It's worth mentioning that all of those discussion points alluded to in Keldaria's example ALSO took place in FFXI. Rather than doing it at the zoneline, players would traverse the zone and see who they run into. If you encounter another player then those conversations take place organically. These conversations were a by-product of a physical interaction rather than something used to avoid a real interaction in the first place.
Fulton said:Porygon said:.... Especially in a game that thrives (or at least is supposed to exhibit some form) of competition between players.
I have had a few times in eq1 where I did compete directly against someone... and if they won I would "grats" them. But that's definitely not the norm..
Very interesting thought.
Seems a Social PVE game should less about competition between the players and more about the players against the environment.
If someone wants to compete against other players, they have PvP server for that.
By the logic. There should be no NPCs on a PVP server. It should only be players vs players.
And every PVE server should give private instances so theres nothing stopping you from accomplishing your goal other than the "enviroment".
There are many options in between the 2 polarizing opposites.
Porygon said:Fulton said:Porygon said:.... Especially in a game that thrives (or at least is supposed to exhibit some form) of competition between players.
I have had a few times in eq1 where I did compete directly against someone... and if they won I would "grats" them. But that's definitely not the norm..
Very interesting thought.
Seems a Social PVE game should less about competition between the players and more about the players against the environment.
If someone wants to compete against other players, they have PvP server for that.
By the logic. There should be no NPCs on a PVP server. It should only be players vs players.
And every PVE server should give private instances so theres nothing stopping you from accomplishing your goal other than the "enviroment".
There are many options in between the 2 polarizing opposites.
And by that logic, PvP games should have no environment and be nothing but a giant white background for player to chase each other around in.
oneADseven said:Fair enough Keldaria but that is all stuff that can be done from another zone. You can send a /tell to someone from anywhere in the world. I don't consider that a "fun" interaction. Congratulating someone (jumping up and down, bowing, waving, cheering, emotes) who is competing with you? That's a visceral feeling and it makes the world feel more alive. I want to play in a living breathing world not a glorified chatroom.
It is not impossible to congratulate someone or interact with them outside of competition. Direct competition by itself doesn't necessary aid nor deract from interaction. EQ had many fine examples where you didn't need to be competing over a mob to feel accomplished or part of the broader community. I've many times in my EQ career went out of my way to help others, even outside of my guild or group and routinely felt what you describe without feeling the need to compete. The time I spent helping others I found very rewarding/satifying and I can easily tell you that if I asked for assistance on anything a raid practically formed with anticipation of helping even if I only needed a few people.
oneADseven said:It seems obvious to me that VR is intent on making "Competition fun again." Fun is subjective but I think most of us are here for the same reasons. Some players look at competition as something that produces anxiety, specifically while imagining "competition in an EQ environment." Something has to give. I would put my money on how the world is being contructed, how loot is handled, how bottlenecks are alleviated, how spawn mechanics are implemented, and how all of these things tie together. I would agree with Jez that what flied in FFXI probably wouldn't have flied in EQ. That's fair -- both games featured "social constructs" in regards to how camps formed and whatnot. Again, though, we have to get past the idea that Pantheon is going to be exactly like EQ. This includes how the world is being constructed, how loot is handled, how bottlenecks are alleviated, how spawn mechanics are implemented, and how all of that ties together.
Terminus will be a new frontier that is literally being designed with all of these things in mind so rather than assuming that competition is automatically a bad thing, or that Pantheon will be a redux of EQ while considering all of those elements, let's breath some life into what things could look like. I just so happen to remember a game where competition was embraced rather than feared, and where players still had the opportunity to kick back and camp without being trampled by other players. I'm not saying FFXI did everything right but I am saying that it's far closer to a comparable species of apple than it is an orange, and when it comes to everyday regular interaction with other players in the world, I would love to relive the type of experience where players are free to happily go about their business, and the CS team isn't getting spammed with hundreds of tickets from people complaining about "too much competition." Fun competition was a beautiful thing that elicited plenty of excitement from everyone involved, even those who didn't necessarily "win."
See other players as a threat and giving however much anxiety was only one part of the equation to me. The other part (arguably the biggest part) is about time spent playing the game. If I spent 1000 hours playing EQ then the vast majority of that would likely end up being gameplay, if you camped something you were actively playing. If I spent 1000 hours in FFXI then I'd bet 1/2 to 2/3rds of those hours would be spent not engaged in active gameplay but in "competition" (however much can honestly exist in a PvE game) standing around hoping to tag a HNM/NM before someone else trying to gear. Of course it probably didn't help that FFXI had horribly low drop rates and often incredibly high spawn times.
I just want to win against the game and have the chance to do so, winning over others or at the expense of others isn't a drive to me. There must be a way to have some competition without it extending to really limit others chances to try their hand at the challenging PvE content or otherwise be blocked out entirely to stoke someone's (or some group's) ego. I'll always maintain that if you really want people to be impressed by whatever you have achieved then it should come from beating content so difficult that most fail, not content that most haven't even had a chance to try.
But you are right, if EQ and FFXI were lemons to limes then we should probably assume Pantheon is going to be a grapefruit.
Keldaria said:It is not impossible to congratulate someone or interact with them outside of competition. Direct competition by itself doesn't necessary aid nor deract from interaction. EQ had many fine examples where you didn't need to be competing over a mob to feel accomplished or part of the broader community. I've many times in my EQ career went out of my way to help others, even outside of my guild or group and routinely felt what you describe without feeling the need to compete. The time I spent helping others I found very rewarding/satifying and I can easily tell you that if I asked for assistance on anything a raid practically formed with anticipation of helping even if I only needed a few people.
