I'd like to reference a post shared by Kilsin a little over 2 years ago:
Kilsin said:bigdogchris said:The simalarities to EverQuest (there are many) may be due more towards the vast amount of experience the devs have with EQ moresoe than intentional. EQ did a lot of things right (relative to us) that don't need to be changed and that is reflected in this game.
This is a general post to help everyone understand this a little better but I am using your post to help get it started :)There are devs on the team who played or had a hand in creating EQ/VG and other games too so while your comment is true, I think it has more to do with the communities personal experience. Those who played EQ will be able to relate good and bad memories from EQ to Pantheon and express concerns/fears for Pantheon that they experienced in EQ, as will someone who played VG or FFXIV etc. and since there is a larger portion of EQ fans here in the community, it seems like there is a heavier lean to EQ references, memories and comparisons, so I can see why there feels like more EQ similarities but this is actually not the case at all and Pantheon has quite a few new and exciting systems, mechanics and features that make it truly stand out as its own unique MMORPG.
Like how VG evolved from EQ and tried new things to move forward and expand in the genre so will Pantheon with our Perception System, Climate, Dynamic Encounters, Progeny and many more!
So while people will be able to link personal experiences from other games to Pantheon I wouldn't get too worried or caught up on which game is more compared to because the numbers are loaded and not entirely accurate.
Pantheon is not a clone, copy or sequel to any game, it is being created with originality in mind and may tap into some systems, mechanics and features that other games also thought were a good fit for them. :)
We already know this...still don't know why you keep bringing this up over and over again. So I will say this again...no one is advocating for an EQ Clone. We are, however, advocating Pantheon to be built up foundationally like EQ in terms of its concepts and what made it a great game. So when we say we don't like a mechanic, or system in place, it doesn't mean we are closed off to the idea of a good mechanic, but just that it's something that isn't healthy towards what Pantheon is meant to be.
BTW you talk about final fantasy just as much as these so called EQ clone people.
It doesn't matter what game you reference. In fact, you don't need to reference any game, if you don't want to.
History bears it out, every minute of every day. Right now, on an EQ1 TLP server, someone is being trained.
Why? Not because it's EQ1. Not because it's TLP. Not because it's a game at all. Because humans are involved. If it is permitted, by the game mechanics, it will be done, forever, until removed. "Exploit early, exploit often", right?
Similarly, and not surprisingly, it's also why "bad things" are happening every minute of every day, earth wide. It's permitted, by the laws of physics, and so, is done by humans.
Unless it's removed from Pantheon, malicious FD training will be used, forever. Kilsins statement, for whatever reason, completely ignores the overwhelming game-agnostic historical evidence of: Humans Will Be Jerks If You Let Them. :)
Finally, they have demonstrated malicious FD training in the 2016 and 2017 videos. A lot. As a feature, humerously. Ignoring the lessons of history for this one mechanic is not a good thing. Why do I mention this? Because despite what Kilsin said, it's in Pantheon. We're not comparing it to some other game.
Ghool said: I think we should all play the gam first, see what kind of community and game play emerges before we start arguing over opinion and speculation. So far I have read nothing convincing me either way that allows or disallows any social or 'toxic' behaviors. How about we continue discussing what could be possible in a positive context? Let me ask everyone participating in these forums and these discussions this: Do you plan on grief in in any way, shape or form? Think about your answer, and how many others that are looking forward to a cooperative, community based social game would answer the same? Then I want everyone to ask themselves something else: do we really need anti-griefing rules in place, when we know what the majority answer is to the first question?
agree play then assess instead of speculate
i plan on griefing griefers
probably 1 of 4 would agree with my disposition
we don't need no damn anti griefing crap i just need to pvp flag, kill them and camp them till they log off
vjek said:It doesn't matter what game you reference. In fact, you don't need to reference any game, if you don't want to.
History bears it out, every minute of every day. Right now, on an EQ1 TLP server, someone is being trained.
Why? Not because it's EQ1. Not because it's TLP. Not because it's a game at all. Because humans are involved. If it is permitted, by the game mechanics, it will be done, forever, until removed. "Exploit early, exploit often", right?
Similarly, and not surprisingly, it's also why "bad things" are happening every minute of every day, earth wide. It's permitted, by the laws of physics, and so, is done by humans.
