I'd like to start a post to drum up some ideas on how to prevent poopsocking in a non instanced game world.
Poopsocking is having someone camp raid spawns while their guildies are all logged out right there and when it pops a batphone goes out and everyone just logs in to kill the mob (if you didn't know).
1) Have all major raid mobs spawn at the exact same time with a server earthquake.
2) Have the mob recognize if a guild had killed it on the last cycle and have it switch to "hard" mode with possibly a better shot at the loot table. You could also trigger "hard" mode by some other means if you wanted to (like hailing a mob or a small quest in the zone maybe).
3) Lockouts... raid mobs could lock you out for the next spawn if you were on the engagement list on the kill shot.
4) Boss could have different spawn location that would be randomized.
...will edit the OP as people add more ideas
Normally I do not like arbitrary rules to sort out game world stuff like this but I would hate to see the same mistakes repeated on this one issue.
Please devs come up with an elegant solution to this long standing problem in non instanced gaming. I don't know what the solution is but hopefully someone can spark an idea with this brainstorming post.
Thanks again,
Kiz~
I don't know if rules will stop it, however I feel your pain as the world of p1999 is filled with this filth and I believe it to be utterly broken. I however do not have the answer to such issues, I only wish them to be considered when designing these sorts of game aspects.
What if certain bosses had multiple spawn locations? There would only ever be one boss up at a time, but it would have a random chance to spawn in different areas.
Like say there were three possible spawn locations for "Boss A". Each on opposite sides of the dungeon with trash mobs in between. That way you couldn't just all camp out at the boss spawn every time and wait.
Not even sure if that would solve the issue or not, but just an idea.
I actually like how they did it in Vanguard. There was open world raid bosses, they would spawn several times a week if not daily. The thing is once you killed it, you got flagged and couldn't kill it again for 5 days. I think I liked it most because you still had to hunt for them at times, there was some competition at times, but no one guild could keep a encounter locked down at the same time.
The design of the raiding system in EQ is great, and competitive. The age of the current content, the lack of new content, and trivialization of the content are P99's flaws.
As I understand it, how to change behavioral with an IT solution because behavior is harder to change- Ha! Sounds like I am at work!. The vanguard lock out timers were a good solution. My brainstorm is: loot lock-out. Monster pops, guild X did it yesterday, Guild X defeats it again, and no loot table. As characters are flagged for zones so would they get flagged for the drops. it would also allow more frequent spawns, and allow "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. But sometimes, the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the few or the many" .For the one person that needs the epic drop and needs help to get it, and powerful and strong guild X intending to spend the day crafting and factioning and hearing the plea of the non-guilded one, yawn effortlessly in a noblesse-oblige -eroty(sp??) way and muster, travel, and defeat for said one. One gets the drops and is heard to shout guild X praises while they as effortlessly go back to crafting and factioning and chuckle aristocratically amongst themselves while hoping it doesn't become too well known or else everyone will be expecting the same treatment but couldn't that be used as a recruiting tool to the leaders? hmmm.
Some of the newer mmos make the open world bosses not locked to one specific party. If you hit the mob, heal an ally or tank it - you get a chance at the reward based on the amount of your participation. The boss's health pool scales to the number of people fighting it to scale the encounter. It promotes people on a server working together instead of fighting against each other.
I am not sure if this community would welcome newer mechanics such as these, but I have been enjoying it. If I were designing these type of encounters I would include complex mechanics that cannot be ignored to prevent a simple zerg fight. Players need to work together to succeed.
Zarriya said:
Some of the newer mmos make the open world bosses not locked to one specific party. If you hit the mob, heal an ally or tank it - you get a chance at the reward based on the amount of your participation. The boss's health pool scales to the number of people fighting it to scale the encounter. It promotes people on a server working together instead of fighting against each other.
I am not sure if this community would welcome newer mechanics such as these, but I have been enjoying it. If I were designing these type of encounters I would include complex mechanics that cannot be ignored to prevent a simple zerg fight. Players need to work together to succeed.
I've played a fair amount of the newer MMOs with this mechanic, and while I think it is okay on more trivial content, especially when there are a ton of people in one area, I dont think it would be appropriate for the type of content the OP is referring to. Tagging something or someone and reaping the rewards is pretty silly (im fully guilty of partaking in this gameplay).
