Kilsin said: Folks, before this turns into another 30+ page thread of arguments and assumptions, I would kindly ask that you wait to see how we handle this ...
Sure, can do. Exactly the moment these questions can be answered or are answered:
What are the design goals for these issues?
What features will be included in the Play Nice Policy?
Specifically, please enumerate your solutions to address the problems outlined in this thread. I know personally, I would love to hear how VR plans to address these problems, and what mechanics you plan to use; multi-tag? multi-tag quest-updates-only? personal loot?
If VR is unwilling to implement the/any solutions that solve these issues, you are, by design, ensuring Pantheon will contain more social toxicity than most other modern MMOs. This has a direct effect on both attracting the appropriate subscriptions in the target demographic and retaining them. From a fiscal perspective, designing a socially toxic game is irresponsible. And before you, Kilsin, say: "Of course we wouldn't do that", yet are unable or unwilling to enumerate how, without compromising on mechanics shown to date, know that such a stance will simply delay the inevitable and will be seen as a greater betrayal in the future, the longer you wait. Finally, if you or VR don't have these answers yet? That means you haven't thought about it, which is equally terrifying, given the community has thought about it, at length.
So, I look forward to either a detailed explanation of the design goals or even design philosophy beyond vague hand-waving platitudes. That would be quite refreshing given the past 4 years. Or you know, you could just ignore the hard questions like most developers and hope for the best. I'm sure that will work out just fine, like it did for PFO, Shroud, and others. ;)
It comes to the devs to debate of them and keep them at their own privacy, right ?
Whatever awesome intuition or overall design sight any of us thinks to have, the only way to be sure of what will be in the final product and how it's managed, is to apply with a serious resume to VR.
I guess that's enough to remember that we aren't the developpers, and that a shard of funding doesn't allow us to await for anything but the product that was advertised.
Spluffen said:Im well aware of the existence of such attitudes, what "blows my mind" is I can't figure out the reasoning behind it. I guess what I mean is that in my view, being entitled to a private experience in a sense, or being entitled to a part of the game world is inherently incompatible with the idea of a shared persistent world.
Edit: spelling
"shared persistent world". Yes. It's about sharing and helping and joining together. Shared experiences. Colaborative problem solving. Group dynamics. Guild organisation and support. A world of potential friends with which to socialise and play.
"private experience". No. No one wants that in an open world any more than we want to live alone in the real world. But, do we want to live with other people just so we can push them around? Does stopping them doing stuff make us doing that stuff any sweeter? No. Well, not unless you're a sociopath of some kind and that's why there are laws to prevent or punish if you do.
Even competition in the real world isn't really at the expense of others, either, even in arguably 'the ultimate' competition: professional team sports. You try and 'beat' the other team in games like football, but both of you get to play the same game and leagues are used to ensure it's a fair match. There are strict rules that define the competition and ensure both teams get a fair chance to participate. There's a winner that gets a trophy eventually, but everyone else gets to enjoy the season's games and has fun (and even gets paid), win or lose.
The kind of 'competition' some appear to want in MMORPGs is nothing like the healthy and organised competition that occurs with games in the real world.
If you want to look in the real world for examples of groups competing for resources and people that enjoy stopping others from enjoying themselves, things get a lot more nasty than 'games'.
What "blows my mind" is that some people can't see that stopping someone else enjoying PvE content *isn't* 'competition' and isn't 'fun' to most people, especially those being frustrated. It's just rudeness and griefing to most.
PvP is the only true traditional MMORPG 'competition' between players and that can get pretty unpleasant too, but at least everyone knows what they are in for. There's no occurences of one side simply not wanting to participate in the 'competition'.
I keep saying it, but I'll say it again because it's relevant and some still "can't figure out the reasoning behind it": Role-playing games from Pen & Paper ones 30 years ago and onwards were revolutionary because for once you got to get together with your buddies and all play *together*. You didn't have to pick sides and fight it out like in every other game.
It's not a wussy carebear thing or a need for participation trophies for all. That's just what people who can't seem to enjoy life without trying to prove they are better than others like to say...
It's because it's *more fun* to cooperate and coordinate and fight *together* against 'evil monsters' that you can slaughter without any remorse. It's wonderfully cathartic for *all* involved - you don't have to take it in turns being winner and loser. There is no one having to glumly be Robbers in the Cops and Robbers game.