Unless it's removed from Pantheon, malicious FD training will be used, forever. Kilsins statement, for whatever reason, completely ignores the overwhelming game-agnostic historical evidence of: Humans Will Be Jerks If You Let Them. :)
Finally, they have demonstrated malicious FD training in the 2016 and 2017 videos. A lot. As a feature, humerously. Ignoring the lessons of history for this one mechanic is not a good thing. Why do I mention this? Because despite what Kilsin said, it's in Pantheon. We're not comparing it to some other game.
i agree with this. if humans are the problem then humans should be the solution not systems that can be exploited
oneADseven said:I'd like to reference a post shared by Kilsin a little over 2 years ago:
Kilsin said:bigdogchris said:The simalarities to EverQuest (there are many) may be due more towards the vast amount of experience the devs have with EQ moresoe than intentional. EQ did a lot of things right (relative to us) that don't need to be changed and that is reflected in this game.
This is a general post to help everyone understand this a little better but I am using your post to help get it started :)There are devs on the team who played or had a hand in creating EQ/VG and other games too so while your comment is true, I think it has more to do with the communities personal experience. Those who played EQ will be able to relate good and bad memories from EQ to Pantheon and express concerns/fears for Pantheon that they experienced in EQ, as will someone who played VG or FFXIV etc. and since there is a larger portion of EQ fans here in the community, it seems like there is a heavier lean to EQ references, memories and comparisons, so I can see why there feels like more EQ similarities but this is actually not the case at all and Pantheon has quite a few new and exciting systems, mechanics and features that make it truly stand out as its own unique MMORPG.
Like how VG evolved from EQ and tried new things to move forward and expand in the genre so will Pantheon with our Perception System, Climate, Dynamic Encounters, Progeny and many more!
So while people will be able to link personal experiences from other games to Pantheon I wouldn't get too worried or caught up on which game is more compared to because the numbers are loaded and not entirely accurate.
Pantheon is not a clone, copy or sequel to any game, it is being created with originality in mind and may tap into some systems, mechanics and features that other games also thought were a good fit for them. :)
@Oneadseven I joined here in Feb '14 right after the KS. I have yet to see anything about Pantheon being a clone or sequel; ofc it's not. What Kilsin said is true, but what's also true is the person and organizer who started this project (Brad) *literally made* Old EQ and VG. VG was not a clone/sequel of EQ. Were there strong similarities? Of course. Pantheon is not a clone/sequel to EQ and VG. Will there be strong similarities? Of course. The point I was making is VR and the masterminds of this project did not make FFXI and WoW, whereas they did EQ and VG. It really shouldn't surprise anyone that Pantheon will have some similarities to EQ/VG and much less so to FFXI and WoW. I mean heck, I learned that Chris Perkins played on the intense, old-school Sullon Zek pvp server in EQ back in day lol - good times indeed ;) That being said, I think Pantheon will even be a good fit to people who are completely new to the genre. It will be pretty different than ffxi and WoW though.
only reason i'd play pantheon is that it would be different than ffxi and wow. ffxi was too pve and wow has gone generic. it was really cool to get fire resist gear to do bwl and nature resist to do aq. they could have expanded on that yet they cut it out.
i'm personally looking forward for the specialized equipment for the dynamic climate system. as long as they don't chop the balls off pvp i'll be looking forward to a rich pve open world mmo.
Watemper said:BTW you talk about final fantasy just as much as these so called EQ clone people.
He/she does reference ff a lot. Anyway, I thought the same thing.
Chogar said:Another idea...
Give mobs a small low damage point blank AoE. Something that would be trivial for a group to worry about (or duo/trio). This way if a monk tries to FD train a camp they will get attacked by the mob(s) and taken out of FD.
And that would completely negate the ability to FD when you actually need it to work. The mobs cannot differentiate between a monk trying to FD split on purpose so their group can only deal with 1 mob vs a monk FDing to deliberately grief a group.
Nearly every idea put forth so far fails to address this important difference.
Vandraad said:And that would completely negate the ability to FD when you actually need it to work. The mobs cannot differentiate between a monk trying to FD split on purpose so their group can only deal with 1 mob vs a monk FDing to deliberately grief a group.
Nearly every idea put forth so far fails to address this important difference.
Unless the party is going to attack the mob directly ontop of the FD Monk this would not affect the Monk split pulling.
However, if the Monk trains a group the group can make sure they are standing over the monk.
philo said:The general consensus is that PoP and later was the downfall. There is definitely a disconnect on these forums between people who experienced all EQ had to offer during its prime and those who came later.
Pop is by far my favorite expansion. The competitve nature to progress and the vast amounts of content that was up to fullfill every guilds agenda was the most fun I ever had in the game. I think my only criticism of Pop was the shortened travel to get from place to place. The game in my opinion started to lose it's appeal when they started implementing instances.
vjek said: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.
This is probably the best option possible.
((This is probably the best option possible.))
