Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Could a player council be a thing for Pantheon?

    • 1921 posts
    July 9, 2019 7:25 AM PDT

    The only good/fun/interesting implementation I've seen of this is in Meridian 59.  What you choose to align yourself with, in game, with NPC's (or in a modern context, which NPC guild you support) eventually has consequences for the entire server.

    But they're not about reputation or individuals.  Whichever NPC guild is "in control" at the moment?  That affects the price of consumables, for example.  In some cases, certain classes or abilities require certain NPC sold consumables, and you may get a price increase or discount when they're in power.  You can see an overview of it here.
    Personally, I like that kind of system, and would support the implementation of global effects/plot changes as a consequence of NPC guild support by players, in Terminus / Pantheon.  Having NPCs insulate the actions of players is a great story and control mechanism that is typically thematically consistent, from what I've seen.

    • 3852 posts
    July 9, 2019 8:09 AM PDT

    vjek - I never played Meridian 59 but a system like that definitely would be interesting. My only concerns were with players controlling the reputation of *other* players - not with players having a wide range of things to do that affect their own reputations, and said reputations having a wider range of consequences. 

    I have played games where any conversation choice you made might have consequences not only with the NPC you were talking to but with others. And where conversation choices dramatically differed based not only on your reputations with various groups but on your attributes and class and crafting skills. Thus, a high strength character would have dramatically different choices than a high intelligence one and these would significantly change what quests it could take or complete, whether it could gain certain factions, the speed it could gain faction and the like. With rare exception my view is that the more compexity the better - a real world is not a simple place and the closer VR comes to this the better.


    This post was edited by dorotea at July 9, 2019 8:10 AM PDT
    • 1315 posts
    July 9, 2019 8:36 AM PDT

    @dorotea

    I am a big believer in big data.  Assuming that only 1 out of 25 players is unkind, 1 out of 100 is a griefer and only 1 out of 1000 is a true ninja looting, training, @#%@ then overall ratings will balance out.  An additional correction factor could be added in limiting the number of negative ratings that can be given out vs the players rating and how many positives they have given out.  The always negative people wouldn’t be able to do much as they will have few flags to spend and only the people that consistently offend a lot of people will have a significant negative rating and those are the people we want to be warned about.

    I am also more than ok with this being a selective server that has this system but it would need to not be optional on that server to be effective.  It could be an absolute train wreck once turned on and will almost be immediately disabled or it could facilitate a much more polite server.  Either way I’d like to see it tested on at least one server.

    • 3852 posts
    July 9, 2019 10:37 AM PDT

    I am all in favor of using servers to test ideas and hold special contests or other events not suitable for live servers. The only downside is if they drain too many people from the live servers - but hopefully we will have more than enough players. If I created a character for a special server like this it wouldn't stop me from also playing on one or more live servers. 

    So, Trasak - yes this would be an interesting experimental server and I would support it. 

    • 724 posts
    July 9, 2019 11:49 PM PDT

    Sure, I wouldn't mind testing it on a special server.

    But I want to say again, the original idea was not that such a council would tell people how to play, what to do etc.

    I intended it as a means to combat objectively poor behaviour. As it is, if you have a jerk player or guild, training, kill stealing, perma camping. As long as they're careful, they will be able to do this within the rules of the game. And there is NOTHING we as other players can do about it. Even if every other player or guild asks them nicely, they won't stop, because they CAN get away with it and it gives them an advantage.

    We can petition to VR of course, but that may take lenghty investigations, and still may come to nothing in the end.

    That's why I made the original suggestion: A council (or whatever form) of players/guilds could come to the conclusion (through a majority vote) that player/guild XY is a jerk and has done something wrong. I suggested that the council should then have some executive power to punish the jerk (for example, by stopping their access to a zone).

    But I understand that this is likely to be abused. Maybe such a council could directly work with VR - it would be a glorified reputation system/enhanced petition system. In that letter form however, there is not much point to the system again IMO, because again decisions are made by VR and will take time in the best case, and come to nothing in the worst case.


    This post was edited by Sarim at July 9, 2019 11:50 PM PDT
    • 297 posts
    July 10, 2019 4:32 AM PDT

    The reason reporting players takes lengthy investigations is because VR has an obligation to make the correct call with as much information as possible because there are ramifications for their actions, especially if taken hastily and incorrectly. 

    A player council beholden to nothing but the whims of the majority does not share that duty to be objective and just in its decisions.

    • 413 posts
    July 10, 2019 5:24 AM PDT

    Grayel said:

    I shudder at the thought of guild leaders, say from the early EQ days making the rules for the rest of us, because they behaved quite badly themselves. Blocking content, etc.

    i applaud your faith in humanity, but people tend to act in their own self-interest and those that they identify with. 

    The ‘others’, the rest of us, would not fare as well. 

     

    I agree.  I witness some really bad guild leaders take themselves way too seriously.  The less pedastals the better.


    This post was edited by Zevlin at July 10, 2019 5:25 AM PDT
    • 521 posts
    July 12, 2019 11:19 AM PDT

    I Don't see any harm in having something similar to what CSGO (https://blog.counter-strike.net/index.php/overwatch/) has where selected players can review reports summited to VR. And if deemed valid it can be escalated to VR.

    This would reduce the strain on VR to sift thought potentially thousands of reports.

    • 2419 posts
    July 12, 2019 11:24 AM PDT

    HemlockReaper said:

    I Don't see any harm in having something similar to what CSGO (https://blog.counter-strike.net/index.php/overwatch/) has where selected players can review reports summited to VR. And if deemed valid it can be escalated to VR.

