Feedback on Server Mechanics Direction

[flying-aces]

Of all the options I'd prefer option 3.

Personally I think adding a stop save progression and halving skill increase in epic levels would be nice addition to the cap on APR.... but classes should continue to gain features and HP. Also slightly increasing the range you can go traveling with people and still get XP. While there is no rush to get to 30, there is a desire to feel like progress is being made towards the end goal for some people... and not being able to go out adventuring with someone you meet is sometimes disparaging to rp. Instead there should be an upward cap on XP gained with someone X over your level. 10 or 15xp for a level 15 hunting with a level 30 isn't a bad thing in an appropriate hunting ground. Level 15 has to survive still.

1 & 2... Capping levels would hurt the server more than it would help... too many people like the versatility 30 levels (and I'd even say miss the versatility of 40 levels nwn1 had) gives for concepts of character (not just power building but actually mechanics that support RP idea's) And established long playing individuals having to rp suddenly being significantly less than they were would just introduce a monkey wrench to most RP.

Level caps only work if the server starts out with them from launch and builds the whole system and rp around that from the begining.

4 doesn't change any of the problems.

[FearBeforeTheFlames]

I stick with the option that makes it faster and easier to add more maps to the pool

To be clear, number 4 isnt going to add any maps any faster than the rest.. in fact by keeping a 30 level spread you'll have less maps per cr range.

I'm all for folks sharing their opinions but it seems like a lot of confusion for the basis of some of those opinions.

Its disappointing to have no less then 4 people say privately that they want 1 or 2 but that "people would hate that". And then two of them are in this thread calling for 4. Lol. You are all "people" and your opinions matter. If one or two are your choice, consider saying that?

If you like 4, thats cool too of course. I dont expect we all have similar tastes and dont fault anyone for them. For me I dont see myself motivated by 4 at all. To maintain status quo is to say we are on the right trajectory right now and i just dont feel thats the case.

I may be one of those people; actually - so I'll state this publicly without issue. I prefer option 4; genuinely - and think that if any other options would be used; it should perhaps be considered upon another server entirely with a fresh start for the entire community while maintaining BGTSCC1.0 as is; or taking the time to sunset BGTSCC1.0 and moving on to an entirely new server - with timeline pushed beyond current characters and history set as-is; like the launch of BGTSCC 2.0 as a new game server entirely. Such massive overhaul changes provide ramifications to concept and roleplay that are deeply derived in everyone's current character concept and it would be simpler to start off in a later part of 3.5's timeline than try to wrap heads around the needed changes for characters as they exist in current form. This would be an unpopular move - which could be partially mitigated by attempting to provide the alternative BGTSCC1.0 server with less support for people that want to maintain their existing storylines/characters.

+1 for motivating our staff for projects that inspire; and would love to collaborate on community building and herding all the many voices and opinions toward a unified purpose. BGTSCC Town Hall! Let's do this.

If you are going to implement larger sweeping changes that change the dynamic of classes, builds, level cap, CR areas, and full area redesigns - then why not start fresh and give the community at large a chance to choose where they engage? We're a volunteer staffed server - start a subscription service; be vocal about financial support if necessary for expenses. Do whatever we need to do to keep this thing running and keep our community engaged and encouraged. If I can help? Hell yeah! I'm here for it - but ultimately; I offer no ultimatum toward any choice - I'm going to attempt to work within the confines of whatever you decide to do.

PS. Crafting is so cool. Love writing with you guys.

Remember; Respect the Beard.

FBTF

[Winterborne]

I think something that needs to be reminded is that all options, including 4, include a full reconsideration and rebalance of PvE in general. This would mean adjusting mob stats, health, damage, saves, etc, and could also include doing the same to gear. It just would mean that you'd still have a level 30 cap. Option 4 is not "do nothing" as some people seem to be inferring.

[Eien]

After 12+ years of the server having pretty much the same formula albeit with some tweaks along the way... What's the reasoning for wanting to completely change how the server is when the easier answer is to make a new server with the changes in power you want to see?

I'd even be in favor of another server split of sorts where one can be the hardcore RP with the mechanical changes and the other is BG as we know it

Ravenloft and Arelith both did this....both servers are a fantastic flop, which should show how much such heavy changes are desired, to say the least, they are not.

Arelith 150 players a day
Ravenloft between 60 and 90

If those are flops what is this?

That said I'm going back to Ravenloft, peace out everyone.

(Inb4 this is not an airport no need to announce your departure)

[Almarea90]

I can make deadly encounters by using builds that I would use in my characters (If I had the free time to level them up) with only items from the store.

If you want to really fix the PvE content is easy without changing anything (And I'm not gonna talk about the combat system because I really think it has done more harm than good) wipe the entire character's vault and put a lvl cap at lvls 5-10-15-20-25 that's unlocked through roleplaying, interaction with the world and character development and give players a true roleplaying environment, because the way it is, the server feels more like an alternative to world of warcraft where people grinds for RIG than roleplaying environment.

Let's get straight facts. There can't be happiness without the presence of sadness nor winners without the presence of losers. The roleplaying in BGTSCC involves 0 factor risk. Your character cannot die, cannot lose an arm, leg, eye, etc. without your permission and that's a huge problem for various reasons. First of all, you cannot enjoy the good things that happens to your character because you will never experience a bad one. When your character can be lost permanently in an event you enjoy way more the moments you play it because everything's more beautiful when you know there can be an end to it.

Second thing: Drop the OOC rules about the stuff that involves IC behaviour and keep the PG-13 ones. Let players deal with IC actions the IC behaviour. You lose all the immersion the way the rules are now.

Third thing: Let players change and impact the world with their behaviour. If they want and try to kill the king of Baldur's Gate let them try. It doesn't mean they will be able to, and they will probably die with a 99% chance, but they will be able to try and will feel like an open world instead of a MMORPG.

This changes applied, will you lose players? Probably. Will your community be less toxic and healthier? Way more. Will you have an RP server? Yes, you will have one RP server instead of a social one.

By the way

Proposal one: Destroys every caster, ranger, warlock (Even more) and monk. Everyone will be running Fighter - Frenzied Berserk or Heavy crossbow fighter-rogue shadowdancer.

Proposal two: It's gonna destroy everyone.

Proposal 3: You just make non casting blasters weaker this way. Direct opposite to the first proposal.

Proposal 4: You remain having the same problem.

May I ask how this proposal is going to help with the issue of balancing Pve and DM events in the current power disparity between players?

If we implement this all it seems to me that what we would achieve is maintaing the same imbalance while allowing people to essentially gank you as soon as you set foot out of town and permakill you without dropping a single line of RP.

If anything this would encourage more powerbuilds because the easy kills are just going to be obliterated.

[DaloLorn]

After 12+ years of the server having pretty much the same formula albeit with some tweaks along the way... What's the reasoning for wanting to completely change how the server is when the easier answer is to make a new server with the changes in power you want to see?

I'd even be in favor of another server split of sorts where one can be the hardcore RP with the mechanical changes and the other is BG as we know it

Ravenloft and Arelith both did this....both servers are a fantastic flop, which should show how much such heavy changes are desired, to say the least, they are not.

I have doubts about Arelith (though perhaps those would be rectified if I took the plunge and tried to peek into yet another PW... not bloody likely), but Ravenloft? The one thing I can unambiguously identify as a flaw in that server is its administration. The gameplay is amazing (with a few limited exceptions), the setting is okay but gets a little tiresome at times, the community's mostly good and larger than ours... but I cannot easily forgive the failings of their devs and DMs.

[Steve]

Proposal 4: No Change
Stay the course, continue developing for the current NWN2 systems, including increasing APR etc. Because this risks the pve rework moving from inflated HP to inflated APR (as my earliest blueprints has shown monsters with lower HP than they do on live but higher damage output, with groups of mobs adding to this issue), this likely requires more homebrewing in order to address the balance issues inherent in this system (it might, for example, require players and mobs to have higher HP than current, and give some level of progression to spell damage in order to keep up with melee damage, etc), but requires the least change to how players currently play.

