philo said:But, like explained, preventing boxing, in a game that people are able to solo in, is an impossibility. (through gameplay...that is making the assumption that it isn't being regulated through an outside source...devs/ip blockers etc)
If they are boxing to get gear that i got when i was 20 and they were finally able to get it at 30 than who cares by than i would have 10 levels to get better gear and would be out preforming them anyway, and if they kep that up than they will never be able to box at max level for max level gear or even 5 levels lower than it so i would and should always remain better geared than them at the same level, which ultimately what matters most.
Riahuf22 said:If they are boxing to get gear that i got when i was 20 and they were finally able to get it at 30 than who cares by than i would have 10 levels to get better gear and would be out preforming them anyway, and if they kep that up than they will never be able to box at max level for max level gear or even 5 levels lower than it so i would and should always remain better geared than them at the same level, which ultimately what matters most.
This remains to be seen. But if it is anything like EQ then the notion that items from the 20s or 30s won't hold value is bogus, and according to the wiki they are aiming more toward an EQ system of lasting and memorable items. If we are upgrading all our gear every 10 levels then it's not far off from other modern treadmill gearing MMOs.
"Our desire to bring back the value and personality of items drives our item design. This means that the frequency of upgrades will be slower and when you do get a new piece of gear not only will the experience be memorable but so will the item. We want you to collect your items and be able to remember their names. When you get that epic item or rare drop after an incredible dungeon crawl, we want you to be in awe of what you have accomplished and the reward that came from it. Items will be memorable, deserved, cherished, and desired."
Iksar said:Riahuf22 said:If they are boxing to get gear that i got when i was 20 and they were finally able to get it at 30 than who cares by than i would have 10 levels to get better gear and would be out preforming them anyway, and if they kep that up than they will never be able to box at max level for max level gear or even 5 levels lower than it so i would and should always remain better geared than them at the same level, which ultimately what matters most.
This remains to be seen. But if it is anything like EQ then the notion that items from the 20s or 30s won't hold value is bogus, and according to the wiki they are aiming more toward an EQ system of lasting and memorable items. If we are upgrading all our gear every 10 levels then it's not far off from other modern treadmill gearing MMOs.
"Our desire to bring back the value and personality of items drives our item design. This means that the frequency of upgrades will be slower and when you do get a new piece of gear not only will the experience be memorable but so will the item. We want you to collect your items and be able to remember their names. When you get that epic item or rare drop after an incredible dungeon crawl, we want you to be in awe of what you have accomplished and the reward that came from it. Items will be memorable, deserved, cherished, and desired."
Okay, but there were very few items that actually fits this list, like what in original there was like maybe just a dozen or so before max level and if even there were more its not by much, so of course there is exceptions but ultimately you got way better gear by actually leveling up and killing end game content.
Riahuf22 said:Okay, but there were very few items that actually fits this list, like what in original there was like maybe just a dozen or so before max level and if even there were more its not by much, so of course there is exceptions but ultimately you got way better gear by actually leveling up and killing end game content.
There were quite a lot of good items that dropped from mobs below level 35 that were worth a pretty solid amount & could be used both until max level & to have a pretty strong twink...Some BiS or near BiS pre-raiding stuff.
so uhh what server rulesets would you like to see?
I think we may have a vote or two for 1 IP per machine servers, anyone interested? anyone at all? ok no takers.... Bot servers for all!!
Take a breath for a moment, and realize it's not gonna end. You are going to have folks always on one side of this argument and always on the other side of it. Give them both the outlet and VR still makes $ on all of us and lets us enjoy our Virtual worlds blugeoning each other like civilized people.
You can argue that a single account is pay to win..simply b/c you can be Free to play in this game up to lvl 10....but once you go to a subscription you pay to win over lvl 10! This F2P model to level 10 will be the first foothold of gold spammers..and I'm kinda bleh about it...but I'm also not going on about it for 7 pages trying to convince people or draw lines between the evils of loading up more than 1 virtual game avatar at a time.
Ultimately, I don't view my subscription fees for 2 accounts as a pay to win.. nor the $ I sunk into being a VIP as a pay to win... I view it as pay VR to create a game that lives forever and releases fun expacs that I can get lost in for awhile.
