Ranarius said:"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"
In another thread, we have been arguing the merits of whether Pantheon should put systems / restrictions in place to reduce the toxicity that players competing over limited resources can cause. Please continue to use that thread to discuss IF and HOW MUCH Pantheon should have/do this. This thread is specifically for suggestions on what systems / restrictions you would like to see. These really need their own thread so they don't get burried in the other thread and so they can be discussed on their merits without derailing the other discussion.
Here are some suggestions:
Edited for clarity.
Here's hoping this can be a positive thread for helpful suggestions!
"Spread around some of the most sought-after loot"
It's a sensible idea and will help. Joppa mentioned they realise it has a diminishing factor on the "iconic-ness" (his word hehe) of the loot, but that he thought it was worth it. I agree. Especially since this doesn't effect the open world concept.
"Have the actual bosses spawn in multiple locations"
Another sensible idea. Also a fun one. What we've seen so far, in Black Rose Keep, is a boss that patrols/wanders though. That has the potential for causing as many arguments as it solves since the boss (and her loot) passes from camp to camp... though it is an interesting concept and possibly worth it.
"Have specific gatekeeper bosses spawn that drop keys"
Agreed on this being good in the several ways you note. It does much to mitigate the issue of groups 'stealing' a boss another group has worked hard to get to, but leaves the door open for others to watch, help and yes, hinder. Much better than instancing.
I have to say here, there have been long discussions/debate over the many and varied ways of changing 'boss' encounters (without simple instancing) so I won't go into it here.
Suffice to say I think there are multiple ways that could and should be used and they could even vary/change the way particular bosses do it over time to keep things interesting. One week Gnashura is triggered, the next week he wanders in a more 'contested' way, the next he randomly spawns in varying locations, the next he has several 'ghost' spawns, etc.
"Create diminishing returns to reduce extended camping"
All for this, it has great potential, but it needs testing and careful consideration re. the 'severity' of the diminishment. It might have great effect on contention and upon the economy, but might it effect long-term replay? Also on people willing to help others: once they have 'done' a camp for a while, they will have no desire to return to help others if they have absolutely zero chance of loot (or even somehow diminish the 'group' chance)
"Limit each character to only looting each unique item once"
I think this sounds too severe. Diminishing Returns mught be enough, though that rate could vary depending on the item.
"Create some kind of lore-based mob that will spawn in increasing numbers and aggro"
Interesting idea, but I feel it could get messy and weird, especially if those monsters aren't just for that group and if they *are* for that group it starts to feel less 'open world'. And when group composition changes, with some characters there for ages and some just getting there?
It might be interesting 'dynamic' gameplay for the number of spawns or rate of spawn to increase depending on the time (or lack of time) they remain spawned. Effectively if a population is constantly killed for hours on end the spawn time reduces and extra spawns start appearing and more dispositions occur and monsters even get tougher?
Hmm. Not sure. There is a whole debate around dynamic content. In some ways one aspect that is attractive about MMORPGs is the continuity and that you can go somewhere and get killed, go back when you are tougher for a challenge, go back later still and dominate the monsters. If the 'toughness' of the area is unpredictable, then you can't really 'learn' and 'master' the area. Everyone enjoys challenge, but also the feeling of becoming powerful.
"Reduce the drop rate substatially if a character is much higher level"
I good idea to include level difference in a loot drop calculation, yes. "Substantially" for "much" higher level, yes, but I would still alter it 'a little' for nearer levels, including *increasing* it when you are *lower* level. I like this idea for its risk/reward benefits, never mind avoiding out-leveled campers.
Now... what can I add?
I have to say "Play Nice Policies" and "Example Scenarios"
I've said it in many threads: VR have *A lot* of experience and *know* when and where problems occur. To not use that knowledge to guide players that may even be completely new to MMORPGs would be just ridiculous. Even those who have played 100 MMORPGs before disagree regularly on many things (these forums make that clear) and to leave it up to even knowledgable, experienced players to govern/police themselves would fail horribly.
Yes, I know it will be tricky and an effort to be detailed and precise in a PNP, *but* it doesn't have to be a legal document covering every intricate loophole in order to be extremely useful. Something with relatively broad strokes and with examples would be a huge help in many ways.
