philo said:@Neph
We very much disagree on this:
If a group wants to try Gnashura in Halnir's Caves, they should be able to do so. They shouldn't have to worry about whether there's another group down there camping him for his drops.
You should absolutely not be able to fight any mob any time you want (for a number of reasons). That is one of the positives in an open world/contested game.
That view point would endorse an instanced game. That is not what many of us want. A group should definitely have to consider whether there is another group in the spot they want or not. Open camps shouldn't be guaranteed...i just can't even comprehend...i... just no.
I'm not arguing for instancing at all. However, I am also not willing to accept a game where you have to sit on a waiting list for hours or even days simply to try a piece of content that you're interested in. I sincerely doubt that many people are, these days. I will note that there is a difference between "someone is in there right now, we need to give them a few minutes to clear out" and "someone has been in there for the past 6 hours and they don't look like they're going anywhere".
Again though, this does not mean instancing. It is entirely possible for the game to leverage more elegant solutions, as has been discussed many, many, many times in other threads on this forum.
I am sorry that you feel that all content must be 100% contested in order for you to enjoy the game. You are correct that this is an area where we will never agree.
dorotea said:...
I strongly disagree with the fondness many feel for camping - a fondness they quite likely did not feel while they were actually doing it. Killing mobs in one spot for an hour or two between traveling around to see other things and doing quests is fine - that isn't what I am criticizing. But if camping is the main focus of a game I think that game has problems keeping people interested. Heck - keeping people awake.
...
But most people *did* just camp for an hour or two between doing other things. That was exactly why (well, one of the big reasons why) EQ was great: The pace. You would spend an hour or two getting into a grove with a group and mastering a location, maybe including crawling slowly to that location if it's tricky, then go to the bank, go to the town, do some trading, hand in some quests, do some exploring, do some crafting, then log off and next session happily repeat. Maybe in the same camp if you had more interest there, maybe moving on to a similar camp or moving past to a more difficult one, or to a completely different zone, but always camp to camp to camp (with other 'stuff' in between for a change of pace or for necessary admin and prep).
For me, Evercamp is not an insult whatsoever. The Eversolo and Evers-speed-run and Nevercamp of subsequent games like WoW has always been the problem.
Never again did we have time for mastering our class, really getting to know an area, soaking up lore and immersive scenery, developing intricate tactical group play, socialising and making friends! Well, it was much much harder, at least, and hardly anyone's focus, any more.
Sure, there was the occasional multi-hour and multi-session-multi-hour camp in EQ, but that was for epic quest lines. A huge effort at the time, but maybe 0.001% of your time in game and *supposed* to be very hard. The only way to make things harder, when other 'normal' gameplay could be pretty hard, was to add in an element of unusual endurance and patience.
Personally, I have nothing against making someone camp an area for *many* hours in order to progress an epic quest, though I am down with the more modern idea of allowing that time to be chopped into more managable chunks.
But even so, if there were also a few quests requiring old-school epic endurance camps, I would be for that too, just maybe not for anything folks would deem 'fundamental' to their class, like the old-school epic weapons were. But for really good, rare items with huge bragging rights? Sure. Evercamp me!
I played a monk from 1st to 50-something a year or so back in EQ Project 1999. I did most of the epic camps including soloing the Raster camp starting at a level where it was very hard and dangerous and by the time I left I had leveled twice and honed the tactics to a point where I was a well-oiled machine. It took several multi-hour camps. Many, probably. I made a spreadsheet and logged the timings of all the spawns to get it regimented etc etc. It was grueling, but was also enjoyable in lots of ways and the satisfaction when I suceeded was unlike anything since doing my cleric epic in original EQ back in 2000 (maybe 2001).
Also, while there, I got to know a couple of other monks who helped me and learned the camp to come back later and we shared the camp (they were in a different time zone). Even after the herculean endurance test of that camp was done for me I was on such a high that I actually stayed for a few hours and helped a monk I had befriended get his - amazingly he got it within a couple of hours of my drop, even though I probably took, all-in-all, about 40 hours to get mine.
I also really enjoyed Karnor's Castle getting my pipe for part of the epic. There are maybe a dozen different camps in there and I did every one, slowly over the days and weeks moving through and learning all the camps and the intricacies of the zone all the way to the most dangerous and, as often as possible, doing the ones I knew dropped my epic component and other monk equipment. It was an awesome experience, to slowly master that whole zone and it took many hours in many camps to do it.
