So you prefer exploitable content , encouraged botters / farmers , allowing of KSing by the mechanics of the system and monopolization of content.
I like to know what you are expecting the community to do about it exactly?
I do not pug , I rarely interact with people outside my social circles and guild .. so exactly why , do I care about what you think?
In fact you are the competition , so no there will not be a opening or we will not be calling it and letting you take the camp you need , in fact we are shifting the camp and can sell you the drop you want for the right price.
So this is the MMO you want ? Are you sure ?
P99 ----- > that way.
I think we all see the fundemental issues, I just have not seen any solutions by the pnp crowd that are realistic or do not result in a toxic server enviroment.
The above situation will become a reality though , if nothing is done :(
Open World means different things to different people.
VR have said in various ways at various times what they want is to have a 'shared experience' and a 'community spirit'.
I agree that that is very valuable and instancing everything has proved to be too large a barrier to that in other games.
I too see Open World as an opportunity to 'share' the game with others. To cooperate. To socialise.
Some, however, see it as an opportunity to compete. To 'beat' other players.
Some even see it as an opportunity to give others grief. To dominate at others' expense.
There will always be conflict between these people to a greater or lesser degree.
All VR can do to mitigate this is introduce mechanics to avoid the worst examples, but without ruining the open world aspect (a tricky line to walk), to produce guidance to help deal with the rest and provide judgement where the guidance hasn't resolved issues or players have circumvented mechanics.
Jobeson said: @Xxar WoW, SWTOR, Rift, EQ2, ESO, WoW Classic ----- > that way. There are pros and cons to every choice. Harder WoW would be a popular mmo, but that isn't what VR has been selling for years. A bait and switch would not go over well. Having loot not unique to players is going to cause toxic environments. People fighting over drops in group. All but forcing grouping will cause toxic environments. Proximity to people is all it takes. Not having raid tokens causes people to fight over drops again. Participation trophies for all! There are dozens of games designed to babysit players while removing all conflict. They are all boring.
You don't have to have individual loot to avoid arguments any more than you have to have ninja looting to make it feel 'open world'. A fair distribution process (random) or one less impartial but agreed upon (round robin or whatever) with guidance to explain the processes is more than enough. It was rarely a problem in EQ once people worked out their own methods and they became known. VR can short-cut that so it works from day one.
Needing groups doesn't cause toxicity any more than it guarantees new friends. I would say the latter is much more common though, especially if there is guidance for the group etiquette that covers issues experienced players have come to know over the years.
You don't need participation trophies for raids. Not everyone agrees with Dragon Kill Point systems, but there are systems that works fine and even raid situations aren't complex beyond the capabilities of VR to give guidance on.
Games do not have to be babysat or anarchy and nothing in between. Distilling the hundreds of years of combined experience VR (and contributing backers) have into PNP, guidance and developing mechanics where absolutely necessary will cope with 99.9999% of problem issues and the rest can be resolved by a decent GM/CS presence.
This is all interesting to discuss, but the sky is not falling any more than everything is roses.
@disposalist
I am with you on the pros and cons to everything and I certainly think VR will manage it better than people on a forum. The base point though is toxicity is everywhere and trying to get rid of it all is how we have the bland MMOs everywhere. I think accepting the good with the bad is something people have to realize will happen.
If you don't think there will be people who feel entitled to loot at various camps you are simply wrong. Those people deserve to be mocked/shamed and ignored in my opinion but that is literally part of the toxicity as well. If you want to reduce toxicity why have a shared loot table? It will certainly add toxicity to the game. I believe the toxicity is acceptable for the greater benefit of bringing people together, as you said finding new friends.
Similar to the above group scenario the participation trophies on raids are to make people feel like they earned something. The toxicity around raid loot systems are huge especially when the game is too difficult for PUG raids. This is a huge toxic generator. It is made even worse in games that constantly flood the game with items. Giving people their dopamine hits every few mins is half of what current MMOs are now. The toxicity increase from denying people "their" loot is easily predictable.
It is not about the sky falling or everything is roses. Its knowing roses grow best in manure while people shout to ban manure.
@Jobeson Yeah I don't think we disagree, except to the degree and nuance of the issue. Yes, just using game mechanics to somehow 'eradicate' bad behaviour results in bland games.
I don't think grouping *causes* toxicity or that related toxicity cannot be avoided or mitigated, though. No matter what someone's feelings over the issue are, if there is a group loot rule that is public and accepted then players either join a group and follow that rule or they make their own group and try and push their non-standard rules onto people.
VR can easily make a grouping system that makes it easy to 'sign up' to a loot rule when you join and can easily publish guidance for various loot rules they know of. No need for draconian mechanics, just help and guidance and toxicity is greatly reduced.
If people *still* feel entitled and argue, then it is without a leg to stand on and others can ignore them without bad feeling. If it's only the badly behaved that are getting upset *shrug* who cares. That's hardly 'toxic' to the community. That would be like saying putting criminals in jail is 'toxic'. It's not pleasant, but it's the opposite of toxic. It removes the toxicity from society (over-simplification, but you know what I mean).
You don't have to eradicate prossessions to reduce the problems of theft, you make public laws about property that you police and you exclude those that don't comply from your community.
There's going to be some freedom fighters out there that disagree, but reduce it to a macro level if you like: You don't invite trouble makers to your house party. It's not about freedom, it's about harmony and every society has rules they live to to maintain harmony.
Re. Your manure comment: No one shouts to ban manure. They know it helps the roses grow. But they wear gloves and boots when gardening those roses and there are rules about not coming back in the house with your boots and gloves on. Rules. Rules and guidance will set us free (from toxicity).
