philo said:Thinking about it ran,
Maybe a large part of it is because I tend to not commit to free to play games?
I played LotRO heavily until it went ftp. I played DDO heavily until it went ftp.
I have seen multiple games go from having a fantastic community to being a cesspool when they go ftp and thats when I move on.
I bet that is a large part of why I have such a different perspective compared to some. I think that alone solves a lot of the issues people are bringing up.
Is it because the purely subscription model attracts a more mature audience? In my experience it does.
I think maybe you *have* A) been lucky with your EQ servers and communities and B) yes, if you leave the game when you feel the community has 'changed' you are totally avoiding the issue.
I want to avoid people feeling they have to leave Pantheon to avoid an unpleasant community.
You may say, "well, if it isn't F2P then it won't be a bad community". F2P just means a less 'dedicated' crowd get involved. These days games aren't just played by 'computer geeks' like they used to be and even those guys have their toxicity now.
Look at Project 1999 and the huge lengths they are having to go to these days to curtail the difficulties with contention. You couldn't get a more geeky, dedicated player base, but they have horrible problems with 'bad' behaviour.
I believe there were 'good' and 'bad' servers in early EQ. I believe mine was not terrible, but regularly I experienced people (and guilds) that had no interest in sharing or playing *with* others, it was all a competition that they revelled in and that often became nasty.
My first attempt at the cleric epic dragon fight I had my small guild helping me with. We were all assembled and ready and about to engage and a couple of players from another guild interefered repeatedly until their vastly superior raid force turned up and took the kill. To be honest I don't remember the details, only that we had managed to get there ready and first and it just didn't matter because a more powerful guild could just bully us off it.
In my recollection that kind of thing happened... notably often... relative to getting a fair chance. It happened in group situations too where more powerful guilds' groups would just roll through camps they 'needed' with no regard for who was there, because they could. To be clear, no, it did *not* happen *all the time*, but it did happen regularly and often enough to spoil a large part of the game for me (and for those more casual players I played with). Lots of my friends lost interest in the high level game, because you couldn't really do anything without a major guild behind you in order to 'contend' in the pseudo-PvP denial shenanigans and we didn't want to get involved in the politics and the mess that entailed.
Some may read that and think "well, you just didn't have 'what it takes'. You weren't 'good enough'". Wrong. We did. We succeeded sometimes. The point is, it wasn't fun. It was an unpleasant experience. This is what some people will never understand. They think the contention is the best and most 'challenging' way to experience content. In some ways they are right, but only in as much as, say, playing Tetris would be more 'challenging' while someone punched you in the face repeatedly. It isn't 'better' unless you like that kind of game and I contend that most people coming to a PvE game are *not* looking for that kind of experience and certainly don't want the 'top' encounters denied to them unless they play that way.
It was the norm in my EQ server and a large part of why I disliked the high level game. It was a large part of why I moved on to EQ2 as soon as it was available. It was also a large part of why I never got involed in the EQ2 high level game. The politics, the shenanigans and contention, made it no fun. Or at least only fun for those that seemingly can only enjoy a game when 'beating' others.
So, yes, of course I have a 'skewed' viewpoint, as much as anyone's viewpoint is skewed, ie. a product of their experience.
VR needs to use its experience and look at what is happening in other games to make a decent PNP, a decent reporting system with good metrics for the decent GM staff to use and they need to do it from the beginning so things start off and stay decent. They can't just trust to luck and community policing. We *know* that can easily fail because we've seen it do so. Not every time and not all the time, but do we want to just cross our fingers and risk it when it wouldn't take too much effort to avoid it?
Anyway, as I've noted, Joppa *is* aware and they *are* intending to take measures to mitigate and avoid the issues that they know can arise.
What I've heard recently has reassured me greatly, though I hope it's not another thing that gets pushed to 'after release' because a few months is all it takes to set things on the wrong path re. gaining a bad reputation and a toxic atmosphere.
