chenzeme said:/snip
My favoured course is either not have camps at all or provide a mechanism in game that officially creates a camp area. What if you actually put down a campfire to claim a camp:
An area around that campfire then becomes a no-hunt area for anyone outside of the owning player/group. I.e. only the owning player/group can attack mobs inside of that camp zone. If any mob is trained into a camp area, it will not attack anyone in the group that "owns" the camp (unless that mobs is attacked by one of the owning players).
Each player participating in a camp should not be allowed to camp in that zone again for a day (RT) to discourage exploitation and encourage exploration.
A camp should have a time limit on it, say an hour of active play or a period of 5 minutes of inactive play or disconnection, or some such period to discourage exploitation and encourage exploration.
If two camps overlap, the first camp has ownership of the contested area.
If a game mechanic such as the above is used (and I am not saying it is perfect), then it becomes part of the game and there is no argument as to what a camp is or whether it is valid or enforceable.
If VR do not provide a mechanic or official recourse for camp enfringement, then camps cannot exist in any enforceable way. I know this doesnt adress issues of mob spawn rates over an hour long, but I think it is a starting point to find a solution that works for everyone and not just for some.
Good idea, would need a few more rules to prevent abuse.
e.g.
- one camp per group, no overlaps
- camp radius set by zone
- one camp every 30 mins per character (prevents spamming)
- camp only affects mobs that spawn in camp radius (i.e. pulled into camp doesnt count)
- radius of camp clearly visible in UI, and ifyou try to camp in a lockout area this is also clear.
- these mobs are automatically claimed by the camper , but camper must do 50% of damage or no loot (prevents farming/twinking)
- camp would only create start after first kill -timeout related to how many kills (e.g. 1-5 kills in a camp area = 1 hour timeout , 6+ kills = 2 hours etc.)
- lockout in radius around camped spot equal to radius of camp
- maxiumum of 30 mins per party member or 2 hours camp
- could even give a small %age regeneration when group within camp radius.
Should be relativly easy to code as well, based on a radius of camping stored atzone level (for active camps) and character level (for previous camps)
From what I undertsand Camps are a moot point? as there will be no static spawn point for a named.
rather a "camp" will just happen to be the place your group decides to stop to pull to, if you decide to play that way (as opposed to crawl)
If another group comes and pulls right next to you, the options are : Hail and converse, They can move, you can move, if they are rude and dont respond they are ostracized and reputation affected.
If customer service really needs to intervene all they need to do is look at time between conversation. If you hail and they dont respond- with meaningful , cognizant, back and forth, interaction in 10min? you win, they get banned to the cat room for a while.
bup-bup-bup-bup-bup nonsense with RL stuff coming in just at those 10min when you "could have responded"... what was that? well. Life aint fair... ttfn.
Manouk said:From what I undertsand Camps are a moot point? as there will be no static spawn point for a named.
Where have you heard this from a Dev? I have heard players mention/suggest it, I've never heard/understood Kilson, Joppa or any of VR say that (and I follow everything). They may have mentioned it as "one way to handel it" just as they have mentioned "Triggerd Spawns" was another.
But "there will be no static spawn point for a named." is a long ways away from "one way to handel it"
Zorkon said:Manouk said:From what I undertsand Camps are a moot point? as there will be no static spawn point for a named.
Where have you heard this from a Dev? I have heard players mention/suggest it, I've never heard/understood Kilson, Joppa or any of VR say that (and I follow everything). They may have mentioned it as "one way to handel it" just as they have mentioned "Triggerd Spawns" was another.
But "there will be no static spawn point for a named." is a long ways away from "one way to handel it"
I recall it from one of the first streams in blackrose keep, Specifically talkignabout the names spawn "Fion" where Joppa- I think it was joppa- stated that she could spawn anywhewre, in the kitchen, in the area by the campfire, or up ste stairway, or just in the dining area. They wiped on their first attempt at her. I think Aradune was in that group, too.
Manouk said:Zorkon said:Manouk said:From what I undertsand Camps are a moot point? as there will be no static spawn point for a named.
Where have you heard this from a Dev? I have heard players mention/suggest it, I've never heard/understood Kilson, Joppa or any of VR say that (and I follow everything). They may have mentioned it as "one way to handel it" just as they have mentioned "Triggerd Spawns" was another.
But "there will be no static spawn point for a named." is a long ways away from "one way to handel it"
I recall it from one of the first streams in blackrose keep, Specifically talkignabout the names spawn "Fion" where Joppa- I think it was joppa- stated that she could spawn anywhewre, in the kitchen, in the area by the campfire, or up ste stairway, or just in the dining area. They wiped on their first attempt at her. I think Aradune was in that group, too.
Ok I think I recall that as well, But I took it for that One Mob.
I then took your comment here literally that "there will be no static spawn point for a named." meaning NONE of the named will have static spawns. Thats not what Joppa said.
A couple things from reading, most, of this thread.
It doesn't really matter if the dev's don't "intend" for there to be camps. If the community decides it is the most efficient means at leveling and grouping, they will develop. Camps in EQ were out of necessity more than feature design. Resources (mobs) were in short supply in popular zones and a safe corner where nothing spawned helped mitigate risk.
There were plenty of times I went to zones no one was in with my guild and we wandered around not camping, because we didn’t have the necessity to camp. Camps were about risk mitigation and the community developing a fair way to share resources. VR doesn’t get to pick if there will be camps, we do.
