I'll condense my reply: I think one can apply whatever filter they want to how they look at the things said and try to mold them into meaning whatever their agenda. We apparently see very different things in those quotes; the quote about younger games I take as a general statement about younger gamers who never played a challenging group focused cooperative MMO but enjoy teamwork and overcoming challenges with friends/strangers, not about going head to head against other players. I guess I am alone is not writing VR off as though they won't be able to create difficult and tension filled PvE experiences with various risks and rewards.
My overall point is that if competition/conflict between players is intended to be a focus/core to the game then why are those words so incredibly absent from almost everything they have put out or is on the site when discussing what Pantheon is? Why is it always about PvE, cooperation and teamwork against the AI? I'm not saying it won't exist or happen sometimes but I really don't think it is a main goal, the same as how players will likely be able to "bottom feed" (high level taking low level named mobs) but that also isn't a goal or key component to the game. Some servers will be "over populated" and run into the issue more but surely there will be some measure to get around being denied content by other players remembering that included with problems Brad associated with over population "where people are fighting over camping spots, drops, rares, named, etc. " which reads to me simply as avoiding player vs player conflict and competition over content as much as possible while acknowledging it will still happen sometimes. Also "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. " which again reads to me as they generally want to avoid people having to sit around long periods of time waiting for encounters and having to compete for them, especially since they want players with real life responsibilities to be able to play the game and make progress.
What is competition in a PvE game anyway? What honest skill is there other than have better gear, more bodies, or tagging faster? Is it just about ego or to have something to hold over others? In any of the popular competitive games today if someone loses they move right into the next match within seconds, they don't sit in loss and entirely wasted time for days/weeks waiting for another chance (and in most/all those games even the losers still get something for their time/effort).
dorotea said:.......or give credit to the puller even if outdamaged by someone else.
The problem with FTE on normal mobs is that a random player can come up and steal mobs from a group that is camping a small area just by being the first one to hit it. It should be MDD so that the advantage goes to the bigger group, not a solo player.
A prime example from classic EQ would be in Mistmore, a group is camping The Pond, there are Gargoyles that spawn at the nearby spire that is part of that camp, they drop gargoyle eyes that are worth a lot of cash for that level, 10 plat per and stack, and weight only 0.1 they were so highly prized by groups that it was pretty much understood that each group member would take turns looting one each on a rotation to be fair.
Anyways..... if the game is set to FTE on regular (soloable) mobs a random player can just use an instant ability and steal the gargoyles everytime they spawn and the group camping is screwed out of the best mobs of that particular camp.
MDD promotes groups, FTE promotes Soloing, and it's been unequivocally stated that this is to be a group focused game. (I am only speaking of regular soloable mobs.)
Tal
disposalist said:Where did the phrase "Open Contested World" come from? I can't find it in the FAQ. Is it a recent Dev comment?
"Kill stealing is not a serious offence, every mob in the game is free for anyone to attack, if someone was waiting there first then you have to either choose to apply some game etiquette or not, it is not a reportable offence and a GM will not bother with such reports unless it is malicious or in combination with other offences like abuse etc."
Please see the underlined section as it's basically what you get in an "Open Contested World."
Please also see:
"By creating plenty of content, a large world, not allowing shards to become overpopulated (for example, by quickly launching new shards), possible systems and rules within specific shards, and if things get out of hand to involve Customer Service (GMs). Above all, we want to use positive reinforcement by making sure that there is enough content and an epic enough world to minimize these issues.
We also want to make sure there will be plenty of great items and choices for adventuring all over the world – for example, we want to avoid there being just a single sought-after item for a specific class at a specific level. Similarly powerful and valued items will be available elsewhere in the world."
While the word "contested" isn't explicitly used, it is inherent based on the context of the question. "Open world MMOs sometimes suffer from too much competition for resources" -- this is because competition for resources is inherent. Alleviating "too much" appears to be a design goal but that doesn't mean it's going to be eliminated. It's "possible" that some servers may feature special rules or systems to alleviate competition even more, but that would likely require a dedicated CS team to ensure that everybody is playing nice. Plenty of people have suggested that they would prefer to play on a carebear server (their words, not mine) so maybe that is something VR will consider.
The only references to competition in the FAQ, Tenets, Features, Difference or whatever text on the website, are where it talks about it as a negative to be mitigated or avoided.