I'm honestly fine with lockout timers on overland/non-instanced raid mobs. Depending on the raid mob/respawn rate of this mob, you are given a 3-7 day lockout on the mob. This gives other groups/guilds a better chance at contesting a mob. It doesnt eliminate the fact that an organization might have multiple raids ready to contest the mob, but they will eventually run out of people w/o lockouts. One thing that's nice about lockouts, is they are not usually account based, so if you're one of those guys that likes to have a bunch of alts, you're kind of rewarded with the freedom to do the encounter multiple times per week.
I also think having an ample amount of overland raid content across all zones is important. This will prevent a few guilds controlling all overland raid content on the server, since the guilds will have to be moving around a lot more.
I really don't care for the mechanics that circumvent contested content in modern games, but I can see why they are there and are necessary for those types of MMOs. In Pantheon however, I don't think they'll be as applicable. Newer mmos are built on the short and shallow early game or the "rush-to-end-game" design. They are also linear and only offer a limited amount of content, so there are way too many bottlenecks.
Depending on how fast content is released, I don't think we'll ever see the kind of poopsocking that exists on P99. P99 is an example of what happens when content is static on a single server. The concentration of hardcores there is like 500% higher than the average EQ server.
Obviously the level of skill has also increased dramatically compared to the norm during EQ1, so you can expect people to progress somewhat faster on average, but that level of competition wasn't nearly as big of an issue during the classic era for several reasons. One, there was really so much to do, only the most devoted players were able to make it to the raid level content before the next expansion was ready. Today in EQ, that mystery is long gone, so a server is always going to have the most important areas more heavily contested.
Pantheon intends to have even more forms of advancement than EQ, so that will provide more for everyone to do, and increase the time necessary for raid preparation. Also, in a game like EQ, there was simply more to do in general than the linear MMOs of today. Most people don't think of it like a traditional "sandbox" but it really offered that type of variety. There was no "one" way to play. Not everyone was looking to be a raider. Some people just like grouping, or helping, or buying and selling, farming rare items, accumulating wealth, or casually exploring and dungeon delving.
What I'm getting at, is that I just don't think it will be necessary to prevent poopsocking the way it exists on static emu servers or linear themeparks. Each EQ expansion, big guilds moved on and older content opened up for the more casual players. Usually they weren't even capable of doing all the raid content when it first became available anyway. Permitted content comes in at a decent rate, I believe that sort of problem will sort itself out for the most part.
If I was to suggest one way around the locking down of content by one guild, its placing the "server repop" on maintenance day at prime time when every guild has a fair shot at one target. That makes guilds prioritize and pick which boss they want, and meanwhile the other bosses are up for grabs.
Xeravik said:
Zarriya said:
Some of the newer mmos make the open world bosses not locked to one specific party. If you hit the mob, heal an ally or tank it - you get a chance at the reward based on the amount of your participation. The boss's health pool scales to the number of people fighting it to scale the encounter. It promotes people on a server working together instead of fighting against each other.
I am not sure if this community would welcome newer mechanics such as these, but I have been enjoying it. If I were designing these type of encounters I would include complex mechanics that cannot be ignored to prevent a simple zerg fight. Players need to work together to succeed.
I've played a fair amount of the newer MMOs with this mechanic, and while I think it is okay on more trivial content, especially when there are a ton of people in one area, I dont think it would be appropriate for the type of content the OP is referring to. Tagging something or someone and reaping the rewards is pretty silly (im fully guilty of partaking in this gameplay).
.......snip......
The tagging and getting credit issue is silly I agree, that Is why I mentioned based on participation. For example in FFXIV if you simply tag an S ranked mob you do not get much reward at all, you need to be in a party of at least 6 members and contribute enough of the fight to be able to get significant rewards. This encourages people and groups to work together.
I also think having an ample amount of overland raid content across all zones is important. This will prevent a few guilds controlling all overland raid content on the server, since the guilds will have to be moving around a lot more.
I agree.
I like Dullahan am for as few raiding restrictions as possible, P99 implemented the "ground shake" that respawns all raid targets at a random interval. This is a good start, but I would say that the "random" part of it just makes it more difficult for players to be able to plan their daily lives around gaming, and instead rewards those who can be online at a random time.. (poopsocking)
I feel that if there was a 3 day spawn timer, and a 7 day spawn timer for example, as in EQ, that the 3 day timer and the 7 day timer be the same for all raid targets. For example, when the game starts let's say it's monday, that means on thursday at the same time the game started, all 3 day timer raid bosses would respawn.
