If you haven't yet listened to the April roundtable, you just might want to if only for this particular subject.
At 41 minutes in there is a question which I will rephase here.
Q. What, if any, solution is there going to be in a 100% none-instanced, persistent world for keeping key content, camps, quest item, NPCs etc. from being monopolized by power-players, guilds, etc?
They say it's a good question which is laughable since it was the first question out of everyones mouth the moment Pantheon was announced as a non-instanced, persistent world. And it has been a hot topic for the forums since topic 1 I suspect.
I still remember as member of BOTS in Vanguard (aka EQ 2.0) having the luxury of both a griffon and wyvern for ages while the rest of the player base had neither. BOTS was such a dominant force in Vanguard only they had the skills and tactical ability to continually dominate all aspects of the quests processes. And even after raid lock-out timers were implemented by SoE in a chessy attempt to handcuff skilled players from dominating content, no others still could get wyverns as it required killing Kotasoth, which no other guilds had ever done.
Kilsin's tears tasted delicious in Vanguard.
Perkins is "Deeply pained" he can't answer the question directly.
"It's in the top three, if not #1 most important question to answer..."
But Perkins does talk about it extensively, so I recommend a listen.
The biggest issue with this type of contested content (which I am for) is the player driven economy. As long as you have a system where players can essentially apply "in-game money" in the form of RMT concept (ie money can buy your progression through gear), you will have excessive issues with contested content. That is, when a player can go out and grind money, or play the market game to gain money and then use that to circumvent having to obtain that specific item through its intended game play, you essentially create a strong driven market for the problems you mention.
This is why since day 1 in EQ (and against it in previous MMO games), I was against the player EC market, I was against the bazaar, or any form of means to support player trade of goods because such trade is unregulated in play (ie there are no means to balance out risk vs reward as there is with the adventure portion of the game).
Because of this, the model of contested content will be ripe with abuse and issues. It is why original EQ had very little issues, but later EQ became a nightmare. That is because "player trade" became a primary process for advancement in later EQ (as well as many MMOs). This is not a surprise though as it is often FAR easier to grind money to buy an item in the market, or... play various trade games to gain money than it is to go to the location that the item drops and obtain it through game play. Until that imbalance is corrected, until risk vs reward is expanded to ALL aspects of game play, the player market will always be a means to circumvent play and the result will be the adventure market saturated with people gimmicking game play to provide a flow of revenue to that market.
I have yet to see a real benefit that player economies have provided to game play, rather they are only a means to circumvent as they are currently implemented.
Again, keep in mind I say this from a position that thinks contested content is superior in game play to that of instanced, yet I recognize the severe problems that player markets create in these game systems. Keep in mind, that in D&D, the GM controlled pricing, controlled the distribution and trade of goods so that the players could not "cheat" the system for an advantage. Player markets have no such control as the developers have ZERO control over the player market.
zewtastic said:If you haven't yet listened to the April roundtable, you just might want to if only for this particular subject.
At 41 minutes in there is a question which I will rephase here.
Q. What, if any, solution is there going to be in a 100% none-instanced, persistent world for keeping key content, camps, quest item, NPCs etc. from being monopolized by power-players, guilds, etc?
They say it's a good question which is laughable since it was the first question out of everyones mouth the moment Pantheon was announced as a non-instanced, persistent world. And it has been a hot topic for the forums since topic 1 I suspect.
I still remember as member of BOTS in Vanguard (aka EQ 2.0) having the luxury of both a griffon and wyvern for ages while the rest of the player base had neither. BOTS was such a dominant force in Vanguard only they had the skills and tactical ability to continually dominate all aspects of the quests processes. And even after raid lock-out timers were implemented by SoE in a chessy attempt to handcuff skilled players from dominating content, no others still could get wyverns as it required killing Kotasoth, which no other guilds had ever done.
Kilsin's tears tasted delicious in Vanguard.
Perkins is "Deeply pained" he can't answer the question directly.
"It's in the top three, if not #1 most important question to answer..."
But Perkins does talk about it extensively, so I recommend a listen.
Here is the actual question for anyone who cares for a quote. The importance of this question was made very clear. In past talks, they have explained that they are working on solutions. This answer given now implies they have a solution. He will not tell us about it, at this time. That's all. This thread should never have happened.
"Over the years there has been a lot of community debate around farming, um, competition and the player behavior that results. While many of us want an open world experience, we're also weary of reintroducing some of the social problems that can occur when everything is a free-for-all. Um, what are some of the mechanics or mechanisms that Pantheon will use to try and hit the middle ground between trying to have things be heavily contested or completely isolated. Things like triggers, dynamic spawns, you know, stuff like that."
