Riply said:Lol the same logic could be used against you.....You claim enough people will violate the rules to the point that everyones game experience will be negatively affected, therefor we must implement rules to govern people. You do realize that modern society does not generally implement laws until there is a precedent for doing so. I would argue that Pantheon is a new society in which you have no precedent to add additional rules to govern behavior that has yet to occur.
Pantheon is a subset of MMOs. It is a unique game, but it is not so unique that there isn't already two decades of precedent to go off of.
Yes, people will need to be told not to use speed hacks or their accounts will be suspended/banned. Otherwise, speed hacking will become more rampant than it already is in many other titles. It was a problem in EQ, it was a problem in Vanguard, it will be a problem here.
If you want to argue that you should be able to pick up, carry, and throw other people's characters off of cliffs because "I won't personally do it", then feel free. There's a good reason that isn't a mechanic in any MMO to date.
I don't know why people keep pretending that Pantheon is more than what it is. It's a video game. It has mechanics. It has rules. I guarantee you that as soon as we download Pantheon, we'll have to accept an EULA telling you that your account can/will be terminated at will by VR for various acts within the game.
It is impractical to add mechanics to prevent every single possible scenario of a player damaging another player's experience. However, encounter locking worked fine in Vanguard and I would like to see it here.
Riply said:Amsai said:@Riply
Your answer started off somewhat helpful, but then seemed to trail off into what type of game I may or may not be suited for. So redirecting the same thing I just said to Feyshtey above. Also about this list. Is that a player thing or a GM thing? Just in case you werent aware, FFXI had 4, 6, 8, 16, 24, 48, and 72 hour respawns. They also have a few that were lottery spawns off of place holders that could be a couple of hours or could be randomly between 2-17 hours after Named death. So Im pretty familiar with waiting on spawns while camping Named. But what that usually entailed was camping against others. Not waiting on others. I was asking specifically how long I am to wait. For instance I get home every day at 5PM, my group goes to Named X. But your group is there already, just like you have been for the past 4 weeks in a row and you camp it all night every night. And all this time I have done a camp check and moved on. I have asked to be on this list you speak of but our turn to camp never comes. And lets say its an 8 hour spawn. Im perfectly fine camping an 8 hour spawn. What I am apprehensive of is indefinitely moving aside for others and never even getting the chance to camp an 8 hour spawn even once because of play nice rules. Or as I said to Feyshtey, maybe I just dont understand EQ play nice rules. Maybe you guys are giving the overall idea but not giving enough of the minor details?
I want to first appologize if I came off rude or condescending in any way, I absolutely think it is vital to have people interested in Pantheon that did NOT play EQ1, just for a different perspective. With that being said I don't always agree with others opinions but always respect them.
Anyway.....More of what I was trying to get at is the fact that you may never get "X" named mob or his drops, thats the nature of an open contested world. With enough time and persistence your probability of getting said drop goes way up. But one of the magical things about early MMOs such as EQ1 was diversity of items found on players across the game world. Some items were obtained by persistance in the form of camping, others through sheer luck (happened to be right place right time) and others were acuired via a barter system. I mention the barter system specifically because it also provides a means for those who cannot get a named mob or where not lucky enough to get the loot they wanted from a name mob, when they were camping it, a way to obtain the item from other players. This concept is important to the over all camping idea, if you cannot get into the camp you really want, maybe you can camp something else and potentially sell the items from that camp as a means to barter for the one you really want. That idea is also exactly why some people will sit in certain camps longer then you would like them to, they have items they want and cannot obtain for whatever reason. These type of barter interactions are very important as there are many reasons we may not be able to camp the exact named mob we really want. For example we may have a very limited play time and our real life dictates we play at non-peak play times, at least a portion of our time online. Maybe it makes more sense at that point to farm something slightly less challenging. that requires maybe a two person group instead of a full group, just so we can take those items and sell them and get what item we really wanted.
I know there is not a perfect answer for the feeling of frustration from not being able to get an item you really want, but I feel that also drives the feeling of accomplishment once you do obtain that item, or something better. From playing modern MMOs I personally have no desire to play another that litterally every (insert class type) looks exactly the same, with the same gear. Part of fixing that issue entails being frustrated at times and the possibility that I may ultimately never get said item. I think the key to this and the balancing act that the developers must play, is to offer enough other "carrot on the stick" items, that you always can work towards something and achieve success in some way.