My question is open to everyone: do you think current Server Mechanics get in the way of Role-play? Of story building, yourself, together with your mates, with the DMs?

For myself, there ARE some current and obvious problems. BGTSCC is already homebrewed to quite an extent, so…would just continuing to improve along those lines and with creativity to solve issues be the best way forward? For THIS Server, it does seem best. It is just a continuous and not-flashy process. Maybe ict-diensten even really interest anyone on Staff?!?

If someone in the know would say: “We can’t turn things down, we can’t turn things back, we can’t turn things off…”, then perhaps in order to keep BGTSCC living, fresh, interesting, some drastic change needs to happen. In the mechanics department.

But I’m personally wondering how a server mechanics change will affect or better improve Role-play. They just seem two things that run parallel, but not dependent on each other. I would love the experience of a low magic, low level, heavy RP Forgotten Realms Server, but…not one with zero Players and no DMs.

[Almarea90]

I wouldn't be opposed to a vault wipe, as long as we can keep our characters. However I don't think it will solve the issue long term

This will level the field yes but still with your suggestion we will have imbalance again in favour of those who spend hours to grind and live in timezones compatible with the DM. Those who are unable to join the events will remain low level.

Not only that, your system will basically give to those people power of life and death over other players. No player should have such power no matter how good their RP is. If anything this is going to increase the disparity. Also getting past the level cap will require those characters to be alive. How is this going to happen if they are ganked as soon as they set foot outside the city?

[DM Soulcatcher]

There's a reason as to why "hardcore" rp servers are practically dead.

[Endelyon]

As much as I think #1 would be fun, I'll abstain from any choice that fractures the community or causes us to lose key (meaning active) players or staff members. It's easy to say that stagnation will cause losses over time and if we had several hundred active players then taking a short-term loss to ensure better long-term retention might be a pragmatic move. In reality I feel like we don't have that kind of buffer, and I'd personally lament losing a portion of the active players we have left.

[AgentOrange]

I'll be honest. There was already a massive overhaul of mechanical systems on BG 3 months ago. Some players adapted, but the player count numbers speak for themselves lately. That the server is considering another massive overhaul and rebalancing effort so soon after the previous one suggests that there's no vision or direction at all, and they just want to throw changes at the wall to see if anything sticks. Ominous. Wasn't a PvE rework supposed to be in the cards?

[Planehopper]

I stick with the option that makes it faster and easier to add more maps to the pool

To be clear, number 4 isnt going to add any maps any faster than the rest.. in fact by keeping a 30 level spread you'll have less maps per cr range.

I'm all for folks sharing their opinions but it seems like a lot of confusion for the basis of some of those opinions.

Its disappointing to have no less then 4 people say privately that they want 1 or 2 but that "people would hate that". And then two of them are in this thread calling for 4. Lol. You are all "people" and your opinions matter. If one or two are your choice, consider saying that?

If you like 4, thats cool too of course. I dont expect we all have similar tastes and dont fault anyone for them. For me I dont see myself motivated by 4 at all. To maintain status quo is to say we are on the right trajectory right now and i just dont feel thats the case.

Funny enough I wish we had less maps. I found the server FAR more interactive when everyone wasn't so spread out all over the place. I used to actually be able to run into other players from time to time in the world. As it stands right now, the server feels empty and lifeless to me when I log in, it is extremely rare that I run into another player in the open world now, even if there are 20-25 people on, because everyone is so spread out across all those maps. There is no natural, neutral congregation point anymore like there was years back (the old camp fire, outside of BG.) and roads and paths dont naturally funnel people together in travel.

Unpopular opinion but i'd rather see less maps (unless they are DM maps.).

This is also not within the scope of this project, unless something changes. As long as I'm a builder I'm definitely not going to want to just add DM maps when there aren't any DMs for large swaths of the day. If I'm gonna build I'm gonna build for everyone.