Iksar said:Riahuf22 said:Okay, but there were very few items that actually fits this list, like what in original there was like maybe just a dozen or so before max level and if even there were more its not by much, so of course there is exceptions but ultimately you got way better gear by actually leveling up and killing end game content.
There were quite a lot of good items that dropped from mobs below level 35 that were worth a pretty solid amount & could be used both until max level & to have a pretty strong twink...Some BiS or near BiS pre-raiding stuff.
Yes i know, and understand, but like i said they're werent a ton of them, and yes they will probably be boxed and such, but that doesn't mean that you punish them for boxing them, and ultimately if it becomes a problem the devs will know of it and will adjust. or something we'll see
Iksar said:Riahuf22 said:The fact is that if they game if cifficult and basically prevents boxing than it is doing exactly what you want, for there to be no boxers, which should be the goal of the game, there is no need to prevent boxing if the game it self basically punish the ones that try to do it, which is basically my point. so therefore we are technically wanting the same thing just achieved in another way.
This is ignoring the fact that once they do reach high/max level they have far greater advantage in terms of gains in tradeskills, named camps(make up to twice as much in-game $$$), and in terms of future leveling endeavours by powerleveling themselves.
You could counter this by if someone is aiding a low level creature, the creature flees and resets, like lvl 10 warrior is killing a mob, lvl 50 guy heals the warrior, mob than run away and restarts itself, granted this could tend to grieving, and therefore he will become reported if he's doing it so you can't kill anything, but it also prevents plvling if your so afraid of it as well, and i can also say i hope they make it to where you have to be like 8 levels from each other to grp up together, so you also can't plvl that way either. granted it can still be considered being plvl but at least he did a ton of the hard work by himself to get there.
Or you can make it to where if a high level guy heals a low level the mob will automatically become a alarmist and get for friends to basically might it impossible to kill the mobs without the low level guy from dying, or running away, or have it to where if a low level character is engaged a high level charcter cant cast buffs/heals on them, there is a ton of ways to stop plvling, as for gathering crafting supplies, have it to where they drop in dungeons more than anything especially for the higher end skills and make it difficult for them to do it by boxing, like the devs have said they aren't against boxing, but they want it to be hard enough to where basically boxing might not work out very well for them.
Great thread, great ideas! I really think the idea of alternate rule-set servers/realms, while dabbled with, have never (yet) reached their true potential. I think the idea that you make a core game that appeals to a significant audience, make it as great as possible for that audience, all the while not allowing yourself to be seduced by the idea that dumbing down the game somehow yields more players, is a critical concept. So much so that I decided to interrupt your brainstorming and discussions to dig a little deeper into MMO world building, world size, content creation, etc.
First we must realize that while the core game is appealing to many, there are also groups within our target audience who prefer rules and systems that differ just a bit from other people in the larger group. Not so much that we’re not all equally excited, but enough to pay attention to, and how important it is to craft a world that supports ‘games within games.’
The trick is to hold onto the core game and what really makes it tick. Do not be tempted to change what really makes your game, what gives it an identify, why there is a demand for it. But then also look at your core game and realize there are many 'variations on the theme' that, if implemented, do not threaten or violate that core, that magic, that x-factor.
It's a fine line, sure, but I honestly haven't found it truly that hard to delineate between the two. That's why it was so important for us to get the core tenets of the game up onto our webpage. To have a detailed FAQ (that is due for another update, btw). To list the differentiators -- what makes the game unique, what approaches to MMO design make Pantheon stand out. And then, of course, to also list ideas and mechanics that are new, or at least the approach to implementing them new and with a different spin and approach.
But once you've established that there's just an incredible opportunity to even further dial your game to support multiple 'sub audiences', groups within your target audience who, while they're all super excited about Pantheon, definitely prefer certain mechanics over others (PvP being an obvious but great example).
This is why I cringe a bit when someone posts or asks me why Pantheon is zone and realm/server based. Some people are very excited about how technology has advanced to the point that you could build an MMO that is one, huge singular entity, community, set of servers, etc. I mean, I do understand the excitement to some degree -- anytime something that wasn't possible in the past has become doable due to advances in technology is always exciting to at least think about.