Without PNP players can't even really know what is acceptable. With PNP there should be much less unnecessary /reporting, much easier basis for challenging/discussing someone else's actions before involving VR. The effort of making a PNP will surely save a *massive* amount of Customer Service hassle and avoid a *massive* amount of player to player unpleasantness.
Most people do want to do the right thing and realise that rules are there for everyone's benefit. Others who don't give a fig for other people will still follow the rules if there is adequate policing and punishment. For most problems all you need to do is point to a PNP and the transgressor will stop and maybe even apologise. Much better than an argument when both think they are right escalating into nastiness and involving VR CS or simply increasing toxicity. That still may happen, but *much* less with PNP in place.
In real life, much of the day-to-day is handled with 'social contracts' yes, but those are cultural ideas developed over hundreds of years and learned over our whole lifetimes and, even then, anything truly unpleasant is best left to professional law enforcement. An MMORPG is nothing like that. It is an artificial life with rules no one really knows to begin with. We know some people feel no need to follow social rules in a game. It somehow seems to somehow 'not count' even though you are clearly interacting with a human behind the avatar. Even when human social rules do clearly apply, even those will vary since we are from all over the world with different cultures and backgrounds. VR spelling things out is the only way to have a real basis for harmony.
TL;DR: PNP is a no-brainer. It really is. There are a ton of positives and no negatives unless you are some kind of armchair anarchist that likes to upset people with no basis for repercussions.
A decent /reporting system (including some kind of /like /dislike /rate system)
To be clear, I'm not 100% on this idea myself, but people often dismiss it with "it would be abused" but I always think "easy to identify that abuse". If someone organises their whole guild to down-vote (or up-vote) someone a member dislikes (or likes), then that would be trivial to identify. I think most abuses would be easy and quick to identify, even automatically/systematically. Either way, CS wouldn't use the voting as 'evidence' of anything, just as corroborative information.
If someone gets 10 /reports for similar things in the same zone, you investigate. If someone gets 2, you might not, unless he has 20 recent downvotes. If someone gets in an argument and you just can't decide who's right, using votes (filtered and queried) is better than flipping a coin?
I guess if you think the voting systems in other places - Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, etc - work at all, then they could work in Pantheon too, no?
That's a long post. I'll stop there and think more.
You all really like to overthink this ****...
I don't care about regular mobs or even named mobs/mini-bosses. If players want to farm those, then let them. Attempts to artifiically limit farming in the past have always backfired, and just made players frustrated.
I do support some kind of lockout system for raid bosses, but it doesn't need to be complicated. A simple debuff that prevents a raid from zerging or locking down a boss spawn may not be elegant, but it's simple and is less prone to exploitation.
Doford said:Are we expected to learn all these rules? I don't think loads of rules that limit how we play will make everyone friendly.
You don't have to learn them any more than everyone has to be a lawyer in real life. But not having them?... Yikes.
And not like in real life they don't "make everyone friendly", but they sure discourage a lot of potential bad behaviour.
Anything but diminishing returns. GW2 had/has this, and it's the primary reason I stopped playing. In order for it to be effective, it fundamentally changes the entire game.
As I've mentioned before, you can give anyone/everyone as much loot & resources as you want, provided you're willing to live with exactly two mechanics:
All non-consumable loot is non-equippable, and is worth exactly zero currency, without first going through a process involving an NPC.
Mobs don't drop currency directly.
That's it. If you're willing to live with that premise, you can have a balanced economy with a fun, challenging and thematically consistent economic loop.
If you're not? And mobs drop both immediately equippable items, currency, and permit selling to NPCs directly for coin?
Then you will have a broken economy, guaranteed. 24+ years of MMOs has proven it.
vjek said:Anything but diminishing returns. GW2 had/has this, and it's the primary reason I stopped playing. In order for it to be effective, it fundamentally changes the entire game.
As I've mentioned before, you can give anyone/everyone as much loot & resources as you want, provided you're willing to live with exactly two mechanics:
All non-consumable loot is non-equippable, and is worth exactly zero currency, without first going through a process involving an NPC.