There is literally no indication that player competition is anything but something to be careful to avoid by various means, never mind any kind of focus or even side consideration.
Whenever Open World is mentioned it talks about opportunity to play alongside others. To socialise and help each other. A shared experience. Large and non-linear. Nothing about competition - quite the opposite.
There is no mention of contention, contest or contested at all.
From Differences
"more social and has an emphasis on cooperative play"
From Features
"environmental storytelling is central"
"group-focused, intensely social game play using classes that complement each other, encouraging teamwork"
"play that focuses on immersive combat, and engaging group mechanics"
"a world where a focus on cooperative play will attract those seeking a challenge"
"accomplishment comes when it is shared"
From FAQ
"some game mechanics often associated with earlier MMOs involved ... too much competition over content ... Our intention, therefore, is not to bring back ‘everything’ from the old days"
"Open world MMOs sometimes suffer from too much competition ... For example, what plans are there to mitigate one guild from preventing others from progressing?"
"concerned about overcrowding and/or too much competition for resources and content? Overcrowding and too much competition are indeed problems that have plagued both MMOs with and without instancing ... 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"
"Pantheon is primarily a PvE (player vs. environment) game. In fact, when we say ‘environment’, we don’t just mean NPCs, but also contending with climates and atmospheres, the very world itself"
TL;DR: Pantheon was sold to me as a game bringing back the parts of old-school MMORPGs that I loved. The site even specified the negatives of competition. Sure it says "too much competition" implying some is ok, but the point is, I got behind this because of its strong focus on challenging group, coop PvE and of improving on the original old-school model.
Porygon said: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.
If anything you are 100% making my point for me. You are already holding down efreeti lord camp. The other group was getting ready at fire giants to kill things as they spawn, the mob spawns, you use an ability that essentially makes the mob untouchable for the other group, gate away and essentially "win" the competition they have no opportunity to compete in. Congrats? Was it clever? Sure. Competition? Not so much. You could have done the same thing when they had the mob at 2% health and they would have been equally powerless. Where is the competition?
Also, the button mashing clickfest whatever was in reference to suggestions that involve FTE with or without locking. Obviously you charming the mob took some thought. It's just not competition.
oneADseven said:disposalist said:Where did the phrase "Open Contested World" come from? I can't find it in the FAQ. Is it a recent Dev comment?
"Kill stealing is not a serious offence, every mob in the game is free for anyone to attack, if someone was waiting there first then you have to either choose to apply some game etiquette or not, it is not a reportable offence and a GM will not bother with such reports unless it is malicious or in combination with other offences like abuse etc."
Please see the underlined section as it's basically what you get in an "Open Contested World."
Please also see:
"By creating plenty of content, a large world, not allowing shards to become overpopulated (for example, by quickly launching new shards), possible systems and rules within specific shards, and if things get out of hand to involve Customer Service (GMs). Above all, we want to use positive reinforcement by making sure that there is enough content and an epic enough world to minimize these issues.
We also want to make sure there will be plenty of great items and choices for adventuring all over the world – for example, we want to avoid there being just a single sought-after item for a specific class at a specific level. Similarly powerful and valued items will be available elsewhere in the world."
While the word "contested" isn't explicitly used, it is inherent based on the context of the question. "Open world MMOs sometimes suffer from too much competition for resources" -- this is because competition for resources is inherent. Alleviating "too much" appears to be a design goal but that doesn't mean it's going to be eliminated. It's "possible" that some servers may feature special rules or systems to alleviate competition even more, but that would likely require a dedicated CS team to ensure that everybody is playing nice. Plenty of people have suggested that they would prefer to play on a carebear server (their words, not mine) so maybe that is something VR will consider.
Yeah, that's what I thought. It was being interpretted by someone who likes competition in MMOs.
You quote the dev talking about an in game offense (not a serious one though) and bad etiquette and somehow turn that into the dev saying contested content is great?
You could just as well infer that they intend to emphasise "shared", since it is inherent when there is competition for resources and normal human beings are involved that we share. Oh, and since they actually use the phrase "shared experiences" when they talk about "open world" in the FAQ.
Open Shared World. Much better.
Like I say in my previous post: The only mentions of competition in the website are negative, yet some are still jumping to the conclusion that competition is somehow a natural and desirable part of an MMORPG not something to be mitigated and avoided (even though that *is* in the FAQ). I wonder why?