Thank you Riply for your detailed reply. I appreciate the effort, because as I said in some cases I truly just dont know the rules. And I think it can probably be easy for folks that are used to something to assume some things are common knowledge and its actually only common knowledge in their game. So really thank you.
As for the barter type system this was something that was done in FFXI as well. But usually it was as you said because of a lack of time/effort on your part or because the drop rate was ridiculously low. But not due to someone potentially holding a camp to themselves. Thats why we would compete indirectly through first claim in XI. You always had a shot at attempting it through a combination of time/luck. You might not get the claim. You might die in the process. And might not get the drop with 1-5% drop rates. But you had an equal shot at the Named as anyone else, unless you never bothered to try. EQ rules seem to imply that you could add to it that in some cases you would not be allowed to try if people were always at a Named you wanted to camp. So then you camp other things and sell or trade for the thing you want. I see some potential problems with that, but nothing thats a big deal.
My biggest concern with that would be that its not only about the loot. I also do want to be challenged by big baddies. I can accept that I might not win, or that I wont get any loot, or that I didnt put in the time or effort. Or that I am not skilled enough to reach the Named. Or basically any other barrier. However, I cant deny that being deinied access to a Named because someone else is there isnt very appealing. So I hope that getting on a list works out at some point otherwise, it would honestly be a sad state of affairs. I also think taking turns in conjunction with play nice rules would work better, if people are opposed to open claiming on contested content.
What about long spawns? Like say a 72 hour Raid spawn (assuming there is something like that). Play nice rules still in effect or do guilds compete with the percent dps? Or do they agree on times/dates?
Pyde said:I for one am all for KSing mechanics. Not because I'm someone who would abuse them but because I dont like games controlling everything we/I do. Please give us/me the options to play as I see fit. I dont need to be corralled like an animal.
~Pyde
Agreed, 100%. Couldn't have explained it any better.
Beefcake said:You cannot use the current status of an old, mature game such as EQ to justify what you believe will happen in Pantheon. ...
The mechanics are identical. The community will abuse them in the same fashion. How could it be any different? The MMO community has not improved over time. Quite the opposite.
Enitzu said:... This is not 1999 and the community is not in any way the same it used to be. Now a days the majority of gamers are entitled little dungs that grew up on CoD and WoW. Expecting them to police themselves is never going to happen. If what you guys want actually goes through I can assure you I'd be running the biggest guild of douchebags ever because I wouldn't let my guild members or myself be walked on. This is a disaster waiting to happen and thinking back to pre velious EQ and wanting that back is NEVER going to happen. Hell it couldn't even happen on P99 wtf makes you people think it's going to magically happen here??
Correct. (bolding emphasis mine) On one hand, VR says they don't want to make a very narrow niche game, yet.. restricting the target demographic by implementing pro-community-griefing mechanics like Training, Kill-Stealing, and more will narrow the niche so much you'll be lucky to have 1000 concurrent players across all servers. Alganon did it. PFO did it. SOTA did it. They ' niched ' themselves to death. All it took in each case was a few core mechanics decisions during early design and implementation and people didn't even bother.
Why would I play a game that has all the same toxic community mechanics of EQ1, when I could just go play EQ1 instead? The market is full of choices, Pantheon has to be attractive, not repulsive.
Pyde said:
@Amsai
On your second question. I kinda answered it in my first example of my past experiences. No mob / zone is owned by anyone. If a group is there everynight for eons. Just run in and kill stuff till the named spawns and fight for it. There are no nice rules at that point. Its a competition that you and they dont want to lose. Hence why they will continue to camp that named for the next eon to get:
A) Plats
B) More Loots
C) What ever they are after
This example happens a lot in high tier areas where all the higher level players are farming loot. It's just going to boil down to a competition. Thats the excitment I mentioned earlier (At least for me). I would hope this group of players or guild of players that has been camping this area you want to be in for so long would understand that they are going to have competition no matter what. This is also what makes getting that item or items so rewarding.
I just want to add that all of this is just my experiences and my thoughts.
~Pyde
Thanks very much Pyde. It answers my concern in my follow up to Riply. And Im fine with that. Basically it sounds like at some point if someone is being a camp hog you can overcamp them. Though I realize you still will need to deal with % damage. So may the best group win right?
@Enitzu
I don't really like the idea of reducing players who grew up playing World of Warcraft as "entitled little dungs".
You said it yourself, EQ players have been toxic shitters since day one. It's a side effect of having thousands of players from thousands of backgrounds crowded into the same place. They gravitate toward eachother and form communities almost entirely based off of their mutual shittiness.