I love PvP. I play the ultimate in aggressive PvP: The First Person Shooter war game. I love it and, though it's competitive nature *does* cause toxic behaviours, it's kind of accepted that that is what you are in for and you can go shoot those mouthy moaners.
When I come to an MMORPG it's for PvE, not to compete, contend, contest or conflict with other *players*. I want to play *with* other players and go kill dragons together. It's as simple as that. What's not to get?
vjek said:Design decisions should have been made years ago, not now. Now is too late, for some design decisions.
This isn't a design decision.
A PNP is independent of mechanics aside from there will of course be more PNP needed the more flexible and sandboxey the mechanics are.
In fact in some ways, things like PNP kinda have to wait until mechanics are mostly designed, because how else will you know what scenarios may occur?
Doesn't matter if it's MDD or FTW or whatever, though, a PNP is needed.
The more I hear from VR the more I understand their apparent reticence to comment. They are working on it and it will depend largely upon how the game plays and that perhaps is still being finalised.
The things that have worried me have been when VR *have* commented and it's seemed like they are supporting one stance or another and not giving enough detail to cover all the concerns that come up.
vjek said:If the mechanics prevent all the things the PNP is there to deal with, you don't need a PNP. Which is why most modern games don't have a PNP, because the mechanics prevent all the socially toxic behavior.
Yeah but we don't want all those restrictive mechanics. I'd much prefer sandboxey, but with guidelines for behaviour and etiquette than constrictive mechanics.
As we've seen in other games, overly constrictive mechanics like instancing do much more than avoid contention.
It's like avoiding being mugged by not going outdoors. It works, but at what cost?
vjek said:Kilsin said: Folks, before this turns into another 30+ page thread of arguments and assumptions, I would kindly ask that you wait to see how we handle this ...Sure, can do. Exactly the moment these questions can be answered or are answered:
What are the design goals for these issues?
What features will be included in the Play Nice Policy?
Specifically, please enumerate your solutions to address the problems outlined in this thread. I know personally, I would love to hear how VR plans to address these problems, and what mechanics you plan to use; multi-tag? multi-tag quest-updates-only? personal loot?
If VR is unwilling to implement the/any solutions that solve these issues, you are, by design, ensuring Pantheon will contain more social toxicity than most other modern MMOs. This has a direct effect on both attracting the appropriate subscriptions in the target demographic and retaining them. From a fiscal perspective, designing a socially toxic game is irresponsible. And before you, Kilsin, say: "Of course we wouldn't do that", yet are unable or unwilling to enumerate how, without compromising on mechanics shown to date, know that such a stance will simply delay the inevitable and will be seen as a greater betrayal in the future, the longer you wait. Finally, if you or VR don't have these answers yet? That means you haven't thought about it, which is equally terrifying, given the community has thought about it, at length.
So, I look forward to either a detailed explanation of the design goals or even design philosophy beyond vague hand-waving platitudes. That would be quite refreshing given the past 4 years. Or you know, you could just ignore the hard questions like most developers and hope for the best. I'm sure that will work out just fine, like it did for PFO, Shroud, and others. ;)
whoa, thats a bridge too far IMO. I don't participate in these topics with the intent to get any answers from the dev team, but rather to have reasonable discussions with my fellow players about the pro's and con's of any particular approach and our passion to see specific things incorporated (or not) into the final game product. These topics to me function as a pulse on any specific topic that the Devs can tap when the time is right for valuable insight on how the player community feels about any given topic.
Demanding answers or as Kilsin mentioned, needless bickering doesn't really help to further those ends. Comments like these are a sure fire way to get topics like these locked. We all want dev involvement and we all would love to know the answers to these questions, but we are still likely ~6 months out from Alpha and probably at least 2 years out from launch. The PnP question specifically is honestly something that would natrually be developed in Beta as the developers see how the mechanics they did put in place in Pre-Alpha and Alpha are working and giving them time to assess if additional steps are needed. A PnP is essentially a list of guidelines or rules, these can be changed without any coding in the game and could theoretically be generated in a dev team meeting on the final day of beta if needed (although I seriously hope they don't take that long).