*edit to add this thought*
It is possible in VR/Pantheon for "routes' to develop as camps if mobs have a area of spawning... eg "Camp Check: Left Hall" Could be a series of rooms along a route rather than sitting within a room. Camps typically weren't a "room" in EQ but the group sat in a room and the puller brought mobs from normally and agreed upon or socially accepted area.
A community can not police its self without the tools to do so. If you can server transfer or change your name, we can not police ourselves. If it is easy to reroll a new character and pass that ninja looted item down then people will do so.
EQ was able to police its self because rerolling or transferring wasn’t an option. After about 40ish levels you were committed to a character and a server, with few exceptions.
Leveling must be slow.
You can’t allow server transfers.
You can’t allow name changes.
Without these three things community policing through blacklists and not allowing people into groups, guilds, etc. can no exist.
Porygon said:They already said they don't care if someone comes and kills your mob that you've been camping for hours. Idk why this has gone on for so long.
Everyone wants an open world competitive game until they realize they are on the wrong side of how the community is going to act.
There have been plenty of suggestions of how to create healthy competition. FTE puts everyone at the same level, doesn't matter if you're level 1 or level 50, you hit the mob first its yours. Creating variable spawns for named mobs when it comes to location and respawn timer will create an even playing field for anyone involved.
Having a robust endgame will allow for people to make the decision to do what's best with their time. If you have 9 different things you can be doing when you hit 50, you might care less if someone strolls into your camp where "random armor #6" drops.
Instead of going back and forth for 12 pages. Start to change your mindset. Stop thinking that just because you killed a random ph, or a group of mobs that you own them. Stop thinking that everyone who walks into your camp is just going to steal all your exp and loot, start preparing for the excitement of competition and maybe win a contested named. Stop labeling all competition as toxic just because it doesn't fit your ideal video game.
Everyone in this community has an idea for what would make the best game and its all different. We are all here because of the promise of an old school game that is somewhat difficult and gets away from the 1-50 solo adventure. And that's what we're getting. Stop having expectations from previous games and start having an open mind towards this new game, even if you don't get 100% what you want.
There's probably not going to be fte for anything besides raiding. Even if there is, It will be difficult to hold down a camp as a normal group vs big DKP farming level 50 in the best gear. He doesn't need to worry about the mobs all killing him because he gets too greedy. He can stand right on top of that static spawn point, and plant a pet there who auto attacks.
Also, "change the way you think and act for a video game". Come on bro. You're better than that.
Nothing is set in stone yet. Many members of VR have spoken as though they do have a negative outlook on things like kill steals, even if the current unofficial stance is that camps don't exist. I'm curious what they call that relatively safe spot outside of a small cave that you pull mobs to. Even if the game starts out without camps, VR might eventually decide they at least see potential in a pricier enforced camp-pnp server.
If VR wants to go down hard and basically do what OneADseven said, I'm ok with that. That would be a huge programming endeavor for the game that would make it very unique and special. But they have yet to do that, so I ask for enforced camps.
Finally, I would argue that wanting enforced camps is very unique and not an expectation from previous games. People tell me about enforced camps in EQ which is a surprise to me. I take their word for it because I was young at the time but it's a little hard to believe. Not having camps, especially outside of raids, is far more of an expectation from previous games. Noone minded it because those games didn't place any focus on anything outside of raids or pvp.
With pantheon's focus on all levels, as well as group content, and progeny, I again, think that enforcing camps, at least on a few, more expensive servers, is a very good idea. Not the only good idea, just a good one that is the simplest based on where Pantheon currently appears to be going.
Regarding mob-ownership claims and kill stealing, why not include damage "received" as part of the algorithm? Say a warrior type is running around and engages a mob. A summoner decides to try and "steal" his kill. By the end of the fight, the warrior did 400 damage, the caster did 800 damage. But what if the warrior took 450 damage? 400 +450 > 800, warrior wins.
You could also include healing as a factor. Since some hybrid type classes will be able to deal damage and heal, you could very realistically have a scenario where, lets say, a druid character engages a mob, followed by a summoner trying to steal. The druid throws in a few offensive spells doing 400 damage. The mob closes the distance and does 300 damage. The druid uses a snare type ability, backs off, and heals the 300 damage. Before he can continue, the summoner does 900 damage to the mob and kills it. Well, 400 damage dealt, 300 damage received, 300 damage healed, is credited with 1,000 "points". The Summoner only did 900, so druid wins.
Its obviously not perfect since it can't account for level and gear differences, but it does create an additional lever to help balance. And in response to people who think a tank might become the ultimate kill stealer due to the damage taken, there is also the efficiency factor. A summoner can do a lot of damage in a much shorter time than a warrior, that's why casters have historically been the common kill-stealer. But a warrior in this case would still have to weigh his ability to actually solo-kill whatever it is he's attacking, and the time it takes him to kill it, which would be significantly longer than a caster.
@Eolair Yeah definitely. I've suggested it before and I *really* hope, if VR 'go with' MDD, they make it more sophisticated than it has been in past games.
Players' meaningful contribution to an encounter should not just be damage done. That measure puts an unhealthy skew on the situation in many ways.
Xxar said:I hope it is not MDD , if it is so ........ I can see the 6 box wiz burn groups or necro groups.
Thankfully that would be something they ban. While they will sadly allow true boxing, likely so they can have people playing in the same house not generating false flags, they do plan to ban any of the bots and macro systems one would normally see with box groups like that.
MDD has never been a huge problem for me and I feel it aids in community policing. If some tryhard group is trying to run around forcing others out of camps MDD is the system for the community to punish them. Who knows what the secret PNP will be though. I have a feeling it may shut down community policing.