The reason they only talk about mitigating it is because it's an inherent aspect of an open-world game. If you see a "Going out of business sale" ad that says they are "reducing prices" it should be obvious that everything had a price to begin with. In that example, it would make sense to show the former price as a way to highlight the value of the sale. Considering that "too much competition" is subjective and most of us have experienced some form of competition in our life, I think it's fair to use your imagination. If that means eliminating competition altogether, I applaud you for having a vivid imagination. For the record, I never said "Contested content is great" in the quote you provided. I said it was inherent in an open-world game. If you want to see where I highlighted the benefits of contested content, please see my posts on the last page that touch on the differences between an instanced world and an open world, and how competition and community should be viewed as something that compliment each other rather than contradict.
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 before trying to go into such detail and compare us to other games, the team has vast amounts on experience in this area with multiple other games and having quote wars with each other will not help anyone and will just lead to arguments eventually.
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 before trying to go into such detail and compare us to other games, the team has vast amounts on experience in this area with multiple other games and having quote wars with each other will not help anyone and will just lead to arguments eventually.
Some of us prefer competition in our forums.
*ducks*
jezebel said:]If anything you are 100% making my point for me. You are already holding down efreeti lord camp. The other group was getting ready at fire giants to kill things as they spawn, the mob spawns, you use an ability that essentially makes the mob untouchable for the other group, gate away and essentially "win" the competition they have no opportunity to compete in. Congrats? Was it clever? Sure. Competition? Not so much. You could have done the same thing when they had the mob at 2% health and they would have been equally powerless. Where is the competition?
There are many ways for them to compete in that situation. They just didnt have it. My plan was better. If you want I can list the multitudes of ways I would have combated that tactic and still won.
But I assume nothing I say will change your mind. As is the case for most people invested in this game. We are all caught up in making sure that pantheon is what we dream it to be that we dont bother to look at it from a "what's best for the overall good of the game".
Porygon said:jezebel said:]If anything you are 100% making my point for me. You are already holding down efreeti lord camp. The other group was getting ready at fire giants to kill things as they spawn, the mob spawns, you use an ability that essentially makes the mob untouchable for the other group, gate away and essentially "win" the competition they have no opportunity to compete in. Congrats? Was it clever? Sure. Competition? Not so much. You could have done the same thing when they had the mob at 2% health and they would have been equally powerless. Where is the competition?
There are many ways for them to compete in that situation. They just didnt have it. My plan was better. If you want I can list the multitudes of ways I would have combated that tactic and still won.
But I assume nothing I say will change your mind. As is the case for most people invested in this game. We are all caught up in making sure that pantheon is what we dream it to be that we dont bother to look at it from a "what's best for the overall good of the game".
I mean maybe they get a lucky dispell off before you gate. Can you dispell someone else's charmed pet? I know you can dispell mezzes but not sure about other people's charms. I'm curious how you feel the group has a fair means of combatting that, barring a split second realization that you charmed the mob before you manage to gate.
@OneAdSeven
Ok, soo in those 2 posts since my last one thats a lot to unpack. Now I could sit here and pick out and speak to certain topics and pieces in those post to address and go on forever, but I think there is a larger idea or 2 here that possibly needs addressed/focused on and that is exemplified in these particular sections of those posts so I'd like to start there and speak about other items later if necessary.
oneADseven said:"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."
Now this was obviously a section taken from your chosen article, one hand picked that confirms your feelings on the subject matter. The problem with statements like this is that it fails to take into account that a game can offer seperate experiences and gameplay options tailored to a particular segment of the target audience. PVP is a great example as they will be offered special ruleset servers allowing open world PVP.
The functional issue at hand is that each and every player has their own preferred playstyle. You obviously have a preferrence for competition in PVE gameplay, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that as it is one that is shared by a large part of the community. I on the otherhand dislike that form of Direct Competition and actually find it rather Tedious and Annoying, especially in absense of full PVP where I can gather friends and have some limited form of control to enforce community rules. This is not to say that I don't respect players like you who find that gameplay fun and inviting, but rather that I recognize my own preferences and wish to pursue them.
