Mirc said:And if you like to have a conflict free game with little to no surprises go play one of the many existing games. From the get go Pantheon has told us it wouldn't be that.
That's my 2 cents. Yours was at least 10 cents. :)
Mirc, I’m picking you but not trying to pick on you. The opinion you express (one that others share so you are not alone) is the basis of all PVP games. PVP does not need to be just combat to be players competing against other players. Racing, content blocking, market cornering, kill stealing, deliberately training other groups and harvest node camping are all forms of non combat PVP.
Pantheon has always been a PVE focused game where the challenge and obstructions are to come from the game world, not other players. Having non combat pvp without the recourse of combat PVP is exceedingly frustrating and many people who have no interest in combat PVP also have no interest in Non Combat PVP.
Play Nice Policies are in theory a way to adjudicate when players come into conflict over opportunities that cannot be shared. I would wager that for the majority of players “Drama” and “Bad Guide Decisions” would be very negative memories that would likely get them to stop playing, not memories that they cherish.
It is much better to design the game systems in such a way that there is very little opportunity for players to come into conflict with each other over missed opportunities. While instances are a way to do that they are not the only way. Having multiple paths to success with a fairly unpredictable opportunity nature, significantly more content options than content consumers (camps per group ratios), triggers that require a large number of manhours rather than just egg timer spawns, and intelligent aggro mechanics that keep content challenging and dangerous without the failures of others punishing you are all examples of ways to tweak PVE content to be less Player Vs Player.
Anything that requires a play nice policy should be analyzed to see if there is a better way for the system to work to decrease the need for a policy. Leave the PVP to PVP games, if that’s what you are after there are far more PVP focused games on the market right now than good PVE Group Based games.
Player reputation is a very different animal than PNP. Consistent bad actors are rotten apples that will ruin the barrel. There is a strong need to find ways to track and warn others of consistent bad actors. Simple codes of conduct can be used as guidelines and multiple infractions would likely result in character bans. Real sleezeballs, like all chronic abusers, learn how to operate in the grey area of the rules. It is these people that will be contained by a shareable reputation system.
Does anyone know of any MMOs that have come out in the last few years that caters to thousands of people playing on a subscription basis that is still successful that has a complete open world gameplay without any instances, picks or ways to generate your own personal content to enjoy with a group or guild?
I am really limited in experience as I have only played EQ and WoW mainly as my major MMOs with a few smaller games and none of them have the game philosophy that Pantheon wants to re-create anymore.
You can say this will be creative and unique new gameplay... I think if there are no examples of similar games that are successful now and all the older games that used to have this same " old school" philosophy of play, that are all now offering games that have diverged significantly in content, keeping blinders on and trying to stick to ones "Artistic" convictions is going to be a losing venture.
if there are not good examples of current large population successful MMO's with the same game mechanics of "community policing" and no instances or ways to trigger content that is locked to only a small group or guild to enjoy, then please ask yourselves why not?
Deathwish said:Does anyone know of any MMOs that have come out in the last few years that caters to thousands of people playing on a subscription basis that is still successful that has a complete open world gameplay without any instances, picks or ways to generate your own personal content to enjoy with a group or guild?
I am really limited in experience as I have only played EQ and WoW mainly as my major MMOs with a few smaller games and none of them have the game philosophy that Pantheon wants to re-create anymore.
You can say this will be creative and unique new gameplay... I think if there are no examples of similar games that are successful now and all the older games that used to have this same " old school" philosophy of play, that are all now offering games that have diverged significantly in content, keeping blinders on and trying to stick to ones "Artistic" convictions is going to be a losing venture.
if there are not good examples of current large population successful MMO's with the same game mechanics of "community policing" and no instances or ways to trigger content that is locked to only a small group or guild to enjoy, then please ask yourselves why not?
I don't know of any, but I also don't know of any that tried and failed. That may be because I dont' follow the scene closely enough. Which are the games that tried and failed?
PNP is not about "playing nice" as a priority and all being carebears, it is about being prepared for resolving rare disputes. That's all.
PvE is not about avoiding conflict with other players, it is about cooperating *with* other players to fight the monsters and environment. About beating the game, not beating each other and certainly not stopping others from enjoying the game.
Some people read Open World and hear "contention and conflict". Some read Open World and hear "shared experience".
One of the big reasons Dungeons and Dragons was and is popular is because it doesn't require an opposing team of people to 'beat'. You could play *with* your friends to go on adventures and defeat evil monsters. It was radical and amazing to not have to play *against* each other for a change. Put away the Monopoly and Game of Life, stop gritting your teeth through your jock friends pounding you in team sports and enjoy challenging, complicated, boundless adventure *with* friends.
I get that some people seem to not be able to enjoy anything without 'beating' someone else and think conflict improves any experience. Some don't and we've been waiting 20 years for another MMORPG that gets back to that coop adventure we loved.
Contention adds difficulty. In a way, yes. Contended content is harder. Yes, it can be. And trying to play a game while someone punches you in the face is 'more difficult' and 'harder', but it's not more fun.
