As someone who has played mmo's since the start and seen what modern mmo's and gaming has become I am more in favor of lockouts and or some instancing. I believe the fun in the game is to do the encounters and content. Racing or fighting other players for PVE content is not what makes it fun to me anymore. Some do enjoy it i know and perhaps there could be multiple ruleset servers, but I think the challenge and fun of the content should be playing them and not finding a window or opening to try to learn or kill the encounter against other players. This kind of gameplay is simply frustrating and tedious to me because you are being gated by other players and not the games difficulty while playing a PVE game.
So many people asking for communistic control in the game, sad and sick at the same time. "police people actions & speak that i do not like" People are saying that other MMO don't do this and that's BS. People are getting banned from MMO all the time because some jerk didn't like sometihng they said. That kinda of authoritarian crap doesn't belong in an adult MMO.
Why even complain about about a guild that wants to be fast. THey are going to be so far ahead of you you will probably never bump into them. People are to obssessed with controlling other people into being exactly like them.
Theres 0% chance that any sort of community policing will work. This has been proven many times over on various different games and their individual progression/classic servers. There will always be a guild or guilds that are extremely lenient when it comes to actions that most of us would consider wrong, and usually those guilds tend to be in the upper tier when it comes to progression for the server. Which means usually the "better" "stronger" players are the ones willing to grief (which is also why community policing doesnt work on PVP servers. I know its fun to think its like the wild west and if someone does you wrong you can just kill them, but more than likely it would be you pulling your revolver against someone holding a gatling gun).
Since instances are off the table, VR would need to make VERY CLEAR rules when it comes to camps and engagments of mobs, if the answer they choose to give is work it out yourself, thats not going to go over very well. Unfortunately community policing is once of those things that is lost back in 1999, and will not work nowadays when peoples mindsets and goals are very different.
Porygon said:Unfortunately community policing is once of those things that is lost back in 1999, and will not work nowadays when peoples mindsets and goals are very different.
It's pretty absurd even then considering it didn't work in 1999 either, which is why EQ adopted a PNP within the first year of release.
torveld said:As someone who has played mmo's since the start and seen what modern mmo's and gaming has become I am more in favor of lockouts and or some instancing. I believe the fun in the game is to do the encounters and content. Racing or fighting other players for PVE content is not what makes it fun to me anymore. Some do enjoy it i know and perhaps there could be multiple ruleset servers, but I think the challenge and fun of the content should be playing them and not finding a window or opening to try to learn or kill the encounter against other players. This kind of gameplay is simply frustrating and tedious to me because you are being gated by other players and not the games difficulty while playing a PVE game.
The content gating discussion has been had repeatedly.
There will be options other than:
Racing or fighting other players for PVE content
Joppa has talked about the Infamy system and how it may allow guilds to spawn a raid boss that they can fight.
But also, instancing or lockout type of systems have always been something VR has wanted to avoid for a number of reasons. It's just not the vision for this game.
True open world games come with both positives and negatives. Each of us has to decide what type of game we want to play. You can't have your cake and eat it to.
The 1st few months are going to be an absolute nightmare with content competition considering that people won't know their options and the majority of people will be around the same level. Once people figure out different places to go I think we will manage fine for several months (until people start to get max level and then go around griefing).
With that said, I think a fun self policing practice that would work would be to have the infamy system evenutally flag a player's "account" for pvp once they hit a certain number of different players reporting them within a certain time and having it be approved by a GM. Have an automated message server message generated every time the character logs in on any character that warns them that they are 'infamous' and have the pvp flag last for X time "while online" (which means that when they log off, their timer does not go down) and the duration is determined by a GM based on severity and/or number of infraction(s). Death wouldn't reset the pvp flag until the timer expired either (so they can be killed repeatedly).
The important part to that would be the GM reviewing the report and determining if intent was malicious and warranted infamy or not.
It's hilarious when people conflate politics with this issue.
Isn't it obvious it's nothing to do with it when it gets described as fascist bullying *and* communist bolshevism *and* conservative control *and* liberal political correctness almost all at once?
Wanting experienced guidance so people have a better chance to form a community is not some kind of political conspiracy.
