Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Limited play time servers

    • 42 posts
    September 18, 2018 6:44 PM PDT

    dorotea said:

    Two points to add - neither relevant to whether I would or would not play on a server like this but both, I think, relevant to the OP's ideas.

    1. Would it help or hurt to make the time-allowed cap per character rather than per account. It would encourage altoholics with a lot of time and no compelling urge to get to maximum level fast  to play on the server. Maybe you don't want this kind of person on the server but then again maybe making the server more popular is a plus. 

    It would alleviate the concern that someone could unexpectedly get extra time but be locked out from playing. Their primary character might have used up the time but the alts might have plenty. Maybe crafting alts or maybe just other classes to fool around with. 

    Encouraging alts would  seem quite consistant with the OP's objective of slowing the race to level cap. Any time spent on a lower level character by definition slows the progress of the higher level character.

    I read the proposed server rules as imposing a per-account time limit but I am not sure that is the way to go. Then again this isn't a server designed to appeal to me - I have far more time than most.

    I will address your first point, regarding the second I will say only that anything that increases awareness of Pantheon is a good thing in my view.

    Originally the idea I had was around account limited play time, but I do some advantages and disadvantages to the proposal you are making.

    I like how it allows for temporary changes in playtime, something my original idea does not address. It would possible encourage more players to choose this server over a normal one and potentially prop up the population on at any given time.

    It does however bring in potential new issues. If a lot of unlimited play time players choose this server then there would be a lot of players in the same level range, more than you would see on a normal server where the population spreads out. It’s hard to know how this would turn out, would it mean there are always groups going on or that everything is always camped. It comes down to numbers.

    There are also the effects on tradeskills and the economy to consider. If having time locked to a character then people will end up making individual characters for each trade skill and work on those advancing them in disproportion to the normal server advancement. This would again be difficult to predict.

    • 42 posts
    September 18, 2018 6:57 PM PDT

    Kastor said:

    Yes, maybe you should go back and read everyone responding to your reddit post.

    I'm doing what I can to respond to the redit posts as well. 

    I'm not surprised that this idea was received better in the forums than it was in redit which tends to enjoy jumping on a bandwagon.  I'm actually very happy about all the good suggestions I am seeing here. I expected the majority of the early adopters to be players who had unlimited play time on their hands and seeing any idea for a different player base somehow a threat to the game they want. I don't see this idea as a threat to the game.  If it appeals to a larger community of players better and addresses their needs without sacrificing the vision of the developers then that is good for the size of the player base and the longevity of the game.

    Note that this change does not in any way alter the way the game is made, its difficulty or its vision. It only puts the breaks on how rapidly that content can be consumed.

    Lastly regarding your comment on KSing and bad play. Consider how much effort will be needed to rise up on a time limited server. As players can only do so in smaller windows. When a bad actor gets banned it will take them MONTHS to get back to that level of annoyance. Not a limitation they will have on a normal server where they can just throw more time to get back to that tier. In effect this encourages better play just because advancement has more meaning for more players.

     

    • 42 posts
    September 18, 2018 7:14 PM PDT

    Deadshade said:

    Melamber the problem with the comments of your idea on this thread is that most posters analyse it from a point of view of a player who does NOT and will NOT play consistently less than , say 15 or 20 hours a week aned who feels all the time the pressure to achieve a maximum of things (XP, level, loot) during the time he has .

    So, of course, they then don't understand it and don't even imagine that there are people who play MMORPGs in a completely different style than they do . They seem to think that everyone feels the pressure to level fast, to fight all the time , to be frustrated when there are 45 min missing to get those 10% XP more, to get that loot fast etc like they do . In reality there is a very large fraction of players who don't feel the time and competition  pressure at all . Players who don't like soloing and boxing, who will log in to chat a bit, do some crafting and exploring , to advance perhaps a quest or to join a group for an hour or 2 . People who have not their eyes fixed on the XP bar and who don't care if they get 5 % of a level in a week or 20 % . People who don't rush anywhere and who just play a game to relax and spend an hour or 2 in a virtual world . Let us call them "casuals" for simplicity even if this term may be misinterpreted and "casual" doesn't mean "unskilled" or "unsuccessful" .

