I do not like the idea of camps. I personally will pay no heed to them. I think a lot of people will share a similar sentiment. It is a pretty crazy notion that a group of players can 'claim' content is theirs until they have decided to have enough.
You could argue having camps in the first place is bad etiquette and starving other players of content they are paying for.
Games need to move more towards dynamic rather than static spawn points
Jobeson said:Every single MMO I have played uses the common need before greed system. The personal loot idea never seems to apply to everything. Every single one of those games has players who need every single item for reasons like "I need money"
Shared tagging still greys out mobs after 5 players engage. Should your cleric not count because a new player showed up to contest the mob?
All of these systems still have social toxicity. Except instances, they just remove being social.
IMO:
In a true/pure personal loot implementation, there is no need and greed. Everyone gets their own, that's why it's personal loot. Many many MMOs use this, and it elminates any competition for loot. That's why it works to achieve the goal of removing any negative interactions, because you only get what you get. In some cases, you don't even see what others get, to further reduce any sense of competition. If you're playing games that have need & greed AND personal loot, then that's a hybrid implementation of both systems.
In any shared tagging implementation I've seen, there is no limit on shared tagging. Everyone gets quest credit. Everyone gets kill credit. XP is sometimes scaled, but in some cases, that too is binary/atomic. If you showed up and performed one action that is positive toward the/allies of the players or negative towards the/allies of the NPCs, you are considered a participant and you reap the rewards. Again, that's why they work because if you show up and do something, you get to progress. There is no FTE or MDD, and again, no competition and no player-to-player negative social interactions.
Even if you haven't personally seen the topic mechanics done well, Jobeson, they have been, they are, and they could be, in Pantheon. These are all solved problems, and have been for many many years. Most game designers don't even consider the possibility they would ever add anything else, because the solutions work so well in reducing CS burden. At scale, reducing CS burden is extremely important to the bottom line/profit margins, hence their widespread adoption for any MMO that is typically concsidered a financial success for more than 2 years, post-launch.
vjek said:Even if you haven't personally seen the topic mechanics done well, Jobeson, they have been, they are, and they could be, in Pantheon. These are all solved problems, and have been for many many years. Most game designers don't even consider the possibility they would ever add anything else, because the solutions work so well in reducing CS burden. At scale, reducing CS burden is extremely important to the bottom line/profit margins, hence their widespread adoption for any MMO that is typically concsidered a financial success for more than 2 years, post-launch.
They have been solved for years but no one seems to use it, not WoW or FF14 or the old FF11 or New World or SWTOR or ESO or LOTRO or BDO... I finally found one that uses the system you talk about, GW2.
In GW2 they weight the items to be usable by you and everyone gets their own version of the loot to pick over and use. The rabbits drop great swords if you use great swords. The game spoon feeds you things you can use for that constant gear treadmill. Both of these are horrible options I hope Pantheon avoids. Given how VR talked about loot I can't imagine loot will work this way where everyone just gets nothing, but one guy gets the class/race item they want at random.
Event fights did actually work well their system of tagging mobs to defend NPCs or complete challenges. You never had a forced short term group which was nice, simply 2 people helping the same NPC. They tracked participation to a degree for overall reward levels which was nice too. I do hope VR uses it for that type of thing specifically. The ability to jump into an ongoing event in the world was nice.
I had no idea that system was for literally everything in the game seeing as everyone can solo all the "group" mobs and events in open world. You can't tag easily tag anything when PCs are 2 shotting almost every mob. This is actually a problem for Pantheon. A world designed for easy solo loot and heavy teleport to fully instanced everything group related doesn't need the same rules as an open world game. Zerging mobs down in a group focused game doesn't sound like a fun option. We would constantly see 1.5-2 groups slaughtering dungeons designed for one group and giving everyone safe equal loot sounds pretty silly. Skill check? Gear check? Nah, just bring an extra healer tank and enchanter to go straight after the top quality loot.
To be fair to GW2, I only got up to the 40s before giving up on the MMO (You level fast), but the core feature to their system working was the open world is a meaningless cake walk and anything difficult is fully instanced.
So unless you have an example of a game who "solved problems" better I would disagree they solved them. They found a way to remove even more social interaction from the MMO by removing the thought of ever actually grouping for open world content.