Knowing that rules without policing and punishment is pointless doesn't make you evil.
Not wanting toxic anarchy isn't about stifling freedom.
Community policing really only works with small communities. (I remember some research claiming you loose community empathy when the community is larger than 350ish so that’s likely around the max number.) If you can just disappear into the crowd after bad behavior then there is no real consequence socially.
If you want to talk about macro bad behavior by guilds that’s a system level problem. Either GMs need to enforce play nice policies that they adjudicate (very labor intensive) or Developers need to design out the problems that encourage bad behavior. You will still find jerks who enjoy being jerks but most bad behavior is because the material gain is greater than the social pain.
Instancing obviously massively short circuits content denial but at the cost of the open world feel. Personally I am not against 1-4 room instances that take a consumable key to enter. In this way groups or raids could travel through open world space to attempt a specific encounter. The time it takes to create the trigger key will be your limiter on how quickly you can rerun the encounter (key may be valid for x number of days or until content is defeated to allow for retrys). This doesn’t even need to be an instance but they tend to be cleaner in a large scale access situation so you do not have multiple spawns up.
Social policing the individuals is much harder. I am in favor of a player notes section that can be shared with friends and guilds. Notes are on a character by character basis but if a player makes it to the ignore list then the entire account becomes blocked. Blocked players cannot see you or interact with any of your world assets and you cannot interact with theirs. These blocks can be done at a guild level though individual players can reduce blocked to just a warning.
Its not perfect and could still be abused but ultimately its just crowd sourcing negative personal experiences. That way others who trust you can choose to trust your judgement that X person is not worth their time and to stay away.
Trasak said:Social policing the individuals is much harder. I am in favor of a player notes section that can be shared with friends and guilds. Notes are on a character by character basis but if a player makes it to the ignore list then the entire account becomes blocked. Blocked players cannot see you or interact with any of your world assets and you cannot interact with theirs. These blocks can be done at a guild level though individual players can reduce blocked to just a warning.
This is what Eve did really well. It was a complicated tool that many people never touched or only used one aspect of it, but it is very helpful.
Every player is their own faction (effectively). Every guild is their own faction. Every aliance is their own faction.
You set your personal views on players to whatever you wanted flagging people, guilds, and alliances one by one. Someone helps you out you flag them as such to never forget their kindness and repay them if the option arises. You flag your alliance positively to take a known diplomatic route if they are being horrible players, knowing the alliance won't put up with that behavior and will punish the player. You had notes you could write if you want to log a one time offender/benefactor for why they made the list. You can also flag alliances and guilds negatively to never group with them. To never assist them in any way, or on a pvp server to actively kill them. The same is true for guilds and for alliance to flag other guilds. The guild leader/officers can flag other guilds negatively or positively so everyone in your guild sees it. The aliance leaders can do the same. Eve built a full system for the community to police itself AND still had great in game consequences to pvp in certain areas.
My only two dislikes of the Eve system is you couldn't block trades in public stations. For sale was for sale to everyone. You could sell your enemy ammo to shoot you with, but overall Eve did community policing really well. Eve would have been a better game if it didn't allow alts at all due to this system as well. In a world built on personal responsibility you could just reset everything to default and have a fully anonymous alt circumventing every community punishment and faction based punishment in the game. Consequences should matter.
Joppa has talked about and provided a solution for this issue in numerous streams albeit not explicitly.
Almost all relevant mmo's released since the early 2000's are too easy. There really isn't an incentive for people to work together or respect one another because mmorpg's nowadays are:
A) too solo friendly
and
B) PvE is too forgiving
Pantheon aims, as you all know by now, to be a nuch more challenging game in this regard, not only because the PvE is harder but also because other systems, like crafting for example, incentivize cooperation and socializing to get the best out of the experience.
And that really is the only carot the various server communities will need for "better behaviour".
You don't need flags or strict guidelines or GM's watching over players or anything.
If community toxicity rises to problematic levels then I have to consider that VR failed in their game design and needs to change some fundamental aspects of it.
Kaynrath said:You don't need flags or strict guidelines or GM's watching over players or anything.
