train mobs on the opposing raid when they are weak.

Maybe the bosses health resets instantly when everyone who is engaged in combat with the NPC dies. While someone is engaged in combat, however, the health doesn't reset and whoever has done the most damage will get loot credit, even if they have died and are in another zone. They will have to run back to loot the corpse though before it decays though.

Anyways, I'm not trying to predict what VR's final loot credit mechanic is going to be, that's not the point. The point is that whatever it is, I don't see a reason why it needs to be different on the PvP server?

Nanfoodle · October 2020

Wellspring said:

Nanfoodle said:

Wellspring said:

Each area you answered it has much more depth. I will pick on just one as an example. World boss. Who gets the loot? First to tag? First to get to 40% of the mobs health? If you start killing players who first tagged, does their damage to the world boss get counted? How many players who tagged first need to die before its not that raids boss? Can you wait till the World boss is at 10% health, kill the raid that tagged the boss and claim the loot? How does this work in dungeons? Same rules?

Each answer means different things turned on and off. This is just a few questions on world bosses. How many systems in the game need to be taken planning that may give different things to consider. MMOs are huge and slapping a few rules to a sever and not planning how it impacts the entire game will make a bad gaming experience. VG is just such a case. They just dont have the man power to make it worth doing and as pointed out above, how many players will they earn for the effort? Just not worth their time IMO.

This has been a fun discussion. I'm sure I'm over-simplifying things. But at the same time, I think you're over-complicating them. Reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

Who gets the loot? It's the same rules on the PvP servers as whatever rule they have for PvE. If it's first to tag in PvE, then it's first to tag in PvP. If it's first to 50% on the PvE servers, then it's the same on PvP servers.

On a PvE server, if a solo player brings an NPC's health to 5% and then dies during combat (either by the mob they're fighting or another wandering mob / train), VR will have a rule for who gets credit if another player swoops in and finishes off the NPC.

VR haven't said what the rules will be, but if it's like EQ1 the damage is reset when the solo player (or for groups, everyone in the group) dies. Then whoever does the most damage of it's remaining 5% health, will get credit.

On a PvP server, it would be the exact same. Death by another player or death by an NPC is still death, when it comes to determining who gets credit for an unkilled mob.

The one complexity that a PvP server will add is how exp loss is applied. If you die to another player you likely won't lose exp. If you die to an NPC, then you will lose exp. What happens if you are attacked by another player during combat with an NPC and die? I think the most logical & easiest answer (keeping the rules the same as the PvE servers), is go by whoever gets the killing blow. If a NPC gets the last blow, then you lose exp. If the player gets the last blow, then you don't lose exp.

By your idea of how it would work, would cause people to wait as long as possible before attacking a raid/team taking on a world boss. This would also, when the tagging raid/team would be at their lowest in strength. Using up mana etc to kill the world boss.

This would cause more gank style PvP. I would rather for the sake of ganking and PvP, that even if a team/raid was killed, the world boss would still be theirs unless the mob fully reset. Leaving the attacking raid/team to have to have to earn the kill on the world boss. What type of PvP does VR want? More gank?

It would be the same strategy on PvE servers would it not? Wait and then train mobs on the opposing raid when they are weak.

Maybe the bosses health resets instantly when everyone who is engaged in combat with the NPC dies. While someone is engaged in combat, however, the health doesn't reset and whoever has done the most damage will get loot credit, even if they have died and are in another zone. They will have to run back to loot the corpse though before it decays though.

Anyways, I'm not trying to predict what VR's final loot credit mechanic is going to be, that's not the point. The point is that whatever it is, I don't see a reason why it needs to be different on the PvP server?

Yes thats how it works in PvE but the mid set is different, there in game politics matter. Now guilds start banning players with bad reps. Its a community police thing. PvP is another tool in the players hands that is very powerful. Each time VR choses a rule that promotes ganking, that will change the type of PvPer you encourage to play Pantheon PvP. And fact is, you have a toxic PvP game and most of the players leave and when the toxic players have no one left to gank, they move on as well. Its why you need to look at every area of the game to decide how you will use rules to make the PvP environment you want.

Its not flipping a few switches and hope for the best, do it wrong and you lose players. So is it worth risking players to make a bad PvP experience? Or lose very few players by not having PvP till they have the resources to do it right?

Howdy, Stranger!

Pantheon Development Stream Set for October 29 (Tomorrow) | MMORPG.com

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Pantheon Development Stream Set for October 29 (Tomorrow) | MMORPG.com

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV