Aayden said: Could something like this be solved simply? Say with the disposition system. Once you have a certain number of mobs they will all gain the "Angry Mob" disposition, where they will attack no matter what and FD does not fool this disposition. Therefore the griefer dies. Maybe the train still exists but your griefing efforts would not go un-punished.
If in conjunction with other mechanics, yes. Alone, it would still allow someone to train another group, even if it meant their own death. Hence why I added the "being chased" increasing snare effect. I like "Angry Mob" as a name, though. :)
Personally, if someone has to eat a death to attempt cause a death? I might be convinced that's an ok trade, but ideally, they couldn't turn any mechanic into a "death amplifier", that is, by causing MORE than their own/one death (like, six+, in a target group/raid they're trying to displace or wipe).
vjek said:Aayden said: Could something like this be solved simply? Say with the disposition system. Once you have a certain number of mobs they will all gain the "Angry Mob" disposition, where they will attack no matter what and FD does not fool this disposition. Therefore the griefer dies. Maybe the train still exists but your griefing efforts would not go un-punished.If in conjunction with other mechanics, yes. Alone, it would still allow someone to train another group, even if it meant their own death. Hence why I added the "being chased" increasing snare effect. I like "Angry Mob" as a name, though. :)
Personally, if someone has to eat a death to attempt cause a death? I might be convinced that's an ok trade, but ideally, they couldn't turn any mechanic into a "death amplifier", that is, by causing MORE than their own/one death (like, six+, in a target group/raid they're trying to displace or wipe).
I'd like a mechanic to add a different dynamic to trains, not a stop to training entirely. I think its evident the dev's want this mechanic in the game and i am okay with it. But in terms of diminishing the use of FD as a griefing tool with trains, there should be something that deters you from using it as such. *Edit* And not just community policing. While yes that works, i think its also fairly limited.
As far as a different dynamic goes... either the targets end up on the hate list or they don't. That's pretty much your only options, from what has been implemented in the past.
With locked encounters (at least, EQ2/VG versions) the mobs instantly return to their spawn point after their hate list is empty, and you can't be added unless the first group dies/yells. So, if someone tries to train you, they just end up dying and the mobs run back grey/unattackable. Training is thus impossible, even if they eat a death.
Or ... after the monk dies, they look for new targets and you're there, so they attack you. What other dynamic did you have in mind? And I'm not asking this question facetiously, I'm genuinely interested in what other options you have imagined beyond the binary yes/no hate list mechanic.
FFXI handled it a bit differently than EQ2/VG. Instead of the mobs greying out and instantly returning to their spawn point after their hate list was empty they would path back organically. Trains were still a very real danger but because there were no abilities like FD, they couldn't be dumped onto other players without first killing the original training player. In other words ... if you wanted to train other players, you yourself had to die before it could happen. I think a slight tweak to that kind of system would be ideal. Monks could be given a "toss a pebble" ability that could function very similarly to "rogue distract" which would still allow them to split encounters. They could even maintain FD as an ability but the CD should probably be increased considerably. Plenty of ways to go about this without changing the role of the monk IMO.
I too would prefer to see some restrictions on training, rather than focusing on FD which is only one means of abusing the train. However I think it is abundantly clear that VR wants training in the game. So do most of the people giving opinions on the forums (which may or may not represent the majority of pledgers - I will assume it does represent the majority). So let me focus on something that doesn't limit the training mechanism in any way. It merely imposes consequences on the trainer.
I note that some of the suggestions above with respect to feign death do not restrict training they merely make it more expensive for the trainer by making the likelihood of his or her death a lot greater. So let me suggest the identical result achieved in a different way. Do we need to even touch feign death to accomplish this?
Step one - I assume that the aggro system will keep mobs focused on whoever pulls them (whether deliberately or accidentally) and perhaps his or her group and not on innocent bystanders until the puller and group are dead, have zoned, or the mobs think they are dead (feign death or evac or some other skill removing them from the awareness of the mobs). So until this terminal event occurs the train is not a danger to the innocent. If the assumption is wrong all further analysis is likewise wrong.
Step 2A - the trainer dies. Consequences have been imposed, all is well, the innocents take their chances.
Step 2B - the puller (and his or her group if the aggro applies to the entire group) zone out or otherwise escape, The mobs return to where they were and no innocents are harmed - by good luck, careful yelling by the puller, or careful pathing by the puller to protect the innocents. All is well.
Obviously 2A and 2B are intended to work the way training classically does with no added game mechanics.
Step 2C - the puller (and his or her group if the aggro applies to the entire group) zone out or otherwise escape, The mobs go on a rampage and innocents die. The puller was unlucky, didn't care enough to yell in time (or at all), didn't care enough to take a path avoiding others, or was deliberately training others.
The law of shared consequences kicks in and the puller drops dead.
This not only achieves the desired result where the training is intentional - with no need to involve any GM - it strongly encourages any unlucky puller to yell soon, yell often, pick his or her path carefully, and if there is no way to avoid others just eat the death since it will happen either way. Fair enough since the puller *caused* the problem even if with no ill intent.
It does not nerf or in fact restrict feign death at all.
It does not change the way training works at all - the mobs do the same thing they would always do and anyone who dies is dead - the innocents get no protection from training in any way whatsover. They merely get some justice (and a far better chance to live since the puller gets a really strong incentive to be careful when running to the zone border).
Do you mean that after they zone out, if enough people die in the previous zone, they die without warning or indication? I mean, yes, it's funny and possibly just (in the justice sense) yet, I think it might lead to some /petitions depending on the time frame of attribution.
Setting FD aside entirely, if you don't snare the trainer, quickly and increasing, they can accomplish much in the way of evil. Such as, in your example above, making it to the zone line. :)
Please no.
One of two things happen when you try to social engineer play. You either end up killing game play to the point where the mechanic itself becomes a hardship/hassle for the honest player, or... you end up giving yet more tools for the person who griefs.
Best way to handle a griefer is community and eventual GM banning if it becomes blatant. In EQ, I also remember not having too many problems with this issue. I the small times I did, we solved it either by blacklisting the player to the point where nobody on the server would group with them, and in some rare cases if they were obnoxious, a GM would eventually step in.
I have no desire to play a game that has a ton of mechanics designed to protect people from a social game. If we need so many protections in such a game because everyone who would play this game is a complete arse and socially inept, then there is no point to the game in the first place. I would rather deal with a Pantheon that has open systems and concepts, but may have some idiots, than have a modern MMO with invisible walls and tons of artificial mechanics.
It's not a ton of mechanics. It's one. To protect from one known toxic mechanic. I have no desire to even discuss any other guaranteed social toxicity in pantheon, except training. Why? Because they've demonstrated it. :)
If they weren't so intent on including it? I wouldn't care in the slightest, because nothing else they could have demonstrated would be guaranteed social toxicity. It's not many. It's not two. It's one. One thing. "One one one" - Tom Hanks, Bridge of Spies.
vjek said:As far as a different dynamic goes... either the targets end up on the hate list or they don't. That's pretty much your only options, from what has been implemented in the past.
With locked encounters (at least, EQ2/VG versions) the mobs instantly return to their spawn point after their hate list is empty, and you can't be added unless the first group dies/yells. So, if someone tries to train you, they just end up dying and the mobs run back grey/unattackable. Training is thus impossible, even if they eat a death.
Or ... after the monk dies, they look for new targets and you're there, so they attack you. What other dynamic did you have in mind? And I'm not asking this question facetiously, I'm genuinely interested in what other options you have imagined beyond the binary yes/no hate list mechanic.
So yeah i appreciate you asking for what i had in mind and youre not coming off as facetious. Honestly, im not a developer, i have no programming experience so im not sure what is totally logical or doable from that standpoint. I dont necessarily have the idea in mind other than the disposition system creating situations where FD, should it be used in a gross manner, would be not go un-punished.
After the FD'ing monk dies due to the disposition i think could go either way in your examples. I think its most punishing in your first example. Griefing monk obtains a train that has gained the aforementioned disposition; they die. Mobs are unattackable while pathing back to their positions because they previously killed the player their disposition was targeted towards. This leaves the griefing monk dead and his intention of training completely diminished.
Which leaves the problem of well, what if the monk trains successfully and the disposition never triggers? What is an acceptable number where this disposition is warranted? I think that is an entirely different discussion.
Your second example seems more fitting. In that, the disposition triggers, the monk dies and his griefing efforts are still accomplished by training their intended target. Although successfully training, you had to take a death penalty hit for it, whatever that ends up being.
There probably isnt a fix to it all. Maybe im really just looking into a way to deter the FD griefing more so than to fix it or add a mechanic that would change trains.
FD splitting being described as "emergent gameplay" feels like one of two things. A fluke ... or a conspiracy. I'm thinking the former. Imagine if in Pantheon ... summoners get to summon their rafts and they drop from the sky. If summoners position themselves right, they can cause the rafts to drop on a pack of NPC's and separate them just enough to where players can split the pack and pull mobs individually. Would that be considered emergent gameplay today? I think it would be hot-fixed immediately. For some reason I think EQ would have been much more difficult (and less toxic) if FD would have been hot-fixed.
DND was known for intentional emergence ... and that seems to be what Pantheon is shooting for. Give players tools and encourage them to explore creative strategies in how to use them. (Ropes, ladders, rafts, etc) When I think about the saga of FD (how it evolved in EQ) ... it sounds more like a glitch or quirk-based strategy (players skiing up hills in Tribes, BXR-ing in Halo 2, rocket jumping in Quake, or the 2-1 combo from Street Fighter II) than intentional emergence.
I hope summoners become awesome split pullers in Pantheon by using summon ladder, summon raft, and summon wall of wood. That would be a fun conversation 10-15 years from now when new players (in a future game) who weren't there to witness the emergent phenomena of "summon wall splitting" personally get to understand and appreciate the history of gameplay and why it should still work that way today. (Well ... a future today.)
Of course that example is only complete if summoners can also summon ladders and rafts and walls in ways that allow them to kill other players.
I think it's a fluke that the ability wasn't nerfed. I think the summoner example I gave is pretty similar and there is no way it wouldn't be changed today.
If for some unforeseen reason one of the summoner abilities allowed them to be amazing pullers in Pantheon ... does that ability remain unchanged, and the class now gets the "puller" role added to it? Or does the ability get fixed? These questions are rhetorical, of course. Things are much different today than they were 20 years ago. Bringing back a fluke and then designing the game around it feels so incredibly limiting and "in-the-box" -- who cares how gimmicky it sounds/feels to the millions and millions of gamers who weren't playing EQ 19-20 years ago ... who cares about the drama, the history, the precedence. It seems more like a nostalgic throwback than anything else, to me. I'd rather see Harm Touch and Lay on Hands for that sort of thing.
((Do you mean that after they zone out, if enough people die in the previous zone, they die without warning or indication?))
The Devil is in the details. I wanted to toss an idea out there that I haven't seen before in this debate but it very well may be a crappy idea. I have opinions but many of you have more experience with training than I do and other things being equal if most people that understand training better think it is a crappy idea it almost surely *is* a crappy idea.
What I had in mind wouldn't be unlimited in time - that would both be very unfair and a lot more cumbersome to implement. It would have a short time limit indeed. Yes that allows abuses but Tanix is right to this extent - try and prevent too many abuses and the game gets screwed over. Better a tightly focused time-limited mechanism that prevents the worst abuses.
Also space limited now that the details are being raised. Innocents that die close to where the puller poofs.
If the train kills someone half a zone away on the way back (1) that could have been the pullers intent but probably was not; (2) yelling or careful pathing may not have been the issue so there is no reason to "punish" the puller for carelessness; (3) it is far more cumbersome to keep track of the encounter over such a vista of time and space.
So let us say that if you poof and innocents die within 30 seconds or other small amount of time and within 50 units or other small amount of space.