I never said it was impossible. In the example I gave, it had nothing to do with "direct competition." It had everything to do with the zone being completely accessible to all players. Rather than people using /ooc to see what content is or is not available, players would go on a journey. They would commit to wandering through the zone and seeing what happens. There were surprises around every corner. Sometimes you would run into other players at an area that you planned on establishing a foothold. When that happened, the discussion points you alluded to would take place. We didn't use /ooc as a way to avoid stepping on the toes of other players. The world was majestic and it belonged to nobody. My point wasn't that you had to compete in order to cheer/bow/wave to another player ... my point was that instead of looking at other people as an "inconvenience" or someone that would produce "social anxiety" (not saying you in specific cited players as either of those things but it has come up a lot) players all respected each other as having an equal stake in the world and it's treasures, and that "competing" instead of "avoiding" opens up another kind of interaction that otherwise wouldn't be possible if there are waiting lines scattered everywhere.
FFXI had the most helpful community I have ever seen and it wasn't even close. It was common to see high level players helping newbs because of how integral "player interdependence" was as a core aspect of the game. In other words ... player confrontation was going to be inevitable at times. Go on an adventure and see what happens. Sometimes you'll find an empty camp, sometimes you'll run into other players who need the same thing you do. Instead of spending time trying to avoid others you just make the most out of every opportunity that you find while organically travelling through the world. Nobody had a shaky trigger finger while hovering over the report button because everybody understood that other players were actually an important piece of the environment.
Porygon said:Keldaria said:]There is more to it than simply leaving. Often times exstensive interaction takes place as player talk to each other to figure out the status of each camp, how long have you been there, how long are you planning on staying, if the mob drops X next cycle are you leaving, can you let me know if you leave, do you have spots in your group, has he dropped anything good yet, etc. You seem to be far over simplifying the level of interaction taking place. I could easily do the same with the FFXI model by suggesting that no interaction is actually taking place other than the 2 groups rushing to tag first. casting a single spell to get the tag then watching the other group move on isn't a ton of community interaction IMO, now mind you thats a vast over simplification but I'm just using it as an example to help you understand the broader point I'm speaking to.
This is largely exaggerated from my experience. Unless it was a camp you "absolutely needed"... like an epic piece of the last piece of gear you need. Most people asked in "ooc" for a camp check, and went somewhere else if the one they needed was taken.
The amount of times I was asked when I was leaving was extremely minimal and it only ever happened of I had been at said camp for several hours.
The most common thing was someone sending a basic tell. "Let me know when you leave". Which isnt really "sparking socialization".
Again. This is just how I experienced it.
Some players simply don't want to talk. I can say on my server players were almost fairly friendly and opened conversations quite often. As an enchanter it wasn't uncommon for me to get request to run to another groups spot and get buffs in exchange for their Shaman coming to ours. Ultimately its like that saying about how you can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Some players simply won't interact regardless of circumstance. For these players it doesn't matter if you have direct competition, a heavy handed PnP or even a mandate that everyone must say hello upon entering a zone. Like everything else its different strokes for different folks, many players I'm sure increase their interaction when competing against other player just as i'm sure many players are actively discouraged from interacting under those circumstances.
On the flip side one could also suggest that it takes 2 to tango, I've had many long thoughtful conversations that started out with a simple "Hey can you tell me when you leave?". I'd almost always respond with, "sure thing, anything particular you're looking for?". Far to often its easy to slip into a simple "yes, no, sure, ok" level of response without realizing it. This goes for competitive environments as well with many people simply picking up and moving on or offering a "gg" or "congrats" at best. In all honesty its upto the individuals involved to seek engagement, if all you did is the minimal effort then its typically significantly harder to spark conversation. There is certainly nothing wrong with that but everyone here knows what it feels like trying to have a conversation with a brick wall I'm sure.
oneADseven said:My point wasn't that you had to compete in order to cheer/bow/wave to another player ... my point was that instead of looking at other people as an "inconvenience" or someone that would produce "social anxiety" players all respected each other as having an equal stake in the world and it's treasures, and that "competing" instead of "avoiding" opens up another kind of interaction that otherwise wouldn't be possible if there are waiting lines scattered everywhere.
Unfortunately if after reading my posts you think I view other people as an "inconvenience" or something to be "avoiding" then I'm not sure where I can add much more to the conversation. These things were never part of my stance and oversimplifying mine and others opinions to imply them doesn't really give a lot of room to have a real discussion. Nobody here views other players as inconvenient or wants to avoid other players (specific types of players maybe but in general no), if they did they would likely be out playing instanced MMO's than being excited about a new MMO being built without one. Rather what we are saying is that competition isn't exactly a compelling way to promote positive community interaction in our view. Most of us have had far more negative experiences from competitive playstyles than we have positive. Many of which come from games with similar systems to what is being talked about here like MDD.
oneADseven said:FFXI had the most helpful community I have ever seen and it wasn't even close. It was common to see high level players helping newbs because of how integral "player interdependence" was as a core aspect of the game. In other words ... player confrontation was going to be inevitable at times. Go on an adventure and see what happens. Sometimes you'll find an empty camp, sometimes you'll run into other players who need the same thing you do. Instead of spending time trying to avoid others you just make the most out of every opportunity that you find while organically travelling through the world. Nobody had a shaky trigger finger while hovering over the report button because everybody understood that other players were actually an important piece of the environment.