    This would reduce the strain on VR to sift thought potentially thousands of reports.

    I bolded the important part because this is where the self-serving nature of the playerbase will completely screw up such a system.  Players cannot be trusted to act in the best interest of the whole.  Period.

    Say I feel like I've been harassed or griefed by someone so I submit a report.  It just so happens that friends of the person sit on this committee so they make the determination the request is not valid.  Such examples will happen and will happen often.

    If VR wants to reduce the strain, hire more people.  Do not put it into the hands of the players.

    • 521 posts
    July 12, 2019 1:14 PM PDT

    Vandraad said:

    HemlockReaper said:

    I Don't see any harm in having something similar to what CSGO (https://blog.counter-strike.net/index.php/overwatch/) has where selected players can review reports summited to VR. And if deemed valid it can be escalated to VR.

    This would reduce the strain on VR to sift thought potentially thousands of reports.

    I bolded the important part because this is where the self-serving nature of the playerbase will completely screw up such a system.  Players cannot be trusted to act in the best interest of the whole.  Period.

    Say I feel like I've been harassed or griefed by someone so I submit a report.  It just so happens that friends of the person sit on this committee so they make the determination the request is not valid.  Such examples will happen and will happen often.

    If VR wants to reduce the strain, hire more people.  Do not put it into the hands of the players.

     

    Thats not how it works.

    Player are selected by (in this case Valve), to serve as Overwatch (The Council). As a member of the council you are given a report to review, to give your opinion on it, but your not the only one, and you don't get to know who the player your watching is.

    Notice in this clip how it says “the Suspect” not the players name, your just reviewing this from that players eyes, and giving your vote on his guilt.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm0eSwqBpr4

     

    Heres anotehr one  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmiurFBdYQQ

     


    This post was edited by HemlockReaper at July 12, 2019 3:12 PM PDT
    • 48 posts
    July 28, 2019 3:51 AM PDT

    Sorry for a potential necro.

    This never works out.


    ArcheAge was a perfect example of the abusive behaviours of Players.
    The game had thievery, piratery and a prison for naughty people.

    If you were caught and killed you would be sent to court to be judged by other players. These players would have a report of what had transpired.
    They could then sentence you in-between short and long sentence. Guess what?
    No matter your crime, you were almost always sentenced a the longest sentence - because the other players could, even if you had committed the crime by accident. There is no objectivity in this kind of system, it's not the real world with actual consequences for the judges. It's a video game and the judges gets away scott free with a willfully wrong sentence.
    It will be abused by players on both sides. Those that keep to the "made up" community "rules" and those that don't.

    So long as a player does not break the ToS and EULA said player is doing nothing wrong but simply playing the game (this being abusive behaviour - ie. derogatory speech, flaming etc https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/1595/pantheon-community-guidelines <-- refer to this as to what abusive behaviour is. Stealing your mob, "camp" etc is not abusive behaviour). You don't like how he plays, sucks to be you. Note him/her in a blackbook and never play with said player again. Publicly shaming them, making lists of them (give out their name etc), make a website with a list of illicit players etc. will likely be against the ToS and/or EULA (it usually is).. Keep it to yourself and/or at best your guild/friends.


    This post was edited by Ashreon at July 28, 2019 3:56 AM PDT
    • 168 posts
    July 28, 2019 7:17 AM PDT

    This is not a wise idea at all. Sure the game is supposed to be about community. What community does 2019-2021 have? Will you get an EQ 1999 community? Hell no, you are going to get a Reddit community. I am saying that the words and meaning of "community" has shifted and not for the better. What would have been appalling and maybe even ban worthy in EQ or DAoC or something around turn of the century is now the ...norm and maybe even expected, new normal, behavior.

    In other subjects, VR has stated that they cannot have guide (volunteers) for a legal reason. They cannot take on freelance music composers and art people from the gaming community for similar reasons (previous posts here and on Discord that I am too lazy to look up). I see the OP as an extension of the things that may fit into this legal gray area.

    • 145 posts
    July 28, 2019 3:14 PM PDT

    I remember waiting on flag mobs for PoP in EQ. That was kind of a nightmare. Not so bad on our server because the bigger guilds all worked together somewhat. They weren't actively blocking other guilds from getting to progression mobs. But late in PoP expansion for the elemental flags and what not there was a lot of working together. I remember our guild was really good at locking mobs down, so the Rathe Council was easy for us. We were not good a zerging, so Coirnav was our achilles heel. Another guild lacked the Enchanters to do Rathe Council so we would take a few of their members and flag them (only providing they were past that point in progression as a guild) Like if they got new members and needed flags etc. 

    I don't know how it all got worked out I was not a guild leader but I'm pretty sure all the top guilds leaders and officers were in a channel together and in chat. It took a lot of patience and working together. If a higher guild came in and we were working on an encounter they would sit aside and give us 2 attempts before they moved in and took it. Lot of times they would go raid something else and come back. I doubt Pantheon will have any of this flagging issue, but it just goes to show what working together can do instead of butting heads and trying to block people from progression. I just don't think a council is the way to go about it.

    As or flagging people I don't like that one bit. Someone wants a camp and this person always beats them to the punch that person can flag them for some odd reason and now that character has a flag against them for simply playing the game. Can lead to a lot of problems and if I get banned from or can't play a game because of this I am most likely not going to ever come back and play.