Feedback on Server Mechanics Direction

For Issues, Ideas, or Subjects That Do Not Fit Elsewhere

Moderators: Moderator, DM

User avatar
Rhifox
Custom Content
Posts: 3964
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 2:34 am

Re: Feedback on Server Mechanics Direction

Unread post by Rhifox »

AgentOrange wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 7:01 am 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?
This is the PvE rework. But it's a huuuge, server-wide project. This is the moment where we have to decide what kind of mechanics we want, because that affects how the rework is done. Do we rebuild for a 15 cap, or a 30 cap? Etc. This is not something we can change afterwards (except 3 and 4, which are pretty easily swapped between based on testing results), so the decision has to be made now because there won't ever be another chance to.

As for player count numbers, those are reduced more due to A) ToT, which I take credit on being something I should have done more work on to make it more fun for the player and B) because staff both DM and Dev burned out after launching the ToT/Martial update and new content has been a trickle since then. Players need new stuff on the horizon to be excited and inspired to login.
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
No vision? All this stuff is happening according to the overall vision. But there is a limit to how much can be developed at one time. This is a lot of (do-me) work and has to be done in stages. This rework was already planned and announced alongside the martial update. The systems developed for the martial update needed to be done so that when we redo mobs, they can make use of the new martial mechanics. The martial update happened when it did literally because I was working on a new dungeon that had mobs that use grappling, so I had to design grappling, which required a new combat GUI, so I had to design a new combat GUI, which then spread out into all the other things to put on that new GUI.

This is all part of the same overarching overhaul.
Tarina — The Witch of Darkhold, a dealer in spirits and black magic
JIŘÍ
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2019 5:28 pm

Re: Feedback on Server Mechanics Direction

Unread post by JIŘÍ »

Rhifox wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 9:43 am
AgentOrange wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 7:01 am 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?
This is the PvE rework. But it's a huuuge, server-wide project. This is the moment where we have to decide what kind of mechanics we want, because that affects how the rework is done. Do we rebuild for a 15 cap, or a 30 cap? Etc. This is not something we can change afterwards (except 3 and 4, which are pretty easily swapped between based on testing results), so the decision has to be made now because there won't ever be another chance to.

As for player count numbers, those are reduced more due to A) ToT, which I take credit on being something I should have done more work on to make it more fun for the player and B) because staff both DM and Dev burned out after launching the ToT/Martial update and new content has been a trickle since then. Players need new stuff on the horizon to be excited and inspired to login.
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
No vision? All this stuff is happening according to the overall vision. But there is a limit to how much can be developed at one time. This is a lot of (do-me) work and has to be done in stages. This rework was already planned and announced alongside the martial update. The systems developed for the martial update needed to be done so that when we redo mobs, they can make use of the new martial mechanics. The martial update happened when it did literally because I was working on a new dungeon that had mobs that use grappling, so I had to design grappling, which required a new combat GUI, so I had to design a new combat GUI, which then spread out into all the other things to put on that new GUI.

This is all part of the same overarching overhaul.

I am more concerned about how much additional work it would be for you and how massive effort it would undertake such a change. Might be easier for you to just adjust current system.
Discord contact: Haf#6089
User avatar
Bobthehero
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 2:45 am

Re: Feedback on Server Mechanics Direction

Unread post by Bobthehero »

Nathe wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 8:20 am Low RP Server: High player base - High OOC incidents - Low maturity - Low quality RP.
Hardcore RP Server: Low player base - Low to none OOC incidents - High maturity - High quality RP.
Lol. Right...
Aurelien Amon: Human fighter, member of the Whitewood Vanguard, Hoarite

Lotrik: Not a wise Genasi, probably stronger than you tho, a master of longswords. Fully retired

Bob Thairo: Dreadknight of Bane, Back on the Coast, tyranning away with his wife
User avatar
AgentOrange
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 12:34 am
Location: EST, GMT -5

Re: Feedback on Server Mechanics Direction

Unread post by AgentOrange »

Rhifox wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 9:43 amNo vision? All this stuff is happening according to the overall vision. But there is a limit to how much can be developed at one time. This is a lot of (do-me) work and has to be done in stages. This rework was already planned and announced alongside the martial update. The systems developed for the martial update needed to be done so that when we redo mobs, they can make use of the new martial mechanics. The martial update happened when it did literally because I was working on a new dungeon that had mobs that use grappling, so I had to design grappling, which required a new combat GUI, so I had to design a new combat GUI, which then spread out into all the other things to put on that new GUI.