Kilsin's post wasn't asking us to stop talking on the subject, if he wanted that he'd have just locked it and moved on. Rather he was asking that we all take a few momments and consider our comments to ensure the topic doesn't just turn into a tit for tat back and forth arguement display that serves nothing but aggrevating the community. If you have some thoughts on the subject you'd like to add, by all means make yourself heard, but lets steer clear of demanding the devs preempt their development process for this topic by giving us answers because I guarentee the only place that is going to lead is locked topics.
Umbra said:Sems to me, the easy solution is for the people that want this style of play is to roll on the PvP servers and then they can have as much competition as they can get.
Ive actually played on a pvp server in everygame I played post EQ. Because they are more fun to me. But I'm not going to start off on a pvp server in a game that has stated their focus is pve. Doesnt make that much sense to me.
Keldaria said:
I read vjeks post as essentially "why would we stop when we have no answers". The forums were made for us to discuss various topics, and that's what we are doing. I honestly feel like even though this is 10 pages it has been one of the less volatile threads in mmo gaming lol.
Porygon said:Ive actually played on a pvp server in everygame I played post EQ. Because they are more fun to me. But I'm not going to start off on a pvp server in a game that has stated their focus is pve. Doesnt make that much sense to me.
I'd wager that they're not going to strip the PvE content out of the PvP servers. Some of the best PvP over the years has been in games with a PvE focus.
Law generally favors competition when it comes to the economy and products that are purchased by consumers. I understand that some folks don't like the idea of feeling trampled by other players, but there are also plenty of people who feel uneasy about legal content monopoly. If you allow players to form non-compete agreements where they can lock down an area for an infinite amount of time, that is an ideal environment for RMT. It's also what is known as "dividing territories" and that makes absolutely zero sense in an open-world game that promotes a player driven economy where most loot is tradeable.
As mentioned previously, players were still able to enjoy the "camping" phenomenon in FFXI but it was reserved for XP Camps. Players were naturally inclined to give each other space especially in the more remote areas of a dungeon that couldn't realistically sustain multiple groups. The main reason FFXI had such a thriving economy is because "all loot" was valuable. Rather than seeing a few camps that players are funneled toward in linear fashion, everybody is encouraged to explore and make on-the-spot assessments of the opportunity cost that is observed.
Knowledgeable players would learn the terrain and come up with a gameplan where finding a favorable opportunity cost was always possible. Sometimes you would find a named boss that no players were competing for and that was generally viewed as a highly favorable opportunity cost. In that situation you would just continue to kill place-holders and eventually you would get what you were looking for. If another player or group came by and decided they were going to compete, it was because they found the opportunity cost of competing with another player to be favorable. The original group would re-evaluate and if they weren't happy with the circumstances they would move on. In most cases, competing with a single group was still considered a good opportunity cost and this allowed for fun/healthy competition.
If someone absolutely despises competition or equates it with murder, mugging, or stealing ... there was always something else to do. The beauty of a truly player driven economy with a large variety of meaningful loot and named bosses is that rather than feeling like you're being robbed of one of the few camps that are worth a damn, you can always move to another location with a similar opportunity cost. If the majority of names had "too much competition" you could always try your hand at harvesting ... yes, a sphere that has almost always been over-looked in other games because of historically poor opportunity cost. Going on an adventure for rare harvest materials was arguably more effective for wealth accumulation than competing for names but there were a lot of different factors that came into play.
If you happened to be a crafter that could turn those resources into actual merchandise then you were able to "double-dip" and take advantage of the opportunity cost associated with harvesting a given set of resources. One of the interesting observations I have seen is that competitive players are generally motivated by extrinsic incentives (loot) while non-competitive players are motivated by intrinsic incentives (personal fulfillment) -- so what happens when limited loot = required progression and both parties equate progression with personal fulfillment? (This is extremely common.) GM's on speed dial.
Rather than progression being intrinsically tied to a few meaningful camps because of their drops, it spreads to the entire world because "progression" is always possible with XP camps, and XP will ideally always be valuable due to a feature like progeny. FFXI featured something that was quite similar. De-leveling was also a big factor because every death had a real cost that players would have to pay. Acquiring loot is always possible when there are more than a scant few opportunities available.