Thankfully, VR have said time and again, they are concentrating on PvE. Not PvP, or some pseudo-PvP. PvP is a completely different thing that probably doesn't even need PNP because the 'fun' for people that like PvP *is* that you can always fall back to might-is-right beatings and everyone signs up to that.
I like PvP too, though I play Battlefield for that. PvP is an utterly different animal and can almost be excused from these discussions (honestly no offense intended).
I guess it's the pseudo-PvP PvE contention that is the grey area we'd like VR to be more clear on, hence this discussion, but they have always emphasised that contention is accepted, but to recognised it can be mitigated in several ways.
I want Open World. I accept that it is inevitable that there will be some contention and competition as a side-effect but not as an ideal. It is worth it to have the advantages of Open World. But to have Open World and know there will be issues and NOT have a PNP would be crazy or lazy or both.
disposalist said:PNP is not about "playing nice" as a priority and all being carebears, it is about being prepared for resolving rare disputes. That's all.
PvE is not about avoiding conflict with other players, it is about cooperating *with* other players to fight the monsters and environment. About beating the game, not beating each other and certainly not stopping others from enjoying the game.
Some people read Open World and hear "contention and conflict". Some read Open World and hear "shared experience".
One of the big reasons Dungeons and Dragons was and is popular is because it doesn't require an opposing team of people to 'beat'. You could play *with* your friends to go on adventures and defeat evil monsters. It was radical and amazing to not have to play *against* each other for a change. Put away the Monopoly and Game of Life, stop gritting your teeth through your jock friends pounding you in team sports and enjoy challenging, complicated, boundless adventure *with* friends.
I get that some people seem to not be able to enjoy anything without 'beating' someone else and think conflict improves any experience. Some don't and we've been waiting 20 years for another MMORPG that gets back to that coop adventure we loved.
Contention adds difficulty. In a way, yes. Contended content is harder. Yes, it can be. And trying to play a game while someone punches you in the face is 'more difficult' and 'harder', but it's not more fun.
Thankfully, VR have said time and again, they are concentrating on PvE. Not PvP, or some pseudo-PvP. PvP is a completely different thing that probably doesn't even need PNP because the 'fun' for people that like PvP *is* that you can always fall back to might-is-right beatings and everyone signs up to that.
I like PvP too, though I play Battlefield for that. PvP is an utterly different animal and can almost be excused from these discussions (honestly no offense intended).
I guess it's the pseudo-PvP PvE contention that is the grey area we'd like VR to be more clear on, hence this discussion, but they have always emphasised that contention is accepted, but to recognised it can be mitigated in several ways.
I want Open World. I accept that it is inevitable that there will be some contention and competition as a side-effect but not as an ideal. It is worth it to have the advantages of Open World. But to have Open World and know there will be issues and NOT have a PNP would be crazy or lazy or both.
Some will enjoy that contention and may elect to engage in it consentually. I would love to see competition events arranged around PvE content or even some encounters where contention is expected, but not the majority. As a consentual change of pace it would be fun. As an unexpected, unwanted beating, it is not.Most people - coming to a PvE game - will want to play *with* their friends against Terminus and not have other players 'beat' them while they try and do it. PNP help when things get awkward.TL;DR: When I go out to a bar with friends, I don't go looking for a fight or even an argument that would ruin the evening. I'm not even thinking of 'avoiding' a fight, it simply isn't what the night is about. I'm not a carebear or a wuss, I'm just concentrating on having fun with my friends. There are bar rules and laws of the land so I generally don't have to even think about it and can concentrate on having fun with my friends. PNP are not about carebears avoiding conflict. They are about allowing PvE players to enjoy a PvE game without squabbling.
Well said. I couldn't have put it better myself.
Nekentros said:disposalist said:PNP is not about "playing nice" as a priority and all being carebears, it is about being prepared for resolving rare disputes. That's all.
PvE is not about avoiding conflict with other players, it is about cooperating *with* other players to fight the monsters and environment. About beating the game, not beating each other and certainly not stopping others from enjoying the game.
Some people read Open World and hear "contention and conflict". Some read Open World and hear "shared experience".
One of the big reasons Dungeons and Dragons was and is popular is because it doesn't require an opposing team of people to 'beat'. You could play *with* your friends to go on adventures and defeat evil monsters. It was radical and amazing to not have to play *against* each other for a change. Put away the Monopoly and Game of Life, stop gritting your teeth through your jock friends pounding you in team sports and enjoy challenging, complicated, boundless adventure *with* friends.
I get that some people seem to not be able to enjoy anything without 'beating' someone else and think conflict improves any experience. Some don't and we've been waiting 20 years for another MMORPG that gets back to that coop adventure we loved.
Contention adds difficulty. In a way, yes. Contended content is harder. Yes, it can be. And trying to play a game while someone punches you in the face is 'more difficult' and 'harder', but it's not more fun.
Thankfully, VR have said time and again, they are concentrating on PvE. Not PvP, or some pseudo-PvP. PvP is a completely different thing that probably doesn't even need PNP because the 'fun' for people that like PvP *is* that you can always fall back to might-is-right beatings and everyone signs up to that.