Tigersin said:Here is the actual question for anyone who cares for a quote. The importance of this question was made very clear. In past talks, they have explained that they are working on solutions. This answer given now implies they have a solution. He will not tell us about it, at this time. That's all. This thread should never have happened.
"Over the years there has been a lot of community debate around farming, um, competition and the player behavior that results. While many of us want an open world experience, we're also weary of reintroducing some of the social problems that can occur when everything is a free-for-all. Um, what are some of the mechanics or mechanisms that Pantheon will use to try and hit the middle ground between trying to have things be heavily contested or completely isolated. Things like triggers, dynamic spawns, you know, stuff like that."
The solutions are my concern though. I mean, you can put in a ton of artificial constraints that will likely remedy the issue, but... what you get is things like TLC, invisible walls, and numerous other modern day solutions that put an open world game play on rails. I mean, sure... it is open world, but really what that means is that is an open world with lots of tracks that force people to where they go, what they can do. I don't view such as a solution, so I am very skeptical as to what they are going to provide. Some of it may be acceptable, some of it may be just a re-hash of a tired mainstream concepts. Time will tell.
Tigersin said:zewtastic said:If you haven't yet listened to the April roundtable, you just might want to if only for this particular subject.
At 41 minutes in there is a question which I will rephase here.
Q. What, if any, solution is there going to be in a 100% none-instanced, persistent world for keeping key content, camps, quest item, NPCs etc. from being monopolized by power-players, guilds, etc?
They say it's a good question which is laughable since it was the first question out of everyones mouth the moment Pantheon was announced as a non-instanced, persistent world. And it has been a hot topic for the forums since topic 1 I suspect.
I still remember as member of BOTS in Vanguard (aka EQ 2.0) having the luxury of both a griffon and wyvern for ages while the rest of the player base had neither. BOTS was such a dominant force in Vanguard only they had the skills and tactical ability to continually dominate all aspects of the quests processes. And even after raid lock-out timers were implemented by SoE in a chessy attempt to handcuff skilled players from dominating content, no others still could get wyverns as it required killing Kotasoth, which no other guilds had ever done.
Kilsin's tears tasted delicious in Vanguard.
Perkins is "Deeply pained" he can't answer the question directly.
"It's in the top three, if not #1 most important question to answer..."
But Perkins does talk about it extensively, so I recommend a listen.
Here is the actual question for anyone who cares for a quote. The importance of this question was made very clear. In past talks, they have explained that they are working on solutions. This answer given now implies they have a solution. He will not tell us about it, at this time. That's all. This thread should never have happened.
"Over the years there has been a lot of community debate around farming, um, competition and the player behavior that results. While many of us want an open world experience, we're also weary of reintroducing some of the social problems that can occur when everything is a free-for-all. Um, what are some of the mechanics or mechanisms that Pantheon will use to try and hit the middle ground between trying to have things be heavily contested or completely isolated. Things like triggers, dynamic spawns, you know, stuff like that."
On the contrary, it is the #1 issue.
Maybe you need to take a break from the forums.
zewtastic said:But Perkins does talk about it extensively, so I recommend a listen.
After listening a couple times, I'd be willing to bet dimes to donuts it is some version of triggered quest/boss content reminiscent of the 10th Ring War in Velious, alien invasions and pocket bosses in AO, epic boss mob spawning via turn-in like a few EQ epics, etc. All sorts of ways to make meaningful, gated gear/mobs/content triggerable without it being instanced.
Games have already done it.
If true, Venjenz, that would only address one of: content, camps, quest item, NPCs etc. from being monopolized, that is, NPC's. (bosses, raid targets, triggerable NPC's in general)
There is still no answer regarding normal shared competitive open world content, camps, quest items, and more, of the world being completely, totally, utterly monopolized by anyone that has the will to monopolize it.
It won't breakt the TOS, EULA, or PNP, either. So they've got that going for them. :)
Keep in mind they still haven't confirmed there will be no multiquesting even, so a lot of the "bad" from EQ1 is still on the table for Pantheon, including content monopolization of entire zones, for AE farming, for example. Especially with >= 1850m leash lengths.
X
What I'm hearing by reading between the lines is that they are going to come up with a gimmick that mirrors instancing without being instanced (whether they say it isn't or not). Very similar to mobs calling in friends or despawning as a way to mirror trivial loot code without being TLC...an example of a gimmick that they are hanging their hat on. Whether that is lockout timers or ghost spawns or something similar. It is either open world or it isn't. If players are restricted from attacking a mob that other players are attacking it isn't an open world game. Period.
It seems like if there was a good solution that Chris had in mind he would have mentioned it, but it sounds like it will be controversial. I get more worried as time goes on.
Just for clarification, I could go either way on open world games.