I am not disputing FFXI community, nor should any of my comments be viewed as a reflection of such. It is a game that offers a experience all of its own. It has its own systems and the game itself isn't based purely around competition, but rather that competition is a reflection of what the community desided was appropriate. Many of us opted not to play FFXI, or tried and later quit FFXI because they didn't care for particular elements. Its all up to what the individual player enjoys. There is no doubt a health portion of the community here at pantheon likes competition. There is also no doubt that a health portion of the community here also does not.
The difficulty in my mind is that its fairly impossible to cater to both crowds without giving them seperate servers. If competition is allowed, then undoubtedly players not wishing to compete will find themselves being forced into competitive play wherever that play is allowed, while the same can be said of if no competition is allowed then players who enjoy that content won't have any means from which to obtain it. Its far to easy to dismiss the issue by saying don't compete if you don't want to but players really aren't being offered a choice when another group rolls in and won't negotiate/talk.
By all means, I want those who enjoy competitive play to be offered content that suits their needs, but I don't want that to come at the expense of others seeking a different playstyle especially if it doesn't have to. Seperate servers for PnP and non-PnP could easily be offered/organized.
Sorry Keld I edited my post half an hour ago to notate that I wasn't suggesting you in specific were referring to other players as an inconvenience or something that produces social anxiety. I am not trying to single anybody out. I'm saying that the general "vibe" I have seen when it comes to "camping" is that people don't want to be bothered. They want to peacefully lock an area down until they get what they want. It feels like an open world instance. I think that's silly. We aren't using FTE for the same reason ... it feels like an invisible quarantine. The world is open and accessible to all. I'm basing my stance on exactly what Kilsin said which is that all NPC's are available to everybody. I understand that EQ and FFXI were much different and just like Iksar said, if they were lemons to limes, Pantheon will be a grapefruit. It was stated that they want competition to be fun in this game. This isn't something you turn "on or off" with server rulesets. It's core to the game, and core to open-world. If people are trying to reimagine this "new ruleset" in "Old EQ" then it's understandable that they might be freaking out. To put things in proper context, though, Terminus is a new world, and should be viewed as a grapefruit rather than a lemon.
Fulton said:Porygon said:Fulton said:Porygon said:.... Especially in a game that thrives (or at least is supposed to exhibit some form) of competition between players.
I have had a few times in eq1 where I did compete directly against someone... and if they won I would "grats" them. But that's definitely not the norm..
Very interesting thought.
Seems a Social PVE game should less about competition between the players and more about the players against the environment.
If someone wants to compete against other players, they have PvP server for that.
By the logic. There should be no NPCs on a PVP server. It should only be players vs players.
And every PVE server should give private instances so theres nothing stopping you from accomplishing your goal other than the "enviroment".
There are many options in between the 2 polarizing opposites.
And by that logic, PvP games should have no environment and be nothing but a giant white background for player to chase each other around in.
That makes no sense. I think everyone understands that pve is player vs environment (meaning the monsters that inhabit the world).
Theres still an environment in PvP games.
Iksar said:I just want to win against the game and have the chance to do so, winning over others or at the expense of others isn't a drive to me. There must be a way to have some competition without it extending to really limit others chances to try their hand at the challenging PvE content
There is. It's called instances. They were literally designed for this reason.
I thought I'd chime in a sec.
The most important thing is people have fun playing a game or they will eventually quit.
Devs: If you set the world up in such a way that you leave too much leeway for harrasment and cheating either by not enough staff to deal with the issues or by oversights in development you are setting yourself up for failure. I want to see a huge success. ♥ Competiton is great in all but everyone needs a ref. Your GM's are the Refs. Please realize you're going to need them more today than you did back in the early 2000s.
Things have changed out there in cyberspace especially where competition is concerned. KSing has always been a hot button issue in original EQ because you guys set the game up in such a way a person had to invest a lot of time (several hours) to get an item to make them better. When someone not so nice comes along after you have been there 4-5 hours camping something and then "competes" with you and takes the loot it will leave a sour taste in a players mouth. Is the original person entitled to that loot? That is subjective but what I can say is people really value thier time, and if you make light of that people will assume you don't care and leave.
My best advice is to make sure you are not setting people up for dissapointment. Camps were fun before people got greedy and gamed the system. If you happen to plan to use camps again in Pantheon please be aware that making items rare (can) lead to destructive player behavoir. I loved camps way back in the day but I'm not so sure they are the best way to go anymore for special loot items. It's a shame because I'm not sure anything can compare to the excitement of seeing your rare mob spawn. It's like winning the lottery. Now imagine you are holding the golden ticket and someone plucks it from your hand... Ewww not so great.
Porygon said:Iksar said:I just want to win against the game and have the chance to do so, winning over others or at the expense of others isn't a drive to me. There must be a way to have some competition without it extending to really limit others chances to try their hand at the challenging PvE content
There is. It's called instances. They were literally designed for this reason.
Yes, and then you are no longer playing an MMO.
Gamerchick said:I thought I'd chime in a sec.
The most important thing is people have fun playing a game or they will eventually quit.
Devs: If you set the world up in such a way that you leave too much leeway for harrasment and cheating either by not enough staff to deal with the issues or by oversights in development you are setting yourself up for failure. I want to see a huge success. ♥ Competiton is great in all but everyone needs a ref. Your GM's are the Refs. Please realize you're going to need them more today than you did back in the early 2000s.