This is all part of the same overarching overhaul.
By lack of vision/direction I referred to options 1 and 2. If the martial update in July is a step forward, options 1 and 2 seem like taking 3 steps backwards. Even if most of the foundational changes from July remain, it's still regression.

A lower level cap is an interesting concept for a new or rebooted server, but unfortunately BG is down the rabbit hole and out the other side in terms of level cap, itemization, etc. I don't even believe the power bloat is that bad. Sure, lowering the level cap could be mechanically done, but I think this thread highlights that it would be too divisive of the remaining community.
.:Marietta Thairo:. Former Dreadlord. Hell on heels. Retired with her family somewhere.
Freedom will not bring a better tomorrow.
User avatar
AsuraKing
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 7:51 pm

Re: Feedback on Server Mechanics Direction

Unread post by AsuraKing »

JIŘÍ wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 9:57 am I am more concerned about how much additional work it would be for you and how massive effort it would undertake such a change. Might be easier for you to just adjust current system.
Each of the 4 options (Yes including #4) are all TOTAL overhauls of the PvE experience, all of them will require massive amounts of dev work and reworking pretty much every NPC/mob on the server.
:happy-sunny: Sunmaster Barristan Schulltze :happy-sunny:
Heretic and former Vigilator of Bane and the Black Abbey
Barristan's Bio

Wizziewick Warrenwarden
Svirfneblin Burrow Warden

Thulzar Palerock
Questionable Medical Professional

Art Website|Art Instagram
User avatar
Rhifox
Custom Content
Posts: 3964
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 2:34 am

Re: Feedback on Server Mechanics Direction

Unread post by Rhifox »

AgentOrange wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:16 am
Rhifox wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 9:43 amNo vision? All this stuff is happening according to the overall vision. But there is a limit to how much can be developed at one time. This is a lot of (do-me) work and has to be done in stages. This rework was already planned and announced alongside the martial update. The systems developed for the martial update needed to be done so that when we redo mobs, they can make use of the new martial mechanics. The martial update happened when it did literally because I was working on a new dungeon that had mobs that use grappling, so I had to design grappling, which required a new combat GUI, so I had to design a new combat GUI, which then spread out into all the other things to put on that new GUI.

This is all part of the same overarching overhaul.
By lack of vision/direction I referred to options 1 and 2. If the martial update in July is a step forward, options 1 and 2 seem like taking 3 steps backwards. Even if most of the foundational changes from July remain, it's still regression.

A lower level cap is an interesting concept for a new or rebooted server, but unfortunately BG is down the rabbit hole and out the other side in terms of level cap, itemization, etc. I don't even believe the power bloat is that bad. Sure, lowering the level cap could be mechanically done, but I think this thread highlights that it would be too divisive of the remaining community.
The answers thus far have been expected and the early work I've done has already been along the lines of 4. But I felt it warranted to ask this question before any further work was done. I figured people would be against a large change, but it was worth bouncing it off of the community first because there won't be another chance to redesign things again after this.