Mobs don't drop currency directly.
That's it. If you're willing to live with that premise, you can have a balanced economy with a fun, challenging and thematically consistent economic loop.
If you're not? And mobs drop both immediately equippable items, currency, and permit selling to NPCs directly for coin?
Then you will have a broken economy, guaranteed. 24+ years of MMOs has proven it.
Lol, you really are stuck on that. What you are suggesting will fundamentally change the game more than diminishing returns, surely? I know you are convinced it would be in a good way, but huge change either way.
But since we know there will be coin and usable drops...
Why would you say diminishing returns is bad? Why did you stop playing because of it?
I mostly agree with disposalist. So many things are covered no one could agree with absolutely everything - not even disposalist after rereading all the posts a few times (chuckles).
((I do support some kind of lockout system for raid bosses, but it doesn't need to be complicated. A simple debuff that prevents a raid from zerging or locking down a boss spawn may not be elegant, but it's simple and is less prone to exploitation.))
I very much disagree with the philosophy underlying this approach. Raids should not be special any more than solo play should be special. This should be a group game rather than a game where groups are a method to gear up and practice for raids and raids give the best rewards. Let us see a mirror image to the WoW and EQ2 and most other MMOs fixation on raids and zerging and let's focus on making group play the important part of the game.
Let us have, for example, group dungeons ranging from easy ( a partial group or poorly geared and not very skilled full group can handle them) to difficult (requires a competent and reasonably geared full group) to extremely challenging (requires skilled players communicating well and with very good gear). Let tier 5 dungeons (or whatever we want them called) be what people gear-up for and practice for and what drop the best loot - just as raids do in WoW. Let raids, like solo play, be peripheral - for fun but not what people desperately level-up for and gear-up for.
Let us have Pantheon's niche, apart from its other special attractions, be that it is a group game *not* a raid game. Yes a raid has its own challenges especially for the organizers. But so do single group encounters and while easier to organize they are harder to actually play. Just as we don't want "another WoW" when it comes to fast travel or fast leveling or death being meaningless - let us not have "another WoW" when we compare the importance of raids versus groups in Pantheon. Let us mirror-image that and make groups king. Or queen.
You can make group content more challenging with varying levels of tuning, but the challenge in raids has never been the difficulty of the encounters themselves, but the coordination of a larger group.
I'm all for having more challenging small group content, but if raid bosses aren't going to offer an additional level of challenge (i.e. risk) and reward, then why even have raids?
disposalist said: Lol, you really are stuck on that. What you are suggesting will fundamentally change the game more than diminishing returns, surely? I know you are convinced it would be in a good way, but huge change either way.But since we know there will be coin and usable drops...
Why would you say diminishing returns is bad? Why did you stop playing because of it?
Prior to DR, you could accomplish that goal within a few weeks of normal play, per role, of hardcore (4+ hours per day) playing. After DR? It was months, if ever.
This was during the first year after launch, that they turned this on. It was a really fun game prior to that, but after that? Nope. Never again. And it's not just the DR implementation that I hated.
I hated that the company considered and implemented it in that fashion. If they were willing to do that once? Clearly, they have exactly zero respect for their customers. Fool me twice, shame on me..
In a broader sense, DR is one of those progeny-esque (and oh so many similar Visionary Realm Pantheon mechanics) that has such a narrow tuning surface. It seems unwise, to me, to repeat the mistakes of history and focus on trying to distinguish the title via these narrow tuning surface mechanics. Just.. don't use those. Use the ones that have a broad tuning surface, that are more fun, challenging, and thematically consistent.
Hmm I dunno. Sounds like the GW team just overdid it and/or got it wrong. Their loot system is totally different than Pantheon will be as well.
I'm not aware of the GW DR efforts, but it sounds like they cut the loot chance significantly, across the board after a very short time? That's ridiculous. It should be much more subtle and specific. It should be used to stop people camping repeatedly and extensively in one place for one item, not punish them for generally prolific if varied loot hunting.
If it stopped you getting a 'set' of stuff then it was tuned/coded utterly wrong. DR should only kick in for multiples of the same piece and effectively shouldn't alter the time taken to get the first full set at all.
