The issue with lockout timers is that they are easily exploitable and easy to grief with.
Often designing a system that counteracts both of these is going to be time consuming. Why not just make instances for the raids.
If the lockout is not based on loot eligibility, then you will never have guilds contesting each other for fear of losing a dps race and gaining a lockout. (Just making instances would solve this)
If its not lockout based then you can have your 60 player raid split into 6 groups and allow each group the chance to "win" the dps race effectively farming the boss 6 times instead of 1. (Instancing would prevent this)
Banishing players from an open world zone because they are on lockout might work... but why even bother?. Just make instances.
You cannot design a system that is going to create open world competition. It will either be there or it won't. However you can design a system that allows all guilds an equal chance at server firsts (instances).
You can also still have a thriving open world game with raid instances.
Porygon said:The issue with lockout timers is that they are easily exploitable and easy to grief with.
Often designing a system that counteracts both of these is going to be time consuming. Why not just make instances for the raids.
If the lockout is not based on loot eligibility, then you will never have guilds contesting each other for fear of losing a dps race and gaining a lockout. (Just making instances would solve this)
If its not lockout based then you can have your 60 player raid split into 6 groups and allow each group the chance to "win" the dps race effectively farming the boss 6 times instead of 1. (Instancing would prevent this)
Banishing players from an open world zone because they are on lockout might work... but why even bother?. Just make instances.
You cannot design a system that is going to create open world competition. It will either be there or it won't. However you can design a system that allows all guilds an equal chance at server firsts (instances).
You can also still have a thriving open world game with raid instances.
I'm not really following you here. Could you elaborate on dps race and griefing?
The way I envision it would be a lockout flag based on mob death. If you have aggro at any point when the mob dies, you get a lockout flag.
Now, if you go back and have an active lockout flag, the moment you have aggro the mob banishes you, which teleports you back to the zone line (this is how banish worked in EQ if I recall). So you could still be in the zone, you just couldn't be within an aggro radius of the boss.
So in this scenario, how would grief ensue?
I am a fan of raid instances as well. That doesnt mean there cant be world bosses as well for raid forces to compete against, but there should be atleast 1-2 raid instances for guilds to go into. Spend time learning and communicating and working together to beat them not having to rush pulls because there are 3 other guilds waiting to do the same.
I loved spending hours, days, weeks and months learning and problem solving to defeat a raid boss. The joy after the kill was fanatstic and the longer it took the better it felt.
I know this game isnt about "end game" and raiding but there are going to be players that want the challenge that only raiding can give.
How many more times do the Devs need to say “no instances” before people stop calling for instances on this forum? This is only partially rhetorical. There won‘t be raid instances or Agents of Change for spawning personal raid zones. If you want to be helpful, post ideas that are within the design framework that has been laid out.
Also consider this thread: https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/5098/end-game-discussion-raiding-and-alternatives/view/page/1
My apologies Gnog but i tried to read as many post as possible and i do recall seeing that the DEvs said no group dungeon intsanaces, i just dont recall seeing anything about no raid instances if i missed that then my bad.
Also as the game is still far away from launch why shouldnt people write on the forums what they like and dont like about a game? maybe someone comes up with a great idea... maybe they dont, maybe a discuession about something helps break open a whole new idea of how something works... maybe not.
@Omuteef, No need to apologize. The tone of my post could have been more friendly. In general the team has stated, repeatedly, that there will not be instances, except perhaps for limited storyline or quest purposes. It would be a dramatic shift in design philosophy for the game to include raid instances. So I don't see the value in arguing yet again for instances, the costs and benefits of which we all know extremely well at this point. But by all means, continue to discuss, I am no authority here. :) Personally I think instances are a crutch. They are used to fix a failing in the design of open-world content. I would much rather see our collective minds focused on the design of viable open-world content that does not devolve into batphoning/poopsocking/content-denial/content-insufficiency. Resorting to instances is the lazy way out and would detract enormously from the feeling of a persistent open world. So let's focus on the better solutions that don't involve instanced content...
@Gnog i agree to a certain extent that instances are a crutch. i love the contested open world of solo play and group dungeons as there are so many targets and options for players to do. Quests crafting exploring and dungeons etc etc there is so much to do. Undertsand when i finaly enter the game of Pantheon i most likey wont be rading for a long time as i want to explorer every nook and cranny on lots of alts and experinece as much as i can.