So, the most likely approach will be 4, with 3 remaining on the table as something to try depending on how testing goes, since it can be easily turned on and off.
Tarina — The Witch of Darkhold, a dealer in spirits and black magic
User avatar
Anrilor
Retired Staff
Posts: 322
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:35 pm
Location: Somewhere in the Middle of Nowhere

Re: Feedback on Server Mechanics Direction

Unread post by Anrilor »

Rhifox wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 7:33 am Proposal 1: Level Cap 15
Reduce the level cap to 15. This is the biggest change to the way the server functions, but it also fixes the most foundational problems. Monsters can be used straight out of the monster manual with limited changes needed beyond coding their special abilities. Spells can be reset back to their original values. Characters have the appropriate number of attacks, the amount of content available for everyone is essentially doubled as there would be a squishing of the level range. More people to group with because the gap is smaller. Less access to gamebreaking spells. We could also remove 3b20.

The issues with this proposal is that it requires the biggest change to you, the players. You lose many levels, and have less options for customization. Your gear has to be scaled down to match the new environment, if not wiped entirely. Epic-level feats you've come to rely on will no longer be available (EDM, Expose Weakness, Epic Precision, etc).

Some ways we can address some of these problems:

- Open up access to templates to provide a new form of progression.
- Do an E6 style of progression where you can continue to unlock feats as you gain experience, without increasing actual level. This increases diversity and customization without increasing overall power.
- Adjust problematic mobs like undead so that essential epic feats like Epic Precision are no longer needed. (it's also less needed because of the content scrunch increasing the number of areas players have access to for their level range)


Proposal 2: FRCS Epic Rules
Use the epic level system provided by the Forgotten Realms Campaign manual. In the FRCS epic level system, standard leveling stops at 20. You no longer gain traditional levels, you never gain epic level feats, and so on. Instead, at every epic level, you choose from a selection of 'Epic Level Benefits'. These benefits are:

- +1 Effective Level (gain a level in a class, acquiring its features and skill points, but no increase to BAB, HD, or saving throws).
- +1 to an Ability Score
- +1 to Attack Rolls (this increases AB, but not APR)
- +1 Bonus Spell Level (1 spell slot per day above your current limit. Eg 10th level slots, 11th level, and so on, used for metamagic and such). Only selectable if you have 20 levels in a spellcasting class. Due to NWN2 limits on our ability to go above (or support) spell levels above 9, we could instead replace this benefit with one epic spell instead.
- Taking levels in some epic-level-only PRC.

As the basic combat numbers don't improve after 20, this reduces the challenge of developing content and encounters while still providing some level of epic level progress and customization. Due to being a change to how progression works, established characters would be reset to the new 'soft cap' of 20, and then build up from there under the new system. We can also remove 3b20 in this system.

This again has the issue with losing epic feats and requiring changes to current equipment, as well as dropping characters from level 30 to level 20, but maintains all the same options to address it as in proposal 1.


Proposal 3: 4 APR Cap
Use the current system, but cap BAB APR to 4. This is closer to the epic rules in the Epic Level Handbook. Content still requires scaling up for the Mechanic 30 Narrative 15 model, but otherwise nothing changes from how you play now. Damage output becomes more reasonable, making combat slower and less swingy.


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.



Regardless of all of whichever of these are done, I plan on adding an in-game building app to allow players to plan out their builds on live. This is the easiest way to getting around the issues with NWN2db being too old for BG, as an in-game builder app can pull directly from the game's own files.

Thank you for your thoughts.
My Vote would be 2, so long as RP EXP will still allow for progression into the epics. I played on a server in the past that had a soft cap at 20, that only allowed 21 through DM events, and that is just not feasable as many pointed out, there are not enough DMs to go around for all players at all times. If we had the proper ratio of a DM per 4 players, at all times, maybe, but current staffing as it is, its just not feasable to hold epic levels in reserve for those that get DM events.