IMO:
Yes, that a consequence of the solution. :) The social interaction of arguing over loot is gone. The social interaction of arguing over camps is gone. The social interaction of arguing over kill stealing is gone. The arguments are gone. In some cases, varying by implementation, grouping is certainly optional. Doesn't have to be that way, but some games saw that as a path forward and ran with it.
And what you're describing in the first bit is smart loot, a feature sometimes included in personal loot. Smart loot isn't the same as personal loot, but sometimes is included. Smart loot only gives you (or your group) things you need or can use. It has its place, depending on other game systems, but isn't required for personal loot.
vjek said:IMO:
Yes, that a consequence of the solution. :) The social interaction of arguing over loot is gone. The social interaction of arguing over camps is gone. The social interaction of arguing over kill stealing is gone. The arguments are gone. In some cases, varying by implementation, grouping is certainly optional. Doesn't have to be that way, but some games saw that as a path forward and ran with it.
And what you're describing in the first bit is smart loot, a feature sometimes included in personal loot. Smart loot isn't the same as personal loot, but sometimes is included. Smart loot only gives you (or your group) things you need or can use. It has its place, depending on other game systems, but isn't required for personal loot.
The solution to conflict in a group focused open world game is to not have a group focused open world game. I honestly assumed you thought various mechanics could be used in a group focused open world game. :(
I have plenty of doubts about VR's new use of instanced bosses, but still have enough hope in VR to be pretty certain no one is pushing to flip Pantheon to give up on the open world.
I suspect there will be more than enough personal interaction left even if VR miraculously eliminates all arguing.
Personal loot certainly is not needed to eliminate ninja looting. Have the default option divide up cash and almost worthless drops automatically and have people roll on the good stuff. By definition it isn't ninja looting to win a roll unless you found a way to break the system.
Does anyone here have a degree in engineering or computer science etc. Something with a tiny bit of math involved. Preferably a masters. :)
dorotea said:I suspect there will be more than enough personal interaction left even if VR miraculously eliminates all arguing.
Personal loot certainly is not needed to eliminate ninja looting. Have the default option divide up cash and almost worthless drops automatically and have people roll on the good stuff. By definition it isn't ninja looting to win a roll unless you found a way to break the system.
The people who roll on things they won't use is often viewed as negative. VR can simply go round robin only loot if they want to keep players looking to NGB in good faith from being taken advantage of by other players. I would rather VR help good players avoid grouping with these problem players a second time.
Xp/loot shouldn't be first to aggro or most damage done, it should be an equation that factors both in. The longer a group is fighting before another group joins in, the more damage the second group should need to do.
Make the second group out damage the first group by the percentage of time the first group was fighting before the second group joined. If the fight lasts 1 minute and the second group joined in 30 seconds into the fight, require the second group to do 50% more damage than the first group to win the xp / loot.
After discussing this topic with my guildmate Xodroc he pointed out that part of the solution to camps is World design. Specifically, he highlighted 3 things:
1. Setting up a "camp" actually causes extra mobs to spawn for your group, but not the "rare" or special ones that are world spawns
2. If you have a linear path that everyone is going to follow, it's going to get annoying fast. If you have things to do in every direction, people can at least spread out more.
3. Having areas that are large enough that a few groups are not going to be able to lock everything down is probably the best solution without introducing gimmicks
At this point, I find it hard to add something to the conversation since there are so many good ideas and suggestions (some less so). So I'll mostly comment on some of what has been written by others:Jobeson said:
Every player can leave a personal (or officers can leave a guild) note on every other player. It is often like an advanced friends list. You elevate the people you owe a favor to or had a positive interaction with also are easy to flag. Not someone who is a close friend but someone who you hope to play with in the future after having a good experience. Perhaps someone who came through in a crunch and you flag them as oweing them a big favor.
This is a really good feature to have on a personal level. With thousands (hopefully) of players in each server it is super useful to keep track of all sorts of important notes with respect to specific players.
With one caveat:Jobeson said:
Make it account wide, an easy bypass with an alt means the impact is meaningless.
This I don't agree with because it can be exploited to figure out any player's (offending or not) alts without any consequences.