I like PvP too, though I play Battlefield for that. PvP is an utterly different animal and can almost be excused from these discussions (honestly no offense intended).
I guess it's the pseudo-PvP PvE contention that is the grey area we'd like VR to be more clear on, hence this discussion, but they have always emphasised that contention is accepted, but to recognised it can be mitigated in several ways.
I want Open World. I accept that it is inevitable that there will be some contention and competition as a side-effect but not as an ideal. It is worth it to have the advantages of Open World. But to have Open World and know there will be issues and NOT have a PNP would be crazy or lazy or both.
Some will enjoy that contention and may elect to engage in it consentually. I would love to see competition events arranged around PvE content or even some encounters where contention is expected, but not the majority. As a consentual change of pace it would be fun. As an unexpected, unwanted beating, it is not.Most people - coming to a PvE game - will want to play *with* their friends against Terminus and not have other players 'beat' them while they try and do it. PNP help when things get awkward.TL;DR: When I go out to a bar with friends, I don't go looking for a fight or even an argument that would ruin the evening. I'm not even thinking of 'avoiding' a fight, it simply isn't what the night is about. I'm not a carebear or a wuss, I'm just concentrating on having fun with my friends. There are bar rules and laws of the land so I generally don't have to even think about it and can concentrate on having fun with my friends. PNP are not about carebears avoiding conflict. They are about allowing PvE players to enjoy a PvE game without squabbling.
Well said. I couldn't have put it better myself.
Great post and I share alot of the same values. That is what I really thought Pantheon wanted to do and that was to create a unique world where we could travel together, make new friends and enjoy a challenging content. The emphasis being on enjoying challenging content and not having my gameplay completely controlled by other players who want to destroy and control other people. This is what caused bottlenecks to progress on epics in EQ by a few players, who were playing perfectly legally and according to the TOS, so they could not be banned and since it was a PVE server, you could not retaliate and kill them.
It also led to a really bad farmer market with people controlling specific camps and selling loot rights to other players for keys and other pieces that you had to get to progress to other dungeons and content. Its still rampant now.
You either have to have PvP enabled to really be able to "community police" effectively, which Pantheon does not want to do and I really personally do not want to see, but it does work to a degree, but opens up other areas of abuse. Or you have to have content that is important for progression that can be played in instances by small groups and guilds. You have to have one or teh other and leaving out both is ludicrous and really short sighted I think.
What I would love to see introduced in the final launch version of the game is alot of open world bosses and mini bosses and content that can be openly contested by players and groups that love the challenge against other players aspect of games and you can have really good item drops and the best pieces on big bosses that are challenging that would need groups to kill, but also can be avoided by majority of players that do not want to get ito fights and squabbles to kill or get a decent camp. Then include like 40% of content that are like EQ raids that can be instanced and have triggered spawns or areas that you can go to that is only shared by your group or guild, so that it fits the working schedule of alot of people, keeps the wife/gf/significant other aggro down so that the play can be short 3-4 hours, completed by your small community circle of friends and guild to enjoy together.
Lockouts for a set amount of days and having content instancing have proven to work in current games and check the boxes needed for a successful and long term viable game if mixed in with the right balance of contested content.
disposalist said:Most people - coming to a PvE game - will want to play *with* their friends against Terminus and not have other players 'beat' them while they try and do it. PNP help when things get awkward.TL;DR: When I go out to a bar with friends, I don't go looking for a fight or even an argument that would ruin the evening. I'm not even thinking of 'avoiding' a fight, it simply isn't what the night is about. I'm not a carebear or a wuss, I'm just concentrating on having fun with my friends. There are bar rules and laws of the land so I generally don't have to even think about it and can concentrate on having fun with my friends. PNP are not about carebears avoiding conflict. They are about allowing PvE players to enjoy a PvE game without squabbling.
If you want to play against the world only then play any of the games with instances. That is the entire idea of instances. There are dozens to pick from all out right now. You are literally asking for what you can get everywhere else.
You are inviting people to fight you with the PNP system. PNP is a system to have conflict in. If you go to the bar with your friends and get table PNP says you may need to leave after 2 rounds because someone willing to file the paperwork wants your table. PNP is a system that forces a laughable version of "compromise" It almost never comes up because people are mostly not horrible. I have only ever seen it abused in this way.
I also want to repeat clear rules of bannable offenses are not PNP. It is the difference between Laws and HOA contracts.
edit:
Deathwish said:Lockouts for a set amount of days and having content instancing have proven to work in current games and check the boxes needed for a successful and long term viable game if mixed in with the right balance of contested content.
I don't know what this has to do with the pnp thread but...
Why not play those games that use this superior system? You literally have every MMO to choose from since they all use the same system. What makes you think you would be happy with this lifeless MMO if none of the other lifeless MMOs make you happy? VR has said pantheon is not focusing on raiding and it is an open world game. You want VR to change their core promises years into production to what you want and to betray their backers at your promise of if they copy everyone else they will make more money. Should they make the world solo focused as well? All the other MMOs have proven it to work...