I say "innocents" not to bias the argument and raise sympathy for the dearly departed. If someone near the puller's path buffs or heals him or her or attacks or slows or roots the mobs or interferes in any way whatever they get what they get. They are not "innocent" in the sense I mean just as someone who interferes that way in pvp is generally instantly flagged and becomes pvp-vulnerable.
Aayden said: ... Maybe im really just looking into a way to deter the FD griefing more so than to fix it or add a mechanic that would change trains.
This got me thinking.. what if FD worked as normal, no changes, but this: If you FD within LOS or a radius (say, 30m+, tuneable, not spherical), whichever is larger, of any non-moving player character(s) (1+, tuneable, non-moving optional) that are not you, and/or your group or raid, you're held prone/paralyzed/silenced/petrified, can't be the target of any spell, and the first mob to touch you performs a no-miss stun + no-miss coup de grâce? :)
That means.. if you're doing your job as a puller, everything is cool. You start training folks, you're going to have to eat a death. If you're alone, everything is fine, too, flop your way to Nagafen. Flaws?
EDIT: Added these after some further thought:
Optionally,
Apply this status after 3 seconds of movement, and/or fade in an effect icon so you know you're "close" based on radius to another group. Two values, edge of radius, effective radius, gradient of opacity based on distance between those two values.
Optionally,
If you're within LOS or range of your group, everything with FD is as it is with EQ1 today. Staying near your group keeps you safe.
If you're not, a status icon would indicate when you were within range of another group, (maybe only if you were on the hate list of an enemy?)
That way, you would know you have to either run back the way you came, or run to your group, to prevent a guaranteed death.
And if 30m is too large, shrink it. Make it 10m. LOS would be larger than that in some larger rooms, anyway. It depends on what the "normal" aggro radius is for an area, as well.
vjek said:Aayden said: ... Maybe im really just looking into a way to deter the FD griefing more so than to fix it or add a mechanic that would change trains.This got me thinking.. what if FD worked as normal, no changes, but this: If you FD within LOS or a radius (say, 30m+, tuneable, not spherical), whichever is larger, of any non-moving player character(s) (1+, tuneable, non-moving optional) that are not you, and/or your group or raid, you're held prone/paralyzed/silenced/petrified, can't be the target of any spell, and the first mob to touch you performs a no-miss stun + no-miss coup de grâce? :)
That means.. if you're doing your job as a puller, everything is cool. You start training folks, you're going to have to eat a death. If you're alone, everything is fine, too, flop your way to Nagafen. Flaws?
I dont think FD needs to be changed necessarily. I would like to see a disposition added that combats FD as at get out of death free card/way to grief. As i recall, FD was never intended to be used the way it ended up being used. How it is going to be used is fine from a pve standpoint, griefing aside. But on topic of the OP and countering FD as a way to grief i think your example is changing the way FD works. With that change i have to be conscious if im pulling near people who arent in my group and can be punished as an innocent player. I think there are too many variables in that.
If anything, the counter to FD griefing should be simple but deterring enough for you stop and think twice about: Is it worth the community and the reputation hit youll take as a player? Also, the possible death penalty which is most likely a going to be a dig at character progession (xp loss, xp debt, levle loss etc.). I wouldnt call something like this "social engineering" as it would be something that is simply a deterrent, not an end all be all fix e.g. instancing.
Aayden said:vjek said:Aayden said: ... Maybe im really just looking into a way to deter the FD griefing more so than to fix it or add a mechanic that would change trains.This got me thinking.. what if FD worked as normal, no changes, but this: If you FD within LOS or a radius (say, 30m+, tuneable, not spherical), whichever is larger, of any non-moving player character(s) (1+, tuneable, non-moving optional) that are not you, and/or your group or raid, you're held prone/paralyzed/silenced/petrified, can't be the target of any spell, and the first mob to touch you performs a no-miss stun + no-miss coup de grâce? :)
That means.. if you're doing your job as a puller, everything is cool. You start training folks, you're going to have to eat a death. If you're alone, everything is fine, too, flop your way to Nagafen. Flaws?