This game also needs to to flurish and needs a player base to do that. one part of that player base is all ready waiting for the game release put the other part of that player base is from peeps that are currently playing other MMOs and those players need to feel that this game will fulfill there gaming experince. Raiding is a part of MMOs thats a fact and a good raiding game will draw players from all games here. At that point they need to stay here so we can continue to play a game for years and years to come.
The only time i want instances in game is for raiding as it will draw more people tothis game,wether it happens or not thats just my opinion. I have no idea on the costs for servers to do that as im a finace guy in retail and all i know about computers is how to turn them on and play games :)
Omuteef said:@Gnog i agree to a certain extent that instances are a crutch. i love the contested open world of solo play and group dungeons as there are so many targets and options for players to do. Quests crafting exploring and dungeons etc etc there is so much to do. Undertsand when i finaly enter the game of Pantheon i most likey wont be rading for a long time as i want to explorer every nook and cranny on lots of alts and experinece as much as i can.
This game also needs to to flurish and needs a player base to do that. one part of that player base is all ready waiting for the game release put the other part of that player base is from peeps that are currently playing other MMOs and those players need to feel that this game will fulfill there gaming experince. Raiding is a part of MMOs thats a fact and a good raiding game will draw players from all games here. At that point they need to stay here so we can continue to play a game for years and years to come.
The only time i want instances in game is for raiding as it will draw more people tothis game,wether it happens or not thats just my opinion. I have no idea on the costs for servers to do that as im a finace guy in retail and all i know about computers is how to turn them on and play games :)
Why does it matter so long as you have your shot at a boss mob?
One of the things I loved about EQ was being in a zone and seeing a massive raid force roll in and watching the zone come alive with cheering, or worst case, toxic fighting over a contested mob. But it sounds like they have some great ideas to limit that.
If they can give everyone equal opportunity for content in an open world, then what other advantages are there to instancing?
Omuteef said:@Gnog i agree to a certain extent that instances are a crutch. i love the contested open world of solo play and group dungeons as there are so many targets and options for players to do. Quests crafting exploring and dungeons etc etc there is so much to do. Undertsand when i finaly enter the game of Pantheon i most likey wont be rading for a long time as i want to explorer every nook and cranny on lots of alts and experinece as much as i can.
This game also needs to to flurish and needs a player base to do that. one part of that player base is all ready waiting for the game release put the other part of that player base is from peeps that are currently playing other MMOs and those players need to feel that this game will fulfill there gaming experince. Raiding is a part of MMOs thats a fact and a good raiding game will draw players from all games here. At that point they need to stay here so we can continue to play a game for years and years to come.
The only time i want instances in game is for raiding as it will draw more people tothis game,wether it happens or not thats just my opinion. I have no idea on the costs for servers to do that as im a finace guy in retail and all i know about computers is how to turn them on and play games :)
So, a couple things.
The game does not need to attract every MMO player out there. The whole premise of this crowd-funded project is to create a game with certain design principles and stick to those design principles where other developers have caved to mainstream demands. The argument about attracting a sufficient player base is not a trump card. If the game is re-designed to attract a more mainstream audience at the cost of losing/alienating the people who have backed the development for the last few years, I will call that a major failure and disappointment, no matter how many players ultimately play the game.
The argument for instances is based on the belief that only instances can provide a meaningful raiding experience to a wide playerbase on a server. That is just not true. It is all a question of the amount of raid content available compared to the number of players on a server looking to raid. The problems with non-instanced raid content arise from content scarcity and poor zone/spawn design, not from the lack of instances per se. So let's keep an open mind to non-instanced raid content and focus on ideas to make non-instanced raid content viable for a sizeable player base on each server. (IMO)
Parascol said: Another thing I'm hoping to see is not a hard cap on raid size. I liked the flexibility of having no raid size cap. Sure, some guilds would zerg content, but most guilds still managed their guild / raid size to ensure all members got gear at a reasonable pace.
VR has said that mob disposition will be used to prevent Zerg type tactics. They can set a mob to realize that it's being overwhelmed by too many players and just run away (basically resetting the fight). Or it might trigger a call for reinforcements that cause a whole bunch of extra adds into the fight making it much much harder. Or they might give a Boss a super powerful AoE spell that they don't normally use but it becomes active if there are too many people enaging the boss.
Porygon said: If the lockout is not based on loot eligibility, then you will never have guilds contesting each other for fear of losing a dps race and gaining a lockout.