Jobeson said:disposalist said:Most people - coming to a PvE game - will want to play *with* their friends against Terminus and not have other players 'beat' them while they try and do it. PNP help when things get awkward.TL;DR: When I go out to a bar with friends, I don't go looking for a fight or even an argument that would ruin the evening. I'm not even thinking of 'avoiding' a fight, it simply isn't what the night is about. I'm not a carebear or a wuss, I'm just concentrating on having fun with my friends. There are bar rules and laws of the land so I generally don't have to even think about it and can concentrate on having fun with my friends. PNP are not about carebears avoiding conflict. They are about allowing PvE players to enjoy a PvE game without squabbling.If you want to play against the world only then play any of the games with instances. That is the entire idea of instances. There are dozens to pick from all out right now. You are literally asking for what you can get everywhere else.
Lol. No. I'm not. Nothing requires instances. PNP is about avoiding the 'need' for instances or other draconian mechanics. It helps players resolve common issues. That's it. That's all.
Jobeson said:You are inviting people to fight you with the PNP system. PNP is a system to have conflict in. If you go to the bar with your friends and get table PNP says you may need to leave after 2 rounds because someone willing to file the paperwork wants your table. PNP is a system that forces a laughable version of "compromise" It almost never comes up because people are mostly not horrible. I have only ever seen it abused in this way.
No, PNP doesn't have to work that way at all. Perhaps you are thinking of one particular current example of PNP - I think EQ P99 PNP establishes a concrete version of camps?
As I've explained before, PNP can just be guidance through common issues, it doesn't have to be hard rules at all and it doesn't need any particular mechanic or concept to support it.
Jobeson said:I also want to repeat clear rules of bannable offenses are not PNP. It is the difference between Laws and HOA contracts.
There will be concrete rules and bannable offenses and legal agreements, no doubt, but PNP are not that, no. I agree and I really don't think that's what I said at all.
I've made it pretty clear I thought: I think PNP should be mostly guidance, not 'rules' (though there will be some easy and obvious to apply guidance that will no doubt seem like 'rules'). Simply the devs using their decades of combined experience to guide players through situations they know from that experience can (and will) cause conflict. They need to make it clear they want players to behave well toward each other and that, even if there is no mechanic or rule to stop certain behaviours, because that would have inevitable effects on the Open World, that doesn't eman they advise or condone those behaviours.
If they don't, the implicit and natural inference from the players is "well, this is Wild West, I can do what I want and VR don't care" and we risk quickly sliding into a toxic sludge we can't get out of.
disposalist said:There will be concrete rules and bannable offenses and legal agreements, no doubt, but PNP are not that, no. I agree and I really don't think that's what I said at all.
...
If they don't, the implicit and natural inference from the players is "well, this is Wild West, I can do what I want and VR don't care" and we risk quickly sliding into a toxic sludge we can't get out of.
You quickly jump from there will be laws and PNP is separate to "no pnp" means wild west anything goes. I was repeating it from past posts, but it fits perfectly as you literally go on to give a perfect example of why it needs to be repeated so often. The "sheriff" sees everything, cant be killed, and can take action pretty easily. Go ahead and try to rob that bank.
If PNP is only guidance as you suggest it will be ignored. "Don't be mean" is all it needs to say. Done VR doesn't condone behaviors of being mean. Apply it to what you want and feel good. They won't do anything about mean people but they don't condone the behavior. If this is literally all you want I honestly don't care if you get it, because 95% of the players wont read it or care.
We know that is not what PNP will be if they adopt a PNP though. PNP is attempting to enforce behaviors through a system of out of game punishments and arbitration. You even immediately say it will seem like rules. Will there be a punishment for violating what "seems like rules?" Of course! Policies are not suggestions.
stellarmind said: I gotta do this to ya Dispolist. Ah. I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five'? Well to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, i kind of lost track myself. But being that this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well do ya, punk? You are wrong PNP is about playing nice, it is in the acronym. (stellarmind has fleed the battle)
I said it's not about playing nice "as a priority". I even emphasised the "as a priority". Put down the gun!
People seem to assume that wanting a PNP means emphasising hand-holding and carebearage. It doesn't, or at least, it doesn't have to.
Jobeson said:disposalist said:There will be concrete rules and bannable offenses and legal agreements, no doubt, but PNP are not that, no. I agree and I really don't think that's what I said at all.
...
If they don't, the implicit and natural inference from the players is "well, this is Wild West, I can do what I want and VR don't care" and we risk quickly sliding into a toxic sludge we can't get out of.
You quickly jump from there will be laws and PNP is separate to "no pnp" means wild west anything goes. I was repeating it from past posts, but it fits perfectly as you literally go on to give a perfect example of why it needs to be repeated so often. The "sheriff" sees everything, cant be killed, and can take action pretty easily. Go ahead and try to rob that bank.
If PNP is only guidance as you suggest it will be ignored. "Don't be mean" is all it needs to say. Done VR doesn't condone behaviors of being mean. Apply it to what you want and feel good. They won't do anything about mean people but they don't condone the behavior. If this is literally all you want I honestly don't care if you get it, because 95% of the players wont read it or care.