If community toxicity rises to problematic levels then I have to consider that VR failed in their game design and needs to change some fundamental aspects of it.
You don't want that to happen, because if it does it's too late.
It's entropy, you can't leave it as is and hope for the best, especially since no game has succedded doing so without GM or strict code of conduct.
Kaynrath said:Joppa has talked about and provided a solution for this issue in numerous streams albeit not explicitly.
Almost all relevant mmo's released since the early 2000's are too easy. There really isn't an incentive for people to work together or respect one another because mmorpg's nowadays are:
A) too solo friendly
and
B) PvE is too forgivingPantheon aims, as you all know by now, to be a nuch more challenging game in this regard, not only because the PvE is harder but also because other systems, like crafting for example, incentivize cooperation and socializing to get the best out of the experience.
And that really is the only carot the various server communities will need for "better behaviour".
You don't need flags or strict guidelines or GM's watching over players or anything.
If community toxicity rises to problematic levels then I have to consider that VR failed in their game design and needs to change some fundamental aspects of it.
I'm not sure higher challenge means less toxicity.
If anything my first thoughts are higher challenge will mean higher stakes and greater competition which will lead to higher emotions and greater potential for friction.
In past games, Everquest included, the more challenging the content (end game raids and epic quest encounters) the more grief encountered.
Yes players may be more reliant on having 'a team' to complete content, but there were whole guilds of 'baddies' that clubbed together to grief whole other guilds over that content.
I can't help but wonder if there is a disproportionate number of PVP'rs in the development team than what we typically see in a player base that may be driving this decision to just let players figure it out on their own. I don't know ... there just seems to be a disconnect.
Community policing will never work. Players are only ever self serving, vindictive,capricious and horribly biased and you want community policing from those people?
Nekentros said:I can't help but wonder if there is a disproportionate number of PVP'rs in the development team than what we typically see in a player base that may be driving this decision to just let players figure it out on their own. I don't know ... there just seems to be a disconnect.
Both Joppa and Kilsin have expressed a taste for PvP, but to be fair, they have also made it clear in uncertain terms that PvE is their overriding priority for this game.
Also, though they have expressed a *desire* for 'community policing', they have also acknowledged they are aware of the issues and the need to mitigate them. I remember a round table discussion where Jopppa actually corrected Kilsin when he suggested some kind vigilante community-policing activity and acknowledged that that kind of thing would not be desirable, so they don't even agree amongst themselves on how 'PvP-esque' self-policing might or should be.
I kinda think they haven't really given it formal discussion and decided what to do, yet. Something like PNP can be decided on later once the related mechanics and balancing are more complete and final.
As with most issues, it's great to discuss and debate, but at this stage there is still much time for these things to be decided and, though it's of course important to let the devs know how we feel, there's no sense in assuming/presuming the worst.
Personally, I have hope and faith that the community *will* be very largely 'good' and that VR will come up with decent PNP and guidance information that will help shape it and keep it that way.
Nekentros said:I would advocate for a play nice policy that has some teeth to it.
Any guild that controls content so that no one else has a shot at it will be given three warnings. If they fail to police themselves by refusing to work in good faith towards an equal rotation, then the entire guild will be involuntarily moved to a designated PVP server.
No way to do that, in any way.. Play Nice policies don't work, they're not a mandatory to follow, merely suggestions on what you should be doing. If you then don't follow them and are booted to a PVP server, I can assure you that VR would be lambasted with Lawsuits of wrongfully shaming someone.
The issue here is the "open" world they want to have.
It just doesn't work. It hasn't worked since EQ and it won't work.
Rather than having something where we all end up fighting over this one damn NPC in a dungeon or the over world, they should have either made lock out systems that prevents you from attacking the NPC for a set amount of time to allow others a go/force a group to move on and/or make it akin to Guild Wars 2 in which everyone participating gets to enjoy the spoils which for the most part is just a wee bit of coin and some materials (I'm not saying it should be generous with the loot, but really... this alone would solve all the issues).
