Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Hardcore server (s)

Raxxo82Raxxo82 Member UncommonPosts: 150
So I've followed eqn and eql since they were announced and Im really looking forward towards playing eqn once its out. That being said Im just abit worried that SoE will create an awesome game with amazing lands to get lost in, just to make it easymode and destroy the whole sense of adventure that "danger" provides, just to cater to the squishies. A way to avoid it would perhaps be to create hardcore servers were mobs have more hp and/or hits harder. There shouldnt be any extra perks or rewards or anything, just a server with higher difficulties than the mainstream server. Would it be possible to do and would you play on "hardcore" server if there was one? I know I would..

image
«1

Comments

  • AlleinAllein Member RarePosts: 2,139

    If it was simply "harder" mobs that didn't provide "better" loot, I'd like to see it happens. When it is like Diablo/WoW where the harder the mobs get the better the gear, I think it defeats the purpose. Eventually with the "best" gear, the "hard" content becomes just as easy as the regular version.

    I honestly doubt many would be down for that though. As much as people go on and on about wanting a "hardcore" game, usually just means they want to be able to spend countless hours in game and have better stuff and or an advantage over those that can't/won't.

    As someone that no longer wants gaming to be a 2nd full time job (without pay), I doubt I'd be interested myself though.

  • satora54satora54 Member UncommonPosts: 31

    I would like it for harder content alone, but not loot drops.

    Maybe just different item sets and titles than the other servers would be cool, but not at all practical. 

    image
  • SupaAPESupaAPE Member Posts: 100
    Would be a nice idea. Seeing how some MMO's roll out patch content, to dumb down the game, maybe some servers could be labelled hardcore and not have the latest patches/content that is made to easier the game.
  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid Member EpicPosts: 10,720
    Originally posted by Raxxo82
     A way to avoid it would perhaps be to create hardcore servers were mobs have more hp and/or hits harder. There shouldnt be any extra perks or rewards or anything, just a server with higher difficulties than the mainstream server. Would it be possible to do and would you play on "hardcore" server if there was one? I know I would..

    This doesnt make a game more hardcore. This just makes a game more annying..... same dumb AI but now takes longer to kill.

     

    I personally would prefer to have people on the same server and add different rulesets on some areas of the world. Just like there are ¨contested¨ areas where different factions do open world pvp. Also add similar ¨dangerous¨ areas with a more hardcore ruleset. Maybe there are warning signs in game saying things like no trespassing, or enter at your own risk, or whatever. There would be stronger enemies in those areas (smarter AI, not just stronger), and also maybe pvp thrown into the mix. And inside those areas you could permanently die if you are careless.

    Things like that would make the game more exciting and risky while keeping the community together on the same server. And im not talking about a little piece of an area marked as hardcore, im talking large portions of a map (maybe even a whole area from a map) where you could travel it on your mount or just fight your way through and even do quests and run for your life lol.

     

     

     





  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member LegendaryPosts: 9,727
    Originally posted by DMKano

    No.

    The more rulesets there are the more of a pain it is to support (for the devs), and the more it fragments the playerbase.

    Make a game with the single ruleset and do it WELL, trying to appeal to everyone fails in the end.

     

    This

  • BurntCabbageBurntCabbage Member UncommonPosts: 482

    OP

    would it be harder to make a hardcore server..no

    but it will cost more money and thats what devs try to avoid..as far as im concerned eqn is just vaporware and would probly be lucky to even see a squeak outta eqn till next year or after or after

  • Gallus85Gallus85 Member Posts: 1,092
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    Originally posted by DMKano

    No.

    The more rulesets there are the more of a pain it is to support (for the devs), and the more it fragments the playerbase.

    Make a game with the single ruleset and do it WELL, trying to appeal to everyone fails in the end.

     

    This

    Yup^

    Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL

  • ArclanArclan Member UncommonPosts: 1,550


    Originally posted by DMKano
    No.The more rulesets there are the more of a pain it is to support (for the devs), and the more it fragments the playerbase.Make a game with the single ruleset and do it WELL, trying to appeal to everyone fails in the end. 