Also most of our current CR 1-20 areas are fairly well balanced from spending my time in them, and we'd just have to extend that to our 21-30CR areas, most of the background rebalance would be there, but that would also be there for proposal 4. alot of our epic areas were built and designed to generally defeat x builds. This was poor design as others revolved in through, new classes added, new builds found, and then new areas added to try and counter that. MM was thrown out and things were given dumb resistances that they did not have in MM just to try and make it "harder." A white dragon with fire immunity rather then weakness throws off the narrative of fighting such a creature, and limits who you can bring with, due to some build being useless against it other then a buffer and then twirl your thumbs and wait for the massive hp pool to finally drop.

also the CR 21-30 areas could be there just for higher chances of rarer loot drop, but to earn a character capable to do so, you do have to interact with the wider community. We do say we are an RP community, that is how we advertise ourselves, so some incentive to play that way should be in place. I do feel this would be an execellent way to ensure highs play with lows, and I think expanding our level spread for exp gain could be widened further. Some of the best time I had as a lowbie Alyssia was just walking with Aaron in higher CR areas with him on parry mode RPing so he didn't kill the mobs and I could attack them, and we'd talk about martial things, or other stuff going on in the city while grinding both RP and mob exp. I do feel sympathetic to those older players that have busy lives and just want to log on for an hour or two a week and be able to run off and murderhobo (I say that with affection) things. I admit that is not my play style, so I would ask for those that do play that way, what is the difference in doing that at level 20 or level 30 other then just more mechanics to play with? You guys are usually the ones to find plot items in loot tables when DMs place them there, and we love and need you when you show up and go "Hey I found x item, seems important, anyone looking for these?"

Also by limiting 20 as the soft cap, murderhobos can help most of the new characters get to that 20, and 20-30 is the RP area, is where RP takes place to "earn the status of that powerful character." start partcipating in those wider DM narratives, gain knowledge and connections outside of what was your grind group, and start participating in the wider server story. That's not to say DMs can't run lowbie one offs or smaller 2-3 part stories, but generally those that play here want the larger stories that involve more people and aspects, and that needs to be balanced with the DMs skill to manage many people doing many things.

I know a Vault wipe is a very touchy subject, even with the prospect of holding onto your character. There are several active players here that do have a pride in the virtual items they have managed to recover from bosses, chests, monsters, and DMs. However as the server went on, item power has flucuated growing and shrinking to try and manage some sort of "Balance" but then things were "Grandfathered" in and that only served to cause problems with the new player base coming in, hearing the shouting and complaining about how x player has y item and they can never have it, because its not in game any more, has been a long standing point of conflict with older players returning with items that are more powerful then what is currently allowed. We've tried to ask to turn those items in and adjusting them, we've tried all sorts of options to fix this wider issue, without ever true resolve, the complaints always continued. A vault wipe, with a specific note of item power levels and rarity, would remove this long standing argument between new and old players, and give everyone a fresh start. This would be a perfect time to do it, with the narrative of "ToT has broken all magical items, the rise of the new Mystra, she wiped all magical items clean slate and made non magical." OOCly if we are going to change our CR areas and rebalance them, rebalancing our items as well should at least be a possibility. Obviously the DM team could home brew a million reasons why magical items lost their magical abilities. If we did the vault wipe, I would recommend stricter and lower then expected item power, and only slowly open the gates to higher power items and watch for balance changes over time, or at the very least, use those skilled in mechanics and analytics to try and predict the overall outcome of item power increases. Item power should only increase, never decrease, if we do have to decrease, all items being removed, needs to be removed or adjusted if DM item, no more grandfathering.


Lastly, for those that showed interest in 1 or 2 but felt it would be a lot to ask of the Dev team, I don't believe they would have offered the possibilities if they were not willing to put in the work for them. But that is just my reading into the options, no one should give an option they are not willing to undertake. Watching Rhifox in action this last year as server administrator has been uplifting for sure, when she gets an idea or concept in her head, she will see it through, and I love that work ethic about her that she puts into this community, along with the rest of the Devs that I had the privlage to work next to.