As I said in my previous post, the only time these efforts aren't enjoyable is when a zone is over-populated or high level farmers are blocking a camp. That can be fixed. Camping itself does not need to be 'fixed'.
philo said:@Neph
We very much disagree on this:
If a group wants to try Gnashura in Halnir's Caves, they should be able to do so. They shouldn't have to worry about whether there's another group down there camping him for his drops.
You should absolutely not be able to fight any mob any time you want (for a number of reasons). That is one of the positives in an open world/contested game.
That view point would endorse an instanced game. That is not what many of us want. A group should definitely have to consider whether there is another group in the spot they want or not. Open camps shouldn't be guaranteed...i just can't even comprehend...i... just no.
Absolutely what philo just said, no "always win participation trophies". Sometimes you need get their and you will just have to wait your turn, sometimes your turn may not come in the time frame you hope, and when your turn does come you may not get the drop you want.
But if persistent, when it does come it the victory will be that much sweeter. Yin and Yang,
philo said:@neph
You never have to wait on a list. There is a whole world of other options of things you can do. The problem is how you are playing if you think you have to wait on a list. Not the game.
Not exactly in those words but if VR is able to follow through on their statement that there will be multiple comparable pieces of gear for all slot for all characters then the need to camp that one perfect item will not be required. You might have 2 different camps or a challenging crafting combination to get a preraid haste belt, it need not be everyone trying to camp the fbss 24/7 because it is the only option in game. Once there are multiple sourcing options the pressure on a single source goes down.
Trasak said:philo said:@neph
You never have to wait on a list. There is a whole world of other options of things you can do. The problem is how you are playing if you think you have to wait on a list. Not the game.
Not exactly in those words but if VR is able to follow through on their statement that there will be multiple comparable pieces of gear for all slot for all characters then the need to camp that one perfect item will not be required. You might have 2 different camps or a challenging crafting combination to get a preraid haste belt, it need not be everyone trying to camp the fbss 24/7 because it is the only option in game. Once there are multiple sourcing options the pressure on a single source goes down.
True, that has been talked about (i remember brad using the fbss as an example). We will see if that ends up the reality.
philo said:@neph
You never have to wait on a list. There is a whole world of other options of things you can do. The problem is how you are playing if you think you have to wait on a list. Not the game.
I'm sorry, that statement seems like the height of hubris to me. Are you seriously suggesting that if someone wants to fight a particular boss and is blocked because that boss is permacamped, that they are WRONG for wanting to fight that boss? Seriously?
Allowing bosses to be camped for long periods of time by the same group leads to toxic player behavior. Period. We have 20 years of EverQuest and it's various incarnations as evidence of this. It is absolutely illogical and honestly stupid to expect that people will not become hyper-competitive over camps if you set things up this way. Do you really want to set up a co-op PVE game where training and killstealing is a generally accepted practice among players? I'm all for that stuff on a PvP server where groups can murder each other over spawns, but that's not something that I or many other people would play.
I didn't mention it above but one of Pantheon's direct predecessors already leveraged a solution that many players agree worked well for the problem of contested boss fights - and it was not instancing.
Pantheon is not and should not be P99 in a new setting. There is absolutely no reason to repeat the mistakes of that game when better solutions exist that are more fun for everyone. The challenge should come from the content, not the other players.
And yes, I'm argumentative today. But this has been a debate in the community for a very long time and there are many people here who do not find what you are describing to be fun. If we want Pantheon to be successful, there *must* be a better solution in place to allow sharing of content.
Nephele said:philo said:@Neph
We very much disagree on this:
If a group wants to try Gnashura in Halnir's Caves, they should be able to do so. They shouldn't have to worry about whether there's another group down there camping him for his drops.
You should absolutely not be able to fight any mob any time you want (for a number of reasons). That is one of the positives in an open world/contested game.
That view point would endorse an instanced game. That is not what many of us want. A group should definitely have to consider whether there is another group in the spot they want or not. Open camps shouldn't be guaranteed...i just can't even comprehend...i... just no.
I'm not arguing for instancing at all. However, I am also not willing to accept a game where you have to sit on a waiting list for hours or even days simply to try a piece of content that you're interested in. I sincerely doubt that many people are, these days. I will note that there is a difference between "someone is in there right now, we need to give them a few minutes to clear out" and "someone has been in there for the past 6 hours and they don't look like they're going anywhere".