(I know that every time I ever respond to you Porygon you always just yell at me for daring to disagree with you, but I'm going to risk it.)
Are you actually complaining that this would prevent KS attempts?
Dispositions will also address this, since having another raid group trying to out DPS the first one would trigger these anit-zerg dispositions.
Of course now I can hear you saying "So that means guilds could use this to Grief other guilds by joining the fight specifically to trigger the anti-zerg disposition". But since they could just wait for the other guild to finish and move out and then make their own attempt when the Boss respawns, I don't see why many would do this. Unless they are specifically a Griefing guild at which point a GM would probably get called in to deal with it.
Porygon said: If its not lockout based then you can have your 60 player raid split into 6 groups and allow each group the chance to "win" the dps race effectively farming the boss 6 times instead of 1.
This assumes that the mechanics of the game don't make it very hard to complete a boss if all your groups are not linked together. We know that many of the class abilities have synergies, such as the healers where druid heal mechanics make other healers effects bounce. This may be limited to within your own group/raid. So if you split up the raid into individual groups, then those synergies don't apply to everyone, only the people in your 6 man group. The Boss fight will likely be balanced with those synergies in mind, thus if you un-raid, you make the fight much much harder. And since you'd only do this kind of thing to farm extra gear, it would mean you are at the low end of gear to do this fight in the first place. If you're guild was strong enough to kill the boss without needing the synergies, you probably don't need the gear from the boss.
You'd also needing to manage which group gets credit for each kill, or you end up having the same group get credit for the kill over and over. So you can't have everyone going all out for each successive attempt. The groups that already have credit would need to back off their dps to make sure they don't out dps the groups that don't yet have credit for the kill. Thus you're again making the fight harder and harder. Again the guilds that might be strong enough to be able to pull this off, they wouldn't be needing the loot.
Porygon said: You cannot design a system that is going to create open world competition. It will either be there or it won't. However you can design a system that allows all guilds an equal chance at server firsts (instances).
You are not the only one who has brought up this concept of 'Open World Competition', so this isn't really just directed at you Porygon.
Why does everyone always think that VR is trying to create 'Open world Competition'.
https://www.pantheonmmo.com/#section5 says:
"We understand how healthy challenge in a game promotes teamwork, often blooming into profound relationships and enduring memories. We focus on these poignant elements of design and aim to provide our players with environments conducive to building reputations, friendships and alliances—as well as rivalries and notoriety."
I don't see this as saying "We want people to compete for every kill". If anything I see this as trying to promote 'Open World Cooperation", not "Competition". I think in VR's head, they invision several different groups in a zone coming together when they notice a Boss and say "Let's band together to take this Boss down". Not "Let's fight over who can kill it first!"
This is why I suggest that any lockout be just loot lockouts so that if you band together in a random PUG raid, you could still go get your guild together and come back later and help your guild kill the same Boss again. This seems to jive better with what I understand to be VR's vision for the game. Maybe I'm wrong though.
Porygon I don't want you to think that I am just trying to argue against instances. I myself am not against instances and they can be useful. But I know that VR feels that they segregate players and prevent the kind of 'cooperation' that I was just refering too. So it's probably going to be a very hard sell to try and convince them to change their view on them. I just don't want you to think that I'm just trying to agrue against instances. I'm trying to suggest things that could work based on what we know VR has already decided.
Perhaps for some of the big Boss fights, there will be some sort of 'once engaged lockout' that prevents people from entering his area once he's been engaged. So once you run into his room and engage him, the door closes behind you and another group can't run in to try and out dps you. This may also lock you in so that you are committed to win or die (or Evac teleport if that's an option). This also let's the dev's balance the fight based on the layout of the bosses lair rather than letting the players find some strategic spot in the zone to pull the boss to where they have some advantage with walls or what have you.
Or maybe VR does want players to be able to pull bosses to strategic places in the zone and this idea is not in the cards at all. It's just a thought.
Gnog said:How many more times do the Devs need to say “no instances” before people stop calling for instances on this forum? This is only partially rhetorical. There won‘t be raid instances or Agents of Change for spawning personal raid zones. If you want to be helpful, post ideas that are within the design framework that has been laid out.
Also consider this thread: https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/5098/end-game-discussion-raiding-and-alternatives/view/page/1
Probably once the dev's announce what system they are going to use. How they will prevent people from exploiting it, and why they feel it's better than instances.
This topic is no different than any other topic on the forums. We are just discussing what we feel would be best for the game. Also, they have not even fully committed to not using instances. They mention they would like to avoid them but we all know things change.