I often (as recently as TwitchCon in fact) get asked how many people we will be allowing into one server/shard/realm (btw, we are trying to more consistently use the word Realm here, but I include the other words that have been used since MMO’s inception just to make sure you guys know precisely what I am talking about). And it's true, that in the past there were some serious performance issues that led us to make Realm based MMOs. Location was also an issue due to latency -- servers/Realms/shards had to be set up around the world so everyone could hopefully play without having to deal with lag or ping times between them (perhaps they are in Australia) and the machines themselves (perhaps they were in San Diego). Now everything is on the cloud -- we can put up a Realm anywhere in literally a matter of minutes (and have done so for some demos). And I'm also not saying there won't be Realms for different parts of the real world. But I can say the issue of latency/lag/ping times has become far, far less of an issue over the last 18+ years. Now, mainly, it comes down to when people can play, and people, for example, in Europe wanting to make sure that when they log in there are others to play with, that the majority are not on the west coast of the USA.
But I honestly, outside of 'now it's possible', don't get the fascination with having fewer Realms, or even one mega-Realm. Sure, it's cool that it's possible now. Yes, I can envision some MMO or other online game genre or design trying to use the 'everyone is truly in one shared world' as a feature or an enhancement or that it somehow makes things possible in terms of gameplay that wasn't possible in the past.
But for Pantheon it really comes down to Community, Content, and Alternate Rulesets, and all three work better with more Realms, not fewer.
First comes human nature and sociology. There's a reason that large cities exist, one of which is that people figured out some time ago that being in a more densely populated area makes communication easier, finding a job easier, finding friends easier, etc. This is why you have large cities scattered around the world and then more rural areas separating them, often by long distances. But the downside, of course, is while at first people coming together and living closer to each other has obvious advantages, when too many people come together you start feeling like you're just one cog amidst thousands of other cogs. On your way to work you start recognizing other people less and less. The feeling of community, of having a role, of people recognizing who you are and what you do and why you do it becomes more and more diminished.
Now, of course, the opposite has its downsides as well. While there are many people who prefer to live in very rural areas and seek to escape the hustle and bustle of densely populated areas, who value anonymity, all of this this seems to work much better in RL than in a virtual world. In an MMO if people are too spread out you again run into issues and the community suffers. Bottom line: both over population and under population are bad. In RL you can to some degree choose where you live and how densely or sparse you want things to be. But in an MMO it's much harder to overcome these downsides. Especially with a game like Pantheon which is all about making real friends, being involved in a real community, being recognized, seeing the same people as you adventure around the world, etc. So yes, we do have the tech now to make one mega-Realm, but just doing so because you can and ignoring how it affects the social glue that is Pantheon's foundation is simply not good game design.
After Community comes Content. Another technology you hear talked about frequently is that of procedurally generating content -- basically using an algorithm to create the vast amounts of content an MMO requires. I'll simply say this: perhaps one day such tech will really exist, that procedurally generated content will be created without the world feeling repetitive and full of recognizable patterns. Honestly, though, I think we’re farther away from that being true, if it ever does truly happen, than many think. I really wanted to like No Man's Sky, I really did.
So when we think about ideal Realm populations it comes down to 'is the world the right size, not too small and not too big, such that the kind of community we want to create develops? Looking at when Realm population peaks and then at times when fewer players are on.... have we created a virtual world that feels more like a village and less like a metropolis? Do we have approximately the right number of people on for a player driven economy to exist and thrive? Do you feel like you're truly part of something, that people recognize you, that you have an opportunity to become known (or reviled, or whatever floats your boat)?
And then is there enough Content -- mobs to kill, quests to take part in, items to craft. And very importantly a large enough world that allows us to make adventuring really matter and even to reward players for doing so but again not too large? 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.)? How often should we refresh and revamp content vs. adding new content (a new continent, a new race, etc.)?
Once that is figured out, and believe me, there's no way other than to have enough world builders and designers, sufficiently good tools so they can be productive, etc. This is why we build in blocks, putting together a zone first, then a group of related zones (say a starting city, a noobie zone for that city, then an intermediate zone, dungeons to augment that region), and then continents (which are really multiple groups of related zones). Making sure then that travel means something, that it's fun, but that people aren't divided by such large distances that Community and Grouping are harmed.