Things have changed out there in cyberspace especially where competition is concerned. KSing has always been a hot button issue in original EQ because you guys set the game up in such a way a person had to invest a lot of time (several hours) to get an item to make them better. When someone not so nice comes along after you have been there 4-5 hours camping something and then "competes" with you and takes the loot it will leave a sour taste in a players mouth. Is the original person entitled to that loot? That is subjective but what I can say is people really value thier time, and if you make light of that people will assume you don't care and leave.
My best advice is to make sure you are not setting people up for dissapointment. Camps were fun before people got greedy and gamed the system. If you happen to plan to use camps again in Pantheon please be aware that making items rare (can) lead to destructive player behavoir. I loved camps way back in the day but I'm not so sure they are the best way to go anymore for special loot items. It's a shame because I'm not sure anything can compare to the excitement of seeing your rare mob spawn. It's like winning the lottery. Now imagine you are holding the golden ticket and someone plucks it from your hand... Ewww not so great.
Problem with your thesis statement - is how people define fun. Once you get people to agree on that, then you can make that game. But for now, if the game that VR makes fits your definition, then play it.
Porygon said:There is. It's called instances. They were literally designed for this reason.
If you want to take it to an extreme end of the spectrum sure. You can also have an open world with lockouts + relatively fast respawns and/or ways for players to work toward being able to trigger mob spawns.
zewtastic said:Problem with your thesis statement - is how people define fun. Once you get people to agree on that, then you can make that game. But for now, if the game that VR makes fits your definition, then play it.
The issue with that is nowhere is this game marketed as competitive focused, there is no mention that it is a core component and instead only acknowledgments that it has lead to massive problems in the past and can generally become a negative. Which is why many of us are having this discussion or voicing these concerns.
oneADseven said:Sorry Keld I edited my post half an hour ago to notate that I wasn't suggesting you in specific were referring to other players as an inconvenience or something that produces social anxiety. I am not trying to single anybody out. I'm saying that the general "vibe" I have seen when it comes to "camping" is that people don't want to be bothered. They want to peacefully lock an area down until they get what they want. It feels like an open world instance. I think that's silly. We aren't using FTE for the same reason ... it feels like an invisible quarantine. The world is open and accessible to all. I'm basing my stance on exactly what Kilsin said which is that all NPC's are available to everybody. I understand that EQ and FFXI were much different and just like Iksar said, if they were lemons to limes, Pantheon will be a grapefruit. It was stated that they want competition to be fun in this game. This isn't something you turn "on or off" with server rulesets. It's core to the game, and core to open-world. If people are trying to reimagine this "new ruleset" in "Old EQ" then it's understandable that they might be freaking out. To put things in proper context, though, Terminus is a new world, and should be viewed as a grapefruit rather than a lemon.
I certainly understand where you are coming from. That said, I agree that Pantheon isn't directly comparible to either EQ or FFXI as they are different games and employ different systems. That said I do feel there are some lessons and experience that can be drawn from lemons and limes and considered while you are constructing the grapefruit. For me personally, I want the grapefruit to be constructed with the focus on a true PVE experience and not on one filled with competition. I understand others such as yourself feel competition would lend itself to the gameplay based upon your expeciences in past games, but that isn't one that suits my playstyle or gaming preference along with many others. That doesn't mean I don't want you to obtain your playstyle, but rather that I'd prefer your ability to obtain your playstyle doesn't impact my ability to obtain mine. I currently do not see any mechanics or gameplay elements that prevent your preferred playstyle from impacting mine, or allow them to cooexist on the same server. I do however see that multiple servers will be available, multiple rulesets (PVP, PVE, Roleplay?) are likely to be available, and ultimately if the only difference between PnP and non-PnP servers is an agreement to obide by additional rules on PnP servers then I don't see any difficulty in implimenting seperate servers. Seperate servers for these things after all might be how the grapefruit chooses to distinguish itself from the lemon or lime.
I would suggest the following article for people to read: https://quanticfoundry.com/2017/03/23/competition-not-opposite-community/
Some of the important takeaways I observed:
"Together, the data suggests that conceptualizing Competition and Community as polar opposites is unproductive (and doesn’t reflect reality). More often than not, they are aligned and load onto a single Social factor. But when thinking or brainstorming about Social features in games, the important secondary motivation to take into account is Conflict, and whether the degree of Conflict introduced into a game aligns with the preferences of the target audience."
In the chart that describes examples of high competition but low conflict, they include either "instancing" or "daily objectives."