We know that is not what PNP will be if they adopt a PNP though. PNP is attempting to enforce behaviors through a system of out of game punishments and arbitration. You even immediately say it will seem like rules. Will there be a punishment for violating what "seems like rules?" Of course! Policies are not suggestions.
By "there will be 'laws'" I mean obvious stuff that is just an extension of laws of the real world that no doubt VR will adopt to avoid overt abuse and harassment and the like. By a lack of PNP resulting in 'wild west' I mean with in-game encounters that players might well think are fine because the game mechanics allow it. PNP, as I suggest them, aren't about overt nastiness, they are about subtle practices that the game mechanics allow (because we do want a sandboxey Open World) but will result in discord if they proliferate.
You can't just say "Don't be mean". The issues are complex and subtle. A lot of people won't know the implications of FTE or MDD encounters, for example. People can't agree in these forums and we are 'experts' compared to most, so the average player will have no chance. Without an idea of where the issues occur and what the problems might be and suggestions for how to resolve them, people won't even know what being 'mean' means...
I'm sure that some players won't like there being PNP, even, and that they will feel like they are being restricted by rules. *shrug* Better than a toxic game, but I realise it, yes.
Without those PNP guidelines, though, published by VR, no one will have a clue what is to be accepted and managed and what is not. Everyone will /report whatever *they* think is bad behaviour, whether it's something VR condone or not, whether it is toxic or not, and VR will have ten times the /reports to wade through and ten times the players getting upset they they aren't being listened to.
With those PNP guidelines, when players feel they have been 'wronged' they will be able to refer to the PNP to see if they are justified or not. They can quote the PNP at the offender if they think they are right and discuss it. If the offender doesn't agree they can /report. It should save a ton of frivolous /reports. It should save a ton of legitimate reports, too, because most people, if made aware they are falling foul of the PNP, will stop being 'mean', as long as the person challenging them is reasonable and pleasant about it (which can be guidance in the PNP hehe). They would empower and give the tools for players to resolve their own issues in a non-toxic way.
It's a no-brainer to me. Yeah, it might take VR a few man-days to discuss and document some PNP guidelines that are good enough to be worthwhile. It should save many many man-days of GM and CS time later and help avoid needless toxicity in the game, which is priceless.
It has everything to do with PnP because PnP is an outdated niave concept that does not work and every modern game that tries to allow the community to take care of their problems does not work. Yes I want VR to wake up and see what the real worl play is and reduce the subjective and personal conflicts policing that they think is going to work. It may have worked in the 1990s but its not going to work in 2022.
What do you think is going to happen in a game that it will not be against TOS to steam roll and control the majority of the content and play of others 24 hours a day that already guilds are posting they are going to do, without having some areas for the rest of the 60-70% of the server to enjoy at their own pace? I tell you what is going to happen, the same way its happening now in EQ and WoW, without anyway to defend yourself and being given a "toothless" ability to enforce "PNP" by players, people will flood the forums complaining 24/7 with threads about this guild or player camp stealing, Ksing and other bad behaviors, THAT WILL NOT BE AGAINST TOS, and want GMs to intervene and fix things, but the GMS would have to be online 24/7 with a pack of them to be able to keep and enforce
"PNP" which we know no game can do and certainly do not want Pantheon to develope such a micromanaged reputation.
If VR started with an antiquated and outdated concept, that they know is not going to work, sticking to it just because that is what they thought would work 15 years ago, is a rather silly notion and very blindsided and out of touch and I hope they have progressive enough people to be able to see that things have changed and adapt and change with times.
Deathwish said:I don't know what this has to do with the pnp thread but...
Why not play those games that use this superior system? You literally have every MMO to choose from since they all use the same system. What makes you think you would be happy with this lifeless MMO if none of the other lifeless MMOs make you happy? VR has said pantheon is not focusing on raiding and it is an open world game. You want VR to change their core promises years into production to what you want and to betray their backers at your promise of if they copy everyone else they will make more money. Should they make the world solo focused as well? All the other MMOs have proven it to work...
It has everything to do with PnP because PnP is an outdated niave concept that does not work and every modern game that tries to allow the community to take care of their problems does not work. Yes I want VR to wake up and see what the real worl play is and reduce the subjective and personal conflicts policing that they think is going to work. It may have worked in the 1990s but its not going to work in 2022.
What do you think is going to happen in a game that it will not be against TOS to steam roll and control the majority of the content and play of others 24 hours a day that already guilds are posting they are going to do, without having some areas for the rest of the 60-70% of the server to enjoy at their own pace? I tell you what is going to happen, the same way its happening now in EQ and WoW, without anyway to defend yourself and being given a "toothless" ability to enforce "PNP" by players, people will flood the forums complaining 24/7 with threads about this guild or player camp stealing, Ksing and other bad behaviors, THAT WILL NOT BE AGAINST TOS, and want GMs to intervene and fix things, but the GMS would have to be online 24/7 with a pack of them to be able to keep and enforce
"PNP" which we know no game can do and certainly do not want Pantheon to develope such a micromanaged reputation.If VR started with an antiquated and outdated concept, that they know is not going to work, sticking to it just because that is what they thought would work 15 years ago, is a rather silly notion and very blindsided and out of touch and I hope they have progressive enough people to be able to see that things have changed and adapt and change with times.