Parascol said:Porygon said:The issue with lockout timers is that they are easily exploitable and easy to grief with.
Often designing a system that counteracts both of these is going to be time consuming. Why not just make instances for the raids.
If the lockout is not based on loot eligibility, then you will never have guilds contesting each other for fear of losing a dps race and gaining a lockout. (Just making instances would solve this)
If its not lockout based then you can have your 60 player raid split into 6 groups and allow each group the chance to "win" the dps race effectively farming the boss 6 times instead of 1. (Instancing would prevent this)
Banishing players from an open world zone because they are on lockout might work... but why even bother?. Just make instances.
You cannot design a system that is going to create open world competition. It will either be there or it won't. However you can design a system that allows all guilds an equal chance at server firsts (instances).
You can also still have a thriving open world game with raid instances.
I'm not really following you here. Could you elaborate on dps race and griefing?
The way I envision it would be a lockout flag based on mob death. If you have aggro at any point when the mob dies, you get a lockout flag.
Now, if you go back and have an active lockout flag, the moment you have aggro the mob banishes you, which teleports you back to the zone line (this is how banish worked in EQ if I recall). So you could still be in the zone, you just couldn't be within an aggro radius of the boss.
So in this scenario, how would grief ensue?
Guild #1 wants to prevent another guild from potentially challenging them in the future. They wait for guild b to engage and dps the mob, knowing their gear is significantly better and can easily win. Now guild a wins loot and both guilds have a lockout.
You can even engage the mob and drag it into another raid guild setting up, any aoes would put the group on the mobs aggro list and give a lockout without even attempting the mob.
GoofyWarriorGuy said:Porygon said: If the lockout is not based on loot eligibility, then you will never have guilds contesting each other for fear of losing a dps race and gaining a lockout.
(I know that every time I ever respond to you Porygon you always just yell at me for daring to disagree with you, but I'm going to risk it.)
This is my favorite quote ever. In my opinion. The only reason to have open world contested mobs is to spawn competition. What would be the benefits otherwise? If you do not want competition... just have instances.
With competition comes all of the positive and negative aspects of it.. including ksing, griefing and exploiting raid groups to take an advantage.
As far as separating groups of the raid. Well if a boss mob is so difficult that it requires the small synergies classes to be in the same raid to beat... then I have 0 complaints about any system they choose because that means the raids are difficult enough that very few will be killing them, and all of this is for nothing lol.
Also I never yell, I just passionately discuss my opinions ;)
Edit: in a server first/world first race theres never a thing as too much loot. My guild on the progression server used to 2 and 3 and 4 split mobs until everyone including alts had gear. It gave us a much larger chance to kill multiple instances of mobs on release of new content which always improved our chances.
Porygon said:Parascol said:Porygon said:The issue with lockout timers is that they are easily exploitable and easy to grief with.
Often designing a system that counteracts both of these is going to be time consuming. Why not just make instances for the raids.
If the lockout is not based on loot eligibility, then you will never have guilds contesting each other for fear of losing a dps race and gaining a lockout. (Just making instances would solve this)
If its not lockout based then you can have your 60 player raid split into 6 groups and allow each group the chance to "win" the dps race effectively farming the boss 6 times instead of 1. (Instancing would prevent this)
Banishing players from an open world zone because they are on lockout might work... but why even bother?. Just make instances.
You cannot design a system that is going to create open world competition. It will either be there or it won't. However you can design a system that allows all guilds an equal chance at server firsts (instances).
You can also still have a thriving open world game with raid instances.
I'm not really following you here. Could you elaborate on dps race and griefing?
The way I envision it would be a lockout flag based on mob death. If you have aggro at any point when the mob dies, you get a lockout flag.
Now, if you go back and have an active lockout flag, the moment you have aggro the mob banishes you, which teleports you back to the zone line (this is how banish worked in EQ if I recall). So you could still be in the zone, you just couldn't be within an aggro radius of the boss.
So in this scenario, how would grief ensue?
Guild #1 wants to prevent another guild from potentially challenging them in the future. They wait for guild b to engage and dps the mob, knowing their gear is significantly better and can easily win. Now guild a wins loot and both guilds have a lockout.
You can even engage the mob and drag it into another raid guild setting up, any aoes would put the group on the mobs aggro list and give a lockout without even attempting the mob.