You hang around for a second set, that will take longer. Stay after that? Longer still, if at all. But looting a shiny gold helmet effects getting a shiny gold chestplate, it's simply done wrong.
There are likely to be other complications, I know - I'm not trying to flesh out a complete system here - but I think it has merit and, as with any idea, just because another game messed it up, doesn't mean VR can't make it (or something similar) work in Pantheon.
It's an important cautionary tale, though, VJ, absolutely - and yes, your ideas around looting/economy certainly have merit.
Who says multi-group content even needs to be big boss centric. There could be entire zones with common mobs intended to be fought by 2 or more groups. Have fairly fast respawns and either triggerable boss encounters or general rare spawns that mimic single group content. The drops could be tuned slightly better than equivalent difficulty single group content to compensate for the higher coordination required.
This really would not be that hard to do just need to shift the mental focus from x number of boss spawns a week to much higher spawn rates but lower drop rates (1 item dropped rather than 4-8). Raids could then move in and actually camp a boss but it would take say 24 people on their toes to keep up with the respawn rates with the added frustration of placeholders.
I'm not so worried about "play nice" when it comes to competing for resources. What bugs me though is when people expect you to min/max, which is as completely made mentality as claiming there is something called "the grind".
A good example is that I played an Enchanter for years in EQ. When I came back to play P1999 4 or so years ago, people were expecting Enchanters to constantly have a charmed NPC for additional DPS, even when it was completely unnecessary. That can be disastrous for a group depending on where you are since it's not possible to re-charm an existing charmed enemy while also dealing with adds and your primary duties. This "requirement" never existed in original EQ for any level range, it's a completely new phenomenon. While I did use charming all the time to solo, I thought it was inappropriate for grouping unless you were desperate for DPS.
I would propose diminishing return is applied only when fighting much lower level content then you are and even then, only after the mob drops something from there rare drop list. So hopefully after you have received the item you are looking for to ether equip for yourself, an alt, or to sell. But the diminishing return should ware off over time. So next week you could come back and do it again.
One thing I like about an MMO with random loot drops is that not everyone will have the same experience going. Around every corner I might get something that is just amazing or not. Every alt I roll will have different gear to ware. But I also know that some players will not stop at not getting it. They have an idea of what they want and will spend endless amount of time getting the items they want.
For those people and every one else that wants a stab at the loot why not put in an increased chance to get an item every time you do not get it? It can be a very small increase so many will still give up. But if you kill the same mob 1000 times your chances are very high. This idea is still a work in progress and I can bring up problems with myself. But I do think something like this could be implemented and work if done right.
I do think something to point to like a PNP that is a broad stroke with some examples would be useful. It would need to be clear that it dose not cover everything and should be a living document that evolves over time.
I am very skeptical about a rating system. I like the idea in principle but fear what would happen in practice.
Trasak said:There could be entire zones with common mobs intended to be fought by 2 or more groups. Have fairly fast respawns and either triggerable boss encounters or general rare spawns that mimic single group content.
I'm sure it would have to be something for an expansion, but I would really love to see an entire zone dedicated to multi-group/raid level content. Something akin to Vanilla WoW's Silithus zone.
disposalist said:... If it stopped you getting a 'set' of stuff then it was tuned/coded utterly wrong. DR should only kick in for multiples of the same piece and effectively shouldn't alter the time taken to get the first full set at all.You hang around for a second set, that will take longer. Stay after that? Longer still, if at all. But looting a shiny gold helmet effects getting a shiny gold chestplate, it's simply done wrong.
There are likely to be other complications, I know - I'm not trying to flesh out a complete system here - but I think it has merit and, as with any idea, just because another game messed it up, doesn't mean VR can't make it (or something similar) work in Pantheon. ...
vjek said:disposalist said:... If it stopped you getting a 'set' of stuff then it was tuned/coded utterly wrong. DR should only kick in for multiples of the same piece and effectively shouldn't alter the time taken to get the first full set at all.You hang around for a second set, that will take longer. Stay after that? Longer still, if at all. But looting a shiny gold helmet effects getting a shiny gold chestplate, it's simply done wrong.