I'm confused by your post.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be any mechanics or TOC that help with conflict, I am just saying that *not* having PNP to cover the subtle intricacies we know are there would be foolish. Having no PNP would cause *more* angry forum posts, not less.
Also, you appear to want an open world, but also want instancing to solve conflicts? Lots of instancing = *not* an open world, no?
Also, you seem worried about focus on raids. Who said PNP is just for raids? Actually, I think it's very important PNP cover everyday grouping and adventuring as much as raids, since it's what the majority of players do. I had much more problematic situations while camping with groups than with raiding in EQ.
Also not suggesting that PNP just like other games is all we need. Nor is VR. They have suggested several ways like, yes, some instancing and some triggered bosses and enclosed final fights, etc to mitigate conflicts. Again, that doesn't mean they *wouldn't* benefit from PNP *as well*.
I do have some faith, that VR can minimise restrictive mechanics so that we still have an open world and will field enough GMs and CS reps such that between them and PNP resolving low-level issues, we will avoid most toxicity that we know can occur.
I've had bad experiences with uberguilds and toxic baddies in the past, too. It was only a problem because they knew there were no PNP guidelines they were transgressing, so players had no grounds to /report them, and when they did, there weren't enough GMs or those GMs didn't want to make abitrary rulings (because there were no PNP covering the issue).
This stuff can be mitigated or avoided by VR producing adequate PNP and fielding plenty of GMs that know the PNP.
I get the feeling that you (and others) have experienced inadequate PNP and GMs before. Let's help encourage VR to do better then, but suggesting VR just shouldn't do it because others got it wrong is a bit weird.
You cannot report someone nor ban someone for a guideline, because a guideline is not a rule.
guideline: 1. Information intended to advise people on how something should be done or what something should be. 2. A piece of information that suggests how something should be done (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/guideline)
Notice how it says should, and not has to. It's a suggestion, nothing more. A puzzle with 2000 pieces can give a suggest or give a guideline that says edges should be done first, but you don't have to if you don't want to. You cannot /report people for not following a guideline the same way you do because that's all it is, is a guideline. So if you say that, for example, killstealing, is not playing nice and it's a guideline to not do it, but the game clearly allows for it to happen, has built it in as a mechanic, and doesn't do anything to stop it; then you cannot /report for it because for one thing it's a guideline and not a rule, and second the game has the mechanic built in from the ground up. That's like telling a child he's shouldn't really have pop or soda then only stocking the fridge with pop or soda, and maybe a few juice boxes. What's more, if you try to ban someone for a guideline and not a rule, VR will have lawsuits on their hands, easily, because, again, it's not a rule, it's merely a guideline.
disposalist said:Deathwish said:I don't know what this has to do with the pnp thread but...
Why not play those games that use this superior system? You literally have every MMO to choose from since they all use the same system. What makes you think you would be happy with this lifeless MMO if none of the other lifeless MMOs make you happy? VR has said pantheon is not focusing on raiding and it is an open world game. You want VR to change their core promises years into production to what you want and to betray their backers at your promise of if they copy everyone else they will make more money. Should they make the world solo focused as well? All the other MMOs have proven it to work...
It has everything to do with PnP because PnP is an outdated niave concept that does not work and every modern game that tries to allow the community to take care of their problems does not work. Yes I want VR to wake up and see what the real worl play is and reduce the subjective and personal conflicts policing that they think is going to work. It may have worked in the 1990s but its not going to work in 2022.
What do you think is going to happen in a game that it will not be against TOS to steam roll and control the majority of the content and play of others 24 hours a day that already guilds are posting they are going to do, without having some areas for the rest of the 60-70% of the server to enjoy at their own pace? I tell you what is going to happen, the same way its happening now in EQ and WoW, without anyway to defend yourself and being given a "toothless" ability to enforce "PNP" by players, people will flood the forums complaining 24/7 with threads about this guild or player camp stealing, Ksing and other bad behaviors, THAT WILL NOT BE AGAINST TOS, and want GMs to intervene and fix things, but the GMS would have to be online 24/7 with a pack of them to be able to keep and enforce
"PNP" which we know no game can do and certainly do not want Pantheon to develope such a micromanaged reputation.If VR started with an antiquated and outdated concept, that they know is not going to work, sticking to it just because that is what they thought would work 15 years ago, is a rather silly notion and very blindsided and out of touch and I hope they have progressive enough people to be able to see that things have changed and adapt and change with times.
I'm confused by your post.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be any mechanics or TOC that help with conflict, I am just saying that *not* having PNP to cover the subtle intricacies we know are there would be foolish. Having no PNP would cause *more* angry forum posts, not less.
Also, you appear to want an open world, but also want instancing to solve conflicts? Lots of instancing = *not* an open world, no?
Also, you seem worried about focus on raids. Who said PNP is just for raids? Actually, I think it's very important PNP cover everyday grouping and adventuring as much as raids, since it's what the majority of players do. I had much more problematic situations while camping with groups than with raiding in EQ.