StoneFish said:
The larger population could "tag" those that break the social norms. Enough "tags" and the individual starts to have a public marker or highlight of some kind, seen by all and impossible to hide. Something like an icon next to a name, or as the "tags" increase in number the player could glow or have some other outward indicator both in person and in text chat. This would be a known sign that the player has generated enough reports of poor behavior that others may refuse or be reluctant to group with them. For continuing to receive "tags" you could penalize the XP rate of those that group with them, making the player even more of a pariah.
Totally against this type of "systems". It can be easily exploited as Jobeson summarized:Jobeson said:
We have seen people banned in New World from mass false reports. People will do horrible things with the power.
I'll also add another thing - a system like that invalidates any nuances regarding the supposed "infraction". e.g: Suppose that a mostly decent person had a bad day and does something "bad" in-game and gets mass tagged as "bad". What happens next? That the sole weak moment in his life defines him/her forever in that server? This is, as Vandraad put it: "a recipe for disaster"
Want to tell everyone how terrible player X is? Two options off the top of my head:
1. /report to a GM for abusive behavior. Same for training, etc. Let them observe the player to check if he/she is indeed using abusive behavior. It isn't perfect but at least there's less of a risk of being wrong in determining whether the player is consciously being "bad"
2. Document the situation as best as possible and make a post on the specific server forum section warning said community about player X. Good for server community engagement. Makes the experience more social and less "gamee".
I get it. Most of us work for a living, and some of us have kids and/or other family responsibilities which leaves us with very little time to enjoy our hobby, at least compared to when we were teens playing our favorite MMORPG back in "the day".
But if we want Pantheon to be a mature and social MMORPG, using purposely built voting/banning systems to deal with bad actors, seems like an immature, lazy, and anti-social way of dealing with the problem.
I expect better out of this game and the CS staff.
In my opinion, Ranarius said it best:Ranarius said:
I have a fundamental problem with a lot of the ideas and suggestions to "fix the problem." Life is not fair, and to ME, that isn't a problem to be fixed. That is a problem to be navigated on a personal level, to use for growth, relationships, problem solving skills, creativity, engagement, etc. Can it be frustrating? Of course. But it's worth it by far.
This is by far the most mature and sophisticated post in this thread.
VR should turn this into one of the game's tenets as far as I'm concerned.
The exploitation element of any system should be a point of focus for additional work and effort to minimize. Many points made in this thread are excellent and most should be used to the degree that provides maximum results for least effort or tax on time of labor.
Examples of great idea in this thread by others.
-Reporting systems can't be allowed to be easily exploitated and a reporting system should not be abandoned because of the possibility of some exploitation. New World is a terrible example in most cases.
-Areas of high traffic and conflict could have a dynamic element that increases the target population to accommodate player want. (Exception for named/high value).
-rating system for positive player experience, rate players you prefer to group with again or find helpful and courteous. (The reverse of the badboy list) Players with a higher score can receive some type of reward.
Etc. Many good ideas.
But. And this is where I get a small amount of freedom because I'm not part of any affiliation with VR. "Life is not fair, and to ME, that isn't a problem to be fixed. ". Is again for the kids in the back, a wildly stupid sentence. It's a resignation of thought, it ignores truth, and proclaims that nothing matters and no order or law should be considered legitimate. It smacks of delirious contemptuous lazy thinking. The authority will decide what is fair and what is not fair, it's the central theme of this thread. To proclaim that fairness as a goal is invalid and then turn around and add ideas for a ruleset in an attempt to achieve fair play in the following sentences is vertigo inducing madness.
-
Hello,
I will give you an of example of things that would make me seriously angry, and honestly I don't see really any way to fight against such behaviour. Many of you have given examples of individual behaviour, but in my experience it is often groups that are the cause for the most frustrating experiences:
- you are at a camp and some other group, higher level, starts pulling the mobs you were camping. Imagine you are at a Orc hut and someones comes and just pulls the air out of your camp. Even with a FTE ruleset, if the group is higher level, they will have an edge, and sooner rather than later you will be chased by simple attrition. It gets of course even worse if you did the heavy lifting to break the camp. You can imagine of course that this would be particularly true when you camp placeholders for a named. You are here for a couple of hours, you broke the camp. And then comes this group and basically reaps the reward and move on, or make it so that you have basically no chance or almost no chance to get the named. That is one of the most classical examples I know and I really do not see much that can be done. Neither ruleset, nor even reputation will be of any help here. If they are higher level, your low level complaints are most probably irrelevant because their needs and their reputation is already settled in the levels and environement that counts for them.