There are likely to be other complications, I know - I'm not trying to flesh out a complete system here - but I think it has merit and, as with any idea, just because another game messed it up, doesn't mean VR can't make it (or something similar) work in Pantheon. ...
A good goal, but.. logically, I don't think it works out. I will explain why I think that.
If the purpose of the mechanic is to stop people from getting loot, then it has to stop them from getting loot to be effective.
You can't 'gently nudge' or 'lightly encourage' or similar. That's what the GW2 team was forced into. To have DR at all, it has be punitively effective.
Further, without smart loot and/or personal loot (as Pantheon currently has as their launch day public design goal), how do you create a system that can't be 'gamed' ?
If I have obtained an item, do you forbid the mob from dropping it for the entire group, if I'm in the group, or I participate?
Shared competitive loot is an extraordinarly crude item creation system, by today's standards. This is one of the reasons why.
If you don't forbid the mob from dropping it, then you can 'game' the system and work around it.
If you make it so by contributing (at all) via heals or damage to the defeat of an encounter, then you've created the perfect indirect PvP griefing tool.
How so? Once I get an object, I just either heal the tank of the next group or cast one negative spell on that creature, and it won't drop that item for that group.
Repeat as necessary. Even better (moar malicious) if it works on Quest items. I think we can agree, that situation is not ideal. :)
True it gets comples when you mix group composition with shared loot. Hmm. Good point.
Maybe the solution should be less to do with diminishing returns, then, and just have it so loot items cannot be picked up by individuals that have looted them X number of times before in a certain period?
This can be 'gamed' too by having third parties loot and sell, but it is much more painful and could have enough effect, in combination with other measures, to mitigate and minimise the whole camping thing.
I don't necessarily agree that a 'gentle nudge' would fail *if* it's not the only thing you are doing.
After all, we don't have to eradicate the practice, just reduce it to a level it can be easily endured and/or dealt with.
eunichron said:Trasak said:There could be entire zones with common mobs intended to be fought by 2 or more groups. Have fairly fast respawns and either triggerable boss encounters or general rare spawns that mimic single group content.
I'm sure it would have to be something for an expansion, but I would really love to see an entire zone dedicated to multi-group/raid level content. Something akin to Vanilla WoW's Silithus zone.
That would, indeed, be excellent. There were actually some zones in EQ that were so dangerous it was definitely wise to work in tandem with another group, and it was extra fun when done that way.
bigdogchris said:I'm not so worried about "play nice" when it comes to competing for resources. What bugs me though is when people expect you to min/max, which is as completely made mentality as claiming there is something called "the grind".
A good example is that I played an Enchanter for years in EQ. When I came back to play P1999 4 or so years ago, people were expecting Enchanters to constantly have a charmed NPC for additional DPS, even when it was completely unnecessary. That can be disastrous for a group depending on where you are since it's not possible to re-charm an existing charmed enemy while also dealing with adds and your primary duties. This "requirement" never existed in original EQ for any level range, it's a completely new phenomenon. While I did use charming all the time to solo, I thought it was inappropriate for grouping unless you were desperate for DPS.
Interesting. I have certainly encountered stuff like that. It is a part of what eventually put me off WoW. That just got ridiculous with "if you aren't like this you aren't welcome".
Is there anything you think could be done to encourage people to relax about that kind of min/max elitism?
I can't think of anything. Really hard to even word that kind of advice in a Play Nice Policy.
"Try not to criticise or exclude players for playing their character in a way you wouldn't as long as they get the job done"?
starblight said:I would propose diminishing return is applied only when fighting much lower level content then you are and even then, only after the mob drops something from there rare drop list. So hopefully after you have received the item you are looking for to ether equip for yourself, an alt, or to sell. But the diminishing return should ware off over time. So next week you could come back and do it again.
One thing I like about an MMO with random loot drops is that not everyone will have the same experience going. Around every corner I might get something that is just amazing or not. Every alt I roll will have different gear to ware. But I also know that some players will not stop at not getting it. They have an idea of what they want and will spend endless amount of time getting the items they want.