However, the same can be said of WoW players and/or players of every MMO ever.
@vjek
I agree wholeheartedly. Especially with EQ releasing progression servers with thousands of unique accounts, there is actually market competition for that demographic already. Phinigel is my placeholder until Pantheon comes along. Expanding the niche to include a broader audience is necessary, with limitations. Allowing people to grief the **** out of eachother for some delusion of "freedom" is a mistake that will doom this game, in my opinion.
You can't sustain the costs of an MMO on a couple thousand diehards.
Amsai said:What about long spawns? Like say a 72 hour Raid spawn (assuming there is something like that). Play nice rules still in effect or do guilds compete with the percent dps? Or do they agree on times/dates?
There will be something like that I am sure. And play nice "rules" were never in effect. It was something the community as a whole respected back then. But in the past 10 or so years, that has not been the case. Guilds will dps race, guilds who get there late will train, oh and if it is in game my all time favorite "Ultra-douche" move - they will mem blur (wipe all records of dmg done/threat/etc from a mob to reset the dmg done) while a wizard casts a big nuke to try to KS the mob last second. It's a game design failure that has been long lost for a reason. Even EQ realised how bad the whole thing was designed and went to instancing. It's the reason every single game since EQ/FFXI has had instancing. If you let the community "handle" things, then the only thing that will be handled is the lower tier guilds that can't compete. The whole mindset some people here are advocating for is the extreme hardcore and will result in an abysmally low population because no one will even bother with the game. There are ways to handle these issues without instancing but if these forums were to control the game it would never happen.
Remaking EQ1 in current form would fail. Hardcore. People need to realise that before the game we all want dies with the rest of our hopes for good mmo gaming.
Liav said:@Enitzu
I don't really like the idea of reducing players who grew up playing World of Warcraft as "entitled little dungs".
You said it yourself, EQ players have been toxic shitters since day one. It's a side effect of having thousands of players from thousands of backgrounds crowded into the same place. They gravitate toward eachother and form communities almost entirely based off of their mutual shittiness.
However, the same can be said of WoW players and/or players of every MMO ever.
I agree that not all wow players are that way. However the majority are. Just read their forums and you can feel the entitlement in the majority of posts. They don't want to work for anything. Things are just expected to be handed out. It's just the way they are used to having things now a days. Hell it's so bad now that you can get highest raid tier gear just from running dungeons. So asking those people to come here and wait for things and work for things ... lol.
EQ community back then was bad. But at least we had respect for each other. At least we put effort in and didnt complain things were too hard. But there are not enough of us left to sustain a game anymore.
Amsai said:@Feyshtey
Im not implying anything other than I dont understand the rules of engaegment. Answer me like you would someone who never played EQ, you know because I never did..... As to how it relates. I dont want to get on the bad side of the community. Maybe some of you think its my intent to be a troll or cause trouble? But as Ive said before there are different game cultures. And I dont know the ins and outs of EQs invisible rules. So I would like examples of what to do in specific cases as it relates to Named. Like I said earlier in the example above is it my turn after a mob spawns or not. If I claim it after they get a shot at it would that still be considered KSing or my turn?
Fair enough.
Lets start with the fact that the rules are not invisible. They are (or more accurately were under Verant and to a decreasing degree by Sony) published and upheld by in-game volunteer and paid staff. While the game mechanics might allow you to do a thing, it is not a given that you're allowed to do that thing under the rules, which are contained within the agreement you consent to when you install, and every time you launch the game. I think it was also in the player's manual. Because you agreed to those written rules of conduct, you can be punished for violating them. They didnt generally do much of anything the first time you screwed up, and instead talked to you and let you know that what you did was wrong, and that doing it more can result in action. But they updated your account with the information so that if you continued to be a problem, you were usually first suspended for a few days, then maybe a month, then banned from the game altogether.
Everyone knew this was the case, and if they didnt they eventually had a little chat with the GMs who clarifed things.
For the topic at hand, the rules were that if anyone had established a camp, they owned the camp. They broke the camp, they took on the danger of breaking the rooms, they established control of the area and the respawns, so they were entitled to the fruits of the effort. No one else was supposed to come into that camp and swipe mobs as they respawned.
There was one grey area in what the definition of "a camp" was. Some felt it was everything their group could keep killed as they respawned. Others thought it was a room, with a named mob. The latter is the stance that the GMs usually went with. But there were areas that were fairly easy to control 2 or more rooms consistently, so sometimes there was debate on this between players.