OF course, if the camps are too few, then this can result in "camp stealing"... but the general idea is the same. Individual people might be toxic, but group behaviour is generaly worse.
StoneFish said:But. And this is where I get a small amount of freedom because I'm not part of any affiliation with VR. "Life is not fair, and to ME, that isn't a problem to be fixed. ". Is again for the kids in the back, a wildly stupid sentence. It's a resignation of thought, it ignores truth, and proclaims that nothing matters and no order or law should be considered legitimate. It smacks of delirious contemptuous lazy thinking. The authority will decide what is fair and what is not fair, it's the central theme of this thread. To proclaim that fairness as a goal is invalid and then turn around and add ideas for a ruleset in an attempt to achieve fair play in the following sentences is vertigo inducing madness.
Grobobos: that is definitely going to happen here. The basic approach is to engage that larger group in dialogue and attempt to find a compromise. But that assumed your not dealing with jerks.
In the real world we have contracts and contract law. Similar idea in a game world such as this is a server contract. You pay to have a server that has enforcement and moderation that a player set wishes to adhere to. The plebs pay 15 or 25 a month for the basic servers and the more mature pay 50 or 60 a month for a server with decorum and law. You can still run another group off the camp but you can't harass and attempt to ruin another game for no reason. Competition for resources and items is part of the play, just interrupting others play for no reason is detriment to the experience.
Edit: Ranarius. I get that you were not expressing that the world as you see it is a MadMax Thunderdome of madness. But the language and wording you chose is important. You confused that other guy who isn't even going to be playing PvE. The thread is about how we help move the needle on getting players to be more harmonious in a competitive world. It wasn't a good sentence or statement and if someone doesn't know who you are they can easily take it out of context. There are plenty of fools in the world who cheat and only care about the repercussions if they get caught. Those people live by the "life's not fair" motto , then act the victim when called out for the poor behavior after. That type I don't want to play with. And I sent you a private message
I have enjoyed the discussion and the insite and the ideas. I guess I just want to balance the "what should VR do about it" with the "what can I do about it" side of the discussion. Lots of people have ideas of what VR can do to help prevent poor behavior and enraging situations. Not many people have suggested what we can do on an individual level and the discussion really is about both in my mind. VR has talked a lot about training players to learn to play this style of game (paying attention to the world, it's about the journey, team work, etc) so I'd like to also include training people to play a game like this in how it relates to social interactions.
How should a player react when something "bad" happens to them? This is the question I'm attempting to get to. Not the question of "What VR should do to prevent the "bad" situations?"
So, what should I do when a player "kill steals" from me?
I should send them a tell asking them if they realized what they were doing. This of course opens up many different branches of what could happen next so I'll ignore the "best case scenarior" branches. Let's pretend the response is "Yes, I stole that kill, and I'm going to do it again and again and again." I would probably tell them that I don't appreciate it, knowing that they already know that doesn't matter, I should still say it. I should then take a mental note of that player and remember that I don't really want to hang out with a person like that. At this point I have a couple choices. I can either stay and keep fighting for that spot, or I can move on to somewhere else. If I choose to stay and fight for the spot I have to understand that I might not win, if I do not win it's not logical to continue to get MORE upset about the situation. I also have to understand that it's not going to be "efficient" if that is my goal. I also have to understand that if I do win, I've created an enemy of a player that already tends toward behavior that I do not agree with, which will likely bring on more retaliation. Is it worth it? That's the question I'd need to answer. So really, the thing that happened to me was a very small part of everything that comes afterwards. How I choose to react plays a much more significant role in how things "turn out" in the long run.
Now let's pretend the response to my initial tell is something more common (not the worst case scenario). Something like "ooh, sorry I didn't see you there!" Or "Yeah, I saw you, maybe we could share the space?" Or "Oops, want to group up?" Or something similar. Now you've opened up the conversation and opportunities to actually work together, maybe even meet a new player that you'd be willing to group with in the future.
Do I think VR should explore ways to help prevent "bad" situations? Sure, I have no problem with exploring those ideas. What I do have a problem with is when the solution ALSO cuts out a ton of other avenues for positive social interactions. You can easily lose the good with the bad if you're not careful.