This issue of "too much competition" is extrapolated when you have very few meaningful camps that everybody wants to compete for. When loot and camps are structured this way, it leads to the exact behavior where people want to lock down a camp for insane amounts of time because they know that once they leave it will be next to impossible to find another location that was equally desirable. Now players start cheating the system and finding ways to cycle friends or guild mates into camps, or even worse, RMT'ers use screen-sharing software to start forming around the clock shifts.
I hope Pantheon can be an open world where players have freedom of choice. I place a lot of value in being able to explore or go on adventures and then assess a situation and make an informed decision on how I proceed. An /ooc camp check completely negates that because rather than players interacting with each other in the world, they put forth the minimal amount of effort necessary to avoid other players. Players are a part of the environment and the world feels more alive when they are encouraged to interact rather than avoid each other. Each zone feels more robust when you have the option to explore and see what kind of mysteries are around the corner rather than pre-determining what parking spots are already taken as soon as you zone in. The interactions are more amicable when you don't feel the need to view other players with similar interests as an enemy who is trying to sabotage your day.
disposalist said:"shared persistent world". Yes. It's about sharing and helping and joining together. Shared experiences. Colaborative problem solving. Group dynamics. Guild organisation and support. A world of potential friends with which to socialise and play.
Shared experiences are equally as often negative, depending on the side of the coin you are at (the person currently camping the mob or the one coming in and wanting it for example), whoever has "rights" will be regarded as the victor by the other side.
disposalist said:"private experience". No. No one wants that in an open world any more than we want to live alone in the real world. But, do we want to live with other people just so we can push them around? Does stopping them doing stuff make us doing that stuff any sweeter? No. Well, not unless you're a sociopath of some kind and that's why there are laws to prevent or punish if you do.
I'm unsure if this is completely unrelated or quite a grave strawman accustation to be honest.
disposalist said:Even competition in the real world isn't really at the expense of others, either, even in arguably 'the ultimate' competition: professional team sports. You try and 'beat' the other team in games like football, but both of you get to play the same game and leagues are used to ensure it's a fair match. There are strict rules that define the competition and ensure both teams get a fair chance to participate. There's a winner that gets a trophy eventually, but everyone else gets to enjoy the season's games and has fun (and even gets paid), win or lose.
Its the same in a non-p2w mmorpg. You have the exact same outset. In football, having access to better team mates, more time to practice or being more talented aren't considered unfair. The trophy in this case is your loot or whatever. You don't get payed to play this game nor will I, that's not an applicable analogy.
disposalist said:I keep saying it, but I'll say it again because it's relevant and some still "can't figure out the reasoning behind it": Role-playing games from Pen & Paper ones 30 years ago and onwards were revolutionary because for once you got to get together with your buddies and all play *together*. You didn't have to pick sides and fight it out like in every other game.
You also don't have to pick sides in an MMORPG, likewise you CAN pick sides in a pen & paper game. Most likely your friends will exclude you if you screw them over, just like in an MMORPG. Anyway, apart from the combat mechanics, it's a bit far fetched to compare a game between 5 or so buddies to a MASSIVELY multiplayer online RPG.
disposalist said:It's not a wussy carebear thing or a need for participation trophies for all. That's just what people who can't seem to enjoy life without trying to prove they are better than others like to say...
Again, I have no idea if this is unrelated or a passive agressive strawman. I hope its the former.
disposalist said:I love PvP. I play the ultimate in aggressive PvP: The First Person Shooter war game. I love it and, though it's competitive nature *does* cause toxic behaviours, it's kind of accepted that that is what you are in for and you can go shoot those mouthy moaners.
This is a better comparison to the earlier talk about football, actually.
disposalist said:When I come to an MMORPG it's for PvE, not to compete, contend, contest or conflict with other *players*. I want to play *with* other players and go kill dragons together. It's as simple as that. What's not to get?
I agree with you, I also vastly prefer to play with other players to go kill the dragons together. Still, its a pipedream, because if their wishes don't align with mine, we aren't gonna magically agree because some user agreement tells us to kiss and make up. I want to play a persistent, non-instanced world that is shared between players. Im fully aware not all of those players and I will see eye to eye all the time. Me expecting to never have my feathers ruffled and never having to deal with others wanting something different from me isn't compatible with that kind of online world. I'd rather that be the case, sigh, and move on than having to deal with artifical rules that are going to be biased one way or the other. There are many ways to "solve" this (instancing, phasing etc.) but in the end you can't have the cake and eat it too.