This is where I feel it is fundamental to offer seperate server options. Why? because it should be clear that if I am being offered my preferred content then the game world is now devoid of yours and if you are offered your gameplay content then the world now features content I find distasteful and dislike engaging in but will ultimately have no other choice but to do so unless I want to be 2-3 expansions, and ultimately that isn't typically enough since its especially easy to catch up (lets face it, thats by design as they want new players to join and feel like they can work their way up). It has been suggested many times that I could simply not participate, but we aren't talking about competing for top rank on a leader board or even necessarily competeing for the Raid Guild furthest along in content (which btw contrary to the "instancing" suggestion of the chart could be offered in an open world enviroment with lockouts and ghosting methods as previously discussed). Those are things I can actually choose not to compete for, but when we are speaking about groups that roll up to a camp you've invested a lot of time getting into, breaking the cycle, and triggering names, well my ability to simply not compete disappears as the choice then becomes either leave or compete.
Now, I'm not going to say if the game features competition that I can't opt out of by selecting a PnP server that I won't play or I'll rage quit, just as much as I'd assume you wouldn't quit if a PnP that discouraged competion was in effect on all servers but PVP options. However it should be clear that offering a compromise between the 2 situations also isn't a highly desirable option either. A mid way or compromise situation would mean I am forced to compete (again something that I dislike, find tedious and annoying) while you find your options to compete are limited somehow or are lessened because not as many people are around for you to compete with. To me that is the absolute worse of both worlds, because you can no longer readily find the content you find enjoyable and I can no longer be offered an experience free of competition.
For me, the end all be all, is that I simply don't enjoy direct competition. You are not able to talk me into enjoying it anymore than you are likely to talk someone who doesn't like superhero movies into enjoying The Avengers. I strongly doubt there is anything I could say that would make you appreciate non-competitive gameplay more than gameplay that offers competitive play. Trying to suggest a middle ground is advantagious to both of us only seems to water down the content we want to be the focus when we could keep the oil and water in seperate containers to maximize the enjoyment for each player type without any extra development consideration or work.
oneADseven said: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.
So this is another frequent topic here. Instances. Why? I have no idea, Pantheon doesn't intend to include them with only a few rare potential exceptions and most people here are here because instancing won't be involved. Yet still plenty of people like myself are here who dislike direct competition in a PVE environment but dislike the disconnect instances cause in the community as well. The reality is I and many others here love that instancing largely won't be a thing in pantheon, however that doesn't mean we want VR to throw the baby out with the bath water. I honestly don't know why we focus so much on instances in topics like these. Please rest assured if any of us wanted instances, we'd be off playing other MMO's and not focusing so much on one thats being developed specifically to exclude them.
The suggestion that Kill-Stealing be ended by defining all mobs as contested or implimenting instances I find very silly. If I could use a hyperbole to describe how silly that stance sounds, by that logic you could also suggest the cure for getting people to stop committing murder is to make murder legal or lock everyone in the world into solitary confinement. I think just making it illegal stops a bulk of murders from happening while enforcement action prevents more. Does that mean every murderer gets punished? no some murderers sadly walk free due to lack of evidence or resources, but that doesn't make the alternatives any more appealing in my mind. For me this directly translates into Kill-Stealing in game, yes, you could make it allowed under the rules by defining all mobs as contested or by implimenting instances but ultimately those are unnecessary extremes. Will a GM get summoned every time someone takes a mob? no. Will a GM have the evidence he needs to punish violators all the time? no. Some people will break the rules and they won't be caught, will be let go or won't be punished. However the fact that the rule exists significantly drops the number of people kill-stealing vs not having a rule in the first place. While the competition does appeal to the competitive crowd, ultimately defining all players as being capable of enjoying such content is ill advised in my opinion as I think it is missing a larger piece of the puzzle
Beyond that I think the reference to Riot is very misplaced. If they've chosen not to define Kill-Stealing as a reportable offence then there is no wonder why players engage in the activity even if it is considered undesirable by the community. I would wonder how that would change if Riot made a press release tomorrow claiming that players should no longer steal other players kills. I'd be willing to bet it would go down. I'd further speculate if Riot publically banned a few accounts (publically as in making a press statement of "we just banned 100 accounts with more on the way for Kill-Stealing"), say 100 accounts for the practice, something easily doable by a staff of VR's size, that the practice of Kill-Stealing would further significantly decrease. You can't really take a game that has opted to allow a specific action and claim its rampent because they know they can't control it. To me that seems silly and reminds me of the old Meme "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas".