Ashreon said: ... Rather than having something where we all end up fighting over this one damn NPC in a dungeon or the over world, they should have either made lock out systems that prevents you from attacking the NPC for a set amount of time to allow others a go/force a group to move on and/or make it akin to Guild Wars 2 in which everyone participating gets to enjoy the spoils which for the most part is just a wee bit of coin and some materials (I'm not saying it should be generous with the loot, but really... this alone would solve all the issues).
IMO:
Agreed, those are two good options, among many other options rather than 1999 DPS-race competitive no-camps. But they seem intent that this guaranteed social toxicity is the path forward for a social game like Pantheon.
There are many many solutions to providing rewards to all the participating players, and many many of them have no economic impact whatsoever, so there's absolutely no reason not be generous if you're willing to implement those solutions, but again, not the game Pantheon is intended to be, it seems.
Instead, you need to rip that loot directly out of the hands of your group and guild mates that helped you get it. Even better if you can ninja-loot. Because that makes a social game better. ;)
I've said it before, but it bears repeating: If the game permits it, players will do it, constantly, if it benefits them.
PNP's in 202x have no impact on those disruptive players they're intended to handle, especially if the game permits the disruptive behavior at all.
I agree with what vjek and asheron are saying. I feel like the team and others are underestimating the lengths people will go to to disrupt other players if they are allowed to do so, even if its not real benefit to them. There are people on world of warcraft who dispel others buffs 3-4 hours a day even though the people they dispel never interact with them. Its literally just to grief them. This is the kind of behavior we can expect to see.
I don't think a true EQ style open world where certain things spawn once per week or whatever would work well in todays era of power gaming and win at any cost mentality. I feel like vanguard's lockout system with limited instancing (apw) was a good middle ground, but im sure something better could be implemented, im just not sure what.
vjek said:Ashreon said: ... Rather than having something where we all end up fighting over this one damn NPC in a dungeon or the over world, they should have either made lock out systems that prevents you from attacking the NPC for a set amount of time to allow others a go/force a group to move on and/or make it akin to Guild Wars 2 in which everyone participating gets to enjoy the spoils which for the most part is just a wee bit of coin and some materials (I'm not saying it should be generous with the loot, but really... this alone would solve all the issues).IMO:
Agreed, those are two good options, among many other options rather than 1999 DPS-race competitive no-camps. But they seem intent that this guaranteed social toxicity is the path forward for a social game like Pantheon.
There are many many solutions to providing rewards to all the participating players, and many many of them have no economic impact whatsoever, so there's absolutely no reason not be generous if you're willing to implement those solutions, but again, not the game Pantheon is intended to be, it seems.
Instead, you need to rip that loot directly out of the hands of your group and guild mates that helped you get it. Even better if you can ninja-loot. Because that makes a social game better. ;)
I've said it before, but it bears repeating: If the game permits it, players will do it, constantly, if it benefits them.
PNP's in 202x have no impact on those disruptive players they're intended to handle, especially if the game permits the disruptive behavior at all.
I don't understand the sentiment from individuals that feel Pantheon "needs" a hired staff of Customer Service/GMs to administer a Fair Play Policy.
Pantheon is supposed to be designed around a cooperative, PvE, community based experience. Their mission statement is about as CareBear as CareBear can get. If a Pantheon "needs" a large staff of Customer Service to administer an ironclad Fair Play Policy then quite frankly the game design has failed on a massive scale.
Games with transient online relationships, or anonimity, that are designed around competition over resources, or direct competetion between players are the types of games that lend themselves to toxicity. And even in those games, it is quite feasible for good game design to create a healhty competitive environment without toxicity.
So when I see people begging for Customer Service to come to their rescue it seems to me like they are asking (or expecting) Pantheon to be designed poorly. It's very counterintuitive.
Now having followed the developer roundtables for several years, I have noticed that starting about three years ago the Customer Service team that VR have hired come onto the developer roundtable and talk about Fair Play Policy for about an hour. They did this in Jan/Feb of 2019, and then Jan/Feb of 2020 again and I suppose we are due for another soon. Having listened to those roundtables I'm not sure VR are on the right track or not, and maybe they made these hires because they anticipate they will need an ironclad Fair Play Policy and a team of employees to enforce it.
Hopefully they just design the game well instead.