Ah, I see what you are saying. It's food for thought for sure. The zerg solutions mentioned above might solve for this. GM's could also solve for this. Whatever solution they come up with in the end, I'm sure will take wanton griefing like this into account. But it's definitely good to try and predict this type of behavior ahead of time.
If they can successfully limit these things without instancing, that would be my preferance. I like being in a zone with other people doing different things.
Parascol said:Ah, I see what you are saying. It's food for thought for sure. The zerg solutions mentioned above might solve for this. GM's could also solve for this. Whatever solution they come up with in the end, I'm sure will take wanton griefing like this into account. But it's definitely good to try and predict this type of behavior ahead of time.
If they can successfully limit these things without instancing, that would be my preferance. I like being in a zone with other people doing different things.
I feel the same. But if you're going to create mechanics that are going to deter guilds from actually competing.. why not just instance. It's easily the best option. I like the anti zerg dispositions. Coming from a guild that split raided everything, I love raising 54 man mobs with 24 people, it made content extremely challenging
Porygon said:Parascol said:Ah, I see what you are saying. It's food for thought for sure. The zerg solutions mentioned above might solve for this. GM's could also solve for this. Whatever solution they come up with in the end, I'm sure will take wanton griefing like this into account. But it's definitely good to try and predict this type of behavior ahead of time.
If they can successfully limit these things without instancing, that would be my preferance. I like being in a zone with other people doing different things.
I feel the same. But if you're going to create mechanics that are going to deter guilds from actually competing.. why not just instance. It's easily the best option. I like the anti zerg dispositions. Coming from a guild that split raided everything, I love raising 54 man mobs with 24 people, it made content extremely challenging
Because I like the social aspect of not using instances. I like bumping into other people, even if it's while raiding. Oh hey, so and so! What are you up to? Oh we're here to kill this boss. Oh great, I'm here working on a quest. Best of luck to you guys! It makes the world feel more lively.
They can always add instancing later or for specific zones. Its not like it is completely off the table. They already stated there would most likely be shards depending on zone volume. They know the benefits and downsides to the system.
When we hit max level and we start seeing issues with boss availability and progression im sure they will come up with an solution that helps alleviate any concerns.
Parascol said:Because I like the social aspect of not using instances. I like bumping into other people, even if it's while raiding. Oh hey, so and so! What are you up to? Oh we're here to kill this boss. Oh great, I'm here working on a quest. Best of luck to you guys! It makes the world feel more lively.
If the world is designed well enough, this will happen even with instances. Plus depending on how you design instances, you can require people to gather outside before beginning, which create the same effect.
I just think the arguement about socialization as a reason for not having instances is silly. But that's just me!
Moderation in all things - a few instances for specific reasons would not make Pantheon an unsocial game. As long as the great majority is not instanced.
If VR asks that we stop discussing the topic because the decison has been made and is final, I will stop. VR does make this request from time to time. When they do not, it is because they either welcome the discussion which may give them input or because they see no harm in it and like us to be able to play with ourselves ((blush)) ((cough)) I mean talk about things as we are waiting.
I think ive made the arguement about socialization before and i realized that its kindof a mute point at the end game. You will be socializing with your guild/raid and probably nobody else. I do agree that there should be HEALTHY competition. If there is a raid zone with multiple "wings", lets say like Temple of Veeshan in eq 1. and there is a requirement to let each guild/raid into each "wing" and not have cross interference than that should be fine. If this zone is super popular and there are only 4-5 wings and each boss is engaged or to be engaged.....what if there is a NPC at each wing that asks if you are ready to enter/engage each wing and you say yes and you flow forth and it then tags that wing as occupied.....??? Then if 4-5 wings are occupied another instance is available for spawning. I think a little planning ahead can go a looooong way. Its like how eq1 tried to adapt Plane of Time originally but failed. If we can just have a raid zone system that checks for occupation and then spawns another instance as necessary.... i figure the only issue is "wing" rotation.... idk. ..... there are many solutions to a problem that hasn't even become a problem yet.....
Porygon said:The issue with lockout timers is that they are easily exploitable and easy to grief with.
Often designing a system that counteracts both of these is going to be time consuming. Why not just make instances for the raids.
If the lockout is not based on loot eligibility, then you will never have guilds contesting each other for fear of losing a dps race and gaining a lockout. (Just making instances would solve this)
If its not lockout based then you can have your 60 player raid split into 6 groups and allow each group the chance to "win" the dps race effectively farming the boss 6 times instead of 1. (Instancing would prevent this)
Banishing players from an open world zone because they are on lockout might work... but why even bother?. Just make instances.