TL;DR

Option 2, with vault wipe but keep your characters, RP exp for 20-30
Last edited by Anrilor on Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Amora Lininlith: A shadow in the Dark, to protect the light. retired from the coast
Alyssia Leonheart: Heartwarder Returned from Cormyr
Katli Lovric: Selunite Warrior Priestess
User avatar
Rhifox
Custom Content
Posts: 3964
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 2:34 am

Re: Feedback on Server Mechanics Direction

Unread post by Rhifox »

Nathe wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:00 amProposal 3: You just make non casting blasters weaker this way. Direct opposite to the first proposal.
Lol what. Lower APR means less damage per round by martials means blasting spells compare much better. High APR is what makes blasting spells so weak, because the more damage martials do in a round, the less point there is to damage spells. Especially once mobs start getting inflated HP to compensate for the high martial damage.
Tarina — The Witch of Darkhold, a dealer in spirits and black magic
User avatar
mrm3ntalist
Retired Staff
Posts: 7746
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:31 pm
Location: US of A

Re: Feedback on Server Mechanics Direction

Unread post by mrm3ntalist »

AsuraKing wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 11:19 am Each of the 4 options (Yes including #4) are all TOTAL overhauls of the PvE experience, all of them will require massive amounts of dev work and reworking pretty much every NPC/mob on the server.
The difference is that 1-2 will also require complete rework of all classes, feats, spells and game mechanics. THAT is a lot of work that will have to be done ASAP unless you want BGTSCC to stay in limbo until those systems are implemented, tested and balance. Then hope you got it right. I will only wish good luck to those willing to undertake this task
Mendel - Villi of En Dharasha Everae | Nikos Berenicus - Initiate of the Mirari | Efialtes Rodius - Blood Magus | Olaf Garaeif - Dwarven Slayer

Spelling mistakes are purposely entered for your entertainment! ChatGPT "ruined" the fun :(
User avatar
artemitavik
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 10:22 pm

Re: Feedback on Server Mechanics Direction

Unread post by artemitavik »

Rhifox wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:04 pm
Nathe wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:00 amProposal 3: You just make non casting blasters weaker this way. Direct opposite to the first proposal.
Lol what. Lower APR means less damage per round by martials means blasting spells compare much better. High APR is what makes blasting spells so weak, because the more damage martials do in a round, the less point there is to damage spells. Especially once mobs start getting inflated HP to compensate for the high martial damage.
As noted before, if you limit the APR to 4, the combat modes that a great number of martials use rely on (which, consequently, most reduce their APR) will need to be reworked so they are still viable, otherwise, you've just removed potential effectiveness from the martials just to remove it, and the modes become useless as written.
Derik "Crimson Bulwark" Ranloss: Thugging for GREAT JUSTICE!!! (yes, I know he doesn't wear red)
Headmaster:Bladestone Foundation.
Owner:The Last Anchor

Braithreachas Leomhainn
"My purpose is to shed blood for those who can't, and to bleed for those who shouldn't."
User avatar
Rhifox
Custom Content
Posts: 3964
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 2:34 am

Re: Feedback on Server Mechanics Direction

Unread post by Rhifox »

artemitavik wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:12 pm
Rhifox wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 12:04 pm
Nathe wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 3:00 amProposal 3: You just make non casting blasters weaker this way. Direct opposite to the first proposal.
Lol what. Lower APR means less damage per round by martials means blasting spells compare much better. High APR is what makes blasting spells so weak, because the more damage martials do in a round, the less point there is to damage spells. Especially once mobs start getting inflated HP to compensate for the high martial damage.
As noted before, if you limit the APR to 4, the combat modes that a great number of martials use rely on (which, consequently, most reduce their APR) will need to be reworked so they are still viable, otherwise, you've just removed potential effectiveness from the martials just to remove it, and the modes become useless as written.
Of course those abilities would be changed if there was any change to APR. Admittedly, I'm not a fan of those abilities in general, and they've been a bitch to balance against everything else.
Tarina — The Witch of Darkhold, a dealer in spirits and black magic
User avatar
artemitavik
Posts: 1089
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 10:22 pm

Re: Feedback on Server Mechanics Direction

Unread post by artemitavik »

Then honestly, as much as I'd like a cap at 20, if that isn't a feasible thing/too extreme, then 3 or 4, whichever is easiest for the staff overall.