I think we all know that there are already, right now, major guilds setting up to be ready to push hard through the content in order to 'beat' everyone else to world firsts and, I don't doubt, looking to 'dominate' in whatever form that takes, just like they have in other games. They need to know, straight away, that in Pantheon, they are not to do so at the expense of everyone else's experience.
It's probably obvious: I don't give a damn what other players do. I don't care if I'm world-last to everything. I care greatly if I'm experiencing constant strife from other players while I try and do my thing at my pace with my buddies. Good luck to those competitive guilds! If they keep it clean, I will enjoy admiring their progress.
P.S. This is just a discussion forum. I keep on about this subject because I think it is a pivotal one for an MMORPG and I want both 'sides' to understand the other. That neither is the 'superior' viewpoint, but both are just as valid and can coexist. I want to encourage people to not just attack from their entrenched position, but discuss ideas that might satisfy both.
P.P.S. I know I can be opinionated and can be over-sensitive. I 'respond' when I feel mis-understood or attacked, when maybe I should just let it lie. I apologise if I get 'prickly' when reacting like that. I sincerely just want to discuss Pantheon in a group of like-minded people. And, yes, even when it's a polarising issue like contention, I think we still probably agree on more Pantheon issues than we disagree.
I think you are correct that F2P probably does have a negative effect. People that aren't paying to be there sure won't care if they get banned or suspended. They will just make another account. They will feel even less responsibility than in paid places on the internet.
But I don't think it's the whole story or even the main reason.
I accept resources are limited in an open world. I do not accept that that must (or even should) result in pseudo-PvP squabbling or that contention is a 'good thing' to epitomise. I also don't accept that not wanting player grief equals 'instancing'.
If someone can't accept that you don't have to 'beat' other players to enjoy yourself (especially in a PvE focused game) they are going to struggle in Pantheon (a PvE focused game). Luckily for them there are 1000 games out there that provide pseudo PvP so they can grief others, or even real PvP so they can fight against other players *that want to fight them*.
I'm guessing many of those examples you gave when you felt that other raid group took your mob or the other group took your camp they didn't think it was yours. They didn't steal it from you like you are implying.
If you arent attacking a mob and its sitting there it needs to die so it can respawn and provide more loot to the players.
You said " I care greatly if I'm experiencing constant strife from other players while I try and do my thing at my pace with my buddies."
Thats the thing though, why would others have to wait to go at your pace? It sounds like you arent willing to wait your turn.
Eventually "your pace" will be the fastest pace. If you are patient that higher tier guild will move on to future expansions and you will be the most efficient guild killing a target. The newer/smaller/slower/guilds still learning the encounter will lose out on the mob to you. Just like that higher tier guild did before with the guild higher than them (unless they are the top guild on the server and that comes with other issues).
philo said:I'm guessing many of those examples you gave when you felt that other raid group took your mob or the other group took your camp they didn't think it was yours. They didn't steal it from you like you are implying.
If you arent attacking a mob and its sitting there it needs to die so it can respawn and provide more loot to the players.
You said " I care greatly if I'm experiencing constant strife from other players while I try and do my thing at my pace with my buddies."
Thats the thing though, why would others have to wait to go at your pace? It sounds like you arent willing to wait your turn.
Eventually "your pace" will be the fastest pace. If you are patient that higher tier guild will move on to future expansions and you will be the most efficient guild killing a target. The newer/smaller/slower/guilds still learning the encounter will lose out on the mob to you. Just like that higher tier guild did before with the guild higher than them (unless they are the top guild on the server and that comes with other issues).
Your mentality is precisely the toxic mentality many of us want no part in. The concept that raiding is actually PVP racing to a target and not really about the encounter mechanics is absolutely garbage for a PVE game. The concept that a named mob belongs to the team that engages it first is also toxic. It pays no attention to the fact that another team may have been clearing the previous 100 spawns, the fact that they are recovering from the required trash pull before pulling the named, or just that their healer had to pee 10 seconds before the named finally spawned.