There are positives and negatives to both open world and instanced content but, especially in the position VR has put themselves in, being open and honest is most paramount. Don't blow smoke up our ass if the game won't be 100% pure open world.
Reputation matters...both in game and out.
couldn't they just add a loot code that after you loot the item that mob drops, you can't loot another for 3 months. i would say ever, but basically make all boss drops Lore. can't loot another while having it on your character. and no easy mail to alt and continue option. Basically, if its an upgrade, you take it. if you take it just for financial gains. you get One. period. I am sure there is a reason why they won't / can't do all that, but i don't design games, so I don't know why they can't.
I do love that at one point they talked about named mobs having a large area in which they could spawn. not always in the same room at the same place etc. not sure that will fix it either.
Flapp said:couldn't they just add a loot code that after you loot the item that mob drops, you can't loot another for 3 months. i would say ever, but basically make all boss drops Lore. can't loot another while having it on your character. and no easy mail to alt and continue option. Basically, if its an upgrade, you take it. if you take it just for financial gains. you get One. period. I am sure there is a reason why they won't / can't do all that, but i don't design games, so I don't know why they can't.
I do love that at one point they talked about named mobs having a large area in which they could spawn. not always in the same room at the same place etc. not sure that will fix it either.
So a couple things. Most systems that would limit the amount of times you can loot an item would only negatively impact the "honest" players. They will accept it and move on. If there is any other system that allows an item to be transfered, be by different accounts, different looters, different characters, people that want to exploit the system will. I'm against most forms of No-Drop gear. I think it kills the player economy and I believe an economy is an important part of a MMO.
I also think people are overstating the amount of RMT that occurs in MMOs. Its not really some dark underbelly that corrupts all other aspects of the game. I'm for banning gold farmers/sellers as I assume everyone is but any system that allows money or items to be transfered is exploitable so they only harm your average player.
I think some mobs should randomly spawn in areas. I like that idea. It also balances the dungeons as to which camp is the most sought after. It will allow more camp spots to spring up. Larger mobs such as dragons, etc. should have static spawns. I think triggered events for some bosses is a good idea.
Really the solution is a mix of things. Some triggered spawns, some random location spawns, and some normal static spawns.
The last thing we need is the ability to sell MQ or LR .
I think you need to be apart of the encounter to be able to even be able to loot *no drop* items. If you where not part of the encounter on kill before "loot" dropped , you are not eligible period. If no one in the raid needs the piece ... it simply rots to the RNG god.
This by itself will kill half that type of market from the start.
This topic has been talked to death and beyond and there is no new information in the roundtable as to how Pantheon is going to work.
Whenever the topic dies it comes back and sometimes the discussion gets even stronger.
All I can conclude is that they have come up with a form of Forum Progeny.
LOL @ 'skill' being the characteristic that enables certain groups of players to 'dominate' aspects of quests.
p.s. weird flex, but ok
Tanix said:This is why since day 1 in EQ (and against it in previous MMO games), I was against the player EC market, I was against the bazaar, or any form of means to support player trade of goods because such trade is unregulated in play (ie there are no means to balance out risk vs reward as there is with the adventure portion of the game).
I just want to point out that this was a non-issue on a PvP server. You didn't hang out too far from a bank with money on you advertising where you were while likely encumbered by gear because that made you a target. There were other factors on a PvP server that were a non-issue that you see in PvE servers too (like FD griefing... if some monk flops next your group, you just kill them, or snare someone trying to intentionally train you). Alternatively, there were many other ways to grief players like attacking them while they were engaged with an NPC - but that forced players to find obscure locations in the world to group or kite that players on PvE servers maybe never even saw.
To address the O.P., I personally am not concerned. If content is available to everyone, great; If content can be farmed and blocked by others, I'll jump on the bandwagon and farm content too. -shrug- The thing I would have an issue with (and had in EQ1) was when content that dropped no trade gear was unobtainable to the masses because one guild decides to set up 24/7 rotations of personnel to ensure that nobody else can access the content, i.e griefing utilizing mechanics as designed (like to enter a specific area, a player must "interact" with an object (like completing a quest trade of items to an NPC) and a guild makes certain that there is a character logged in constantly having the trade window open with the NPC, preventing others outside of the guild from doing the quest turn in... as an example).
wehted said:LOL @ 'skill' being the characteristic that enables certain groups of players to 'dominate' aspects of quests.
Ya... it was likely a guild that made decisions like my example above that simply prevented players from completing content unless they were a part of their guild which does nothing but force people to join their guild or eventally quit playing on that server, all the while boosting an ill-deserved ego of "we are the best because nobody else can do what we do"... because they are using the game mechanics to unknowingly force people that want to progress any further to join their guild. You see this in a lot of MMOs, guilds mistaking massive numbers, which allows constant ability to make attempts at hard encounters to get better gear as "skill".