    For these players a 20 hours limit per week is no constraint at all . Most would actually never reach it . So once that is acknowledged that there is a fraction of players which is irrelevant for this type of servers and they couldn't cope with a limited time because they feel an achievement pressure all the time, there is only ONE relevant question which must be asked : "Why would the players who play with a completely different mindset prefer a limited time server to a non limited time server ?"

    I have already answered this question but I will recapitulate what the main motivations would be .

    1) They can play/group with their friends for a long time . On a standard server if a group or a Guild levels fast, a "casual" has only 2 choices . Either he plays in the style he likes and he falls behind and can no more group with his friends/Guild or he does what he hates and starts to rush to keep the pace . Neither solution is satisfying for him . On a limited time server he will find a majority of players who play with the same style as he does . An obvious advantage .

    2) The server is newbie friendly for "casuals" for a long time . If a "casual" joins the game 8 months or 1 year after the release, the low level zones will be ghost towns on unlimited servers while on a limited time server there will still be low-mid level players the newbie can group with . An obvious advantage .

    3) The server allows to enjoy the content for a long time . This is trivially true because the average level of the server would increase much slower than the average level on an unlimited server . An obvious advantage . Of course the rushing kind of players doesn't care about it but as we have already seen , a limited time server is not there for them . Even if some of this kind could try out the limited time server, who cares ? They'd reach max level faster than the vast majority and then ?  Log in only to do a few raids and be frustrated every week that 20 hours are not enough ? 

    Finally your idea is basically an idea of a new segmentation of the game servers which can be added to the classical segmentation - PvE, PvP, RP . I am convinced that a limited time server would be a success for the majority of the "casual" population and I know many friends who would play on it (me included) .

    Your views are interesting to me.  I think of myself as a hardcore player who has limited playtime due to other commitments, but your right that this server appeals to a lot more player types than just my kind. This is obviously a good thing, creating a better spread of players even as the server ages. I do see that these servers will be more newcomer friendly for much longer which is also good for the game community overall.

    The more I have discussed this issue the more I feel it has merit. The criticism I have seen so far have not convinced me there isn’t more to be gained than lost here.

    • 264 posts
    September 18, 2018 10:14 PM PDT

     An interesting idea, certainly something to consider for a more casual title. Limiting play time could be done in a wide variety of ways...characters could get a "tired" debuff after being online too long which would decrease stats as time wore on, or you could go with your suggestion of having a hard cap of 3 hours per day. I remember WoW had the "rested" bonus xp that built up when players logged out at an inn or city but it was fairly minor whereas the design you are talking about is quite extreme! Actually hard capping people's playtime isn't going to go over well in a hardcore MMORPG like Pantheon imo. Forcing players off the game would be fine in a game where progression was quick and everything was quick and easy to do but from everything I've seen about Pantheon the game isn't going to be designed that way and people will get extremely frustrated when they are at the bottom of an extremely dangerous dungeon and get booted right before they kill the big boss.

     I don't think a special ruleset server for limited playtime makes any sense due to how Pantheon is being designed. You would essentially make large parts of the game off limits due to inability of players to stay online long enough to complete the content.

    • 724 posts
    September 19, 2018 12:09 AM PDT

    Melamber said:The advantage I see is it opens up the game to people who don’t want to compete with players who can dedicate vastly more play time to the game. Often limited play time players are disadvantaged with the in game economy and also end game content, especially if it’s heavily contested.   By limiting playtime you open up the content to more players are no single guild can dominate all the available content in the limited time. Also it’s likely those players who will put in 10+ hours a day won’t even play on this server at all, in effect keeping the player base separated.

    Just to pick up this from the OP again: I think you don't really care about the play time, the bolded parts above is what you care about. You don't want to compete against others, and you don't want to be disadvantaged because you play less than them. You worry about being blocked from certain parts of the game because others might dominate that content.

    But as others have said, this competition WILL occur on a time limited server exactly the same as on regular servers. You don't solve this problem by limiting time, you just push it back to a later point. And maybe worse, because everyone is leveling at a comparable speed, everyone will arrive at the hotspots at the same time...talk about congestion!