Also not suggesting that PNP just like other games is all we need. Nor is VR. They have suggested several ways like, yes, some instancing and some triggered bosses and enclosed final fights, etc to mitigate conflicts. Again, that doesn't mean they *wouldn't* benefit from PNP *as well*.
I do have some faith, that VR can minimise restrictive mechanics so that we still have an open world and will field enough GMs and CS reps such that between them and PNP resolving low-level issues, we will avoid most toxicity that we know can occur.
I've had bad experiences with uberguilds and toxic baddies in the past, too. It was only a problem because they knew there were no PNP guidelines they were transgressing, so players had no grounds to /report them, and when they did, there weren't enough GMs or those GMs didn't want to make abitrary rulings (because there were no PNP covering the issue).
This stuff can be mitigated or avoided by VR producing adequate PNP and fielding plenty of GMs that know the PNP.
I get the feeling that you (and others) have experienced inadequate PNP and GMs before. Let's help encourage VR to do better then, but suggesting VR just shouldn't do it because others got it wrong is a bit weird.
Ya the 1st few paragraphs were actually from another person's post that I was responding to but the quotes didnt come through. Yes, I want there to be alot of open world content that appeals to the crowd that prefers their game challenges to be against other players and beating them and dominating content but also have challenge content that appeals to the bigger crowd of people that want their challenge to be beating NPCs, Raid Bosses and spending time with friends and guild without the added factor of others influencing their gameplay. The only way to insure the latter is to have instanced content that can be triggered for the group or guild that locks out anyone else from participating in it.
I honestly do not understand any argument from VR or anyone else that would not be behind a game that has alot of content that works for both schools of thought and gamestyle. It is a proven mechanic already in current successful games. We do not need a social experiment going on, what is needed is a viable and long term successful game that works.
As alot of people have already posted their own bad experiences with "community policing" and how it fails miserably because it cannot be enforced by players, GMs or even the Devs, you cannot make it a TOS condition when you have DPS races settle everything.
OCastitatisLilium said:You cannot report someone nor ban someone for a guideline, because a guideline is not a rule.
guideline: 1. Information intended to advise people on how something should be done or what something should be. 2. A piece of information that suggests how something should be done (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/guideline)
Notice how it says should, and not has to. It's a suggestion, nothing more. A puzzle with 2000 pieces can give a suggest or give a guideline that says edges should be done first, but you don't have to if you don't want to. You cannot /report people for not following a guideline the same way you do because that's all it is, is a guideline. So if you say that, for example, killstealing, is not playing nice and it's a guideline to not do it, but the game clearly allows for it to happen, has built it in as a mechanic, and doesn't do anything to stop it; then you cannot /report for it because for one thing it's a guideline and not a rule, and second the game has the mechanic built in from the ground up. That's like telling a child he's shouldn't really have pop or soda then only stocking the fridge with pop or soda, and maybe a few juice boxes. What's more, if you try to ban someone for a guideline and not a rule, VR will have lawsuits on their hands, easily, because, again, it's not a rule, it's merely a guideline.
I think that's kinda semantics. Just because something is a guideline doesn't mean that going against that guideline is without consequences.
I would suggest that no one would get banned for transgressing guidelines once, twice, maybe more - depends on the action, but what guidelines (and PNP with guidelines) do is allow people to know what is 'good' or 'bad' or just problematic.
When someone feels they have been somehow 'wronged' in game and it turns out the perpetrator has ignored a guideline in doing so, the 'victim' has a basis for, politely, asking them to refrain. PNP guidelines would help avoid any kind of complaint in the first place, but if that doesn't work out...
I wouldn't suggest that, if they don't refrain or they disagree, they get banned, but, yes, they could get /reported if they continue to act in breach of the guidelines and perhaps GMs will get involved.
I wouldn't suggest that if a GM comes along and finds someone has ignored guidelines that they get out the ban hammer immediately, but it would perhaps mean a warning where the GM explains what the victim probably already explained, but in an official capacity. If they've been warned before then they get a strike. If they have multiple strikes they might get a ban, yes.
It may well be that the GM has to clarify the guidelines and explain to the 'victim' that, actually, the guidelines weren't broken. Who knows.
So, in summary, no, no one should be getting bans just for transgressing guidelines, but those guidelines can very well form a useful infrastructure for warnings and strikes leading up to a ban, yes.
Without them, you just have players /reporting everything that upsets them and overworked GMs applying whatever justice they see fit, possibly with instruction from VR, but, if players don't know those guidelines, that justice could easily seem very arbitrary and unfair.
As for lawsuits... It's not a public service, it's a privately owned and operated service. I don't doubt TOC will include signing up to agreeing to abide by what GMs tell them and that will be based on the PNP guidelines. There are already those kind of things in place with multiplayer games. VR (and other companies) can pretty much do what they want and we sign up to that.
The worst they can be liable for is bad press. I've seen baddies and cheats try to claim legal liability before. It never works, thankfully.