And speaking of scope -

"I will vote 4 because the rest are more work" is misleading because its all getting reworked either way. Thats the plan as discussed, anyway. The scope is set, it is the parameters that are being decided right now. All the spawns and likely areas will have to be adjusted, so its gonna be a lot of work either way. And it will be done on a timeline and workload agreed to by those doing the work.

If a dev uses that as I reason I fully feel for them - its gonna be work for everyone on this side of things, likely - but 1,2,3, or 4... its all a rework.

[DaloLorn]

I'll be honest. There was already a massive overhaul of mechanical systems on BG 3 months ago. Some players adapted, but the player count numbers speak for themselves lately.

So do the actual players leaving. But they do not say what you are saying.

The long-term effects of the martial revamp will be more readily apparent after the ToT lull wears off.

That the server is considering another massive overhaul and rebalancing effort so soon after the previous one suggests that there's no vision or direction at all, and they just want to throw changes at the wall to see if anything sticks.

Or it suggests that these are phases of a much larger plan. Your argument would be more credible if this were actually overriding the martial revamp instead of building on top of it.

Ominous. Wasn't a PvE rework supposed to be in the cards?

The whole point of this thread is to answer some of the questions that need to be answered for the PvE rework. Would you have preferred that we discuss this strictly internally and ram the changes through, player opinion be damned? It's an interesting stance to take for one of the most successful, most vocal opponents of the preceding revamps.

[AgentOrange]

The whole point of this thread is to answer some of the questions that need to be answered for the PvE rework. Would you have preferred that we discuss this strictly internally and ram the changes through, player opinion be damned? It's an interesting stance to take for one of the most successful, most vocal opponents of the preceding revamps.

That's a point I made earlier in the thread. That I voted for 4 because the previous revamp already messed with our builds enough. 1 and 2 just pulls the rug out from under players even more, and 3 does that to martials.

If the team wants to entertain 1 and 2, then simply wipe and create a new server. I'd even support that kind of fresh start. 1 and 2 go too far to just cram them into the existing server.

So do the actual players leaving. But they do not say what you are saying.

The long-term effects of the martial revamp will be more readily apparent after the ToT lull wears off.

Then we have clearly not spoken to the same people. It's a bit of both. The martial revamp in July was a contributing factor for some players stepping back.

Or it suggests that these are phases of a much larger plan. Your argument would be more credible if this were actually overriding the martial revamp instead of building on top of it.

1-3 are not exactly building on top of anything. They're steps backwards.

[DaloLorn]

The whole point of this thread is to answer some of the questions that need to be answered for the PvE rework. Would you have preferred that we discuss this strictly internally and ram the changes through, player opinion be damned? It's an interesting stance to take for one of the most successful, most vocal opponents of the preceding revamps.

That's a point I made earlier in the thread. That I voted for 4 because the previous revamp already messed with our builds enough. 1 and 2 just pulls the rug out from under players even more, and 3 does that to martials.

If the team wants to entertain 1 and 2, then simply wipe and create a new server for that. I'd even support that kind of fresh start. 1 and 2 go too far to just cram them into the existing server.

I mean, I agree. 1 and 2 sound interesting out of context, but I don't think they're appropriate to a server of BG's age.

But it's premature to assume that there's going to be rug-pulling going on, or that that rug-pulling is entirely avoidable by option 4. (Perhaps it's more appropriate to say that the NPCs will also get the rug pulled out from under them? ) Whether we pick option 1, 2, 3, 4, or some heretofore unconsidered option 5, the intended effect here necessitates a lot of changes to PvE and PvE-adjacent mechanics, including changing literally every NPC on the server. Each approach has its ups and downs, its positive and negative ramifications, but at the end of the day, the intention isn't to make the game harder. More challenging, more... involved, than buffing up and then autoattacking through a map? Perhaps; combat actions definitely feel like a push in that direction, and a PvE design that's more tailored to their existence would probably not be too favorable to buff-and-smash tactics.

At any rate, viewing this thread as asking "do you want changes?" is a non-starter. It's better phrased as "big changes are coming - what kind of tone do you want from them?"