If you want to always fight for spawns then go find a PVP game, don’t try and force your PVP on a PVE game. No wonder you feel like you have never had any toxic experiences, you are the toxic experience.
Alright, it sounds like we're finally getting to the meat of it all. This is about raid boss fights, not the game in general. I play in P99 some and I can say that so far I've only encountered the nicest people (helping me find my corpse, selling things cheaper than asking price because I'm low level, offering me slightly higher than average when I sell things, etc). So no, I have not experienced any of the toxic behavior on P99 that is being referred to, but I'm also not raiding.
So, if this is really about raid boss fights lets just keep it to that? And now I'm starting to understand. If I spent two years leveling up to be strong enough to attempt a certain encounter, then spent another week organizing my guild to go raid that encounter, and then that night spend an hour travelling and buffing groups, just to have another more powerful guild roll in and take it out from under us I'd be upset. And I'd get over it and try again...but if it continued to happen week after week for months on end then I would certainly be emotionally scarred.
So if that's the real issue in this thread let's just stick to that? A level 22 dungeon boss that drops a desired item, that spawns every 16 minutes with a placeholder 80% of the time might be camped regularly, but you WILL get a shot at that thing. A level 50 raid boss that spawns once a week in EQ that is regularly camped by the top end guild is a totally different topic in my opinion. I also feel like VR has addressed this issue (although we don't have the details yet). Anyway, two different topics in my opinion, even if they are slightly related.
There are likely a few super rare non raid targets that are also bottle necks for epic quests that tend to fall in this category too but yes its mostly raid targets. There are times where roving thugs will just move through a dungeon from camp to camp killing any named they see regardless of who is nearby who might have been preparing to engage a named that is difficult for them. This is less common and even more so on P99 than on live servers as the P99 community is relatively small above level 40.
Most of this goes away for group mobs if most Named spawns actually spawn in a wide enough area that one group cannot hold it alone. For raids there can still be some world spawn race to bosses but those should be the exception not the rule. It would be much better to have triggerable raid encounters that are either frequency limited or require significant farming for each spawn. That way there will be clear initial ownership and a certain window to try without being rushed. If that time has elapsed then the raid content goes back to free for all.
I have heard an open world game where there are limited resources be referred to as PvP by a couple people now (using the term PvP negatively).
This is the epitome of what the genre has turned into. Instant gratification required. Everyone gets a trophy or it is PVP (a bad thing).
I would be offended if I was a pvp player lol.
It is easy to use raid bosses as an example but limited resources in an open world game extends to all aspects.
Based on some of the reactions here I wonder what the reaction will be when they end up dying to a few trains? Do they rage quit? Do they petition? Surely, given what we have heard, they wont take it in stride and handle it very well.
I'm guessing half the people on this forum wont end up playing for the long run. Either VR caters to one side that doesnt like competing for resources, or they keep resources limited and players will compete for them. We will see how things end up.
philo said:I'm guessing many of those examples you gave when you felt that other raid group took your mob or the other group took your camp they didn't think it was yours. They didn't steal it from you like you are implying.
If you arent attacking a mob and its sitting there it needs to die so it can respawn and provide more loot to the players.
You said " I care greatly if I'm experiencing constant strife from other players while I try and do my thing at my pace with my buddies."
Thats the thing though, why would others have to wait to go at your pace? It sounds like you arent willing to wait your turn.
Eventually "your pace" will be the fastest pace. If you are patient that higher tier guild will move on to future expansions and you will be the most efficient guild killing a target. The newer/smaller/slower/guilds still learning the encounter will lose out on the mob to you. Just like that higher tier guild did before with the guild higher than them (unless they are the top guild on the server and that comes with other issues).
Yeah... no.
You sound like you didn't really read my example. My raid group was ready and prepared and about to engage. Dozens of us stood there, all the same guild, having fought our way there. It was utterly obvious we were about to engage the dragon. A couple of players from another guild griefed us to stop us successfully engaging and getting us killed while their raid force got ready then swept in and took over.