Re. the kids and soda example, it's much more like having playground rules about sharing the equipment and toys. No one is going to get expelled if they hog the roundabout one lunchtime, but the kids know you aren't supposed to and will ask the kid not sharing to share and warn them they will tell the teacher if they refuse and then tell the teacher if they refuse to share and the teacher will warn them and if they don't blah blah blah etc.
Having the rules means the kids know how to get along and the playground doesn't end up being a mass fight every lunchtime and the kids don't all hate each other. And the teachers don't spend all their time separating screaming kids, etc.
Deathwish said:disposalist said:Deathwish said:I don't know what this has to do with the pnp thread but...
Why not play those games that use this superior system? You literally have every MMO to choose from since they all use the same system. What makes you think you would be happy with this lifeless MMO if none of the other lifeless MMOs make you happy? VR has said pantheon is not focusing on raiding and it is an open world game. You want VR to change their core promises years into production to what you want and to betray their backers at your promise of if they copy everyone else they will make more money. Should they make the world solo focused as well? All the other MMOs have proven it to work...
It has everything to do with PnP because PnP is an outdated niave concept that does not work and every modern game that tries to allow the community to take care of their problems does not work. Yes I want VR to wake up and see what the real worl play is and reduce the subjective and personal conflicts policing that they think is going to work. It may have worked in the 1990s but its not going to work in 2022.
What do you think is going to happen in a game that it will not be against TOS to steam roll and control the majority of the content and play of others 24 hours a day that already guilds are posting they are going to do, without having some areas for the rest of the 60-70% of the server to enjoy at their own pace? I tell you what is going to happen, the same way its happening now in EQ and WoW, without anyway to defend yourself and being given a "toothless" ability to enforce "PNP" by players, people will flood the forums complaining 24/7 with threads about this guild or player camp stealing, Ksing and other bad behaviors, THAT WILL NOT BE AGAINST TOS, and want GMs to intervene and fix things, but the GMS would have to be online 24/7 with a pack of them to be able to keep and enforce
"PNP" which we know no game can do and certainly do not want Pantheon to develope such a micromanaged reputation.If VR started with an antiquated and outdated concept, that they know is not going to work, sticking to it just because that is what they thought would work 15 years ago, is a rather silly notion and very blindsided and out of touch and I hope they have progressive enough people to be able to see that things have changed and adapt and change with times.
I'm confused by your post.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be any mechanics or TOC that help with conflict, I am just saying that *not* having PNP to cover the subtle intricacies we know are there would be foolish. Having no PNP would cause *more* angry forum posts, not less.
Also, you appear to want an open world, but also want instancing to solve conflicts? Lots of instancing = *not* an open world, no?
Also, you seem worried about focus on raids. Who said PNP is just for raids? Actually, I think it's very important PNP cover everyday grouping and adventuring as much as raids, since it's what the majority of players do. I had much more problematic situations while camping with groups than with raiding in EQ.
Also not suggesting that PNP just like other games is all we need. Nor is VR. They have suggested several ways like, yes, some instancing and some triggered bosses and enclosed final fights, etc to mitigate conflicts. Again, that doesn't mean they *wouldn't* benefit from PNP *as well*.
I do have some faith, that VR can minimise restrictive mechanics so that we still have an open world and will field enough GMs and CS reps such that between them and PNP resolving low-level issues, we will avoid most toxicity that we know can occur.
I've had bad experiences with uberguilds and toxic baddies in the past, too. It was only a problem because they knew there were no PNP guidelines they were transgressing, so players had no grounds to /report them, and when they did, there weren't enough GMs or those GMs didn't want to make abitrary rulings (because there were no PNP covering the issue).
This stuff can be mitigated or avoided by VR producing adequate PNP and fielding plenty of GMs that know the PNP.
I get the feeling that you (and others) have experienced inadequate PNP and GMs before. Let's help encourage VR to do better then, but suggesting VR just shouldn't do it because others got it wrong is a bit weird.
Ya the 1st few paragraphs were actually from another person's post that I was responding to but the quotes didnt come through. Yes, I want there to be alot of open world content that appeals to the crowd that prefers their game challenges to be against other players and beating them and dominating content but also have challenge content that appeals to the bigger crowd of people that want their challenge to be beating NPCs, Raid Bosses and spending time with friends and guild without the added factor of others influencing their gameplay. The only way to insure the latter is to have instanced content that can be triggered for the group or guild that locks out anyone else from participating in it.
I honestly do not understand any argument from VR or anyone else that would not be behind a game that has alot of content that works for both schools of thought and gamestyle. It is a proven mechanic already in current successful games. We do not need a social experiment going on, what is needed is a viable and long term successful game that works.
As alot of people have already posted their own bad experiences with "community policing" and how it fails miserably because it cannot be enforced by players, GMs or even the Devs, you cannot make it a TOS condition when you have DPS races settle everything.
Oh damn, yeah ok, sorry that was confusing.
I agree with you about not wanting a social experiment hehe, but I think VR have made enough comment about knowing they need to mitigate issues and some mechanics that will help avoid issues and itemisation that will alleviate issues that I'm confident they aren't really going to just leave it up to the community.
It doesn't hurt if we make it clear that we are concerned, though, on this issue, but there's no point assuming the worst hehe.