Ranarius said:I have enjoyed the discussion and the insite and the ideas. I guess I just want to balance the "what should VR do about it" with the "what can I do about it" side of the discussion.
Both sides of this are important. I'm really happy with how this discussion has gone. It's a touchy subject because people DO have strong feelings about it, but everyone is making great points.
My etiquette philosophy is very much analogous to simple surf etiquette. Imagine "Endless Summer" narration while reading.
Grobobos said:Hello,
I will give you an of example of things that would make me seriously angry, and honestly I don't see really any way to fight against such behaviour. Many of you have given examples of individual behaviour, but in my experience it is often groups that are the cause for the most frustrating experiences:
- you are at a camp and some other group, higher level, starts pulling the mobs you were camping. Imagine you are at a Orc hut and someones comes and just pulls the air out of your camp. Even with a FTE ruleset, if the group is higher level, they will have an edge, and sooner rather than later you will be chased by simple attrition. It gets of course even worse if you did the heavy lifting to break the camp. You can imagine of course that this would be particularly true when you camp placeholders for a named. You are here for a couple of hours, you broke the camp. And then comes this group and basically reaps the reward and move on, or make it so that you have basically no chance or almost no chance to get the named. That is one of the most classical examples I know and I really do not see much that can be done. Neither ruleset, nor even reputation will be of any help here. If they are higher level, your low level complaints are most probably irrelevant because their needs and their reputation is already settled in the levels and environement that counts for them.
OF course, if the camps are too few, then this can result in "camp stealing"... but the general idea is the same. Individual people might be toxic, but group behaviour is generaly worse.
My counter point is why do you have the 'right' to farm that area/named mob just because you were there first. If someone only has a few hours to play and every time they log on, the part for their quest is under 'camp' it could get quite infuriating. I've never played a game with camps but it sounds very offputting to me. For this reason I think any important/named mobs should have numerous spawn points.
Savanja said:Whenever a large group of people converges into a single area, problems are going to arise. This is common in MMORPGs and for the most part, we rely on player social norms to guide etiquette. We don't kill steal, we don't jump camps, and we don't ninja loot. What happens when a player does these things?
What solutions, both the player side and the game side would you suggest? Join the conversation and let us know your thoughts!
Before addressing the complex issue of handling conflicts that arise in MMORPGs when large groups of players converge in a single area, it is crucial to consider a few fundamental questions. These questions help to establish a foundation for understanding the underlying causes of the problems and identifying potential solutions.
By addressing these fundamental questions, we can better understand how to approach the challenges that arise in MMORPGs when large groups of players converge in a single area.
To address these issues, game developers need to consider these potential conflicts during the design phase. While it may seem like a simple solution for a GM to declare that no one owns a mob except for the game developer, this could lead to chaos and unfair play. A more effective approach may be establishing guidelines and rules for players to follow, such as a system for determining ownership or killing credit.
Game developers can mitigate these problems by designing areas with player camps in mind. For example, in the case of the Spirit Manor, game designers could create designated areas for multiple groups to camp and engage in combat without interfering with each other. This would give players a sense of ownership over their respective camps and reduce the likelihood of conflicts.
Ultimately, game developers must anticipate potential issues arising from player interactions and design the game accordingly. By doing so, they can create a more enjoyable and fair experience for all players.
Spirit Manor
I believe that the Spirit Manor has untapped potential that could be utilized to create a more immersive experience. Have a group stationed at each step leading into the manor, and a bigger cemetery out back that could accommodate another group. Additionally, it would be interesting to have a basement area for yet another group. The crypt out back could be transformed into a mini-dungeon that leads to the basement through a fake wall that leads into a basement section closed off due to a crumbled wall that could be another group. Designing an area with groups in mind and having more things to do in that area would cause fewer problems because people would go where there are more mobs instead of fighting over a few at the same camp. The only problem with this would be if named mobs always spawned at the same place, but I think VR could spawn named mobs and different areas or have more named mobs with the same loot table.
I wonder whether the issues surrounding player behavior in MMORPGs are rooted in a shift from traditional camp-based leveling systems to quest-based leveling systems. It may be the case that players who are used to camp-based systems, such as those found in EQ, may be more likely to understand and respect the idea of camps and the etiquette that comes with them.