Spluffen said:Im well aware of the existence of such attitudes, what "blows my mind" is I can't figure out the reasoning behind it. I guess what I mean is that in my view, being entitled to a private experience in a sense, or being entitled to a part of the game world is inherently incompatible with the idea of a shared persistent world.
Edit: spelling
It's weirder to you that people want to interact with one another in a world designed around working together to take down content and having to cooperate within basic guidelines to share that content... Than it is that people want to "compete" by using game mechanics built around taking down said content to disadvantage other players sharing the world while hiding behind the hard coded protections offered by a system not designed to support that... Or rather that the first group doesn't want to put up with the second. Riight.
If you want to "really" compete, go play on a PvP server and compete directly. An enchanter shows up to charm your mob, you just kill him. Some actual competition there. vs "Lolol look at how good I am I took their mob and they can't do anything about it. I am the best competitor ever."
jezebel said:If you want to "really" compete, go play on a PvP server and compete directly. An enchanter shows up to charm your mob, you just kill him. Some actual competition there. vs "Lolol look at how good I am I took their mob and they can't do anything about it. I am the best competitor ever."
Also allow training on the PvP server. Much more competitive fighting half a dozen PCs, a camp and the five sand giants someone just trained in.
The ultimate in competition - it will be like nineteen ninety eight when the undertaker threw mankind off hеll in a cell, and plummeted sixteen feet through an announcer's table. Perfection!
jezebel said:It's weirder to you that people want to interact with one another in a world designed around working together to take down content and having to cooperate within basic guidelines to share that content... Than it is that people want to "compete" by using game mechanics built around taking down said content to disadvantage other players sharing the world while hiding behind the hard coded protections offered by a system not designed to support that... Or rather that the first group doesn't want to put up with the second. Riight.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that those are my opinions. In fact, I want to cooperate with others to take down encounters. The quote I responded to was the guy literally saying he didn't want to have to consider anything else ever than himself/his team and whatever the fight at hand was. I think its an unrealistic expectation, there's no need to put words in my mouth.
jezebel said:If you want to "really" compete, go play on a PvP server and compete directly. An enchanter shows up to charm your mob, you just kill him. Some actual competition there. vs "Lolol look at how good I am I took their mob and they can't do anything about it. I am the best competitor ever."
Lets say I wanted to ""really" compete", what if my response is was just Nope. I don't decide which kind of competition you find "real", nor do you for me. Either way, that wasn't even the point of it. The point was that there WILL be competition over what are limited (by time) resources in a shared world and that seeking a shared world with limited resources and then expect no competition is not understandable to me.
I come at this from a sightly different perspective. One that tales into account all that can be learned and observed over these past 20 years. The discussion and passions regarding a PNP and examples are based on experiences and observations accumulated over the past 20 years - and all of them assume the same mechanics and the same simple algorithmic approach.
So rather than asking anything along the lines of "what is the play nice policy?" and an assumption of why it will never work even in the absence of an answer, I will ask, "Can you play nice?"
I would harken that everyone will say, "Yes, I can." and inevitably there will follow a "BUT..." And I would harken that the inevitable will be a finger pointing to someone else who started it or to "something else that matters more" that supercedes the "Yes I can."
There are ways to help ensure a PNP. And some of them can also be simplistic in mechanisms but not necessarily the simple mechanics that most assume will exist even in this day and age of better AI, fastre machines, more data, and an increasingly efficient use of managing and massaging that data. Something as simple as a parent taking away the toys that their kids fight over, "Okay, now no one gets to play with it." The random nature of spawns could also eventually be "not going to spawn at all for a while." The issue of placeholders could eventually be "not the placeholder you thought it was." Those are simple mechanics that basically take away the "toy being fought over."
Of everything I have read so far regarding Pantheon, it is clear to me that the intent of Pantheon is that content is king and that fighting over a camp or a selective spawn will not be a thing. One thing to rule them all doesn't seem to be what Pantheon will be about - not regarding items, not regarding encounters, not regarding adventuring and experiencing the game.