Again though, this does not mean instancing. It is entirely possible for the game to leverage more elegant solutions, as has been discussed many, many, many times in other threads on this forum.
I am sorry that you feel that all content must be 100% contested in order for you to enjoy the game. You are correct that this is an area where we will never agree.
Me too and we probably don't need to start up this argument again. Some see open world as contention and competition and want it, some see it as cooperation and shared experiences and want that.
I will never understand the mindset of people who *need* to 'beat' others to enjoy something. I don't get it when people will enjoy something more if it's at the expense of others' enjoyment.
They will never understand that sharing is working together is more enjoyable to those others and that they don't *want* to compete in some crappy pseudo-PvP.
One of the most magical things about Dungeons and Dragons was to have a game where you finally played *with* your friends. When computer MMORPGs came along, no one even had to be the dungeon master and play the monsters; we all played together. Perfect.
I know I said we don't need to argue this again and what I'm saying will always surely cause an argument... *sigh* I don't doubt I will be being cursed as a 'carebear' and someone who's 'scared to lose' or a SJW who wants participation trophies for all... "You'll ruin the game!" I've heard it all. No, that's not it. I play PvP games when I want 'contention' and I enjoy them. I simply want my MMORPG to be the game it always used to be and was supposed to be at heart: PvE. Cooperative.
To get back to the camping subject: -
When I see another group I don't want to groan and wait for the griefing and annoyances to begin and attempt to push them back while they try and push us out. I want to think "Oh, look, some fellow players! I wonder if they need help to get somewhere or want to share this area? It's a bit crowded, perhaps we can take it in turns or help them break into another camping area? Maybe with their help we can all get to the boss and try that on?"
So, no, no one should be able to just 'do' anything they want any time. I don't want to click a switch for a private Gnasura and I won't have to if contention is handled well, which will need some innovation and mechanics, not just leaving it to players to squabble and scuffle.
There are so many more options and there is so much more fun to be had cooperating in camps than contending over them.
Nephele said:philo said:@neph
You never have to wait on a list. There is a whole world of other options of things you can do. The problem is how you are playing if you think you have to wait on a list. Not the game.
I'm sorry, that statement seems like the height of hubris to me. Are you seriously suggesting that if someone wants to fight a particular boss and is blocked because that boss is permacamped, that they are WRONG for wanting to fight that boss? Seriously?
No, I'm suggesting if you have a problem waiting your turn there is a whole world of other things you can do.
To think you should be able to have access to any mob any time you want is not only bad for the game...the economy etc...but its also pretty selfish and the epitome of what games have become with players wanting instant gratification.
philo said:Nephele said:philo said:@neph
You never have to wait on a list. There is a whole world of other options of things you can do. The problem is how you are playing if you think you have to wait on a list. Not the game.
I'm sorry, that statement seems like the height of hubris to me. Are you seriously suggesting that if someone wants to fight a particular boss and is blocked because that boss is permacamped, that they are WRONG for wanting to fight that boss? Seriously?
No, I'm suggesting if you have a problem waiting your turn there is a whole world of other things you can do.
To think you should be able to have access to any mob any time you want is not only bad for the game...the economy etc...but its also pretty selfish and the epitome of what games have become with players wanting instant gratification.
I went off on a rant a bit back there mostly referring to being muscled *off* a camp, so sorry about that, BUT permacamping by an uber-guild is effectively the same thing. Might-is-right pseudo-PvP.
If those permacampers refuse to share the camp, then, sorry, but they are the selfish ones ruining the game.
If that new player is turning up demanding the camper hands over the camp, then sure, that's not on. But they can share, no? There are lots of options that do not imply the 'players wanting instant gratification' strawman hyperbole thingy.
philo said:No, I'm suggesting if you have a problem waiting your turn there is a whole world of other things you can do.
To think you should be able to have access to any mob any time you want is not only bad for the game...the economy etc...but its also pretty selfish and the epitome of what games have become with players wanting instant gratification.
How is it instant gratification for a group to spend potentially hours working their way down to a boss room in a dungeon, and then want to fight that boss? They've already invested time getting there. Or are you suggesting that all of the things along the way are so trivial or easily bypassed that only that boss fight itself actually matters?