This is a fact of life in a game that has contested content, and will be so in Pantheon. Without instancing, this is reality, and it's a reality that many people actually really like. The fact that you managed to get a camp that drops items that are sought after gives value to those items, and a value that goes beyond just the coin that one could gain by selling them.
This was almost universally respected. Few people really tried to take advantage and swipe mobs. Few even engaged the GMs because for the most part it could be resolved peacefully enough. When the GMs were engaged, they usually made short work of someone trully being a PITA, and even had jail cells they could summon a character to and make them sit and stew about things for a while until they agreed to be cooperative. And I know with 100% certainty that there was a list of people on a watch list who were randomly followed by invisible GMs to attempt to catch them being unruly.
I know that Pyde and Enitzu would have you believe that society as a whole has devolved into utter madness, and that there's no way to ever police any community, so why even bother. In large part they are right about the de-evolution, but their conclusions are drawn from the mistaken premise that the policing has remained constant. It hasnt. People have argued that we have to be sensitive to the bad actors, and that we need to understand things from their perspective, and that we need to take care not to injure their fragile little psyches. Game developers have done much of this, placating their customers, kissing their butts at every turn, and focused solely on draining their wallets. They have failed to invest in monitoring the communities and taking action against those that are destructive. THIS is why people act the way they do; because they know they can get away with it.
If a developer fails to holds people to a code of conduct and refuses to boot people who wont to modify repeated bad behavior, the results are predictable. If, however, those who make destroy the intended gameplay experience are removed, and those who remain see that, those results are equally predictable.
And what is the result if you have locked encounters like those same anarchists promote, and the first hit wins the mob? Multiple groups sitting in the room, fingers poised on their fastest attack, attempting to get the the first shot in? He with the least lag wins? Weeee. That sounds fun.
Enitzu said:I agree that not all wow players are that way. However the majority are. Just read their forums and you can feel the entitlement in the majority of posts. They don't want to work for anything. Things are just expected to be handed out. It's just the way they are used to having things now a days. Hell it's so bad now that you can get highest raid tier gear just from running dungeons. So asking those people to come here and wait for things and work for things ... lol.
EQ community back then was bad. But at least we had respect for each other. At least we put effort in and didnt complain things were too hard. But there are not enough of us left to sustain a game anymore.
That's a post I can fully agree with. Phinigel is the best possible iteration of EQ, to me. With open world spawns you still have to deal with a lot of idiocy on all sides, but having guaranteed instanced versions of those zones once a week alleviates a lot of it.
By no means do I want instances in Pantheon. I just want Pantheon to be a good enough game that I'm not wishing that instances existed so I don't have to deal with how terrible open world content usually is on a daily basis.
Pyde said:Uhm........ Farmers own their land. So this argument doesn't work here.
While we each play Pantheon....... We each don't own anything. It is the sole property of VR. We dont even own our characters so how could we possible own a mob or camp. This is why KS is not a problem at all. Sure players should respect one another and take a look at all situations before taking action. That would be the adult thing to do. But in the end I always say.... Let's all have fun and remember that VR has already pointed out a lot of times that this game will not be for everyone. Some will absolutly not like some mechanics that are placed into the game and leave because of it.
I for one am all for KSing mechanics. Not because I'm someone who would abuse them but because I dont like games controlling everything we/I do. Please give us/me the options to play as I see fit. I dont need to be corralled like an animal.
~Pyde
Lol, sole property of VR. You're working that RL technicality pretty hard there. Fortunately for my argument, it's not about RL ownership! You don't own the rights to the parking space at the supermarket or the stall you're using in a Walmart bathroom, but you'd probably be upset if someone kicked you out of it when you were there first.
In Terminus we're akin to frontiersmen. It's an analogy, but when something isn't occupied and you claim it and then put in the time to keep it cleared, you loosely have the rights to it. I'm not suggesting that anything is locked down or they hard code it so nobody else can contend for it, but people know good in well that someone who has put the work in deserve a camp over someone who just arrived after the area was occupied.
Dullahan said:Pyde said:Uhm........ Farmers own their land. So this argument doesn't work here.