My guild was totally ready and had a good chance of success. Only the actions of a few from another guild (that was not ready) stopped us from success long enough to for their guild to muscle in. We were not powerful enough to resist them and not nasty enough (or powerful enough) to attempt to grief them out of their attempt.
"why would others have to wait to go at your pace? It sounds like you arent willing to wait your turn."
You utterly have that backwards, sorry. We were the ones ready. They were the ones not willing to wait their turn. They arrived late and unready, but had a few players that were willing to engage in nasty tactics to spoil our attempt while they got ready for theirs.
"Eventually "your pace" will be the fastest pace"
No it won't and shouldn't have to be, anyway. I need to be good enough to beat the content. The encounters. I should not have to also be willing to engage in childish pseudo-PvP activities just to *get to* the content.
"If you are patient that higher tier guild will move on to future expansions"
So anyone not in a big powerful guild should just wait a few months for them to get bored with it? You truly don't see why that is just terrible? You think that players behaving like elitist bullies are simply fine to deny othes content for months on end?
Ranarius said:Alright, it sounds like we're finally getting to the meat of it all. This is about raid boss fights, not the game in general.
No. I literally said that was just an example and it happened in group content too. In fact, in some ways, it's worse that it happens in group content, even though it happens less. Because the stakes are lower, so you'd think people would be ok to share, but, nope, often not.
Ranarius said:I play in P99 some and I can say that so far I've only encountered the nicest people (helping me find my corpse, selling things cheaper than asking price because I'm low level, offering me slightly higher than average when I sell things, etc). So no, I have not experienced any of the toxic behavior on P99 that is being referred to, but I'm also not raiding.
It certainly happens more often in the high level game, but it starts in grouping areas.
You are seriously telling me in P99 you never had a camp and another group just rolled in and started pulling the named monsters (and letting your group continue to be occupied with the trash) without so much as a word to your group? I find that hard to believe. Happened regularly to me in P99. You never had someone powerleveling stroll through the whole zone pulling every monster away leaving you with nothing. Repeatedly. No? Sounds like a different game to me.
Sure, it wasn't as often or as 'bad' in normal grouping zones, but I think it grows from there. When players come to know that might-is-right is the prevailing behaviour in day-to-day activity, they sure are going to engage nasty mode when the stakes are even higher in raids and other high level content.
Ranarius said:So, if this is really about raid boss fights lets just keep it to that? And now I'm starting to understand. If I spent two years leveling up to be strong enough to attempt a certain encounter, then spent another week organizing my guild to go raid that encounter, and then that night spend an hour travelling and buffing groups, just to have another more powerful guild roll in and take it out from under us I'd be upset. And I'd get over it and try again...but if it continued to happen week after week for months on end then I would certainly be emotionally scarred.
So if that's the real issue in this thread let's just stick to that? A level 22 dungeon boss that drops a desired item, that spawns every 16 minutes with a placeholder 80% of the time might be camped regularly, but you WILL get a shot at that thing. A level 50 raid boss that spawns once a week in EQ that is regularly camped by the top end guild is a totally different topic in my opinion. I also feel like VR has addressed this issue (although we don't have the details yet). Anyway, two different topics in my opinion, even if they are slightly related.
So, it's not just that, though that is where it is worse.
I also believe VR has it in hand, though, as I have said. From what Joppa has said they are fully aware and intend to mitigate and avoid as much as possible.
disposalist said:You are seriously telling me in P99 you never had a camp and another group just rolled in and started pulling the named monsters (and letting your group continue to be occupied with the trash) without so much as a word to your group? I find that hard to believe. Happened regularly to me in P99. You never had someone powerleveling stroll through the whole zone pulling every monster away leaving you with nothing. Repeatedly. No? Sounds like a different game to me.
There was a lot to respond to and I need to head off to work but I do want to respond to this part quickly, maybe the rest later if I get a chance.