Quite simply, for me (emphasis on ME), the question is "Can you play nice?"
Definitely weird to me that some folks are so vigilant about bringing back a culture of using /ooc camp checks to avoid exploration and organic interaction with other players. Let's consider a phrase from the "What is Pantheon" page:
"Because Pantheon values the paradigm of great risk vs. great reward, the player will always be encouraged to push themselves out the door and to embrace exploration, adventure, danger and the community of players alongside them."
Sounds pretty awesome to me. I wonder if they should revise this part of the FAQ to include /ooc camp checks:
20.6 Will there be any special skills for exploring or navigating dungeons?
Yes. One example is the climbing skill which will be an important part of every player’s arsenal. Improving that skill will determine what type of faces you can grab onto and climb. One of the keys to vertical ascent and progression within dungeons, say Amberfaet, is the ability to climb. Climbing won’t be limited to only climbing faces. Certain classes, like Rogues, will have ropes that you will need in certain environments where there are no surfaces to climb. There will be several different climbing surfaces.
Or maybe it's the Perception feature that should be revised:
"One of the most profound things about Pantheon is how we are designing the game from the ground up so that the Environment truly matters – we want players to care about the world they are in, and why things are the way they are. When you think of MMOs, when is the last time you discovered the meaning, or the history, or the secrets of a person, place or event without being told by a text box? What if we’ve conceived of a way to bring players back to exploring because they are compelled by what they see in front of them - not because a blinking light tells them to go there? In Pantheon, Wizards will be able to perceive things that a Warrior cannot. Through prayer, a Cleric may gain insight into an area, or a creature, that a Rogue could never know. Through our perception system, Pantheon will redefine how the game world becomes known, and how players will work together to progress."
What if they have conceived a way to discourage players from exploring because they feel compelled to avoid areas where magical whispers tell them that another player might already be there?
I'm sure this tenet definitely had /ooc camp checks in mind rather than actual exploration:
"An understanding that player involvement is required for progression. All actions (or lack thereof) should have consequences. Positive actions should be rewarded. Apathy or lack of action should not be rewarded with bonuses."
Competition is inherent in an open-world game. Yes, this amazing phenomenon extends to standard PVE servers where resources are finite rather than artificially mass produced in private instances, and where players are actually considered a part of the environment. I honestly can't believe that this is being debated. As my mind processes the idea that some people don't particularly enjoy competing for resources in an open-world game, I can't help but remember that it's actually a pretty popular opinion, and one that lead to instancing and the total collapse of my favorite style of game in the MMO genre.
I also think people are blowing the idea of competition way out of proportion. Just because I want competition to exist doesn't mean that I want my entire game to revolve around competition. For me, it's more about the idea that when something is worth competing for, it feels more valuable. When multiple teams are willing to compete for the same resources in an area, I directly associate that behavior with meaningful content. Does this mean that I want to constantly compete for every single camp I come across? Of course not. The more competition you face, the less likely you are going to get what you are looking for. I miss that. I genuinely miss wanting loot so bad, and playing with others who also wanted it, and then squaring up (with friends) for a few hours to see which team prevails.
I miss the idea of interacting with other players in the world who weren't necessarily in my group. I miss the idea of true healthy/fun competition where players accept each other as fellow inhabitants of the same world, and who are vying for the same resource. I view the /ooc camp check as a direct contradiction to what this game is supposed to be about. I see immersion brought up all the time. What is more anti-immersive than /OOC?? It's literally taking you out of the game world to by-pass adventure and exploration in the context of camp checks being discussed here. I used to roleplay before I ever got into MMO's (Hence why I was extremely excited to play an MMORPG) and using /ooc was generally frowned upon in any public setting.
oneADseven said:Definitely weird to me that some folks are so vigilant about bringing back a culture of using /ooc camp checks to avoid exploration and organic interaction with other players.