While we each play Pantheon....... We each don't own anything. It is the sole property of VR. We dont even own our characters so how could we possible own a mob or camp. This is why KS is not a problem at all. Sure players should respect one another and take a look at all situations before taking action. That would be the adult thing to do. But in the end I always say.... Let's all have fun and remember that VR has already pointed out a lot of times that this game will not be for everyone. Some will absolutly not like some mechanics that are placed into the game and leave because of it.
I for one am all for KSing mechanics. Not because I'm someone who would abuse them but because I dont like games controlling everything we/I do. Please give us/me the options to play as I see fit. I dont need to be corralled like an animal.
~Pyde
Lol, sole property of VR. You're working that RL technicality pretty hard there. Fortunately for my argument, it's not about RL ownership! You don't own the rights to the parking space at the supermarket or the stall you're using in a Walmart bathroom, but you'd probably be upset if someone kicked you out of it when you were there first.
In Terminus we're akin to frontiersmen. It's an analogy, but when something isn't occupied and you claim it and then put in the time to keep it cleared, you loosely have the rights to it. I'm not suggesting that anything is locked down or they hard code it so nobody else can contend for it, but people know good in well that someone who has put the work in deserve a camp over someone who just arrived after the area was occupied.
I 100% agree with your post. This just doesn't account for those more casual players with less playtime that just arrived for the night and only have a little bit of time. They also deserve a chance at said named / camp. That was why I brought up the ownership topic. I am just advocating that I am one that enjoys contested content even when it doesn't work out in my favor.
People are going to have to adjust their expectations. The reality of an open world game is that people have to be creative and work your social skills to succeed. A virtual world was never just about who was the most technically capable, but the person who could coordinate with others, be they randoms or guildmates, to maximize their time in game. Sometimes that means sweet talking locals or guildmates into getting a spot for you to join when you could be online at a later time.
Or of course, folks can always play on the PvP server. That's where I'll be. I welcome all comers to take my camps.
My expectations about open world content with no rules is a race to the bottom where sociopathic tactics win, hundreds of people get banned, and casual players quit.
/shrug
I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm jaded. However, I most likely will be on the PvP server too (if the PvP isn't hot garbage) so maybe this just won't be an issue.
Pyde said:I 100% agree with your post. This just doesn't account for those more casual players with less playtime that just arrived for the night and only have a little bit of time. They also deserve a chance at said named / camp. That was why I brought up the ownership topic. I am just advocating that I am one that enjoys contested content even when it doesn't work out in my favor.
They dont "deserve" anything simply because they exist. That's a fundimental reason that old school EQ is something many of us sorely miss. Just because it's out there doesnt mean that I'm going to march in and have my attempt. At least, not until the content is less desireable to those with copious dtime and more likely to be free for me to engage in.
Even if there's no one there you might wait 10 hours before the named you want actually shows up. So you're banking on luck if you're a real casual player with little time, even if no one else wants that spawn.
Liav said:My expectations about open world content with no rules is a race to the bottom where sociopathic tactics win, hundreds of people get banned, and casual players quit.
Then reset your expectations and acknowledge that no such game is being proposed. "Rules" do exist, even if they arent hard-coded into the game mechanics. From there its a matter of whether or not VR enforces those rules.
Liav said:My expectations about open world content with no rules is a race to the bottom where sociopathic tactics win, hundreds of people get banned, and casual players quit.
/shrug
I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm jaded. However, I most likely will be on the PvP server too (if the PvP isn't hot garbage) so maybe this just won't be an issue.
Time will tell, but I believe if they emulate what we had in EQ where the game was hard, world was dangerous and required a highly cooperative effort, then even random players will matter and your reputation will be important. We will once again see an environment that isn't conducive to sociopaths. There may be a few servers where that type congregates and are able to succeed (until they implode), but in general it will be naturally discouraged if VR doesn't encourage circumventing the wider community with things like soloing, power leveling, or mentoring. When the game is really a struggle and there is no easy out, the value of random players sky rockets and the atmosphere in general will improve.
Feyshtey said:Then reset your expectations and acknowledge that no such game is being proposed. "Rules" do exist, even if they arent hard-coded into the game mechanics. From there its a matter of whether or not VR enforces those rules.
I just don't see the point.
If attacking a mob another player is attacking is violating the non-hard coded rules of the game, then why should it not just be hard coded?
Liav said:Feyshtey said:Then reset your expectations and acknowledge that no such game is being proposed. "Rules" do exist, even if they arent hard-coded into the game mechanics. From there its a matter of whether or not VR enforces those rules.
I just don't see the point.
If attacking a mob another player is attacking is violating the non-hard coded rules of the game, then why should it not just be hard coded?