Then, as you start pre-alpha, then move to alpha and beta, you find out how well your planning panned out. It is so important to have a long testing period, not just to address the obvious (find and fix bugs, test mechanics and systems to make sure they're fun, tweak mob difficulty, adjust how long it takes to level, mana and health regeneration rates, etc.) but to make sure you did scale things correctly, that a community starts coming together right away, that people can find others to group with, that the world feels full and alive but not overly so. It's around this time that you start to get a real idea as to how many people should be in a Realm. Yes, in the past, as mentioned, there were other key components to the formula -- technology, latency, location, bandwidth -- and they still exist and are important to test and get a feel for early on... but they're not as key anymore and we can focus more on the user experience, sizing zones based on content more so than server performance issues.
Then comes later phases of beta, where you invite many more people into the game and really push the limits. And then, of course, release. How popular is the game at launch? How quickly is it growing? Based on metrics gathered in beta, how many Realms should be available at commercial release?
I would rather have more Realms than less. I would rather have smaller worlds at launch. I would rather err on the side of there being too many people to ensure a community forms and that finding groups is not a problem. If this means releasing expansions more often, revamping zones more frequently, etc. then so be it. Not to mention one of our important goals of making sure that high level players naturally run across mid and lower level players. That dynamic and how it can inspire new players, encourage vertical interdependence, etc. is really important to us. We've had enough of MMO worlds where all of the high level players are in one region, all the newbies in another region, and then vast empty areas full of amazing content and ghost cities and dungeons between these regions.
Which then leads us to Alternate Ruleset Realms (forgive the long path I took, but I wanted to present the bigger picture and how Alternate Ruleset Realms while very important are only one piece of a more complicated puzzle). The more Realms we have at launch and then continue to deploy as the game becomes more popular and the number of players grows, then the more variants we can have. I'm sure you see the obvious pattern here: the more people we try to cram into a Realm the worse. Bragging about world size, or creating a truly seamless world, or using CPU and memory to create virtual mega-cities is all at odds with our objectives. I haven't even talked about zones vs. a 'seamless world' yet, and how being able to expand an area that needs expanding by simply inserting additional zones is critical to having sufficient content, and content *where* you want and need it. Is it less immersive? To some, sure, and I understand the argument well (remember that one of our chief goals with VG was to make it zoneless). But the negatives outweigh the positives in such a big way. Having to work with an outdoor world whose size is determined prior to all of the metrics and information gathered even into late beta is extremely challenging and arguably dangerous -- playing with fire, so to speak. How do you re-size an area dynamically like you can do with zones if the outside world has already, probably some time ago, been stitched together into a 'seamless' grid of 'chunks'?
Anyway, that’s a quick look into building handcrafted MMO virtual worlds… determining their size, their population, making sure we have the Content we need as well as the Community we want to foster and help grow, and why more, smaller Realms allows so much better control over determining these key points. And then why this approach will also allow us to more fully realize the amazing freedom that having Alternate Rulesets and hopefully a lot of them gives us. I thought it was worth sharing this level of detail with you all not only to provide a glimpse of what goes into building Terminus but also how it all fits together and should allow us to launch a game with a compelling world, plenty of content, people to group with and get to know, and then to experiment with 'variations on the theme', both at launch with the obvious themes (PvP, RP, etc.) and then post-launch to keep heading down that road, offering more and more variety and options. Lastly, we hope that as the game evolves down this path that these Realm variations will not only help us dial in a game that feels more tailored for YOU but that it also brings in more people, new people, people who might not be looking as hard at Pantheon right now because we're focusing on PvE group content. The goal is that after launch we offer both more variants as well as more horizontal advancement paths (do a search there if you're not familiar with what I'm referring to as I've posted about it and how important it is to the game's long-term future).
Ok, enough rabbit holes jumped through, but I did want to take the opportunity to give you guys more insight into the planning it takes to build an MMO like this, why we actually want more Realms not less and why we don't jump on the 'my world supports X thousands of players all at once, how many does yours?' bandwagon. All of this should create tremendous opportunities at launch and after launch. The sheer length of this thread is very exciting and validating. You guys are not only coming up with some great ideas, discussions, etc. but also making it loud and clear that you too see the incredible potential here, from Community, to Content, to Variations on the Theme! I shall briefly retire and return the thread to you -- by all means, carry on!! :)
How often should we refresh and revamp content vs. adding new content (a new continent, a new race, etc.)?