For those people and every one else that wants a stab at the loot why not put in an increased chance to get an item every time you do not get it? It can be a very small increase so many will still give up. But if you kill the same mob 1000 times your chances are very high. This idea is still a work in progress and I can bring up problems with myself. But I do think something like this could be implemented and work if done right.
I do think something to point to like a PNP that is a broad stroke with some examples would be useful. It would need to be clear that it dose not cover everything and should be a living document that evolves over time.
I am very skeptical about a rating system. I like the idea in principle but fear what would happen in practice.
The idea of *increasing* chance of a drop when you have tried for a while (but failed) is perhaps a good counterpoint to the idea of reducing the chance when they have already had the item. Might make it palatable for those that would otherwise object.
disposalist said:.....
"Limit each character to only looting each unique item once"
I think this sounds too severe. Diminishing Returns mught be enough, though that rate could vary depending on the item.
....
There is a lot of detail on diminishing returns way beyond my pay grade, so I just would like to pose a few questions on the discussion.. I agree with most of what I saw from @Disposalist and some others to varying degrees. I'm going to try to comment intelligently on 2 of the items.
So First, the limitation of loot..
Why couldn't the game use class-specific NPC quests to control gear drops? I'm not sure how many of us would prefer to have gear that lasted a meaningful amount of time, but I'm hoping the game provides enough playable content that raid-type gear on every 2 hour play session is not my focus...As it relates to friendly gameplay, I see limitation of loot not so much as a solution to a single problem, but as a natural side-effect of having a large relative volume of playable exploration and adventure type content...in other words, not heavily raid or boss focused. But arc-style adventure quest and exploration focused.
The limitation of loot concept might appear to be heavy handed in context to solving a single problem, but compared to diminishing returns it seems more appropriate to the player environment (i.e. community and friendliness). Here's why I think that
A. Diminishing returns seems it might have the unfortunate side effect of encouraging players to skip playing rather than just relocating to somewhere else
B. The underlying assumptions with diminishing returns seem to be as follows:
1. Mobs randomly drop desirable equippable gear
2. This gear drops multiple times
Those mechanics seem to put a lot of extra gear into the economy if the drops are not class-specific and level appropriate for the character. Sure, I love the *occasional* upgrade to one or 2 pieces of armor at a time and the occasional weapon upgrade. But as far as fun and the incentive to play friendly, those mechanics seem questionable.
I don't understand why gear was ever made to compete heavily with crafting sales on the market..too much gear drop in those games imo..I really don't enjoy working out how to maximize my skill points every time I crawl a dungeon. I also never enjoyed having so much weps and armor to organize, trash, or sell. I think I realized this when playing Diablo a few years ago and noticed how ecstatic I was that there is a SELL ALL button..WOOHOOO!! As the Beatles said, "The best things in life are free...Just give me Money" (I would add XP to that and maybe some craft materials)...I feel that a treasure chest shouldn't be hidden up the behind of every boss mob...but instead would be kept in *their* bank or some other secure location...
In other words, to summarize, maybe the boss just drops a quest tick and/or unlocks a secure hidden location (far away, that takes a long time to find)?
disposalist said:.....
"Create some kind of lore-based mob that will spawn in increasing numbers and aggro"
Interesting idea, but I feel it could get messy and weird, especially if those monsters aren't just for that group and if they *are* for that group it starts to feel less 'open world'. And when group composition changes, with some characters there for ages and some just getting there?
It might be interesting 'dynamic' gameplay for the number of spawns or rate of spawn to increase depending on the time (or lack of time) they remain spawned. Effectively if a population is constantly killed for hours on end the spawn time reduces and extra spawns start appearing and more dispositions occur and monsters even get tougher?
Hmm. Not sure. There is a whole debate around dynamic content. In some ways one aspect that is attractive about MMORPGs is the continuity and that you can go somewhere and get killed, go back when you are tougher for a challenge, go back later still and dominate the monsters. If the 'toughness' of the area is unpredictable, then you can't really 'learn' and 'master' the area. Everyone enjoys challenge, but also the feeling of becoming powerful.
....
As far as friendly play is concerned, maybe it's a little heavy-handed, but why not get back to the Art of War and just say scale content to the players nearby...The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Mass death tends to end the argument fairly quickly..