And some quotes from popular MMO enthusiasts/writers after reading that article:
"In games with higher levels of competitive gameplay, players are very strongly encouraged to work together for mutual benefit and competitive advantage, and that naturally leads to more tightly-knit communities." -- Andrew Ross (@dengarsw)
"There’s been a trend in recent years toward making all MMOs super solo-friendly because it just makes business sense to appeal to the widest possible audience, but I personally think that detracts from what makes an MMO special. We now have games populated by countless individuals who don’t need to rely on each other for anything, and then we wonder why they don’t form as cohesive communities as the hard-as-nails MMOs of old that required groups to do most of the content. We wonder why players are abusive to each other in chat and only interested in doing something if it benefits themselves, but the gameplay doesn’t give them any reason to care about other players or their social status on the server." -- Brendan Drain (@nyphur)
"In the end, I think that it’s important for game designers to pay attention to the realities of the gaming community, and as Yee’s post insinuates, social and competitive design should be molded together and not seen as opposite and opposing facets of game design." -- Larry Everett (@Shaddoe)
"I’m excited to see this work published, honestly, and happy to see Bartle exonerated in his own way, since while he designed the Bartle taxonomy, it was incorrectly applied in the original test that everyone knows and game designers have referred to forever. By attempting to disentangle playstyles from each other, Yee and his colleagues have refreshed the player template for a new generation of game designers and online titles." -- Brianna Royce (@nbrianna)
"As I see it, community pretty much is the act of working together for a goal. Working together for a competitive goal can really band people together because they need one another to succeed. And let’s face it, doing something better than and winning is a pretty integral part of the psyche. Having played and coached soccer for many many years, I’ve participated in my share of competition, and it definitely fostered community. It’s a given that you simply can’t succeed by yourself on the team, you need the whole team. This makes you work together." -- MJ Guthrie (@MJ_Guthrie)
"In some ways, Quantic Foundry’s study matches up very well with my own experiences. Some of the most competitive people I know are also excited by raiding and building and other big group activities. My friends who excel at team-based games like Overwatch or League of Legends are all good at communicating with each other, and enjoy hanging out in real life. Competition, in many games, is an inherently social proposition, and encourages socializing and stronger communities." -- Patron Archebius
"I think it all boils down to being driven. You’ll never see great community in (sub)games where players log on for 20 mins to “just have fun”. There’s no passion there, no drive to achieve something in the game world. Nothing to band together or even socially interact for. As a result, there’s often a really relaxed atmosphere, but you don’t feel very attached to anything or anyone. A sense of community can only exist where people really care, about the game, the people and the things that happen in it. Which, from what I’ve seen, is rarely the case in gameplay where neither competition nor conflict is present." -- Veldan
Furthermore, I would like to shine a light on what an "open-world" truly is which can be referenced here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_world
With emphasis on:
"The main appeal of open world gameplay is that they provide a simulated reality and allow players to develop their character and its behavior in the direction of their choosing."
The popularity of games such as Zelda: Breath of the Wild and Grand Theft Auto 3.
It seems clear to me that "conflict" is an important cog in the conceptualization process of an open world. It appears that EQ had various bottlenecks that resulted in undesirable levels of conflict. It also appears to me that VR has recognized all of this and have suggested that Terminus is going to be built from the ground up with the idea that "too much competition" (I would argue that conflict is more appropriate) can indeed be undesirable to a portion of their player base. That said, they have also made it clear that they do want competition to be fun. The easiest way to remove conflict from the equation is to implement instances and that is something they have also made very clear that they do not plan on doing. It appears they are going down a different route that preserves the integrity of the "open-world" and instead focuses on the idea that "Content is King." Instead of creating a few high-pressure bottlenecks that create massive levels of conflict, they are going to create a large world full of situational gear that encourages players to spread out. Non-linear progression is part of what makes an open world so special so it only makes sense to leverage as much of the world as possible. Try to reimagine EQ where all zones are popular rather than everybody wanting to condense into the same few camps.
Pantheon is going to be a game that attracts a melting pot society and encourages truly emergent behavior. Competitive gamers make up a huge portion of the online market and this is obvious when you consider the most popular games streamed on Twitch (A platform VR has leveraged multiple times while promoting their game) -- quite simply, you cannot create an open-world game that shuns such a huge demographic of player personality and motivation. Or maybe you can ... but then you don't have a melting pot society, and you certainly don't have emergent behavior. What you get is a themepark/grocery store experience where chunks of the world are viewed as a line leading up to a concession stand, and where it's content is considered a piece of merchandise in a shopping cart. This environment might be great for socializing or allowing players to specifically focus on NPC's rather than the true environment and the other players included in it, but let's not forget that you already chased off a large chunk of your players who enjoy competition/conflict and compromised the integrity of a true open-world experience in the process. If players want to establish "ownership" of an area, then they should do so within the confines of what can be done in the game.
What I mean by that is that if VR wants to allow players to establish a camp and claim ownership of the land, then there should be some sort of "camp" mechanism implemented into the game. I understand that EQ offered a unique experience when it came to camping but at the end of the day, it required CS baby-sitting in order to make sure that everybody played nice. In this day and age you are going to have a very hard time convincing the average player that just because you were there first, it's "human decency" that they move on and leave you to your business. Pantheon is both a world and a video game with emphasis on the former. That said, the real world is full of competitive gamers that will be attracted to the virtual world known as Terminus. You aren't getting rid of competitive players. If you want to solve the issue, you need to cure the cause rather than the symptoms ... and that is conflict. As long as VR designs their world with a mindset of "We're doing this and understand the level of conflict that can arise" then everything is working as intended. This isn't a good vs evil paradigm -- it's different players/motivators making the most of the opportunities available. Some players are going to have a higher/lower tolerance for risk/conflict than others -- design the game with your target audience in mind.