I'm sorry, I don't see this as selfish at all. I see it as normal. Selfish is wanting to sit on a boss and farm its drops repeatedly and prevent other players from having a chance - which is what you seem to be condoning.
Would be interesting if you needed to move an object from the entrance to the boss room in order to get the boss to spawn but said item only had like a 3 hour timer but it usually takes an hour or so to fight back to the boss room. Teleporting, dieing, stealthing or feigning would all cause you to loose the object.
Nephele said:
How is it instant gratification for a group to spend potentially hours working their way down to a boss room in a dungeon, and then want to fight that boss? They've already invested time getting there. Or are you suggesting that all of the things along the way are so trivial or easily bypassed that only that boss fight itself actually matters?
I'm sorry, I don't see this as selfish at all. I see it as normal. Selfish is wanting to sit on a boss and farm its drops repeatedly and prevent other players from having a chance - which is what you seem to be condoning.
Have you played a contested game before? That's what camp check is for. ... But you know, sometimes you work your way to a spot and someone got there first. Sometimes that happens. Hardship is necessary in a game world to make the successes meaningful.
You still have options of other things you can do.
I don't see how they could have an open world without having camps/camping. Dungeons simply would not work well with groups roaming all over the place and stepping on toes or otherwise crawling over one another chasing every mob. Not camping and having roaming dungeons would be like grabbing a handful of crayons and throwing them in their box making that 64 crayon box a 38 crayon container, whereas camping is organized meaning you can support more groups effectively.
As for "rare" or contested mobs? There are plenty of ways they can go to help break up static content domination while maintaining some measure of contested. Things like random spawn locations and/or short term lockouts (an hour or two depending) after killing the mob encouraging groups to move on and possibly come back later.
philo said:Nephele said:How is it instant gratification for a group to spend potentially hours working their way down to a boss room in a dungeon, and then want to fight that boss? They've already invested time getting there. Or are you suggesting that all of the things along the way are so trivial or easily bypassed that only that boss fight itself actually matters?
I'm sorry, I don't see this as selfish at all. I see it as normal. Selfish is wanting to sit on a boss and farm its drops repeatedly and prevent other players from having a chance - which is what you seem to be condoning.
Have you played a contested game before? That's what camp check is for. ... But you know, sometimes you work your way to a spot and someone got there first. Sometimes that happens. Hardship is necessary in a game world to make the successes meaningful.
You still have options of other things you can do.
Assuming you have played a contested game before, you know very well that a camp check means precisely nothing when a permacamping guild refuses to allow anyone else have a camp. That's what permacamping means. Only other powerful guilds can play that content and only if they mount a tedious pseudo-PvP griefing campaign of sufficient tediousness.
Normal folks just have to spend their time travelling elsewhere and hope the 'elsewhere' isn't also camped by someone who won't share or be reasonable? Normal people leave.
And if *that* is ok, then you know that pushing normal folks off a camp that uberguild wants is going to happen too. More people leave.
It didn't happen much, true, but it did happen and there are ways around it these days *without* instancing or proliferating content and rewards. No participation prize for all carebears required. Just a system that supports sharing and reasonable behavior, not enables and encourages griefing and blocking and kill-stealing and all those things we know do happen and, no, are *not* a good aspect of an open world.
I'm going to stop. I shouldn't have started. It's been argued before and never ends well.
I know VR intend to mitigate the problems that they acknowledge do happen. I will trust them to do it well enough that it won't be the issue it sometimes became in EQ.
Iksar said:As for "rare" or contested mobs? There are plenty of ways they can go to help break up static content domination while maintaining some measure of contested. Things like random spawn locations and/or short term lockouts (an hour or two depending) after killing the mob encouraging groups to move on and possibly come back later.
I understand the intent, but it may end up leading to more issues.
Let's say the spawn is random in a given area. You are still going to have people try to claim that spawn they are camping. They will just roam the area making it more likely that someone, in their mind, steals the mob they are camping. When they come across someone killing that spawn they will definitely try to kill it even if its already engaged. Which will lead to both parties thinking the other party is kill stealing from them.
If you can set up on a spot it is much cleaner. If you leave that spot it is free. There is not as much of a grey area. I think some of the "creative" systems that VR has talked about instating couldl end up being a ticket/report nightmare.
oh oh! my two cents too!
1) remove PHs: this will prevent the anticipation of the potential named spawn and encourage people to move along if named/boss is not up.