    In fact, one ruleset will pull in one specific type of player. Add another ruleset server and you will pull in a different type of player who wouldn't otherwise play it. It's extremely costly to make a game; creating a server with a lower xp multipler or a higher difficulty rating should be quite simple; and will bring in more players/revenue.

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • ridiadhridiadh Member UncommonPosts: 9

    Some things are easy on/off that wouldn't require any real extra code from the devs but would change the game up for different people.

     

    Examples: 

    No worldwide chat - Helps to create immersion because people would actually talk to the people they ran across to make friends.  Just turn off that chat option

    No fast travel - The journey is half the fun, especially if you are dodging the occasional giant or griffin.  Again, just turn it off. 

  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    Originally posted by Arclan

     


    Originally posted by DMKano
    No.

     

    The more rulesets there are the more of a pain it is to support (for the devs), and the more it fragments the playerbase.

    Make a game with the single ruleset and do it WELL, trying to appeal to everyone fails in the end.

     


     

    In fact, one ruleset will pull in one specific type of player. Add another ruleset server and you will pull in a different type of player who wouldn't otherwise play it. It's extremely costly to make a game; creating a server with a lower xp multipler or a higher difficulty rating should be quite simple; and will bring in more players/revenue.

    More than likely they will go with the 'usual' server types,  RP/PVE, PVE and PVP,  I don't really see SOE changing how they do things, and any other variations will probably be language based.image

  • MuppetierMuppetier Member UncommonPosts: 279

    If all mobs were effectively "elite" and could perhaps not be soloed.

    I would probably try such a server. It might not be the most popular ruleset but there could be enough players to support one or a few servers.

    But this could apply to any MMO not just Everquest.

  • Incarnatus2009Incarnatus2009 Member CommonPosts: 5
    Personally, I doubt there will ever be an EQ Next in the sense of a real separate entity compared to Landmark. It may be called Everquest Next but that is all about hype. It will be simply Landmark titled as Everquest Next. So far as hardcore .... it will never happen. SOE is all about the money and hardcore will never produce enough of that for SOE ....
  • k61977k61977 Member EpicPosts: 1,466

    I don't think it is making the game harder that is the answer most are seeking.  We need unbalanced classes, which can only be done if there is no pvp of any kind.  We need  class system that does one thing great but all other things just ok, but can't do certain things.  Need to get away from the one class can do it all, which is the dumbed down version of just about every game released in the past 10 years.  That would make a game harder as you would have to plan out how to do things other than just plowing through them.

     

    A lot of people would look at this as a forced grouping game but it doesn't have to be.  There are many ways of doing this without requiring grouping just to kill a single mob. 

     

    The reason I said no pvp is that as soon as it is introduced into a game they attempt to balance the classes which means everyone does the same thing.  You can't have this one class that just destroys everyone or it would be all that was played or it gets dumbed down.

     

    This will never happen again in today's development because they want to crater to everyone to make more money.

  • ButeoRegalisButeoRegalis Member UncommonPosts: 594
    Want it more difficult? Don't upgrade your gear. Use only whites that are outdated for 10+ levels. BOOOM!! Hardcore.

    image

  • Gallus85Gallus85 Member Posts: 1,092
    Originally posted by k61977

    I don't think it is making the game harder that is the answer most are seeking.  We need unbalanced classes, which can only be done if there is no pvp of any kind.  We need  class system that does one thing great but all other things just ok, but can't do certain things.  Need to get away from the one class can do it all, which is the dumbed down version of just about every game released in the past 10 years.  That would make a game harder as you would have to plan out how to do things other than just plowing through them.

     

    A lot of people would look at this as a forced grouping game but it doesn't have to be.  There are many ways of doing this without requiring grouping just to kill a single mob. 

     

    The reason I said no pvp is that as soon as it is introduced into a game they attempt to balance the classes which means everyone does the same thing.  You can't have this one class that just destroys everyone or it would be all that was played or it gets dumbed down.

     

    This will never happen again in today's development because they want to crater to everyone to make more money.

    Well EQN is sort of delivering what you want.  Their hope with the multiclassing system they've proposed is that many of the issues that arise from single-class single-role MMORPGs can be fixed while still giving people that same experience if they want it.