Yes, I have certainly had that happen. But it is completley different than being denied end game content for months (or years) on end. If my group is about to take on a named mob and someone rolls in and takes it...it's annoying for sure. But that event is over. It's not like the next time we go try that named dungeom mob again the same player is going to roll in and do it again (very very low chance of that happening twice in a row). They normaly do their thing and then move on without saying a word. I'm just not as bothered by those little annoying events because, so far, we haven't found a way around them without also sacrificing what makese open world amazing. Still happy to hear ideas and discuss, but we both agree that it's annoying, hopefully we both agree that it's not the end of the world, and that we don't have a great solution to it.
Side note: Players that act like that will face social consequences as well. Not only should there be some sort of PnP in writing, but there will certainly be social consequences with or without a PnP.
Anyone who played EQ and thinks that somehow players were always nice to each other over camps, loot, and kills, never spent time in Lower Guk.
As far as grouping vs. raiding - I think VR needs to have a strategy for dealing with toxic behavior in group encounters. Players can get just as nasty over those as they can over raid targets. The difference is there are a LOT more group encounters than there will be raid targets.
As for subscription vs. f2p - honestly, I don't think a player's subscription level makes them more or less inclined to be toxic. What f2p *does* do though is it dramatically increases the number of players in a game. So if 5% of people were jerks before, you'll notice it a lot more if you have 30,000 people on your server instead of the 6,000 people you had when the game was subscription-only. Not to mention that the increased number of people in a shared space will naturally lead to more friction. But just because someone is f2p doesn't make them a bad person, and just because someone is a subscriber doesn't make them a good one.
Fortunately, I think VR is headed in the right direction here. From the DRT, they're working to try and mitigate permacamp situations and spread people out, which is honestly one of the best approaches they can take. If it gets to the point where a CSR or GM has to step in, then the damage has already been done. There will obviously have to be some rules because those situations will still happen, but reducing the chance that they happen is a good strategy to follow.
philo said:I have heard an open world game where there are limited resources be referred to as PvP by a couple people now (using the term PvP negatively).
This is the epitome of what the genre has turned into. Instant gratification required. Everyone gets a trophy or it is PVP (a bad thing).
I would be offended if I was a pvp player lol.
It is easy to use raid bosses as an example but limited resources in an open world game extends to all aspects.
Based on some of the reactions here I wonder what the reaction will be when they end up dying to a few trains? Do they rage quit? Do they petition? Surely, given what we have heard, they wont take it in stride and handle it very well.
I'm guessing half the people on this forum wont end up playing for the long run. Either VR caters to one side that doesnt like competing for resources, or they keep resources limited and players will compete for them. We will see how things end up.
Nope. More hyperbole and strawman stuff. Wanting PvE to be PvE does not mean wanting instant gratification, instancing, participation awards, not wanting limited resources, etc.
I have said many times that PvP would be a more honest way to solve contention. Joppa apparently thikns so too. But I do not enjoy PvP in an MMORPG. It is an utterly different emphasis for a game. One of my primary reasons for backing and being so excited for Pantheon is the promise that it will be PvE focused.
I do play PvP games, like Battlefield. It doesn't get any more PvP than a multiplayer shooter. I enjoy it.
I much prefer MMORPGs to be PvE, though and when they are PvE to not mix in PvP and certainly not to encourage the second-rate griefing and squabbling of contention in PvE.
If anything, wanting that pretend 'competition' in PvE is insulting to PvP. Why not just go play PvP if you want proper competition? What's wrong with PvP?
As for trains, they happen. You ask the person not to. They apologise and help get you set up again if they got you killed. If they continue to unapologetically train you like a child, then, yeah they get reported.
Based on some of the reactions here I wonder what the reaction will be when they get suspended for bad behaviour they they consider 'competition' but others (including VR) know is griefing.
And, no, VR does not have to cater to one side or the other entirely. More hyperbole and fallacy. There can be 'healthy competition'. I might even enjoy some of that. Just not quite how it's been done in the past. There have been many discussions of this in the past and many ways suggested to mitigate the negatives of contention.