2) randomize spawn timers to vary in a large range (i.e 1-24 hours or something): this will keep people guessing and help mitigate login snipes at set time intervals by high levels.
3) where lore allows, randomize spawn locations: this will prevent a single group from locking down a named/boss mob.
@ dispo
The person (or guild) on the camp had to wait for that spawn just like you do. Sometimes the wait can be a long time if it is a sought after item. If it is that much of an issue camp an alt there to check the spawn frequently. Eventually it will be free. Yes, if it is a sought after spawn you might have to wait a month or 2.
The flip side is, if all mobs are accessable to everyone then players get all the items they want quickly and lose incentive to play...the company loses those subs when the player doesn't have incentive to log on. There's nothing left to attain because it was so easy to get it all in an uncontested world.
I have taken a break from games or quit all together multiple times when content can't come out fast enough. That is a horrible feeling. I want to have a reason to play. Something to attain...but there are no upgrades. I don't expect VR to put out content very quickly. Contested camps help to extend the length of content.
Kargen said:
3) where lore allows, randomize spawn locations: this will prevent a single group from locking down a named/boss mob.
This is where I feel games need to get more creative and not necessarily completely randomized spawn locations, but a percentage of where a specific rare mob can spawn.
For example, I would find it weird that a general keeps spawning in the same spot within his fortress. Does he not check the wall defenses, does he not go out with a scouting team or is he not by the king from time to time.
They should have it where for example with the General mob he can spawn in 5 different distinct locations. Maybe 50% in one spot, 15% in two others spots and 10% chance in the two final spots. Also make it potentially reactive to how the zone is populated as a whole. Let's say he's level 40, but there's a chance he could spawn where level 30s are camped (not saying it should happen that often) but it's to keep people honest and can avoid that whole having 1 high level player camp the same spot over and over again.
philo said:@ dispo
The person (or guild) on the camp had to wait for that spawn just like you do. Sometimes the wait can be a long time if it is a sought after item. If it is that much of an issue camp an alt there to check the spawn frequently. Eventually it will be free. Yes, if it is a sought after spawn you might have to wait a month or 2.
The flip side is, if all mobs are accessable to everyone then players get all the items they want quickly and lose incentive to play...the company loses those subs when the player doesn't have incentive to log on. There's nothing left to attain because it was so easy to get it all in an uncontested world.
I have taken a break from games or quit all together multiple times when content can't come out fast enough. That is a horrible feeling. I want to have a reason to play. Something to attain...but there are no upgrades. I don't expect VR to put out content very quickly. Contested camps help to extend the length of content.
Or you add lockouts of a couple hours (or more) to these mobs. Maybe it spawns every 10-30 minutes instead of every 1-3 hours. Change the drop rates to account for the increased spawns and boom, now players have some chance to try their hand. Anything to break up single group or guild lockdowns on content. Now the content is there, reasonably accessible, and will keep most people leaving empty handed and coming back OR turning to the market.
Iksar said:Or you add lockouts of a couple hours (or more) to these mobs. Maybe it spawns every 10-30 minutes instead of every 1-3 hours. Change the drop rates to account for the increased spawns and boom, now players have some chance to try their hand. Anything to break up single group or guild lockdowns on content. Now the content is there, reasonably accessible, and will keep most people leaving empty handed and coming back OR turning to the market.
A play session + or - 50% of a play session long respawn for named might be about right with no place holders. Its that constant 6-14 minute respawn that keeps people in camps.
@Iks
I think we have a different opinion on the definition of an open world game iksar. Lock out timers don't fit.
If you are locking players from content so they can't participate you may as well just have instanced content. If you want to limit players from accessing content we know instances are a clean way to do it.
If you have an area that everyone has access to, but some players cant interact with the content that is there you end up with some type of wierd ghost or invisible mechanic.
Either keep it open world or instancing works. I'm not a fan of trying to toe the line. It doesn't end well.
@Philo
Well I would say that if they don't want this game to crash and burn then some concessions must be made. The old EQ open world style of content denial/monopoly is a dumpster fire that frankly doesn't even appeal to many old EQ vets.
EQ dragons would teleport players away that were over level 52 as somewhat of a first means to hopefully open content to others/level appropriate players, which doesn't jive with your proposed idea of an open world as it conflicts with players being able to see but not interact with content.