Maybe this should just be applied in certain areas or on bosses where the devs could make scalability accurate enough to address the population nearby...I'm not a fan of keys to encounter locations in an open world, but just a personal preference...I don't have much of a disagreement there, and it appears to be an effective solution to some degree.
That said, for scalable content, a dead-end geographical constraint could minimize the passers-by effect or more creatively, maybe an environmental effect could be applied that keeps people away after the start of the battle unless they're grouped to someone in the battle already with the proper acclimation...like the wind they demo'd a few months ago?
Going further, Maybe a recharge restriction could be applied to acclimation magic such that a group has a time limit on their acclimation tech/magic as well as a rest period or other cost to re-implement that acclimation tech/magic. This might only be necessary on very heavily camped targets for popular quest bottlenecks perhaps as Ranarius observed in a previous post...
Thus proper preparation would be needed in the quest-line, or even better, what if a new character's quest item had to be used to acclimate a group? Perhaps adding an auto-ding preventing further access to the consumable acclimation item after said-character's group completed the battle?
Counterfleche said:Ranarius said:"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"
In another thread, we have been arguing the merits of whether Pantheon should put systems / restrictions in place to reduce the toxicity that players competing over limited resources can cause. Please continue to use that thread to discuss IF and HOW MUCH Pantheon should have/do this. This thread is specifically for suggestions on what systems / restrictions you would like to see. These really need their own thread so they don't get burried in the other thread and so they can be discussed on their merits without derailing the other discussion.
Here are some suggestions:
- Spread around some of the most sought-after loot so that it drops from multiple sources. Joppa mentioned this idea in one of the recent streams.
- Have the actual bosses spawn in multiple locations, making it hard/impossible to lock down a spawn.
- Have specific gatekeeper bosses spawn that drop keys. The key unlocks the boss room. It's not instanced, but because the team chooses when to begin, they will be ready for it and can wait if another group is nearby. This is my favorite idea because the game can still create scarcisty but avoids doing it via spawn camping. Instead, teams need to work to set loose the boss. They can collect the keys as fast or slow as they want, allowing them to break it up into mulitple sessions. This makes it casual-friendly without sacrificing the difficulty.
- Create diminishing returns to reduce extended camping or even only allow a change of getting the prized loot on the first attempt of each day.
- Limit each character to only looting each unique item once to eliminate farming.
- Create some kind of lore-based mob that will spawn in increasing numbers and aggro. This can be used to 'chase out' groups that have been camping a spawn too long.
- Reduce the drop rate substatially if a character is much higher level to curtail high levels farming lower level content.
Why did you put in 2 punishments and think that they would lead to encouraging friendly gameplay? The two punishments are diminishing returns and looting each unique item once.
Why should I be punished if I want to spend hours upon hours sitting in the same area, with a group of friends (even bringing in new people when other log out), why should that be punished? Clearly there is something that keeps me in that location and if I have time time to do it, I'm not going to leave till I get it.
Here's the thing. You're trying to punish the individual, but this is a grouping game. If a group of 6 has just 1 person staying in it for hours upon end, rotating in random people as other decide to leave, how would you punish the individual that stays with these stupid diminishing returns? All 6 people might want the item that drops so would that 1 person staying affect the drop rate for everyone? If so, you're now punishing 5 people for the acts of just 1. And what if that person who stays is, as new people come in and the item drops, is doing a /random 100 and losing every time? Clearly that individual isn't requiring that he gets the items, leaving it up to equal chance for everyone. You still think that person should be punished?
As for your next punishment, that of lotting each unique item once. Define unique item. Also, most games make such items, especially raid items, both NoDrop and Lore so unless you destroy the first one you got, you aren't able to loot a 2nd one. But even that doesn't stop farming. Have you ever seen people selling loot rights? Someone farms the mob in question, gets the item to drop then auctions off the rights to loot the corpse. No takers? Item is destroyed and the corpse allowed to rot. You think your suggestion is going to stop that? No, it won't.
Punishments do not encourage nicety, it encourages people to think of ways to get around it to still do what they want.