Additionally the time that this respawn happens should be rotated weekly in 8 hour intervals, to cover all times of the day that people play the game.
What you want to avoid having is random spawn times, anything random awards poopsockers and punishes gamers who can't be on call for a game.
It has to be a bit randomized or one time zone will always have priority kills.
Gotta give the Euro's some mobs too ;)
Kiz~
Ah I missed the part about the 8hr rotation... hmm I'd still like a small like 4 hour window of randomness so its not so static. With a small window the socking would be minimized to that 4 hours every 5 days which is not too bad.
Still the mobs should be on 3 days respawns and the lockouts should be 5 days.
Angrykiz said:
It has to be a bit randomized or one time zone will always have priority kills.
Gotta give the Euro's some mobs too ;)
Kiz~
Ah I missed the part about the 8hr rotation... hmm I'd still like a small like 4 hour window of randomness so its not so static. With a small window the socking would be minimized to that 4 hours every 5 days which is not too bad.
Still the mobs should be on 3 days respawns and the lockouts should be 5 days.
If theres one thing random windows have proven, its that they do not detract from socking. They only give a greater advantage to the hardcore. Just look at P99 for an example of this. The biggest guilds there recruit more players just to keep trackers online and near boss spawnpoints. During that window, they get 30+ people camped out nearby. Within seconds of a boss spawning, the tracker notifies guild, they batphone and are buffing and engaged within 5 minutes if they are any good.
In my experience, theres only two solution to this issue. The first I already said, and is content. By the time enough players are high level and capable of doing raid content, there should already be new content in the making. There also has to be enough for multiple guilds to take out targets upon a server repop. Having all raid mobs spawning simultaneously allows multiple guilds to profit, and will encourage them to coordinate who is killing what, because everyone stands to gain something from it.
The other solution is PvP. I actually left a blue server (Tarew Marr) when Kunark came out because I was tired of having guilds walk on our guild or move past us in Plane of Fear because we wiped. I know PvP isn't a solution for everyone, but it is a good way to give the most competitive players a place to fight it out, and as a byproduct, it keeps things more cordial and cooperative on the PvE servers.
@Dullahan, agreed on the PvP solution. I know it's a touchy subject to a lot of players, but if there is a FFA PvP server as an option, many of the hardcore gamers will opt for that and can work out contested raid content among themselves the hard way :). This is what made my time in Vanguard on the Tharridon server so special.
I had the most fun raiding under Vanguard's system. It seemed to give guilds the capability to set a raid time and if they were flexible and capable enough, there would be a target to go after.
Although the top guilds on p99 certainly have a lot of skill, the primary requisite is still a large number of players that never venture far from their computers. I don't think this is a particularly healthy lifestyle and would hate to see any system that favors the bat-phone. It doesn't take a lot of skill to just be online all the time.
Mxyzptlk said:
A quick look at the state of p99 blue versus p99 red would suggest that a FFA PVP server doesn't really solve poopsocking.
How does it not? Its easy to know when mobs are spawning, so its only a matter of who recruits and performs the best for raids. Its also a social exercise, because the guild that snatches up the mobs is the one that inspires the most loyalty among its members and potential members.
I am against any system that randomizes spawn times, they should be known at least a week ahead of time so people can plan their lives accordingly if they so wish to be competitive. There is no reason to randomize spawn times and ruin people's RL engagements over a game.
If you're worried about who has more players and zerging happening, this is where anti-zerg mechanics like AOE's that are set to a threshold that prevents guilds from bringing undergeared fodder and having them bring any useful dps. Gorenaire was a great example of this, if you were undergeared on that fight you most likely didn't end up helping that much because you were either feared, or your attack speed was slowed so much you weren't able to function.
On top of that having mechanics in a game that discourage zerg tactics such as players being able to toggle their abilities to be AOE for a larger resource cost (I believe they talked about this a little bit on one of the round tables). It wasn't uncommon for a more geared and tactically advanced guild to defeat a group of people who had 1.5x their amount of players on Red99, and I speak from experience on this.
Instances are out, they have already said this, raid mobs will NOT BE INSTANCED.