I dont think FD needs to be changed necessarily. I would like to see a disposition added that combats FD as a get out of death free card/easy way to grief. As i recall, FD was never intended to be used the way it ended up being used. How it is going to be used is fine from a pve standpoint, griefing aside. But on topic of the OP and countering FD as a way to grief i think your example is changing the way FD works. With that change i have to be conscious if im pulling near people who arent in my group and can be punished as an innocent player. I think there are too many variables in that.
If anything, the counter to FD griefing should be simple but deterring enough for you stop and think twice about: Is it worth the community and the reputation hit youll take as a player? Also, the possible death penalty which is most likely a going to be a dig at character progession (xp loss, xp debt, levle loss etc.). I wouldnt call something like this "social engineering" as it would be something that is simply a deterrent, not an end all be all fix e.g. instancing.
So I'm on the side here of not imposing an artificial penalty on someone who (intentionally or not) trains another group. This does not mean I support intentional training at all, but I also believe in trying to maintain the integrity of the game world. As an example of what that means, I absolutely hate it when mobs "gray out" and refuse to attack based on level in most games, because it's simply not what most of those mobs should rightfully do within their world.
However, I do think that FD should not be nearly as sure of a thing as it was in EQ. I'm just being honest about that.
With that in mind:
Neph's thoughts on Trains
In a shared space, where encounters don't get aggro locked, trains can and should be possible. This doesn't mean they need to run rampant however. I'd like to see some sort of disposition-based leashing on mobs so that while some mobs might pursue a PC to the ends of the earth, others will give up and turn around if things start to get silly (or, if they feel like they're being led into a trap). We should be well past the days of having *everything* chase people to the zone line. Again though, I want this behavior to be based on mob disposition, which would mean that unless there were subtle clues, a puller might not know whether a mob would leash or not.
Disposition should also affect what happens when a mob gets pulled out of position and then the puller dies or drops aggro. Depending on disposition, some mobs might *not* aggro anything else (unless attacked) and just warily retreat back to their home area. Other mobs might be more aggressive and see another enemy and charge right in. Others still might engage in standoff behavior, waiting to see what those other adventurers are going to do, before leaving the area. The point is, again, base the behavior on disposition, rather than having everything behave the same way.
Neph's thoughts on FD
I have always had a love/hate relationship with FD as it was implemented in EQ - because while it was uniquely useful and effective in many situations (like west wall breaks in Fear), it was also a "Get out of Jail Free" button for monks and necromancers in many situations. So when we talk about FD in Pantheon, while I don't want to nerf it into uselessness, I want it to function differently than what we're used to.
For example, if you watch a martial arts film (or truthfully, almost any action film), and the hero is being chased by a bunch of bad guys, how often do you see that hero fall over and "play dead" and that actually works? The answer is, you don't. Usually what happens is the hero runs around a corner, then jumps up and holds themselves against the ceiling. Or, the hero sets off an explosion and then hangs on the side of the cliff. The bad guys run up, get confused, run off in random directions looking for the hero, and so on. But there's always that one who stops *just* where the hero is hiding, inches away, and you wonder... are they going to see the hero?
When I think about what FD *should* function like in game, *that* example is what I think of. Not "oh that guy fell over dead, I guess we're done here." So what that means in practical terms is that if FD or an FD-like ability gets used, the mobs shouldn't all immediately drop aggro and return to base. They should chase off in random directions. Maybe search the area. Stop and look around.
But wait, you say. Neph, what about using FD to split pulls! If the mobs don't turn around and head back quickly that would take forever! And you'd be right. Conceptually, I look at FD as an escape mechanism, not a pull splitter. When it comes to pulls themselves, what I would rather see monks (and others) doing is using abilities to distract one or more of the opponents. The monk might throw a pebble, distracting one guard while he tags the other. The rogue might throw a smoke bomb. The druid might conjure vines to entangle most of the enemies, preventing them from chasing. The enchanter might create an illusion. And so on.
I realize that my thoughts may not be popular. A lot of people really loved monk FD in EverQuest, and I get that. But because it was so powerful, it also contributed to a lot of problems (enabling intentional training, trivializing some encounters) that required heavy-handed solutions that, in some cases, just simply didn't make sense in the context of the game world. For that reason, I think we should learn from the past here and think about how we can nuance the ability itself so that it doesn't cause those same problems.