Now come on oneAdseven, I know you strongly favor gameplay that offers a competitive element but you can't honestly think the non-competitive crowds arguement boils down to simply wanting camp checks and to avoid player to player contact can you? We've been over this numerous times, If we wanted private instances or areas completely free of outside interferance from other players we'd be all off playing one of the many games offering instances that currently exist. We're ALL here because we want player to player contact, and while /ooc definately helps us identify who is where, it doesn't mean that exploration and organic interaction with other players won't occur and is also worth pointing out that enabling competition doesn't necessarily block use of /ooc to the same effect. If anything you've made a strong case for excluding the use of /ooc and other server/zone wide chats from the game, which I'd be ok with if it didn't have the second effect of eliminating a popular avenue for players to find groups by interacting with others directly rather than signing up on a LFG list tool in a passive way.
Honestly the level of mental gymnastics occuring here is interesting to me. All the PnP crowd is currently saying is that we would like some server(s) with a PnP active that prevents or atleast generally limits competition on those servers. I personally want other servers to be open for competitive players like yourselves because honestly forcing you onto our servers/rulesets isn't any fairer than forcing us to play by your rulesets. All and all this should be a Win, Win for both sides, you get your servers with competitive play and we get our servers offering the protections of a PnP. Yet somehow I can't help but feel like the competitive crowd see's this solution as a Win, Lose because no body from that crowd seems to want to get behind the idea of having a server where they are allowed to compete if that doesn't represent all PVE servers. The whole thing just seems to feel like the competitive crowd strongly desires to force the non-competitive crowd into a competitive environment which only reinforces the anxitey many of that crowd feels overall for the practice.
We get that you guys like competition and see value in it and that you feel it makes gameplay better or more enjoyable. We respect that, on the other hand its simply not that way for us. For us, diving into a competitive situation is like you diving into a PVP situation, in many ways for us diving into a competitive situation might as well be diving full into PVP because why take half measures.
I also totally get and understand that you are not expecting competition to be rampent or wide spread or an every momment occurance. You are expecting content to be balanced and spread out, you are expecting mechanics to limit the level of competition to acceptable levels and some of you are speculating that these systems, mechanics and content levels should all but eliminate the need for a PnP. Great, but whats the harm in offering a PnP in addition to all of that? Seriously, if everything is fixed and the chances of problems occuring are next to nil then what is the harm in including additional guidelines that will never be used on select PnP servers? Are you afraid of rules that'll never need enforced on servers that players volentarily sign up for? There is nothing wrong with offering a security blanket even if the only effect it has is to provide comfort to the players that tools exist for them if they ever encounter a situation that requires them. Just because I built my home out of fire resistant materials doesn't mean I'm comfortable eliminating the fire department.
Spluffen said:disposalist said:"shared persistent world". Yes. It's about sharing and helping and joining together. Shared experiences. Colaborative problem solving. Group dynamics. Guild organisation and support. A world of potential friends with which to socialise and play.
Shared experiences are equally as often negative, depending on the side of the coin you are at (the person currently camping the mob or the one coming in and wanting it for example), whoever has "rights" will be regarded as the victor by the other side.
We may have a different definition of "shared" in mind. I'm talking about, when you meet someone and both want something, you agree to "share". You take it in turns, or you join together and roll for the loot and then perhaps do it again together so you both have the loot.
When I see the phrase "open world" I think "shared". Some clearly see "contested", but it doesn't have to be that way and everything in the Tenets, FAQ, etc suggest competition is to be mitigated not assumed to be intended.
Spluffen said:disposalist said:"private experience". No. No one wants that in an open world any more than we want to live alone in the real world. But, do we want to live with other people just so we can push them around? Does stopping them doing stuff make us doing that stuff any sweeter? No. Well, not unless you're a sociopath of some kind and that's why there are laws to prevent or punish if you do.
I'm unsure if this is completely unrelated or quite a grave strawman accustation to be honest.
I think the point is pretty clear myself. I'm drawing an exaggerated parallel with real world 'contention' in order to highlight how unpleasant the prospect is to some like me. I don't want conflict with people in a cooperative PvE game any more than I want it in real life.
I think some people think, because it's in a game, it isn't conflict between 'people', but it is.
Spluffen said:disposalist said:When I come to an MMORPG it's for PvE, not to compete, contend, contest or conflict with other *players*. I want to play *with* other players and go kill dragons together. It's as simple as that. What's not to get?