Beyond that, don't forget that you are using Twitch to promote the game. Consider the popularity of games like Grand Theft Auto 3 and Zelda: Breath of the Wild. Then consider what happens when you allow a bunch of players inside of a game like Grand Theft Auto 3 where players are all vying for the same resources. Even if PVP was turned off, there would still be plenty of conflict. Instead of there being bottlenecks for FBSS, there would be bottlenecks for the best weapons/vehicles/territory. The same thing would happen in Zelda; resources are finite and everybody wants to progress! Finally, it's important to recognize that "conflict" is a sphere of it's own and one that many players enjoy. This doesn't mean that every person who enjoys conflict are going to migrate to PVP servers. Please recognize that there are folks who prefer PVE over PVP but still enjoy conflict. You can put up a sign of "Not Welcome Here" if you want ... I think that would be a mistake. I think it would be much better to just stick with the plan -- create an open-world game that will welcome a melting pot society, encourage emergent behavior, and focus on challenging gameplay, social interaction, and cooperation. Recognize that conflict is inevitable and hand-craft your world with that in mind. Don't create a system that is going to rely on 24/7 Customer Service to settle disputes when it's obvious that all players will never reach a consensus.
Iksar said:The issue with that is nowhere is this game marketed as competitive focused, there is no mention that it is a core component and instead only acknowledgments that it has lead to massive problems in the past and can generally become a negative. Which is why many of us are having this discussion or voicing these concerns.
Ok this is a "massive" over-generalization.
There were not "massive" problems in the past.
And many "problems" sorted themselves out, and did not require vast over-analysis of what "might" occur.
Why not let VR make the game they have a vision for and see how it fleshes out in Alpha/Beta. That is where to really talk about issues and balance.
The game is being defined as an open, contested world. The word "contested" does seem to lend itself to being competitive.
oneADseven said:Pantheon is going to be a game that attracts a melting pot society and encourages truly emergent behavior. Competitive gamers make up a huge portion of the online market and this is obvious when you consider the most popular games streamed on Twitch (A platform VR has leveraged multiple times while promoting their game) -- quite simply, you cannot create an open-world game that shuns such a huge demographic of player personality and motivation. Or maybe you can ... but then you don't have a melting pot society, and you certainly don't have emergent behavior. What you get is a themepark/grocery store experience where chunks of the world are viewed as a line leading up to a concession stand, and where it's content is considered a piece of merchandise in a shopping cart. This environment might be great for socializing or allowing players to specifically focus on NPC's rather than the true environment and the other players included in it, but let's not forget that you already chased off a large chunk of your players who enjoy competition/conflict and compromised the integrity of a true open-world experience in the process. If players want to establish "ownership" of an area, then they should do so within the confines of what can be done in the game.
Some players are going to have a higher/lower tolerance for risk/conflict than others -- design the game with your target audience in mind.
That's a very poor judge/metric to use to determine the overall playstyles or interests of gamers. People watch competitive streams in large/for the most part because it is much more entertaining to see the most/more skilled players/teams/leagues going head to head, just like mainstream sports. MMOs comparatively tend to get far less views no matter if PvE/raiding or PvP, because they are largely unimpressive to watch even to fans (as I type this there are 2,886 people watching the highest WoW streamer who is also showing beta of the upcoming expansion while at the same time there are 6,642 people watching someone play Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze). I love competition when its an even playing field, like most FPS/RTS/MOBA and other competitive focused games but I don't play MMOs for that because they are hopelessly imbalanced and it's otherwise not a goal or interest to me in an RPG where I expect the game to be the primary challenge.
Their target audience seems to me as though it is entirely somewhere that conflict with other players is limited and not a means of content denial:
Brad:
"Does our target audience run into the right amount of people outside of their group or guild that it feels like a real world (remember, no instancing)? But when they do, do we have that sweet spot that exists between underpopulation (a very real danger when creating a group focused game) and over population (where people are fighting over camping spots, drops, rares, named, etc.)? "
"1. What systems and such do we want to take from the first generation of MMOs and bring them back because, especially for our target audience, they've gone missing from the newer MMOs. I think we have a pretty clear picture of that, both from ourselves and from the community.
1a. Which of these systems need some tweaking or adjustments based on what we've learned in the last 16+ years?
1b. Which of these systems need to be changed because many in our audience have jobs, spouses, responsibilities, etc. and cannot, for example, regularly play 8 hour contiguous sessions? Again, their tastes in gaming haven't changed, but their situation in RL has."
zewtastic said:Ok this is a "massive" over-generalization.
There were not "massive" problems in the past.
The game is being defined as an open, contested world. The word "contested" does seem to lend itself to being competitive.
By all means direct me to where they say open, contested world in any of the About Pantheon pages. All I see is where they said too much competition was a plague in open world mmos in the past.
Another quote from Aradune:
"But our target audience is bigger than that group. We are casting a broader net, so to speak. We are absolutely convinced that a large group of younger players will end up loving the game, assuming we can reach them, show them something that seems fun and interesting, provide answers to their questions no matter how simple or sophisticated. These people love Dark Souls, Call of Duty, the better MOBAs, the survival games -- they crave both challenge and risk and reward, but they also crave experiencing these things together with other real people. There's just something that's part of human nature where if you experience something exciting, dangerous, tension-filled, etc. and you experience that with other actual people, those events have a greater impact and create much deeper and longer lasting memories. So our challenge (the dev team and the community's) is to figure out how to reach these groups and explain to them what they're looking at, why things work the way they work, and how much FUN these games can be."