On the other hand, newer players who are more familiar with quest-based leveling systems may not have the same understanding of camps and may be more likely to act in ways that disrupt other players' camps. This highlights a potential disconnect between old and new gamers and the need for clear communication and guidelines regarding player behavior within the game.
It is important to consider the impact of game design on player behavior and to find ways to encourage positive player interactions while minimizing disruptions to the game experience.
Nytman said:Savanja said:Whenever a large group of people converges into a single area, problems are going to arise. This is common in MMORPGs and for the most part, we rely on player social norms to guide etiquette. We don't kill steal, we don't jump camps, and we don't ninja loot. What happens when a player does these things?
What solutions, both the player side and the game side would you suggest? Join the conversation and let us know your thoughts!
Before addressing the complex issue of handling conflicts that arise in MMORPGs when large groups of players converge in a single area, it is crucial to consider a few fundamental questions. These questions help to establish a foundation for understanding the underlying causes of the problems and identifying potential solutions.
- Can a camp be owned?
- Do you own the mobs at that camp?
- Will GMs enforce a policy like this
- Are you saying if I'm at a camp and another group takes a mob in my camp, is that kill stealing?
- How a GM handles a situation.
By addressing these fundamental questions, we can better understand how to approach the challenges that arise in MMORPGs when large groups of players converge in a single area.
To address these issues, game developers need to consider these potential conflicts during the design phase. While it may seem like a simple solution for a GM to declare that no one owns a mob except for the game developer, this could lead to chaos and unfair play. A more effective approach may be establishing guidelines and rules for players to follow, such as a system for determining ownership or killing credit.
Game developers can mitigate these problems by designing areas with player camps in mind. For example, in the case of the Spirit Manor, game designers could create designated areas for multiple groups to camp and engage in combat without interfering with each other. This would give players a sense of ownership over their respective camps and reduce the likelihood of conflicts.
Ultimately, game developers must anticipate potential issues arising from player interactions and design the game accordingly. By doing so, they can create a more enjoyable and fair experience for all players.
Spirit Manor
I believe that the Spirit Manor has untapped potential that could be utilized to create a more immersive experience. Have a group stationed at each step leading into the manor, and a bigger cemetery out back that could accommodate another group. Additionally, it would be interesting to have a basement area for yet another group. The crypt out back could be transformed into a mini-dungeon that leads to the basement through a fake wall that leads into a basement section closed off due to a crumbled wall that could be another group. Designing an area with groups in mind and having more things to do in that area would cause fewer problems because people would go where there are more mobs instead of fighting over a few at the same camp. The only problem with this would be if named mobs always spawned at the same place, but I think VR could spawn named mobs and different areas or have more named mobs with the same loot table.
I wonder whether the issues surrounding player behavior in MMORPGs are rooted in a shift from traditional camp-based leveling systems to quest-based leveling systems. It may be the case that players who are used to camp-based systems, such as those found in EQ, may be more likely to understand and respect the idea of camps and the etiquette that comes with them.
On the other hand, newer players who are more familiar with quest-based leveling systems may not have the same understanding of camps and may be more likely to act in ways that disrupt other players' camps. This highlights a potential disconnect between old and new gamers and the need for clear communication and guidelines regarding player behavior within the game.
It is important to consider the impact of game design on player behavior and to find ways to encourage positive player interactions while minimizing disruptions to the game experience.
That was a very specific and detailed comment about camps - thanks.
Back in DAOC (Dark Age of Camelot) players were rather fanatical about camps and the evils of camp stealing. But the game itself and the GMs took exactly the same view. Camps are a player construct and absent a violation of the rules of conduct anyone can pull any mob anywhere.
OK. My pitch for a high level VR decision to mitigate the probability of interactions with the discontent and irritating population. Most everyone outgrows anti-social behavior after adolescence. A small group will maintain anti-social behavior throughout life, let us ignore this group for now. For the majority of humans adolescence leads to a 10 fold increase in anti-social behavior . [ 1993 study https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674 ] This paper makes the outrageous claim that teenagers are a pain in the tuchus. We as a society know this and generally avoid the adolescent monsters, although people continue to make them for some reason.