    Want to play a pure healer?  Just play a cleric mace/shield and slot in supportive/healing/defensive skills in your right hand skill bar.

    Group already has a healer?  Just swap to a different class and/or build.

    Want to solo and need a mix of skills?  Just swap to your hybrid solo build.

    I'm not sure what you're going on about "there needs to be underbalanced classes" though.  Pure balance is a myth in RPGs.  Every MMORPG that's ever released has had slightly or largely OP classes, slightly or largely under balanced classes and everything in between.

    Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL

  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521
    I would play on a more "difficult" server. There was mention that with the AI mobs could be "smarter" and therefore harder so the functionality is already planned. How far it can scale is the question since the harder mobs would be bosses. Making the regular mobs harder could pigeon-hole how hard the bosses are by comparison but maybe that could be solved by simply upping HP.
  • MardukkMardukk Member RarePosts: 2,222
    Originally posted by k61977

    I don't think it is making the game harder that is the answer most are seeking.  We need unbalanced classes, which can only be done if there is no pvp of any kind.  We need  class system that does one thing great but all other things just ok, but can't do certain things.  Need to get away from the one class can do it all, which is the dumbed down version of just about every game released in the past 10 years.  That would make a game harder as you would have to plan out how to do things other than just plowing through them.

     

    A lot of people would look at this as a forced grouping game but it doesn't have to be.  There are many ways of doing this without requiring grouping just to kill a single mob. 

     

    The reason I said no pvp is that as soon as it is introduced into a game they attempt to balance the classes which means everyone does the same thing.  You can't have this one class that just destroys everyone or it would be all that was played or it gets dumbed down.

     

    This will never happen again in today's development because they want to crater to everyone to make more money.

    I agree that completely unbalanced classes is the answer.  And the way to give PvE'ers powerful and fun PvE abilities and PvE danger throughout the world is to separate the abilities effects in PvE and PvP.  I support both open world PvP and difficult EQ1 style PvE danger.  Without danger/hardship there is no sense of accomplishment.  

     

    I hope that SOE keeps the virtual difficult dangerous world alive with EQN.  It is a fine line between lame tedious for no reason and creating that world that will give you that sense of accomplishment. 

  • Victor_KrugerVictor_Kruger Member UncommonPosts: 280
    Originally posted by k61977

    I don't think it is making the game harder that is the answer most are seeking.  We need unbalanced classes, which can only be done if there is no pvp of any kind.  We need  class system that does one thing great but all other things just ok, but can't do certain things.  Need to get away from the one class can do it all, which is the dumbed down version of just about every game released in the past 10 years.  That would make a game harder as you would have to plan out how to do things other than just plowing through them.

     

    A lot of people would look at this as a forced grouping game but it doesn't have to be.  There are many ways of doing this without requiring grouping just to kill a single mob. 

     

    The reason I said no pvp is that as soon as it is introduced into a game they attempt to balance the classes which means everyone does the same thing.  You can't have this one class that just destroys everyone or it would be all that was played or it gets dumbed down.

     

    This will never happen again in today's development because they want to crater to everyone to make more money.

    Combat in Landmark is going to be balance around pvp and that will transcend into EQ Next.  At the 10:45 mark David Georgeson talks about it in the gamespot interview. 

     

    http://www.gamespot.com/videos/e3-2014-landmark-stage-demo/2300-6419625/

  • MardukkMardukk Member RarePosts: 2,222
    Originally posted by Victor_Kruger
    Originally posted by k61977

    I don't think it is making the game harder that is the answer most are seeking.  We need unbalanced classes, which can only be done if there is no pvp of any kind.  We need  class system that does one thing great but all other things just ok, but can't do certain things.  Need to get away from the one class can do it all, which is the dumbed down version of just about every game released in the past 10 years.  That would make a game harder as you would have to plan out how to do things other than just plowing through them.

     

    A lot of people would look at this as a forced grouping game but it doesn't have to be.  There are many ways of doing this without requiring grouping just to kill a single mob. 

     

    The reason I said no pvp is that as soon as it is introduced into a game they attempt to balance the classes which means everyone does the same thing.  You can't have this one class that just destroys everyone or it would be all that was played or it gets dumbed down.