Not to VR and not to many of our fellow pledgers who feel that the possibility of being killed by mobs fighting a different group makes it more of an open world and adds to the excitement and need to always pay attention to what you are doing and where you are.
Barring a major change of heart we will have training and leashes will be long or non-existant.
Thus the lengthy discussion of whether one can reduce some of the griefing while keeping the good features of this system.
Wudanar said:vjek said: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.
This is probably the best option possible.
Actually, this is horrible and one of the reasons many EQ players hated EQ 2 (it was a failed launch due to many of these features).
WoW is the result of socially engineered game play and notice how games like WoW are festering with unbridled social inept behavior.
Take away the protections, force players to group, and what you end up with is the abusers crying on the zone lines complaining about how they can't find a group.
People didn't all of a sudden become arses with modern games, they always existed, it is just modern games allowed them to be such without any consequence.
Also, keep in mind that with encounter locking, KSing becomes a protected and guaranteed means of taking a mob (You couldn't guarantee such with EQ as the group you tried to steal it from could respond by either training you, or out damging you).
Tanix said:Take away the protections, force players to group, and what you end up with is the abusers crying on the zone lines complaining about how they can't find a group.
People didn't all of a sudden become arses with modern games, they always existed, it is just modern games allowed them to be such without any consequence.
This is a complete fantasy propogated by those unwilling to have an honest discussion about this issue. I would sincerely hope we can have a serious discussion on this topic given the impact it has on the broader community, but in order to do so we have to stop this hand-waving of "The community will self-regulate." We have seen time and time again that this is blatantly untrue, especially in regards to gaming. We don't even need to look any further than EQ. Have we so quickly forgotten the griefing and abuse that happened even in the first year that the game launched, requiring Verant Interactive to issue a statement on how such behavior was driving away good players from the community? Just log in to any TLP or even P1999 now and the same behavior persists, even worse. Blatant monopolization of content, kill stealing, training, griefing, etc.
So, moving forward, let's lay to rest the notion that "abusers won't be able to find groups." That's a lie. They'll be just fine, as they always have, even in early EQ.
Now, as for FD? It's a problem ability, and let's be honest, it's really damn silly. What, you're convincing soldiers/bandits/monsters that want to feast on your flesh that you had a heart attack while sprinting a little? Come on.
How about this.. FD works on things like badgers and rodents and pigs, and if you FD against humanoid creatures or anything with at least the intelligence of a child you get a spear through your throat, instant killing you. That sounds much more plausible.
Sicario said:Tanix said:Take away the protections, force players to group, and what you end up with is the abusers crying on the zone lines complaining about how they can't find a group.
People didn't all of a sudden become arses with modern games, they always existed, it is just modern games allowed them to be such without any consequence.
This is a complete fantasy propogated by those unwilling to have an honest discussion about this issue. I would sincerely hope we can have a serious discussion on this topic given the impact it has on the broader community, but in order to do so we have to stop this hand-waving of "The community will self-regulate." We have seen time and time again that this is blatantly untrue, especially in regards to gaming. We don't even need to look any further than EQ. Have we so quickly forgotten the griefing and abuse that happened even in the first year that the game launched, requiring Verant Interactive to issue a statement on how such behavior was driving away good players from the community? Just log in to any TLP or even P1999 now and the same behavior persists, even worse. Blatant monopolization of content, kill stealing, training, griefing, etc.
So, moving forward, let's lay to rest the notion that "abusers won't be able to find groups." That's a lie. They'll be just fine, as they always have, even in early EQ.
Now, as for FD? It's a problem ability, and let's be honest, it's really damn silly. What, you're convincing soldiers/bandits/monsters that want to feast on your flesh that you had a heart attack while sprinting a little? Come on.
How about this.. FD works on things like badgers and rodents and pigs, and if you FD against humanoid creatures or anything with at least the intelligence of a child you get a spear through your throat, instant killing you. That sounds much more plausible.
This is a serious discussion, but you are unwilling to accept this was the case with EQ. Your argument is akin to those who never played EQ (or only did as a child) going on about how the only reason people want to play a game like EQ is because of nostalgia.
The fact is, today's games protect people from EVERYTHING. Because there is no consequence, a complete arse can go on through the game without any real consequence. Back in EQ, you were very limited on what you could do solo. That is, you had to play a specific class that had strong solo ability AND you were relegated to content that allowed for it (ie you could not go where you liked and solo anything). Because of this, those who had horrible social tact would end up only being able to solo and they would get bored doing this.
The fact is, there were major consequences to these players. Not only the social aspects (ie needing a group to really accomplish anything), but because people abusing mechanics were a two way street, the abusers often got their just due.