If you guys end up doing revamps, be sure to get snapshots to make it easy to do progression or "golden age" servers in the future. Kind of like how a lot of players would go back to live WoW if they had a dedicated TBC or Wrath server, because that was when the game was the most fun for them. Blizzard dropped the ball on not preparing properly for that--though understandably there are technical challenges like important security fixes, exploits, etc. Still, though, there will be an ever increasing market and demand for such a thing the longer Pantheon plays out and the more expansions we see.
I would like to see a server where languages played a much larger role.
A single character server where each race only starts with the race specific language(s). This would automatically create a kind of Realm vs Realm situation (but not nescasarry in a hostile way).
There would be language specific spells, artifacts, recipes etc, and your character would have to master the specific language to a certain degree to get some or all the benefits of that item.
Characters could learn new languages (slowly) by travelling and explore foreign lands, discovering various artifacts and interacting with other races. Some classes would likely be more suited for learning new languages (and would probably also have a greater need to do so). The hunman warrior probably wouldnt need to study the Elf language to use an elven sword, but the wizard would most certainly need to master many languages to have access to the majority of spells.
If characters who already mastered certain languages also could mentor others to aid them in mastering languages it would make for some great social interactions and would make the world very realistic too.
Learning languages should be based on some kind of mini game activated by the previously stated situations, not just random skill increases ala EQ.
I am aware that this would be really hard to successfully implement, but it would be an amazing world.
Ajilkin said:I would like to see a server where languages played a much larger role.
A single character server where each race only starts with the race specific language(s). This would automatically create a kind of Realm vs Realm situation (but not nescasarry in a hostile way).
There would be language specific spells, artifacts, recipes etc, and your character would have to master the specific language to a certain degree to get some or all the benefits of that item.
Characters could learn new languages (slowly) by travelling and explore foreign lands, discovering various artifacts and interacting with other races. Some classes would likely be more suited for learning new languages (and would probably also have a greater need to do so). The hunman warrior probably wouldnt need to study the Elf language to use an elven sword, but the wizard would most certainly need to master many languages to have access to the majority of spells.
If characters who already mastered certain languages also could mentor others to aid them in mastering languages it would make for some great social interactions and would make the world very realistic too.
Learning languages should be based on some kind of mini game activated by the previously stated situations, not just random skill increases ala EQ.
I am aware that this would be really hard to successfully implement, but it would be an amazing world.
I could see potential is this kind of server, especially if they add something else to, and the great thing about this kind of concept is you could add all kinds of things to it, maybe even make it like that from the beginning, who knows.
@Aradune
Have you guys looked at how Diablo 2 did their procedurally generated content? I feel like something that was built...20ish years ago should be easily replicated by now, yet I've only seen a couple attempt it, and fail. Hell, Diablo 3 couldn't even get it right - at least prior to their first expansion.
Great post Aradune, thanks so much for explaining the thought process being used on realm/zone sizing. Some questions if you happen to come back to this thread :)
1) You mention you'd rather have smaller Realms. Are you thinking smaller in terms of "number of zones", or in terms of "available land mass"? I'm one of those players who *wants* the world to feel vast and untamed, and so if available land mass is too small, it works against that. I'm sure there's a sweet spot. What are your thoughts on this?
2) Is there any concern about creating divisions among the community with special ruleset Realms? For example, lots of people say they prefer RP servers because "people are nicer and more community oriented" - even if they aren't RPers themselves. I think that's a double-edged sword. If you put all your community-oriented folks on the same Realms, doesn't that hurt other PvE servers?
3) Do you/does the team see players maintaining accounts on multiple Realms? For example, maybe I main on a PvE Realm but I have characters on a PvP Realm for fun? Or is the feeling more that players will (in general) pick a single Realm and stay with that choice?
4) This is probably a "duh" question, but when the game launches, will there be provisions for players/guilds to move to new Realms easily? One of the things that I've seen happen in other games is that some servers become overpopulated early on (usually due to community word of mouth), and then that poses a challenge for people on those servers long term. For Pantheon, it seems to me like maybe building in an escape valve of free guild transfers that can be used in the event a Realm becomes overcrowded at launch would be a good thing. This probably wouldn't have to be available all the time, but maybe during the initial rush until populations stabilize. Just a thought.