Based on the quote you provided, Iksar, it appears that "too much competition" for camps is more of a population issue than a game design issue (please check the FAQ excerpt at the end of this post.) Maybe they only want 2-3 groups contesting a location as opposed to 5-6. As we both know, "too much competition" is subjective, but it damn sure doesn't mean "no competition at all." Based on that, I think it's fair to assume that competition is absolutely intended to function as a core aspect of the game, but that they will attempt to achieve their "sweet spot" by managing server populations and carefully hand-weaving whatever amount of "conflict" they find desirable into each part of the world. You mentioned that competition leads to "anxiety" -- Brad specifically said they are looking for MOBA players (amongst others) who appreciate something "exciting, dangerous, tension-filled" -- MOBA players do not get that from PVE content alone. League of Legends, for example, has certain resources that are extremely valuable such as the Dragon and Baron. The most "tension-filled" moments are when multiple teams converge to try and win credit for these bosses. Now, keep in mind that I am not trying to suggest that VR wants their "vision" to be automatically attached to "competition" but I do feel that competition is inherent and that it can showcase some of the more tension-filled scenarios that are possible in an open-world MMO. You could just as easily say that you can achieve excitement and tension while fighting PVE content in an instance but how much would that resonate with folks who play MOBA's or Battle Royale games?
I wasn't trying to imply that Twitch should be used to determine the overall playstyles or interests of gamers. I also mentioned GTA3 and Zelda: BotW. The correlation I wanted to point out is that VR has placed a lot of emphasis on promoting their game through Twitch which has been dominated by MOBA's for a long time but has been recently surpassed by Battle Royale (Survival/Last Man Standing) games like PUBG and Fortnite. The top game on Twitch right now is "Fortnite" and it has 675% more viewers than second place. What is the difference between MOBA's and Battle Royale games? They both focus on resource acquisition and conflict. The biggest difference is the scale and size of each match. Battle Royale games are much more massive (open-world) and feature many more players. In any event, Brad did propose that we the community should help reach out to this younger generation and explain to them what they're looking at, why things work the way they work, and how much FUN these games can be. We need to stop painting a picture where fun competition is equated with toxicity or griefing. We need to focus on why competition should be embraced, and how tension-filled moments can be very exciting, and how sharing these experiences with other players is a part of the magic of playing an open-world MMO.
As far as competition being emphasized in Pantheon, competition is inherent in an open-world game with finite resources. If you are going to promote a college basketball game, you talk about the features that will help your game stand out from other games that are similar. You don't remind people that the players featured in the game are college players, or that the teams are college teams instead of pro. Once you understand that it's a college basketball game, it's safe to draw any amount of conclusions that are attached to "college basketball." Let's all consider what "instancing" actually means and how it runs parallel to "open-world." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instance_dungeon
Takeaways:
The problem can be stated as follows: every player wants to be "The Hero", slay "The Monster", rescue "The Princess", and obtain "The Magic Sword". When there are thousands of players all playing the same game, clearly not everyone can be the hero. The problem of everyone wanting to kill the same monster and gain the best treasure became obvious in the game EverQuest, where several groups of players would compete and sometimes harass each other in the same dungeon, in order to get to the monsters dropping valuable items. The creation of instances largely solves this set of problems, leaving only travelling to and from the dungeon as a potential risk in player versus player environments.
Stated another way, instances can be used to reduce the competition over resources within the game.[3] Excessive competition in these spaces leads to several undesirable behaviors such as kill stealing, spawn camping, and ninja looting as players do whatever they can to acquire the limited rewards. Instancing preserves the gaming experience, since some gaming scenarios do not work if the player is continually surrounded by other players, as in a multiplayer setting. Instance dungeons may contain stronger than usual mobs and rare, sought-after equipment. They also may include level restrictions and/or restrict the number of players allowed in each instance to balance gameplay. Several games use instancing to scale the mobs to the players' levels, and/or the number of players present.
If you want to eliminate "kill-stealing" it's really quite simple. All mobs are contested. You could also implement instances. Which one would you rather have? It's clear that EQ suffered from "too much competition" that lead to undesirable amounts of conflict in specific choke points and bottle necks. VR has recognized as much and plans to alleviate "too much competition" by managing server populations. They also plan on emphasizing situational gear (which should create more meaningful camps and naturally fan people out) and tying everything together with the very first tenet: "Content is King." There has been more kill-stealing in League of Legends than any other game ever made and it's generally viewed as an undesirable behavior. At the same time, it's not a reportable offense. Riot has billions of dollars at their disposal and could never try to police such an action. They do, however, police "intentional griefing" and "harassment." Kill-stealing will never fall under either of those categories because it's impossible to quantify intent. VR has a much smaller team than Riot and as such I think it behooves all of us to manage our expectations accordingly.
"Overcrowding and too much competition are indeed problems that have plagued both MMOs with and without instancing. If there are not enough players around, it can be hard to group and socialize. But if there are too many people around, the world feels crowded and people have to wait for encounters or spawns, or even compete for them. Our answer to this issue is twofold: first, primarily during the later phases of beta, we will determine how many people online at one time in our game world feels right -- neither under-crowded nor overcrowded. Second, if and when a server’s/shard’s population grows too large, we will launch a new shard with incentives for players to spread out. And with our harnessing of cloud hosted servers/shards, this is actually something we can do dynamically, easily, and quickly."
An important takeaway I see from above is that they do suggest that the "sweet spot" is neither under-crowded nor over-crowded. Some of the issues they associate with "over-crowding" include having to wait for encounters or spawns, or even compete for them. Based on that, I can understand why some people might feel that there will literally be no competition whatsoever in Pantheon. At the same time, it also includes "waiting for encounters or spawns" -- should players assume that they will never have to wait for encounters or spawns if VR achieves the population sweet spot they are aiming for? I highly doubt it.