Because attacking a mob that another player is fighting might be intended to assist, with no personal gain as part of the equation. Which is something that we really want to promote.
Liav said:Feyshtey said:Then reset your expectations and acknowledge that no such game is being proposed. "Rules" do exist, even if they arent hard-coded into the game mechanics. From there its a matter of whether or not VR enforces those rules.
I just don't see the point.
If attacking a mob another player is attacking is violating the non-hard coded rules of the game, then why should it not just be hard coded?
Because in a good virtual world, there should be heros and villains; so long as things naturally favor the hero.
Feyshtey said:Because attacking a mob that another player is fighting might be intended to assist, with no personal gain as part of the equation. Which is something that we really want to promote.
A good point that I've overlooked. However, I don't see this happening often enough to justify all of the negative repercussions.
Dullahan said:Because in a good virtual world, there should be heros and villains; so long as things naturally favor the hero.
Is the implication here that there will be in-game means of karma for these actions, then? I don't consider account suspensions to be a part of the virtual world itself.
So I guess the real question is, are account punishments a valid repercussion of kill stealing and whatnot, or should it only be "up to the community" to police these actions? Communities are pretty powerless. Social ostracization doesn't mean **** in a game where you're guilded with 70+ people who advocate things like kill stealing.
We either let people have the freedom to KS and face virtually no repercussions, or we involve GMs and suspend people's accounts. Maybe that's a false dichotomy, I'd be interested to hear the argument against it.
Amsai said: @ EQ folks A big thing you all are always talking about is community policing. Assuming no help is possible or feasible from devs, how would community policing work in PvE? It only seems it eould have have any real teeth in PvP to me. Thoughts?
If someone is known throughout the community as an ass, he doesnt get groups. He doesnt get guilds. He doesnt get good deals when bartering. That stings. A lot. More than a few people have rerolled or moved to a different server entirely because their gameplay has suffered severely enough.
Obviously there are times when these asshats team up and become a guild. That guild is ostracized. They are ridiculed, and often multiple guilds will band together to mitigate the attempts of the bad guild from succeeding.
It's not foolproof by any means, but it does have an impact. It's no replacement for GMs policing things though.
Amsai said: @Feyshtey Thanks for your response. I didn't know some of that information. Particularly about how those in game rules came to be. I am very willing to give it a chance. But will our devs have the resources to come in when they need to step in? This is an Indie game. But I do have to admit that I am very skeptical. Some of the last few pages it's like Liav is reading my mind. But I will be happy to be proven wrong. @ EQ folks A big thing you all are always talking about is community policing. Assuming no help is possible or feasible from devs, how would community policing work in PvE? It only seems it eould have have any real teeth in PvP to me. Thoughts?
It works by creating the need for players to work together. The harder the game is to accomplish alone, the more people need each other. That means when you enter an area, you want to be on good terms with potential group mates. The teeth is when one acts a fool and is scorned by the community, making it harder to find the necessary groups and progress.
This is why I constantly stress the importance of reducing the effectiveness of soloing and powerleveling and why I think mentoring should be used cautiously. If you allow players to succeed on their own or simply PL or mentor their buddies, it allows cliques (including "sociopaths") to circumvent the greater community or drawbacks for their negative actions.
In EQ, kill stealing earned you a bad reputation among people you needed to play the game. Even if you were in a big guild, chances are you still had to depend on random players to progress. Without that dependence players are free to act any kind of way without penalty. At that point, reputation means nothing.
That also gets into stalking, harrassment etc. Blizzard seemed to turn a blind eye to these things. Higher level players ksing (because they could, because its yet another form of trolling) on lower level players. At some point, that needs to be addressed, screen shots, recording the last ten lines of things said to a person to harass. I've encountered this...moved to another area, only to have the same person show up and do it again. So there does need to be "some" rules..yes the community can have "some" impact ..ostracization and so forth, but in the end, if the "******" continues this behaviour because he or she enjoys griefing others, then something will need to be done finally. EQ used to have a "play nice" policy. Perhaps that might be required again.
Cana
Feyshtey said:If someone is known throughout the community as an ass, he doesnt get groups. He doesnt get guilds.
The most toxic players I've ever known in games have almost always been in guilds equally as toxic as they are. There's no such thing as a toxic lone wolf in MMOs.
It's like I said. Social ostracization doesn't matter when the people ostracizing you are people you'd never have associated with anyway.