     

    This will never happen again in today's development because they want to crater to everyone to make more money.

    Combat in Landmark is going to be balance around pvp and that will transcend into EQ Next.  At the 10:45 mark David Georgeson talks about it in the gamespot interview. 

     

    http://www.gamespot.com/videos/e3-2014-landmark-stage-demo/2300-6419625/

    That's fine as long as the separate the effects on PvE and PvP.  There is no reason they can't do it.  Chasing that magical balance is going piss off PvEers and PvPers.

  • RydesonRydeson Member UncommonPosts: 3,852

         OP.. I"m with you  on this.. I have asked for years to have different servers with different rules sets..  When games have dozens of servers catering to PvP, PvE RP and normal PvE, why not have at least one that caters to a different drummer?  It baffles me that some are against your idea saying it would segment the player base.. Well if that was the case, then they would be admitting there would be enough interest for it to be noticeable.. Right?  Which defeats their position.. 

        I would love to see a harder server where maybe mob's don't reset after you run away 10 feet..  Have more hit points, etc etc.. Maybe insta travel is removed.. More severe death penalty..  What is it to the naysayers if I want to play on a different server?  It doesn't effect them whatsoever.. It's like golf..  Most casual golfers do NOT play the ball down.. They roll it around a little, it's what we call "Winter Rules" aka preferred lies.. Most golf leagues use winter rules, however I have played in one that goes by the book.. USGA rules, that you play the ball as it lies.. Is that wrong?  Heck no.. and casual golf leagues shouldn't be demanding or asking that USGA league to not be so hardcore.. 

  • Gallus85Gallus85 Member Posts: 1,092
    Originally posted by Rydeson

         OP.. I"m with you  on this.. I have asked for years to have different servers with different rules sets..  When games have dozens of servers catering to PvP, PvE RP and normal PvP, why not have at least one that caters to a different drummer?  It baffles me that some are against your idea saying it would segment the player base.. Well if that was the case, then they would be admitting there would be enough interest for it to be noticeable.. Right?  Which defeats their position.. 

        I would love to see a harder server where maybe mob's don't reset after you run away 10 feet..  Have more hit points, etc etc.. Maybe insta travel is removed.. More severe death penalty..  What is it to the naysayers if I want to play on a different server?  It doesn't effect them whatsoever.. It's like golf..  Most casual golfers do NOT play the ball down.. They roll it around a little, it's what we call "Winter Rules" aka preferred lies.. Most golf leagues use winter rules, however I have played in one that goes by the book.. USGA rules, that you play the ball as it lies.. Is that wrong?  Heck no.. and casual golf leagues shouldn't be demanding or asking that USGA league to not be so hardcore.. 

    I don't think anyone cares if there are different rule sets.  A lot of MMORPGs offer different ruleset servers.  The only real issue I could see is that the "hardcore" server players would want something in return for the increased difficulty.  Faster exp, or faster loot, etc.

    Without incentive for harder difficulty, then the server becomes low pop, and then they complain that the game is an empty ghost town.

    I personally support the idea of "hardcore" servers for those who want them, but I have no sympathy for people who complain about what they get or lack of participation when it's optional.

    Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL

  • KnyttaKnytta Member UncommonPosts: 414
    Originally posted by Rydeson

        I would love to see a harder server where maybe mob's don't reset after you run away 10 feet..  Have more hit points, etc etc.. Maybe insta travel is removed.. More severe death penalty..  What is it to the naysayers if I want to play on a different server?  It doesn't effect them whatsoever.. It's like golf..  Most casual golfers do NOT play the ball down.. They roll it around a little, it's what we call "Winter Rules" aka preferred lies.. Most golf leagues use winter rules, however I have played in one that goes by the book.. USGA rules, that you play the ball as it lies.. Is that wrong?  Heck no.. and casual golf leagues shouldn't be demanding or asking that USGA league to not be so hardcore.. 

    And you would of course be prepared to pay a higher subscription for that server? After all it will require separate developer time. SOE tried it with the raiding server in EQ with a higher sub and special events and so on. It did not work.