Jobeson said:Similar to the above group scenario the participation trophies on raids are to make people feel like they earned something. The toxicity around raid loot systems are huge especially when the game is too difficult for PUG raids. This is a huge toxic generator. It is made even worse in games that constantly flood the game with items. Giving people their dopamine hits every few mins is half of what current MMOs are now. The toxicity increase from denying people "their" loot is easily predictable.
I am not sure what you mean here. Are you advocating participation trophies for everyone as a means to avoid increased toxicity, or are you opposing them and saying that we will have to live with the result, which is an increase in toxicity stemming from the disposition of many MMO players these days?
It seems to me that this is a fairly divisive subject and I doubt any resolution will come of it, discussing it at any length here on the forums. Not to say that we shouldn't, but I think we will have to trust that VR will come up with a solution and accept that some of us will be happy, some annoyed and some will be indifferent. Comes with the territory I guess, that you can't satisfy everyone when making a MMO.
stellarmind said: how do you enforce pnp without destroying the foundations of open world?
Open world means different things to different people. I take it to mean a shared world without instancing, not a world completely devoid of rule/law or otherwise lack of real consquence for actions one takes against others. Similar to the real world where one is more or less "free" to do anything they want but not without facing consequences depending on what they do.
Counterfleche said: A PNP is a necessary tool because it sets expectations / ground rules and creates specific standards that can be enforced. It won't prevent all problems, but it provides guidance for people who are trying to follow the rules and it also helps prevent a feeling of a lawless community. And avoiding any impression of lawlessness is hugely important since many people will behave to the level they feel is expected. If most people feel like anything goes, we will have a toxic community that will drive away many people.
This is correct.
PNP plus community guides monitored by logging and a paid GM is probably the best.
However its a more human feel, keeps costs managable, enables fun custom events and also...
Who doesn't like a bit of drama ? Loads of memories from 'wrong' guide decisions and 'bad guys' getting away with it.
Games need villains as a contrast to Heroes
Alternativeis either total anarchy or removal of community by hiding behind instances etc.
A pnp moddle has in the past been abused by multiple games including EQ. This is also adding additional cost and time associated , in fact its reactive instead of proactive in how it is handled.
The person that did whatever has already accomplished whatever it is that supposedly happened , that the other person is going to give a entirely different viewpoint on. The GM or guide is then a after thought (the ticket etc) that now is playing damage control. This is the best case situation and at the worst a customer is lost or feels sleighted in some form or the entire situation is viewed as biased and honestly , who knows if it is not biased ... perhaps knows a gm etc.
The issue I have with a PNP system is it is speculative at best and more then likely even the quality provided will diminish overtime or will be abused at a certain point, since history proves that point across multiple games.
This is not to even mention it has still not solved the root cause of the problem , so it will never be solved ever and always be a time , cash , human resource sinkhole.
You have extreamly high expectations for a game company, that is just making it.
I just have realistic expectations in comparison.
All of these real concerns and issues from the above compared to a alternative solution that :
- Costs nothing to maintain once implemented
- Proactive in problem solving and not reactive with the expense
- removes all the bias and speculation of a 3rd party
- ensures content is "played" as intended and ensures easier balancing of content
- removes the entire toxic game style from the start without changing the core game tenants
- promotes a more social enviroment without sacrificing a competitive game style or open world game play
all of this for a first to engage style system.
Well thats my 2 cents :)
Nice strawman , the same can be said about the "type" of game you speak about.
As for what they told us , it was touted as a old school mmo.
A first to engage mechanic does not change how combat is performed or anything that was promised.
I guess the main view points on both sides are stuborn and that is the point of debate.
There is one running theme that I see in alot of the posts in this thread against having some set instances is that that by doing so, it will become like most of the modern games around. There is a reason that most games have this mechanic and have stopped trying to relive the 1999-20010 years, is because the gamers have changed and what worked a few decades ago, is not going to work now, no matter how much you wish it.
My small concern is that the Devs are staying in a bubble that is not realistic and making a game that they would want to see happen because it started off as a small circle of close knit people, wanting to create a throwback game to when they rememeberd and played and they are not taking into account with how much people's playstyles have drifted from those nostalgic years they are trying to recapture.
Go ahead and make alot of open world challenges, I am not saying to code everything into carebear easymode, but at the same time, throw in alot of content that is instanced so guilds and casual players can also love and enjoy the game without feeling they have to steamroll over other players.
Its easy to make a few raid bosses and contents that you can spawn in an instance, that a small group or guild, can play together, have fun, bond and joke around, without needng it to be a cut throat better "kill before the asshats come" and take it from you" experience.
That does not seem like an unbalancing game content to simply ask for a good mix of open world freedom content with comptetition tha caters to the players that want to dominate and make their egos bust, mixed in with alot of content that can be scheduled and triggered and soley enjoyed by a group or guild at a relaxed pace.
Just thinking about it...many of us (me included) say "VR should come up with a PNP". In fact, what is keeping US, the future players of the game, from working out a PNP? From saying what we think should be "ground rules"?
Here is a repost of the original EQ PNP: https://www.wayfarershaven.com/index.php?threads/eq-play-nice-policy.2874/
And here is the PNP from Project 1999: https://wiki.project1999.com/Play_nice_policy
If we can come to a consensus on what we think should be a good policy for Pantheon, maybe VR will consider using it (even if only as a base).
Xxar said:Nice strawman , the same can be said about the "type" of game you speak about.
As for what they told us , it was touted as a old school mmo.
A first to engage mechanic does not change how combat is performed or anything that was promised.
I guess the main view points on both sides are stuborn and that is the point of debate.
The first to engage takes would elminate trains and wouldn't let you help other groups. Those things are fun and unpredicatable.