You cannot design a system that is going to create open world competition. It will either be there or it won't. However you can design a system that allows all guilds an equal chance at server firsts (instances).
You can also still have a thriving open world game with raid instances.
I understand your concern and honestly wouldn't mind for instancing myself, but I've also listening to the other side of the tracks and came up with my idea of the lockout timer, though I never said the ones that lost the dps race would gain a lock out and think that would be a bad idea simply becuase of the fear that you mentioned. I simply made it a choice to hols down raid target or not knowing past the first time within a certain time limit holds no loot for them, so they can either choose to do so or not. Which I'm hoping would encourage them not to do so, but still giving them the choose to do so if they decide they want to do it.
There was a discussion about competition (which always ends up focusing on raids as the 'epitome' of competition) on Discord last night.
It has been had again and again and, to me, it always ends in the same arguments and VR are going to have a tough job reconciling the views.
Disclaimer: I want to fight dragons *with* other players not fight other players to even get to the dragons. My view on competition is mostly from one side, though I wouldn't mind *some* competition, even some PvP in my PvE world, just not as is traditionally worked.
Some of the issues: -
Some of the people in the debate really want to PvP
The issue is really PvE. This skews the conversation.
Some people simply enjoy competition
Even contention ('open world = competition'). Some simply do not ('open world = cooperation/sharing'). This is hard (impossible?) to reconcile.
VR have said they want fun/healthy competition
What is that? Surely, competition can only possibly be fun and healthy if both sides want to compete and that is clearly not the case.
What is 'competition' anyway?
Is denying others access to content 'competition'? Racing? Out-DPSing? Bat-phoning? Poopsocking? Rankings? What?
Adding competition may make encounters 'harder' but is it 'better'?
Is competitive play deserving of the 'best' content/reward? Is competition the best way (or even a good way) to limit achievement?
Some of the solutions: -
Play Nice Policy
To limit behaviours that stray from fun/healthy competition into contention and griefing. The difficulty being the definition of fun/healthy and even competition appears to vary greatly.
Mechanics
That limit 'bad' behaviours like First To Engage. We all know that this *can* be abused, but racing to engage an enemy is much more of a level playing field than the Might Is Right situation of Most Damage Done. With FTE any group/raid capable of the kill can at least have a chance to attempt it. The problem is that ways for 'powerful' groups/guilds to circumvent this are hard to stop.
Other mechanics: Instancing (which obviously has the effect of 'damaging' the open world and sandbox feel and will proliferate loot), lock-outs (I honestly am not familiar with any negatives that can't be mitigated), Tougher and lesser versions of the content (better than being completely blocked, but not solving the blocking at all). I'm sure there are others. Maybe a combo would be good.
Different ruleset servers
In line with competition only possibly being 'fun and healthy' if all parties are consenting, perhaps competitive types should have their own server, much as PvP types will have.
Different or varying rules by encounter
It might be interesting and even fun to have big bosses vary in their approach. Maybe one week they will be MDD free-for-all, maybe another it will be FTE, maybe another the area will be flagged PvP even! Maybe instances occasionally, etc, etc. This would also give different style players a chance to compete or avoid competing.
Develop some kind of elective competition
Like flagging yourself for PvP. Only if both parties are flagged for competition an encounter will use a more competitive mode to be used to assign the kill.
Some of the weird arguments: -
If there is enough content there won't be contention.
But... there won't be competition, either. Segregation is hardly different than instancing. Open world when you don't see anyone else? Competition will occur less often but be just as problematic.
Competition is normal in life
Yes, and a lot of the reason people play computer games is to get away from those kind of aspects of life. Some people thrive on it. Some people find it tiresome. It's not a justification for it's inclusion or it's condemnation.
VR want competition. It's in. Stop moaning
VR want fun/healthy competition and what that is is up for (vigorous) debate. The only mentions in the FAQ of competition relate to it's negatives and how they need to be mitigated.
You can't have Open World without Competition. It's innate
Of course you can. Mechanics and guidelines to stop competition exist everywhere including online gaming. Some people see a resource and someone else interested and push past them. Some people will hail that other person and discuss how to help each other and share. Most will just be familiar with the rules of fair play and behave accordingly. Why would hoping the community self-police somehow work in Pantheon when it never has elsewhere?