    Chi puo dir com'egli arde é in picciol fuoco.

    He who can describe the flame does not burn.

    Petrarch


  • RydesonRydeson Member UncommonPosts: 3,852
    Originally posted by Knytta
    Originally posted by Rydeson

        I would love to see a harder server where maybe mob's don't reset after you run away 10 feet..  Have more hit points, etc etc.. Maybe insta travel is removed.. More severe death penalty..  What is it to the naysayers if I want to play on a different server?  It doesn't effect them whatsoever.. It's like golf..  Most casual golfers do NOT play the ball down.. They roll it around a little, it's what we call "Winter Rules" aka preferred lies.. Most golf leagues use winter rules, however I have played in one that goes by the book.. USGA rules, that you play the ball as it lies.. Is that wrong?  Heck no.. and casual golf leagues shouldn't be demanding or asking that USGA league to not be so hardcore.. 

    And you would of course be prepared to pay a higher subscription for that server? After all it will require separate developer time. SOE tried it with the raiding server in EQ with a higher sub and special events and so on. It did not work.

    And how many games actually require a subscription?  WoW?  Eve?  Rift has multiple servers and it's FREE to play..  EQ2 and SWTOR and many others are FREE to play with multi servers..  So your point is what again?  The amount of dev time for different server rule sets is often minimal and not a financial concern.. 

  • Gallus85Gallus85 Member Posts: 1,092
    Originally posted by Rydeson
    Originally posted by Knytta
    Originally posted by Rydeson

        I would love to see a harder server where maybe mob's don't reset after you run away 10 feet..  Have more hit points, etc etc.. Maybe insta travel is removed.. More severe death penalty..  What is it to the naysayers if I want to play on a different server?  It doesn't effect them whatsoever.. It's like golf..  Most casual golfers do NOT play the ball down.. They roll it around a little, it's what we call "Winter Rules" aka preferred lies.. Most golf leagues use winter rules, however I have played in one that goes by the book.. USGA rules, that you play the ball as it lies.. Is that wrong?  Heck no.. and casual golf leagues shouldn't be demanding or asking that USGA league to not be so hardcore.. 

    And you would of course be prepared to pay a higher subscription for that server? After all it will require separate developer time. SOE tried it with the raiding server in EQ with a higher sub and special events and so on. It did not work.

    And how many games actually require a subscription?  WoW?  Eve?  Rift has multiple servers and it's FREE to play..  EQ2 and SWTOR and many others are FREE to play with multi servers..  So your point is what again?  The amount of dev time for different server rule sets is often minimal and not a financial concern.. 

    Adding just about anything in a massive video game title is a substantial time and money investment.  It's not like some guy decides that he wants a new server and just flips a switch, or adds 2 new lines of code and *POOF!* a new ruleset is born!

    There's a lot of work involved.  That said I don't think it's out of the scope of what a big company like SOE can handle.  They just have to weigh the pros and cons of such a decision and see if it makes sense for them to do it.

    Also, I'd point out that SOE picked up Vanguard, a fucking mess to trump all other messes.... then cared for it, added to it and kept it on life support when it was operating at a net loss, for no other foreseeable reason than out of respect for their players.

    So I see no reason to think that SOE Isn't capable of giving something clearly unpopular (like hardcore servers) a shot.

    Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL

  • SirBalinSirBalin Member UncommonPosts: 1,300
    Originally posted by Raxxo82
    So I've followed eqn and eql since they were announced and Im really looking forward towards playing eqn once its out. That being said Im just abit worried that SoE will create an awesome game with amazing lands to get lost in, just to make it easymode and destroy the whole sense of adventure that "danger" provides, just to cater to the squishies. A way to avoid it would perhaps be to create hardcore servers were mobs have more hp and/or hits harder. There shouldnt be any extra perks or rewards or anything, just a server with higher difficulties than the mainstream server. Would it be possible to do and would you play on "hardcore" server if there was one? I know I would..

    Full pvp with consequences ftw!!!  And clan war's built in!

    Incognito
    www.incognito-gaming.us
    "You're either with us or against us"

Sign In or Register to comment.