So, can one of the servers be something to attract the more self control adverse? Call it the Sus Server or the Based Server? Can there be at way to build a digital padded cell with Prime, potato chips and Gushers candy piped into troughs? Can one server be a youth server? Concentrating the group most likely to be disruptive in one place.
Kilsin said:Nytman said:Savanja said:Whenever a large group of people converges into a single area, problems are going to arise. This is common in MMORPGs and for the most part, we rely on player social norms to guide etiquette. We don't kill steal, we don't jump camps, and we don't ninja loot. What happens when a player does these things?
What solutions, both the player side and the game side would you suggest? Join the conversation and let us know your thoughts!
Before addressing the complex issue of handling conflicts that arise in MMORPGs when large groups of players converge in a single area, it is crucial to consider a few fundamental questions. These questions help to establish a foundation for understanding the underlying causes of the problems and identifying potential solutions.
- Can a camp be owned?
- Do you own the mobs at that camp?
- Will GMs enforce a policy like this
- Are you saying if I'm at a camp and another group takes a mob in my camp, is that kill stealing?
- How a GM handles a situation.
By addressing these fundamental questions, we can better understand how to approach the challenges that arise in MMORPGs when large groups of players converge in a single area.
To address these issues, game developers need to consider these potential conflicts during the design phase. While it may seem like a simple solution for a GM to declare that no one owns a mob except for the game developer, this could lead to chaos and unfair play. A more effective approach may be establishing guidelines and rules for players to follow, such as a system for determining ownership or killing credit.
Game developers can mitigate these problems by designing areas with player camps in mind. For example, in the case of the Spirit Manor, game designers could create designated areas for multiple groups to camp and engage in combat without interfering with each other. This would give players a sense of ownership over their respective camps and reduce the likelihood of conflicts.
Ultimately, game developers must anticipate potential issues arising from player interactions and design the game accordingly. By doing so, they can create a more enjoyable and fair experience for all players.
Spirit Manor
I believe that the Spirit Manor has untapped potential that could be utilized to create a more immersive experience. Have a group stationed at each step leading into the manor, and a bigger cemetery out back that could accommodate another group. Additionally, it would be interesting to have a basement area for yet another group. The crypt out back could be transformed into a mini-dungeon that leads to the basement through a fake wall that leads into a basement section closed off due to a crumbled wall that could be another group. Designing an area with groups in mind and having more things to do in that area would cause fewer problems because people would go where there are more mobs instead of fighting over a few at the same camp. The only problem with this would be if named mobs always spawned at the same place, but I think VR could spawn named mobs and different areas or have more named mobs with the same loot table.
I wonder whether the issues surrounding player behavior in MMORPGs are rooted in a shift from traditional camp-based leveling systems to quest-based leveling systems. It may be the case that players who are used to camp-based systems, such as those found in EQ, may be more likely to understand and respect the idea of camps and the etiquette that comes with them.
On the other hand, newer players who are more familiar with quest-based leveling systems may not have the same understanding of camps and may be more likely to act in ways that disrupt other players' camps. This highlights a potential disconnect between old and new gamers and the need for clear communication and guidelines regarding player behavior within the game.
It is important to consider the impact of game design on player behavior and to find ways to encourage positive player interactions while minimizing disruptions to the game experience.
- Can a camp be owned? No
- Do you own the mobs at that camp? No
- Will GMs enforce a policy like this - No, we will enforce the guidelines, which include communication and being respectful.
- Are you saying if I'm at a camp and another group takes a mob in my camp, is that kill stealing? No, there's no such thing. You all have equal access to our mobs. If someone more powerful holds a group down, ask to join them or ask to pick some randoms from their pack or ask a friend or guild member to group up to grab some for yourself or leave and come back later. They are just a few options you could choose, but all are to be done within the guidelines and while being respectful.
- How a GM handles a situation. - A GM will try to cool the situation down and remind the parties involved of their options; failing that, they will enforce the guidelines, which may result in a warning, other types of action against the offender's account or a ban.
What option, Kilsin You basically said a group, when they see a mob, can pull it. That means there are no camps you can do whatever you want. A group member can pull a mob there are no camps by what you are saying.
All you have to do is not take someone else's mob because that would be kill stealing.
There is no reason to be upset if someone pulls a mob it is not theirs so we can all go off of that now... Thanks =)
lol, welcome to the wild west everyone =)