Darch said:You see this in a lot of MMOs, guilds mistaking massive numbers, which allows constant ability to make attempts at hard encounters to get better gear as "skill".
Limit guild size. Or require guild maintenance costs that spike asymptotically with increasing guild size.
Akilae said:Darch said:You see this in a lot of MMOs, guilds mistaking massive numbers, which allows constant ability to make attempts at hard encounters to get better gear as "skill".
Limit guild size. Or require guild maintenance costs that spike asymptotically with increasing guild size.
There is no reason to limit guild size as I believe they've already talked about limiting raid size.
Akilae said:Darch said:You see this in a lot of MMOs, guilds mistaking massive numbers, which allows constant ability to make attempts at hard encounters to get better gear as "skill".
Limit guild size. Or require guild maintenance costs that spike asymptotically with increasing guild size.
Irrelevant and would not address the problem at all. A dedicated guild will overcome every obstacle to obtain what they want. Such penalties would only harm the more casual player.
As for the use of instancing/other mechanics. The latest stream showed one example with Gnashurra, that of the locked door which will permanently close after a short delay. On the surface that sounds good, but in practice is will be a cluster#$%@. Two groups racing and at the door, half of one group gets in and half the other. Now what happens? The door is locked. I'll assume that spells like Call of the Hero are disabled past the door otherwise the door locking becomes irrelevant. Oh, and what's to stop a 2nd group (or 3rd or 4th) from just following another group into the room when the first group unlocks the door then just out-damages the first group?
Because Pantheon is an open world game I'm fine with the "door closing" mechanic because any number of people can step through at once before it closes. Its not limited to just 1 group. Make it a timing thing is a fine work around as long as it can still potentially be contested content as per an open world.
Vandraad said:Irrelevant and would not address the problem at all. A dedicated guild will overcome every obstacle to obtain what they want. Such penalties would only harm the more casual player.
As for the use of instancing/other mechanics. The latest stream showed one example with Gnashurra, that of the locked door which will permanently close after a short delay. On the surface that sounds good, but in practice is will be a cluster#$%@. Two groups racing and at the door, half of one group gets in and half the other. Now what happens? The door is locked. I'll assume that spells like Call of the Hero are disabled past the door otherwise the door locking becomes irrelevant. Oh, and what's to stop a 2nd group (or 3rd or 4th) from just following another group into the room when the first group unlocks the door then just out-damages the first group?
Since raid groups and normal groups will be a thing its seems the best solution is to be first to tag the mob is the only group who can do damage to it. It should also limit it so people "flagged" can't be cast on from anoyone outside their group. This would prevent bringing extra healers to sit outside the group and heal. This flag should also prevent the boss from damaging anyone outside the flagged group. That would prevent someone from triggering the encounter early in an attempt to wipe another group that is preping. It's not a perfect solution, but it seems the best.
What if it were Lore, but with a restricted timer that won't let you sell the item for 48 hours?
Lore means you can't stay and loot more than one. and if you have one in inventory, you can't sell it for 24-72 hours. Would be no point in trying to lock down camp for days at a time. And it doesn't mean you couldn't stay and help OTHERS get the loot. You just can't get a 2nd one for a while.
During that 24 to 72 hours, you would need to take it to a shaman or whatever other player or NPC and get the "no trade" (bond) removed.
Or, upon looting the item, maybe the mob would offer you a quest which involves the item to be turned in as part of the quest. Or the mob doesn't actually drop the item. He gives you a token that allows you to go Get the item from across the world. Promotes travel with a purpose. Can't have more than one token on you at a time. no trade until you turn it in and get the item?
Chris said they had something, but that won't stop chinese from perma camping for plat/gold to sell. I am looking for ways/reasons to only be able to get ONE for X amount of time. I don't see any other way to "fix" perma camping unless it's lore/no drop. Chinese plat farmers couldn't care less that its a quest item or a twink item etc. They just want plat to sell on a web site.
New subject. This door closing thing they showed in the last stream. They act like your group is the Only group carrying around that key. Wouldn't many people / groups have a key after going after the Key dropper? is the key No Rent (or whatever they call items that disappear after logging out)
So two groups trying to get to the mob behind the locked gate, you open it it to let in one member that was lagging behind and all of a sudden, even a group without a key was able to slide in and take the mob.
anyways, this is a really fun subject. it's fun to think how can you do 'A' without harming 'B' etc . thanks for this thought provoking OP.
There is no, one solution, that solves all the isues, without creating other issues.
Let's face it, some people are butt holes, and when those people think they have power, they are even bigger butt holes.
It's just the world we live in, and in the virtual world, it's more diffuclt to deal with since they can hide behind a keyboard.