There has been a lot of speculation that VR CSR Team simply wouldn't be able to handle a proper PnP and would be overwhealmed with tickets for every minor incident. I say prove it.. seriously, push a server or 2 (or more if enough players want it) with PnP rulesets and see what happens. If the team gets overwhelmed prioritise all non PnP issue related tickets over PnP issue related tickets (this can easily be done by adding PnP issues into the filter field) and give it a few months. If after 6 months nothing has changed and its absolutely uncontrolable with no tangable benefit being seen compared to non-PnP servers then take the PnP ruleset off and say you actually gave it your best. However I have the utmost confidence that a true PVE community wouldn't function that way. Initial tickets would undoubtedly be up over competative servers but I have fully confidence they would start to stabilize at reasonable levels 2-3 months in as player communites take over and player etiquette forms. Expectations will be set within the community and players functioning outside those expectations will be apparent and easy to pick out. Guides could be added to help offset any additional long term CSR needs and I for one would readily sign up for multiple tours of duty. I would also be willing to even pay a premium for access to a PnP/PVE server ruleset to help offset additional GM/CSR cost if it was felt necessary for the long term health of the server. I have faith in VR, their CSR team and the True PVE community that a PnP could be made to work and function as desired. It won't be perfect or absolute but we cannot let perfect be the enemy of good just because not trying seems easier and appeals to a portion of the community.
Edit: For the record I started typing this between 9:00 and 9:30 EST.(1.5-2 hours ago). you guys are just wicked fast at typing and posting new replies.. It unfortunately takes me a few hours to properly read, research and formulate a comprehensive post like this because replies to topics like this are important to me and I want to make sure my perspective is understood.
jezebel said:Porygon said:jezebel said:]If anything you are 100% making my point for me. You are already holding down efreeti lord camp. The other group was getting ready at fire giants to kill things as they spawn, the mob spawns, you use an ability that essentially makes the mob untouchable for the other group, gate away and essentially "win" the competition they have no opportunity to compete in. Congrats? Was it clever? Sure. Competition? Not so much. You could have done the same thing when they had the mob at 2% health and they would have been equally powerless. Where is the competition?
There are many ways for them to compete in that situation. They just didnt have it. My plan was better. If you want I can list the multitudes of ways I would have combated that tactic and still won.
But I assume nothing I say will change your mind. As is the case for most people invested in this game. We are all caught up in making sure that pantheon is what we dream it to be that we dont bother to look at it from a "what's best for the overall good of the game".
I mean maybe they get a lucky dispell off before you gate. Can you dispell someone else's charmed pet? I know you can dispell mezzes but not sure about other people's charms. I'm curious how you feel the group has a fair means of combatting that, barring a split second realization that you charmed the mob before you manage to gate.
As an enchanter in a past life, I can confirm you could dispell charm. You can also break it with invis too if you have someone in the group to cast it (I had charm broken tons of times because someone in the group hit me with invis/group invis lol). I'm trying to remember other ways to break it but nothing specifically notable comes to mind atm, I think upping its magic resistance also helped it break charm early if memory serves and charmed pets could be buffed.
Speaking of unexpected tactics, I once dueled a friend who played a cleric while he was still grouped with me.. I got him down to under 10% after draining his mana only to have him hit his 2.0 and steal most of my life rebalancing the group HP. I couldn't stop laughing when it happened because it was obviously something I should've seen coming.
jezebel said:I mean maybe they get a lucky dispell off before you gate. Can you dispell someone else's charmed pet? I know you can dispell mezzes but not sure about other people's charms. I'm curious how you feel the group has a fair means of combatting that, barring a split second realization that you charmed the mob before you manage to gate.
That's the thing. It's all about realizing what your up against. Dispel is a much faster cast than gate. Not only that. If you see an enchanter standing around with no pet. Theres not alot they can do. The fire giants are belly casters. Multiple times I have ran the mob away with my warrior to prevent mage and wizard spells from landing. The second I see that tash land from a chanter my bard starts chaining dispel, and my shaman has it ready as well.
Like I said, in not going to change your mind. But it's not a clear cut and boring as you think. At least not for some people.
Porygon said:jezebel said:I mean maybe they get a lucky dispell off before you gate. Can you dispell someone else's charmed pet? I know you can dispell mezzes but not sure about other people's charms. I'm curious how you feel the group has a fair means of combatting that, barring a split second realization that you charmed the mob before you manage to gate.