    To be fair, I can sympathise with you, I also am no friend of extreme competition. After all we are signing up for a "cooperative PvE" game, not a PvP game. But competition is part of an open world MMO. I believe it's the designers job to ensure that really bad things cannot happen, and we have heard some things which may help (ghosting of raid encounters, "mirroring" of raid zones, ..). But in the end, an open world requires you to adapt: It's not just there for you alone (or your group of friends).

    • 42 posts
    September 19, 2018 1:41 PM PDT

    Sarim said:

    Melamber said:The advantage I see is it opens up the game to people who don’t want to compete with players who can dedicate vastly more play time to the game. Often limited play time players are disadvantaged with the in game economy and also end game content, especially if it’s heavily contested.   By limiting playtime you open up the content to more players are no single guild can dominate all the available content in the limited time. Also it’s likely those players who will put in 10+ hours a day won’t even play on this server at all, in effect keeping the player base separated.

    Just to pick up this from the OP again: I think you don't really care about the play time, the bolded parts above is what you care about. You don't want to compete against others, and you don't want to be disadvantaged because you play less than them. You worry about being blocked from certain parts of the game because others might dominate that content.

    But as others have said, this competition WILL occur on a time limited server exactly the same as on regular servers. You don't solve this problem by limiting time, you just push it back to a later point. And maybe worse, because everyone is leveling at a comparable speed, everyone will arrive at the hotspots at the same time...talk about congestion!

    To be fair, I can sympathise with you, I also am no friend of extreme competition. After all we are signing up for a "cooperative PvE" game, not a PvP game. But competition is part of an open world MMO. I believe it's the designers job to ensure that really bad things cannot happen, and we have heard some things which may help (ghosting of raid encounters, "mirroring" of raid zones, ..). But in the end, an open world requires you to adapt: It's not just there for you alone (or your group of friends).

    Actually I don't mind to complete but I like a more even playing field. I'm not a pay to win advocate but you hear the same argument when a game allows players to use real money to gain an advantage.  Suddenly the competition isn't around how much TIME you have it's about how much MONEY you can afford to waste.  That's equally unfair to a portion of the player base, just often a differnt portion.  What I am suggesting is offer a certain percentage of the playerbase an environment where they can complete on an even footing.

    If you read my other posts you will see why I find it unlikely that everyone will reach the endgame at the same time, but in recap: People with limited play time (life imposed not server imposed) don't spend all that time grinding levels, they still persue other goals (faction, crafting, exploration) just at a slower rate.  Also in a server where average play time is 3 - 5 hours a day for most, you don't have the same amount of people on at the same time contesting the camps.  On a regular server you have people who will lock down camps for 10+ hours each day. 

    The major change you have by offering this server is a server that develops SLOWER.  People who choose to play here can and will still do the same things that happen on other servers, but it will just happen at a slower rate.

    • 228 posts
    September 24, 2018 8:24 AM PDT

    @OP: I fear your idea would infuse a sense of urgency into the player base. Groups might more frequently refuse to pick you up if you're 15 minutes away; taking a break now and then during a dungeon run might generally be considered a waste of precious playing time, etc. You would simply replace the requirement for many hours of playing with a super-efficient playing style with no room for all the other things that make MMO-gaming fun. If the goal is to be "one of the best", that is.

    And have you considered that having a limited time available could actually compel to play to that limit?

    And to solve what problem, exactly? I don't understand how it ruins anything that some players level away from us merely because they can put in many more hours. As this thread confirms, there is a large enough player base with limited time to find playmates like us, but that is no reason in itself to place us on our own servers. Putting in time is, and has always been, a means to excel in any MMORPG. If you see a high-level character with epic gear, you don't think "boy, that guy must be a brilliant player", you think "boy, that guy must have spent many hours and be very experienced". And I see no reason to change that.

    Personally, although I too have a job and limited time, I would never join such a server. Even if I had all the time in the world to play, I would always level at a moderate pace compared to many others because of my playing style, but meeting high-level characters and occasionally getting help from them is one of the benefits of an open world, IMO.

    Oh, and I can already hear the crowd demanding reduced monthly fees. :)

     

    • 510 posts
    September 24, 2018 9:36 AM PDT

    If you think about it, this sort of limited play type is already in existence.  A few games out there have a pool of vitality that grows while your character isn't actively gaining XP.  This pool gives you an increased XP rate.  I know several other games do something almost like it.  This might be a way to create this server.  Simply allow XP gain while this pool has any vitality in it, and the moment you run out - no XP gain.  The pool grows until the pool is full.  If you fail to play when the pool is full is simply stays full - you cannot gain beyond the size of the pool.  