Casual players don't deserve the same as hardcore
Not the issue. We are talking about gamers that have put in the 1000 hours of effort to gear up, get a guild together and work out the strategies for defeating the raid boss (as an extreme example) but then UberGuild that has way way more than enough resources and way way more time played still swoops in and takes the boss. Every week.
No one is asking for participation trophies, just to experience what the world has to offer without having to push past other players to do it. To fight the dragon and not be pushed away by the other knights.
Competition leads to excellence
In performance? Yes. In social cohesion? No. The biggest developments in technology in the 20th century were born from things like world wars. Was that fun and healthy competition? The space race lead to leaps and bounds in mankind's achievements. How was it for relations between America and Russia? Competing retailers bring down prices for consumers. It also splits consumers across differing IP and technology bases like Apple and Google.
There is good and bad, sure. But it certainly is not all good and the bad can be pretty bad.
My personal view
It's probably very clear I don't enjoy competition/contention in MMORPGs. I play Battlefield, a first-person shooter, for my PvP hit. A big part of the magic in RPGs for me, since Dungeons and Dragons with paper and pencil, was a game where there was a hugely complex group dynamic playing *with* friends, not against them. Even the GM wasn't just trying to 'beat' you, he was simply having fun presenting the world.
The most successful game around when I started playing D&D? Monopoly. What a paragon of virtuous competition that game is based on! Build an empire by bankrupting your friends!
When I played in groups of 'strangers' at events at university there were a couple that wanted to play 'evil' and it seemed interesting and fun at first. We tried it and the role-playing was interesting, but, unsurprisingly the whole thing would enevitably break down as they split off from the group or even worked against the group and it became painful and unworkable.
I enjoyed the role-playing to some extent. I enjoy the concept. I love literature and film with anti-heroes and interesting villains (just read Mark Lawrence Prince of Thorns trilogy. A wonderfully flawed and often nasty main character). I'm not some Carebear, timid, pacifist, social justice warrior wanting the world to be rainbows and unicorns, I simply don't enjoy contention in MMORPGs. To me, it's at best a distracting dynamic and it worst a stressful and unpleasant experience.
It's a generalisation I know, but competition tends to bring out the worst in players. People see another player/group/raid force approaching and the natural reaction is not "Oh great, some backup! Someone to share this experience with!". When there are inadequate Play Nice Rules and mechanics that allow or even encourage competition the natural reaction is at best "Oh dear, my resources are now halved" and at worst "Oh crud, these guys are going to take everything", "better risk dying and rush this kill" or maybe "train them before they train me" or just "may as well leave then". Which of those sounds fun or healthy?
That sort of thing can only lead to neutral, grudging occupying of the same space or toxic build up until it bursts.
If you want harmony and sharing and cooperation to be the natural reaction, then crossing your fingers and hoping for the best is ridiculously naive.
I'm clearly biased, but I think a lot of folks are biased the other way. As I've said, accommodating both is very hard if not impossible.
I trust, from what VR have said and what is in the FAQ that they know very well what the negatives are and will mitigate them.
I'm going to do my best to leave this issue alone. I've said my piece a few times now and more than made my point, though I know I waffle a bit (a lot?) sometimes.
One thing to finish on is to say is that while, perhaps ironically, competition is one of the most contentious issues for us Pantheon supporters, and is a very important aspect of the game, it's not everything. I'm sure we will all play and enjoy each other's company inside the world VR make for us. Together. Most of the time ;^)
Competition is inherent in an open-world game.
This isn't something that players need to opt-in to after they log into the game. Resources are finite and can/will be hotly contested. Players are a part of the environment. While I can appreciate that some players aren't necessarily fond of this reality, I feel compelled to defend this position as it's intrinsically tied into the type of game that Pantheon is meant to be. We should never look at content as a piece of merchandise in our shopping carts, or the world as a theme park filled with waiting lines, parking spots, and ticket stampers.
What is fun/healthy competition?
First and foremost, it's important that all players buy into the underlying philosophy that competition is inherent in an open-world game. We can't have factions of players who embrace this reality pitted against those who choose to ignore it. There should be clear rules for engagement and kill-credit. Anything that isn't a direct violation of an official rule should be viewed as something that can/will happen.
VR has the burden of deciding what type of behavior warrants GM intervention. Players have the responsibility of handling anything outside of that scope on their own. Fun/Healthy competition is something that should happen organically. It's up to VR to produce a vast world with enough content to satisfy each server population, and to alleviate the bottle-necks that force contention. Too Much Competition is relative and VR is holding the keys.