EDIT: Oh, and what exactly do you mean by "getting the prized loot on the first attempt of each day." Define what starts the 'first attempt' and also 'each day'. Is that in-game day? Real day? If real day, is that based upon the region in which the server is set? How would that affect people needing to play on servers outside their timezone? Sooo many problems with this idea. Glad VR wouldn't ever think about implementing something so horribly terrible.
Diminishing loot concept would not need to stop them from getting the loot just stop them from getting an unlimited amount. I would propose it dose not kick in at all unless it drops something from the mobs rare loot table first. They would get something and hopefully for them the something they are looking for. It would also not stop them right away but would quickly diminish as they kept trying. But even then, I would propose the drop rate would only drop again on another rare loot drop. Because they are only diminished when they get a drop you could make the diminishing drops curve up really fast without being overly heavy handed.
Another key point is I do not think all farming is bad and so I feel the diminished drops should ware off after a set amount of time. I would think a week or so would make sense. I think this is important because while some things should be very hard to get, I see no reason to tell someone no matter how hard you try you will never be able to get this item again.
Groups do complicate this as I would think it would need to affect the whole groups drops. I strongly feel loot should not be personal and that makes it even harder. I definitely do not ever want to put a system in place that encourages a group to break up that is just crazy. I think one way to mostly if not totally avoid this is by having the diminishing return only count if the mob is trivial to you. This would assume you do not need a group to farm said monster and so would not need a group. But this would also limit the effectiveness as not all farming would be done on trivial monsters.
If it only effects your drop rate when you loot the rare item it would make grouping less of an issue. When you loot it once it would diminish everyone’s chance of getting it but you could have the first drop say only be 5% less chance or even no diminish on first drop. As long as you do not loot the next drop but someone else loots it instead the groups drop rate stays the same. But if you loot it a second time then as long as you are in the group it drops to 50% diminished rate and maybe 80-90% on third pickup. So as long as the group is just trying to get one item per group member you stay at the 5% diminished drop rate or no diminish rate.
Rather than diminishing returns you could use two stage looting. The first stage is getting a specific drop from a rare mob. The second is taking that specific item to an NPC who is interested in it and trade for an item the player wants. That NPC would only ever accept one of those items from a specific PC and that item could be lore or no-drop before being turned into the NPC.
Functionally its a non repeatable fetch quest that can be initiated when you get your hands on said non-equitable item. Being a one time only turn in makes it pointless to collect multiples of them, though the same mob could drop multiple turn in items. You wont need to mess with drop rates that will hurt a group trying to get everyone one. It stops the flood of items and leaves it at just a trickle. If you really want another one you can bring an alt of high enough level but that is still a limit.
If the tool tip is made right you may be able to see what you are going to get so most of the excitement will still be there just with a little less immediate gratification.
Trasak said:Rather than diminishing returns you could use two stage looting. The first stage is getting a specific drop from a rare mob. The second is taking that specific item to an NPC who is interested in it and trade for an item the player wants. That NPC would only ever accept one of those items from a specific PC and that item could be lore or no-drop before being turned into the NPC.
Functionally its a non repeatable fetch quest that can be initiated when you get your hands on said non-equitable item. Being a one time only turn in makes it pointless to collect multiples of them, though the same mob could drop multiple turn in items. You wont need to mess with drop rates that will hurt a group trying to get everyone one. It stops the flood of items and leaves it at just a trickle. If you really want another one you can bring an alt of high enough level but that is still a limit.
If the tool tip is made right you may be able to see what you are going to get so most of the excitement will still be there just with a little less immediate gratification.
You're effectively making something lootable only once, aren't you? Even simpler just to have that restriction?
The only difference is with the second stage the player not only may as well leave the camp, they have to journey to an NPC before they can benefit from the drop?
Ouch. Sounds a bit extreme.
Maybe just making more drops "lore" is enough? You can't possess more until you sell the one you have. You can 'farm' but will need to regularly give up the camp to trade the item. Someone would have to maintain a herd of "mule" characters to game the system. Some would do it... how to stop that?... Maybe expand the definition of "lore" such that, if you trade it, you still can't possess another for a certain time limit. A day? A week? A month?
Would that be enough to pain to put most off and achieve what is needed, ie. no permacamping and no market flooding?