An open contested world does not imply that there should be competition for bosses or even ordinary mobs that other people got to first and are already camping.
It is *consistant* with either respecting existing camps or with not respecting existing camps - we don't know the approach they will take. *They* may not know the approach they will take - we aren't even up to alpha yet.
An open contested world does not imply that anyone can take (killsteal) a mob that someone else has already pulled. It is just as consistant with giving credit to the puller as it is to giving credit to the person doing the most damage. We don't know the approach they will take - perhaps they don't either - yet.
What is certain is that they intend the open contested world to be almost entirely non-instanced. A world where you can wander around and meet other people since it is *not* instanced. A world where people can cooperate. Granted, also a world where people can compete. But reading the phrase "open contested world" as implying that a game endlessly described as social and group-oriented will encourage competition at the expense of cooperation and community is simply not correct.
You have your preference - I have mine, and they are different. I'm not saying mine is better - it is for me but whether it is for most players I leave to VR to decide.
You have your preference - I have mine, and they are different. I do *not* believe that VR has signaled just what they intend to do and there is all the room in the world for anyone on the forum to argue about which approach is better.
zewtastic said:Iksar said:The issue with that is nowhere is this game marketed as competitive focused, there is no mention that it is a core component and instead only acknowledgments that it has lead to massive problems in the past and can generally become a negative. Which is why many of us are having this discussion or voicing these concerns.
Ok this is a "massive" over-generalization.
There were not "massive" problems in the past.
And many "problems" sorted themselves out, and did not require vast over-analysis of what "might" occur.
Why not let VR make the game they have a vision for and see how it fleshes out in Alpha/Beta. That is where to really talk about issues and balance.
The game is being defined as an open, contested world. The word "contested" does seem to lend itself to being competitive.
Curious, if this was never a "massive" problem in the past why would SOE enact a game wide PNP as opposed to just banning the tiny number of people who caused these issues in the "few" cases where it became an actual issue that didn't work itself out? I do not think SOE would create more work for themselves and their already overbusy guide volunteers without noticing some significant impact from the issues addressed in the PNP. I could be wrong though.
I still do not understand the "it's competition!" crowd here. I hope no one takes this as insulting but... Barring PvP/Difficult Raid/Boss encounters there is no such thing as skilled "competition" in MMORPGs. Whatever has been described involving regular content in FFXI, DAoC, EQ, or any other MMORPG is only competition in the lamest sense. All of the proposed/described means of "winning" these imagined competitions be they FTE/MDD/Dice Roll/Whatever do not require skill and by no means would winning ever be a matter of a challenging struggle between two or more players.
Congrats, you click faster than me or are willing to stare at your screen for longer without blinking... Oooh you are playing a higher dps class and/or have better gear than I do and will always outdamage me no matter what I do... Such skill! Amazing strategy, you have more friends willing to sit here with you to make sure I can't outdamage you! I can only dream of being this talented! This is some super fun competition.
I wonder why they don't have an E-Sports category where some random **** just pops up on the screen and the first person to click it wins and is declared the best ever. I'm sure it would have a huge fanbase. Maybe WoW should have an arena category where one team is always 100 iLVL higher than the other and if the disadvantaged team ever complains about it they get ridiculed for being anti-community and anti-competition.
The "challenge" in this type of game is in beating the content. The "competition" is in being able to beat the content that others cannot. The "skill" is in organization, logistics, mobilization and teamwork needed to overcome difficult targets. It's not found in some imagined contest where trying to complete a quest involves an endless clickfest or DPS race that depending on your class you have no chance to win. The outcome is either pre-determined or pure luck. In such a situation the only competition on my end would be in my head as I try to win at convincing myself to keep playing a game that encourages such massive exhibitions of skill.
I know, I know... I shouldn't tell other people what's fun for them. I'm sure there are people who really enjoy what I just described... I just feel like it's more than a little disingenuous to describe it as some sort of virtuous competition between players that adds a whole nother level of depth, social interaction, and challenge to the game. I think a more fair description would be... Some people find the idea of waiting their turn boring and if they want to take what they want regardless of other players it shouldn't be against the rules. *shrug*
Where did the phrase "Open Contested World" come from? I can't find it in the FAQ. Is it a recent Dev comment?
jezebel said:I still do not understand the "it's competition!" crowd here. I hope no one takes this as insulting but... Barring PvP/Difficult Raid/Boss encounters there is no such thing as skilled "competition" in MMORPGs. Whatever has been described involving regular content in FFXI, DAoC, EQ, or any other MMORPG is only competition in the lamest sense. All of the proposed/described means of "winning" these imagined competitions be they FTE/MDD/Dice Roll/Whatever do not require skill and by no means would winning ever be a matter of a challenging struggle between two or more players.
This is actually extremely incorrect. When you are seriously competing for contested mobs. There absolutely is strategy and cunning involved. Knowing the classes in the other group, determining whether you let them tank or dont.
For example.. I was camping efreeti lord in sol b and firegiants were ready to spawn. I send my enchanted down leaving the rest of my group at efreeti. The group I am ready to contest for magus rokyl sees a single enchanter and thinks nothing of it. Mob spawns, I charm him. I gate back to efreeti lord dispelled him and fight him there. All alone.
You might think that it's just a button mashing fest... but that would be equivalent to saying pvp is just doing damage. It's much more than that.