That's the thing. It's all about realizing what your up against. Dispel is a much faster cast than gate. Not only that. If you see an enchanter standing around with no pet. Theres not alot they can do. The fire giants are belly casters. Multiple times I have ran the mob away with my warrior to prevent mage and wizard spells from landing. The second I see that tash land from a chanter my bard starts chaining dispel, and my shaman has it ready as well.
Like I said, in not going to change your mind. But it's not a clear cut and boring as you think. At least not for some people.
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.
Umbra said:Porygon said:jezebel said:I mean maybe they get a lucky dispell off before you gate. Can you dispell someone else's charmed pet? I know you can dispell mezzes but not sure about other people's charms. I'm curious how you feel the group has a fair means of combatting that, barring a split second realization that you charmed the mob before you manage to gate.
That's the thing. It's all about realizing what your up against. Dispel is a much faster cast than gate. Not only that. If you see an enchanter standing around with no pet. Theres not alot they can do. The fire giants are belly casters. Multiple times I have ran the mob away with my warrior to prevent mage and wizard spells from landing. The second I see that tash land from a chanter my bard starts chaining dispel, and my shaman has it ready as well.
Like I said, in not going to change your mind. But it's not a clear cut and boring as you think. At least not for some people.
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.
Especially since PvP servers of course also have all the PvE. You'd have thought those that like 'competition' would go for the ultimate, not just back-handed, exploity-type ways of stopping other groups enjoying the game.
It's almost like they prefer to 'compete' with those that don't want to (and are unprepared for it) instead of those that do...
Maybe this will help or maybe it won't in making things more clear.
What I want as someone who does not want KSing:
When something drops, and there's no loot code in place, and someone unrelated comes and steals that item, they have stolen from you. Many players can agree with this.
For me, and I suspect many in the Anti-Ksing Crowd, we don't just consider the item of the mob we killed to be ours, we consider THE MOB ITSELF to be ours. Work was done, possibly for a long time, to spawn AND kill it.
Camping DOES take work. You have to break the camp into sections that can be handled by whatever your firepower is. You have to kill placeholders-possibly several times., etc. This all takes time. I feel ownership over that time.
So the mob is MINE. I don't want to need to charm it and gate away in order to make it mine, whether or not that could be fun. I don't want to need to stand where it spawns and be the first to attack. I don't want to need to call in a high level wizard. I certainly don't want to /cheer at someone who killed the mob without my express permission (permission which I very well may give if they are polite and helpful individuals). I want the mob I worked for to be mine, unless I decide for it to not be mine, or I somehow lose ownership over it by, for example, leaving the camp.
I don't care if I'm selfish for this, games are supposed to tweak the rules so that I can have fun my way. If this particular game does not, OH WELL. I'm only making a suggestion for how Pantheon can make things much more fun for myself and others with opinions similar to mine. VR can decide if "my crowd" is worth their time on this particular issue, or if they should just cater to folks who feel that a mob is NOT owned by a player. Naturally, they can attempt to find good compromises as well.
Why I don't want instances despite my love of uncontested content in my camp:
I want to be able to see and interact with other people around me, in nearby camps. There is a definite comfort, at least for me, with simply seeing other people doing similar things to me. My brain is annoyingly social that way. But better than just seeing, in Pantheon I will be able to buff, assist, heal, rez, chat, group based on proximity when both groups lose people, etc.
All of this sounds like a lot of fun for me, and I can't get that sort of collusion with other human beings quite as seemlessly with instances.
Solutions besides a PNP:
I remember some friends relating to me a story of their antics in FF11. There was an area, I don't remember its name, which would occasionally get so popular that players would actually form a line outside of it. I'm not talking about a ticket where "I'm 5th in line and will head over there when I'm first in line", but an actual line of player characters in front of an area. My friends had been using that area over and over again before the line formed. After the line formed my friends attempted to continue using the area, and did so. This IS an issue. Overcamping an area should also be included in the PnP, I as an anti camp stealing fellow DO NOT dispute this.
To continue the story, my friends kept on doing it, and got annoyed when the other players (the ones who had lined up) whined at them. My friends made use of various things, like temporary immunity using some cooldowns and dodge, to train the line of people waiting for the area. Using invis (in ff11 there was no pvp, and therefore no see invisibility vs players), they even completely avoided blame for the issue. My friends consider this a crowning moment for them, and happily tell me about how noone figured out it was them, and everyone in the line was blaming one another.