I'm a huge fan of the EQ roleplay server ruleset. Not for the roleplay aspect, but for the tradeable items in game. I play on Firiona Vie and that server arguably has the strongest/most stable economy (non-TLP) due to having most items being tradeable. It really sucks having items rotting because it's no drop/no trade.
Tradeable items also gives the unique opportunity for casual players the chance to obtain items that they would normally never be able to due to flagging/raid issues. Save up your hard earned currency for a while to finally obtain that uber item you've been dreaming of forever. Sure, that type of ruleset also holds its own special set of annoyances but I believe the advantages outweigh the annoyances.
So to me the best server ruleset would be. . . giving it a PG-13 rating!
I cannot tell you how sick I am of all of the jerks in games who think it's SOOO cool to swear all the time and tell the nastiest jokes they can think of in open chat. I'm in my 40s and been gaming awhile (anyone remember the orignal Atari?) and there has never been a time when I have enjoyed people being excessively gross. Dungeons and Dragons Online actively suspended people for this and that made it one of the better environments to play in. Now, I'm not saying ban swearing or any kinds of jokes. . . just from public chat. Sure you will lose a few people because of this, but I for one believe most people will appreciate it.
I'd like to see a server for people who are serious multiboxers.
It's such a hot button issue for some people who are just navagating one computer when they see someone dominating a camp for hours with their 6 other bots especially when it's just for greedy purposes. Excessive multi boxers also throw a wrench in the market and bring the value of items down. I don't hate you multi boxers but huge monoplies are counter productive to a good community imo.
First, I am of the mindset that when feasible, the best course of action is to err on the side of inclusion and incorporate a variety of rulesets for differing playstyles. I also understand that in previous games certain server designations have been established in an unofficial capacity by the community. Such designations typically occur for unofficial regional servers, Oceanic for example, or unofficial role playing servers. That is not to say that Visionary Realms shouldn't incorporate official designation for such servers, however, those designations have previously been achieved without altering game mechanics. I don't dispute however, such playstyles/rulesets could be enhanced by ajusting certain mechanics for such servers.
Secondly, while I am advocating for a specific ruleset, I am not doing so with the intent of discouraging other types of play. As a fan of both PvP and PvE content, I intend to play on a/the PvP server. My hope is that an FFA (free-for-all) server is an available option.
Why would I prefer an FFA ruleset?
On an FFA server you are not restricted from killing your own faction. Instead of getting into a training war, players are able to compete for content via pvp. The server also is capable of addressing imbalances as alliances can form outside of the restriction of faction. Reputation, community relationships and even player skill are more meaningful on FFA servers. This is because players are unable to simply reroll and hop on the bandwagon of the more dominant faction. And finally, hasn't everyone wanted to kill some _________ on your faction who continously talks trash and clogs up the server's general chat? You won't shut them up but it does feel good.
As far specifics regarding which type of FFA ruleset to implement, I don't care if its full loot, partial loot, coin loot, no loot or even reputation points, I just want to pvp.
After talking with Louden last night, and reading his post here. I'm convinced that FFA PvP is an ideal server ruleset. I think Teams PvP could work, but you run into issues with cross-faction abuse, such as training. I never experienced anything like that in WoW/DAoC, but I could see it happening in a game like this.
@Louden, do you think there should be level restrictions, or any level is free game? (Perhaps once out of the noob zone)
I personally prefer FFA. I have played in team pvp servers and the most common problem in Vanguard saga of Heroes on the team pvp server Varking, was monks. What I mean by monks the class that could run quickly and leap while training a large group off mobs thru a dungeon type area then playing dead allowing the mobs to attack the group of people are pveing. I have no problem with this Strat I personally would never do it nor would my guild. However not being able to kill said individual, was a major problem on the Team PvP server.
It came to a point where the opposite faction would roll monks on our side just to try to train mobs since they had no chance against us in pvp at the time. I am for having multiple rule sets PVE, Team Pvp, and my personal favorite like in Vanguard Sartok server FFA which completely Removed the Troll monk training.
I would also love to see on the pvp servers, when a player is killed by another player they drop coin just like in Vanguard. I realize that full loot is most likely out of the question in this day and age of gaming but the dropping of coin. Also making people have the coin on them not their bank when using the action house was a fantastic feature.