    When EQ2 offers a time-lock server, this is how I play.  I play a character until that pool is depleted.  Then I play another character until that pool is depleted.  And then another etc.  Generally, this supports about 4 and a half characters.  What it means is that I am never out of vitality if I am playing 5 characters.  Sure, it's a bit slower than others who race through the content etc.  But I have to admit - it blow's people minds when I offer to join their group as a tank/healer/support/DPS or whatever you need since I had enough characters to do so.  Folks often complained that "botters like me" were destroying the game etc.  Except it wasn't bots.  All of those characters are on one account.  It all comes down to time management and knowing the content.

    • 96 posts
    September 24, 2018 9:43 AM PDT

    Nephretiti said:

    If you think about it, this sort of limited play type is already in existence.  A few games out there have a pool of vitality that grows while your character isn't actively gaining XP.  This pool gives you an increased XP rate.  I know several other games do something almost like it.  This might be a way to create this server.  Simply allow XP gain while this pool has any vitality in it, and the moment you run out - no XP gain.  The pool grows until the pool is full.  If you fail to play when the pool is full is simply stays full - you cannot gain beyond the size of the pool.  

    When EQ2 offers a time-lock server, this is how I play.  I play a character until that pool is depleted.  Then I play another character until that pool is depleted.  And then another etc.  Generally, this supports about 4 and a half characters.  What it means is that I am never out of vitality if I am playing 5 characters.  Sure, it's a bit slower than others who race through the content etc.  But I have to admit - it blow's people minds when I offer to join their group as a tank/healer/support/DPS or whatever you need since I had enough characters to do so.  Folks often complained that "botters like me" were destroying the game etc.  Except it wasn't bots.  All of those characters are on one account.  It all comes down to time management and knowing the content.

     

    That is a good point, one I never thought about until now.

     

    Expanding on that a bit... In games where you log out and get the "rested" exp buff, once it is used up you are just back to normal the normal exp rate. However, what if once you ran out of "rested" buff you started to accumulate "fatigued" debuff. Maybe each half level you gain after your rested buff wears off drops you down one fatigue debuff level. If you play 10 hours straight and gain several levels your exp may only be at 50% of the normal rate.

    Seems like a cool idea to me at the moment...


    This post was edited by Pilch at September 24, 2018 9:44 AM PDT
    • 1479 posts
    September 24, 2018 10:46 AM PDT

    @Nephretiti / @Pilch

     

    You all know that exp bonus of some sort are just a way to shorten and imply levelling is meaningless, right ? As long as levelling should be shortcut of some sort, there is a problem in it's design. Getting max level should not be the goal of a little fraction of your playtime, but a goal in the game achieving meaningfull efforts...

    • 96 posts
    September 24, 2018 10:49 AM PDT

    @ MauvausOeil

    Not sure where you got the idea I wanted leveling to be short. Why could leveling still not be a long process but taking a break from leveling is encouraged? 

    • 1479 posts
    September 24, 2018 10:57 AM PDT

    Pilch said:

    @ MauvausOeil

    Not sure where you got the idea I wanted leveling to be short. Why could leveling still not be a long process but taking a break from leveling is encouraged? 

     

    Because that's the downside at stacking a buff in gains, it's encouraging some sort of mixed play, either because gaining experience will be as fast if you do it only 2 hours a day than 4 (or more ?), and thus you will achieve the final level with half the playtime as others (just giving random numbers), or because it simply hypervalue a low playtime over anything else, making thoses bonus exp worth more for the same investment.

    That you if you rotate between different alt for spending your bonus bar only, you achieve a best result than others that played more and more focused. The base good thing about MMO is that you are rewarded for your efforts undepending of your IRL situation, just as long as your work "hard" in the game.

    A bonus bar ala wow does break this, even by an inch, with the other problems aformensioned

    • 96 posts
    September 24, 2018 11:04 AM PDT

    MauvaisOeil said:

    Pilch said:

    @ MauvausOeil

    Not sure where you got the idea I wanted leveling to be short. Why could leveling still not be a long process but taking a break from leveling is encouraged? 