As mentioned earlier, Project 1999 recently brought in a whole load of rules to help control some of the bad behaviour I have encountered in the past. I haven't played it recently, but I hope it's working.
VR are clearly on the ball. Maybe they are taking note of what P99 has done. Maybe they have some great innovations of their only. They defintely know it's a problem and are looking for solutions, though, so that's good.
Ranarius said:Yes, I have certainly had that happen. But it is completley different than being denied end game content for months (or years) on end. If my group is about to take on a named mob and someone rolls in and takes it...it's annoying for sure. But that event is over. It's not like the next time we go try that named dungeom mob again the same player is going to roll in and do it again (very very low chance of that happening twice in a row). They normaly do their thing and then move on without saying a word. I'm just not as bothered by those little annoying events because, so far, we haven't found a way around them without also sacrificing what makese open world amazing. Still happy to hear ideas and discuss, but we both agree that it's annoying, hopefully we both agree that it's not the end of the world, and that we don't have a great solution to it.
I don't think we actually disagree. That sort of group thing isn't major (though in my experience it is usually more than just a one-mob-stolen-and-gone incident), but if that sort of thing happens regularly it can become major *IF* there are no rules to remind people of and consequences if people persistently break the rules. That's why P99 expended its camping rules significantly. Even adding mechanics to support new rules.
Ranarius said:Side note: Players that act like that will face social consequences as well. Not only should there be some sort of PnP in writing, but there will certainly be social consequences with or without a PnP.
There will, but in my experience, that does very little on its own. More and more these days players act out and just laugh at people getting upset. I just don't believe 'social consequences' mean as much as they used to.
But we agree, without a PNP people maybe don't even realise they are behaving 'badly'. People who *want* to be good citizens might not even know what is expected. MMORPGs are complex.
Also without a PNP to refer to people will /report *more* often because they don't know what should be or shouldn't be reported or they are expectd to deal with themselves or just put up with.
Ranarius said:disposalist said:Also without a PNP to refer to people will /report *more* often because they don't know what should be or shouldn't be reported or they are expectd to deal with themselves or just put up with.That is an interesting point that I didn't consider.
I really would prefer to get away from the 'arguments' and talk about the actual issues and how to solve them. It kinda requires the to 'sides' to have some mutual respect though...
I know it seems like I'm against any competition, but it's not true, I would just like contention to be more 'elective' competition and less 'forced' griefing. More actually fair, healthy, 'real' competition and less just bullying by a stronger group using crappy pseudo-PvP tactics that equate to tripping other players up and pushing them aside.
One of the most fun times I had in game was a high level dungeon with undead dragons (In EQ. I literally cannot remember what place it was. Around where The Sleeper was, maybe?) where my guild had two groups and another guild turned up with two groups and we started 'contending' for content. Before it got nasty, we spoke and actually agreed to do a leap-frog-type race to the near boss target, but that whoever got all their players in the final area first would get to attempt the boss and the others would *help* by keeping re-pops and wanderers away. We did win the race and beat the boss, but guess what, we hung around to help them get their boss fight.
The point is, I *KNOW* not all competition is bad, *BUT* it almost always will be, *unless* it is by mutual consent and roughly even and some rules are established and that is VERY rare to occur spontaneously and not easy to arrange even. I literally cannot remember another session like it. Meeting another group in EQ at higher level was usually neutral at best and mostly a slightly negative worry and sometimes an irritation and sometimes very negative pseudo-PvP thing.
The lower the level, the lower the stakes and the less 'bad' it was, but wouldn't it be better if, at any level, when you see another group it is a potentially good thing, not at best neutral?
But, what if VR publish PNP that included examples of how to handle multi-group contention so it is a positive thing? At least it would give a basis for groups/raids to discuss and come to an agreement.
I'm just not wanting the Wild West approach that some seem to want, because I know it will often be unpleasant and may taint the game.
disposalist said:I really would prefer to get away from the 'arguments' and talk about the actual issues and how to solve them. It kinda requires the to 'sides' to have some mutual respect though...