Now I only played ff11 briefly and don't know much of its terminology so my exact understanding and retelling of the story is probably flawed at best. Sorry about that.. Still though, I believe it gets the point across. By having overly contested camps, more and more problems can arise, FROM the fact that the camp was overly contested. Though my friends had fun, it came at the expense of the other players they don't know nor care bout. I seriously hope this doesn't happen much at all in Pantheon.
I love, I mean love, to hear that VR will be avoiding issues like this by avoiding the need for a line outside of an area in the first place.
VR will likely do so by making sure servers are not overpopulated and also making sure there is plenty of desirable content to choose from at any given level. Theoretically, this in itself will reduce our headaches, and also GM headaches when they don't need to deal with tickets on any of the issues that happen after an initial problem, such as players needing to line up for content, happens.
An important note on issues leading to more issues:
I would like to take this moment to point out, here, that when players feel wronged or annoyed, they may choose to do things that require GM intervention. Thus, by not stopping the initial problem, a game developer actually risks making MORE, not less, trouble for themselves. This one goes out to everyone who feels that we should not stop a problem, so long as we have actually defined it as a problem, simply because it is too hard.
Luckily, it appears that VR will be preventing many instances of kill/camp stealing with other, non-PNP related, solutions.
Why I still want a PnP despite aforementioned great solutions to overpopulated camps:
Employees at convenience stores receive training on what to do when you get a bad customer. First, you attempt to mediate with the customer. Usually this does work. But sometimes, and only sometimes, that customer will not allow the issue to stop, for whatever reason. At this time, the employee at the convenience store has the option to tell the customer "if you do this/keep this up, I will need to call the police". And they can. Not only will many bad customers leave at the point that they see the cops being called, but, if nothing else, the cops will remove the bad customer for you.
As a store employee, even if this is rarely/never an issue, it is extremely comforting to know that you have that option. At least, it was for me. This is why I want the PnP. Sometimes, even if there's another store the customer can choose to go to, that customer may choose to be a "bad customer" at your store, and not stop despite all attempts to mediate. Sometimes, in Pantheon, even if VR does all of their solutions perfectly, there may be that one guy who doesn't get it.
Having the ability to report that player, and more importantly imo, tell the player that what they are doing/planning to do can get them reported, is comforting to me. EVEN IF IT NEVER HAPPENS (let me add here that I'm almost positive that KSing will happen, unfortunately). Comfort, even small bits of it here and there, can help me to enjoy myself.
______
I don't expect VR to provide relief on everything, especially things they can't even predict happening. But when you have this many people positive that kill stealing will happen, even if we see excellent content distribution and server populations, it doesn't hurt to write it into an enforcable PnP. If KSing never happens, great! VR does not need to expend man power on dealing with it. If it does, then great! We the players who feel ownership over the mob(s) we worked to camp, have our comfort.
P.S. I know I shouldn't go against "my crowd" here, but I feel telling competition lovers to just go to a pvp server is a lot like telling PnP lovers to play a game with instanced dungeons. Those are both extremes and players may like different mixxes of pvp and pve that do not involve instances, nor pvp servers. It's not up to us exactly what an individual player's refined tastes are or should be. Ultimate oppossites rarely represent everyone.
MULTIPLE EDITS: SIMPLICITY AND GRAMMAR, OVERALL MESSAGE DID NOT CHANGE
BeaverBiscuit said:I don't want to need to charm it and gate away in order to make it mine, whether or not that could be fun. I don't want to need to stand where it spawns and be the first to attack. I don't want to need to call in a high level wizard. I certainly don't want to /cheer at someone who killed the mob without my express permission (permission which I very well may give if they are polite and helpful individuals). I want the mob I worked for to be mine, unless I decide for it to not be mine, or I somehow lose ownership over it by, for example, leaving the camp.
This has me absolutely dumbfounded. I can't for the life of me understand why someone would search for an MMORPG in particular, rather than literally any other genre, with this attitude towards a persistent world.
Spluffen said:
This has me absolutely dumbfounded. I can't for the life of me understand why someone would search for an MMORPG in particular, rather than literally any other genre, with this attitude towards a persistent world.
Haha! glad I could help!
It may be that we simply can't understand one another, I think it's ok just so long as we know it=)
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
Interesting article by Raph Koster on policies and systems to manage reputations and how they evolved over time in UO.