     

    Because that's the downside at stacking a buff in gains, it's encouraging some sort of mixed play, either because gaining experience will be as fast if you do it only 2 hours a day than 4 (or more ?), and thus you will achieve the final level with half the playtime as others (just giving random numbers), or because it simply hypervalue a low playtime over anything else, making thoses bonus exp worth more for the same investment.

    That you if you rotate between different alt for spending your bonus bar only, you achieve a best result than others that played more and more focused. The base good thing about MMO is that you are rewarded for your efforts undepending of your IRL situation, just as long as your work "hard" in the game.

    A bonus bar ala wow does break this, even by an inch, with the other problems aformensioned

    I dont like when the leveling process is too fast in a game. Sorry for any confusion! That is why I suggested that if there was a rested system to also add a fatigue system to try to balance it. However, I still would NOT like any sort of rested system EXP buff if it was completely up to me. A more appropriate rested buff in my eyes would be if you log out in your home nation maybe you get a small stat buff for a period of time. That might encourage people to journey back "home" every now and then.

     

    • 411 posts
    September 24, 2018 11:26 AM PDT

    I don't think he's arguing against a faster process, but the idea of choosing winners and losers. If you introduce a rested exp system then you are disadvantaging people who play more often (in relative terms). This is a fairly common objection when introducing any system that affects experience gain.

    In the end it's all about encouraging the type of play that is healthy for the game and healthy for the players. Making solo exp bad while group exp good is picking winners and losers. Making raids give good loot is picking winners and losers. A rested exp system is the same and is objectionable for the same reason (I don't personally object to it though).

    • 2752 posts
    September 24, 2018 11:27 AM PDT

    Fun fact: Rested exp bonus was initially implemented in WoW as an exp penalty, after so much time playing players would be kicked down to 50% experience gain. It was pretty universally hated and Blizzard was getting ripped up by testers/fans. All they did was change some names around to play on the human psyche, instead of a penalty for playing too long they changed it to a "rested bonus" where you'd get 200% exp for a duration before going down to 100%. The 200% experience was just what the normal exp rate was prior to and the 100% rate was the 50% penalty, but players ate it up as if it were some new genius idea. 

    • 96 posts
    September 24, 2018 11:28 AM PDT

    @Ainadak,

    Yeah, I see what Mauvais is saying and I do agree with him/her. If there was a rested exp buff then someone would swap multiple characters, maximizing EXP gain on each. While the player that has 1 character, like me, will only get a small portion of that rested buff then everything else just normal rate, OR if my idea of fatigue was introduced I would actually be hindered further.

    Best just to not have a rested EXP system at all.

    • 187 posts
    September 24, 2018 11:52 AM PDT

    Iksar said:

    Fun fact: Rested exp bonus was initially implemented in WoW as an exp penalty, after so much time playing players would be kicked down to 50% experience gain. It was pretty universally hated and Blizzard was getting ripped up by testers/fans. All they did was change some names around to play on the human psyche, instead of a penalty for playing too long they changed it to a "rested bonus" where you'd get 200% exp for a duration before going down to 100%. The 200% experience was just what the normal exp rate was prior to and the 100% rate was the 50% penalty, but players ate it up as if it were some new genius idea. 

    That's crazy!

    Before WoWs time... If you would go back to town and logout at an Inn, you would gain "rested exp bonus".

    • 1120 posts
    September 24, 2018 1:02 PM PDT

    Ainadak said:

    If you introduce a rested exp system then you are disadvantaging people who play more often (in relative terms).

    ...what.  this makes 0 sense.  There is no disadvantage to people who play more than those who dont.  The only way this would be possible is if the rate of gaining rested exp was significantly greater (over 100%) than actually leveling.  Which it's not.  Not even close.

    If I'm misunderstanding your point, I apologize.

    • 2752 posts
    September 24, 2018 1:27 PM PDT

    Porygon said:

    Ainadak said:

    If you introduce a rested exp system then you are disadvantaging people who play more often (in relative terms).

    ...what.  this makes 0 sense.  There is no disadvantage to people who play more than those who dont.  The only way this would be possible is if the rate of gaining rested exp was significantly greater (over 100%) than actually leveling.  Which it's not.  Not even close.