Couldn't agree more with this. This thread has gone from one thing to a totally different thing haha.
Maybe it should be a new thread and the question should be something like "What policies and/or design ideas could be in place to encourage friendly game play around high-demand content while holding to the open world concept"
Ranarius said:disposalist said:I really would prefer to get away from the 'arguments' and talk about the actual issues and how to solve them. It kinda requires the to 'sides' to have some mutual respect though...Couldn't agree more with this. This thread has gone from one thing to a totally different thing haha.
Maybe it should be a new thread and the question should be something like "What policies and/or design ideas could be in place to encourage friendly game play around high-demand content while holding to the open world concept"
I guess it's been discussed at length before and I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the same lines being drawn in the sand.
I suppose it was a natural progression to get here from discussing the long end-game raiding scene, but to get back to your OP somewhat...
I certainly would like it if the 'end-game' wasn't treated *exactly* like it was in old-school MMORPGs. I know that causes arguments, because for some, that is exactly what they want from Pantheon *shrug* I sincerely hope it will be enough like that experience to keep them happy, but changed enough to not make *only* them happy.
I would be happy to see *some* content, end-game raids or not, that reward endurance and persistance, but for that to be treated as the 'best' and 'most challenging' and for the 'best' loot to be hidden behind it would be disappointing indeed.
bigdogchris said:Counterfleche said: We need reasonable restrictions in games for the same reason we need referees in sports. Many people will take the easiest path to victory, even if it isn't fun and is harmful to the game/sport. By preventing this behavior, the game becomes more enjoyable for all.The main reason most games switched to instancing in the first place was to curb bad behavior. By putting in place restrictions to prevent bad competitive behavior, we can creating a toxic environment and also avoid the heavy-handedness of instancing.
This isn't a player behavior issue, it's a system issue. Any system that puts players in competition for scare resources and has an its only control and optional line system is asking for trouble. If Disneyland let everyone cut the line and ride at many times as they wanted, you would have the rough equivalent of a laissez-faire MMO. It not only doesn't work, it's basically designed to fail.
I see it completely differently. While I won't disagree with you that instancing leads to easier leveling, many people are not here just to reach the top as fast as possible. What you gain from instancing you lose in community and sense of accomplishment. The levels will come no matter what system you have but having a good community and feeling great about what you have is something you can't get back. People working hard and competing to get ahead results in a greater feeling of accomplishment than being handed levels through instance grinding.
I think you misunderstood me. I'm not arguing in favor of instancing, I'm explaining why games switched to it. I don't want instancing, but I also don't want to see a return of all the probems intancing was created to solve.
There are two kinds of competition: healthy and toxic. Healthy competition is where we all try to accomplish as much as possible compared to others (e.g. being the first to defeat a hard boss). Toxic competition is where we try to accomplish as much as we can at the expense of others (e.g. spawn stealing, training, etc so you can take from others). The game can be designed so that toxic competition is minimized. If it isn't, toxic behavior will likely become part of the game's culture and we will lose many good people. I think that we need to have specific measures programmed in specifically to minimize toxic types of competition. It is no longer enough to rely on a 'play nice' policy and social pressure to keep people honest. We are now living in the age of 4chan and trolling / toxic behavior has become normalized and celibrated amongst too many gamers for this to work alone.
People who don't want toxic competition aren't asking for an easier game or participation trophies--we are asking for a fair race that measures how fast we run, not who is best at pushing other people down and cheating.
Ranarius said:disposalist said:I really would prefer to get away from the 'arguments' and talk about the actual issues and how to solve them. It kinda requires the to 'sides' to have some mutual respect though...Couldn't agree more with this. This thread has gone from one thing to a totally different thing haha.
Maybe it should be a new thread and the question should be something like "What policies and/or design ideas could be in place to encourage friendly game play around high-demand content while holding to the open world concept"
I had been thinking the same thing (about having a separate thread specifically for ideas on how to solve this problem), so I created one.