Different strokes for different folks.
Some players view competition as something that produces anxiety and paranoia. There is this narrative out there that competitive players only want to compete for the sake of denying content from others. It's important to understand that the world and it's resources are shared and that vying for those resources should be viewed as a common goal. The world is full of opportunity and each player has the right to make the most of what is available. There should be clear rules that govern bad behavior and an expectation that offenders will be dealt with -- beyond that, let freedom ring.
I knew you'd be here soon, @oneADseven hehe. I'll resume my intention to 'letting the issue go' after this reply. Honest. I'll try...
"some players aren't necessarily fond of this reality"
It's not some kind of undeniable 'reality', however much you insist, any more than we should accept queue-jumpers and corridor-shovers, bullies and toughs as a 'reality' we must simply accept. Resources *are* finite, but this does not mean they must *all* be *hotly contested*. And not enjoying contention does not equate to wanting some kind of theme park. Hyperbole makes your viewpoint clear, but proves nothing. Not wanting the unpleasantness of contention to ruin my day does not equate to wanting my own instanced candy shop of content. There is a middle ground with many alternatives.
"it's important that all players buy into the underlying philosophy that competition is inherent in an open-world game"
It's important to you, because that's the open world you want. It's important to me that players *do not* accept that competition and contention is inevitable or desirable and should run rampant whether it is inherent or not. You're not technically wrong, but it's a matter of emphasis.
"anxiety and paranoia"
I love how you quote "different strokes..." then straight away imply if you don't want contention, you must be mentally ill: anxious and paranoid. It's simply unpleasant and unwanted in most situations. Why would I want unpleasantness in a game? There's plenty of challenge and fun fighting the content without battling other real people. Not wanting to fight with other players is not a mental deficiency.
"compete for content for the sake of denying it from others"
that may not be what all competitive types enjoy, but it is the traditional mechanic by which competition is played out. If they *don't* want to do that, why would they do it? If they know it's unpleasant, find some way to share. We are talking about the times this denial *does* happen and we know it does.
"...resources are shared and that vying for those resources..."
Huh? Are we sharing or vying? They are opposites.
"each player has the right to make the most of what is available"
But not all players get the opportunity, even if capable, due to Might Is Right mechanics and lack of rules and/or enforcement.
I know we don't actually disagree on all aspects of this issue, but it's clear there are, as I mentioned in my earlier huge post, fundamental differences in attitude that are hard to reconcile. I consider myself to be a very reasonable and logical person and I've seen evidence of the same in oneADseven's excellently thought out posts, but our opinions and viewpoints here obviously differ greatly in some respects. It's based in personal preference and desires, so it's not surprising. To accommodate these differences will be difficult.
"VR has the burden of deciding what type of behavior warrants GM intervention"
It's not just about GM intervention, though that resource issue may, unfortunately, mean we have to accept a situation far from ideal.
VR does indeed have a great burden, but it is to decide what kind of game atmosphere they want. What Play Nice Policies and mechanics are necessary to avoid conflict and toxicity becoming the norm in Terminus.
"Fun/Healthy competition is something that should happen organically"
I'm still yet to even hear a good definition of "fun and healthy competition" in an MMORPG, never mind expect players, with such massively different views on the matter, to just organically come to a consensus.
"There should be clear rules that govern bad behavior and an expectation that offenders will be dealt with -- beyond that, let freedom ring"
Sure, but the extent of desire and scope of those rules and policing vary hugely from person to person especially when one likes competition and another doesn't.
This whole debate is about those "clear rules" and the way "offenders will be dealt with".
I know we actually agree about some of those rules, but there is clearly more debate to be had.
I really really should let others have that debate now. I would love to hear from as many folks as possible as I believe it is one fundamental aspect of the game.
Group FTE. Mobs are coded a number based on how many people it should take to kill them. Let's say 36 (6 groups). Once a raid has 75% of that number on its hatelist, that mob is "engaged" and is locked into that raid (by a simple mechanic such as graying out the name).
This would prevent KSing in situations where an entire guild is present and engaged.
It would prevent exploiting of the FTE mechanic since you need a significant number of people present to lock the mob.
And it would still allow for competition. Racing to the mob, setting up, buffing and engaging.
** mind you I still think instancesare the solution. And if raid content is hard enough, you won'tsee a "proliferation of loot".**