    If I'm misunderstanding your point, I apologize.

    It's a disadvantage in the sense that someone only utilizing rested exp would level to max with half the effort (depending on the % bonus) as someone playing more/grinding away. Sure the person playing more would hit max sooner but the person only using rested would hit max in far lower /played time and effort. 

    • 510 posts
    September 24, 2018 2:16 PM PDT

    No one was talking about a rested XP bonus.  We were talking about how that system already exists in some games.  Then we were talking about using the same system, only instead of going to normal XP once the pool was drained, they simply stopped getting ANY Xp at all - untill the rested pool generated more available XP.

    • 74 posts
    September 24, 2018 4:27 PM PDT

    I'm in favor of all sorts of "Alternative Ruleset" servers. Even if I wouldn't play on it.

     

    -Permanent Death

    -Different types of PvP (Team, FFA, Racial, etc.)

    -Roleplay

    -"Hardcore" where elements are more punishing, mobs are faster and deal more damage, and death penalties are more severe, etc.

     

    As long as there is a population to support it, I'm for it. I just don't know if there's enough demand for something like this, or any type of niche market for it? Sounds interesting though, I'd love to read your ideas for the complete rules.. flush them out a bit, as if it's going live, let's see what it looks like?

    • 643 posts
    September 25, 2018 10:21 AM PDT

    I like this idea.

     

    I get frustrated when people make really flawed replies.  If someone says they don't want in game maps, someone always replies "so don't use it" or if someone doesn't want instant travel, someone says "so walk" etc.

    The flaw in those responses is that the players who don't want those things will be left behind by the players who want to race ahead.  This causes world econopmy issues, content access issues etc.  For example, if you were a (not casual but) slow-and-deliberate player by the time you got to PoP there weren't enough people to raid for Time flags.  Your SOL and can't experience that content.  

    So, in order to have a chance at getting flagged or acquiring your epic or any such thing you had to keep up with the fastest playing people. 

    So, you can't optionally choose to play more immersively and without convenience items.  If they are in the game you will be left behind.

    The only correct answer is to not have them in the game.

     

    I think this is a really great idea but with one possible weakness:  If someone plays 10 hours a week, they will log in and cross paths with folks whop play 40 hours a week so they might briefly get to group with them.  By removing the high-hour players, you've removed some of the population that you could cross paths with.  I think that would limit the "wow" factor of seeing high end items and hearing about high end exploits early on.  It would reduce the population for grouping so that might be a problem.

     

    Perhaps a time-limited server with nothing different except hours per week but it alllows a lot more players to register on that home server so it stays filled up.

     

    Another related idea:   what if there was a "server assigner" that looked at your play habits.  If you play 12 hours a week you are logged on to server A.  If you start regularly playing 40 hours a week, it bumps you up to server B with the other high-hours players.  Conversely if you awere playing 30 hours a week, but now steadily play 10 hours a week, you are going to fall behind and lose your grouping friends anyway, so it could "assign" you to a lower-playtime server to be with people more your availability.

     

    That idea would break up guild and groups and friendships so it wouldn't really work - I'm just brainstorming to have ideas discussed.

     

     

     

    • 34 posts
    October 7, 2018 9:34 AM PDT

    For me, I would have to say no, but that is only my single opinion. So many people all with different situations, some with the ability to play a ton of hours per day and everyday and some that can only devote a few hours on certain days. It is possible that there could be a server that could fill a niche for such a thing. I definitely enjoy the ability to login whenever I wish, now to get the servers to be up when that happens.

    • 1019 posts
    October 7, 2018 10:23 AM PDT

    Spluffen said:

    Surely there will also be content suitable for people with less time to play as well

    I dont' think this is his point.  I agree with him/her.  People who can reach end game content so fast start to squew the economy.  

    • 151 posts
    October 8, 2018 4:55 AM PDT

    I have a very busy life, far too busy to join a top tier raiding guild now.

    I'm perfectly content to be in a mid tier guild that has hours I can deal with.  I don't have a need to artificially punish those with more playtime than I.  All I care about is that there are proper targets available for my raiding tier and everything isn't on total lockdown.