I know the abilities are a bitch, but they give a great amount of versatility to the game that other severs lack, which is BG's strength in many areas.
Derik "Crimson Bulwark" Ranloss: Thugging for GREAT JUSTICE!!! (yes, I know he doesn't wear red)
Headmaster:Bladestone Foundation.
Owner:The Last Anchor

Braithreachas Leomhainn
"My purpose is to shed blood for those who can't, and to bleed for those who shouldn't."
User avatar
Rask
Recognized Donor
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 6:34 pm
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Re: Feedback on Server Mechanics Direction

Unread post by Rask »

Rad-Icarus wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:38 am
Rask wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 1:20 am
Planehopper wrote: Thu Sep 29, 2022 11:51 pm

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.).
I like that there are more maps in the wilderness and more dungeons to explore. There may be too many towns, but honestly I would not want to be the one to decide which towns to cut out... and honestly I think it only feels like there are too many because of my next point:

My personal belief and opinion, is that what fractures the playerbase are these palacial guilds and faction headquarters and housing where small groups sequester themselves away in and rarely come out to interact with the playerbase at large. If people were actually spending time in the villages and city areas instead of in guild and faction houses... we probably wouldn't feel like there are too many areas. That is just my take.
Well you're certainly not wrong there. That is absolutely part of the problem. People lock themselves away inside their "club house" where nobody but their other members can interact with them. I used to see this complaint come up a lot from new players when I was active as a DM as well in game. I'd always be asked where everyone is and why they cant find anyone to play with. I appreciate it when certain guilds (Darius, Illmater and CK come to mind) whos leaders or members make an active point to hang out in public areas where they can be approached by others.
Rennec Rokranon, Chosen of Helm, Retired for now
Isra Wynterborne, Necromancer Hunter
Rask, The Lich, Retired
S.Ravenpath, collector and author of tall tales.
Nathka Blacksand - Khazark of the Enclave
Richter Bedevere - The Reveler and enjoyer of fine wines
User avatar
cosmic ray
Posts: 803
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 9:54 pm

Re: Feedback on Server Mechanics Direction

Unread post by cosmic ray »

I don't understand the extreme fear of vault wipes; such things help keep things fresh. There is this nwn1 server that regularly does vault wipes and people there keep coming up with new concepts, new plots, new conflicts. No vault wipes ever = Coronation Street.

Naturally, for vault wipes to enable fun on BG, the BG grind/quest system would have to be improved. This server has always had a grind that syphons players' entire existence into it unless they enjoy being level 5 after two years of playing (it's hyperbole, calm down) and, even though it was made a little better some years ago, Valefort has made it worse recently. We all know he loves to grind, but these repetitive circular grinds that last for hours and hours and hours are the lowest point of gaming, let alone of roleplaying.

Besides, we're all adults with real jobs now, and not school kids ignoring homework to play games all the time. Our hobbies stopped being the focus of our lives when we joined the workforce and started having to pay bills.
You are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute.
User avatar
Rask
Recognized Donor
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 6:34 pm
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada

Re: Feedback on Server Mechanics Direction

Unread post by Rask »

Endelyon wrote: Fri Sep 30, 2022 6:34 am 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.
This, so much.

We have been shrinking a lot over the last while, any massive changes that fully reset the server I think would end up as a death knell for those we have left. If we are going to do a "hard reset" of the whole server, its best to just release it as a new server entirely and hope for the best, but I honestly think that would just kill it. The fact is NWN2 is losing its players to NWN1 EE and the servers there, and while I agree things need a change up and rework here to some extent to keep people interested, I dont think drastically reworking the leveling system we've had for over 10 years now is going to do anything but cause long time players to leave.
Rennec Rokranon, Chosen of Helm, Retired for now
Isra Wynterborne, Necromancer Hunter
Rask, The Lich, Retired
S.Ravenpath, collector and author of tall tales.
Nathka Blacksand - Khazark of the Enclave
Richter Bedevere - The Reveler and enjoyer of fine wines
Locked

Return to “General Discussion”