Rallyd said:
I am against any system that randomizes spawn times, they should be known at least a week ahead of time so people can plan their lives accordingly if they so wish to be competitive. There is no reason to randomize spawn times and ruin people's RL engagements over a game.
If you're worried about who has more players and zerging happening, this is where anti-zerg mechanics like AOE's that are set to a threshold that prevents guilds from bringing undergeared fodder and having them bring any useful dps. Gorenaire was a great example of this, if you were undergeared on that fight you most likely didn't end up helping that much because you were either feared, or your attack speed was slowed so much you weren't able to function.
On top of that having mechanics in a game that discourage zerg tactics such as players being able to toggle their abilities to be AOE for a larger resource cost (I believe they talked about this a little bit on one of the round tables). It wasn't uncommon for a more geared and tactically advanced guild to defeat a group of people who had 1.5x their amount of players on Red99, and I speak from experience on this.
Instances are out, they have already said this, raid mobs will NOT BE INSTANCED.
I would agree that random timers are just plain dumb. I know why they are in, though people will still find a way to camp those targets. If there are enough mobs to go around for the server's population, then it should lesson the affect of static timers and contested mobs. I like the thought of a flag or schedule honestly. In the end I just want every guild a fair shot at taking down the content they are able to take down and not for the elite few who can find ways to screw others. Again I don't have the answers, just as long as this subject is taken into consideration when this content is designed.
Raid content is honestly something that so few people even experience. I'm going to guess that most of us on these forums don't represent the average player from EQ and VG. Its more likely we are those who fully appreciated those games having played them in their entirety and, thus, are more enthusiastic about a spiritual successor. I don't know about modern EQ, but during the early years raiding was probably something that less than 10% even engaged in on a regular basis. An article I was reading today actually reflects this. Apparently in Destiny, less than 15% have even participated in a raid. While Destiny doesn't have a whole lot in common with Pantheon, it still seems in line with my experiences in mmorpgs.
That also says a lot about why modern MMOs lose their playerbase so quickly. Most of the time consuming part of these games is raiding. If only a small portion are actually experiencing that content, of course the shallow and rather trivial gameplay leading up to raiding isn't going to retain players for the long term.
Regarding the p99 PvP server, I thought it would be good to remind folks that they've been sitting in kunark for 2 years now. Its really no surprise that, much like p99 blue, the server has become top heavy. They also have drastically accelerated experience gains there, so that only exacerbates the situation. New players can jump in and be max level in just a few weeks. It didn't used to be that way there, and for nearly 3 years we generally only saw 30-40 man raiding guilds with those guilds representing less than half the playerbase. Those are the real reasons zergy combat has become the norm on that server.
As far as batphones are concerned, it was generally only used for PvP skirmishes, protecting guildmates leveling or farming quest items, or to remind people to log in for repop days. Still, that sort of devotion is only found in the most hardcore players, which make up a larger portion of the population on emulated servers, but I believe would be by far the minority in Pantheon.
I'll preface this by saying that I enjoy PVP, I just don't think the majority of players do. FFA PVP definitely creates a different environment. What I meant was that in p99, where you have:
1) a player population heavily skewed towards the top end
2) both PVP (red) and non-PVP (blue) options
3) not enough raid targets for everyone on p99 blue
I think overcrowding at the high end leads to most poopsocking behavior. In this situation the PVP play-style is still so much of a deterrent to the overall population, that p99 blue is more than four times as crowded as p99 red. If PVP were a true solution to poopsocking, wouldn't the server populations be more even? I think all this supports is that blue and red are very different environments, and red attracts significantly fewer players, which leads to less poopsocking. This doesn't mean PVP is a solution to poopsocking though.
Instead of having PVP versus non-PVP servers, what about character lockout versus non-lockout servers?
To me, that would allow a player to choose the type of play-style that fits them best. If someone wants to be online all the time and have the opportunity to kill every raid mob as soon as it spawns, go for the non-lockout server. If someone wants to raid in a slightly less contested environment, they can join the server with a lockout, knowing they will only ever be able to kill mob x once every lockout period.
I think this would allow the player base to self-organize according to how much they want the game to run their lives. As I get older and have more responsibilities outside of gaming, I know that I prefer to play with people in a similar situation so I don't feel like I'm letting them down when I can't play.