I played a monk in EQ, and in the rare cases where people woudl try to train us, KS, or the like... we would either black list them, or serve them up their own medicine. FS training intentionally was not often, but KSing would from time to time be an issue. The thing was, if we were camping a spot and some idiot walked in and tagged a rare mob that poped, my group would back away or invis while I would head over, pick up some mobs and FD at the feet of the KSing player. People learned very quickly that KSing didn't work well in EQ.
So, lets fast forward to mechanics you guys want. You want locked groups, with no agro on walk back. So, KS becomes rampant (remember, first to tag wins and so in my example, the guy who tagged our rare would now have it without issue). So, not only does the person KS the mob easily where we can't even DPS back the mob (allowing solo players to come in, tag a boss and solo it), but we would have no means to FD mobs on to him to keep him from stealing it.
Moral of the story? Modern game mechanics took away reprecussion of the players, allowing the arses to be compelte arses without consequence.
So I think you aren't being honest here and having a discussion.
Tanix, you are giving anecdotal examples without any substance whatsoever, implying that your experience is representative of the broader community and that these concerns are non-issues since the community can effectively self-regulate (untrue). I'd like you to read this, the actual statement from Verant Interactive on this matter:
Here is an explicit statement from those actually involved with running the game highlighting that the abuse you claim is counterable is in fact not, that the impact on player retention was so noticeable and traceable to this specific issue that real changes in policy had to be made.
It is possible to find a middle-ground between extreme protections like instancing vs. a free-for-all that will inevitably drive good players away. No one cared that you put them on your blacklist, whatever actions you sought to take didn't make a lasting impact. Did it temporarily solve your issue? Sure. Yet these players continued on, happily being toxic and abusive without any real consequences.
And please, you seriously believe that most players these days want to spend their limited game time dealing with griefers/trains/people abusing FD to grab their camps? Doubtful. Some level of in-game mechanics/design are necessary to mitigate against this behavior.
Community self-regulation is ineffective.
@Sicario When griefing happens, we handle it like Adults do. When griefing still happens you then contact a GM, just as it was done with Verant Interactive.
What you do NOT do is gut the game. Lol.
#communitymatters
Sicario said:Syrif said:Wrong.
#communitymatters
Compelling argument given I've just provided clear evidence that it doesn't work, from the developers of EQ themselves.
Honestly that's not a proof, but a statement from far ago. I'm not saying it's wrong, but that it's not a truth by itself.
The fact that community policy might not be enough or objective enough is a thing, but that doesn't meen a PnP enforced by GM interaction isn't possible. I think as a previous poster said, that human induced problems should be human solved, as no automated mechanism even has a chance not to be exploited otherside.
FD training exists, yes. Zoneline training exists as well. Invis training too. Even Charm training exists.
KSing exists, mob tag in FTE does exists.
All thoses have a common ground : The wish of a player to be destructive for others (I'm not talking about training / KS by accident that happens from time to time), and dampening gameplay for the fear of them will only results in a slight loss of gameplay and depth.
To answer on your previous statement of FD logic, It's quite a nitpicked argument as many dynamics in video games and MMO are illogic. Threat is illogic, tank swap is illogic, leashing (by zoning or not) is illogic, aggro radius is illogic. The game itself is only logic to the level we accept it is, and usually we are quite tolerant on it as if mobs had equal chances to win against us due to similar capabilities and perception, we wouldn't be playing at all.
To end : I love FD and I never trained anyone with it, I love the emergent gameplay of split pulling it created and how it differenciated good monks from bad monks back in time, and added a learning curve to a very boring and straigthforward gameplay. It's an iconic ability that exists in many other games, and I would not like it to be removed just in fear it's used for bad reasons. I will not play a monk main, and I don't care to run the risks of beeing FD trained, especially if It's against the game rules and get punished somehow.
Many other mechanics are prone to similar abuse even if they require a few more work, they are equally disruptive. (What about spamming cancel magic on a charmed pet to kill the charmer ? ) Do they all merit beeing removed or completely overhauled with mechanics doing them equally abusive for the sake of a relative security in game ?
Modern games allows many tools to track information and I think it's really easy to get a quick log of important actions and sort bad pulls from FD training on the CS side, and simply ban the player.
Interesting, Syrif, especially considering GM involvement has clearly been insufficient, as we can readily see in both TLP and P1999 servers today. There is ample griefing, KSing, training, monopolization of content, etc. that players aren't happy about and make it difficult to be able to enjoy all the content that's in the game, and that's due to toxicity and abuse that you're proposing should be handled by GM intervention. It's not.
And it's not gutting the game to implement reasonable, well-thought out gameplay design choices to maintain a community-based experience while mitigating against abuse and toxicity.