Yeah, I never really saw a problem with FD training in my days of playing EQ. Maybe now there will be more because of arses, but I don't think you should be trying to artifcially limit things because of these people. There will always be ways of griefing. FD is a fun mechanic that was pretty crucial at times for breaking into camps and setting a rythm for your group. It has a lot more good than bad tied to it.
Besides, if there are no corpse runs...then who cares lol. 90% of the time a monk tried to fd train me...which is very rare, I usually got away. Once you know the zone layout you can pretty much get out of any situation...unless they root like in Unrest, or summon. If that happens than you are screwed.
Nephele said:Neph's thoughts on FD
I have always had a love/hate relationship with FD as it was implemented in EQ - because while it was uniquely useful and effective in many situations (like west wall breaks in Fear), it was also a "Get out of Jail Free" button for monks and necromancers in many situations. So when we talk about FD in Pantheon, while I don't want to nerf it into uselessness, I want it to function differently than what we're used to.
For example, if you watch a martial arts film (or truthfully, almost any action film), and the hero is being chased by a bunch of bad guys, how often do you see that hero fall over and "play dead" and that actually works? The answer is, you don't. Usually what happens is the hero runs around a corner, then jumps up and holds themselves against the ceiling. Or, the hero sets off an explosion and then hangs on the side of the cliff. The bad guys run up, get confused, run off in random directions looking for the hero, and so on. But there's always that one who stops *just* where the hero is hiding, inches away, and you wonder... are they going to see the hero?
When I think about what FD *should* function like in game, *that* example is what I think of. Not "oh that guy fell over dead, I guess we're done here." So what that means in practical terms is that if FD or an FD-like ability gets used, the mobs shouldn't all immediately drop aggro and return to base. They should chase off in random directions. Maybe search the area. Stop and look around.
But wait, you say. Neph, what about using FD to split pulls! If the mobs don't turn around and head back quickly that would take forever! And you'd be right. Conceptually, I look at FD as an escape mechanism, not a pull splitter. When it comes to pulls themselves, what I would rather see monks (and others) doing is using abilities to distract one or more of the opponents. The monk might throw a pebble, distracting one guard while he tags the other. The rogue might throw a smoke bomb. The druid might conjure vines to entangle most of the enemies, preventing them from chasing. The enchanter might create an illusion. And so on.
I realize that my thoughts may not be popular. A lot of people really loved monk FD in EverQuest, and I get that. But because it was so powerful, it also contributed to a lot of problems (enabling intentional training, trivializing some encounters) that required heavy-handed solutions that, in some cases, just simply didn't make sense in the context of the game world. For that reason, I think we should learn from the past here and think about how we can nuance the ability itself so that it doesn't cause those same problems.
I agree with this. Lol i wish i had more to add but i think you hit the nail with practicality in FD. With the argument that this is supposed to be truly player vs environment as the devs claim. Mobs should have more mind that just "oh that guy fell over dead, I guess we're done here."(Nephele).
oneADseven said:FD splitting being described as "emergent gameplay" feels like one of two things. A fluke ... or a conspiracy. I'm thinking the former. Imagine if in Pantheon ... summoners get to summon their rafts and they drop from the sky. If summoners position themselves right, they can cause the rafts to drop on a pack of NPC's and separate them just enough to where players can split the pack and pull mobs individually. Would that be considered emergent gameplay today? I think it would be hot-fixed immediately. For some reason I think EQ would have been much more difficult (and less toxic) if FD would have been hot-fixed.
DND was known for intentional emergence ... and that seems to be what Pantheon is shooting for. Give players tools and encourage them to explore creative strategies in how to use them. (Ropes, ladders, rafts, etc) When I think about the saga of FD (how it evolved in EQ) ... it sounds more like a glitch or quirk-based strategy (players skiing up hills in Tribes, BXR-ing in Halo 2, rocket jumping in Quake, or the 2-1 combo from Street Fighter II) than intentional emergence.