I agree with you, I also vastly prefer to play with other players to go kill the dragons together. Still, its a pipedream, because if their wishes don't align with mine, we aren't gonna magically agree because some user agreement tells us to kiss and make up. I want to play a persistent, non-instanced world that is shared between players. Im fully aware not all of those players and I will see eye to eye all the time. Me expecting to never have my feathers ruffled and never having to deal with others wanting something different from me isn't compatible with that kind of online world. I'd rather that be the case, sigh, and move on than having to deal with artifical rules that are going to be biased one way or the other. There are many ways to "solve" this (instancing, phasing etc.) but in the end you can't have the cake and eat it too.
Without a PNP people who are new to MMORPG and would like to be positive members of the community won't even know what *is* good etiquette. Without a PNP baddies will feel they are being handed a writ to do exectly as they want by the devs. Without a PNP there is no clue as to what is something that should be reported to the GMs and what isn't and they are *more* likely to be flooded with reports not less.
Your final arguments here are like saying "we can't achieve zero crime, so we may as well not have laws".
All games have rules. They aren't 'biased' they are just the way the game is supposed to be played. Like any game in the history of the world, they shape the game and they provide order such that all parties can enjoy the game.
To be honest, though, there are no good analogies with other games, because none are similar. MMORPGs are unique and have unique problems that decades of their existence have made completely clear.
MMORPGs are massively more complex involving players who aren't physically face-to-face and can 'enjoy' almost repercussionless bad behaviour. To not have PNP guidelines in such a situation and expect anything but chaos and grief is insane.
Anyway, I'm done with this discussion I think. We've heard from various channels that the devs are a long way from final decisions about this area and it's clear they are aware of the issues and intend to solve them one way or another.
oneADseven said:Definitely weird to me that some folks are so vigilant about bringing back a culture of using /ooc camp checks to avoid exploration and organic interaction with other players. Let's consider a phrase from the "What is Pantheon" page:
"Because Pantheon values the paradigm of great risk vs. great reward, the player will always be encouraged to push themselves out the door and to embrace exploration, adventure, danger and the community of players alongside them."Sounds pretty awesome to me.
Me too. How come you are reading "embrace...the community of players alongside them" to mean "contend with the community of players against them"?
The "danger" in that sentence is one of the things to embrace, not a part of the description of the community.
Dangit, I said I was done with this discussion... I'll try again now.
Spluffen said:I agree with you, I also vastly prefer to play with other players to go kill the dragons together. Still, its a pipedream, because if their wishes don't align with mine, we aren't gonna magically agree because some user agreement tells us to kiss and make up. I want to play a persistent, non-instanced world that is shared between players. Im fully aware not all of those players and I will see eye to eye all the time. Me expecting to never have my feathers ruffled and never having to deal with others wanting something different from me isn't compatible with that kind of online world. I'd rather that be the case, sigh, and move on than having to deal with artifical rules that are going to be biased one way or the other. There are many ways to "solve" this (instancing, phasing etc.) but in the end you can't have the cake and eat it too.
I'm totally cool with you toughening yourself up for parts of a game you don't like and playing it anyways.
Please understand, I like games specifically because I can "have the cake and eat it too" in them. That is what I personally think games are there for.... tweaking reality in favor of what the players want.
In Pantheon I want many things, such as being able to camp while STILL being able to see and interact with other players...just in a more peaceful way like Disposalist talks about. Sure I don't need all the cakes in the same game but...ok this analogy is getting odd.
Giving those of us who hate kill stealing what we want is possible, imo. I think you need to use BOTH Oneadseven's/VR's solutions of several sources of meaningful content in a "just right" population server, and Keldaria's/the PnP crowd's solution of that comfort pnp "just in case".
All it takes is VR writing in a comfort PnP that we hopefully won't need to use more than once or twice, again, thanks to Oneadseven/VR's solutions, or multiple server rulesets.
P.S. just to reiterate what has been said here, Kill/camp stealing really is THAT BAD to those of us who want a PnP. All of those nasty examples about sports and bars and thievery and paychecks and sociopaths and whatnot may seem like strawmen to those of you who only see a PnP as restrictive...But again, kill/camp stealling IS THAT BAD TO US. You have stolen something that we consider ours by merit of possibly HOURS of work. I'm sorry, it may seem ridiculous and childish to you, but I don't know how else to explain it.