I hope summoners become awesome split pullers in Pantheon by using summon ladder, summon raft, and summon wall of wood. That would be a fun conversation 10-15 years from now when new players (in a future game) who weren't there to witness the emergent phenomena of "summon wall splitting" personally get to understand and appreciate the history of gameplay and why it should still work that way today. (Well ... a future today.)
Of course that example is only complete if summoners can also summon ladders and rafts and walls in ways that allow them to kill other players.I think it's a fluke that the ability wasn't nerfed. I think the summoner example I gave is pretty similar and there is no way it wouldn't be changed today.
If for some unforeseen reason one of the summoner abilities allowed them to be amazing pullers in Pantheon ... does that ability remain unchanged, and the class now gets the "puller" role added to it? Or does the ability get fixed? These questions are rhetorical, of course. Things are much different today than they were 20 years ago. Bringing back a fluke and then designing the game around it feels so incredibly limiting and "in-the-box" -- who cares how gimmicky it sounds/feels to the millions and millions of gamers who weren't playing EQ 19-20 years ago ... who cares about the drama, the history, the precedence. It seems more like a nostalgic throwback than anything else, to me. I'd rather see Harm Touch and Lay on Hands for that sort of thing.
You never played EQ, yet now you are doing analaysis on the concept of emergent game play and the toxic abuse of FD in the game? /facepalm
Stick to FFXI, you have no clue what you are talking about.
Reputation is what will ultimately prevent grieving.
Today we are talking about FD. Tomorrow it will be another mechanic that could be use be as a grieving tool.
One time I joined a group, who liked to teleport you into the dungeon, then kick you from the group in a very dangerous place. The thought it was funny, and that’s ok, word got around and later they were always LFG, but could not find one.
But if try to eliminate all possibilities of grieving, you also end up nurfing every class down to boring classes that don’t matter. There are plenty of MMOs like that.
Let the community weed out the dumb asses. Keep classes unique. Allowing for classes to do something special. In the end that’s what I want.
Just like in the real world, there will be grievers and we will know who they are, and they are dealt with.
A RPGMMO should not be about safe spaces.
Tanix said:
You never played EQ, yet now you are doing analaysis on the concept of emergent game play and the toxic abuse of FD in the game? /facepalm
Stick to FFXI, you have no clue what you are talking about.
This is of aboslutely no substance to the discussion what-so-ever. I am not for de-railing threads and im not trying to do so but lets stay on topic and not attack eachother right?
Caine said:Reputation is what will ultimately prevent grieving.
Today we are talking about FD. Tomorrow it will be another mechanic that could be use be as a grieving tool.
One time I joined a group, who like to teleport you into the dungeon, then kick you from the group in a very dangerous place. The thought it was funny, and that’s ok, word got around and later they were always LFG, but could not find one.
But if try to eliminate all possibilities of grieving, you also end up nurfing every class down to boring classes that don’t matter. There are plenty of MMOs like that.
Let the community weed out the dumb asses. Keep classes unique. Allowing for classes to do something special. In the end that’s what I want.
Just like in the real world, there will be grievers and we will know who they are, and they are dealt with.
A RPGMMO should not be about safe spaces.
From my standpoint, i dont think we should eliminate griefing. But griefing should be something that doesnt go un-punished. Community policing will only do so much and there are certainly ways around that, simply through the facelessness of the internet.
Aayden said:Tanix said:
You never played EQ, yet now you are doing analaysis on the concept of emergent game play and the toxic abuse of FD in the game? /facepalm
Stick to FFXI, you have no clue what you are talking about.
This is of aboslutely no substance to the discussion what-so-ever. I am not for de-railing threads and im not trying to do so but lets stay on topic and not attack eachother right?
There is no substance to a discussion when people make wild accsuations about what a game was, how a mechanic worked and then start to establish a solution for it.
Answer me this, what point does a discussion serve on straw mans?
He doesn't even understand how it worked in EQ, much less if it was even a problem, yet he has established his premise as such. What use substance does that bring to a discussion other than to derail it into arguments that have no basis?